Let me know if you get a response. I had to literally change a credit card number to get Download.com to stop billing me once. Several years ago I created a Download.com account and paid for something. I really cannot remember what other than the software listing. Later I simply attempted to cancel the account but there is no way to cancel. I think I sent 5 support messages and did 2 credit card charge backs before I had to report my card stolen to get them to stop charging me. For several years I would get messages that my card failed to be charged. Yea, no kidding. That was by design.
First, your use of the word "alarmists" and then a capitalized word next to it screams Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Fox and Friends, etc. Just do a search on Google using only those two words "environmental+alarmists" and see what comes back. I call assure you it isn't a who's who representing the "fair and balanced" view.
Your two statements have absolutely nothing in common and you have only succeeded in weakening your otherwise valid energy argument. Autism is a problem that now researchers have determined may start very early in the womb mostly like due to environmental issues. If you have spent any time with an autistic kid perhaps you could assess for yourself that Autism is not an illusion or delusion.
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-12/mri-scans-diagnose-autism-near-perfect-accuracy-new-study
Not like the general search engine. No they don't. The reason is mostly due to how people use those apps. With the search engine you are looking for something and entering a term. This is a perfect time to evaluate your search term and then target specific ads to you. Google Docs, Gmail, Picasa, Android products are unable to be monetized as effectively as Google Search. It is pretty clear if you care to read the 10-Q or 10-K. But based on the tone of your previous comment I would say this is very unlikely so I included it for you.
Google's own statement in their last 10-K.
"How We Generate Revenue
Advertising revenues made up 97% of our revenues in 2008 and 2009, and 96% of our revenues in 2010. We derive most of our additional revenues from offering display advertising management services to advertisers, ad agencies, and publishers, as well as licensing our enterprise products, search solutions, and web search technology.
In addition, in the past year we have also invested aggressively in our newer businesses—namely display, mobile, and enterprise—to lay the groundwork for future growth. We have also made strategic investments in critical product areas, like Android, Chrome, and Chrome OS—following our core philosophy of building open platforms with optionality, and creating infrastructure that allows everyone on the web to succeed. We also believe that an active acquisition program is an important element of our business strategy. During 2010, we invested $1.8 billion to acquire companies, products, services, and technologies.
Our business is primarily focused around the following key areas: search, advertising, operating systems and platforms, and enterprise. "
Actually the more fundamental difference is the Microsoft is a certified monopoly by US district court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson. Aside from that, Microsoft derives the majority of its revenue from license fees of software and hardware products. The hardware products make up a tiny portion of that revenue. Google, on the other hand, derives something like 97% of their income from selling adverts. That makes then an advertising company. And if you parallel most advertising based firms with Google such as ABC, CBS, Turner Broadcasting, NewCorp, Viacom, etc. you will find that in order to sell advertisement you need shows or products to attract viewers which then drive advert sales. Some produce their own content such as CNN via news gathering and others buy it like ABC, CBC, and the main stations. In Google's case they produce their own shows but those shows have names like Gmail, Google Search Engine, Google+, iGoogle, etc. It is hard to have hit shows and Google needs hits to keep the advert dollars rolling in. The Google Search Engine is like the Simpsons. But even the Simpsons can't bring in all the money you need for your "station." They need other hit shows and they are having trouble coming up with them.
Google purchased from Android Inc., in 2005 and Android is based on Linux ker. I am not downplaying the additional feature set added and changed made to Android but it isn't something they cooked up in Google Labs.
