Any true followers of Linus would consider it a sin to allow such an evil as Microsoft Windows into their home, how dare you speak such filth... your Windows machine must be exercised immediately, let me if you need a High Priest of Linux to assist or some information about a 12 step program that can help.
Honestly though, I don't run a single Windows machine in my home... unless you count my work laptop that I only use to VPN into work. I made it a point to remove all Windows machines in an effort to force my family to adapt to Linux. 3 years later (wow has it been so long) and I haven't once missed Windows at home.
Most research isn't done to discover something shocking... its so that someone can say with some certainty that X is true.
Sure this research tells us what we already knew... sure it's stupid that someone was paid to do the research... but even if you "knew" it before, assuming this study was done properly, you can now say you KNOW it for certain.
What this does though is throw the numbers out of wack. If Apple claims ~10% marketshare, and Windows claims ~90%, but there is overlap in most Apple households, you could say that ~15% of households have a Mac. This equates to greater mindshare as a Windows user can also be a Mac user.
There is nothing in "Cloud Computing" that requires API's or some other layer between you and your data.
Essentially, "Cloud Computing" is a term similar to "centralized" or "decentralized"... its vague and by no means does it define much of anything other than an idea. Cloud computing could be best described as decentralized, centralized networking. Your processing and data is centralized on a decentralized cloud rather than in a single data center. It appears to the client that it is centralized, when in reality the servers could be anywhere on the Internet.
Lets take the form out of the equation. If you are paid to promote an item, then you must let the audience know that your promotion was paid.
Essentially, any time your "opinion" was influenced by money, then you must disclose it. I think this should be true in all forms of communication. If I write a book bashing the president and was paid by the GOP to write it (not the same as royalties), then I need to disclose this or risk being penalized.
I would not be against a blanket disclosure, so long as its prominent. Just like sites that give honest reviews love to emphasize that they don't accept payment.
As I understand it, cloud computing can be a cloud application, like google. Or you can actually run your own servers in the cloud, to which you would have complete control of the data and could dump it at will.
Of course using Software as a Service will lock you in... even if there aren't nefarious reasons behind it. But if your going to provision several cloud server instances, load Redhat on them, and put everything in mysql... then your free to do what you will with your data.
Software as a Service Cloud Computing. If anything SAS is just a small segment of the Cloud Computing movement.
Like the US tax code, those with the resources will always pay less. Large corporations actually hire people to do nothing other than manage software licenses. Sure its great that it gives some guy a job, but other than him, who really benefits.
Seen a setup once that had all servers sending logging (via syslog) to a syslog server. This server was behind it's own firewall had nothing exposed other than syslog and it had the ability to send pages via an analog modem as well as email. About as secure a system I have seen.
Its actual purpose was more for monitoring the admins than for detecting intrusions, but it did both. The physical box was locked in a cabinet in the network manager's office.
The most an intruder could do, unless they know a hack for syslog, would be to disable syslog on the compromised machine so that their activities would not be logged. Of course a rooted machine would be wiped anyway so the logs are only valuable for forensic purposes anyway.
My neighbor's, recently deceased mother suffered from those as well. Prior to her death she was so hunched over that She had to sleep in a chair and couldn't see people above their waist when she was standing, unless she turned and looked to the side.
Blinding would only be possible if the investigator didn't know left from right. This is not likely since studies indicate that only 31% of primary care physicians don't know left from right. (The figure is reportedly somewhat higher for most specialists.)
Typically, sample sizes of roughly twice the available research budget are required for valid inference.
Restrictive eligibility criteria and convenience sampling limit generalization of the results to knuckle-cracking physicians with a lot of time on their hands.
A clear distinction between hand wringing related to managed care procedures and therapeutic Knuckle Cracking will have to be made.
Read the reply... I love it when serious people let loose!
Does knuckle cracking lead to arthritis of the fingers?
