If the signal is encrypted, and you have to PAY to receive and decrypt the signal, so what if it is filthy language? Who cares where the signal originates?
After reading this article, I feel like when you used to watch Spock look into his mystery screen and make pronouncements about just about anything. "Captain, the enemy captain is wearing green boxers!"
We bounce some radar off of the freaking/moon/ pick it up somewhere else, and know that there is no water there. Damn amazing to me.
So I went and read the article you sited, and found:
Comparing surveys of children born in the 1950s and the 1970s, the researchers went on to examine the reason for Britain's low, and declining, mobility. They found that it is in part due to the strong and increasing relationship between family income and educational attainment.
For these children, additional opportunities to stay in education at age 16 and age 18 disproportionately benefited those from better off backgrounds. For a more recent cohort born in the early 1980s the gap between those staying on in education at age 16 narrowed, but inequality of access to higher education has widened further: while the proportion of people from the poorest fifth of families obtaining a degree has increased from 6 per cent to 9 per cent, the graduation rates for the richest fifth have risen from 20 per cent to 47 per cent.
So basically, poor people are less likely to go to college, and not going to college hurts your long-term prospects in life.
Can I get a big "duh"?
The real question is, why are poor people less likely to go to college? The fact of the matter is, college is available to just about anyone, provided you have the drive and talent to get it. The bulk of my college education has been free. I took advantage of tuition reimbursement programs offered by various employers over the years until I finished my BS. It took me much longer than a usual 4-year program, but I stuck with it. There are many other programs that people can take advantage of - scholarships, grants, military - you just have to go after it.
>If so much of the creative process is made so easy, where's the need for traditional animators >spending exponentially larger amounts of time to create work of equal or lesser quality? How did animators >view motion capture when it first appeared? Will there still be room for creativity if this tech comes to fruition?"
This sort of thing has always come along. For example, WYSIWYG applications like Front Page let people like me create web pages without knowing hardly any HTML. Suddenly/anyone/ could make a pretty good looking web page. Did a lot of web page authors bite the dust then? Sure. But the ones who remained advanced their art - now they are masters not just of HTML but PHP, AJAX, JAVA, Flash, and a host of other cutting-edge web functionalities.
Computer Aided Drafting did the same thing to mechanical drafters who worked on drawing boards with pencil and paper.
That's kind of the point of technology - to make what were once difficult or tedious expenditures of effort become effortless. Talented people who specialized in those old efforts will have to move on to tackle new things that are still difficult. There's always a new cutting edge.
>You overlook a vast amount of research and scholarship that was never intended to further any militaristic pursuits. The Wright Brothers didn't build their plane to gain tactical superiority over North Carolina, Einstein didn't develop relativity as a weapon, and Leeuwenhoek didn't discover microbes with the intention of infecting enemy troops.
But if you had to quantify the amount of scientific knowlege gained UP TO the point of the Wright Brothers without a military goal, and the amount of scientific knowlege gained AFTER the Wright brothers WITH a military goal, which do you think contributed more? By far, I'm certain, the military effort.
My commute is 35 miles each way by interstate, and takes me roughly 45 minutes by car.
Even assuming I could find a more bicycle friendly route, I'm sure it would take me at least 2.5 times as long to make the trip. Who wants to spend 5 hours a day getting to and from work?
There's this tremendous myth that OSS is all written by good Samaritans in their spare time, and companies that sell it commercially simply rebrand it, box it, and ship it.
That has always been impression, as just a single, lone user. OSS just equals free software. I don't expect support, because I don't get support from any commercial software provider (like if I emailed Microsoft about a problem I was having with Word I'd actually get a response from a human).
>Adams and Franklin were refering to resisting an occupation force, the US is combating an >externally commanded islamo-fascist terror insurgency. They are not the same. Indeed it is a >love of liberty that inspires citizens to give the federal government the powerful tools they >need to wipe it out completely.
Adams and Franklin were referring to resisting TYRANNY!
Your eagerness to give the federal government powerful tools at the expense of our own freedoms is walking down the path of turning that government into just that - a tyranny!
Destroying the enemies of the state must not be at the expense of the freedoms of its people!
The Republicans have done a damn fine job of painting the Democrats as being enemies of the state because they defend the freedoms of its people. The Democrats need to grow some balls and put a stop to this misrepresentation.
I've voted Republican or Libertarian all my life. I'm almost 100% certain to vote Democratic the next time around. The pendulumn has swung too far to the right.
>You're asking the wrong question. Since only Californians are voting on this, the question is: why >shouldn't Californians vote to subsidize 90% of their alternative energy funding with income from other states?
