Physical resources are scarce. Virtual resources are infinite. People selling virtual goods have all been obsoleted since personal computers became ubiquitous. You see it everywhere, from software to entertainment to information. It's a matter of waiting for society to catch up.
There is still value in some of these things, just not directly via sales.
Sorry, both "HE" and "SHE" are not gender-neutral. The proper replacement term is "singular THEY":
If these PEOPLE know how to play it right, Node.js is history. Singular THEY had the same thing with the Mambo Fork Joomla. Hardly anyone (POSSIBLY HAVING A PENIS BUT POSSIBLY NOT) remembers Mambo anymore, and Joomla is a leading project.
The way I see it, China's just banned a whole class of lame jokes, presumably for mental health reasons. Maybe this'll force people to start using proper double entendres instead. I for one am looking forward to a whole new generation of insults.
Only because they wish to maintain this idea of superiority and separation over all other animals.
Until they start cutting out their own pieces of flesh to feed to random carnivores, anyone who thinks this way is merely a hypocrite. The farthest anyone's willing to go is vegetarianism, and those are the people who respect the lives of other animals and consider their existence equal to their own.
For everyone else who's not willing to hand out pieces of themselves, there's only self-interest.
As far as I'm concerned, if it's not human, it's far game food-wise. I should add that handling (and eating) wild primates might be a bad idea because the diseases they carry can and do jump to humans.
The only people with these issues are the ones who draw a hard line between their pet poodle and a pig on the farm. Not to mention people have pet pigs too... As for those people, they probably should become vegetarians instead of trying to resolve this cognitive dissonance. The way I see it, either you eat meat or you don't; there's no point in justifying it because any attempt would just be intellectual dishonesty.
Imagine if you can how fast we'll be able to travel in space another 300 years from now.
For that, we'd need a whole new source of energy. Doable, but unlikely without some major breakthroughs. So far, we've been using primarily stored solar power (mainly in the form of hydrocarbons) to fuel our advancements, with a sprinkling of supernova remnants (nuclear fission). To put it into perspective, in 100-200 years, we're pretty much expending about 1-2 billion years of accumulated solar energy. Forget progress, in order to sustain civilization at this level in 300 years, we'd need an easy form of energy that rivals what we have now. And right now, nothing comes close.
And this is ignoring the societal-environmental backlash that's coming upon us fast. That we might create some kind of technology that can increase our energy production is assuming that society remains stable enough through the next 300 years to allow this. There are a lot of factors at play, and my bet is that we're not going to see the kind of growth that we saw the past 200 years in the next 200 years. We'll be very lucky if we don't regress as a whole (for certain, the wealthy will progress but the bigger question is whether the middle class and the poor will follow or if they will suffer to allow the wealthy to progress).
Quite frankly, this is a hurdle every alien civilization will face. The farther you want to travel, the more energy required. And considering we haven't been invaded by aliens yet, I would imagine this to be a more difficult challenge for everyone than you'd expect.
Actually, you're not too far off about the launch codes. Nuclear launch codes are in large part, secured by physical security systems. The codes themselves aren't terribly long (for practical reasons), but to get to them requires going through a good deal of physical security, beginning with the armed guards at the gate and ending with a glorified safe (also for practical reasons). And in case you're wondering how I know any of this, well, I don't know any of it for certain, but it makes sense to rely primarily on the existing layers of security and just have something simple at the very core. After all, you don't want a retaliatory strike to take 30 minutes to initiate because the codes are each 200 characters long and require going through ten complicated authentication methods to reach.
The 200-character password is only useful if you expect it to be stored in some online database in unsalted MD5. Otherwise, there are bigger points of failure, such as transmission over plaintext, plaintext storage, keyloggers, or TEMPEST-style timing attacks. After a certain point, increasing physical security is probably preferable to adding any more digital security. That is, someone coming in and imaging your HDD (or swiping the post-it, at that point it's about the same) is probably a bigger threat than someone brute-forcing through an online login page, and the most cost-effective way to secure the former method of attack are physical barriers.
