Here a good idea, let's issues a 3G laptop with a certified secure mail program on it to one of the Secret Service agents that follows him around all day.
Then when they get an e-mail he can be timely alerted and he could dictate all responses to said SecretServiceBerry. Problem solved. In fact this is better then a blackberry, because you have a larger device to use. The only reason to carry a blackberry is because typically smaller devices are less of a hassle, no so with a SecretServiceBerry.
This is the most media fueled common misconceptions, please stop using it. Apple did not charge because Sarbanes Oxley, they charged because of additional patent/royalty costs. 802.11n has more patents then 802.11g so it costs more to license. It the same with MPEG, H264 cost more the H263 which cost more the base mpeg4 to license. When they originally sold you a router they only licensed it for 802.11G, who would pay more if they don't have to? You essentially were paying Apple's additional IP costs.
Then again, I find it hard from a logical perspective that:
Based on experimentation from the last few hundred years, I can define what took place Hundreds of Billions of years ago.
I evolved from rocks, non-organic matter, or big bang.
My intelligence and complexity is based on pure chance over long periods of time.
Now some of your claims seems slightly exaggerated based on a literal view of the bible, but I find both the Christian and evolution view points hard to believe logically.
I still think it would be easy to deny who you voted for. You don't have to keep the receipt listing the ID of what you voted. I like the idea of a Vote ID and an online database where I can verify that my vote counted. In the paper voting I just have to trust that the vote are locked, counted and observed properly. I don't really trust that much. I still think you could have a safe way to make sure people don't add and delete record without someone knowing. First of all you just make it so record can't be deleted in the system. Secondly you could make it so only one system (and a backup) could generate the ability to vote. It printed off a barcode that would allow you to go to a booth, scan the barcode, and register a vote. This system could be observed and run impartially to ensure that one person wasn't gaming the system generating "additional votes". Realistically I still don't think this will ever happen, but it's a good idea. Then again, I'm an embedded system designer, maybe I should just start a business, to build and sell it myself.
I can't see why these companies don't come up with a decent design for electronic voting. It could be easy, traceable and could be much better then paper voting.
For each person voting generate a unique person id. Then for every item voted on generate another unique vote id. Print a receipt to every person showing there person id and vote ids. Make this database of vote ids and what was voted for publicly accessible on the internet. This way I can determine if my vote counted and this can easily be audited by everyone! Next have a private database that links every vote to the person id. You could even have a third database of person id to identifiable information. This can now be audited internally to fight off multiple votes from the same person.
Problem solved! Voting that is accurate and traceable.
3.) 1.8" 80G hard drive. This is the hard drive they use in iPod classics. It's 4200RPM, and it's small by modern laptop standards. The only upgrade option is $1000 for the solid state drive. Why aren't they offering the 160G iPod drive? The 160gb drive wouldn't fit. If you look at the specifications for the ipod classic http://www.apple.com/ipodclassic/specs.html the 160gb is.53" as compared to.41" for the 80gb which is solely due to the drive being bigger (2 platters instead of 1 platter). I'm sure Apple would be happy to upgrade you to a larger drive, once they have ones that can fit in there.
Yeah, but if you look at SD cards the raw retail cost of flash is about $4/GB (newegg) So realistically the 32gb drive is only worth 128 dollars in flash, plus the cost of the IDE/SATA flash controller logic. The problem is that this logic is new and probably expensive. I give it about a year for volume and competition to ramp up on these controllers, and then they will drop to commodity pricing. Then I would guess the sweet spot would be $2/GB for flash, 64gb drive (2x$64 + $10 (controller logic)) = $138. Give it a year.
I think there is a lot of GPL code out there. The biggest thing is that the GPL is viral. If I want to use GPL code, I must release my code. With the preceding plan, I can use GPLv2 or later code without releasing my own code linked against it. That is a big deal.
