Hey, I've got a great deal on ad space in the great lakes. Only $10,000,000 per lake per year. A real steal! Even better, we'll put your logo in minature for every boat race, fishing event, etc.
All the talk of willpower being the primary lack for people NOT addicted to something of a chemical nature just proves that slashdotters don't have a clue about addiction. Take pornography addiction for example. It has no external drug component to complicate (or blame) the addiction on. So according to many slashdotters, it's just a matter of willpower to stop.
While it's true that avoiding it before the addiction begins will work, often the person doesn't know they are susceptible until after they're suffering from addiction. And once they've started down the addicted path, willpower alone won't do it for most people (more than 95%). And here's why. Because the brain has its own pharmacology and its own behavior conditioning.
Take Ted, he's addicted to porn. He has to look at some twice a day or he gets twitchy. He wants to stop. Now Ted has the following challenges. First, when he looks at porn, his brain creates the exact same chemicals that are produced during normal sex. Tests have shown that a porn addict actually gets the same "high" that a person in intercourse feels. Interestingly, the chemicals the brain releases during sex (and porn) are very nearly as chemically addictive as cocaine (i.e., you don't need to take drugs to have a drug problem!) And second, when Ted feels bad about himself, or feels like he lacks control in his life (two very common triggers for porn addiction), Ted's brain "encourages" him to feel better, and in doing so, reaches for the most powerful tool it has. It wants him to feel better, because feeling bad is pain, and pain avoidance is one of the first things we learn in order to stay alive. So Ted's brain gets the message that Ted is "out of control" and it follows a path from "pain due to being out of control, look at some porn at feel in control and watch the pain go away." And his brain does this behavior control very well.
Most porn addicts (and other purely mental addicts) can't stop, literally, cannot stop by willpower alone. The very parts of their character or makeup that cause them to be susceptible to their addiction are also to blame for their not being able to stop by willpower. So let's not make simplified solutions to complex problems. Yes, willpower is essential. Yes, a desire to change is essential. But no, willpower alone probably won't work. Learning better behaviors, having someone to help support, and then avoiding those situations/emotions that trigger a relapse are all useful and necessary tools to support an addict in their goal of avoiding their addiction.
My only suggestion, and this comes after years of being in the personal injury/medical malpractice/product liability field is that you contact your local AMA and find out which eye surgeons are board certified for the specific procedure you need. Go even further, check on their list of past and current suits, and their equipment. Don't be surprised if even the best board-certified surgeon in your area is being sued or has been sued, it happens to almost all surgeons (money hunters!). But if you look at the number of suits, what the complaint was, how many have been settled, tried and won, etc. you get a good idea which surgeon's to avoid and which ones to use.
5. Basic web service (movie times, make reservations, etc.)
6. Decent battery life (i.e., 18 hours continuous use and then recharge)
Form:
Make it in the form of a standard belt with nearly invisible, and flexible/durable attachments. It has two small wireless headphones that I can use together for stereo or seperate for mono. These might be designed to look studs around the whole belt or something It has another piece which pulls out and unfolds to become a keyboard/keypad or stylus/entrypad and a second one that pulls out and unrolls to become flexible screen... or eyepieces/glasses to show web/calendar, etc.
For the women, take the same approach and make it into a set of jewelery and/or handbag, etc. Start making the technology become part of everyday wear.
Of course, even better would be a device like this that used the belt model for the technology, but used your ear drums for headphones (perfect stereo quality) and your optic nerves for monitors, and then used some kinesthetic virtual modelling to display keyboard/input/display in a window inside your normal vision like a HUD in a military jet. But of course, that's a little far fetched for just 20 years of development, right?
In reply to your comment, I've used Excel since it first came out, and the only time I use it for finances is when I'm preparing a budget (all those nice automated calculations). The rest of the time (80 percent) I use Excel just to organize data into a controllable structure, like a phone list, machine specifications, etc. Google's spreadsheet probably isn't great as a private financial tool, but it certainly is viable for any of these other, non-critical, non-financial data needs. And if there is a solid security method available someday, even that limitation may be gone.
Also, think about this spreadsheet as the first step towards a Google-created, simplified online relational database tool for the average user. Change the model from "person with hardware and installed software developing tools, data, files that reside on said hardware and are shared in limited fashion with others" to "person with hardware and online/distributed softare developing tools, data, files that reside on global, secure servers and are shared according to controlled permissions".
This model obviously won't work for any data that needs to be absolutely secure or is entirely proprietary, but most of the data on the net doesn't fall in that category.
