Yes, but being able to project an internet site on an 8 x 11 sheet of paper on the go will be a big asset and very useful.
A real computer in a pocket.
"I'm a Republican because I disagree with the Democratic party's communistic/socialistic party lines, and agree with in principle with what the GOP claims to stand for, but if I thought that a Libertarian candidate had even a snowball's chance in Hell of getting elected, I'd vote for him or her."
I vote every election. But I don't vote for Repubs or dems because I do not want to waste my vote. That's right.
I will not keep voting for the same old waste, corruption, and foolishness that our elected pols keep shoving down our throats.
I vote libertarian or some other party if a libertatian is not running. I vote against incumbant judges and school board menbers. I skip the vote altogether if I cannot find an agreeeable choice.
The media may not count my vote, but I do. And that is what matters.
I make my vote count by stating that I do not agree with the politics of today, and I want a different choice.
Earlier, these same please-don't-charge-me people were arguing that the market solution was not feasible, it was technically impossible, spammers would continue anyway, and that the cost would be raised for those POOR agencies that send millions of unwanted emails, are still fishing for reasons why paying for emails won't work. They are really reaching now.
That a for-profit-corporation (dirty word to some) would determine, through careful business analysis, that the socialist ideal of free mail is a joke and a detriment to the functioning of a free society is anathema to them.
Watch what happens when other services see that the improvement is internet efficiency is apparant and company email accounts are not flooded with junk.
IMO, the system will become universal and bandwith will open up tremendously. And watch the spammers go out of business.
"Problem #1: I don't get my mail via my main ISP; my in-mail and out-mail goes via different providers. Surely not talking about my ISP monitoring my POP3 traffic to a server they don't own or manage? The plan you describe is very tunnel visioned in terms of business set-ups. Oh, what about all the intermediate providers that route the mail; there is a load on their systems too, why don't they get a cut? "
The burden on intermediate ISP's would be lessend considerably due to the decreased volume of mail. What's to be unhappy about?
One ISP credits you for emails received, one debits you if you have more than one ISP.
"Problem #2: I get involved in some projects for which we send a LOT of email back and forth between client, contractor(s) and subcontractors. So, even at $0.03 per shot, that needlessly drives up the cost of the project. This means the client has to pay a higher bill, which in turn probably means they charge more for their product.
How are going to predict at the start of a project how many emails this project is going to take? We could flat-rate the cost, but imo that just adds a needless line-item to the proposal."
The same goes for the telephone and snail mail. These costs have historically been taken care of.
"Problem #3: My ISP currently invoices me for service; you are going to add to the complexity of their accounting system (and overhead on their systems keeping track of who got what email) to manage all this, for PENNIES a shot, and the net result is I pay the ISP a higher monthly rate. What about auditing? What if I show I received 500 legit emails a month and they show I only got 400?"
Yes, you will pay more. So what? You get added security and the cost factor will stop spammers who send out a zillion emails a day.
At the same time you could make money by having lots of people send you stuff.
We are talking about a whole new business model that follows the user fee concept and allocates true cost throughout the system.
Can you imagine if a similar rule were applied to the phone system? I would love to get, say, 25 cents for each sales call I receive and 10 cents per minute I am on the phone with them.
Yes, there are problems. But none are insurmountable.
Nonsense. The difference between a law and a theory is that laws are short and easily explained, while theories are more involved and take longer to explain.
Too arbitrary. How long is long? How short is short? How easy is easy? How hard is hard?
The M-W dictionary defines law as (6a.) "A statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions".
Laws are conditional. So are some theories. But a law is an immutable truth that is conditional, whereas a theory is falsifiable.
The technology is such that there will be thousands, if not millions, of workarounds to penetrate any barriers to access. Just look at the history so far of electronic transmission.
I don't think anyone here is giving credit to the intelligence of people. They are parroting the standard line that evil is all powerful and cannot be overcome.
Get real! The nerds will create gaping holes in the barriers, and as the government moves to plug them up, the nerds will create more. The game will continue indefinitely.
But my money is on the hackers to always be one step ahead. The information will flow regardless of government controls.
I'm sorry, but I disagree with your pseudo-reasoning.