Shellshock was a terrible name. Not all shells were vulnerable (especially not non-unix shells), only bash. The name for the vulnerability's name should've had "bash" in it at least.
Heartbleed actually sounds physiologically dangerous. Shellshock (and some of the other names) sounds unfortunate. In fact, Poodle actually sounds cute...
Actually, even the Wikpedia article you linked gives multiple definitions for toughness, depending on application. Which one is used here remains poorly specified and opens up the possibility of ambiguous marketing platitudes. Now, if they said shear strength was improved overall by a certain percentage, that would be information.
That was my first impression too. How snobby of the French to care about serious matters like politics and current events. How dare they not be as interested in cats and/b.
There certainly is a problem, and separately a snob problem even, but it certainly isn't with the French in TFS.
Congress just makes the rules. But they cannot enforce it. They can persuade the relevant Federal agencies (and Obama) to do so by various means, but that's part of the politics.
These are the checks and balances. And the things Obama has done are still within their bounds. As an example, Obama hasn't raised the H1B limitations because that's set in law by Congress.
Everyone does it. It's called protectionism, and no country is guilt-free. It's a matter of how smartly it's done. This move? Stupid. Picking a fight with Google (or even trash talking, which this really is) is a really dumb idea. Nothing's really going to come out of this, except for maybe a bit of egg on some world leader's face at a Google-hosted party. Toppling democratically-elected regimes in unstable regions? Brilliant. Chances of success are almost a hundred percent, and the trade benefits are tremendous. It's only called bullying if you're caught doing it and nobody's really looking that way anyway.
My point being, you shouldn't be so surprised political leaders are making lots of patriotic noise. It's what doesn't get into the papers that's the real eye-openers.
Your numbers may very well be true, but the U.S. leads in per capita consumer spending. That means Americans spend more money on products per person than any other country (except the UAE, strangely enough). In contrast, the number for most of Western Europe is around 60% of the U.S.
This is why the U.S. is often considered a special market (consumer products-wise) separate from the rest of the world. The only other market that's considered special is China, but only because of its growth potential due to sheer population numbers.
Now, how much spending is on European products, nobody really knows. But the U.S. (and U.S. companies) does not need Europe to sustain businesses tied to consumer products.
GDP numbers tend to be more relevant for B2B and banks, so it would be stupid if IBM or even Microsoft pulled out of Europe. But Google? Their dollars are advertising dollars, and the ROI on marketing in Europe just doesn't have the same potential. Not that they would want to pull out, as it's lost revenue and certainly opens the door for competition. But to say that Europe is a bigger market for them than the U.S. is flat out wrong.
You really have to wonder whether "those days" were ever around in the first place.
Money always talks. The more money you have, the louder you can be. Even on the internet, which equalizes this a bit, money just goes into disinformation rather than information.
There are only so many hours in a day, and only so many of them spent at work. Workplaces will eventually settle on the most efficient tools. These aren't going to be the most powerful tools or even the simplest to use, but the ones who give people the most bang for their buck.
For communications, there's e-mail, IM, and the phone. For document management, there (should be) CMS. For sharing company documents, there's the internal website. For socializing, there's the water cooler.
Where these tools fit in... well, they don't. It takes more effort ("active champions, community managers, and a strategy to nurture") to make them work than the benefits gained over using the aforementioned methods.
Social sites like Facebook work because the links between people are usually physically separated relative to the importance of the communication (the more important the communication, the farther the physical separation). The physical networks are wide and slow, so the digital version has a purpose by making the networks closer and faster. At work, the physical network is close and fast. There's no need for a digital replacement, especially a complex one.
Disclaimer: We also "use" Yammer at work, but the conent is asinine mostly (at least when it's not someone being passive aggressive).
Slashdot Mirror
adding some physical value to legit copies
FTFY.
Physical resources are scarce. Virtual resources are infinite. People selling virtual goods have all been obsoleted since personal computers became ubiquitous. You see it everywhere, from software to entertainment to information. It's a matter of waiting for society to catch up.
There is still value in some of these things, just not directly via sales.
The solution: NoScript.