I don't really want to step into this discussion in terms of politics. But in terms of communication, what you're both talking about is something I have observed many times (i.e., one person says or writes something and a second person perceives it differently). It's not good. We hope it doesn't happen, and specifically, that it doesn't happen on important things. Case in point. One of my clients actually said to our production team when her expectations were upset, "I know what you said, but what I heard was..." And that summed up for me just how often our desires and perceptions mess up our view of reality. Maybe Bush and Blair wanted the war. Maybe they let their personal fortunes/desires/obligations affect their decisions. I don't know. I do know that Iraq may not have had the WMD Bush said he did. But, I also know that Iraq had at some point in the recent past USED similar WMDs. Given that history, how likely would I be to overestimate the intelligence saying WMDs are there and going to be used against our troops?
Several things wrong with this comparison.
1. Bridges are physical objects constructed in a specific locale with a limited set of conditions under which the bridge must function.
2. Bridges have (relatively) few parts.
3. Bridges can be inspected physically.
4. Bridges tend to be relatively static.
5. Bridges don't typically have to compete against other bridges for users.
6. There are a (relatively) small number of bridges constructed each year and their construction takes place in a (relatively) well-known environment (i.e., the engineers CAN do tests, even rearrange the end points if necessary to better meet the needs of the bridge.
7. The major structural supports for a bridge tend to be either left alone or shored up (strengthened in place) whereas software engineers rebuild the bridge frequently.
Imagine: A bridge built to meet all possible conditions, span all possible lengths, make use of all possible positive material attributes, and be usable under any conditions and in any locations in the world. Add to that, there are 27 competing bridges offering the similar options and at similar price points. Additionally, if a bridge goes down unexpectedly, there is a thorough investigation and the designer and builder can face a stiff penalty if they didn't do their job. Software engineers can't be held to that level of liability under most circumstances because they usually only control the softare itself (bridge) and not the location (operating system), or the environment (hardware).
This person could start their own non-smoking place or frequent businesses that were non-smoking, but such places don't typically exist. What tends to happen is the non-smoking section, but that doesn't eliminate the second-hand smoke (and smell), so it's a distinction without a function.
Your freedom ends when it affects other peoples,whether its swinging your arms in circle, smoking, or driving wildly. So legislating non-smoking within public areas is, arguably, the only way to ensure that YOUR freedom doesn't trample on ANOTHER's freedom. I know its not perfect, but you can go outside to smoke, or the business could provide a "smoke rooom" for smokers.
And to your last point, yes, I have been forced to breath in smoke in my day-to-day life because you can't avoid it in many places. Take the subway, bus, or other mass transit, you're stuck. Drive a car, yes, but then walking from the parking lot to the office/business, there's the 101 people smoking whose smoke gets on my clothes, in my lungs and eyes. It's not just looking for a smoke-free establishment, its being able to choose a smoke-free life. I don't want to smoke, smell like smoke, or have anything to do with smoking. As for the other polutions in the city, I DO contribute in some ways to those (though I try to reduce them as much as possible), so I have agreed to the outcome there.
Now I live in a state that has a statewide ban on smoking in public areas in buildings... very nice to non-smokers, and for the most part, the smokers I know don't mind going into the smoke room or outside.
One suggestion to solve this is to find a technology that let's smokers have their smoke without it affecting other people. If that were available, I would have no problem with the NEW smoker.
I need to ask the question, what is the justification for sales tax at all? Personally, I've never understood it. We get taxed on the money we make, and the real estate we own, plus the money we spend. Basically, if you make use of money (or credit), someone somewhere wants a piece of the pie, usually several someones (companies and governments). I understand the business argument, I'm using their server, insurance, bank, business, service. But I don't understand the government's theory. Seems like they're always looking for new revenue streams... as opposed to being TOLD they have to limit their spending to their income which is tied to.... a single simple revenue stream, like income. Not sales, not redistribution, etc. How is what I buy and where I buy it a case for taxation? Or, if it is, why is it not limited to ONLY sales tax, and leave my income alone? Earners get screwed on both sides of this issue, and without even getting a T-shirt.
Re:This is conduct, not speech.
on
Apple vs Bloggers
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
NOt entirely correct. As an outsider you don't have an NDA or any other agreement with the corporation. But as a blogger with a known history of releasing rumors you can be held responsible for publishing information held as a trade secret and covered under an NDA by the person supplying the information to you. The difficult link to establish is whether you as the blogger would have reasonably KNOWN the information was a trade secret. If the case was for millions of dollars, this connection would have to be firm. Since it's only for the identity of your source, and you have a well-established habit of publishing "information from inside sources" the connection can be weak and fuzzy.