You are equationg belief with faith. Big difference!
And you are positing a "devine being" to construct an arbitrary nonsense scale.
"If you want to claim the New Testament documents (for sake of example) are riddled with errors and personal beliefs, then you need to come up with reasonable alternatives for the events they describe,...."
Sorry, that is not the way logic works, IMO.
There is an important difference between documents written at the time of an event and those written several centuries after an event.
In addition, the "bible" is a collection of writings selected by a panel of church heirarchy (Council of Nicene 300 - 400 AD?) that determined which writings were to be included in the bible and which were left out.
The statement " But when we have tens of thousands of copies of eyewitness accounts of this man Jesus dated from just a few years after he lived,..." is simply not true.
Finally, I am not an athiest. I am a nontheist. It is silly to argue the the existance or non-existance of a god. If you need to believe in one, more power to you. Enjoy.
Exactly! Time is a variable. If the speed of light is a constant, v/t = c. If t varies, d must also be a varible to enable c to be constant in all circumstances.
I would not say that time "has a different rate of passage for different people" though. "Rate of passage" of time is a tautology.
Instead, it seems to me that time and distance vary according to other factors not including an observer.
I can not buy any "argument from authority" dealing with any subject.
"Intimidation is the tool of fools" - Runchummey.
Also, in any religion is the fact that men (humans) have written the "holy" books. To believe they (men) have written down the absolute truth not subject to personal beliefs, is the greatest fallicy. Man wrote the texts. Man translated the texts, a very inexact science. Just being knowledgable in a subject does not preclude fallicy from existing.
You can only believe without reason that "God" had a hand in their writings to justify any claims made.
I see a problem with the term "experts" being bandied about.
Who determines who is an expert? Who determines they are free from idiocyncracies and predjudices?
Use of the term "experts" is an ad Hominum argument to keep people from thinking for themselves and making up hteir own minds.
There is a real problem in the use and reasoning of the concept of time.
The arguments here assume time is a constant. What if time is changing and is not a distinct or constant dimension?
From Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time ): "Currently standard time interval (called conventional second, or simply second) is defined as 9 192 631 770 oscillations of specified transition in Cs-133 atom."
Again from Wikipedia : "According to the special theory of relativity, in the high-speed particle's frame of reference, it exists for the same amount of time as usual, and the distance it travels in that time is what would be expected for that velocity. Relative to a frame of reference at rest, time seems to "slow down" for the particle. Relative to the high-speed particle, distances seems to shorten. Even in Newtonian terms time may be considered the fourth dimension of motion; but Einstein showed how both temporal and spatial dimensions can be altered (or "warped") by high-speed motion."
If you assume time is a variable, then the rotation of the earth could be constant and the "time" of a second would vary instead of the rotational velocity.
The stars and planets move ever so slightly constantly, as shown by a time-lapse configuration by Carl Sagan on "Cosmos" and in astronomy calculations.
Add to this Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and it becomes evident that time may not be a constant, as measuring time accurately is uncertain at best.
As to the practicality of measuring time by observing star positions, It may suffice over short periods, but must be periodically adjusted as adjusting a proposed algorithm is suggested.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but being able to project an internet site on an 8 x 11 sheet of paper on the go will be a big asset and very useful. A real computer in a pocket.
I am wondering what problems will have to be overcome, mostly the durability problem. How long will the product last?
It will boil down to an economics problem in the end. Continued improvements in materials will determine applications.
Earlier, these same please-don't-charge-me people were arguing that the market solution was not feasible, it was technically impossible, spammers would continue anyway, and that the cost would be raised for those POOR agencies that send millions of unwanted emails, are still fishing for reasons why paying for emails won't work. They are really reaching now.
That a for-profit-corporation (dirty word to some) would determine, through careful business analysis, that the socialist ideal of free mail is a joke and a detriment to the functioning of a free society is anathema to them.
Watch what happens when other services see that the improvement is internet efficiency is apparant and company email accounts are not flooded with junk.
IMO, the system will become universal and bandwith will open up tremendously. And watch the spammers go out of business.
The burden on intermediate ISP's would be lessend considerably due to the decreased volume of mail. What's to be unhappy about?
