The plans indicated many transmitters globally. This would never happen, as it takes the control away from too many huge money making industries. No government would allow it either.
He tried to get it funded by JP Morgan. One day, he got a telegraph:
"No interest in wireless power. Nowhere to put the meter."
Not only "CAN" we criticize it, we SHOULD. Criticism brings change. It will force the community (or RH, IBM, Novell..) to respond by fixing the problems. Even Microsoft went down a (misguided) path towards fixing their problems amid all the security criticism that was thrown their way.
Point is, don't despair, get into the community, get active, and make something happen - this message brought to you from Washington, where Change Happens;)
Interesting. Is there any way to change the curve, via a 3rd party driver maybe? I definitely can't get used to it (it's been 1.5 years already), so I really would like to find a workaround... Tweaking the acceleration/speed settings doesn't help, just does the same thing slower or faster heh
I hardly even play games, and I can tell you I simply cannot use any wireless mouse, bluetooth or not, because of the lag. To me, lag is not only noticeable, but causes me to mis-click on things and drives me nuts.
Furthermore, I found that when I started using OS X, the mouse is significantly slower and less precise than windows or ubuntu, again causing me to mis-click. I've tried several different wired mice, high-res mice, the USB-overdrive utility, but nothing seems to help. I read somewhere that OS X uses two different drivers for clicking and movement -- to me, that's insanity -- but don't really know if that's what is causing the lag or not. If ANYONE has any suggestions, I would love to try hear it...
You just touched on a topic I was going to discuss.
First, to answer your question, Microsoft will NOT be sued since they didn't disable non-writeable media (as has been pointed out many many times).
Second, it's interesting to watch MS stepping through the minefield that is the balance between security and copy protection (aka Sony Rootkits) as well as usability (see: "How Will I Install My Video Professor" comment above). Nonetheless, it's a long-overdue step in the right direction
What are the alternatives then? JSON is nowhere near good enough for complex transactions, and proprietary protocols such as.NET's remoting or RMI are a bad idea.
I'm just happy that there even IS a standard we can develop against, and if you can suggest another one that is supported by most major platforms, I'm all ears...
I agree. You bring up a good point about #2, although I didn't mean it to be specific in terms of recession/depression. Like you pointed out, firms contribute because their business goals are "aligned" the ideologies of the candidates, although in this case it's hard to argue that since AIG contributions were almost equal between Obama and McCain (as someone above already pointed out).
As to why firms are allowed to contribute to campaign trails is beyond me. In my opinion, only individuals should be allowed to contribute, possibly even only voting individuals. That may be a little to conservative for some people, although I don't consider myself one by any stretch of imagination.
P.S. It's refreshing to have a civil conversation with someone on./
Irrelevant. $160 MILLION in bonuses is a "drop in the bucket" compared to $170 BILLION the gov't loaned. 1/1000th (close enough to your 1/5000 figure, only a magnitude of 5 instead of thousands). Why the outrage then?
As far as your point about individual employees making those contributions, I have to question whether this is an attempt to hide the money? It sounds simple enough -- individual donates on behalf of company -> shit goes down -> profit!. Except the public heard about it, and put the pres in a tough situation.
#1 How much McCain benefited from AIG is not relevant since he would have bailed out the banks too
#2: Do I really need to point out that the ENTIRE reason companies make contributions to the presidential candidates is precisely in case something like this economic meltdown happens, to cover their asses, and to ensure they get backed up?
#3: Had this been McCain bailing out the banks, "we" (the left-leaning Slashdot community) would have had his head
Just as an aside, you don't really need a high-quality image to perform image recognition because a lot of (cheap) algorithms use Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to match faces. Without going into too much detail, it extracts the most important features of your face which are then compared to other stored facial features for every person.
Although I haven't tried it, theoretically you could take a low-quality image, and, as long as the most prominent facial features are preserved, you could make a match.
In lieu of your comment, I'd like to propose a name change to GINP (GINP Is Not Photoshop).
Seriously, I agree with you. There is definitely a lot of work ahead, namely in the UI department, although that is a discussion for another time and place...