The required X.509 certificates are simply a requirement of SSL and TLS. there is nothing requiring you to use SSL/TLS to secure an HTTP data channel or other channel other than it is the technology embedded in just about every browser on the planet. The purpose of validating certificates is for a 3rd party (e.g. Verisign or some other entity) to vouch that the certificate you have received chains up to the the trust root at Verisign and they vouch that they signed it - mathematically. Since your browser trusts Verisign automagically due to the Verisign trust authority added to your browser trust cache, you then accept that the certificate receive from XYZ.com was at least created by Verisign if the XYZ.com certificate chains and hasn't been revoke or expired. In theory this is suppose to validate that XYZ.com is the the correct XYZ.com. To make this happen the XYZ.com domain name is embedded in the X.509 certificate which was then signed by Versign. Is this a perfect system? Absolutely not. In fact your browser by default trusts too many authorities at this point. Just take a look at how many Firefox trusts out of the box. If you simply wanted to create a secure tunnel between two end points then X.509 certificates are simply unnecessary. IPSec and SSH are a point-to-point secure channel protocols that do not require certificates but you can use them to make key management easier. You can also simply make up your own should you desire. This isn't magic. The problem is that when you want others to talk to your new protocol they won't be able to.
True in that 99% of the electric power is converted to heat. The problem lies in that electric heat is not always cost effective in a cold climate since it takes a lot of voltage to generate the amount of energy needed to heat forced air in a cold climate. Natural gas heat, on the other hand, is not 100% efficient but is much more cost effective source of forced air heat in most cold climate areas. All this is dependent on the home, geographic locality, the type of heater used (traditional, heat pump, etc), the price of natural gas, the price of electricity, temperature of the house, outside temp, insulation, windows, etc. For example, 220v base board heating might be more cost effective for small homes than forced gas heat. Such heaters are very popular in the ski country in Colorado particularly in condos. A friend of mine owns an older home on a lake in CT and let some buddies use it for a week in the winter. His power bill for that one week was $2,000. They turned all the baseboard heaters on. You could ague that the house was simply not designed for heating but he is able to heat the house much more cost effectively now with gas heat. So, you will generally never see electric forced air heating in homes in Minnesota for example. They are very common in Georgia however where electricity is cheap and the number of cold months is much less than MN.
So what if I called it a language? The fact that I made an omission in an unedited online post is not novel. It does not mean I don't have a through understanding of the platform. Anyone programming on the.NET platform knows that and can easily infer my intent. Do you always spend so much time picking apart ever detail of every online post? Good grief.
Defining what is and what is not.NET is the source of much confusion to many people. But the CLR (Common Language Runtime) is the heart of the Microsoft implementation of the.NET platform and all higher level languages (VB.NET, C#, F#, etc) that are supported on the platform compiled down the IL language and execute on the.NET JIT compiler. The use of.NET and.NET Framework is interchangeable in my previous port. The lack of mentioning a specific language implementation was by purpose since it doesn't matter as the.NET CLR is just a VM that any compiled can target as long as the compiler emits valid IL code. And anyone familiar with the.NET platform can surely distinguish between the two without me having to specify "The.NET Framework which consists CLR and runs supported languages compiled to the IL language."
First,.NET != Silverlight. Killing Silverlight will not kill the.NET CLR. A special version of the.NET CLR was created to support Microsoft's push into vector based graphic UI's (e.g. Silverlight) but.NET is just a programming language that Silverlight adopted for good reason. HTML5 + JS, in my humble opinion, is simply a change in direction from the previous attempt of trying to dumb down flashy Windows's UI development with XAML. After all, XAML was simply a XML based description language for the underlying vector graphics engine. If you haven't picked up by now, the interfaces to this vector graphics engine are changing with the industry. This of course sucks for those who are heavily invested in Silverlight development. Likewise, Flash developers are being locked out of the Apple ecosystem and are facing different frustrations. In all, the reality is that the industry is moving forward and there are a lot of people who have invested into these technologies and they are not going to be happy about the changes. I don't blame them. I, just as any developer on the Windows platform, have suffered through the Microsoft technology graveyard which has headstones for VB6, VBX controls, ActiveX, COM, COM+, MTS, DNA, MSMQ (to a degree), C++'s MFC, ATL, RDP, DCOM, DAO, VBScript, VBA, and ASP among many others. Microsoft technologies entering triage include C++ CLR, ASP.NET, XAML, WPF, and I am certain quite a few others. Now, in my humble opinion I don't think the.NET CLR is dead or even dying as it is the defacto programming language for WinForm development on the Windows platform. But it isn't going to be a hot technology. One could argue new Windows based applications won't need.NET but that will take some time if it is even possible. The language is really the only sane way to build applications for Windows unless you are using one of the very nice open source C++ frameworks or you simply have given up on Windows and target the web. In that case you better brush up on HTML5 and JS.