What are you doing surfing the web without it anyway?
In a plot twist, they are both one and the same.
Sorry, both "HE" and "SHE" are not gender-neutral. The proper replacement term is "singular THEY":
If these PEOPLE know how to play it right, Node.js is history. Singular THEY had the same thing with the Mambo Fork Joomla. Hardly anyone (POSSIBLY HAVING A PENIS BUT POSSIBLY NOT) remembers Mambo anymore, and Joomla is a leading project.
Without a pun, pundits would just be dits.
The way I see it, China's just banned a whole class of lame jokes, presumably for mental health reasons. Maybe this'll force people to start using proper double entendres instead. I for one am looking forward to a whole new generation of insults.
The only basis needed is self interest.
Many people would not agree with that.
Only because they wish to maintain this idea of superiority and separation over all other animals.
Until they start cutting out their own pieces of flesh to feed to random carnivores, anyone who thinks this way is merely a hypocrite. The farthest anyone's willing to go is vegetarianism, and those are the people who respect the lives of other animals and consider their existence equal to their own.
For everyone else who's not willing to hand out pieces of themselves, there's only self-interest.
As far as I'm concerned, if it's not human, it's far game food-wise. I should add that handling (and eating) wild primates might be a bad idea because the diseases they carry can and do jump to humans.
The only people with these issues are the ones who draw a hard line between their pet poodle and a pig on the farm. Not to mention people have pet pigs too... As for those people, they probably should become vegetarians instead of trying to resolve this cognitive dissonance. The way I see it, either you eat meat or you don't; there's no point in justifying it because any attempt would just be intellectual dishonesty.
It's a cookbook!
Imagine if you can how fast we'll be able to travel in space another 300 years from now.
For that, we'd need a whole new source of energy. Doable, but unlikely without some major breakthroughs. So far, we've been using primarily stored solar power (mainly in the form of hydrocarbons) to fuel our advancements, with a sprinkling of supernova remnants (nuclear fission). To put it into perspective, in 100-200 years, we're pretty much expending about 1-2 billion years of accumulated solar energy. Forget progress, in order to sustain civilization at this level in 300 years, we'd need an easy form of energy that rivals what we have now. And right now, nothing comes close.
And this is ignoring the societal-environmental backlash that's coming upon us fast. That we might create some kind of technology that can increase our energy production is assuming that society remains stable enough through the next 300 years to allow this. There are a lot of factors at play, and my bet is that we're not going to see the kind of growth that we saw the past 200 years in the next 200 years. We'll be very lucky if we don't regress as a whole (for certain, the wealthy will progress but the bigger question is whether the middle class and the poor will follow or if they will suffer to allow the wealthy to progress).
Quite frankly, this is a hurdle every alien civilization will face. The farther you want to travel, the more energy required. And considering we haven't been invaded by aliens yet, I would imagine this to be a more difficult challenge for everyone than you'd expect.
1-877-kars-4-kids.
Actually, you're not too far off about the launch codes. Nuclear launch codes are in large part, secured by physical security systems. The codes themselves aren't terribly long (for practical reasons), but to get to them requires going through a good deal of physical security, beginning with the armed guards at the gate and ending with a glorified safe (also for practical reasons). And in case you're wondering how I know any of this, well, I don't know any of it for certain, but it makes sense to rely primarily on the existing layers of security and just have something simple at the very core. After all, you don't want a retaliatory strike to take 30 minutes to initiate because the codes are each 200 characters long and require going through ten complicated authentication methods to reach.
The 200-character password is only useful if you expect it to be stored in some online database in unsalted MD5. Otherwise, there are bigger points of failure, such as transmission over plaintext, plaintext storage, keyloggers, or TEMPEST-style timing attacks. After a certain point, increasing physical security is probably preferable to adding any more digital security. That is, someone coming in and imaging your HDD (or swiping the post-it, at that point it's about the same) is probably a bigger threat than someone brute-forcing through an online login page, and the most cost-effective way to secure the former method of attack are physical barriers.
why a patient with absolutely no higher brain function hasn't been taken off life support.