To the Editor: During the author's childhood, various renowned authorities (his mother, several aunts, and, later, his mother-in law [personal communication]) informed him that cracking his knuckles would lead to arthritis of the fingers. To test the accuracy of this hypothesis, the following study was undertaken. For 50 years, the author cracked the knuckles of his left hand at least twice a day, leaving those on the right as a control. Thus, the knuckles on the left were cracked at least 36,500 times, while those on the right cracked rarely and spontaneously. At the end of the 50 years, the hands were compared for the presence of arthritis. There was no arthritis in either hand, and no apparent differences between the two hands. Knuckle cracking did not lead to arthritis after a 50-year controlled study by the one participant. While a larger group would be necessary to confirm this result, this preliminary investigation suggests a lack of correlation between knuckle cracking and the development of arthritis of the fingers. A search of the literature revealed only one previous paper on this subject, and the authors came to the same conclusion (Swezey RL. Swezey SE. The consequences of habitual knuckle cracking. West J Med 1973;122:377-9.).
This result calls into question whether other parental beliefs, e.g., the importance of eating spinach, are also flawed. Further investigation is likely warranted. In conclusion, there is no apparent relationship between knuckle cracking and the subsequent development of arthritis of the fingers. This study was done entirely at the author's expense, with no grants from any governmental or pharmaceutical source.
Donald L. Unger, MD Thousand Oaks, CA
Reply
To the Editor:
I appreciate the opportunity to review Dr. Unger's report. His "self-controlled" study adds considerable credence to our 1973 study findings. Dr. Unger exercised amazing self control by performing 50 years of knuckle cracking (KC) on his left hand at least twice daily, "while those on the right cracked only rarely and spontaneously.'' No evidence of arthritis in either hand was found at the end of 50 years. I have taken the liberty of consulting Dr. John Adams, PhD, at the Rand Corporation. who has generously provided me with the following statistical analysis.
The basic study designed by Dr. Unger is a two-arm trial without randomization. Although it is not clear, it appears that the study was not blinded. Blinding would only be possible if the investigator didn't know left from right. This is not likely since studies indicate that only 31% of primary care physicians don't know left from right. (The figure is reportedly somcwhat higher for most specialists.) The lack of randomization suggests the need for a multivariate analysis to reduce bias. Controlling for knuckle-to-knuckle variation in race, sex, socioeconomic status, initial severity, comorbidities, and Ecuadorian barometric pressure at the time of measurement would be advisable. The sample size appears too small to support accurate inference. Typically, sample sizes of roughly twice the available research budget are required for valid inference. Restrictive eligibility criteria and convenience sampling limit generalization of the results to knuckle-cracking physicians with a lot of time on their hands.
I should note that SES, the co-author of our 1973 investigation, was 12 years old at the time of the study and that the study was stimulated because of his grandmother's co
You confuse CS with software development. Software development is better suited to a business college, though it is taking a long time for that shift to occur.
CS, at least at a decent school, is a true science and engineering discipline. A typical programmer is not a scientist or engineer in the same way as the steel worker isn't a structural engineer.
The problem really is the marketplace has been slow to realize that most applications can be developed without a single computer scientist involved. However if your application is dependent upon the reliability of a unique algorithm it might make sense to consult with a CS to ensure that the algorithm is implemented correctly in software and doesn't spit out 100,000 when it should display 65,535.
Fields like robotics, electronics, aerospace, etc, is where CS's should be working, where there isn't a library free or commercial to call upon and where the ability to communicate with real engineers as a peer is a must. I have known real Computer Scientists, and I have known over trained programmers.
What CS's really need to do is stop going to work as business software programmers... I don't see many structural engineers actually welding steel, many chemists pumping gas, or many electrical engineers wiring houses. A CS degree needs to mean something... and writing code for a living when you have a CS degree only perpetuates the myth that a CS degree is required to write software.
Ok, I'm a nobody... but personally, I think this is going to be a revolution in communication and to say it's overhyped is plain stupid.
Essentially, the technology is very complicated, but the premise is something we can all follow and appreciate. We all need to communicate in realtime sometimes, we all need to communicate at our own pace sometimes, and we all need to collaborate sometimes; until now that required a minimum of 3 separate tools and mindsets.
Google hasn't created anything really new with wave, we have all done the things wave allows us to do before... but we have never done them with the same tool. And we have never done them with a tool that allowed us to seamlessly transition from one paradigm to another without thought.
I KNOW that this is the future of on line communication, if not Wave then something like it. I absolutely LOVE the fact that Google recognized the importance of what they were doing and created Wave as a standard that could be implemented by competitors... creating a technology rather than an application.
I was trying to tailor my comment to Europe's love of rail. What I am suggesting is that if the cost of driving were cut by 75%, you would see far more people choosing to drive in order to save money... especially when they have a group of people to move. They would do this because the costs go up with the number of passengers on rail and plane.
