If you think your elected officials will raise a finger to defend your rights, then I have to wonder what rock you've been living under for the past few decades.
I like pretty pictures. But you may want to read the text. FTFA:
Note concerning Time Series Chart (below left): Caution should be used in interpreting any trends based on this graphic for a variety of reasons. For example, inflation has affected our ability to compare costs over time. The graphic now shows events that were reported to have less than a billion dollars in damage prior, but after adjusting for Consumer Price Index increases, they now exceed a billion in damages. There are nineteen new events as indicated by the shaded extensions of the bars. Continued assessment of these data are in process, as there are other factors as well that affect any rate of change interpretation. NCDC intends to include academic, federal, and private sector experts in such an assessment this year. Comparison of events for years closest to 2011 are most reliable.
You had a sign? Luxury! We had a message scrawled in the dirt! If it rained, you didn't know what to do until the guy with the stick came by and re-wrote the message!
I don't understand why "can police stop an autonomous car" is even a fucking question. Seriously.
The question isn't so much, "Can police stop an autonomous car"--like, are they allowed to. The question is more of "Should there be a built-in way for police to stop an autonomous car?" (eg, police officer needs to stop autonomous car so he pulls up behind it and presses a button and the car immediately pulls over and stops)
The argument, of course, is that such a system could be hacked. Running late for work? Buy the Car-Buster 3000. As you approach a car, it will get out of your way! Great for road trips!
Personally, I'd say, "No. There shouldn't be a magic button in a police car that pulls you over. It should recognize lights and sirens--just like real drivers do--and pull over."
Depends. If you're arguing this proves that Apple is somehow "The Best", I would disagree.
Keep in mind that money and market share don't necessarily equate to being the best. Microsoft is the obvious example, but I prefer McDonalds. McDonalds makes more money than other burger chains--does this mean they make the best hamburgers? I believe that GM is the #1 automobile dealer here in the US--does this mean that GM's cars are the best cars on the road?
Apple makes good products, don't get me wrong. I'm a satisfied iPhone and Mac owner and I've been a Mac developer for nigh-on 20 years. Where Apple has excelled in recent years is in marketing. Whether we're talking about Apple Bunnysuit Ads or the Super computer ads to the "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" ads, Apple's advertising is top-notch and they're able to convince people that anything that's new is something Apple has invented.
A fun example of this is the "Rip, Mix, Burn" ad. While you'd been able to burn a music CD for quite some time (on a Mac or a PC), Apple was the first to really push this capability in a way that caught the public's eye (using real performers rather than some announcer who just mentions it in the middle of Dell ad).
One of Apple's biggest problems at the time was that they were going out of business. It was all over the news, in case you missed it. Apple was going out of business. Everybody knew Apple was going out of business.
Now, would you buy a product from a company that everybody knew was going out of business? Would you consider selling parts or components to a company that everybody knew was going out of business? If you would do so, would you offer them decent credit terms? Of course not--they're going out of business! Everybody knew that Apple was going out of business! You'd be crazy to offer them any kind of credit because they'd go out of business and you'd be left trying to collect pennies on the dollar in bankruptcy court.
It's tough to build iMacs when you have to pay cash up front for parts.
Microsoft's cash investment was $150 million in common stock--remember that, at the time, Apple had something like 4 billion dollars in the bank. So the dollar amount wasn't that much. It was more the press of Apple being aligned with Microsoft to basically shut up all the "Apple is going out of business" people. Once everybody decided that Microsoft wouldn't let Apple go out of business because then Microsoft would be a monopoly (of course,, Microsoft tried to play the Apple card during their monopoly trial and the judge decided that Apple was not a competitor of Microsoft), Apple was able to get better terms.
I will agree that Microsoft "rescued" Apple. But the rescue was more in the terms of reputation than in cash.
If we are talking about scientific research, they provide a very poor return on investment compared to probes, we can launch thousands of probes for what it costs to launch a few people into space.
Robotic missions are definitely cheaper--I'm not sure anyone would argue that. The question is whether or not manned missions provide a better "return on investment"? If your return is "knowledge," I'm not convinced that's the case.
If you spend too much time on the Moon, or in space for that matter, you could easily find yourself in a position where you're no longer able to stand the gravity of the Earth.
We understand zero/microgravity's effects on human beings pretty well. That said, the longest we've ever had a human on the Moon is 3 days--not really long enough to study anything. One of the things I wish we'd have been able to study on the ISS is the effect of various levels of gravity and their effect on humans. Unfortunately, that capability was cut.
Zero-G/Microgravity is not all that great for human beings. As I understand it, besides muscle issues (ie, not using them), there's also bone-loss. I believe these are dealt with on ISS via a combination of exercise and drugs. The problem is, we don't know how much gravity is necessary. Would 0.5G be enough? 0.25G? 0.16G (ie, lunar gravity)? Do we need gravity the whole time? Could we, for example, put beds in a 1G centrifuge so people get eight hours of 1G while they sleep but spend the rest of their time in Zero-G with no ill effects?