It's illegal to do so in some (most?) states.
Or that cupid wasn't an angel.
Shellshock was a terrible name. Not all shells were vulnerable (especially not non-unix shells), only bash. The name for the vulnerability's name should've had "bash" in it at least.
Heartbleed actually sounds physiologically dangerous. Shellshock (and some of the other names) sounds unfortunate. In fact, Poodle actually sounds cute...
Actually, even the Wikpedia article you linked gives multiple definitions for toughness, depending on application. Which one is used here remains poorly specified and opens up the possibility of ambiguous marketing platitudes. Now, if they said shear strength was improved overall by a certain percentage, that would be information.
That was my first impression too. How snobby of the French to care about serious matters like politics and current events. How dare they not be as interested in cats and /b.
There certainly is a problem, and separately a snob problem even, but it certainly isn't with the French in TFS.
along with some fusion fuel
You mean like water?
Congress just makes the rules. But they cannot enforce it. They can persuade the relevant Federal agencies (and Obama) to do so by various means, but that's part of the politics.
These are the checks and balances. And the things Obama has done are still within their bounds. As an example, Obama hasn't raised the H1B limitations because that's set in law by Congress.
Everyone does it. It's called protectionism, and no country is guilt-free. It's a matter of how smartly it's done. This move? Stupid. Picking a fight with Google (or even trash talking, which this really is) is a really dumb idea. Nothing's really going to come out of this, except for maybe a bit of egg on some world leader's face at a Google-hosted party. Toppling democratically-elected regimes in unstable regions? Brilliant. Chances of success are almost a hundred percent, and the trade benefits are tremendous. It's only called bullying if you're caught doing it and nobody's really looking that way anyway.
My point being, you shouldn't be so surprised political leaders are making lots of patriotic noise. It's what doesn't get into the papers that's the real eye-openers.
Your numbers may very well be true, but the U.S. leads in per capita consumer spending. That means Americans spend more money on products per person than any other country (except the UAE, strangely enough). In contrast, the number for most of Western Europe is around 60% of the U.S.
This is why the U.S. is often considered a special market (consumer products-wise) separate from the rest of the world. The only other market that's considered special is China, but only because of its growth potential due to sheer population numbers.
Now, how much spending is on European products, nobody really knows. But the U.S. (and U.S. companies) does not need Europe to sustain businesses tied to consumer products.
GDP numbers tend to be more relevant for B2B and banks, so it would be stupid if IBM or even Microsoft pulled out of Europe. But Google? Their dollars are advertising dollars, and the ROI on marketing in Europe just doesn't have the same potential. Not that they would want to pull out, as it's lost revenue and certainly opens the door for competition. But to say that Europe is a bigger market for them than the U.S. is flat out wrong.
Those days are long gone.
You really have to wonder whether "those days" were ever around in the first place.
Money always talks. The more money you have, the louder you can be. Even on the internet, which equalizes this a bit, money just goes into disinformation rather than information.
Or instead of water, use lava.
There's a reason for this.
There are only so many hours in a day, and only so many of them spent at work. Workplaces will eventually settle on the most efficient tools. These aren't going to be the most powerful tools or even the simplest to use, but the ones who give people the most bang for their buck.
For communications, there's e-mail, IM, and the phone. For document management, there (should be) CMS. For sharing company documents, there's the internal website. For socializing, there's the water cooler.
Where these tools fit in... well, they don't. It takes more effort ("active champions, community managers, and a strategy to nurture") to make them work than the benefits gained over using the aforementioned methods.
Social sites like Facebook work because the links between people are usually physically separated relative to the importance of the communication (the more important the communication, the farther the physical separation). The physical networks are wide and slow, so the digital version has a purpose by making the networks closer and faster. At work, the physical network is close and fast. There's no need for a digital replacement, especially a complex one.
Disclaimer: We also "use" Yammer at work, but the conent is asinine mostly (at least when it's not someone being passive aggressive).
We should put you in front of Stephen Colbert and a camera and see how well you do listing twin primes.
In any case, it's brown and comes from cows.