Wow, what pompous, righteous indignation over 190W! You have no idea what this person's lifestyle is, whether they do lots of other things to help the environment and keep their energy costs low. My PC is on 24/7 too, for several reasons:
1. I frequently access it from work over SSH.
2. When I'm home, somebody in the family is using it nearly all the time (instead of TV which is constantly in use in plenty of other homes)
3. When nobody is using it, it's running BOINC on behalf of World Community Grid doing useful things like cancer/AIDS research.
4. My life experience with computers indicates that a computer running all the time will live longer than a computer switched on and off.
Maybe my opinion on PC life is bunk, but overall I don't think I'm killing off the ecosystem by keeping my PC on. I've replaced every incandescent bulb I can with compact fluorescents. I actually turn lights OFF when I leave a room. I use LCDs instead of CRTs. I recycle. I drive a small car, and keep the speed down and I've cut down my driving considerably.
There are much better targets for your ranting and raving than $11 worth of electricity.
BTW, I'm very jealous of the $0.08/KWH price. Where I live (Massachusetts, US) the cost of electricity is more like $0.20/KWH.
Considering how much of my body happens to be water, I don't consider it an infantile obsession. Some people have an infantile obsession with making water, but that's something different.
I've used Redbox a number of times and I'm very happy with it. Much more cost effective for somebody who only rents a couple movies a month. The only problem with Redbox is they're space limited (of course) so they only provide new releases. If you want something from 6 months ago forget it.
I'm not especially familiar with the virtualization world, but my general suspicion would be that virtual systems aren't designed to deliver the continuous real-time response necessary for a decent gaming experience. Anybody here who knows better should correct me. On the other hand, even if the virtual gaming environment is feasible, wouldn't it necessarily be a reduced-performance sandbox vs. the maximum that the latest hardware can do? Would PC gamers want to buy into a system that -won't- pull every performance edge their hardware is capable of? Thinking of it this way, it seems like the virtualized gaming environment solves the problem of the 'too fast' PC, which hopefully is a relic of DOS and 66 MHz 486s.
I call BS too. I've installed iTunes on several PCs. I don't even own an iPod. The software 1) does not spam me 2) does not delete my private files 3) does not try to sell me anything (except for updates which I've -allowed- it to check for), and 4) is not secretly reporting anything about my PC as far as I know. If you have any evidence to the contrary please post some links. Otherwise, just say you don't like iTunes and stop calling it malware.
You are right about the message. I have since read the Sprawl trilogy of William Gibson and it covers the 'man vs. machine' and 'dystopian future' concepts about a million times better than The Matrix. Nevertheless, I loved The Matrix and responded to its lamer sequels a lot better than most people. Lots of action, cutting edge effects, Hugo Weaving chewing up the scenery, Monica Bellucci, "I know Kung Fu", and of course, "Whoa."
The whole point of his response is that it follows valid legal convention. If his company is infringing, it's not extortion for the patent holder to demand compensation. Class-action has nothing to do with this either (yet). He's received a claim, his job is to respond to the claim. He did that in spades.
I think my subject spells it out. The term "IT" is often used as an umbrella term to describe any kind of job related to computer technology. On the other hand, sometimes it specifically means Network Management, or computer-related jobs that are not the core function of the company (for example setting up their public web presence). I work for a software company. I am in Development, not IT. There is an IT group that manages network infrastructure. There is a separate group that manages the company's public facade on the Internet. I have nothing to do with either.
All that said, I'd still also say that the quality of either job, IT or CS, depends on the company. I believe the IT and Web people where I work are much happier than typical IT and Web people elsewhere.
I can so say what you find unusual about your sig, as this post (don't count my sig that follows) has that oddity too. Huzzah! I admit it's off topic, so mod accordingly. Sigh.
What a great cheesy movie! I still remember watching this one on a Boston UHF station years ago (ch 56 if anyone cares). At every commercial they'd say "We now return to Robinson Crusoe on Mars starring Adam West". Hilarious considering that West's character dies about 5 min into the movie, but it's the only name anybody would recognize.
someone took the Talladega Nights blu-ray that came with their PS3 and put it through a torture test Do you mean they watched it? I'd call that a torture.
It looks like good embedded programmers (whatever their age) will be in demand and well paid for many years to come.:)
Exactly. Tomorrow's embedded developers are right here. I'm not dead yet, and I still know how to do that kind of work. If you pay me enough I might consider moving back to embedded-land from GUI-world. Believe me I won't be cheap. Now get off my damn lawn.