Actually, one thing a friend of mine likes are the real keyboards. She had an iPhone but she sent it back after about 3 months--she could type much faster on her Blackberry.
Actually, if you tell the executive branch, "Hey, a whole bunch of R-bags are being bought and paid for," you might see some investigation from a bunch of D-bags.
Of course, this could turn into a MAD type of scenario...
Jim: I've had it with my present employer and I think I'll switch jobs. Hmm...Microsoft has an opening, but I wouldn't be able to marry my sweetheart. Hey, what about this company in New York? They're doing cool stuff and I could marry my sweetheart! Win win!
Growing a thicker skin doesn't protect you from being burned alive in your synagogue.
The problem I have with this is that speech does not equal action. If I create a network with the title "Eat the Rich," I'm expressing an opinion. If a rich person is killed and eaten, should I be a suspect? Most definitely.
But until that occurs, I've done nothing wrong.
This always feels like a "pre-crime" type of thing--"Oh, if you express this opinion, you will someday be guilty of carrying it out, so we'll stop you now."
All these people speaking different languages. I mean, like, the French have a different word for everything! It means I have to have hire somebody who speaks some stupid language if I want to sell my software to them. Why can't we just have one language--English, obviously, since that's what I know? It would make my life a whole lot easier and I wouldn't have to spend money translating my software and adjusting dialog boxes for those damn foreigners!
And don't even get me started on Unicode!
In case you're missing it, the above is sarcasm. But it leads into an interesting point. How many times have you heard someone complain about having to deal with someone on the other end of a support line for whom English is not their native language? About having to dive through some weird accent in order to understand what they're saying? It makes customers not want to call their support line, right?
Similar thing here. I want an application that speaks the language that the OS developers have defined and that I have learned by using countless other apps. While, ultimately, it's about what your app does, if I have to choose between an app that has a native interface and one that does not, I will choose the native interface. Just like if I have choice between speaking to Ken in Minnesota or Pruthvij in Delhi, I'd probably choose Ken (at least until I discover that Ken doesn't know his ass from his elbow).
Want a write-once run anywhere app? Make it a web app. I use plenty of those on my iPhone.
Let's say Lightspeed goes through. You now have another competitor for 4G LTE service (which is a good thing, right?) in places where there isn't great service (I assume part of the reason for the Government to consider this is "rural broadband.") potentially benefitting millions of people.
And the cost is that some guys who own their own airplanes might have to buy new GPS receivers?
I'm not sure New Mexico can get any wider--it's borders are set along latitude and longitude lines. So it's more likely that Albuquerque will eventually end up in Arizona and Santa Fe will end up in Texas.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. That said, it is worthwhile to question so-called experts to find out how they came to their conclusions, rather than saying, "Gosh, he's smarter than me--he's get letters after his name and everything!" At the very least, you learn something.
Of course, if he had RTFA, he might have a clue about how these people determined that these rocks came from Mars:
Scientists can tell when meteorites are from Mars because they know what the Martian atmosphere is made of, thanks to numerous probes sent there. The chemical signature of the rocks and the Martian air match, Irving said. Another clue is that because planets like Mars are more geologically active, its rocks tend to be much younger - millions of years old instead of hundreds of millions or more - than those from the moon or asteroids.
So, no, it's not like they said, "A rock fell from the sky! It must have been from Mars!"
I am surprised no camera company sued all the cell phone companies for including a camera in their products. Or did they? I haven't looked, admittedly.
Well, California (the country) would be able to correct it's apostrophe abuse problems by just mandating that it's use of apostrophes is correct. It's that damn Federal Government and their Department of Grammar Nazis (part of the Department of Education) that make it difficult for California to do this.
Imagine morale at my factory is poor. Well, I'm going to start beating my employees--and I'll continue to beat my employees until their morale improves. That would probably cause me to lose my business with Apple. So I really have nothing to lose by trying to bribe the auditor, do I?
The beauty of this is that when this all comes out, Apple can say, "Well, Gosh! We didn't know this was happening! We'll do something about this right away!" and will proceed to cancel both of those contracts. Those companies will go bankrupt, disappear, and reappear with new names which Apple will then hire.
Here's my question: Why can't Apple actually get their own employees to go over and check on conditions? It's not like Steve's using the corporate jet anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
FTFY.
For reference: upcoming abortion video to play during Super Bowl.
Depends on your definition of a political ad, perhaps.
NBC rejected an anti-abortion ad during the 2009 Superbowl. However, the next year, CBS aired an anti-abortion ad..
I believe it's up to the networks to accept or reject any advertising--political or non.
