In "When the Sleeper Wakes," a guy is in a coma for a thousand years, wakes up and his money has taken over the world. Highly recommend it, but that's because I like Wells a lot.
I'd like to try this out, living in Japan as I do, but if you'd ever tried shochu, perhaps you'd understand that it's not exactly that similar to wine. I personally can't stand the drink straight, but it's great in mixed drinks, the so-called chu-hai (short for shochu highball) that come in all sorts of delicious flavors.
Shochu has been very popular amongst young people lately, so there's a big market they can hit. I hope they convince a sake or wine company to try it, so I can give it a try. Here's the wikipedia link to find out more on shochu: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shochu
At least, a huge number of them do, especially of the ones who go abroad. Chinese and Russians don't, but it's sad for Indians who have a native grasp of the language to be considered on par with Chinese and Russians as a group in terms of language/communications skills.
Have you heard what the battery life will be? All I've seen is rumors, none of them convincing me that the battery life will be comparable to older Powerbooks.
I guess I responded a little hastily and unclearly to the line quoted in the summary: "IBM's chips are power-hungry and generate a lot of heat, and therefore not suitable to notebook computers."
The implication covers more than just the G5; though to be fair, later in the paragraph the author narrows the focus of this statement, something that I would have gotten if I'd RTFA before firing off that post.
Well, it's quite late where I am, so I apologize if I didn't express myself very well. I realize that the ability to boost performance by running the COOLER intel chips (heat being what prevented the use of the G5, and why the G4 was still in all the notebooks). However, I was responding to the charge of IBM's chips being "power-hungry," which it seems to me would correlate with battery life reasonably well.
I'm a Mac user, and I've been keeping an ear to the ground, but I haven't heard any mention of the new MacBooks having improved battery life over the 'old' PowerBooks, so I am guessing the reverse is true (or much would be made of the better battery life).
Of course, there are lots of other reasons for the move than just lower power consumption, and even on that front, there's no way of knowing right now if the new MacBooks will have lower unit-of-power/unit-of-computational-power costs. With the possibility that the new chips provide better-than-G5 performance in a laptop, well, there's certainly something going right with this switch, even if Intel doesn't have the best reputation for efficient, cool chips.
"There are plenty of corporate-level antivirus solutions that will allow the control of virus scanning policies so that you could enable the sending of e-mail through SMTP. If it's corporate policy not to allow it, then it really isn't a computer problem, but a company policy problem."
Well, it seems to me that the question is really about whether corporate security policies have gotten out of hand, not about the technology itself (though a key feature of any technology, as any Mac user will be glad to lecture you about, is its usability/implementation). On this question, I can't speak much from my own personal experiences (never worked at a big corporation), but anecdotally there does seem to be a certain amount of paranoia in corporate environments beyond what is called for.
I believe that many "security measures" are actually implemented more broadly than necessary because the side effects (lessened ability to use the internet, etc.) are mostly seen as good by the people who make decisions. In business, the further the chain of underlings between the decision-maker and the regular employee, the less likely they will just trust you (the employee) to do your job and the more likely they will impose restrictions to insure you can't visit slashdot/fark/apple.com etc.
"It seems to me that the network environment doesn't suffer from too much security, but that the existing security needs to be better managed so that it doesn't prove detrimental to the productivity of the employees."
I think this is true (again, not from direct personal experience, so take this with plenty of salt), but part of it is due to a lack of understanding of network/security technology by many decision makers. If you are unsure about anything, and there's tons of money and/or your job riding on it, you err on the side of caution, regardless of inconveniences to your employees. Even in my very relaxed work environment, a great deal of our internet functionality has been taken away for little apparent reason.
Of course, even if all the security decisions were left to the IT people (never interfered with by less expert management types), there would still be plenty of problems for any company-wide network solutions. I look forward to hearing about what people think would be ideal (this being slashdot, there will be some good, specific answers somewhere in this thread).