I haven't actually asked an astronaut about this, but how the heck they keep that place from smelling up over time is a mystery.
My guess is they don't. It's probably pretty nasty up there.
Please take your politically correct pronouncements elsewhere. I am a liberal, but also a science-minded person. I feel ashamed for all liberals when science is denounced when it might suggest that humans are not all equal in the ways liberals would like them to be. Sorry, but real science doesn't care how the world should be, it only cares how it is.
Why is it not controversial to investigate whether certain races are more prone to certain illnesses, but it is controversial to offer a drug that seems to have more health benefits to one race than another?
Well I'll answer my own question. Some of the concern is based on justified anger over past atrocities committed by people who called themselves 'scientists' (e.g. infecting blacks with Syphilis). But when that anger translates to 'In 2008 I won't accept a drug that is targeted for my race because it might be a plot to harm us', I think we're talking tinfoil hat time.
Why is it not controversial to suggest that one gender has more physical strength than another, but it is heresy to even wonder whether one gender might have more intelligence/compassion/aggression/addiction than the other?
My suspicion is that people get more sensitive when we're talking about the mind vs. the body, because then the subject is the core of who we are. Fine, we're all sensitive about that. But what justifies a knee-jerk reaction that this is just 'junk science'? As a scientist would say, prove it!
By the way, personal anecdotal evidence suggests that this study is on to something. I know that my son and I are certainly prone to being hooked on territorial/aggressive games, while my daughter and wife don't show such tendency. And this pattern extends to other people I know. This is not proof, just commentary.
Exactly (your last statement). In the US, if you're a full-time employee not covered by a union, you probably aren't working under a contract but an employment agreement. Either you or the employer can walk away at any time. You can ask for more money, they can drop your pay, etc. Then you both get to decide whether you want to continue the relationship. Now, if they don't pay you what they already agreed for work already completed, that's a different story. Then legal issues enter into the picture.
I was going to mod you insightful even though I don't agree with you (really - and I'm not Karma whoring so nobody mod this up please!) However, I'd rather discuss the idea further. Here's the rub: what if I suggest that our system has already been perverted by those in power to the point that the political involvement you're looking for is already impossible? Perhaps we have lost the ability to 'own our own government'. Too many of our people are too poorly educated to be informed and motivated voters. Enough of the populace is hypnotized by the 'sound bite' and so easily partitioned into 'far right' and 'far left' that nothing will change. The people who already 'have theirs' see no incentive to changing this. None of this requires conspiracy theories. It just requires an entrenched power base, a replacement of 'enlightened self-interest' with just 'self-interest', and perhaps also dash of psychopathic/sociopathic behavior. And considering a book I recently read suggests that 4% of Americans are sociopaths, I really fear that the rest of us may just be lambs to the slaughter without even noticing.
Do you hate everybody equally or just reserve your scorn for people younger than you? In the context of this discussion, the GP's comment is not your typical 'think of the children' tripe. The resources we preserve for future generations -are- important, even if they don't benefit your genetic descendants directly.
Or, to put it more dramatically, do you believe that ensuring your own 'good' life justifies behaving in a manner that ensures your generation is the last to survive on planet Earth? Yes that's hyperbole, but the point is: each generation has a responsibility to be stewards of the planet for the next. If we continue to fall down on the job as badly as we have in some areas, someday that statement won't be hyperbole.
If you really don't think you owe the next generation anything, I hope they prove more compassionate when you're old and feeble and need some young doctors and nurses to care for you.
Especially if our universe is run on a computer, something of which the limitations of are well known There's the rub. 'System' and 'Simulation' are not the same thing. If we're in a simulation, how can we be sure about anything we 'know'? You could argue like Plato that the mathematics we've discovered are 'true' because they exist independent of our having discovered them (i.e. PI). I'm not even 100% sure of that. The limitations we think we know about computers may only be constructs that the simulation is forcing us to perceive. Computers in the 'real' universe may not have such limitations.