I like pretty pictures. But you may want to read the text. FTFA:
You had a sign? Luxury! We had a message scrawled in the dirt! If it rained, you didn't know what to do until the guy with the stick came by and re-wrote the message!
And you try and tell the young people of today that. They won't believe you.
I don't understand why "can police stop an autonomous car" is even a fucking question. Seriously.
The question isn't so much, "Can police stop an autonomous car"--like, are they allowed to. The question is more of "Should there be a built-in way for police to stop an autonomous car?" (eg, police officer needs to stop autonomous car so he pulls up behind it and presses a button and the car immediately pulls over and stops)
The argument, of course, is that such a system could be hacked. Running late for work? Buy the Car-Buster 3000. As you approach a car, it will get out of your way! Great for road trips!
Personally, I'd say, "No. There shouldn't be a magic button in a police car that pulls you over. It should recognize lights and sirens--just like real drivers do--and pull over."
The Space Hun is coming!
Depends. If you're arguing this proves that Apple is somehow "The Best", I would disagree.
Keep in mind that money and market share don't necessarily equate to being the best. Microsoft is the obvious example, but I prefer McDonalds. McDonalds makes more money than other burger chains--does this mean they make the best hamburgers? I believe that GM is the #1 automobile dealer here in the US--does this mean that GM's cars are the best cars on the road?
Apple makes good products, don't get me wrong. I'm a satisfied iPhone and Mac owner and I've been a Mac developer for nigh-on 20 years. Where Apple has excelled in recent years is in marketing. Whether we're talking about Apple Bunnysuit Ads or the Super computer ads to the "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" ads, Apple's advertising is top-notch and they're able to convince people that anything that's new is something Apple has invented.
A fun example of this is the "Rip, Mix, Burn" ad. While you'd been able to burn a music CD for quite some time (on a Mac or a PC), Apple was the first to really push this capability in a way that caught the public's eye (using real performers rather than some announcer who just mentions it in the middle of Dell ad).
[...] and had to be rescued by Microsoft.
I'm not sure that's entirely true.
One of Apple's biggest problems at the time was that they were going out of business. It was all over the news, in case you missed it. Apple was going out of business. Everybody knew Apple was going out of business.
Now, would you buy a product from a company that everybody knew was going out of business? Would you consider selling parts or components to a company that everybody knew was going out of business? If you would do so, would you offer them decent credit terms? Of course not--they're going out of business! Everybody knew that Apple was going out of business! You'd be crazy to offer them any kind of credit because they'd go out of business and you'd be left trying to collect pennies on the dollar in bankruptcy court.
It's tough to build iMacs when you have to pay cash up front for parts.
Microsoft's cash investment was $150 million in common stock--remember that, at the time, Apple had something like 4 billion dollars in the bank. So the dollar amount wasn't that much. It was more the press of Apple being aligned with Microsoft to basically shut up all the "Apple is going out of business" people. Once everybody decided that Microsoft wouldn't let Apple go out of business because then Microsoft would be a monopoly (of course,, Microsoft tried to play the Apple card during their monopoly trial and the judge decided that Apple was not a competitor of Microsoft), Apple was able to get better terms.
I will agree that Microsoft "rescued" Apple. But the rescue was more in the terms of reputation than in cash.
If we are talking about scientific research, they provide a very poor return on investment compared to probes, we can launch thousands of probes for what it costs to launch a few people into space.
The cost of the Apollo program was $25.4 billion. Astronauts went to the moon to do research, plant flags, drop feathers, and hit golf balls. We had 11 manned missions (Apollo 7-17), 6 of which landed people on the Moon. We returned with 381 kg of moon rocks and dust for further research. That comes to a little under $67 million per kilogram.
The estimated cost of the Soviet Union's Luna program was $4.5 billion. There were 42-or-so Luna probes of which 21 achieved their mission objectives. These returned 0.326 kg of moon dust. That's a little under $14 billion per kilogram.
Robotic missions are definitely cheaper--I'm not sure anyone would argue that. The question is whether or not manned missions provide a better "return on investment"? If your return is "knowledge," I'm not convinced that's the case.
If you spend too much time on the Moon, or in space for that matter, you could easily find yourself in a position where you're no longer able to stand the gravity of the Earth.
We understand zero/microgravity's effects on human beings pretty well. That said, the longest we've ever had a human on the Moon is 3 days--not really long enough to study anything. One of the things I wish we'd have been able to study on the ISS is the effect of various levels of gravity and their effect on humans. Unfortunately, that capability was cut.
Zero-G/Microgravity is not all that great for human beings. As I understand it, besides muscle issues (ie, not using them), there's also bone-loss. I believe these are dealt with on ISS via a combination of exercise and drugs. The problem is, we don't know how much gravity is necessary. Would 0.5G be enough? 0.25G? 0.16G (ie, lunar gravity)? Do we need gravity the whole time? Could we, for example, put beds in a 1G centrifuge so people get eight hours of 1G while they sleep but spend the rest of their time in Zero-G with no ill effects?