Also, the First Amendment only applies to restricting Congress and government. It doesn't do anything to restrict your liability in regards to speech about corporations.
I think that unmanned missions are fine for the initial stages of exploration, but you won't see massive advances until you start trying to get manned missions launched. Why? In part because it IS a lot more expensive to implement a manned mission with a reasonable degree of safety, but also, and more importantly, because the mission parameters will not only balloon, but be adaptable. Right now, Mars exploration is in the same place that really deepsea exploration was in 30-50 years ago. Deep sea remote submersibles brought back a ton of data, but it was nothing compared to the first manned deep sea submersible. And since then, both sets of technology has developed where now deep sea exploration is a useful combination of unmanned and manned. I expect that space exloration will be the same, only with a longer development timeline as there is not an easy short-term profit like deepsea drilling to drive the exporation.
Small but manageable expense? I think there is a very strong argument to made that NO ONE should be required to pay for a solicitor's attempt to reach them for any reaon. If they want to reach me as a person or a business contact, fine, but they should have to do it in ways that are expenses (in time and money) to them, not to me. Think of all the ways businesses can eat up your time and money with no desire on your part to have it happen.
1. At the door: Time to answer door, tell them to leave.
2. Phone call: Time to anser phone, tell to add me to their DNC list and hang up.
3. Email: Time to scan header, eliminate, set up rule for filter, etc. Money for ISP if size of spam gets huge.
4. Fax: Time to scan paper, toss it in trash, expense of paper, ink, wear and tear.
5. In person: Time to tell them to leave me alone.
In the mail: Time to sort mail, toss the trash. Space in my garbage, additional expense for the city/contractor, increased trash bill, wasted tress, ink, etc.
6. Webbrowsing: Time to close popups, scan page looking for content, etc.
Unlike print, radio, and television ads, where I'm making a conscious choice to consume the media and thus am agreeing to the solicitation, these other types of solicitation happen without me asking for or wanting their product or service. I don't want a law making it illegal to use these methods to reach somebody whose on a DNC, I want them stopped entirely. Why not? A radical idea, but is there any proven NEED for such intrusive solicitation? Not a want, not a desire, not a "it's cheaper to conduct government phone surveys and if we randomly call we don't get skewed results" type of need, but a real abiding NEED?
I do agree with your comment about the fax trapping, but I don't see any reason why I should have to pay anything in time or money for unwanted solicitation or any sort.
I have no problem at all believing that mankind's action have influenced the climate of the planet in adverse ways and is escalating the influence over time. The current geologically short-term state of global warming is based on scientific evidence. I have no problem with saying that mankind, especially heavy industrial nations, should be working hard at reducing greenhouse emissions.
The question that remains is whether mankind's behavior will have a greater influence than other natural forces such as the normal warming and cooling cycle, solar activity, etc. Does it matter if mankind is adding millions of tons of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere if the planet is naturally heading for a warm shift of 10-30 degrees, or a cool shift of the same magnitude? Are mankind's actions the cause of the change, or are our actions simply going to help the change come faster or make it a larger shift?
I work for a large multinational corporation and our IT department supports Windows XP and Mac machines for different types of users. They were excited to hear about this product when they realized that all those users in the graphics, audiovisual, and translation departments could get all their computing needs filled by one machine instead of two. Many of these users currently have one desktop machine and a laptop sharing a monitor in the middle.
There are lots of valid concerns with trying to "force" all porn to a.xxx TLD. At best it would only partially help, and at worst it could open the door for some serious censorship issues. Why not ask for a voluntary port shift instead? Designate certain ports for certain types of content, such as explicit porn, adult content (i.e., sports illustrated), medical, etc. By doing this, we could in effect start defining nodal spaces for content types that could then be filtered or searched more effectively. This solution would also not try to "force" any providers into changing a brand name ("porn.com") but would allow concerned parent to disallow port 1069 for use as a search.
I'm not certain this would work technically, is there anyone out there who can help shoot it down?
I would love to be able to go to Google, type in a word like "breast" and not have a lot of porn sites come up, but instead be able to filter the search to just medical and medical related websites.
