If we bomb France, we might be able to eliminate the metric system altogether. Did you know that the French are hiding the kilogram at a place called Sevres? Not only that, but it is made of platinum and iridium. I'm pretty sure it's a disguised nukular bomb or some other kind of WMD. Designed to take our freedom away, millimeter by millimeter.
Dinosaurs prefer to enjoy an evening of fine dining and wine, followed by a moonlit walk on the beach, followed by some dirty talk about the Cretaceous era. After this, the female dinosaur may invite the male dinosaur over for a cup of coffee and the creative use of a clit-tickler.
writes "Sci Tech Today is reporting that scientists have cracked open a 190-million-year-old egg to reveal the oldest known dinosaur embryo.
And then the embryo says; "Hey! Knock it off with all that cracking and the splitting. I'm trying to get some sleep in here. Say, you wouldn't happen to have some umbilical nutrients, or maybe a little left-over pizza, would you? Because I could use some anchovies."
The ThinkPad is "cheap plastic" and has eject buttons and random ports all over it, but between the two, it's the machine you would rather drop onto the floor.
I own a Thinkpad, an iBook and a Powerbook. You are right about the Powerbook, it feels too fragile, although it is a wonderful machine. However, the Thinkpad also has a similar "fragile" feel to it. It is the iBook which is the toughest. It really bounces back from impacts. It was designed for elementary school kids, to be a bit more rugged. I have actually dropped my iBook from over 3 feet onto a concrete floor, and it still works great. The old black G3 Powerbooks (such as the Pismo series) were also good in this rugged feel department, and the ability to withstand harsh environments like heat and dust.
The Spread firefox community has helped to develop firefox download counters which can track the exact number of downloads in real time.
What an unbelievable waste of time. Oh wait, I'm posting on Slashdot. Never mind. Continue destroying brains with your download counters. I'll destroy my own with Tequila and ranting.
it seems to be using actual translucency, so the parts of the background windows you can see through the title bar are blurred. The effect is that you can get an idea of what's there, but you're not distracted by crisp text in the background.
"Actual translucency"? What's not translucent about seeing through something that doesn't blur the result? What you are looking at is probably a gaussian or simpler form of blur. Probably a quite simple blur.
The privacy statement for Internet Explorer 7.0 beta lists a "phishing filter," which is said to be capable of warning users about the possibility that the Web site currently being visited is impersonating a trusted Web site.
Suuuure it does. Classic phishing or adware sales technique. Tell them it'll help you be more secure, and the re-direct them to your proxies. I mean, as if any serious company would have a name like microsoft.com. A dotcom company selling small soft things? I don't think so.
I knew it. Kids these days just wont take the time to type up an email. IM is just not as personal as actually having a letter in your InBox.
Bah, you're not a REAL emailer unless your email comes in an actual physical inbox, printed on non-recycled heavyweight bond paper. Your "virtual" inbox shows the impermanence of your lifestyle and your weak morality. Text on a screen is really no better than these "Instant Messages" that are rotting kids' brains.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a solid cedarwood CPU to carve. If I don't pay attention to the woodwork, it might not add numbers properly. And damn it, why isn't my shipment of Ocelot livers here yet?
This is the ringer on my phone. For some reason my neighbours don't like me. But that's OK, in revenge I just torture their cats by taping them to the bell.
So, a Segway's small enough to keep inside, but a bicycle isn't? Doesn't make a lot of sense, because the segway is larger in some dimensions than a non-folding bicycle, let alone a folding one.
Each one of you keep suggesting that the roads are still going to be there...The designer was clear that this was a REPLACEMENT for roads.
1. Link, please!
2. What is your point, is he some master of the Universe, who can prevent things from happening in a different way to his vision?
3. Why, because the mighty "designer" says this, that other people can't disagree with him, but still think the idea is worthwhile if used alongside roads?
4. Why does his saying this invalidate the whole idea?
Family of 5, children ages 1, 2, 3 and 5 traveling with Mom. Make it work in transport designed for 3 persons.
