people know (downloading copyrighted stuff) it's wrong, but they reckon that so long as no-one gets hurt...
Just like with speeding. You get pulled over, maybe you get off with a warning, maybe you get a fine and points (In the UK 12 points on your license and you lose it for a time), or maybe you get off with a warning. Either way you are more aware for a while - then you're back to your old habits.
Will downloading P2P copyrighted material be the same?
You get a warning, stop for a while (maybe change ISPs, so the new one doesn't have a record of your "offence") and then drift back to your old behaviour.
If this is a good analogy (comments?) is there really any way to stop it completely - or do people just expect to punish the most blatant offenders and keep everyone else, more or less, under control?
This is only about the O/S. I'm told MS make most of their profits from other products like Office. If the EU told them not to ship any more O/S copies, I would expect that we'd just get pirated copies coming in. Under that circumstance, MS would have nothing to gain by preventing the piracy and would just turn a blind eye. They'd still be allowed to sell commercial products.
Isn't it good to have a forward thinking government?
Even though there isn't a mobile phone network on Jupiter yet, they're taking the initiative and building the infrastructure to be able to tap Jovians' calls when the network does get that far.
Why are programmers non-productive?
Because their time is wasted in meetings.
or because they spend too much time messing around: working on things they consider interesting, rather than the job they are paid to do
Why are programmers rebellious?
Because the management interferes too much.
or because they have too much spare time and not enough to keep them occupied (Idle hands are the devil's tools)
Why are the programmers resigning one by one?
Because they are burnt out.
or because they are bored and unchallenged. No-one would hire a burn-out, because they're a liability. Better to hire a fresh, energetic employee.
In this alternative view, the fault is still in the management sphere, but is due to them not keeping discipline, enforcing deadlines, high standards, recognising and rewarding good work.
When you play back a recording of someone to that person, they always say "is that really me?" as they don't recognise their voice.
Likewise, when you recount a CIO's (or anyone else's, for that matter) behaviour to them, they won't recognise it as "bad". So there's little point in writing an article on recognising bad CIOs and then publishing it in an article for CIOs. They'll all either agree or disagree on the points, but none will see their own behaviour described there.
From a company's perspective, the only questions that really matter are whether the CIO being interviewed has a record of delivering programmes of work on target, on budget. That they can successfully turn around a failing (but not turn around a successful) IT department and that they positioned the IT dept. to allow a company to grow efficiently.
It doesn't matter if they name-drop or brown-nose. Anyway a hiring CIO just wouldn't recognise the pattern of behaviour - whether they, themselves, are good or bad.
Oh dear. This is just increasing the number of people who thing that Star Trek is real. I realise that they're merely out to sell copy, but you'd hope that National Geographic would retain some sense of integrity.
For every individual who uses iPlayer (or any other streaming application), the provider must send the same packets which that person receives. In basic terms, what comes out has to go in. So it seems to me that the cost to the BBC of sending this data: the £8.8 million quoted in the article, should be the same as the ISP costs for us receiving it. If the ISP pays more, then they just have a worse cost-per-megabyte deal than the BBC, and I don't beleive that.
Unless these figures that the ISPs are quoting have been independently audited, I would say this is just a precursor to the ISPs looking for an excuse to put their prices up.
It strikes me that this would be far simpler, more reliable and maybe even cheaper than this method.
Carbon paper might just have a marginal use when you have a multi-copy document and you need to get a "true" signature on each layer. Other than that I can't think of a single modern use for it.
Photocopying also gets round the obvious problem of unfamiliar students having it the "wrong way up" and copying their notes onto the backside of the same sheet of paper.
Hopefully it will answer once and for all, the question about whether there's intelligent life out there.
As soon as there's any hint of a mobile phone mast getting installed all the NIMBY's start moaning, writing to their MP's, holding protests and petitioning the phone company.
If there is life on other planets, all we have to do to find it is to announce that someone will errect a mobile mast - then just wait for the protests from the aliens. No protests means we are truly alone, afterall.
Does it strike you as a sensible plan, to absorb sun's radiation?
Yes, it does. This is what solar cells do. If you don't want sunlight reflecting off the body of the satellite, just keep it in the shade of the solar array. Design the array's shape such that when it is pointing sunwards it keeps the satellite in shade (presuming of course this doesn't block the camera).