Isn't the volume control designed for this very feature? TO CONTROL THE VOLUME? I'm a parent with two teenagers, so I can see the benefit of the lock-out, but as a social problem, it seems we're coming at this from the wrong direction. Parents set rules and limits. Little children follow them pretty well, but as they grow up, they start to break those limits a little (especially if the parents are too controlling). And sometimes, when the teen breaks a limit that was imposed for safety reasons, someone or something gets hurt. (i.e., starts the deck on fire by playing with matches, loses eyebrows by "helping dad start the barbeque with whitegas," crashes the car into the side of the garage, or accidentally discharges firearm on a hunting trip by forgetting first rule of firearms "all guns are always loaded.") [BTW, these are all examples out of my childhood;)]
If it is a known reality that teenagers are going to break the rules, at what point do we as a society say "enough is enough" and let them break the rules, take their chances (like we did) and those that survive are better for it? Taken to extreme (as it seems headed) this "protect the children" concept means we should lock down all potentially harmful activities/food/products/experiences. And then the question comes: What type of adults would tform in this overprotective environment? Not very successful ones is my guess.
I hate to be harsh, but shouldn't we be reasoning that the volume control is enough, anyone who can't learn to use it properly should suffer the consequences? (i.e., if the child is too young or too rebellious, they shouldn't have the iPod in the first place, and for those adults who misuse it, tough luck.) As Larry Niven says, "Think of it as evolution in action!"
Don't really want to get involved in this whole discussion except to say that you keep calling Apple an "also-ran" as if being something other than number 1 in terms of volume sales is the only measure that matters. Bear in mind that not all manufacturers want to be the biggest volume sales. Biggest volume doesn't always translate to most profitable. And it does translate to other thigns such as a tendency to have the worst problems over time because the company has to spread itself to thin. Looking at the car business, Microsoft could be compared to GM of the early 60s where they built every sort of vehicle for every sort of buyer all over the world. Compare that to Porche, BMW, or Mercedes of the same period. They built specific high-end type vehicles aimed at buyers with more cash who often bought a vehicle as much for its "show" as its "go." And they were usually profitable doing it. Apple's in the same business model. Since they aren't number 1 and are unlikely to become number 1, they exist by providing benefits that buys want. Any idiot can buy a cheap PC from the local assembler. But only people with a little extra cash will buy the higher priced (and usually more profiable) Apple.
Hmmm... needs for 300 GB on a portable, but non durable medium: Audio editor, Video editor, Graphic designer, 3D animator, game developer, Any lab/person dealing with tons of data
Just because YOU don't deal in GB of data doesn't mean it isn't a common problem. And the non-durable nature of the storage is less of a problem than you might think, as most of these data-intensive needs deal with short, project based issues that are eventually finished, archived (still onto only relatively more durable storage, but what else can you do), and then the mediums are cleared off and the next project started.
As for the 60 GB ipod, think outside a small, personal music library. Myself, I have 38 GB of music, and like to have up to 10 podcasts or videos, plus all my contact DB, and other fun stuff on my ipod.
So the thinking is that someone that carries around a heavy portable designed to run high-end multimedia MUST be more concerned about playing games than working? You guys need to get out more. Some business professionals actually DO NEED a powerful multimedia machine that is portable.
Here are a few ideas to get you started:
1. Video producer, editor, sales rep., etc.
4. Audio producer, editor, sales rep., etc.
3. Animators and their ilk.
4. Multimedia groups that produce everything from full-length motion pictures to e-learning to advertisments.
5. Graphic designers, web designers, etc.
6. Game designers, editors, sales, rep., etc.
7. Engineers; mechanical, software, electrical, chemical, biological, etc.
8. Architects and other CAD users.
9. People who use high-end multimedia presentations
10. Oh, yeah, and gamers.
Basically, if you need a powerful multimedia machine that's portable, and cost is not the primary concern, Alienware products are a good option.
Seems like there's two or three needs that prompt people to buy a laptop.
The Minimalist group: wants small, light notebooks that have minimal connections and long battery life. This group is driven by the desire to have basic computer connectivity while on the go. These people either have very light computing needs, or have a powerful desktop machine for their heavy computing needs.
The Standardized group: wants a reasonable balance between weight, cost and connectivity. This group is driven by the desire to have basically a portable desktop, but not a powerhouse machine. These people are the standard corporate or household user who typically only has one machine and has to use it in multiple places.