These are things that need to get figured out.
Actually, one thing a friend of mine likes are the real keyboards. She had an iPhone but she sent it back after about 3 months--she could type much faster on her Blackberry.
Actually, if you tell the executive branch, "Hey, a whole bunch of R-bags are being bought and paid for," you might see some investigation from a bunch of D-bags.
Of course, this could turn into a MAD type of scenario...
Except that Microsoft has a long tradition of supporting gays and lesbians going back to 1989.
Otherwise, I might be suspect as well.
Actually, the scenario is more like:
Jim: I've had it with my present employer and I think I'll switch jobs. Hmm...Microsoft has an opening, but I wouldn't be able to marry my sweetheart. Hey, what about this company in New York? They're doing cool stuff and I could marry my sweetheart! Win win!
And Microsoft doesn't even get a resumé.
Growing a thicker skin doesn't protect you from being burned alive in your synagogue.
The problem I have with this is that speech does not equal action. If I create a network with the title "Eat the Rich," I'm expressing an opinion. If a rich person is killed and eaten, should I be a suspect? Most definitely.
But until that occurs, I've done nothing wrong.
This always feels like a "pre-crime" type of thing--"Oh, if you express this opinion, you will someday be guilty of carrying it out, so we'll stop you now."
All these people speaking different languages. I mean, like, the French have a different word for everything! It means I have to have hire somebody who speaks some stupid language if I want to sell my software to them. Why can't we just have one language--English, obviously, since that's what I know? It would make my life a whole lot easier and I wouldn't have to spend money translating my software and adjusting dialog boxes for those damn foreigners!
And don't even get me started on Unicode!
In case you're missing it, the above is sarcasm. But it leads into an interesting point. How many times have you heard someone complain about having to deal with someone on the other end of a support line for whom English is not their native language? About having to dive through some weird accent in order to understand what they're saying? It makes customers not want to call their support line, right?
Similar thing here. I want an application that speaks the language that the OS developers have defined and that I have learned by using countless other apps. While, ultimately, it's about what your app does, if I have to choose between an app that has a native interface and one that does not, I will choose the native interface. Just like if I have choice between speaking to Ken in Minnesota or Pruthvij in Delhi, I'd probably choose Ken (at least until I discover that Ken doesn't know his ass from his elbow).
Want a write-once run anywhere app? Make it a web app. I use plenty of those on my iPhone.
The interesting issue here is the trade-off.
Let's say Lightspeed goes through. You now have another competitor for 4G LTE service (which is a good thing, right?) in places where there isn't great service (I assume part of the reason for the Government to consider this is "rural broadband.") potentially benefitting millions of people.
And the cost is that some guys who own their own airplanes might have to buy new GPS receivers?
Perhaps I'm taking this too literally...
I'm not sure New Mexico can get any wider--it's borders are set along latitude and longitude lines. So it's more likely that Albuquerque will eventually end up in Arizona and Santa Fe will end up in Texas.
Yeah, but it's not that bad--1 inch every 40 years. Personally, I added about an inch in the past year.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. That said, it is worthwhile to question so-called experts to find out how they came to their conclusions, rather than saying, "Gosh, he's smarter than me--he's get letters after his name and everything!" At the very least, you learn something.
Of course, if he had RTFA, he might have a clue about how these people determined that these rocks came from Mars:
So, no, it's not like they said, "A rock fell from the sky! It must have been from Mars!"
I am surprised no camera company sued all the cell phone companies for including a camera in their products. Or did they? I haven't looked, admittedly.
One did.
Or you could learn some HTML so you could write “La Niña.” It's pretty easy to look this stuff up...
Well, one of his predictions is that the human lifespan will be increased so that it will be common for people to live more than 100 years.
So they've got that going for them.
Well, California (the country) would be able to correct it's apostrophe abuse problems by just mandating that it's use of apostrophes is correct. It's that damn Federal Government and their Department of Grammar Nazis (part of the Department of Education) that make it difficult for California to do this.
And you are a naif.
Imagine morale at my factory is poor. Well, I'm going to start beating my employees--and I'll continue to beat my employees until their morale improves. That would probably cause me to lose my business with Apple. So I really have nothing to lose by trying to bribe the auditor, do I?
The beauty of this is that when this all comes out, Apple can say, "Well, Gosh! We didn't know this was happening! We'll do something about this right away!" and will proceed to cancel both of those contracts. Those companies will go bankrupt, disappear, and reappear with new names which Apple will then hire.
Here's my question: Why can't Apple actually get their own employees to go over and check on conditions? It's not like Steve's using the corporate jet anymore.