Sure there is sacrifice (comfort & time) but if we assume it's about equal now for a family of 4 to travel by train as it would be to drive... then in the future (if the GGP is accurate in his assumption of a 75% reduction in cost), it will save you over 75% if you drive rather than take the train and you gain some advantages (no rental car, freedom to stop and explore during the trip, choice of lodging and food, no undesirable company, etc.)
Essentially, if battery powered cars become far cheaper to operate, then in all likelihood mass transit will suffer some losses, especially vacation travelers who are not leaving the continent.
Of course, when one can drive a big comfortable car full of their family for 1000 miles and only spend 1/4 the cost they would now... I suspect that many people will drive rather than take mass transit for longer trips.
Sure trains and planes are great for trips, however the more people you bring the greater the cost. When I vacation with my kids we almost always drive for exactly this reason. Here in the US a flight to my wife's home state of Florida is about $300 per person (more near holidays). So for $1200 plus the cost of a rental car, we can fly. For about $400 we can drive, sure it takes a couple of days off the vacation time, but $800+ in savings is worth the "lost" time driving. If that $300 drops by 75% and only costs me $75... I don't suspect I would even bother to check the cost of the flight.
Ignore wireless printers (the technology changes too rapidly), but definitely get an IP printer... I suspect it will still be compatible for at least 10 years. USB will probably still be usable as well, though I can't guarantee that you will still be able to find drivers for your OS to print to it via USB.
I have come to really like the reliability of Xerox printers. I support many workgroup class printers and find that the couple of Xerox 4500's require very little attention and I have yet to need to toss a half used toner cartridge due to print quality issues. Which is important in a personal laser that isn't used constantly.
1. There would still be demand for childcare workers, perhaps lower demand, but you make it sound like they survive an entire year on what they earn over a summer.
2. Actually, most school systems are starting in mid to late August, when it is very hot anyway. Sure there is a cost of operating through the summer, but I wouldn't consider it a deal breaker.
3. I am sure your one of those people who never learned anything from others and instead locked yourself in a room full of books, but most children are actually taught at school. Sure it's not the most productive way to learn, but few family's can afford private tutors.
4. Yes, currently they are cutting back on recess and PE because they are finding that they do not have enough classroom time to cover all of the required material adequately, especially because many students don't study outside of school. Extending the school year would allow for more physical ed and social time at school... as well as self study, out-of-class work, etc.
5. The point of summer vacation, if you want to call it one, is to allow children to help work on the family farm through the summer. Because most of our population no longer lives on farms, and those that do rarely depend on their children's labor for a successful harvest, there is no point to summer vacation. My point was that many children get little to no physical exercise during the summer. Sure those that are already active and have safe environments to play do, but those who need to be motivated to play, or have no safe places to play, typically spend their summers being lazy.
6. I agree that school is not an ideal solution, however there is no system that works better for society as a whole. Prior to the formation of public education, only the wealthy could afford to educate their children beyond what they themselves knew. To say that it's best to avoid schools is WRONG when said alone, without school, MOST children would be uneducated.
I suspect that the pulses accually serve a purpose.
Now I am no doctor, but logic dictates that the pulse creates periods of high and low pressure in the blood vessels. I suspect that this causes many of the vessels to stretch and relax a modest amount which would reduce plaque build-up on the walls. Additionally, I suspect that this device maintains a constant pressure somewhere below the peak (systolic) and above the low (diastolic) pressures; this would prevent the high pressure pulse from forcing blood through some already partially clogged locations and into some very small vessels.
Because of these things, I will take a pulsing blood pump over a constant one if I were ever given a choice. I fear that the constant flow will be proven to cause cramping, clogged arteries, and other side effects.
Damn good thing they are only interested in extending the school YEAR, not the school day.
There are many good arguments for eliminating the long summer vacation.
Here are a few:
1. Working parents would save millions in childcare. 2. A routine would be maintained, which has many benefits including increased ability to learn. 3. Far less time is spent re-teaching material forgotten over the break. 4. A greater percentage of the day could be alloted for self study, research, and social time. 5. Physical education would be year round, rather than letting many kids (urban especially) go without for months of the year. 6. Our society always seems to emphasize how great summer vacation is, and therefore our kids value time out of school more than time in school. Having shorter and ideally more frequent vacations will keep students in the mindset of it being a break and to enjoy it, but they won't have 3 months to get lazy and bored. 7. And most importantly, it would make learning an EVERY DAY thing! My daughter, who is now 10, actually complained about summer break after 1st grade. She was bored, missed her friends, and wanted to learn. Even now, she craves school by the end of summer.