The Heavy group: wants the most powerful, expansive machine they can get that is portable. Battery life is not usually a consideration. These people are the heavy user (multimedia creation/editing) who typically could have powerful desktop machines, but want a portable desktop to simplify their lives as they carry work home, to a remote office, or to meet with clients. And yes, this group does usually use most, if not all, of the ports. For myself, I have a SAGER laptop with a 17" monitor, 3.8 P4, 2GB memory, 120 GB HD. At home and both offices I have a second monitor, keyboard, mouse, and other externals. Myself, I wish manufacturers would make an even GREATER distinction between these three groups. For our group, we would like a portable machine that doesn't have a battery penalty, and adds no cost in an attempt to "conserve battery life."
Just give me the most powerful machine you can stuff in a portable package.
Several reasons exist for financing the space program beyond basic research.
1. Unlimited resource based. The resource base on Earth is limited. Finding a cost-effective way to live, work, mine, etc. in space allows us access to an essentially unlimited resource base. There's no reason in the long term, why the bulk of Earth's manufacturing, research, and maybe even bulk food growth can't be done in orbit once we have developed a cost-effective way to get enough material into orbit.
2. New technologies. The space program to date has stimulated the development of useful versions of thousands of new technologies. Think where you would be today without: Flu, cold, allergy medicines, microwave ovens, tinfoil, satelittes for weather, television, cell phones, microcomputers, new materials, etc. The development of these, and thousands of other technologies has been funded and driven at least in part by the space program.
3. Another basket. A long-term goal of the space program would be colonization of another planet. This wouldn't solve Earth's population/resource issues, but it would ensure the human race continues. Also, not having a space program wouldn't necessarily help solve the population/resource probelms.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, I've got a great deal on ad space in the great lakes. Only $10,000,000 per lake per year. A real steal! Even better, we'll put your logo in minature for every boat race, fishing event, etc.
While it's true that avoiding it before the addiction begins will work, often the person doesn't know they are susceptible until after they're suffering from addiction. And once they've started down the addicted path, willpower alone won't do it for most people (more than 95%). And here's why. Because the brain has its own pharmacology and its own behavior conditioning.
Take Ted, he's addicted to porn. He has to look at some twice a day or he gets twitchy. He wants to stop. Now Ted has the following challenges. First, when he looks at porn, his brain creates the exact same chemicals that are produced during normal sex. Tests have shown that a porn addict actually gets the same "high" that a person in intercourse feels. Interestingly, the chemicals the brain releases during sex (and porn) are very nearly as chemically addictive as cocaine (i.e., you don't need to take drugs to have a drug problem!) And second, when Ted feels bad about himself, or feels like he lacks control in his life (two very common triggers for porn addiction), Ted's brain "encourages" him to feel better, and in doing so, reaches for the most powerful tool it has. It wants him to feel better, because feeling bad is pain, and pain avoidance is one of the first things we learn in order to stay alive. So Ted's brain gets the message that Ted is "out of control" and it follows a path from "pain due to being out of control, look at some porn at feel in control and watch the pain go away." And his brain does this behavior control very well.
Most porn addicts (and other purely mental addicts) can't stop, literally, cannot stop by willpower alone. The very parts of their character or makeup that cause them to be susceptible to their addiction are also to blame for their not being able to stop by willpower. So let's not make simplified solutions to complex problems. Yes, willpower is essential. Yes, a desire to change is essential. But no, willpower alone probably won't work. Learning better behaviors, having someone to help support, and then avoiding those situations/emotions that trigger a relapse are all useful and necessary tools to support an addict in their goal of avoiding their addiction.
Why not Office Returns?
My only suggestion, and this comes after years of being in the personal injury/medical malpractice/product liability field is that you contact your local AMA and find out which eye surgeons are board certified for the specific procedure you need. Go even further, check on their list of past and current suits, and their equipment. Don't be surprised if even the best board-certified surgeon in your area is being sued or has been sued, it happens to almost all surgeons (money hunters!). But if you look at the number of suits, what the complaint was, how many have been settled, tried and won, etc. you get a good idea which surgeon's to avoid and which ones to use.
Functions:
1. Phone
2. Calendar
2. Contacts
4. MP3 player
5. Basic web service (movie times, make reservations, etc.)
6. Decent battery life (i.e., 18 hours continuous use and then recharge)
Form:
Make it in the form of a standard belt with nearly invisible, and flexible/durable attachments. It has two small wireless headphones that I can use together for stereo or seperate for mono. These might be designed to look studs around the whole belt or something It has another piece which pulls out and unfolds to become a keyboard/keypad or stylus/entrypad and a second one that pulls out and unrolls to become flexible screen... or eyepieces/glasses to show web/calendar, etc.