The original post does not give enough information to understand the substance of this case. I have a masters degree from GSU so it perked my interest to understand better what this case is about. The case appears to center around a practice by some professors at GSU that use an E-reservation system to make certain papers available to students. When I was a grad student at GSU the professors simply copied the Harvard review documents or other documents and handed them out to us. Apparently this case has been filed due to the creation of a more formal, flexible process "and takes its name from the traditional library "reserve" model, where a professor makes a limited number of physical copies of articles or a book chapter available for students. Those copies were generally subject to permission, and proper reproduction fees were paid to the publishers." Below is more information.
Microsoft is aggressively marketing Windows on the mobile ARM architecture after sitting it out on the sidelines for years (Windows CE was available but a weak option for most purposes). It was not until recently that Microsoft agreed to even compile a version of Windows other than CE to the ARM RISC chip set. They see that they cannot simply hide behind their Intel partnership if they want to be relevant in the future. The future is looking more like ARM will be dominate in the personal space and Microsoft wants to be a player. To do so they are going to make offer some very sweet deals for certain manufactures such as Nokia.
It could possibly serve as a business person's primary PC upon which the employee simply connect this device up to larger peripherals when in the office and simply uses it as a hand held device on the go. The biggest drawback is that most business user's windows apps are compiled for x86 or x64 Intel. I suppose this limitation could be overcome with a virtual machine running on the device but that would certainly suck more processing power. As time goes on more Windows application will most likely be available on the ARM chip. But I don't see it as a clear "killer platform" from my point of view.
So by that logic I should be able to say allow mercury to be dumped in my backyard since I get paid good money for that. As the cat in the hat says, "I am sure you mother will not mind!"
Therein lies many problems. The earth's crust is not one nice consistent pancake. It has many different layers of rock and caverns as well as underwater rivers and lakes. To get to the shale you have to drill through all the other stuff. And you don't even know what you are drilling through in the first place. You just make a guess and then hope your "cement job" keeps the other layers of the earth from interaction with your dill hole. And there isn't just one hole. They drill hundreds of holes. There is no precision to this and methane gas knows no boundaries if it can find a way up the other layers of earth. What everyone is terrified of is a blow out since these drilling fluids are under intense heat and pressure and then a contamination of the aquifer with drilling fluids and potentially gas, brine, drilling fluid and even oil.
Yes. And those formulas contain a special combination of some of nasty chemicals such as benzine, toluene and naphthalene. The chemicals are needed to dissolve the shale rock and release the trapped gas. But even more alarming is the millions of gallons of water (a finite resource) intentionally polluted in the process. This polluted water has to be deposed of and currently some gas companies are injected the polluted water into deep wells in Arkansas. Even Fox News is reporting that the drilling and injecting of this polluted water in Arkansas might be causing thousands of earthquakes. There really is nothing "green" about the whole fracking process except in some ways the actual methane that is extracted when you compare to taking off the tops of the mountain in West Virginia and Kentucky.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/03/01/fracking-earthquakes-arkansas-man-experts-warn/
Well, lunch is my workout hour. If you want to talk to me during that time then will you have to go to the gym or put on some shoes and run with me (depending on the day of course). I feel a whole lot better after an hour workout than after an hour of uncomfortable managerial small talk.