Regardless of whether you're right or wrong, resorting to name calling only weakens your argument and diverts the topic of conversation.
Back to the point: what sort of strong arming could the government possibly do to a giant company like AT&T to make them force to give up their consumer base? Don't try to paint AT&T as a victim here - they were enabling a bad policy, a bad administration, lied about it, and STILL got away with it.
Besides, this has everything to do with their dealing with a non-government entity, because it speaks volumes about AT&T's character (or lack thereof); it says that they would rather throw the consumer under a bus if it meant saving money in litigation costs, or if it was profitable. This, of course, is nothing new - companies have been doing this for a very long time, and my comment addressed the fact that while an AT&T and RIAA partnership is new, it is hardly surprising.
The point is, if they were a socially responsible company, this would not be happening. If they were "strong-armed" by the gov't, their piles of lawyers and deep Washington connections could have probably fought them off in the name of privacy rights. If they are strong-armed by the RIAA, they could have fought them off in the name of consumer rights. But again, none of this matters when you're dealing with power- and money-hungry companies.
1. AT&T has shown that it is willing to sacrifice its consumers for its own agenda (and profit?) - as in the wiretapping case.
2. Given that they have snooped on users' data in the past, I am not really surprised that they are doing it again, since a) they were protected by immunity the first time, and can probably do it again should this turn out to be illegal, and b) they have the technological framework in place already.
Perhaps I should stop trying to be subtle in my posts and carry a sledgehammer... (yea, I'm new here)
Slashdot Mirror
The plans indicated many transmitters globally. This would never happen, as it takes the control away from too many huge money making industries. No government would allow it either.
He tried to get it funded by JP Morgan. One day, he got a telegraph:
"No interest in wireless power. Nowhere to put the meter."
Why run Matlab when you can run Octave?
Not only "CAN" we criticize it, we SHOULD. Criticism brings change. It will force the community (or RH, IBM, Novell..) to respond by fixing the problems. Even Microsoft went down a (misguided) path towards fixing their problems amid all the security criticism that was thrown their way.
Point is, don't despair, get into the community, get active, and make something happen - this message brought to you from Washington, where Change Happens ;)
Interesting. Is there any way to change the curve, via a 3rd party driver maybe? I definitely can't get used to it (it's been 1.5 years already), so I really would like to find a workaround... Tweaking the acceleration/speed settings doesn't help, just does the same thing slower or faster heh
I hardly even play games, and I can tell you I simply cannot use any wireless mouse, bluetooth or not, because of the lag. To me, lag is not only noticeable, but causes me to mis-click on things and drives me nuts.
Furthermore, I found that when I started using OS X, the mouse is significantly slower and less precise than windows or ubuntu, again causing me to mis-click. I've tried several different wired mice, high-res mice, the USB-overdrive utility, but nothing seems to help. I read somewhere that OS X uses two different drivers for clicking and movement -- to me, that's insanity -- but don't really know if that's what is causing the lag or not. If ANYONE has any suggestions, I would love to try hear it...
You just touched on a topic I was going to discuss.
First, to answer your question, Microsoft will NOT be sued since they didn't disable non-writeable media (as has been pointed out many many times).
Second, it's interesting to watch MS stepping through the minefield that is the balance between security and copy protection (aka Sony Rootkits) as well as usability (see: "How Will I Install My Video Professor" comment above). Nonetheless, it's a long-overdue step in the right direction
What are the alternatives then? JSON is nowhere near good enough for complex transactions, and proprietary protocols such as .NET's remoting or RMI are a bad idea.
I'm just happy that there even IS a standard we can develop against, and if you can suggest another one that is supported by most major platforms, I'm all ears...
JavaFX has distinct advantages over Flash and Silverlight. It integrates seamlessly with server-side Java code.
Yes, but use of standardized protocols such as SOAP almost makes this point moot.
It also shares the same APIs with JavaFX Mobile, which allows mobile and RIA apps to share the same code.
That is pretty cool
The expression caught on in the /. community after this story ran on Idle: Lloyd's is pants
My head just exploded because I can only think in terms of car analogies.