You do realize that fgamilies travelling in the city are an extreme minority, don't you? Why would the inability of more than three people to use a car, mean that the system would not be useful to millions of people? Why would it mean population control would be required? In any case, why can't the 5-year-old travel in a separate car? or a one and two year old could easily share the space of a single older person. One year-olds are usually held in the mother's lap.
Of course not all land is of uniform suitability, but that's just an engineering problem. Oceans are in principle habitable also.
but the post I was responding to was talking about "back yards" - which I don't think you'll find in the ocean or other inhospitable areas. Further, you can't talk about total earth area, because many people are unable to emmigrate from their home country. Space within particular countries is highly limited.
Nevertheless, no drive toward sustainability or environmentally friendly services can accomplish much on the global scale if it ignores the first order term, which is human population.
Indeed. Which is why this is a good idea. People need rapid personal transport for commuting to work. It meets a human need more efficiently than the current way, totally ignoring any environmental benefit. It's a great idea for most humans who work in cities.
In contrast, your idea of living in oceans and other areas, fails this test. People want to live in the wealthy, pleasant, nice environments and society. People would rather live in a New York condo than in an Alaskan ranch, let alone the ocean or desert. People love living in dense cities with lots of cultural activity. Those who expect lots of space are going to have to give up on their urban conveniences. This is going to happen more and more in the suburbs rather than just cities as sprawl happens.
The designer claims this will replace roads, which makes your entire post pointless.
How does it negate my point (if anyone actually said that), or make the "entire post" pointless? Why does the designer saying it could eliminate roads (which it won't) mean that it couldn't work in conjunction with roads? Besides, my post talked about many other issues besides replacing roads.
Sorry, but we renamed that planet Urectum in 2197 to end that stupid joke once and for all.... oh, wait.../checks calendar, discovers that it is in the form of a cheesy mobile phone, and not a floating hologram... whoops, I posted to the wrong timeline. They really should make the submit button check for corresponding temporal locations.
Re:Umm... might be a bad idea...
on
Google Moon Debuts
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
Lasers + Planes = JAIL
Honestly your honor, I was trying to hit the moon.
This is pretty damn scary, that you would actually go along with such an Orwellian "thought crime" mode. Truly, the terrorists have already won. They don't have to attack America, because people like yourself will happily repress themselves based on the government's over-reaction to "terra" attacks on "freedom."
No longer do you have to commit a crime to be arrested or be accused of terrorism or mischief. No longer does there actually have to be a law against something for it to be illegal. Seems that things now have to explicitly permitted by law, rather than prohibited. You basically had better not get out of bed this morning unless the Bush administration gives you written legal permission.
Welcome to the United States of fascism. *Note: large corporations and politicians are exempt from gaining legal permission, or breaking legal prohibitions. It's their duty to do the things you personally aren't allowed to.
Folding bicycle? Why not just learn to ride a unicycle? Even less of a footprint... wheelprint?
Now you're thinking. I take your unicycle and raise you one pair of roller-skates. In fact, make them rocket-powered roller-skates. With hookers. And blackjack. And Olivia Newton-John.
The giant in question would have a hard time seeing the relatively tiny Macs, let alone use the keyboard.
Well, if those Macs include 30" Apple Cinema Displays used in a multi-monitor configuration, I think he could probably see better than with the average piddly little PC LCD. Of course, he would have to buy VESA mount kits for the monitor array, and mount them all on a large radio telescope or skyscraper to use as a pivot point. And have you seen a PowerMac G5 tower? Small isn't the first word that comes to mind. Maybe put the CPUs under a waterfall for liquid cooling. The exhaust fans would make a good hair dryer, too.
They had nothing indicating how the urine that the bum who is living in it is going to be cleaned. Don't say that it will get sent back to a cleaning crew. Just look at the vast majority of public restrooms
So, you make sure that there is a really good cleaning team. Why do they have to be like public restrooms? Just because many public restrooms are neglected, doesn't mean this system has to be like that. There are many places in existence with very clean public restrooms. It's not like we don't understand cleaning technology, or sources of manual labor.