I think this theory misses the point in a similar way that many discussions of 'we're just a simulation' do: The external reality could by anything. Why, for instance, should one assume that the creators of the simulation are Humans living on Planet Earth in the Milky Way Galaxy (etc.). Perhaps there are no humans, no Earth, no galaxy. Perhaps there isn't even such a thing as 'matter'. Maybe matter is an interesting concept invented by some incomprehensible energy creature and our universe is 'his' way of testing the behavior of such a strange thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, what pompous, righteous indignation over 190W! You have no idea what this person's lifestyle is, whether they do lots of other things to help the environment and keep their energy costs low. My PC is on 24/7 too, for several reasons:
1. I frequently access it from work over SSH.
2. When I'm home, somebody in the family is using it nearly all the time (instead of TV which is constantly in use in plenty of other homes)
3. When nobody is using it, it's running BOINC on behalf of World Community Grid doing useful things like cancer/AIDS research.
4. My life experience with computers indicates that a computer running all the time will live longer than a computer switched on and off.
Maybe my opinion on PC life is bunk, but overall I don't think I'm killing off the ecosystem by keeping my PC on. I've replaced every incandescent bulb I can with compact fluorescents. I actually turn lights OFF when I leave a room. I use LCDs instead of CRTs. I recycle. I drive a small car, and keep the speed down and I've cut down my driving considerably.
There are much better targets for your ranting and raving than $11 worth of electricity.
BTW, I'm very jealous of the $0.08/KWH price. Where I live (Massachusetts, US) the cost of electricity is more like $0.20/KWH.
Considering how much of my body happens to be water, I don't consider it an infantile obsession. Some people have an infantile obsession with making water, but that's something different.
I've used Redbox a number of times and I'm very happy with it. Much more cost effective for somebody who only rents a couple movies a month. The only problem with Redbox is they're space limited (of course) so they only provide new releases. If you want something from 6 months ago forget it.
I'm not especially familiar with the virtualization world, but my general suspicion would be that virtual systems aren't designed to deliver the continuous real-time response necessary for a decent gaming experience. Anybody here who knows better should correct me. On the other hand, even if the virtual gaming environment is feasible, wouldn't it necessarily be a reduced-performance sandbox vs. the maximum that the latest hardware can do? Would PC gamers want to buy into a system that -won't- pull every performance edge their hardware is capable of? Thinking of it this way, it seems like the virtualized gaming environment solves the problem of the 'too fast' PC, which hopefully is a relic of DOS and 66 MHz 486s.
I call BS too. I've installed iTunes on several PCs. I don't even own an iPod. The software 1) does not spam me 2) does not delete my private files 3) does not try to sell me anything (except for updates which I've -allowed- it to check for), and 4) is not secretly reporting anything about my PC as far as I know. If you have any evidence to the contrary please post some links. Otherwise, just say you don't like iTunes and stop calling it malware.
Why oh why?
You are right about the message. I have since read the Sprawl trilogy of William Gibson and it covers the 'man vs. machine' and 'dystopian future' concepts about a million times better than The Matrix. Nevertheless, I loved The Matrix and responded to its lamer sequels a lot better than most people. Lots of action, cutting edge effects, Hugo Weaving chewing up the scenery, Monica Bellucci, "I know Kung Fu", and of course, "Whoa."
... unless the LHC wipes us out first ;)
The whole point of his response is that it follows valid legal convention. If his company is infringing, it's not extortion for the patent holder to demand compensation. Class-action has nothing to do with this either (yet). He's received a claim, his job is to respond to the claim. He did that in spades.
I think my subject spells it out. The term "IT" is often used as an umbrella term to describe any kind of job related to computer technology. On the other hand, sometimes it specifically means Network Management, or computer-related jobs that are not the core function of the company (for example setting up their public web presence). I work for a software company. I am in Development, not IT. There is an IT group that manages network infrastructure. There is a separate group that manages the company's public facade on the Internet. I have nothing to do with either.
All that said, I'd still also say that the quality of either job, IT or CS, depends on the company. I believe the IT and Web people where I work are much happier than typical IT and Web people elsewhere.
I can so say what you find unusual about your sig, as this post (don't count my sig that follows) has that oddity too. Huzzah! I admit it's off topic, so mod accordingly. Sigh.
SHH!!!! If people start believing in peak data, the price of data will skyrocket!
What a great cheesy movie! I still remember watching this one on a Boston UHF station years ago (ch 56 if anyone cares). At every commercial they'd say "We now return to Robinson Crusoe on Mars starring Adam West". Hilarious considering that West's character dies about 5 min into the movie, but it's the only name anybody would recognize.
Sorry. I mean man, it was just lying there...