When IBM killed OS/2 there was tremendous pressure for the company to open source the operating system. At the time, the vast majority of the banking industry ATM machines ran on OS/2. After doing some analysis IBM concluded they simply could not open source the operating system. Not because they didn't want to but because of all the 3rd party licensed technology embedded in the system that IBM did not own. Without agreements from these 3rd parties IBM concluded it was not a legal option for them to publish the source code. Even today there is pressure on IBM to open source OS/2. Conversely, one could also concluded the company has no upside to open sourcing. It would take a tremendous amount of legal and technical experience, time, and money to get all the agreements in place to put such a system in the open source domain. I would argue this would be a great treasure for researchers as well as computer scientists as well as corporate customers but IBM has different ideas. Likewise, other complex systems also are bound to many different patent and 3rd party agreements as well as internal propensity to keep secrets in house.
http://www.os2world.com/content/view/16595/1/
I don't think so. I think the intent of the article is to push people to think of the Internet in terms of energy costs. Most companies with large data centers already know those costs can be staggering. But I don't think the average user or even business executive really puts much thought into it. One could point to Google or even recently at Facebook for intriguing ideas about data center efficiency. And new computers are smarter about powering down resources for energy conservation. So I think we are moving in that direction simply due to costs and some companies are attempting to make part of their mission statement like facebook, Google, and even Cisco.
I think that is a good assessment. He has the concept firmly in his head but making that concept functional is still difficult. But I think the demo still has merit as a demo even though it is clearly not ready for mass consumption. It is interesting and I wish there was more such interesting demos being presented to get some "new" ideas (I say new simply in jest) injected into the infrastructure of what we call network computing or the web.
I would say it is like going to a physical store with horse side blinders on where every product is behind a separate door in the store. The door has a name but you are not sure what is inside so you open the door and behold there is the product along with a bunch of other doors with names on them. After going a few doors deep you are completely lost but not without enjoying looking at some products. Even though you are lost it isn't like the experience is all bad. You then have to get out so you cut a whole in the ceiling and climb out on the roof or perhaps you simple shoot yourself in the head to get out of web link hell, shutdown the browser, wake up and feed the crying baby or for most slashdotters you start writing email code for the boss.
Slashdot Mirror
I like it! Both creative and effective.
Let me know if you get a response. I had to literally change a credit card number to get Download.com to stop billing me once. Several years ago I created a Download.com account and paid for something. I really cannot remember what other than the software listing. Later I simply attempted to cancel the account but there is no way to cancel. I think I sent 5 support messages and did 2 credit card charge backs before I had to report my card stolen to get them to stop charging me. For several years I would get messages that my card failed to be charged. Yea, no kidding. That was by design.
First, your use of the word "alarmists" and then a capitalized word next to it screams Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Fox and Friends, etc. Just do a search on Google using only those two words "environmental+alarmists" and see what comes back. I call assure you it isn't a who's who representing the "fair and balanced" view.
http://www.google.com/search?q=environmental+alarmists
Or you can try the "Green+Agenda" Google search. That comes back with some even more interesting search results for even more fringe web sites.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Green+Agenda
Truly pathetic really.
Your two statements have absolutely nothing in common and you have only succeeded in weakening your otherwise valid energy argument. Autism is a problem that now researchers have determined may start very early in the womb mostly like due to environmental issues. If you have spent any time with an autistic kid perhaps you could assess for yourself that Autism is not an illusion or delusion. http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-12/mri-scans-diagnose-autism-near-perfect-accuracy-new-study
Not like the general search engine. No they don't. The reason is mostly due to how people use those apps. With the search engine you are looking for something and entering a term. This is a perfect time to evaluate your search term and then target specific ads to you. Google Docs, Gmail, Picasa, Android products are unable to be monetized as effectively as Google Search. It is pretty clear if you care to read the 10-Q or 10-K. But based on the tone of your previous comment I would say this is very unlikely so I included it for you.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312511032930/d10k.htm
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312511199078/d10q.htm
http://investor.google.com/earnings/2011/Q2_google_earnings.html
Google's own statement in their last 10-K. "How We Generate Revenue
Advertising revenues made up 97% of our revenues in 2008 and 2009, and 96% of our revenues in 2010. We derive most of our additional revenues from offering display advertising management services to advertisers, ad agencies, and publishers, as well as licensing our enterprise products, search solutions, and web search technology.
