Technically, the stem cells that came from human embryo were going to be tossed out in the first place. If you really have a problem with discarding human embryos you should really take up your fight against In vitro fertilization.
That kinda reminds me of gametrailers.com and rottentomatoes.com. They let you see movie trailers, which are essentially ads, but most of the time through another ad to see the trailer. While targeted ads are lessing boring than un-targeted ones, I'd hate for marketers to use this as justification for showing more ads.
You should talk to the guys over at The Pirate Bay. Not only would it be deliciously ironic, turning them into real sea-faring pirates, but the *IAA would go crazy trying to issue them region-relevant subpoenas wherever they go.
I actually dread PC games coming on Blue-Rays. On DVDs it's a tolerable convenience but once games get beyond a certain size it's a nightmare to install. The options are:
1. Hey! Let me install this 50GB game on your HD, just give me a couple hours.
2. Let me install only a couple of GB and require load times for reading off the Blue-Ray disk.
To a certain extend, I would like some reasonable constraints placed on how much bloat goes into a game.
I was talking purely in terms of things. Say, a house costs 50k in one location versus 500k in another. Yes there are an emotional standards of living associated to particular locals, which is what makes it difficult for a company to try re-locating its employee base in practice. My personal hope is that this becomes a non-issue in that the cost of manufacturing goods does not change place to place. But that's merely a naive hope.
I have a few tech friends from India and it's funny because one of them said that on a yearly salary in the US, they could retire comfortably back home. Fact is, a dollar goes really far in other countries and companies could probably provide an even better standard of living for their employees if they were located in other countries. Now, I'm not saying that this is the ideal situation. Just that the reality for some companies is that they cannot or will have trouble surviving/remaining competitive when another company, based in a cheaper location, can undercut them by a significant amount. It's not simply a matter of CEOs fattening their profit margins but that eventually, efficiency will take over. What I believe will happen, is that an economic homeostasis will occur (over several decades) whether we like it or not.
I believe patent examiners can use google or some other search engine but they have to be somewhat obtuse when performing their searches. Otherwise, if you could somehow get a hold of their query history, you have a list of ideas or IP that may not be patented yet. This probably hinders the patent examiners ability to find prior art or ensure that the application isn't stupid.
It really depends. Correct product placement in some games does make the virtual world more immersive. You should hop down to gametrailers and take a look at the new Yakuza game, where when you walk into a supermarket, there are high-rez versions of a number of products (but all within context). The same could be done within Dead Rising without upsetting the gamer. Now I agree, I don't want totally out-of-place adds in my games, but in some contexts, it actually works pretty well. If a game does have to include adds to bolster it's revenue stream and can't gracefully include it in the game world, they should just add it as a footnote in the loading screen. There's little harm in that, as you're already waiting.
Well think of the savings. A US fraud amounts to 50 billion, whereas an Indian fraud amounts to only 1 billion. Why, with the extra money, we could get shafted 50 times over.
Hah, I like the Robot Chicken mockery of BSG. The writers basically post up pictures of the entire cast and throw darts at them. Whomever the darts land on is a Cylon.
I don't get how this will 'help' the economy or the ailing auto industry either. The government is willing to foot (tax payer) money to sell an old car (for probably more than it's worth) to by a new car (that isn't guaranteed to be American). There are sooo many things fundamentally wrong with this that it just stuns me. First off, most eco-friendly cars cost 20k+ out the door and cars >20k would probably result in a relatively minuscule drop in CO2 emissions. Also if the government is willing to foot vouchers whose value is more than the car in question, wouldn't that just exacerbate the economic problem by introducing unnecessary spending of tax dollars? Third, if the cars are no American (as most low-cost eco friendly cars are) then how is that helping the economy? Maybe someone smarter than me can explain how this is a 'good' idea?
Meh, depends on how busy they are. Some people you really have to hound until they get it done. Sometimes to an extent that reading the damn security protocol is less of a hassle then picking up your messages. : )
What about just implementing a general pop-up blocker? If something actually does pop-up, and you don't get the request that it's from such-and-such a site, you know something fishy is going on. Anyways, I think there are two problems that exist here. The primary one is user education. More aware users may be harder to con unless by a very direct fishing attack. The second would be to standardize how sites can transmit secure information. I don't mean just encryption, but perhaps have a standardized protocol that all sites must go through to get your information. I.e. no popups, visit their site, validate their url location. Some of this probable wouldn't work, but it might be useful to consider.
