I hate to nitpick, but sending the parts to the moon and building it there doesn't save any energy over building it here on earth and sending it into orbit. Plus, you have to launch the parts a second time once it's built on the moon.
Not that counters your original suggestion.
I therefore propose we spend all of our efforts placing glasses of water and mounted baseball bats aronud every family's house just in case those aliens from Signs come and hunt us down. Don't discount the possibility that it could happen, we're talking about potentially saving civilization here.
You're probably right when you assume most people just read the title and go off of that, but I would like to point out the following paragraph:
After we figured out that the iPods were a practical way of carrying these images, Apple brought out the photo iPod a few months later. That meant the images could also be viewed on the devices.
My guess is they mean view thumbnails of the images, not to make medical diagnostics from them, but hey, IANAD@UHG.
It being established that the initial function was merely to store these images, and without getting into the whole security issue since so many others already did, can someone who praised this "innovation" please reveal to me, after acknowledging that iPods are not nearly the cheapest form of portable storage out there, why exactly this is such a brilliant use of technology?
You want to use a portable 40GB device to store images? I'm not sure about this, but I think there are products out there like that that cost a little less than $300
I would agree that the functionality of viewing these images on the 2.5" iPod screen does not make me feel too cosy...
there was no appreciable difference between Bush and Kerry
Could you buy into third party propoganda any more mindlessly? How can you say with a straight face that you watched the debates and saw no difference between the two major candidates? Now I have nothing against third parties in general (in fact I do rather hate the bipartisan nature of our elections), but to claim Bush and Kerry had "no appreciable difference" is pure ignorance.
Slashdot Mirror
I hate to nitpick, but sending the parts to the moon and building it there doesn't save any energy over building it here on earth and sending it into orbit. Plus, you have to launch the parts a second time once it's built on the moon. Not that counters your original suggestion.
I therefore propose we spend all of our efforts placing glasses of water and mounted baseball bats aronud every family's house just in case those aliens from Signs come and hunt us down. Don't discount the possibility that it could happen, we're talking about potentially saving civilization here.
Touché, salesman.
Right, because CDs never have anything related to DRM...
(Just to list a few)
You're probably right when you assume most people just read the title and go off of that, but I would like to point out the following paragraph:
My guess is they mean view thumbnails of the images, not to make medical diagnostics from them, but hey, IANAD@UHG.
It being established that the initial function was merely to store these images, and without getting into the whole security issue since so many others already did, can someone who praised this "innovation" please reveal to me, after acknowledging that iPods are not nearly the cheapest form of portable storage out there, why exactly this is such a brilliant use of technology?
You want to use a portable 40GB device to store images? I'm not sure about this, but I think there are products out there like that that cost a little less than $300
I would agree that the functionality of viewing these images on the 2.5" iPod screen does not make me feel too cosy...
there was no appreciable difference between Bush and Kerry
Could you buy into third party propoganda any more mindlessly? How can you say with a straight face that you watched the debates and saw no difference between the two major candidates? Now I have nothing against third parties in general (in fact I do rather hate the bipartisan nature of our elections), but to claim Bush and Kerry had "no appreciable difference" is pure ignorance.