With my small army of rebels I take over the FSF and I create GPL v4 which is the equivalent of a public domain license. I fork all projects that are GPL v2 or any later version. I change the license of my forks to be GPLv4 because it still is in the scope of the original license (because of the later version clause). Now I use all my code for free! Yeah!
You might think you are good at guitar hero, but this will be the ultimate challenge. This is got to be the most hacked in song into the previous versions. I love just watching people play it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZutgOyA9EY
So how about we ditch the whole concept of religion and stick with personal faith. I honestly think everyone could get along a lot better that way.
That might sound good, but what if your faith wanted you to share it with other? Sharing with others means the concept of religion. The only thing wrong with religious is flawed people. People endlessly use religion for personal gain, sometimes they even claim to other that sharing in their religion will result in personal gain. Religion will endlessly be distorted because of this. The problem is that this personal gain religion gets intermixed with real religon and both die from the negative perspective.
Interesting, well Creationism is a religious theory on the Origin of Life. Since the origin of life is much dispute I don't think we can absolutely say that Creationism is wrong. In fact since we've never observed the Origin of Life, it would be impossible to scientifically prove the Origin of Life without recreating it. I really hate this Creationism vs. Evolution Debate, one says the origin of life and the other says the development of life. Why do they have to conflict? Oh yeah, I forgot there are people that like to selfishly derive power over people by claiming their interpretation of the Bible is the only correct one. I hope god has mercy on their soul, because as a flawed human being, I know I sure don't.
Biblical Creationism was almost entirely falsified by the middle of the 19th century.
Wow, now only if they could get the word out about this! Creationism is an religious explanation for the origin of life. Evolution is an explanation for the development of life. Evolution does not explain the origin of life. Evolution does not disprove Creationism. In fact it is likely possible that you can never prove Creationism either true or false, because there is no evidence either way. All we can do is observer the world the way we see it today and make assumptions about the past. Sometime this will lead to statistical correlation that might "prove" something, but the fact is statistics isn't hard evidence. The old quote about "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics". If you want to believe your statistic then go ahead, I'll believe what I want.
If the source of the solar system was also uniformly distributed with respect to uranium isotope ratios,
If the solar system formed from a common pool of matter, which was uniformly distributed in terms of Pb isotope ratios,
It assumes that they are true because their data nicely correlates to a line. I don't know about you, but these are pretty big assumptions. There is no evidence other then weak statistical correlation, and if you just want to go on weak statistical correlation, you might just want to start listening to the Intelligent Design statistics.
We see no evidence for divine intervention with the natural operation of the world.
That there will never be a scientific proof from Creationism or God. I am not trying to convince you of the scientific worthiness of the theory. Merely I am pointing out that your arguements against it are unreasonaly biased base on your theories. While creationism will never be proved by science, it is surprising how people try to disprove it by science. I am only trying to argue against your disproof, but stating your assumptions are wrong and that it is possible.
And yet the rules of genetics differed back then, such that incest and inbreeding did not lead to birth defects and the end of the human race?
Nope the same ruled applied, birth defect rise out of flaws in DNA that when both parents have similar ones (related parents) then bad things happen. Adam and Eve would have had perfect DNA therefore wouldn't have cause birth defects from early inbreeding. Only after external factors started to mutate DNA in later generations would inbreeding been a problem.
By evolution I mean, very simply, the development of animal and plant species out of other species not at all like them....
The first step in demonstrating the truth of evolution is to make the claim that all living creatures must have a living parent....
The second important point in the case for evolution is that some living creatures are very different from some others....
The final point in the case for evolution is this: simple animals and plants existed on earth long before more complex ones (invertebrate animals, for example, were around for a very long time before there were any vertebrates)....
Well, if we put these three points together, the rational case for evolution is air tight. If all living creatures must have a living parent, if living creatures are different, and if simpler forms were around before the more complex forms, then the more complex forms must have come from the simpler forms (e.g., vertebrates from invertebrates).