Population control. Unless you plan to inact Chinese style population control, a three person shuttle is simply not going to cut it.
Ummm, why? Seriously, explain why population control is necessary for this to work.
Rats in a cage. This designer has fallen prey to one of the most common problems that total mass transit advocates fall prey to. It requires everyone to live in tiny high rise condos. People don't want that. They want a house that you don't have to listen to your neighbors arguing next door, and a yard for their kids to play in.
1. Why is it necessary to live in high-rise condos for this to work? One could simply work into the city, and use car/rail/bus/light rail to get to the edge of the system from the suburbs.
2. Where are we going to get all that land so everyone can have a house with a back yard? There simply is not enough space on the planet for everyone to live like that. people are just going to have to get used to that. Only the very wealthy will be able to have large properties in the future.
If you somehow get a bed into your new rat cage condo, how do you move. I don't think that king size bed, or your dresser for that matter, are going to fit inside one of those little pods.
Get it delivered, like most people do with furniture purchases.
Roads will still be needed for delivery.
Who is claiming that this would entirely eliminate roads? Maybe there are some starry-eyed people who think that, but they are an extreme minority. Most alternative transportation advocates realize that different systems will continue to exist and compliment one another (and sometimes detract from one another.)
No transportation technology is perfect for every need. There are many flaws in existing technologies, but people still use them, and they evolve. Why couldn't this idea also come into existence, and evolve alongside other methods?
The list goes on....
But does it ever get relevant, or is it more of the same ill-considered objection as typified by your comments above?
One malicious guy rejects every taxi then takes the last one. I suppose if they don't queue up like regular taxis that wouldn't be a problem.
Then that malicious guy gets banned from the network, just like you would with a malicious user on your computer network. I just don't understand why people have to constantly think of any possible reason (no matter how trivial or stupid) to reject new technologies that might actually be more sustainable and efficient.
I mean, big fucking deal. How does this inconvenience of "malicious users" in any way compare in scale or intensity to the problems of drunk drivers killing kids, air pollution giving us cancers and breathing problems, massive amounts of mining needed to produce the metal and oil to make enough private cars, traffic congestion, road rage, etc?
It's not as if cars and subways don't both have massive problems. But no, let's not think of how to improve things. Lets just bitch about some new idea that might have some small potential problem.
And how will these wonderful trolley cars get me around to these various destinations with my cargo.
You don't. These things are for dense cities, like London or New York or Paris.
You and Metcalf both need to be beat with a cluestick. Some things just aren't useful.
This is not useful in any way? Are you insane? It is extremely useful. Most communters in the city do exactly that - they travel to the same locations every day. The exact same routes. They either do this on a subway, or in a car or a taxi. Now, the car and the taxi are especially inefficient. Why do you need slow, dangerous and error-prone humans controlling an untethered, gasoline-powered car in the predetermined grid of city streets. In New York, why do you need your car to be able to go off-road?
Of course, the answer is that you don't. Computer control is a much better idea for city commuting. It can a;lleviate congestion and accidents. Additionally, the user doesn't have to focus on driving, and can do work while they commute. All with more privacy and comfort than a subway, and without having a predetermined travel schedule.
It's cars that don't make sense in cities, not Personal Rapid Transport, which is ideal for the application. The cities would be far more pleasant, efficient, and clean with these than cars. The economies of places which implemented such solutions would probably skyrocket from the increased productivity and lack of stress/raised standard of living.
It's not like office workers in NYC are carrying around lumber or other "cargo" besides a briefcase or package.
A key aspect of the Segway is that its footprint is not much larger than that of a walking human, so it can go in places that were designed for humans, not vehicles.
Have you ever heard of a folding bicycle? They get smaller than a Segway does. In fact, a major drawback of the Segway is that it is so freakin' bulky and heavy.
...and is big enough to be annoying indoors.
Oh, and by the way, why would you be using one inside?
In addition, the numbers are artificially inflated by Apple devotees' propensity for buying several machines each generation. Purchases may increase linearly, but users do not!