LOL, of course you are right. It is brilliant, after all, from their perspective anyway!:)
I believe I will contact my representatives and see if I can get similar legislation passed to help get subsidies for my mortgage, car payment, and utility bills, too!:)
>And what exactly, will they claim they need to raise prices in California to cover, but don't >need to raise prices in Arizona?
Duh - What makes you think they won't just raise them across the board? Or, if they can't get away with raising them in California, they'll just raise them for the rest of the country so we can all subsidize your green living?
Trust me - they won't lose a dime in profits. They'll either figure a way to hide the cost in the product, or they'll figure a way to claim it against their taxes. Either way, the taxpayers will pay.
>In this case, 90% of those consumers will be in other states. And all of those consumers will be the >ones using gas, thus appropriately charging them for the damage they do to all of society and >providing them with financial incentive to stop doing so as much as possible.
Why should the citizens of other states have to pay for California's environmental laws?
>Fact: Americans continue to consume VAST quantities of energy and piss it away on trivial bullshit - >from personal nonsense (like cellphones, gameboys, Xbox, rotisserie ovens, etc.) to larger potlach >level wastes (like Las Vegas), and NONE of it is sustainable. Period.
Really? Why not? Here's another fact for you: There is a HUGE demand for this stuff. Just because you lack the foresight to see how to sustain such demand doesn't mean that someone else won't figure it out.
>Fact: Besides energy rapidly approaching a massive down curve, we also rapidly approach the >peaking and imminent depletion of our metals. Copper ore averages 5%. Phosphorus, chromium >and magnesium production peaked years ago.
Where did all of those ores go? Oh, that's right - they are still here on good old planet Earth. Do you know why no one recycles? Because it's cheaper to get the stuff out of the ground. As soon as that isn't the case, you're going to find people mining landfills and paying you for your refuse.
>Industrial Civilisation is (slowly) drawing to a close. It's not the end, yet, but in about 15 years, >we'll be able to see it from there. After that, it is back to the land and farming. Forever. We Are Atlantis.
I highly doubt that. The demand is too high. Tell every American they can't watch American Idol on TV tonight or drink a beer because there isn't enough electricity and in six month's time they will have paved over all of Arizona with solar cells.
>If I've got to shell out a couple more bucks to live in a state with cleaner air and more >sustainable practices, then I'll reach into my wallet with a smile.
Just make sure it's only/your/ wallet you are reaching into while you are smiling.
>Nope. The law forbids them from raising the prices in California to make up for said cost, so >in reality the cost will be borne by oil users in all the US, not just CA.
Sure. They will just have a price increase anyway and say it was for something else unrelated to the tax.
Businesses never pay taxes. They just pass them on to consumers.
>its the bored middle classes that are too lazy to do anything but consume.
The middle classes have very little choice over their environmental impact. I'd wager the biggest single contributor to environmental problems that the middle classes provide is from driving their cars to and from work.
There is very little choice in that action.
Before you start about how people should all live next door to their place of work, you need to understand that most people can't do this, and the rest choose not to. People will get jobs in the best places they can, and they will buy houses in the places that provide the best opportunities for their children. Quite often, these two places are not in the same place.
I just can't get worked up about global warming. As far as I'm concerned, if it happens, it happens, and people will just have to deal with the consequences or die.
Folks, until the rich people's homes are underwater, nothing is going to happen. In fact, even then they will likely just take their insurance check and build wherever the new beachfront is.
99.9% of the world's population has ZERO control over this. The other.1% don't care because it will never affect them.
>See, to me, college was about learning first and foremost, about obtaining a well-rounded academic >education. The key here is "well-rounded."
I was a nerd in high school, and I was a nerd in college.
I was doing no more "social growing" in college than I did in high school - that is to say, I did none.
I suppose I had a few more friends, because I was now a nerd surrounded by other nerds (I went to a nerd school). But I can't really say I ever had a social life.
I would have to agree with the folks who have said at least 50% of the classes you take in college are a waste of time and merely income generators for the institution who claims to want you to be "well rounded".
>In what format? If it's stored as a big blob of binary garbage, you're just as much >held to ransom as if it were on a remote server. You still can't get at your data >except by going through the 'official channel', in this case running that particular >mail program and hoping it doesn't crash or corrupt its data store.
I use Outlook for my email client. Thunderbird, when I tried it, imported all of my email just fine.
For a long time I have seen the push to try to get applications off the PC (ironically, after pushing them all out there from the mainframe days). All the usual cost benefits are cited: ease of maintenance, upgrading, compatibility, etc.