This is fundamentally flawed, because the first claim states that all living creatures must have a living parent. Where did the first living parent come from? Let's say that we found a process to make the first living parent. Could it be possible that this process happen multiple time?. Let's say it happen twice, Once that started the vertebrate line that we see today and another with the invertebrates. Repeat this non-living to living process for other differences. This does not mean that more complex forms must have come from simpler forms. The general principle of evolution can be proved, but trying to say that every organism evolved from a common ancestor is only a theory that can not be proved. Lastly it's funny how all these claims fit perfectly with creationism
Ok, here's one: according to the Bible, the rainbow is a sign of God's covenant with man that he will not destroy the world in a another great big flood. As we are led to understand, light did not refract prismatically before the flood, only after.
Light would have always refracted prismatically, however a rainbow still requires a certain set of conditions to appear. In addition pre-flood condition on earth are thought to be radically different then they are now. This is hinted at in scripture, there are many books on this topic
It is reasonable that this could have been the first rainbow
Here's another one: snakes did not crawl on their bellies before the fall of man, that was a punishment by God. So snakes presumably bounced around on their tails coiled like springs as evinced in the Gospel of Qbert
Changing the physical functioning of an animal does seem within the scope of God.
We are told that Adam and Eve were the parents of all mankind, when Cain killed Abel he went to live in a foreign land, God giving him a special mark so those people would know not to kill him. What other people, there's only three people on the entire planet at this time!
How many children did Adam and Eve have? The Bible does not give us a specific number. Adam and Eve had Cain (Genesis 4:1), Abel (Genesis 4:2), Seth (Genesis 4:25), and many other sons and daughters (Genesis 5:4). With likely hundreds of years of child-bearing capability, Adam and Eve likely had 50+ children in their lifetime.
Science without a doubt has proven "micro-evolution" or evolution within a species, anyone who refutes that is an idiot and not a scientist. There is fossil evidence that weakly supports transition between close species, however this has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. The idea of evolution from a big bang, soup of chemical, etc can only be stated as a theory at best. Fanatics from both side preach their theories as fact and only misinform.
I think that you like a lot of people have been exposed to Christianity from the wrong perspective. The problem is the majority of the churches teach that to be a Christian is to be perfect like Christ and don't realize the harm that they are causing. All they do is turn most non-perfect people away from the church and make the rest liars to say that they are perfect. Truly to be a follower of Christ means not to continuously seek after being like Christ and to allow and encourage others to do the same. This is impossible in an environment where you have to be perfect and are condemned if you are not. Some churches need to read their own book to find out "because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment" (James 2:13)
Otherwise I generally agree with your points, however Christianity is so large that it is easy for a few bad churches to sour overall impressions of Christianity. Higher divorce rates, I believe is a common misperception. This is attributed to the fact that many claim to be a Christian. You can find studies that should that married couples that show signs of strong Christian commitment (regular prayer, bible reading and discussion) have much lower divorce rates. However if you count people that show up to church on Sunday, it's probably the higher.
It's really ironic how church try require perfection. The Bible mentions because of the Original Sin that it is impossible for someone born of Adam to be without sin. This is why the grace of Jesus Christ is required. I can tell you the difference between a sinning churchman and the average sinner on the street. The churchman should be continuously seeking to sin less because he sees how it will benefit his life and others, while the other doesn't care. The problem is most churches try to teach how to sin less by telling them don't sin, rather then dealing with the root of the sin (emotions, problems from past and childhood, etc..)
I'd encourage you not to give up on church because of a few bad experiences. There are ones that get close to the true message of Christ.