You mean the first S. Korean or Japanese city, which matters to me, because I might be included. As America's strongest allies in the region, and home to something like 100K US soldiers (who are only intermittently subject to local laws, thanks to the legacy of post-WWII and Korean War US planning), Japan and S. Korea will be in grave danger if there's a shooting war with N. Korea.
Either the skilled immigrants are taking our jobs (competing under our labor laws), or the skilled foreigners are doing our jobs remotely.
Either the poor immigrants are responsible for all the poverty and crime, or else the birthrate is too low.
Admittedly, I didn't RTFA before deciding to post, but i have read it now. Basically, it's all summed up in the title. Some immigration analyst interviewed by what appears to be a newspaper says that too much skilled labor is causing a glut. Nothing new, for those of you who follow this kind of news in America, or any other country, i guess. damned foreigners (not that it's not a legitimately difficult situation).
A single source gave them the gist. Then at the end, here's the kicker:
But Australian Computer Society chief executive officer Dennis Furini said that while there was possibly an oversupply of entry-level programmers, there was a shortage of specialists in areas such as e-commerce and network security.
An Immigration Department spokesman said it relied on information from the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations to draw up the skilled occupation list.
"The Immigration Department has no information suggesting IT jobs should be taken off the skilled occupation list," he said.
you said:
"Too/to/two many people play loose/lose with their/there/they're word processor's/processors checking facilities."
you meant:
their word processors' . . .
The human mind, while extremely adaptable, has some limitations that your rhetorical style overlooks. When you say that "the human mind" will adapt, what you are really saying is that human minds are able to deal with this level of distraction right now.
There is no time for evolution to help the human mind adapt, we're basically stuck at this point in evolution. There's a limit to what our hunter/gatherer/tinkerer primate brains can handle and still work efficiently, and that we can't pass our progress on to our children genetically to help them get past that limit.
I'd be inclined to argue that we, doing more at one time with our minds than people a century ago, are very likely functioning less efficiently in many ways, though the progress of technological tools to aid us has more than made up the difference, so far.
as has been suggested elsewhere in this thread, user reviews are more numerous, and you can generally pick out the ones that display critical thinking.
if the critics are (as i tend to believe) overwhelmingly hacks and shills for the gaming industry, then looking at an average of a bunch of critics scores does nothing but give you an indication of exactly what level the hype machine is at, not the true worth of a game.
my problem is that i don't believe it'll happen, not that i am thinking of it happening in a certain way. in some communities, the internet might be used to facilitate local planning decisions etc., but the bigger the government-handled-issue you talk about, the less faith i have that the internet will be involved in taking away from the government and putting decisions in the hands of the public.
the internet will replace government by gradually doing its job better?
seriously, when's the last time you and your virtual friends got together and said "Hey, let's go wiki a road! The one to my house is inefficient, and I have a plan. By a magical confluence of pornography and EverQuest, we can more efficiently collect taxes and move hundreds of tons of pavement and dirt!"
Seriously, I like your optimism, but I'm just not buying it. It's much easier to believe that private corporations will replace governments, than believing that "the people" will acheive greater control over the government without trying. The corporations are already providing mercenaries and writing laws, after all.
But hey, it fits the requirement here, i guess. I can see how everyone believing that everything will improve without any effort could be dangerous, and so your idea is dangerous.
Seriously, though, each new step forward brings with it ethical questions that, for obvious reasons, we have never been forced to confront before. Give it a little time, and make your own opinion (if you have thought clearly about this topic) clear to your acquaintances, and the ethical ideas around this will eventually settle down.
(Like the debate about abortion has?? Well, . . . . I got no response for that)
China has had one of or the highest growth rate in the world for more than half a century, since the end of WWII, basically, and it hasn't all been since Deng (as much as capitalism-solves-all-problems fantasists would like to believe). People who think that Capitalism has turned China around are seeing what they want to see. The leadership in China has allowed capitalism, to a certain degree, but not because there was no economic growth at all beforehand.