I believe many of us forget how long summers could be. Talk to most K-5 kids in August, and they will tell you that they are bored and anxious for school to start back up... many older kids would say the same thing if it wasn't so uncool.
To improve student performance we need to improve the student. There are many ways to do it, better parenting, better teachers, smaller classes, etc. But a consistent routine of learning all year round is as likely to create a better student than anything else, and it's the one thing that government can do to achieve that goal across the board, even in neighborhoods where poor parenting, large classes, and poor teachers are common.
If they can do 10x without having to maintain additional fiber runs, repeaters, and endpoints... then the 10x is a huge improvement. Sure the dark fiber is there, but it's dark for a reason... it's not cost effective to light it up.
I don't suspect that they will be deploying this soon... but if it is more cost effective than lighting up more of the existing dark fiber... then maybe they will upgrade.
Earlier there was also discussion that Chrome Frame is mostly provided for corporate users who are required to use IE and cant install other browsers. But how can they install this plugin then? It's normal exe and probably requires even more admin rights to get inside IE than just installing Chrome on your userbase.
I imagine that Google consider this the holy grail. If they can sell a google product to major corporations, have it run smooth and fast like it does in Chrome, and still allow that company to have their managed IE installs... it's an easy sell.
Essentially what they have done is told corporate IT folks that they only need to get management to approve a "plug-in" rather than a replacement web browser. I work for the government and I suspect with a decent business case I could get this to pass, but I know that it would take an act of congress to get Chrome installed on our workstations. So by making chrome a plug in, akin to Adobe Flash, Crystal Reports, and Adobe Reader, it's an easy sell.
They're certainly better than helicopters for hovering and slow patrolling, but for transporting lots of people or stuff to a definite destination I doubt it. Given the typical shapes used, I can imagine them spending lots of fuel just fighting the wind or air resistance. Not going to be easy to beat ships or trains, or even normal planes.
You didn't think before you posted this did you?
Much, if not most, of the fuel expended in a traditional plane is used to LIFT the plane. Sure there is a cost to going fast in a plane too, but if you were to put the plane on (very straight zero friction) tracks and run it at the same speed, it would use considerably less fuel because it wouldn't need to overcome gravity.
1 - IE's renderer has holes. 2 - Chrome's renderer has (I believe) fewer holes (because it is not as tied to the OS). 3 - Only 1 renderer will be used to render a malicious page. If 2 and 3 are true, then it follows that when Chrome's renderer is used, the browser is actually more secure.
Of course this is highly dependent upon the level of communication between the browser and the renderer. I suspect that it is very minimal ( button clicks, bookmarks, etc.) as tight integration would be unnecessary, costly, and more difficult to maintain.
I think I will take the stance that using the chrome renderer on the IE browser will make a more secure online experience... and I will tell people such until someone can convince me that I am wrong. Microsoft's argument is like saying that Windows and McAfee AntiVirus make a system less secure than Windows by itself because McAffee increases the attack area, which it technically does.
I never knew that nuclear blast zones were so contaminated that they were of much concern. I always thought that the hundreds of thousands killed in an instant was the deterrent, not the expensive clean up.
The way I see it, a typical social networking site LOSES money.
1. get funded and become popular 2. make a lot of noise so everyone knows about you to attract tons of investment money. 3. sell to a larger company at inflated values... PROFIT 4. larger company tries to monetize and realizes that they wasted money. 5. site becomes so-last-year and dies a slow, painful death.
What I expect is that they are boosting their "perceived" value in hopes that they can get an inflated offer to buy them out. That's what I would be doing. Trying to generate direct income with twitter will not be easy, and if they fail it will likely destroy any chance of turning a big profit off the large user base they developed.
Slashdot Mirror
Any true followers of Linus would consider it a sin to allow such an evil as Microsoft Windows into their home, how dare you speak such filth... your Windows machine must be exercised immediately, let me if you need a High Priest of Linux to assist or some information about a 12 step program that can help.