I believe this topic is all about choice. You pay $80 a month for 80 channels and you believe that it is worth it. Granted it might be more expensive to buy all the channels you want a la carte, but just because a la carte comes into existence doesn't mean the other packages disappear. I currently don't subscribe to cable because it exceeds my price limit. I believe that a la carte would change this. I currently pick up the major broadcast stations in HD for free over the air. This includes about 70-80% of what I would want to watch and it is free. To me, I could survive without cable, but my wife usually complains that we don't get HGTV and TLC because she used to watch them all the time. I would gladly pay $10-$20 dollars a month just for these 2 channels for my wife. I might even pay extra to pick up a few for myself., but I will not pay the $60 basic digital cable fee just for channel surfing and watching these two channels. Heck ever since I discovered redbox($1 movies at mcdonalds) I could watch two DVDs a night for the same price
I don't think that an a la carte scheme would kill niche programming as most people say it would(like the religious channel, or discovery 19). A channel can determine the price of itself by how much it charges the cable company. If you want more viewer for a new channel, offer it for free and make money off advertising!
I agree with you, some consumers like me are unhappy with the cable pricing structure and don't buy cable. We would like a more flexibile model, but it is highly unlikely that cable will change, because making the lowest cost to entry, lower will attract more customer, but also has the side effect of moving some of their existing customer to a lower price point in which they might make less money. It's the same with cellphone, although plans have more minutes now, I still can not find a better basic service plan then what I got 5 years ago. The don't drop prices because they have large numbers of customer paying existing high prices.
If networks want viewership of lesser channels it is easy. Offer them a la carte for free! Make your money off advertisements. It is very simple charge what the channels are worth. Heck you could offer them for free every other month and then for a $1, get people hooked and then get them to pay. Niche programming will not die, it will find a new model. Rather then gang up with something that is demanded, it will give itself away until it can be demanded.
A La Carte Base Price $10
ESPN $10
Discovery $2
Discovery Crap Channel $0
That's not quite what I am saying. Basically the hypervisor could limit resources to unsigned code, such that the code will still install and "run", but have such limited resources that it will not function properly. This could be done, by say limiting the memory to unsigned code, or not allowing use of a floating point unit, or GPU.
Let's see, the hypervisor let's signed code do anything it wants, yet limits unsigned code to let say 1 meg of memory. I guess now you can recompile and run any code you want, it just won't work the same way that the signed code will.
Have you ever used a navigation device that uses a cell connection? They are horrible, slow and most importantly laggy. Vector maps that are draw by a device are incredibly faster, but generally need a fast processor and over 1 gig of store. There will always be room for Navigation devices as long as you need fast maps, a big screen and no $60 a month unlimited data plan.
Slashdot Mirror
Here a good idea, let's issues a 3G laptop with a certified secure mail program on it to one of the Secret Service agents that follows him around all day. Then when they get an e-mail he can be timely alerted and he could dictate all responses to said SecretServiceBerry. Problem solved. In fact this is better then a blackberry, because you have a larger device to use. The only reason to carry a blackberry is because typically smaller devices are less of a hassle, no so with a SecretServiceBerry.
This is the most media fueled common misconceptions, please stop using it. Apple did not charge because Sarbanes Oxley, they charged because of additional patent/royalty costs. 802.11n has more patents then 802.11g so it costs more to license. It the same with MPEG, H264 cost more the H263 which cost more the base mpeg4 to license. When they originally sold you a router they only licensed it for 802.11G, who would pay more if they don't have to? You essentially were paying Apple's additional IP costs.
Then again, I find it hard from a logical perspective that:
Based on experimentation from the last few hundred years, I can define what took place Hundreds of Billions of years ago.
I evolved from rocks, non-organic matter, or big bang.
My intelligence and complexity is based on pure chance over long periods of time.
Now some of your claims seems slightly exaggerated based on a literal view of the bible, but I find both the Christian and evolution view points hard to believe logically.