In addition, in the past year we have also invested aggressively in our newer businesses—namely display, mobile, and enterprise—to lay the groundwork for future growth. We have also made strategic investments in critical product areas, like Android, Chrome, and Chrome OS—following our core philosophy of building open platforms with optionality, and creating infrastructure that allows everyone on the web to succeed. We also believe that an active acquisition program is an important element of our business strategy. During 2010, we invested $1.8 billion to acquire companies, products, services, and technologies.
Our business is primarily focused around the following key areas: search, advertising, operating systems and platforms, and enterprise. "
Actually the more fundamental difference is the Microsoft is a certified monopoly by US district court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson. Aside from that, Microsoft derives the majority of its revenue from license fees of software and hardware products. The hardware products make up a tiny portion of that revenue. Google, on the other hand, derives something like 97% of their income from selling adverts. That makes then an advertising company. And if you parallel most advertising based firms with Google such as ABC, CBS, Turner Broadcasting, NewCorp, Viacom, etc. you will find that in order to sell advertisement you need shows or products to attract viewers which then drive advert sales. Some produce their own content such as CNN via news gathering and others buy it like ABC, CBC, and the main stations. In Google's case they produce their own shows but those shows have names like Gmail, Google Search Engine, Google+, iGoogle, etc. It is hard to have hit shows and Google needs hits to keep the advert dollars rolling in. The Google Search Engine is like the Simpsons. But even the Simpsons can't bring in all the money you need for your "station." They need other hit shows and they are having trouble coming up with them.
Google purchased from Android Inc., in 2005 and Android is based on Linux ker. I am not downplaying the additional feature set added and changed made to Android but it isn't something they cooked up in Google Labs.
The required X.509 certificates are simply a requirement of SSL and TLS. there is nothing requiring you to use SSL/TLS to secure an HTTP data channel or other channel other than it is the technology embedded in just about every browser on the planet. The purpose of validating certificates is for a 3rd party (e.g. Verisign or some other entity) to vouch that the certificate you have received chains up to the the trust root at Verisign and they vouch that they signed it - mathematically. Since your browser trusts Verisign automagically due to the Verisign trust authority added to your browser trust cache, you then accept that the certificate receive from XYZ.com was at least created by Verisign if the XYZ.com certificate chains and hasn't been revoke or expired. In theory this is suppose to validate that XYZ.com is the the correct XYZ.com. To make this happen the XYZ.com domain name is embedded in the X.509 certificate which was then signed by Versign. Is this a perfect system? Absolutely not. In fact your browser by default trusts too many authorities at this point. Just take a look at how many Firefox trusts out of the box. If you simply wanted to create a secure tunnel between two end points then X.509 certificates are simply unnecessary. IPSec and SSH are a point-to-point secure channel protocols that do not require certificates but you can use them to make key management easier. You can also simply make up your own should you desire. This isn't magic. The problem is that when you want others to talk to your new protocol they won't be able to.
hear! hear! ;)
True in that 99% of the electric power is converted to heat. The problem lies in that electric heat is not always cost effective in a cold climate since it takes a lot of voltage to generate the amount of energy needed to heat forced air in a cold climate. Natural gas heat, on the other hand, is not 100% efficient but is much more cost effective source of forced air heat in most cold climate areas. All this is dependent on the home, geographic locality, the type of heater used (traditional, heat pump, etc), the price of natural gas, the price of electricity, temperature of the house, outside temp, insulation, windows, etc. For example, 220v base board heating might be more cost effective for small homes than forced gas heat. Such heaters are very popular in the ski country in Colorado particularly in condos. A friend of mine owns an older home on a lake in CT and let some buddies use it for a week in the winter. His power bill for that one week was $2,000. They turned all the baseboard heaters on. You could ague that the house was simply not designed for heating but he is able to heat the house much more cost effectively now with gas heat. So, you will generally never see electric forced air heating in homes in Minnesota for example. They are very common in Georgia however where electricity is cheap and the number of cold months is much less than MN.
So what if I called it a language? The fact that I made an omission in an unedited online post is not novel. It does not mean I don't have a through understanding of the platform. Anyone programming on the .NET platform knows that and can easily infer my intent. Do you always spend so much time picking apart ever detail of every online post? Good grief.