What the heck? That's the exact opposite to nearly every Mac user I know. In my experience, Mac users try to get the maximum possible lifespan out their old Macs, and get by on the minimum possible number (so they can afford other stuff.)
Rather than buying several machines of each generation, the most common Mac ownership pattern is to buy ONE new machine about once every THREE generations. The wealthy or the hardcore users will buy more, but the vast majority don't upgrade every year.
Meanwhile, in Windows-land, I see people saying "I have to upgrade because my machine is obsolete" all the time. I've seem people upgrade their perfectly fine PC just because a salesperson told them to. Or they want one for the kids' bedroom.
And I know a ton of gamers and wanna-be "hackers" who feel they MUST have 4 or 5 PCs and about 6 LCD monitors. Of course, they don't need them at all, but they think it makes them all manly and smart if they waste a lot of power running unnecessary boxes for their own entertainment.
Slashdot Mirror
If we bomb France, we might be able to eliminate the metric system altogether. Did you know that the French are hiding the kilogram at a place called Sevres? Not only that, but it is made of platinum and iridium. I'm pretty sure it's a disguised nukular bomb or some other kind of WMD. Designed to take our freedom away, millimeter by millimeter.
Dinosaurs prefer to enjoy an evening of fine dining and wine, followed by a moonlit walk on the beach, followed by some dirty talk about the Cretaceous era. After this, the female dinosaur may invite the male dinosaur over for a cup of coffee and the creative use of a clit-tickler.
And then the embryo says; "Hey! Knock it off with all that cracking and the splitting. I'm trying to get some sleep in here. Say, you wouldn't happen to have some umbilical nutrients, or maybe a little left-over pizza, would you? Because I could use some anchovies."
Underpants!
I own a Thinkpad, an iBook and a Powerbook. You are right about the Powerbook, it feels too fragile, although it is a wonderful machine. However, the Thinkpad also has a similar "fragile" feel to it. It is the iBook which is the toughest. It really bounces back from impacts. It was designed for elementary school kids, to be a bit more rugged. I have actually dropped my iBook from over 3 feet onto a concrete floor, and it still works great. The old black G3 Powerbooks (such as the Pismo series) were also good in this rugged feel department, and the ability to withstand harsh environments like heat and dust.
What an unbelievable waste of time. Oh wait, I'm posting on Slashdot. Never mind. Continue destroying brains with your download counters. I'll destroy my own with Tequila and ranting.
"Actual translucency"? What's not translucent about seeing through something that doesn't blur the result? What you are looking at is probably a gaussian or simpler form of blur. Probably a quite simple blur.
Suuuure it does. Classic phishing or adware sales technique. Tell them it'll help you be more secure, and the re-direct them to your proxies. I mean, as if any serious company would have a name like microsoft.com. A dotcom company selling small soft things? I don't think so.
In response to your recent message;
I knew it. Kids these days just wont take the time to type up an email. IM is just not as personal as actually having a letter in your InBox.
Bah, you're not a REAL emailer unless your email comes in an actual physical inbox, printed on non-recycled heavyweight bond paper. Your "virtual" inbox shows the impermanence of your lifestyle and your weak morality. Text on a screen is really no better than these "Instant Messages" that are rotting kids' brains.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a solid cedarwood CPU to carve. If I don't pay attention to the woodwork, it might not add numbers properly. And damn it, why isn't my shipment of Ocelot livers here yet?
Yours Sincerely,
Gerald P. Dangitman, Esq.
And mouching. Don't forget the mooching.
This is the ringer on my phone. For some reason my neighbours don't like me. But that's OK, in revenge I just torture their cats by taping them to the bell.
So, a Segway's small enough to keep inside, but a bicycle isn't? Doesn't make a lot of sense, because the segway is larger in some dimensions than a non-folding bicycle, let alone a folding one.
1. Link, please!
2. What is your point, is he some master of the Universe, who can prevent things from happening in a different way to his vision?
3. Why, because the mighty "designer" says this, that other people can't disagree with him, but still think the idea is worthwhile if used alongside roads?