I have been hesitant to adopt. For example, I still insist on a local email client that stores all of my email/on/my/computer/. I do not trust my email sitting on a server somewhere, for privacy and accessibility reasons. So to this extent, the article is right - I do worry about accessibility, probably irrationally in this day and age.
But in the last year it seems that the real money push on the 'Net has been in not just PROVIDING content, but rather CONTROLLING content.
So while in the past remote applications were pushed as a means to providing a better service to the customer, nowadays they seem to be pushed, unspokenly, as a means to provide better service to the PROVIDER.
If you can lock someone into your DRM vehicle, you can make the customer dependant on you. If they stop paying for your service, oh, so sorry, you can't access any of your application data anymore. Or you can't share your application data with anyone who isn't running our application. Basically the service provider can use DRM to control what you can do with your data.
My other concern with a remote application is privacy. Sure they/claim/ to be secure. But every week it seems there is a news story about someone else who has let slip with their customer's data. Maybe files on Service Provider X's computer system are in reality more secure than the files on my PC, but at least if they are compromised from my own computer it's my own damn fault. Anyway I feel like my files are more private stored on my machine generated on apps on my machine instead of on someone else's machine across the interent.
So my biggest source of distrust these days for a remote application is not the AVAILABILITY of the service, but rather:
* Being at the mercy of the service provider in terms of DRM.
* Privacy.
And finally, I just don't/need/ my applications to be remotely served to me. The two biggest applications I use are word processing and email. I'm still running Office 2000 for these applications, and they work just fine.
I love COD. I currently play COD2, but started out with COD1. It's so good, that I think it actually hurts the gaming market. I play it online all the time, and it's so fun and changing when you play against real people that I have little reason to seek out or buy another game.
COD has provided me with hundreds of hours of gaming fun.
Slashdot Mirror
If the signal is encrypted, and you have to PAY to receive and decrypt the signal, so what if it is filthy language? Who cares where the signal originates?
After reading this article, I feel like when you used to watch Spock look into his mystery screen and make pronouncements about just about anything. "Captain, the enemy captain is wearing green boxers!"
/moon/ pick it up somewhere else, and know that there is no water there. Damn amazing to me.
We bounce some radar off of the freaking
Steve
So I went and read the article you sited, and found:
Comparing surveys of children born in the 1950s and the 1970s, the researchers went on to examine the reason for Britain's low, and declining, mobility. They found that it is in part due to the strong and increasing relationship between family income and educational attainment.
For these children, additional opportunities to stay in education at age 16 and age 18 disproportionately benefited those from better off backgrounds. For a more recent cohort born in the early 1980s the gap between those staying on in education at age 16 narrowed, but inequality of access to higher education has widened further: while the proportion of people from the poorest fifth of families obtaining a degree has increased from 6 per cent to 9 per cent, the graduation rates for the richest fifth have risen from 20 per cent to 47 per cent.
So basically, poor people are less likely to go to college, and not going to college hurts your long-term prospects in life.
Can I get a big "duh"?
The real question is, why are poor people less likely to go to college? The fact of the matter is, college is available to just about anyone, provided you have the drive and talent to get it. The bulk of my college education has been free. I took advantage of tuition reimbursement programs offered by various employers over the years until I finished my BS. It took me much longer than a usual 4-year program, but I stuck with it. There are many other programs that people can take advantage of - scholarships, grants, military - you just have to go after it.
Steve
>If so much of the creative process is made so easy, where's the need for traditional animators
/anyone/ could make a pretty good looking web page. Did a lot of web page authors bite the dust then? Sure. But the ones who remained advanced their art - now they are masters not just of HTML but PHP, AJAX, JAVA, Flash, and a host of other cutting-edge web functionalities.
>spending exponentially larger amounts of time to create work of equal or lesser quality? How did animators
>view motion capture when it first appeared? Will there still be room for creativity if this tech comes to fruition?"
This sort of thing has always come along. For example, WYSIWYG applications like Front Page let people like me create web pages without knowing hardly any HTML. Suddenly
Computer Aided Drafting did the same thing to mechanical drafters who worked on drawing boards with pencil and paper.
That's kind of the point of technology - to make what were once difficult or tedious expenditures of effort become effortless. Talented people who specialized in those old efforts will have to move on to tackle new things that are still difficult. There's always a new cutting edge.
Steve
>You overlook a vast amount of research and scholarship that was never intended to further any militaristic pursuits. The Wright Brothers didn't build their plane to gain tactical superiority over North Carolina, Einstein didn't develop relativity as a weapon, and Leeuwenhoek didn't discover microbes with the intention of infecting enemy troops.