If you don't want sunlight reflected off the soar cells, use the "venitian blind" type of shades you get in front of traffic lights near to airports.
The big problem is that what goes in, comes out. In the case of radiate energy it is emitted from the satellite at a different wavelength. You can't get away from that.
I have a lot of friends who have very uninformed political opinions.
Have you considered the possibility that politics just might not feature very large in their lives?
If they live in a place where no matter who they vote for, they (as individuals) won't actually make any material difference, then it may be that they know this, either tacitly or explicitly and therefore have decided to expend their energies on more meaningful pursuits.
Back on topic. The security-innocents may have a similar set of values: they don't know anyone who's lost money/property through ID theft and therefore have no way of measuring the risk to them and are therefore more interested in tangible risks?
Sometimes you just have to accept that your friends and/or family do dumb things. They drink and drive, they don't wear seatbelts, they smoke, they leave their mobile phones lying around and generally don't take the care that other people think they should.
You can tell them, maybe even explain to them what the issues are, but ultimately you have to let them screw up (except with the drink/drive thing, just stay out of their car). Yes, it's sad when someone you care about suffers a loss, but in that case the worst thing to do is "I told you to.....".
Seriously, all share trading works on the basis of one party thinking they know something that either makes a stock worth selling or worth buying. When they are right they make a profit and when wrong they make a loss.
If you don't have any privileged (either by insider or through your own analysis) information, you're effectively just making a bet - you might as well buy a lottery ticket.
People have learned how to avoid natural selection in the short term through unsustainable approaches such as inequity and excess consumption. But this is not going to work in the long term
So they start off looking at canoes and then make the seemingly unconnected statement that "unsustainable approaches... won't work in the long term" and are therefore (wait for it, this is good) unsustainable!
I don't know anything about canoe design, nor about sociology - if that's what this is, but from the quality of their conclusions I can;t see any worth to this study, except possibly that they all got a nice holiday in the pacific islands all paid for from a grant.
Whether it's free software or a free sample or a "take it, it's free" giveaway of unsold items after a yard sale. Once you have something you start to make an investment in it. On the case of the free sample, the promoter hopes you'll like it and buy more. For free software you spend time installing it and trying it out. If you don't like it you spend more time removing it. With the unsold items, you spend real-estate in your home to house it (probably the reason it was up for sale to start with) and time to clean it when you do housekeeping.
So "free" doesn't really exist at all
To be better than free, an item has to pay you back for it's upkeep, care / feeding / maintenance and the time you spend using it, exploring it's potential and possibly the disposal costs if or when you toss it out.
In short to be better than free, it must make you a profit.
I've recently spend several days exploring a "free" CMS package for building websites. So far my time-cost has been well over $1000. In my view this package is certainly not free and may even be more costly than one I purchased for $500, but got my website built and operational in a day.
Free as in no-cost is a myth. In my mind "free" simply means disposable, with very few regrets.
OK, so let's get a group of people who talk a lot professionally: teachers, call-centre agents, talk-radio presenters. Where are the damages claims for work induced injuroes? where are the increased health insurance rates for these "at risk" groups? I'd even take anecdotal "evidence" as an indication.
There's nothing.
I would say that people in rural areas talk less and before mobile phones, even less still - so their cancer rates should be lower, and pre-1985 even lower still.
There is no talking => cancer evidence: theory busted!
yah, sure it does - all it needs is some personal choice.
I went through a similar phase many years ago. It's quite flattering to feel that you're always needed - for a time. After that it becomes a chore, then something you hate.
Most people grow out of it when they realise that the people who put them "on permanent call" are really just being lazy/exploitative.
Others find it's reassuring to know that someone wants/needs them. If so, then fine - they're getting something out of it too (apart from stress related illnesses).
However organisations that rely on the monumental efforts of a few key individuals rarely last long - they're just a house of cards, and as soon as one of the key people leaves the whole mess tends to fall apart. Enjoy it while it lasts.
Yes there are elections in the UK. There are 2 major political parties. However their policies are almost identical and on major issues they are in lock-step[1]. Elections are basically a popularity contest and are won or lost on scandals, which party had the latest corruption charges and which party a small number of newspaper owners (most of whom are foreign and are ineligible to vote) like best.