4. Why does his saying this invalidate the whole idea?
You do realize that fgamilies travelling in the city are an extreme minority, don't you? Why would the inability of more than three people to use a car, mean that the system would not be useful to millions of people? Why would it mean population control would be required? In any case, why can't the 5-year-old travel in a separate car? or a one and two year old could easily share the space of a single older person. One year-olds are usually held in the mother's lap.
Of course not all land is of uniform suitability, but that's just an engineering problem. Oceans are in principle habitable also.
but the post I was responding to was talking about "back yards" - which I don't think you'll find in the ocean or other inhospitable areas. Further, you can't talk about total earth area, because many people are unable to emmigrate from their home country. Space within particular countries is highly limited.
Nevertheless, no drive toward sustainability or environmentally friendly services can accomplish much on the global scale if it ignores the first order term, which is human population.
Indeed. Which is why this is a good idea. People need rapid personal transport for commuting to work. It meets a human need more efficiently than the current way, totally ignoring any environmental benefit. It's a great idea for most humans who work in cities.
In contrast, your idea of living in oceans and other areas, fails this test. People want to live in the wealthy, pleasant, nice environments and society. People would rather live in a New York condo than in an Alaskan ranch, let alone the ocean or desert. People love living in dense cities with lots of cultural activity. Those who expect lots of space are going to have to give up on their urban conveniences. This is going to happen more and more in the suburbs rather than just cities as sprawl happens.
Which link are you talking about?
The designer claims this will replace roads, which makes your entire post pointless.
How does it negate my point (if anyone actually said that), or make the "entire post" pointless? Why does the designer saying it could eliminate roads (which it won't) mean that it couldn't work in conjunction with roads? Besides, my post talked about many other issues besides replacing roads.
Sorry, but we renamed that planet Urectum in 2197 to end that stupid joke once and for all. ... oh, wait ... /checks calendar, discovers that it is in the form of a cheesy mobile phone, and not a floating hologram ... whoops, I posted to the wrong timeline. They really should make the submit button check for corresponding temporal locations.
This is pretty damn scary, that you would actually go along with such an Orwellian "thought crime" mode. Truly, the terrorists have already won. They don't have to attack America, because people like yourself will happily repress themselves based on the government's over-reaction to "terra" attacks on "freedom."
No longer do you have to commit a crime to be arrested or be accused of terrorism or mischief. No longer does there actually have to be a law against something for it to be illegal. Seems that things now have to explicitly permitted by law, rather than prohibited. You basically had better not get out of bed this morning unless the Bush administration gives you written legal permission.
Welcome to the United States of fascism. *Note: large corporations and politicians are exempt from gaining legal permission, or breaking legal prohibitions. It's their duty to do the things you personally aren't allowed to.
Now you're thinking. I take your unicycle and raise you one pair of roller-skates. In fact, make them rocket-powered roller-skates. With hookers. And blackjack. And Olivia Newton-John.
Well, if those Macs include 30" Apple Cinema Displays used in a multi-monitor configuration, I think he could probably see better than with the average piddly little PC LCD. Of course, he would have to buy VESA mount kits for the monitor array, and mount them all on a large radio telescope or skyscraper to use as a pivot point. And have you seen a PowerMac G5 tower? Small isn't the first word that comes to mind. Maybe put the CPUs under a waterfall for liquid cooling. The exhaust fans would make a good hair dryer, too.
So, I see you've played knifie-spoonie before.
So, you make sure that there is a really good cleaning team. Why do they have to be like public restrooms? Just because many public restrooms are neglected, doesn't mean this system has to be like that. There are many places in existence with very clean public restrooms. It's not like we don't understand cleaning technology, or sources of manual labor.
Population control. Unless you plan to inact Chinese style population control, a three person shuttle is simply not going to cut it.
Ummm, why? Seriously, explain why population control is necessary for this to work.
Rats in a cage. This designer has fallen prey to one of the most common problems that total mass transit advocates fall prey to. It requires everyone to live in tiny high rise condos. People don't want that. They want a house that you don't have to listen to your neighbors arguing next door, and a yard for their kids to play in.