Defining what is and what is not .NET is the source of much confusion to many people. But the CLR (Common Language Runtime) is the heart of the Microsoft implementation of the .NET platform and all higher level languages (VB.NET, C#, F#, etc) that are supported on the platform compiled down the IL language and execute on the .NET JIT compiler. The use of .NET and .NET Framework is interchangeable in my previous port. The lack of mentioning a specific language implementation was by purpose since it doesn't matter as the .NET CLR is just a VM that any compiled can target as long as the compiler emits valid IL code. And anyone familiar with the .NET platform can surely distinguish between the two without me having to specify "The .NET Framework which consists CLR and runs supported languages compiled to the IL language."
First, .NET != Silverlight. Killing Silverlight will not kill the .NET CLR. A special version of the .NET CLR was created to support Microsoft's push into vector based graphic UI's (e.g. Silverlight) but .NET is just a programming language that Silverlight adopted for good reason. HTML5 + JS, in my humble opinion, is simply a change in direction from the previous attempt of trying to dumb down flashy Windows's UI development with XAML. After all, XAML was simply a XML based description language for the underlying vector graphics engine. If you haven't picked up by now, the interfaces to this vector graphics engine are changing with the industry. This of course sucks for those who are heavily invested in Silverlight development. Likewise, Flash developers are being locked out of the Apple ecosystem and are facing different frustrations. In all, the reality is that the industry is moving forward and there are a lot of people who have invested into these technologies and they are not going to be happy about the changes. I don't blame them. I, just as any developer on the Windows platform, have suffered through the Microsoft technology graveyard which has headstones for VB6, VBX controls, ActiveX, COM, COM+, MTS, DNA, MSMQ (to a degree), C++'s MFC, ATL, RDP, DCOM, DAO, VBScript, VBA, and ASP among many others. Microsoft technologies entering triage include C++ CLR, ASP.NET, XAML, WPF, and I am certain quite a few others. Now, in my humble opinion I don't think the .NET CLR is dead or even dying as it is the defacto programming language for WinForm development on the Windows platform. But it isn't going to be a hot technology. One could argue new Windows based applications won't need .NET but that will take some time if it is even possible. The language is really the only sane way to build applications for Windows unless you are using one of the very nice open source C++ frameworks or you simply have given up on Windows and target the web. In that case you better brush up on HTML5 and JS.
The original post does not give enough information to understand the substance of this case. I have a masters degree from GSU so it perked my interest to understand better what this case is about. The case appears to center around a practice by some professors at GSU that use an E-reservation system to make certain papers available to students. When I was a grad student at GSU the professors simply copied the Harvard review documents or other documents and handed them out to us. Apparently this case has been filed due to the creation of a more formal, flexible process "and takes its name from the traditional library "reserve" model, where a professor makes a limited number of physical copies of articles or a book chapter available for students. Those copies were generally subject to permission, and proper reproduction fees were paid to the publishers." Below is more information.
http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/publisher-news/article/43500-a-failure-to-communicate.html
Microsoft is aggressively marketing Windows on the mobile ARM architecture after sitting it out on the sidelines for years (Windows CE was available but a weak option for most purposes). It was not until recently that Microsoft agreed to even compile a version of Windows other than CE to the ARM RISC chip set. They see that they cannot simply hide behind their Intel partnership if they want to be relevant in the future. The future is looking more like ARM will be dominate in the personal space and Microsoft wants to be a player. To do so they are going to make offer some very sweet deals for certain manufactures such as Nokia.
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2011/jan11/01-05socsupport.mspx
http://gigaom.com/mobile/with-nokia-dating-microsoft-intel-was-just-stood-up/
It could possibly serve as a business person's primary PC upon which the employee simply connect this device up to larger peripherals when in the office and simply uses it as a hand held device on the go. The biggest drawback is that most business user's windows apps are compiled for x86 or x64 Intel. I suppose this limitation could be overcome with a virtual machine running on the device but that would certainly suck more processing power. As time goes on more Windows application will most likely be available on the ARM chip. But I don't see it as a clear "killer platform" from my point of view.