Honestly though, I don't run a single Windows machine in my home... unless you count my work laptop that I only use to VPN into work. I made it a point to remove all Windows machines in an effort to force my family to adapt to Linux. 3 years later (wow has it been so long) and I haven't once missed Windows at home.
Most research isn't done to discover something shocking... its so that someone can say with some certainty that X is true.
Sure this research tells us what we already knew... sure it's stupid that someone was paid to do the research... but even if you "knew" it before, assuming this study was done properly, you can now say you KNOW it for certain.
What this does though is throw the numbers out of wack. If Apple claims ~10% marketshare, and Windows claims ~90%, but there is overlap in most Apple households, you could say that ~15% of households have a Mac. This equates to greater mindshare as a Windows user can also be a Mac user.
the more likely you are to have a Mac?
I offer Amazon's EC2 as an example of cloud computing in which you maintain control of the format of you data.
http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/
There is nothing in "Cloud Computing" that requires API's or some other layer between you and your data.
Essentially, "Cloud Computing" is a term similar to "centralized" or "decentralized"... its vague and by no means does it define much of anything other than an idea. Cloud computing could be best described as decentralized, centralized networking. Your processing and data is centralized on a decentralized cloud rather than in a single data center. It appears to the client that it is centralized, when in reality the servers could be anywhere on the Internet.
Lets take the form out of the equation. If you are paid to promote an item, then you must let the audience know that your promotion was paid.
Essentially, any time your "opinion" was influenced by money, then you must disclose it. I think this should be true in all forms of communication. If I write a book bashing the president and was paid by the GOP to write it (not the same as royalties), then I need to disclose this or risk being penalized.
I would not be against a blanket disclosure, so long as its prominent. Just like sites that give honest reviews love to emphasize that they don't accept payment.
As I understand it, cloud computing can be a cloud application, like google. Or you can actually run your own servers in the cloud, to which you would have complete control of the data and could dump it at will.
Of course using Software as a Service will lock you in... even if there aren't nefarious reasons behind it. But if your going to provision several cloud server instances, load Redhat on them, and put everything in mysql... then your free to do what you will with your data.
Software as a Service Cloud Computing. If anything SAS is just a small segment of the Cloud Computing movement.
Like the US tax code, those with the resources will always pay less. Large corporations actually hire people to do nothing other than manage software licenses. Sure its great that it gives some guy a job, but other than him, who really benefits.
Seen a setup once that had all servers sending logging (via syslog) to a syslog server. This server was behind it's own firewall had nothing exposed other than syslog and it had the ability to send pages via an analog modem as well as email. About as secure a system I have seen.
Its actual purpose was more for monitoring the admins than for detecting intrusions, but it did both. The physical box was locked in a cabinet in the network manager's office.
The most an intruder could do, unless they know a hack for syslog, would be to disable syslog on the compromised machine so that their activities would not be logged. Of course a rooted machine would be wiped anyway so the logs are only valuable for forensic purposes anyway.
My neighbor's, recently deceased mother suffered from those as well. Prior to her death she was so hunched over that She had to sleep in a chair and couldn't see people above their waist when she was standing, unless she turned and looked to the side.
She looked almost exactly like this: http://chinesemedicinenews.com/wp-content/uploads/hunch.gif
Scary stuff, and I feel for your aunt.
Best lines:
Blinding would only be possible if the investigator didn't know left from right. This is not likely since studies indicate that only 31% of primary care physicians don't know left from right. (The figure is reportedly somewhat higher for most specialists.)
Typically, sample sizes of roughly twice the available research budget are required for valid inference.
Restrictive eligibility criteria and convenience sampling limit generalization of the results to knuckle-cracking physicians with a lot of time on their hands.
A clear distinction between hand wringing related to managed care procedures and therapeutic Knuckle Cracking will have to be made.
From the actual issue of Arthritis and Ruhmitism where Ig Nobel Prise winner Dr. Donald L. Unger, published the results of his investigation into a possible cause of arthritis of the fingers. - http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/86510619/PDFSTART
Read the reply... I love it when serious people let loose!
Does knuckle cracking lead to arthritis of the fingers?