For the women, take the same approach and make it into a set of jewelery and/or handbag, etc. Start making the technology become part of everyday wear.
Of course, even better would be a device like this that used the belt model for the technology, but used your ear drums for headphones (perfect stereo quality) and your optic nerves for monitors, and then used some kinesthetic virtual modelling to display keyboard/input/display in a window inside your normal vision like a HUD in a military jet. But of course, that's a little far fetched for just 20 years of development, right?
Also, think about this spreadsheet as the first step towards a Google-created, simplified online relational database tool for the average user. Change the model from "person with hardware and installed software developing tools, data, files that reside on said hardware and are shared in limited fashion with others" to "person with hardware and online/distributed softare developing tools, data, files that reside on global, secure servers and are shared according to controlled permissions".
This model obviously won't work for any data that needs to be absolutely secure or is entirely proprietary, but most of the data on the net doesn't fall in that category.
I don't really want to step into this discussion in terms of politics. But in terms of communication, what you're both talking about is something I have observed many times (i.e., one person says or writes something and a second person perceives it differently). It's not good. We hope it doesn't happen, and specifically, that it doesn't happen on important things. Case in point. One of my clients actually said to our production team when her expectations were upset, "I know what you said, but what I heard was..." And that summed up for me just how often our desires and perceptions mess up our view of reality. Maybe Bush and Blair wanted the war. Maybe they let their personal fortunes/desires/obligations affect their decisions. I don't know. I do know that Iraq may not have had the WMD Bush said he did. But, I also know that Iraq had at some point in the recent past USED similar WMDs. Given that history, how likely would I be to overestimate the intelligence saying WMDs are there and going to be used against our troops?
Several things wrong with this comparison. 1. Bridges are physical objects constructed in a specific locale with a limited set of conditions under which the bridge must function. 2. Bridges have (relatively) few parts. 3. Bridges can be inspected physically. 4. Bridges tend to be relatively static. 5. Bridges don't typically have to compete against other bridges for users. 6. There are a (relatively) small number of bridges constructed each year and their construction takes place in a (relatively) well-known environment (i.e., the engineers CAN do tests, even rearrange the end points if necessary to better meet the needs of the bridge. 7. The major structural supports for a bridge tend to be either left alone or shored up (strengthened in place) whereas software engineers rebuild the bridge frequently. Imagine: A bridge built to meet all possible conditions, span all possible lengths, make use of all possible positive material attributes, and be usable under any conditions and in any locations in the world. Add to that, there are 27 competing bridges offering the similar options and at similar price points. Additionally, if a bridge goes down unexpectedly, there is a thorough investigation and the designer and builder can face a stiff penalty if they didn't do their job. Software engineers can't be held to that level of liability under most circumstances because they usually only control the softare itself (bridge) and not the location (operating system), or the environment (hardware).
This person could start their own non-smoking place or frequent businesses that were non-smoking, but such places don't typically exist. What tends to happen is the non-smoking section, but that doesn't eliminate the second-hand smoke (and smell), so it's a distinction without a function.
Your freedom ends when it affects other peoples,whether its swinging your arms in circle, smoking, or driving wildly. So legislating non-smoking within public areas is, arguably, the only way to ensure that YOUR freedom doesn't trample on ANOTHER's freedom. I know its not perfect, but you can go outside to smoke, or the business could provide a "smoke rooom" for smokers.
And to your last point, yes, I have been forced to breath in smoke in my day-to-day life because you can't avoid it in many places. Take the subway, bus, or other mass transit, you're stuck. Drive a car, yes, but then walking from the parking lot to the office/business, there's the 101 people smoking whose smoke gets on my clothes, in my lungs and eyes. It's not just looking for a smoke-free establishment, its being able to choose a smoke-free life. I don't want to smoke, smell like smoke, or have anything to do with smoking. As for the other polutions in the city, I DO contribute in some ways to those (though I try to reduce them as much as possible), so I have agreed to the outcome there.
Now I live in a state that has a statewide ban on smoking in public areas in buildings... very nice to non-smokers, and for the most part, the smokers I know don't mind going into the smoke room or outside.
One suggestion to solve this is to find a technology that let's smokers have their smoke without it affecting other people. If that were available, I would have no problem with the NEW smoker.