I still think it would be easy to deny who you voted for. You don't have to keep the receipt listing the ID of what you voted. I like the idea of a Vote ID and an online database where I can verify that my vote counted. In the paper voting I just have to trust that the vote are locked, counted and observed properly. I don't really trust that much. I still think you could have a safe way to make sure people don't add and delete record without someone knowing. First of all you just make it so record can't be deleted in the system. Secondly you could make it so only one system (and a backup) could generate the ability to vote. It printed off a barcode that would allow you to go to a booth, scan the barcode, and register a vote. This system could be observed and run impartially to ensure that one person wasn't gaming the system generating "additional votes". Realistically I still don't think this will ever happen, but it's a good idea. Then again, I'm an embedded system designer, maybe I should just start a business, to build and sell it myself.
I can't see why these companies don't come up with a decent design for electronic voting. It could be easy, traceable and could be much better then paper voting. For each person voting generate a unique person id. Then for every item voted on generate another unique vote id. Print a receipt to every person showing there person id and vote ids. Make this database of vote ids and what was voted for publicly accessible on the internet. This way I can determine if my vote counted and this can easily be audited by everyone! Next have a private database that links every vote to the person id. You could even have a third database of person id to identifiable information. This can now be audited internally to fight off multiple votes from the same person. Problem solved! Voting that is accurate and traceable.
Yeah, but if you look at SD cards the raw retail cost of flash is about $4/GB (newegg) So realistically the 32gb drive is only worth 128 dollars in flash, plus the cost of the IDE/SATA flash controller logic. The problem is that this logic is new and probably expensive. I give it about a year for volume and competition to ramp up on these controllers, and then they will drop to commodity pricing. Then I would guess the sweet spot would be $2/GB for flash, 64gb drive (2x$64 + $10 (controller logic)) = $138. Give it a year.
I think there is a lot of GPL code out there. The biggest thing is that the GPL is viral. If I want to use GPL code, I must release my code. With the preceding plan, I can use GPLv2 or later code without releasing my own code linked against it. That is a big deal.
With my small army of rebels I take over the FSF and I create GPL v4 which is the equivalent of a public domain license. I fork all projects that are GPL v2 or any later version. I change the license of my forks to be GPLv4 because it still is in the scope of the original license (because of the later version clause). Now I use all my code for free! Yeah!
Could it be that the IPhone is an attractive product to people that can't spell?
Interesting, well Creationism is a religious theory on the Origin of Life. Since the origin of life is much dispute I don't think we can absolutely say that Creationism is wrong. In fact since we've never observed the Origin of Life, it would be impossible to scientifically prove the Origin of Life without recreating it. I really hate this Creationism vs. Evolution Debate, one says the origin of life and the other says the development of life. Why do they have to conflict? Oh yeah, I forgot there are people that like to selfishly derive power over people by claiming their interpretation of the Bible is the only correct one. I hope god has mercy on their soul, because as a flawed human being, I know I sure don't.
http://www.amazon.com/Waters-Above-Earths-Pre-Flood-Canopy/dp/0802491987
It is reasonable that this could have been the first rainbow
Changing the physical functioning of an animal does seem within the scope of God. How many children did Adam and Eve have? The Bible does not give us a specific number. Adam and Eve had Cain (Genesis 4:1), Abel (Genesis 4:2), Seth (Genesis 4:25), and many other sons and daughters (Genesis 5:4). With likely hundreds of years of child-bearing capability, Adam and Eve likely had 50+ children in their lifetime. Science without a doubt has proven "micro-evolution" or evolution within a species, anyone who refutes that is an idiot and not a scientist. There is fossil evidence that weakly supports transition between close species, however this has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. The idea of evolution from a big bang, soup of chemical, etc can only be stated as a theory at best. Fanatics from both side preach their theories as fact and only misinform.I think that you like a lot of people have been exposed to Christianity from the wrong perspective. The problem is the majority of the churches teach that to be a Christian is to be perfect like Christ and don't realize the harm that they are causing. All they do is turn most non-perfect people away from the church and make the rest liars to say that they are perfect. Truly to be a follower of Christ means not to continuously seek after being like Christ and to allow and encourage others to do the same. This is impossible in an environment where you have to be perfect and are condemned if you are not. Some churches need to read their own book to find out "because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment" (James 2:13)
Otherwise I generally agree with your points, however Christianity is so large that it is easy for a few bad churches to sour overall impressions of Christianity. Higher divorce rates, I believe is a common misperception. This is attributed to the fact that many claim to be a Christian. You can find studies that should that married couples that show signs of strong Christian commitment (regular prayer, bible reading and discussion) have much lower divorce rates. However if you count people that show up to church on Sunday, it's probably the higher.