To the Editor:
During the author's childhood, various renowned authorities (his mother, several aunts, and, later, his mother-in law [personal communication]) informed him that cracking his knuckles would lead to arthritis of the fingers. To test the accuracy of this hypothesis, the following study was undertaken. For 50 years, the author cracked the knuckles of his left hand at least twice a day, leaving those on the right as a control. Thus, the knuckles on the left were cracked at least 36,500 times, while those on the right cracked rarely and spontaneously. At the end of the 50 years, the hands were compared for the presence of arthritis. There was no arthritis in either hand, and no apparent differences between the two hands. Knuckle cracking did not lead to arthritis after a 50-year controlled study by the one participant. While a larger group would be necessary to confirm this result, this preliminary investigation suggests a lack of correlation between knuckle cracking and the development of arthritis of the fingers. A search of the literature revealed only one previous paper on this subject, and the authors came to the same conclusion (Swezey RL. Swezey SE. The consequences of habitual knuckle cracking. West J Med 1973;122:377-9.).
This result calls into question whether other parental beliefs, e.g., the importance of eating spinach, are also flawed. Further investigation is likely warranted. In conclusion, there is no apparent relationship between knuckle cracking and the subsequent development of arthritis of the fingers. This study was done entirely at the author's expense, with no grants from any governmental or pharmaceutical source.
Donald L. Unger, MD
Thousand Oaks, CA
Reply
To the Editor:
I appreciate the opportunity to review Dr. Unger's report. His "self-controlled" study adds considerable credence
to our 1973 study findings. Dr. Unger exercised amazing self control by performing 50 years of knuckle cracking (KC) on his left hand at least twice daily, "while those on the right cracked only rarely and spontaneously.'' No evidence of arthritis in either hand was found at the end of 50 years. I have taken the liberty of consulting Dr. John Adams, PhD, at the Rand Corporation. who has generously provided me with the following statistical analysis.
The basic study designed by Dr. Unger is a two-arm trial without randomization. Although it is not clear, it appears
that the study was not blinded. Blinding would only be possible if the investigator didn't know left from right. This is not likely since studies indicate that only 31% of primary care physicians don't know left from right. (The figure is reportedly somcwhat higher for most specialists.) The lack of randomization suggests the need for a multivariate analysis to reduce bias. Controlling for knuckle-to-knuckle variation in race, sex, socioeconomic status, initial severity, comorbidities, and Ecuadorian
barometric pressure at the time of measurement would be advisable. The sample size appears too small to support accurate inference. Typically, sample sizes of roughly twice the available research budget are required for valid inference. Restrictive
eligibility criteria and convenience sampling limit generalization of the results to knuckle-cracking physicians
with a lot of time on their hands.
I should note that SES, the co-author of our 1973 investigation, was 12 years old at the time of the study and that
the study was stimulated because of his grandmother's co
You confuse CS with software development. Software development is better suited to a business college, though it is taking a long time for that shift to occur.
CS, at least at a decent school, is a true science and engineering discipline. A typical programmer is not a scientist or engineer in the same way as the steel worker isn't a structural engineer.
The problem really is the marketplace has been slow to realize that most applications can be developed without a single computer scientist involved. However if your application is dependent upon the reliability of a unique algorithm it might make sense to consult with a CS to ensure that the algorithm is implemented correctly in software and doesn't spit out 100,000 when it should display 65,535.
Fields like robotics, electronics, aerospace, etc, is where CS's should be working, where there isn't a library free or commercial to call upon and where the ability to communicate with real engineers as a peer is a must. I have known real Computer Scientists, and I have known over trained programmers.
What CS's really need to do is stop going to work as business software programmers... I don't see many structural engineers actually welding steel, many chemists pumping gas, or many electrical engineers wiring houses. A CS degree needs to mean something... and writing code for a living when you have a CS degree only perpetuates the myth that a CS degree is required to write software.
Ok, I'm a nobody... but personally, I think this is going to be a revolution in communication and to say it's overhyped is plain stupid.
Essentially, the technology is very complicated, but the premise is something we can all follow and appreciate. We all need to communicate in realtime sometimes, we all need to communicate at our own pace sometimes, and we all need to collaborate sometimes; until now that required a minimum of 3 separate tools and mindsets.
Google hasn't created anything really new with wave, we have all done the things wave allows us to do before... but we have never done them with the same tool. And we have never done them with a tool that allowed us to seamlessly transition from one paradigm to another without thought.
I KNOW that this is the future of on line communication, if not Wave then something like it. I absolutely LOVE the fact that Google recognized the importance of what they were doing and created Wave as a standard that could be implemented by competitors... creating a technology rather than an application.