Well the first line in the Geneva Convention states that it applies to a war between two or more states. Could al-Qaeda or Taliban members even be considered part of a state. I was under the impression that these groups were more a collection of people, maybe even a business, rather than some political or territorial unit acting as a government. That's actually what makes it difficult to either eliminate these groups or negotiate with them: they're dispersed and not beholden to any internationally recognized code of ethics/morals/rules. As such, the Geneva Convention doesn't quite fit.
I think a true metric of a school should not be it's failure rate as weeder
classes but rather the quality of students it turns out who are ready for
the real world. Maybe the problem is, we think of the failure rate as some
metric for hammering out the flawed students when really it's an indicator
of how (in)effective a teaching style is at helping students learn.
For instance, I could go off and tell 100 people they are stupid and need to
RTFM and, given that method, only a few of them will actually learn the material.
In the long-term, students may realize that classes a high student count and
attrition rate may not provide the most utility for them in terms of learning.
Maybe those who can survive the lecture hall are perfectly capable of learning
on their own and those who can't need a little more one-on-one help. After all,
isn't one of the reasons people go to school: to be taught by someone learned
in the material? If all I'd get out of a class is the equivilant of books-on-tape and
working alone, I'd go RTFM, take some certification tests and save a couple
thousand on tuition.
And they should read:
Warning: Playing this game may turn you into a fat, socially introverted nerd. Side-effects may include cheeto-fingers, Mt Dew-insomnia, and acne from lack of bathing. Pro-longed exposure may result in heart disease or starvation from being too lazy to make a sandwich.
I've seen a few WoW players with the early warning signs and let me tell you, it's not pretty. You're much better off binging on cigarettes and alchohol; at least then you'll be cool.
If this can save so much money why isn't the health care industry already doing it? Are they really that stupid or are all the promises of big savings not likely to pan out?
EHRs (Electronic Health Records) are not simply cheap pieces of interoperable software. The problem is that EHRs require, or should have, some level of IT maintenance to ensure up-time and keep up with current disease/research trends. This in turn costs money which money smaller to mid-size clinics cannot simply pony-up. This is also why you'll see EHRs in larger institutions ala AMCs (Academic Medical Systems) instead.
And it's not simply that hospitals and clinics need an IT infrastructure but that the software in question also be compatible with the hospital's workflow. For instance, if you're in ambulatory or intensive care, you may not have the luxury of logging in to a computer to check-out drug X to save the patient's life. The software should also go through a battery of tests to ensure: * the hospital still functions when it goes down, * it's secure, * there are fallback plans for when security fails, and *it adheres to HIPAA. Once the software is implemented, you then have to go through and train all your staff to use it, including professional staff who's time is expensive.
To put it succinctly, implementing an EHR requires time and (lots) money to implement and it is usually only after several years that the savings pay for themselves and several more until they realize a profit. In today's economy, it would create jobs but it's even harder to realize as there's little money to pass around.
While the user interface enhancements sound nice, they no longer seem like a reason to get it over say XP, OSX, or Linux. I think, what would do it for me is if they had some support to manage my software and files (ie version control for documents and a software repos) that was native to the system. And maybe a decent shell. These are the particular features of why I prefer linux over windows. It seems like nowadays, their primary focus has been to show that they can be just as glitzy as OSX instead of adding features that make it better to use for day-to-day work.
That's why volvo plans to invent the sedan bumper car. For the man-on-the-go, who can't be bothered with pesky collisions or insurance claims: just bump and run. Also, for those soccer-moms out there, enjoy the new bumper minivan, where you can share the fun with the whole family.
In all seriousness I don't see this idea working very well, and it may even cause problems. Consider the scenario where you're driving 60kmh down a freeway one-foot away from another car driving 60kmh parallel. If neighboring car decides it's his turnoff then either the collision will happen too fast for the computer to react or reacting may cause more damage with the vehicles behind you. At that point you'd probably want a car built like a squishy-tank (to absorb impact) and endure lesser damage instead of something far worse. In addition to that, I find current day proximity censors cars a bit too insufficient for my tastes. I drove a van with a rear sensor + video. The alarm goes nuts when it thinks you're about to hit the curb 3ft-4ft away and it has little chance of vehicles (when backing out of a parking spot) that approach from a blind spot. I.e. it has a problem with sensitivity and specificity that can at least be overridden by a human. Imagine a car freaking out over something rather benign, not handing over control. I for one am wary of these good intentions.
Slashdot Mirror
Technically, the stem cells that came from human embryo were going to be tossed out in the first place. If you really have a problem with discarding human embryos you should really take up your fight against In vitro fertilization.