But if you had to quantify the amount of scientific knowlege gained UP TO the point of the Wright Brothers without a military goal, and the amount of scientific knowlege gained AFTER the Wright brothers WITH a military goal, which do you think contributed more? By far, I'm certain, the military effort.
Likewise with Einstein's work.
Likewise with just about any work..
Steve
My commute is 35 miles each way by interstate, and takes me roughly 45 minutes by car.
Even assuming I could find a more bicycle friendly route, I'm sure it would take me at least 2.5 times as long to make the trip. Who wants to spend 5 hours a day getting to and from work?
Steve
Just give me a safe appetite suppresant. That's all I need. I lost some 50+ pounds on Redux - that stuff worked. Now it's off the market.
Steve
>This isn't about science...
>This is about more war.
Since that's how 99% of mankind's knowlege has been accumulated, I'd say they are damn near the same thing.
Steve
There's this tremendous myth that OSS is all written by good Samaritans in their spare time, and companies that sell it commercially simply rebrand it, box it, and ship it.
That has always been impression, as just a single, lone user. OSS just equals free software. I don't expect support, because I don't get support from any commercial software provider (like if I emailed Microsoft about a problem I was having with Word I'd actually get a response from a human).
Steve
>Adams and Franklin were refering to resisting an occupation force, the US is combating an
>externally commanded islamo-fascist terror insurgency. They are not the same. Indeed it is a
>love of liberty that inspires citizens to give the federal government the powerful tools they
>need to wipe it out completely.
Adams and Franklin were referring to resisting TYRANNY!
Your eagerness to give the federal government powerful tools at the expense of our own freedoms is walking down the path of turning that government into just that - a tyranny!
Destroying the enemies of the state must not be at the expense of the freedoms of its people!
The Republicans have done a damn fine job of painting the Democrats as being enemies of the state because they defend the freedoms of its people. The Democrats need to grow some balls and put a stop to this misrepresentation.
I've voted Republican or Libertarian all my life. I'm almost 100% certain to vote Democratic the next time around. The pendulumn has swung too far to the right.
Steve
Boooooring.
If I have to choose between my wallet or your lungs, you lose.
Steve
>You're asking the wrong question. Since only Californians are voting on this, the question is: why
:)
:)
>shouldn't Californians vote to subsidize 90% of their alternative energy funding with income from other states?
LOL, of course you are right. It is brilliant, after all, from their perspective anyway!
I believe I will contact my representatives and see if I can get similar legislation passed to help get subsidies for my mortgage, car payment, and utility bills, too!
Steve
>And what exactly, will they claim they need to raise prices in California to cover, but don't
>need to raise prices in Arizona?
Duh - What makes you think they won't just raise them across the board? Or, if they can't get away with raising them in California, they'll just raise them for the rest of the country so we can all subsidize your green living?
Trust me - they won't lose a dime in profits. They'll either figure a way to hide the cost in the product, or they'll figure a way to claim it against their taxes. Either way, the taxpayers will pay.
>In this case, 90% of those consumers will be in other states. And all of those consumers will be the
>ones using gas, thus appropriately charging them for the damage they do to all of society and
>providing them with financial incentive to stop doing so as much as possible.
Why should the citizens of other states have to pay for California's environmental laws?
Steve
>Fact: Americans continue to consume VAST quantities of energy and piss it away on trivial bullshit -
>from personal nonsense (like cellphones, gameboys, Xbox, rotisserie ovens, etc.) to larger potlach
>level wastes (like Las Vegas), and NONE of it is sustainable. Period.
Really? Why not? Here's another fact for you: There is a HUGE demand for this stuff. Just because you lack the foresight to see how to sustain such demand doesn't mean that someone else won't figure it out.
>Fact: Besides energy rapidly approaching a massive down curve, we also rapidly approach the
>peaking and imminent depletion of our metals. Copper ore averages 5%. Phosphorus, chromium
>and magnesium production peaked years ago.
Where did all of those ores go? Oh, that's right - they are still here on good old planet Earth. Do you know why no one recycles? Because it's cheaper to get the stuff out of the ground. As soon as that isn't the case, you're going to find people mining landfills and paying you for your refuse.
>Industrial Civilisation is (slowly) drawing to a close. It's not the end, yet, but in about 15 years,
>we'll be able to see it from there. After that, it is back to the land and farming. Forever. We Are Atlantis.
I highly doubt that. The demand is too high. Tell every American they can't watch American Idol on TV tonight or drink a beer because there isn't enough electricity and in six month's time they will have paved over all of Arizona with solar cells.