I need to ask the question, what is the justification for sales tax at all? Personally, I've never understood it. We get taxed on the money we make, and the real estate we own, plus the money we spend. Basically, if you make use of money (or credit), someone somewhere wants a piece of the pie, usually several someones (companies and governments). I understand the business argument, I'm using their server, insurance, bank, business, service. But I don't understand the government's theory. Seems like they're always looking for new revenue streams... as opposed to being TOLD they have to limit their spending to their income which is tied to .... a single simple revenue stream, like income. Not sales, not redistribution, etc. How is what I buy and where I buy it a case for taxation? Or, if it is, why is it not limited to ONLY sales tax, and leave my income alone? Earners get screwed on both sides of this issue, and without even getting a T-shirt.
Also, the First Amendment only applies to restricting Congress and government. It doesn't do anything to restrict your liability in regards to speech about corporations.
I think that unmanned missions are fine for the initial stages of exploration, but you won't see massive advances until you start trying to get manned missions launched. Why? In part because it IS a lot more expensive to implement a manned mission with a reasonable degree of safety, but also, and more importantly, because the mission parameters will not only balloon, but be adaptable. Right now, Mars exploration is in the same place that really deepsea exploration was in 30-50 years ago. Deep sea remote submersibles brought back a ton of data, but it was nothing compared to the first manned deep sea submersible. And since then, both sets of technology has developed where now deep sea exploration is a useful combination of unmanned and manned. I expect that space exloration will be the same, only with a longer development timeline as there is not an easy short-term profit like deepsea drilling to drive the exporation.
1. At the door: Time to answer door, tell them to leave.
2. Phone call: Time to anser phone, tell to add me to their DNC list and hang up.
3. Email: Time to scan header, eliminate, set up rule for filter, etc. Money for ISP if size of spam gets huge.
4. Fax: Time to scan paper, toss it in trash, expense of paper, ink, wear and tear.
5. In person: Time to tell them to leave me alone.
In the mail: Time to sort mail, toss the trash. Space in my garbage, additional expense for the city/contractor, increased trash bill, wasted tress, ink, etc. 6. Webbrowsing: Time to close popups, scan page looking for content, etc.
Unlike print, radio, and television ads, where I'm making a conscious choice to consume the media and thus am agreeing to the solicitation, these other types of solicitation happen without me asking for or wanting their product or service. I don't want a law making it illegal to use these methods to reach somebody whose on a DNC, I want them stopped entirely. Why not? A radical idea, but is there any proven NEED for such intrusive solicitation? Not a want, not a desire, not a "it's cheaper to conduct government phone surveys and if we randomly call we don't get skewed results" type of need, but a real abiding NEED?
I do agree with your comment about the fax trapping, but I don't see any reason why I should have to pay anything in time or money for unwanted solicitation or any sort.
I have no problem at all believing that mankind's action have influenced the climate of the planet in adverse ways and is escalating the influence over time. The current geologically short-term state of global warming is based on scientific evidence. I have no problem with saying that mankind, especially heavy industrial nations, should be working hard at reducing greenhouse emissions. The question that remains is whether mankind's behavior will have a greater influence than other natural forces such as the normal warming and cooling cycle, solar activity, etc. Does it matter if mankind is adding millions of tons of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere if the planet is naturally heading for a warm shift of 10-30 degrees, or a cool shift of the same magnitude? Are mankind's actions the cause of the change, or are our actions simply going to help the change come faster or make it a larger shift?
I work for a large multinational corporation and our IT department supports Windows XP and Mac machines for different types of users. They were excited to hear about this product when they realized that all those users in the graphics, audiovisual, and translation departments could get all their computing needs filled by one machine instead of two. Many of these users currently have one desktop machine and a laptop sharing a monitor in the middle.
I'm not certain this would work technically, is there anyone out there who can help shoot it down?
I would love to be able to go to Google, type in a word like "breast" and not have a lot of porn sites come up, but instead be able to filter the search to just medical and medical related websites.
If it is a known reality that teenagers are going to break the rules, at what point do we as a society say "enough is enough" and let them break the rules, take their chances (like we did) and those that survive are better for it? Taken to extreme (as it seems headed) this "protect the children" concept means we should lock down all potentially harmful activities/food/products/experiences. And then the question comes: What type of adults would tform in this overprotective environment? Not very successful ones is my guess.
I hate to be harsh, but shouldn't we be reasoning that the volume control is enough, anyone who can't learn to use it properly should suffer the consequences? (i.e., if the child is too young or too rebellious, they shouldn't have the iPod in the first place, and for those adults who misuse it, tough luck.) As Larry Niven says, "Think of it as evolution in action!"