That kinda reminds me of gametrailers.com and rottentomatoes.com. They let you see movie trailers, which are essentially ads, but most of the time through another ad to see the trailer. While targeted ads are lessing boring than un-targeted ones, I'd hate for marketers to use this as justification for showing more ads.
You should talk to the guys over at The Pirate Bay. Not only would it be deliciously ironic, turning them into real sea-faring pirates, but the *IAA would go crazy trying to issue them region-relevant subpoenas wherever they go.
I actually dread PC games coming on Blue-Rays. On DVDs it's a tolerable convenience but once games get beyond a certain size it's a nightmare to install. The options are:
1. Hey! Let me install this 50GB game on your HD, just give me a couple hours.
2. Let me install only a couple of GB and require load times for reading off the Blue-Ray disk.
To a certain extend, I would like some reasonable constraints placed on how much bloat goes into a game.
I was talking purely in terms of things. Say, a house costs 50k in one location versus 500k in another. Yes there are an emotional standards of living associated to particular locals, which is what makes it difficult for a company to try re-locating its employee base in practice. My personal hope is that this becomes a non-issue in that the cost of manufacturing goods does not change place to place. But that's merely a naive hope.
I have a few tech friends from India and it's funny because one of them said that on a yearly salary in the US, they could retire comfortably back home. Fact is, a dollar goes really far in other countries and companies could probably provide an even better standard of living for their employees if they were located in other countries. Now, I'm not saying that this is the ideal situation. Just that the reality for some companies is that they cannot or will have trouble surviving/remaining competitive when another company, based in a cheaper location, can undercut them by a significant amount. It's not simply a matter of CEOs fattening their profit margins but that eventually, efficiency will take over. What I believe will happen, is that an economic homeostasis will occur (over several decades) whether we like it or not.
Ah, pay me no heed as I'm just ranting.
I don't think you need the 9. ?? part as you make it quite clear where the profit comes from. : /
I believe patent examiners can use google or some other search engine but they have to be somewhat obtuse when performing their searches. Otherwise, if you could somehow get a hold of their query history, you have a list of ideas or IP that may not be patented yet. This probably hinders the patent examiners ability to find prior art or ensure that the application isn't stupid.
Gah, your post was traveling at relativistic speeds across the internets. Unfortunately, I have observed it and you are no longer first.
It really depends. Correct product placement in some games does make the virtual world more immersive. You should hop down to gametrailers and take a look at the new Yakuza game, where when you walk into a supermarket, there are high-rez versions of a number of products (but all within context). The same could be done within Dead Rising without upsetting the gamer. Now I agree, I don't want totally out-of-place adds in my games, but in some contexts, it actually works pretty well. If a game does have to include adds to bolster it's revenue stream and can't gracefully include it in the game world, they should just add it as a footnote in the loading screen. There's little harm in that, as you're already waiting.
Well think of the savings. A US fraud amounts to 50 billion, whereas an Indian fraud amounts to only 1 billion. Why, with the extra money, we could get shafted 50 times over.
Hah, I like the Robot Chicken mockery of BSG. The writers basically post up pictures of the entire cast and throw darts at them. Whomever the darts land on is a Cylon.
I don't get how this will 'help' the economy or the ailing auto industry either. The government is willing to foot (tax payer) money to sell an old car (for probably more than it's worth) to by a new car (that isn't guaranteed to be American). There are sooo many things fundamentally wrong with this that it just stuns me. First off, most eco-friendly cars cost 20k+ out the door and cars >20k would probably result in a relatively minuscule drop in CO2 emissions. Also if the government is willing to foot vouchers whose value is more than the car in question, wouldn't that just exacerbate the economic problem by introducing unnecessary spending of tax dollars? Third, if the cars are no American (as most low-cost eco friendly cars are) then how is that helping the economy? Maybe someone smarter than me can explain how this is a 'good' idea?
Meh, depends on how busy they are. Some people you really have to hound until they get it done. Sometimes to an extent that reading the damn security protocol is less of a hassle then picking up your messages. : )
You're right. In fact, Keanu should be Vicious and Hugo Weaving should play Spike.
There is no script.
What about just implementing a general pop-up blocker? If something actually does pop-up, and you don't get the request that it's from such-and-such a site, you know something fishy is going on. Anyways, I think there are two problems that exist here. The primary one is user education. More aware users may be harder to con unless by a very direct fishing attack. The second would be to standardize how sites can transmit secure information. I don't mean just encryption, but perhaps have a standardized protocol that all sites must go through to get your information. I.e. no popups, visit their site, validate their url location. Some of this probable wouldn't work, but it might be useful to consider.