1. Why is it necessary to live in high-rise condos for this to work? One could simply work into the city, and use car/rail/bus/light rail to get to the edge of the system from the suburbs.
2. Where are we going to get all that land so everyone can have a house with a back yard? There simply is not enough space on the planet for everyone to live like that. people are just going to have to get used to that. Only the very wealthy will be able to have large properties in the future.
If you somehow get a bed into your new rat cage condo, how do you move. I don't think that king size bed, or your dresser for that matter, are going to fit inside one of those little pods.
Get it delivered, like most people do with furniture purchases.
Roads will still be needed for delivery.
Who is claiming that this would entirely eliminate roads? Maybe there are some starry-eyed people who think that, but they are an extreme minority. Most alternative transportation advocates realize that different systems will continue to exist and compliment one another (and sometimes detract from one another.)
No transportation technology is perfect for every need. There are many flaws in existing technologies, but people still use them, and they evolve. Why couldn't this idea also come into existence, and evolve alongside other methods?
The list goes on....
But does it ever get relevant, or is it more of the same ill-considered objection as typified by your comments above?
Then that malicious guy gets banned from the network, just like you would with a malicious user on your computer network. I just don't understand why people have to constantly think of any possible reason (no matter how trivial or stupid) to reject new technologies that might actually be more sustainable and efficient.
I mean, big fucking deal. How does this inconvenience of "malicious users" in any way compare in scale or intensity to the problems of drunk drivers killing kids, air pollution giving us cancers and breathing problems, massive amounts of mining needed to produce the metal and oil to make enough private cars, traffic congestion, road rage, etc?
It's not as if cars and subways don't both have massive problems. But no, let's not think of how to improve things. Lets just bitch about some new idea that might have some small potential problem.
You don't. These things are for dense cities, like London or New York or Paris.
You and Metcalf both need to be beat with a cluestick. Some things just aren't useful.
This is not useful in any way? Are you insane? It is extremely useful. Most communters in the city do exactly that - they travel to the same locations every day. The exact same routes. They either do this on a subway, or in a car or a taxi. Now, the car and the taxi are especially inefficient. Why do you need slow, dangerous and error-prone humans controlling an untethered, gasoline-powered car in the predetermined grid of city streets. In New York, why do you need your car to be able to go off-road?
Of course, the answer is that you don't. Computer control is a much better idea for city commuting. It can a;lleviate congestion and accidents. Additionally, the user doesn't have to focus on driving, and can do work while they commute. All with more privacy and comfort than a subway, and without having a predetermined travel schedule.
It's cars that don't make sense in cities, not Personal Rapid Transport, which is ideal for the application. The cities would be far more pleasant, efficient, and clean with these than cars. The economies of places which implemented such solutions would probably skyrocket from the increased productivity and lack of stress/raised standard of living.
It's not like office workers in NYC are carrying around lumber or other "cargo" besides a briefcase or package.
Have you ever heard of a folding bicycle? They get smaller than a Segway does. In fact, a major drawback of the Segway is that it is so freakin' bulky and heavy.
Oh, and by the way, why would you be using one inside?
What the heck? That's the exact opposite to nearly every Mac user I know. In my experience, Mac users try to get the maximum possible lifespan out their old Macs, and get by on the minimum possible number (so they can afford other stuff.)
Rather than buying several machines of each generation, the most common Mac ownership pattern is to buy ONE new machine about once every THREE generations. The wealthy or the hardcore users will buy more, but the vast majority don't upgrade every year.
Meanwhile, in Windows-land, I see people saying "I have to upgrade because my machine is obsolete" all the time. I've seem people upgrade their perfectly fine PC just because a salesperson told them to. Or they want one for the kids' bedroom.
And I know a ton of gamers and wanna-be "hackers" who feel they MUST have 4 or 5 PCs and about 6 LCD monitors. Of course, they don't need them at all, but they think it makes them all manly and smart if they waste a lot of power running unnecessary boxes for their own entertainment.