There is no obligation for the elected party to fulfill their manifesto and they are free to introduce new policies at any time - without getting a mandate from the people. Party leaders and therefore the prime-minister can be ousted at any time and new appointees don't need ratification, apart from the non-transparent process that gets them the top job.
But we get to vote once every 5 years, so that makes it a democracy - just like in Iraq
[1] if this conjures up any visual images in your mind, you're probably not far off.
Sadly the only way to become a lawmaker (aka politician) is to win a popularity contest - not to succeed in a technical evaluation of your skills. Even if you could come up with a way to weed out the idiots (and still be able to fill the goverenmental chambers) you could not filter out the corruption.
In fact what you would end with is skillful, corrupt politicians who would be a lot harder to idenitfy than the current bunch of idiotic, corrupt politicians, who give themselves away with their incompetence.
Slashdot Mirror
Just like with speeding. You get pulled over, maybe you get off with a warning, maybe you get a fine and points (In the UK 12 points on your license and you lose it for a time), or maybe you get off with a warning. Either way you are more aware for a while - then you're back to your old habits.
Will downloading P2P copyrighted material be the same?
You get a warning, stop for a while (maybe change ISPs, so the new one doesn't have a record of your "offence") and then drift back to your old behaviour.
If this is a good analogy (comments?) is there really any way to stop it completely - or do people just expect to punish the most blatant offenders and keep everyone else, more or less, under control?
This is only about the O/S. I'm told MS make most of their profits from other products like Office. If the EU told them not to ship any more O/S copies, I would expect that we'd just get pirated copies coming in. Under that circumstance, MS would have nothing to gain by preventing the piracy and would just turn a blind eye. They'd still be allowed to sell commercial products.
Even though there isn't a mobile phone network on Jupiter yet, they're taking the initiative and building the infrastructure to be able to tap Jovians' calls when the network does get that far.
Gallons, litres. They're pretty much the same, aren't they?
It wasn't hit by falling bits off a classied satellite, was it?
Because their time is wasted in meetings.
or because they spend too much time messing around: working on things they consider interesting, rather than the job they are paid to do
Why are programmers rebellious?
Because the management interferes too much.
or because they have too much spare time and not enough to keep them occupied (Idle hands are the devil's tools)
Why are the programmers resigning one by one?
Because they are burnt out.
or because they are bored and unchallenged. No-one would hire a burn-out, because they're a liability. Better to hire a fresh, energetic employee.
In this alternative view, the fault is still in the management sphere, but is due to them not keeping discipline, enforcing deadlines, high standards, recognising and rewarding good work.
Likewise, when you recount a CIO's (or anyone else's, for that matter) behaviour to them, they won't recognise it as "bad". So there's little point in writing an article on recognising bad CIOs and then publishing it in an article for CIOs. They'll all either agree or disagree on the points, but none will see their own behaviour described there.
From a company's perspective, the only questions that really matter are whether the CIO being interviewed has a record of delivering programmes of work on target, on budget. That they can successfully turn around a failing (but not turn around a successful) IT department and that they positioned the IT dept. to allow a company to grow efficiently.
It doesn't matter if they name-drop or brown-nose. Anyway a hiring CIO just wouldn't recognise the pattern of behaviour - whether they, themselves, are good or bad.
Oh dear. This is just increasing the number of people who thing that Star Trek is real. I realise that they're merely out to sell copy, but you'd hope that National Geographic would retain some sense of integrity.
For every individual who uses iPlayer (or any other streaming application), the provider must send the same packets which that person receives. In basic terms, what comes out has to go in. So it seems to me that the cost to the BBC of sending this data: the £8.8 million quoted in the article, should be the same as the ISP costs for us receiving it. If the ISP pays more, then they just have a worse cost-per-megabyte deal than the BBC, and I don't beleive that.
Unless these figures that the ISPs are quoting have been independently audited, I would say this is just a precursor to the ISPs looking for an excuse to put their prices up.
It strikes me that this would be far simpler, more reliable and maybe even cheaper than this method. Carbon paper might just have a marginal use when you have a multi-copy document and you need to get a "true" signature on each layer. Other than that I can't think of a single modern use for it.
Photocopying also gets round the obvious problem of unfamiliar students having it the "wrong way up" and copying their notes onto the backside of the same sheet of paper.