Well the first line in the Geneva Convention states that it applies to a war between two or more states. Could al-Qaeda or Taliban members even be considered part of a state. I was under the impression that these groups were more a collection of people, maybe even a business, rather than some political or territorial unit acting as a government. That's actually what makes it difficult to either eliminate these groups or negotiate with them: they're dispersed and not beholden to any internationally recognized code of ethics/morals/rules. As such, the Geneva Convention doesn't quite fit.
I think a true metric of a school should not be it's failure rate as weeder classes but rather the quality of students it turns out who are ready for the real world. Maybe the problem is, we think of the failure rate as some metric for hammering out the flawed students when really it's an indicator of how (in)effective a teaching style is at helping students learn. For instance, I could go off and tell 100 people they are stupid and need to RTFM and, given that method, only a few of them will actually learn the material.
In the long-term, students may realize that classes a high student count and attrition rate may not provide the most utility for them in terms of learning. Maybe those who can survive the lecture hall are perfectly capable of learning on their own and those who can't need a little more one-on-one help. After all, isn't one of the reasons people go to school: to be taught by someone learned in the material? If all I'd get out of a class is the equivilant of books-on-tape and working alone, I'd go RTFM, take some certification tests and save a couple thousand on tuition.
And they should read:
Warning: Playing this game may turn you into a fat, socially introverted nerd. Side-effects may include cheeto-fingers, Mt Dew-insomnia, and acne from lack of bathing. Pro-longed exposure may result in heart disease or starvation from being too lazy to make a sandwich.
I've seen a few WoW players with the early warning signs and let me tell you, it's not pretty. You're much better off binging on cigarettes and alchohol; at least then you'll be cool.
If this can save so much money why isn't the health care industry already doing it? Are they really that stupid or are all the promises of big savings not likely to pan out?
EHRs (Electronic Health Records) are not simply cheap pieces of interoperable software. The problem is that EHRs require, or should have, some level of IT maintenance to ensure up-time and keep up with current disease/research trends. This in turn costs money which money smaller to mid-size clinics cannot simply pony-up. This is also why you'll see EHRs in larger institutions ala AMCs (Academic Medical Systems) instead.
And it's not simply that hospitals and clinics need an IT infrastructure but that the software in question also be compatible with the hospital's workflow. For instance, if you're in ambulatory or intensive care, you may not have the luxury of logging in to a computer to check-out drug X to save the patient's life. The software should also go through a battery of tests to ensure: * the hospital still functions when it goes down, * it's secure, * there are fallback plans for when security fails, and *it adheres to HIPAA. Once the software is implemented, you then have to go through and train all your staff to use it, including professional staff who's time is expensive.
To put it succinctly, implementing an EHR requires time and (lots) money to implement and it is usually only after several years that the savings pay for themselves and several more until they realize a profit. In today's economy, it would create jobs but it's even harder to realize as there's little money to pass around.
Nah he probably saw it on slashdot.
While the user interface enhancements sound nice, they no longer seem like a reason to get it over say XP, OSX, or Linux. I think, what would do it for me is if they had some support to manage my software and files (ie version control for documents and a software repos) that was native to the system. And maybe a decent shell. These are the particular features of why I prefer linux over windows. It seems like nowadays, their primary focus has been to show that they can be just as glitzy as OSX instead of adding features that make it better to use for day-to-day work.
Not quite - They proved they have the biggest number of penises... Making for some interesting crossover potential into the Hentai gaming market.
And to fit all those penises on the card, they had to make sure they were very very small.
That's why volvo plans to invent the sedan bumper car. For the man-on-the-go, who can't be bothered with pesky collisions or insurance claims: just bump and run. Also, for those soccer-moms out there, enjoy the new bumper minivan, where you can share the fun with the whole family.
In all seriousness I don't see this idea working very well, and it may even cause problems. Consider the scenario where you're driving 60kmh down a freeway one-foot away from another car driving 60kmh parallel. If neighboring car decides it's his turnoff then either the collision will happen too fast for the computer to react or reacting may cause more damage with the vehicles behind you. At that point you'd probably want a car built like a squishy-tank (to absorb impact) and endure lesser damage instead of something far worse. In addition to that, I find current day proximity censors cars a bit too insufficient for my tastes. I drove a van with a rear sensor + video. The alarm goes nuts when it thinks you're about to hit the curb 3ft-4ft away and it has little chance of vehicles (when backing out of a parking spot) that approach from a blind spot. I.e. it has a problem with sensitivity and specificity that can at least be overridden by a human. Imagine a car freaking out over something rather benign, not handing over control. I for one am wary of these good intentions.