I was trying to tailor my comment to Europe's love of rail. What I am suggesting is that if the cost of driving were cut by 75%, you would see far more people choosing to drive in order to save money... especially when they have a group of people to move. They would do this because the costs go up with the number of passengers on rail and plane.
Sure there is sacrifice (comfort & time) but if we assume it's about equal now for a family of 4 to travel by train as it would be to drive... then in the future (if the GGP is accurate in his assumption of a 75% reduction in cost), it will save you over 75% if you drive rather than take the train and you gain some advantages (no rental car, freedom to stop and explore during the trip, choice of lodging and food, no undesirable company, etc.)
Essentially, if battery powered cars become far cheaper to operate, then in all likelihood mass transit will suffer some losses, especially vacation travelers who are not leaving the continent.
Of course, when one can drive a big comfortable car full of their family for 1000 miles and only spend 1/4 the cost they would now... I suspect that many people will drive rather than take mass transit for longer trips.
Sure trains and planes are great for trips, however the more people you bring the greater the cost. When I vacation with my kids we almost always drive for exactly this reason. Here in the US a flight to my wife's home state of Florida is about $300 per person (more near holidays). So for $1200 plus the cost of a rental car, we can fly. For about $400 we can drive, sure it takes a couple of days off the vacation time, but $800+ in savings is worth the "lost" time driving. If that $300 drops by 75% and only costs me $75... I don't suspect I would even bother to check the cost of the flight.
Ignore wireless printers (the technology changes too rapidly), but definitely get an IP printer... I suspect it will still be compatible for at least 10 years. USB will probably still be usable as well, though I can't guarantee that you will still be able to find drivers for your OS to print to it via USB.
I have come to really like the reliability of Xerox printers. I support many workgroup class printers and find that the couple of Xerox 4500's require very little attention and I have yet to need to toss a half used toner cartridge due to print quality issues. Which is important in a personal laser that isn't used constantly.
1. There would still be demand for childcare workers, perhaps lower demand, but you make it sound like they survive an entire year on what they earn over a summer.
2. Actually, most school systems are starting in mid to late August, when it is very hot anyway. Sure there is a cost of operating through the summer, but I wouldn't consider it a deal breaker.
3. I am sure your one of those people who never learned anything from others and instead locked yourself in a room full of books, but most children are actually taught at school. Sure it's not the most productive way to learn, but few family's can afford private tutors.
4. Yes, currently they are cutting back on recess and PE because they are finding that they do not have enough classroom time to cover all of the required material adequately, especially because many students don't study outside of school. Extending the school year would allow for more physical ed and social time at school... as well as self study, out-of-class work, etc.
5. The point of summer vacation, if you want to call it one, is to allow children to help work on the family farm through the summer. Because most of our population no longer lives on farms, and those that do rarely depend on their children's labor for a successful harvest, there is no point to summer vacation. My point was that many children get little to no physical exercise during the summer. Sure those that are already active and have safe environments to play do, but those who need to be motivated to play, or have no safe places to play, typically spend their summers being lazy.
6. I agree that school is not an ideal solution, however there is no system that works better for society as a whole. Prior to the formation of public education, only the wealthy could afford to educate their children beyond what they themselves knew. To say that it's best to avoid schools is WRONG when said alone, without school, MOST children would be uneducated.
I suspect that the pulses accually serve a purpose.
Now I am no doctor, but logic dictates that the pulse creates periods of high and low pressure in the blood vessels. I suspect that this causes many of the vessels to stretch and relax a modest amount which would reduce plaque build-up on the walls. Additionally, I suspect that this device maintains a constant pressure somewhere below the peak (systolic) and above the low (diastolic) pressures; this would prevent the high pressure pulse from forcing blood through some already partially clogged locations and into some very small vessels.
Because of these things, I will take a pulsing blood pump over a constant one if I were ever given a choice. I fear that the constant flow will be proven to cause cramping, clogged arteries, and other side effects.
Damn good thing they are only interested in extending the school YEAR, not the school day.
There are many good arguments for eliminating the long summer vacation.
Here are a few:
1. Working parents would save millions in childcare.
2. A routine would be maintained, which has many benefits including increased ability to learn.
3. Far less time is spent re-teaching material forgotten over the break.
4. A greater percentage of the day could be alloted for self study, research, and social time.
5. Physical education would be year round, rather than letting many kids (urban especially) go without for months of the year.