As soon as there's any hint of a mobile phone mast getting installed all the NIMBY's start moaning, writing to their MP's, holding protests and petitioning the phone company.
If there is life on other planets, all we have to do to find it is to announce that someone will errect a mobile mast - then just wait for the protests from the aliens. No protests means we are truly alone, afterall.
Let's see who trumps this one by offering a 5 bar service for Mars.
So, does the name Haliburton mean nothing to you?
Yes, it does. This is what solar cells do. If you don't want sunlight reflecting off the body of the satellite, just keep it in the shade of the solar array. Design the array's shape such that when it is pointing sunwards it keeps the satellite in shade (presuming of course this doesn't block the camera).
If you don't want sunlight reflected off the soar cells, use the "venitian blind" type of shades you get in front of traffic lights near to airports.
The big problem is that what goes in, comes out. In the case of radiate energy it is emitted from the satellite at a different wavelength. You can't get away from that.
Have you considered the possibility that politics just might not feature very large in their lives?
If they live in a place where no matter who they vote for, they (as individuals) won't actually make any material difference, then it may be that they know this, either tacitly or explicitly and therefore have decided to expend their energies on more meaningful pursuits.
Back on topic. The security-innocents may have a similar set of values: they don't know anyone who's lost money/property through ID theft and therefore have no way of measuring the risk to them and are therefore more interested in tangible risks?
You can tell them, maybe even explain to them what the issues are, but ultimately you have to let them screw up (except with the drink/drive thing, just stay out of their car). Yes, it's sad when someone you care about suffers a loss, but in that case the worst thing to do is "I told you to .....".
Seriously, all share trading works on the basis of one party thinking they know something that either makes a stock worth selling or worth buying. When they are right they make a profit and when wrong they make a loss.
If you don't have any privileged (either by insider or through your own analysis) information, you're effectively just making a bet - you might as well buy a lottery ticket.
So they start off looking at canoes and then make the seemingly unconnected statement that "unsustainable approaches ... won't work in the long term" and are therefore (wait for it, this is good) unsustainable!
I don't know anything about canoe design, nor about sociology - if that's what this is, but from the quality of their conclusions I can;t see any worth to this study, except possibly that they all got a nice holiday in the pacific islands all paid for from a grant.
So "free" doesn't really exist at all
To be better than free, an item has to pay you back for it's upkeep, care / feeding / maintenance and the time you spend using it, exploring it's potential and possibly the disposal costs if or when you toss it out.
In short to be better than free, it must make you a profit.
I've recently spend several days exploring a "free" CMS package for building websites. So far my time-cost has been well over $1000. In my view this package is certainly not free and may even be more costly than one I purchased for $500, but got my website built and operational in a day.
Free as in no-cost is a myth. In my mind "free" simply means disposable, with very few regrets.
There's nothing.
I would say that people in rural areas talk less and before mobile phones, even less still - so their cancer rates should be lower, and pre-1985 even lower still.
There is no talking => cancer evidence: theory busted!
I went through a similar phase many years ago. It's quite flattering to feel that you're always needed - for a time. After that it becomes a chore, then something you hate.
Most people grow out of it when they realise that the people who put them "on permanent call" are really just being lazy/exploitative.
Others find it's reassuring to know that someone wants/needs them. If so, then fine - they're getting something out of it too (apart from stress related illnesses).
However organisations that rely on the monumental efforts of a few key individuals rarely last long - they're just a house of cards, and as soon as one of the key people leaves the whole mess tends to fall apart. Enjoy it while it lasts.
The article suggests it's only a problem with laser printers, so no ink, only toner
Up to 10Mbit/s download speeds
So how much power is that in practice? 5mW PSM? maybe 10 if you're an athlete?
I think I'll stick to batteries, thanks
There is no obligation for the elected party to fulfill their manifesto and they are free to introduce new policies at any time - without getting a mandate from the people. Party leaders and therefore the prime-minister can be ousted at any time and new appointees don't need ratification, apart from the non-transparent process that gets them the top job.
But we get to vote once every 5 years, so that makes it a democracy - just like in Iraq
[1] if this conjures up any visual images in your mind, you're probably not far off.
In fact what you would end with is skillful, corrupt politicians who would be a lot harder to idenitfy than the current bunch of idiotic, corrupt politicians, who give themselves away with their incompetence.