Steve
>If I've got to shell out a couple more bucks to live in a state with cleaner air and more
/your/ wallet you are reaching into while you are smiling.
>sustainable practices, then I'll reach into my wallet with a smile.
Just make sure it's only
Steve
>Nope. The law forbids them from raising the prices in California to make up for said cost, so
>in reality the cost will be borne by oil users in all the US, not just CA.
Sure. They will just have a price increase anyway and say it was for something else unrelated to the tax.
Businesses never pay taxes. They just pass them on to consumers.
Steve
>its the bored middle classes that are too lazy to do anything but consume.
The middle classes have very little choice over their environmental impact. I'd wager the biggest single contributor to environmental problems that the middle classes provide is from driving their cars to and from work.
There is very little choice in that action.
Before you start about how people should all live next door to their place of work, you need to understand that most people can't do this, and the rest choose not to. People will get jobs in the best places they can, and they will buy houses in the places that provide the best opportunities for their children. Quite often, these two places are not in the same place.
Steve
I just can't get worked up about global warming. As far as I'm concerned, if it happens, it happens, and people will just have to deal with the consequences or die.
.1% don't care because it will never affect them.
Folks, until the rich people's homes are underwater, nothing is going to happen. In fact, even then they will likely just take their insurance check and build wherever the new beachfront is.
99.9% of the world's population has ZERO control over this. The other
Steve
>See, to me, college was about learning first and foremost, about obtaining a well-rounded academic
>education. The key here is "well-rounded."
I was a nerd in high school, and I was a nerd in college.
I was doing no more "social growing" in college than I did in high school - that is to say, I did none.
I suppose I had a few more friends, because I was now a nerd surrounded by other nerds (I went to a nerd school). But I can't really say I ever had a social life.
I would have to agree with the folks who have said at least 50% of the classes you take in college are a waste of time and merely income generators for the institution who claims to want you to be "well rounded".
Steve
>In what format? If it's stored as a big blob of binary garbage, you're just as much
>held to ransom as if it were on a remote server. You still can't get at your data
>except by going through the 'official channel', in this case running that particular
>mail program and hoping it doesn't crash or corrupt its data store.
I use Outlook for my email client. Thunderbird, when I tried it, imported all of my email just fine.
Steve
For a long time I have seen the push to try to get applications off the PC (ironically, after pushing them all out there from the mainframe days). All the usual cost benefits are cited: ease of maintenance, upgrading, compatibility, etc.
/on/my/computer/. I do not trust my email sitting on a server somewhere, for privacy and accessibility reasons. So to this extent, the article is right - I do worry about accessibility, probably irrationally in this day and age.
/claim/ to be secure. But every week it seems there is a news story about someone else who has let slip with their customer's data. Maybe files on Service Provider X's computer system are in reality more secure than the files on my PC, but at least if they are compromised from my own computer it's my own damn fault. Anyway I feel like my files are more private stored on my machine generated on apps on my machine instead of on someone else's machine across the interent.
/need/ my applications to be remotely served to me. The two biggest applications I use are word processing and email. I'm still running Office 2000 for these applications, and they work just fine.
I have been hesitant to adopt. For example, I still insist on a local email client that stores all of my email
But in the last year it seems that the real money push on the 'Net has been in not just PROVIDING content, but rather CONTROLLING content.
So while in the past remote applications were pushed as a means to providing a better service to the customer, nowadays they seem to be pushed, unspokenly, as a means to provide better service to the PROVIDER.
If you can lock someone into your DRM vehicle, you can make the customer dependant on you. If they stop paying for your service, oh, so sorry, you can't access any of your application data anymore. Or you can't share your application data with anyone who isn't running our application. Basically the service provider can use DRM to control what you can do with your data.
My other concern with a remote application is privacy. Sure they
So my biggest source of distrust these days for a remote application is not the AVAILABILITY of the service, but rather:
* Being at the mercy of the service provider in terms of DRM.
* Privacy.
And finally, I just don't
Steve
I love COD. I currently play COD2, but started out with COD1. It's so good, that I think it actually hurts the gaming market. I play it online all the time, and it's so fun and changing when you play against real people that I have little reason to seek out or buy another game.
COD has provided me with hundreds of hours of gaming fun.
Steve
http://www.ectechnic.co.uk/hgen.html
Steve
Your article didn't say how to convert the waste Borax back into Sodium Borohydride.
i b1_wu.pdf#search=%22how%20to%20make%20Sodium%20bor ohydride%22
I did find an article that is somewhat useful here:
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/progress04/ii
But it is a bit over my head technically. It sounds like you do some kind of electrolysis to convert back to Borohydride.
Steve