Don't really want to get involved in this whole discussion except to say that you keep calling Apple an "also-ran" as if being something other than number 1 in terms of volume sales is the only measure that matters. Bear in mind that not all manufacturers want to be the biggest volume sales. Biggest volume doesn't always translate to most profitable. And it does translate to other thigns such as a tendency to have the worst problems over time because the company has to spread itself to thin. Looking at the car business, Microsoft could be compared to GM of the early 60s where they built every sort of vehicle for every sort of buyer all over the world. Compare that to Porche, BMW, or Mercedes of the same period. They built specific high-end type vehicles aimed at buyers with more cash who often bought a vehicle as much for its "show" as its "go." And they were usually profitable doing it. Apple's in the same business model. Since they aren't number 1 and are unlikely to become number 1, they exist by providing benefits that buys want. Any idiot can buy a cheap PC from the local assembler. But only people with a little extra cash will buy the higher priced (and usually more profiable) Apple.
Just because YOU don't deal in GB of data doesn't mean it isn't a common problem. And the non-durable nature of the storage is less of a problem than you might think, as most of these data-intensive needs deal with short, project based issues that are eventually finished, archived (still onto only relatively more durable storage, but what else can you do), and then the mediums are cleared off and the next project started.
As for the 60 GB ipod, think outside a small, personal music library. Myself, I have 38 GB of music, and like to have up to 10 podcasts or videos, plus all my contact DB, and other fun stuff on my ipod.
So the thinking is that someone that carries around a heavy portable designed to run high-end multimedia MUST be more concerned about playing games than working? You guys need to get out more. Some business professionals actually DO NEED a powerful multimedia machine that is portable.
Here are a few ideas to get you started:
1. Video producer, editor, sales rep., etc.
4. Audio producer, editor, sales rep., etc.
3. Animators and their ilk.
4. Multimedia groups that produce everything from full-length motion pictures to e-learning to advertisments.
5. Graphic designers, web designers, etc.
6. Game designers, editors, sales, rep., etc.
7. Engineers; mechanical, software, electrical, chemical, biological, etc.
8. Architects and other CAD users.
9. People who use high-end multimedia presentations
10. Oh, yeah, and gamers.
Basically, if you need a powerful multimedia machine that's portable, and cost is not the primary concern, Alienware products are a good option.
Seems like there's two or three needs that prompt people to buy a laptop. The Minimalist group: wants small, light notebooks that have minimal connections and long battery life. This group is driven by the desire to have basic computer connectivity while on the go. These people either have very light computing needs, or have a powerful desktop machine for their heavy computing needs. The Standardized group: wants a reasonable balance between weight, cost and connectivity. This group is driven by the desire to have basically a portable desktop, but not a powerhouse machine. These people are the standard corporate or household user who typically only has one machine and has to use it in multiple places. The Heavy group: wants the most powerful, expansive machine they can get that is portable. Battery life is not usually a consideration. These people are the heavy user (multimedia creation/editing) who typically could have powerful desktop machines, but want a portable desktop to simplify their lives as they carry work home, to a remote office, or to meet with clients. And yes, this group does usually use most, if not all, of the ports. For myself, I have a SAGER laptop with a 17" monitor, 3.8 P4, 2GB memory, 120 GB HD. At home and both offices I have a second monitor, keyboard, mouse, and other externals. Myself, I wish manufacturers would make an even GREATER distinction between these three groups. For our group, we would like a portable machine that doesn't have a battery penalty, and adds no cost in an attempt to "conserve battery life." Just give me the most powerful machine you can stuff in a portable package.
Several reasons exist for financing the space program beyond basic research. 1. Unlimited resource based. The resource base on Earth is limited. Finding a cost-effective way to live, work, mine, etc. in space allows us access to an essentially unlimited resource base. There's no reason in the long term, why the bulk of Earth's manufacturing, research, and maybe even bulk food growth can't be done in orbit once we have developed a cost-effective way to get enough material into orbit. 2. New technologies. The space program to date has stimulated the development of useful versions of thousands of new technologies. Think where you would be today without: Flu, cold, allergy medicines, microwave ovens, tinfoil, satelittes for weather, television, cell phones, microcomputers, new materials, etc. The development of these, and thousands of other technologies has been funded and driven at least in part by the space program. 3. Another basket. A long-term goal of the space program would be colonization of another planet. This wouldn't solve Earth's population/resource issues, but it would ensure the human race continues. Also, not having a space program wouldn't necessarily help solve the population/resource probelms.