6. Our society always seems to emphasize how great summer vacation is, and therefore our kids value time out of school more than time in school. Having shorter and ideally more frequent vacations will keep students in the mindset of it being a break and to enjoy it, but they won't have 3 months to get lazy and bored.
7. And most importantly, it would make learning an EVERY DAY thing! My daughter, who is now 10, actually complained about summer break after 1st grade. She was bored, missed her friends, and wanted to learn. Even now, she craves school by the end of summer.
I believe many of us forget how long summers could be. Talk to most K-5 kids in August, and they will tell you that they are bored and anxious for school to start back up... many older kids would say the same thing if it wasn't so uncool.
To improve student performance we need to improve the student. There are many ways to do it, better parenting, better teachers, smaller classes, etc. But a consistent routine of learning all year round is as likely to create a better student than anything else, and it's the one thing that government can do to achieve that goal across the board, even in neighborhoods where poor parenting, large classes, and poor teachers are common.
If they can do 10x without having to maintain additional fiber runs, repeaters, and endpoints... then the 10x is a huge improvement. Sure the dark fiber is there, but it's dark for a reason... it's not cost effective to light it up.
I don't suspect that they will be deploying this soon... but if it is more cost effective than lighting up more of the existing dark fiber... then maybe they will upgrade.
Earlier there was also discussion that Chrome Frame is mostly provided for corporate users who are required to use IE and cant install other browsers. But how can they install this plugin then? It's normal exe and probably requires even more admin rights to get inside IE than just installing Chrome on your userbase.
I imagine that Google consider this the holy grail. If they can sell a google product to major corporations, have it run smooth and fast like it does in Chrome, and still allow that company to have their managed IE installs... it's an easy sell.
Essentially what they have done is told corporate IT folks that they only need to get management to approve a "plug-in" rather than a replacement web browser. I work for the government and I suspect with a decent business case I could get this to pass, but I know that it would take an act of congress to get Chrome installed on our workstations. So by making chrome a plug in, akin to Adobe Flash, Crystal Reports, and Adobe Reader, it's an easy sell.
Google just Chrome'd the enterprise!
They're certainly better than helicopters for hovering and slow patrolling, but for transporting lots of people or stuff to a definite destination I doubt it. Given the typical shapes used, I can imagine them spending lots of fuel just fighting the wind or air resistance. Not going to be easy to beat ships or trains, or even normal planes.
You didn't think before you posted this did you?
Much, if not most, of the fuel expended in a traditional plane is used to LIFT the plane. Sure there is a cost to going fast in a plane too, but if you were to put the plane on (very straight zero friction) tracks and run it at the same speed, it would use considerably less fuel because it wouldn't need to overcome gravity.
Actually... no.
1 - IE's renderer has holes.
2 - Chrome's renderer has (I believe) fewer holes (because it is not as tied to the OS).
3 - Only 1 renderer will be used to render a malicious page.
If 2 and 3 are true, then it follows that when Chrome's renderer is used, the browser is actually more secure.
Of course this is highly dependent upon the level of communication between the browser and the renderer. I suspect that it is very minimal ( button clicks, bookmarks, etc.) as tight integration would be unnecessary, costly, and more difficult to maintain.
I think I will take the stance that using the chrome renderer on the IE browser will make a more secure online experience... and I will tell people such until someone can convince me that I am wrong. Microsoft's argument is like saying that Windows and McAfee AntiVirus make a system less secure than Windows by itself because McAffee increases the attack area, which it technically does.
I never knew that nuclear blast zones were so contaminated that they were of much concern. I always thought that the hundreds of thousands killed in an instant was the deterrent, not the expensive clean up.
They don't.
The way I see it, a typical social networking site LOSES money.
1. get funded and become popular
2. make a lot of noise so everyone knows about you to attract tons of investment money.
3. sell to a larger company at inflated values... PROFIT
4. larger company tries to monetize and realizes that they wasted money.
5. site becomes so-last-year and dies a slow, painful death.
What I expect is that they are boosting their "perceived" value in hopes that they can get an inflated offer to buy them out. That's what I would be doing. Trying to generate direct income with twitter will not be easy, and if they fail it will likely destroy any chance of turning a big profit off the large user base they developed.