Exactly. Tomorrow's embedded developers are right here. I'm not dead yet, and I still know how to do that kind of work. If you pay me enough I might consider moving back to embedded-land from GUI-world. Believe me I won't be cheap. Now get off my damn lawn.
My guess is they don't. It's probably pretty nasty up there.
Kudos to you for playing along. BTW, is her name Lola by any chance?
Please take your politically correct pronouncements elsewhere. I am a liberal, but also a science-minded person. I feel ashamed for all liberals when science is denounced when it might suggest that humans are not all equal in the ways liberals would like them to be. Sorry, but real science doesn't care how the world should be, it only cares how it is.
Why is it not controversial to investigate whether certain races are more prone to certain illnesses, but it is controversial to offer a drug that seems to have more health benefits to one race than another?
Well I'll answer my own question. Some of the concern is based on justified anger over past atrocities committed by people who called themselves 'scientists' (e.g. infecting blacks with Syphilis). But when that anger translates to 'In 2008 I won't accept a drug that is targeted for my race because it might be a plot to harm us', I think we're talking tinfoil hat time.
Why is it not controversial to suggest that one gender has more physical strength than another, but it is heresy to even wonder whether one gender might have more intelligence/compassion/aggression/addiction than the other?
My suspicion is that people get more sensitive when we're talking about the mind vs. the body, because then the subject is the core of who we are. Fine, we're all sensitive about that. But what justifies a knee-jerk reaction that this is just 'junk science'? As a scientist would say, prove it!
By the way, personal anecdotal evidence suggests that this study is on to something. I know that my son and I are certainly prone to being hooked on territorial/aggressive games, while my daughter and wife don't show such tendency. And this pattern extends to other people I know. This is not proof, just commentary.
Exactly (your last statement). In the US, if you're a full-time employee not covered by a union, you probably aren't working under a contract but an employment agreement. Either you or the employer can walk away at any time. You can ask for more money, they can drop your pay, etc. Then you both get to decide whether you want to continue the relationship. Now, if they don't pay you what they already agreed for work already completed, that's a different story. Then legal issues enter into the picture.
I was going to mod you insightful even though I don't agree with you (really - and I'm not Karma whoring so nobody mod this up please!) However, I'd rather discuss the idea further. Here's the rub: what if I suggest that our system has already been perverted by those in power to the point that the political involvement you're looking for is already impossible? Perhaps we have lost the ability to 'own our own government'. Too many of our people are too poorly educated to be informed and motivated voters. Enough of the populace is hypnotized by the 'sound bite' and so easily partitioned into 'far right' and 'far left' that nothing will change. The people who already 'have theirs' see no incentive to changing this. None of this requires conspiracy theories. It just requires an entrenched power base, a replacement of 'enlightened self-interest' with just 'self-interest', and perhaps also dash of psychopathic/sociopathic behavior. And considering a book I recently read suggests that 4% of Americans are sociopaths, I really fear that the rest of us may just be lambs to the slaughter without even noticing.
Right, because under no circumstances would I ever, ever want to be knockin' boots with any of these girls. Really. I mean it. Don't even suggest it.
But Don't Cross The STREAMS! That would be 'bad'
Do you hate everybody equally or just reserve your scorn for people younger than you? In the context of this discussion, the GP's comment is not your typical 'think of the children' tripe. The resources we preserve for future generations -are- important, even if they don't benefit your genetic descendants directly.
Or, to put it more dramatically, do you believe that ensuring your own 'good' life justifies behaving in a manner that ensures your generation is the last to survive on planet Earth? Yes that's hyperbole, but the point is: each generation has a responsibility to be stewards of the planet for the next. If we continue to fall down on the job as badly as we have in some areas, someday that statement won't be hyperbole.
If you really don't think you owe the next generation anything, I hope they prove more compassionate when you're old and feeble and need some young doctors and nurses to care for you.
Now get off my lawn.
I think this theory misses the point in a similar way that many discussions of 'we're just a simulation' do: The external reality could by anything. Why, for instance, should one assume that the creators of the simulation are Humans living on Planet Earth in the Milky Way Galaxy (etc.). Perhaps there are no humans, no Earth, no galaxy. Perhaps there isn't even such a thing as 'matter'. Maybe matter is an interesting concept invented by some incomprehensible energy creature and our universe is 'his' way of testing the behavior of such a strange thing.