Sure, he'll get a tax break, but he's only gonna get a little fraction of that back, and undoubtedly the judge in the case was aware of this. He'll still lose tens of millions of dollars/
He didn't, or at least, that's not the bad part. The key issue is that MICROSOFT DECIDES WHETHER TO RELEASE THE STUDY. This means that only good (for Microsoft) studies are released. A study like this provides an interesting road map for a real study, as mentioned in several of the answers, but it is far too small to be statistically significant. An easy method of sure success for Microsoft is: 1. Commission many too-small studies with their $$$$$. 2. Only allow the statistically insignificant positive results to be published. (3. Keep the info from all of the studies so that they end up with statistically significant results.) 4. Profit!
First I thought SETI is risk to earth itself. What if aliens are listning us and preparing for something big!
Assuming this wasn't intended as humor, we have been BROADcasting signals for about a century, and that means that aliens out there will get to hear all about the glories of the Third Reich, etc. SETI is an attempt to put forth our best face (perhaps, you know, tolerance! moderate intelligence! no death penalty for our young in a lot of countries! &c & whatever), and to listen for responses to some of the noise we've been sending out.
Drug addiction, being primarily metabolic, may have a more limited set of idenitifying characteristics. Game addiction, being primarily mental (or maybe even social) has more varying charactistics as psyches and social structures have a lot of built-in variance.
An interesting take on it, but I think you're looking at it the wrong way. As drugs have very specific effects on the body, being generally concentrations of one or several potent substances, it is USEFUL, in terms of conveying information, to say that something as broad and varied as gaming can include these effects, and does, statistically. It is not very USEFUL to compare something to gaming this way, because it is a complex set of behaviors with very varied psychological and physiological consequences. For a more intuitive version of this argument consider saying that Liquids share properties with Milk versus Milk has the properties of Liquids. Liquids, being a very narrowly defined set of properties (==the effects of drugs), is useful for describing milk. Milk has many properties(==the effects of gaming), and the first ones that come to mind are not going to be the same for everyone. "Drugs are like gaming" would only convey information to the extent that people assume you mean "Gaming is like drugs." Granted, here i refer to the effects, not the people, which you might find objectionable.
God only knows why it should be surprising that media companies would cover up atrocities in foreign countries to maintain access. It's not like Americans would really care, or need any excuse to dislike Iraq. Considering that the media companies have repeatedly gone after the Bush administration's lies with only the most soft-hitting reporting, in order to maintain access to top-level officials by not pissing them off, who would be surprised that they do the same thing in countries that are even less important to their viewers?
Slashdot Mirror
In "When the Sleeper Wakes," a guy is in a coma for a thousand years, wakes up and his money has taken over the world. Highly recommend it, but that's because I like Wells a lot.
I'd like to try this out, living in Japan as I do, but if you'd ever tried shochu, perhaps you'd understand that it's not exactly that similar to wine. I personally can't stand the drink straight, but it's great in mixed drinks, the so-called chu-hai (short for shochu highball) that come in all sorts of delicious flavors.
Shochu has been very popular amongst young people lately, so there's a big market they can hit. I hope they convince a sake or wine company to try it, so I can give it a try. Here's the wikipedia link to find out more on shochu: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shochu
At least, a huge number of them do, especially of the ones who go abroad. Chinese and Russians don't, but it's sad for Indians who have a native grasp of the language to be considered on par with Chinese and Russians as a group in terms of language/communications skills.
Have you heard what the battery life will be? All I've seen is rumors, none of them convincing me that the battery life will be comparable to older Powerbooks.
I guess I responded a little hastily and unclearly to the line quoted in the summary: "IBM's chips are power-hungry and generate a lot of heat, and therefore not suitable to notebook computers."
The implication covers more than just the G5; though to be fair, later in the paragraph the author narrows the focus of this statement, something that I would have gotten if I'd RTFA before firing off that post.