My friend had a VW bus, and when it started overheating, he turned up the heat to cool down the engine.
That was one sweaty ride to Vegas...
I agree. You bring up a good point about #2, although I didn't mean it to be specific in terms of recession/depression. Like you pointed out, firms contribute because their business goals are "aligned" the ideologies of the candidates, although in this case it's hard to argue that since AIG contributions were almost equal between Obama and McCain (as someone above already pointed out).
As to why firms are allowed to contribute to campaign trails is beyond me. In my opinion, only individuals should be allowed to contribute, possibly even only voting individuals. That may be a little to conservative for some people, although I don't consider myself one by any stretch of imagination.
P.S. It's refreshing to have a civil conversation with someone on ./
Irrelevant. $160 MILLION in bonuses is a "drop in the bucket" compared to $170 BILLION the gov't loaned. 1/1000th (close enough to your 1/5000 figure, only a magnitude of 5 instead of thousands). Why the outrage then?
As far as your point about individual employees making those contributions, I have to question whether this is an attempt to hide the money? It sounds simple enough -- individual donates on behalf of company -> shit goes down -> profit!. Except the public heard about it, and put the pres in a tough situation.
Just a few points:
#1 How much McCain benefited from AIG is not relevant since he would have bailed out the banks too
#2: Do I really need to point out that the ENTIRE reason companies make contributions to the presidential candidates is precisely in case something like this economic meltdown happens, to cover their asses, and to ensure they get backed up?
#3: Had this been McCain bailing out the banks, "we" (the left-leaning Slashdot community) would have had his head
Why did they do it? Obama received a lot of campaign contributions from AIG for his presidential campaign.
ABC news
That's comedy gold, thanks for the laugh :)
Any magazine has a good public library?
Just as an aside, you don't really need a high-quality image to perform image recognition because a lot of (cheap) algorithms use Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to match faces. Without going into too much detail, it extracts the most important features of your face which are then compared to other stored facial features for every person.
Although I haven't tried it, theoretically you could take a low-quality image, and, as long as the most prominent facial features are preserved, you could make a match.
In lieu of your comment, I'd like to propose a name change to GINP (GINP Is Not Photoshop).
Seriously, I agree with you. There is definitely a lot of work ahead, namely in the UI department, although that is a discussion for another time and place...
But, but, GIMP! /Sarcasm
Regardless of whether you're right or wrong, resorting to name calling only weakens your argument and diverts the topic of conversation.
Back to the point: what sort of strong arming could the government possibly do to a giant company like AT&T to make them force to give up their consumer base? Don't try to paint AT&T as a victim here - they were enabling a bad policy, a bad administration, lied about it, and STILL got away with it.
Besides, this has everything to do with their dealing with a non-government entity, because it speaks volumes about AT&T's character (or lack thereof); it says that they would rather throw the consumer under a bus if it meant saving money in litigation costs, or if it was profitable. This, of course, is nothing new - companies have been doing this for a very long time, and my comment addressed the fact that while an AT&T and RIAA partnership is new, it is hardly surprising.
The point is, if they were a socially responsible company, this would not be happening. If they were "strong-armed" by the gov't, their piles of lawyers and deep Washington connections could have probably fought them off in the name of privacy rights. If they are strong-armed by the RIAA, they could have fought them off in the name of consumer rights. But again, none of this matters when you're dealing with power- and money-hungry companies.
There are two points I was trying to subtly make:
1. AT&T has shown that it is willing to sacrifice its consumers for its own agenda (and profit?) - as in the wiretapping case.
2. Given that they have snooped on users' data in the past, I am not really surprised that they are doing it again, since a) they were protected by immunity the first time, and can probably do it again should this turn out to be illegal, and b) they have the technological framework in place already.
Perhaps I should stop trying to be subtle in my posts and carry a sledgehammer... (yea, I'm new here)
Does this really surprise anyone given that AT&T was at the forefront of the illegal wiretapping scandal?
The 4th type is the comment about people's stereotypes of other comments.
I remember before text messages when BFF meant something slightly different... It always makes me laugh a little on the inside