It's really ironic how church try require perfection. The Bible mentions because of the Original Sin that it is impossible for someone born of Adam to be without sin. This is why the grace of Jesus Christ is required. I can tell you the difference between a sinning churchman and the average sinner on the street. The churchman should be continuously seeking to sin less because he sees how it will benefit his life and others, while the other doesn't care. The problem is most churches try to teach how to sin less by telling them don't sin, rather then dealing with the root of the sin (emotions, problems from past and childhood, etc..)
I'd encourage you not to give up on church because of a few bad experiences. There are ones that get close to the true message of Christ.
I believe this topic is all about choice. You pay $80 a month for 80 channels and you believe that it is worth it. Granted it might be more expensive to buy all the channels you want a la carte, but just because a la carte comes into existence doesn't mean the other packages disappear. I currently don't subscribe to cable because it exceeds my price limit. I believe that a la carte would change this. I currently pick up the major broadcast stations in HD for free over the air. This includes about 70-80% of what I would want to watch and it is free. To me, I could survive without cable, but my wife usually complains that we don't get HGTV and TLC because she used to watch them all the time. I would gladly pay $10-$20 dollars a month just for these 2 channels for my wife. I might even pay extra to pick up a few for myself., but I will not pay the $60 basic digital cable fee just for channel surfing and watching these two channels. Heck ever since I discovered redbox($1 movies at mcdonalds) I could watch two DVDs a night for the same price I don't think that an a la carte scheme would kill niche programming as most people say it would(like the religious channel, or discovery 19). A channel can determine the price of itself by how much it charges the cable company. If you want more viewer for a new channel, offer it for free and make money off advertising! I agree with you, some consumers like me are unhappy with the cable pricing structure and don't buy cable. We would like a more flexibile model, but it is highly unlikely that cable will change, because making the lowest cost to entry, lower will attract more customer, but also has the side effect of moving some of their existing customer to a lower price point in which they might make less money. It's the same with cellphone, although plans have more minutes now, I still can not find a better basic service plan then what I got 5 years ago. The don't drop prices because they have large numbers of customer paying existing high prices.
If networks want viewership of lesser channels it is easy. Offer them a la carte for free! Make your money off advertisements. It is very simple charge what the channels are worth. Heck you could offer them for free every other month and then for a $1, get people hooked and then get them to pay. Niche programming will not die, it will find a new model. Rather then gang up with something that is demanded, it will give itself away until it can be demanded. A La Carte Base Price $10 ESPN $10 Discovery $2 Discovery Crap Channel $0
That's not quite what I am saying. Basically the hypervisor could limit resources to unsigned code, such that the code will still install and "run", but have such limited resources that it will not function properly. This could be done, by say limiting the memory to unsigned code, or not allowing use of a floating point unit, or GPU.
Let's see, the hypervisor let's signed code do anything it wants, yet limits unsigned code to let say 1 meg of memory. I guess now you can recompile and run any code you want, it just won't work the same way that the signed code will.
Have you ever used a navigation device that uses a cell connection? They are horrible, slow and most importantly laggy. Vector maps that are draw by a device are incredibly faster, but generally need a fast processor and over 1 gig of store. There will always be room for Navigation devices as long as you need fast maps, a big screen and no $60 a month unlimited data plan.
Push-up bras are not false advertising, just misleading.
Padded bras are the real false advertising.
Well you should get a wife for the sole purpose of buying milk. Then I bet the real cost of your milk would be $970 a gallon.