Mea Culp Mea Culpa Mea Maxima Culpa
Well, it's quite late where I am, so I apologize if I didn't express myself very well. I realize that the ability to boost performance by running the COOLER intel chips (heat being what prevented the use of the G5, and why the G4 was still in all the notebooks). However, I was responding to the charge of IBM's chips being "power-hungry," which it seems to me would correlate with battery life reasonably well.
I'm a Mac user, and I've been keeping an ear to the ground, but I haven't heard any mention of the new MacBooks having improved battery life over the 'old' PowerBooks, so I am guessing the reverse is true (or much would be made of the better battery life). Of course, there are lots of other reasons for the move than just lower power consumption, and even on that front, there's no way of knowing right now if the new MacBooks will have lower unit-of-power/unit-of-computational-power costs. With the possibility that the new chips provide better-than-G5 performance in a laptop, well, there's certainly something going right with this switch, even if Intel doesn't have the best reputation for efficient, cool chips.
"There are plenty of corporate-level antivirus solutions that will allow the control of virus scanning policies so that you could enable the sending of e-mail through SMTP. If it's corporate policy not to allow it, then it really isn't a computer problem, but a company policy problem."
Well, it seems to me that the question is really about whether corporate security policies have gotten out of hand, not about the technology itself (though a key feature of any technology, as any Mac user will be glad to lecture you about, is its usability/implementation). On this question, I can't speak much from my own personal experiences (never worked at a big corporation), but anecdotally there does seem to be a certain amount of paranoia in corporate environments beyond what is called for.
I believe that many "security measures" are actually implemented more broadly than necessary because the side effects (lessened ability to use the internet, etc.) are mostly seen as good by the people who make decisions. In business, the further the chain of underlings between the decision-maker and the regular employee, the less likely they will just trust you (the employee) to do your job and the more likely they will impose restrictions to insure you can't visit slashdot/fark/apple.com etc.
"It seems to me that the network environment doesn't suffer from too much security, but that the existing security needs to be better managed so that it doesn't prove detrimental to the productivity of the employees."
I think this is true (again, not from direct personal experience, so take this with plenty of salt), but part of it is due to a lack of understanding of network/security technology by many decision makers. If you are unsure about anything, and there's tons of money and/or your job riding on it, you err on the side of caution, regardless of inconveniences to your employees. Even in my very relaxed work environment, a great deal of our internet functionality has been taken away for little apparent reason.
Of course, even if all the security decisions were left to the IT people (never interfered with by less expert management types), there would still be plenty of problems for any company-wide network solutions. I look forward to hearing about what people think would be ideal (this being slashdot, there will be some good, specific answers somewhere in this thread).
You mean the first S. Korean or Japanese city, which matters to me, because I might be included. As America's strongest allies in the region, and home to something like 100K US soldiers (who are only intermittently subject to local laws, thanks to the legacy of post-WWII and Korean War US planning), Japan and S. Korea will be in grave danger if there's a shooting war with N. Korea.
Either the skilled immigrants are taking our jobs (competing under our labor laws), or the skilled foreigners are doing our jobs remotely.
Either the poor immigrants are responsible for all the poverty and crime, or else the birthrate is too low.
Admittedly, I didn't RTFA before deciding to post, but i have read it now. Basically, it's all summed up in the title. Some immigration analyst interviewed by what appears to be a newspaper says that too much skilled labor is causing a glut. Nothing new, for those of you who follow this kind of news in America, or any other country, i guess. damned foreigners (not that it's not a legitimately difficult situation).
A single source gave them the gist. Then at the end, here's the kicker:
But Australian Computer Society chief executive officer Dennis Furini said that while there was possibly an oversupply of entry-level programmers, there was a shortage of specialists in areas such as e-commerce and network security.
An Immigration Department spokesman said it relied on information from the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations to draw up the skilled occupation list.
"The Immigration Department has no information suggesting IT jobs should be taken off the skilled occupation list," he said.
you said: "Too/to/two many people play loose/lose with their/there/they're word processor's/processors checking facilities." you meant: their word processors' . . .