So by that logic I should be able to say allow mercury to be dumped in my backyard since I get paid good money for that. As the cat in the hat says, "I am sure you mother will not mind!"
Therein lies many problems. The earth's crust is not one nice consistent pancake. It has many different layers of rock and caverns as well as underwater rivers and lakes. To get to the shale you have to drill through all the other stuff. And you don't even know what you are drilling through in the first place. You just make a guess and then hope your "cement job" keeps the other layers of the earth from interaction with your dill hole. And there isn't just one hole. They drill hundreds of holes. There is no precision to this and methane gas knows no boundaries if it can find a way up the other layers of earth. What everyone is terrified of is a blow out since these drilling fluids are under intense heat and pressure and then a contamination of the aquifer with drilling fluids and potentially gas, brine, drilling fluid and even oil.
Yes. And those formulas contain a special combination of some of nasty chemicals such as benzine, toluene and naphthalene. The chemicals are needed to dissolve the shale rock and release the trapped gas. But even more alarming is the millions of gallons of water (a finite resource) intentionally polluted in the process. This polluted water has to be deposed of and currently some gas companies are injected the polluted water into deep wells in Arkansas. Even Fox News is reporting that the drilling and injecting of this polluted water in Arkansas might be causing thousands of earthquakes. There really is nothing "green" about the whole fracking process except in some ways the actual methane that is extracted when you compare to taking off the tops of the mountain in West Virginia and Kentucky.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/03/01/fracking-earthquakes-arkansas-man-experts-warn/
Well, lunch is my workout hour. If you want to talk to me during that time then will you have to go to the gym or put on some shoes and run with me (depending on the day of course). I feel a whole lot better after an hour workout than after an hour of uncomfortable managerial small talk.
When IBM killed OS/2 there was tremendous pressure for the company to open source the operating system. At the time, the vast majority of the banking industry ATM machines ran on OS/2. After doing some analysis IBM concluded they simply could not open source the operating system. Not because they didn't want to but because of all the 3rd party licensed technology embedded in the system that IBM did not own. Without agreements from these 3rd parties IBM concluded it was not a legal option for them to publish the source code. Even today there is pressure on IBM to open source OS/2. Conversely, one could also concluded the company has no upside to open sourcing. It would take a tremendous amount of legal and technical experience, time, and money to get all the agreements in place to put such a system in the open source domain. I would argue this would be a great treasure for researchers as well as computer scientists as well as corporate customers but IBM has different ideas. Likewise, other complex systems also are bound to many different patent and 3rd party agreements as well as internal propensity to keep secrets in house. http://www.os2world.com/content/view/16595/1/
I don't think so. I think the intent of the article is to push people to think of the Internet in terms of energy costs. Most companies with large data centers already know those costs can be staggering. But I don't think the average user or even business executive really puts much thought into it. One could point to Google or even recently at Facebook for intriguing ideas about data center efficiency. And new computers are smarter about powering down resources for energy conservation. So I think we are moving in that direction simply due to costs and some companies are attempting to make part of their mission statement like facebook, Google, and even Cisco.
Because regardless of ideology it is still an intriguing statement and provokes some interesting discussion as evident here on /.
I think that is a good assessment. He has the concept firmly in his head but making that concept functional is still difficult. But I think the demo still has merit as a demo even though it is clearly not ready for mass consumption. It is interesting and I wish there was more such interesting demos being presented to get some "new" ideas (I say new simply in jest) injected into the infrastructure of what we call network computing or the web.
I would say it is like going to a physical store with horse side blinders on where every product is behind a separate door in the store. The door has a name but you are not sure what is inside so you open the door and behold there is the product along with a bunch of other doors with names on them. After going a few doors deep you are completely lost but not without enjoying looking at some products. Even though you are lost it isn't like the experience is all bad. You then have to get out so you cut a whole in the ceiling and climb out on the roof or perhaps you simple shoot yourself in the head to get out of web link hell, shutdown the browser, wake up and feed the crying baby or for most slashdotters you start writing email code for the boss.