The human mind, while extremely adaptable, has some limitations that your rhetorical style overlooks. When you say that "the human mind" will adapt, what you are really saying is that human minds are able to deal with this level of distraction right now.
There is no time for evolution to help the human mind adapt, we're basically stuck at this point in evolution. There's a limit to what our hunter/gatherer/tinkerer primate brains can handle and still work efficiently, and that we can't pass our progress on to our children genetically to help them get past that limit.
I'd be inclined to argue that we, doing more at one time with our minds than people a century ago, are very likely functioning less efficiently in many ways, though the progress of technological tools to aid us has more than made up the difference, so far.
as has been suggested elsewhere in this thread, user reviews are more numerous, and you can generally pick out the ones that display critical thinking.
if the critics are (as i tend to believe) overwhelmingly hacks and shills for the gaming industry, then looking at an average of a bunch of critics scores does nothing but give you an indication of exactly what level the hype machine is at, not the true worth of a game.
my problem is that i don't believe it'll happen, not that i am thinking of it happening in a certain way. in some communities, the internet might be used to facilitate local planning decisions etc., but the bigger the government-handled-issue you talk about, the less faith i have that the internet will be involved in taking away from the government and putting decisions in the hands of the public.
WTF?
the internet will replace government by gradually doing its job better?
seriously, when's the last time you and your virtual friends got together and said "Hey, let's go wiki a road! The one to my house is inefficient, and I have a plan. By a magical confluence of pornography and EverQuest, we can more efficiently collect taxes and move hundreds of tons of pavement and dirt!"
Seriously, I like your optimism, but I'm just not buying it. It's much easier to believe that private corporations will replace governments, than believing that "the people" will acheive greater control over the government without trying. The corporations are already providing mercenaries and writing laws, after all.
But hey, it fits the requirement here, i guess. I can see how everyone believing that everything will improve without any effort could be dangerous, and so your idea is dangerous.
Because it's recent!
New things are scary, dontcha know?
Seriously, though, each new step forward brings with it ethical questions that, for obvious reasons, we have never been forced to confront before. Give it a little time, and make your own opinion (if you have thought clearly about this topic) clear to your acquaintances, and the ethical ideas around this will eventually settle down.
(Like the debate about abortion has?? Well, . . . . I got no response for that)
It's 'Grammar.'
And both things you say are wrong, as those words are both both verb and noun.
And, last but not least, everyone around here loves to pick on people who post about grammar and spelling.
Perhaps you're a grammar troll?
China has had one of or the highest growth rate in the world for more than half a century, since the end of WWII, basically, and it hasn't all been since Deng (as much as capitalism-solves-all-problems fantasists would like to believe). People who think that Capitalism has turned China around are seeing what they want to see. The leadership in China has allowed capitalism, to a certain degree, but not because there was no economic growth at all beforehand.
Sure, he'll get a tax break, but he's only gonna get a little fraction of that back, and undoubtedly the judge in the case was aware of this. He'll still lose tens of millions of dollars/
He didn't, or at least, that's not the bad part. The key issue is that MICROSOFT DECIDES WHETHER TO RELEASE THE STUDY. This means that only good (for Microsoft) studies are released. A study like this provides an interesting road map for a real study, as mentioned in several of the answers, but it is far too small to be statistically significant. An easy method of sure success for Microsoft is:
1. Commission many too-small studies with their $$$$$.
2. Only allow the statistically insignificant positive results to be published.
(3. Keep the info from all of the studies so that they end up with statistically significant results.)
4. Profit!
God only knows why it should be surprising that media companies would cover up atrocities in foreign countries to maintain access. It's not like Americans would really care, or need any excuse to dislike Iraq. Considering that the media companies have repeatedly gone after the Bush administration's lies with only the most soft-hitting reporting, in order to maintain access to top-level officials by not pissing them off, who would be surprised that they do the same thing in countries that are even less important to their viewers?