One ISP credits you for emails received, one debits you if you have more than one ISP.
"Problem #2: I get involved in some projects for which we send a LOT of email back and forth between client, contractor(s) and subcontractors. So, even at $0.03 per shot, that needlessly drives up the cost of the project. This means the client has to pay a higher bill, which in turn probably means they charge more for their product.
How are going to predict at the start of a project how many emails this project is going to take? We could flat-rate the cost, but imo that just adds a needless line-item to the proposal."
The same goes for the telephone and snail mail. These costs have historically been taken care of.
"Problem #3: My ISP currently invoices me for service; you are going to add to the complexity of their accounting system (and overhead on their systems keeping track of who got what email) to manage all this, for PENNIES a shot, and the net result is I pay the ISP a higher monthly rate. What about auditing? What if I show I received 500 legit emails a month and they show I only got 400?"
Yes, you will pay more. So what? You get added security and the cost factor will stop spammers who send out a zillion emails a day.
At the same time you could make money by having lots of people send you stuff.
We are talking about a whole new business model that follows the user fee concept and allocates true cost throughout the system.
Can you imagine if a similar rule were applied to the phone system? I would love to get, say, 25 cents for each sales call I receive and 10 cents per minute I am on the phone with them.
Yes, there are problems. But none are insurmountable.
Excellent idea. Let everyone have a minimum number in and out.
How so? Your ISP has an account on you. Simple to count your incoming and outgoing emails.
My proposal:
Charge 3 cents per letter. One cent goes to the ISP sending the mail, one cent to the ISP receiving the mail, and one cent to the recipient.
The ISP on either end would credit/debit the sender/receiver's account.
And watch the spam disappear.
Too arbitrary. How long is long? How short is short? How easy is easy? How hard is hard?
The M-W dictionary defines law as (6a.) "A statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions".
Laws are conditional. So are some theories. But a law is an immutable truth that is conditional, whereas a theory is falsifiable.
The technology is such that there will be thousands, if not millions, of workarounds to penetrate any barriers to access. Just look at the history so far of electronic transmission.
I don't think anyone here is giving credit to the intelligence of people. They are parroting the standard line that evil is all powerful and cannot be overcome.
Get real! The nerds will create gaping holes in the barriers, and as the government moves to plug them up, the nerds will create more. The game will continue indefinitely.
But my money is on the hackers to always be one step ahead. The information will flow regardless of government controls.
You are equationg belief with faith. Big difference!
And you are positing a "devine being" to construct an arbitrary nonsense scale.
"If you want to claim the New Testament documents (for sake of example) are riddled with errors and personal beliefs, then you need to come up with reasonable alternatives for the events they describe,...."
Sorry, that is not the way logic works, IMO.
There is an important difference between documents written at the time of an event and those written several centuries after an event.
In addition, the "bible" is a collection of writings selected by a panel of church heirarchy (Council of Nicene 300 - 400 AD?) that determined which writings were to be included in the bible and which were left out.
The statement " But when we have tens of thousands of copies of eyewitness accounts of this man Jesus dated from just a few years after he lived,..." is simply not true.
Finally, I am not an athiest. I am a nontheist. It is silly to argue the the existance or non-existance of a god. If you need to believe in one, more power to you. Enjoy.
There was an old bore named Gore
Who wanted to tax the poor.
When he screamed, "I won"
They toasted his bun
And he was never heard from no more.
I would not say that time "has a different rate of passage for different people" though. "Rate of passage" of time is a tautology.
Instead, it seems to me that time and distance vary according to other factors not including an observer.
I bought a watch there for $1 once. It kept time according to that guys theory - like a spasdic jerking off.
What do you define as spherical? The earth has its bumps and valleys also. How arbitrarily spherical should it be defined?
It would be better to say that a planet IN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM has to be not only heliocentric, but in the same plain as the first eight planets.
For other sysetems yet to be discovered, set the definition to fit the properties and/or characteristics.
"Intimidation is the tool of fools" - Runchummey.
Also, in any religion is the fact that men (humans) have written the "holy" books. To believe they (men) have written down the absolute truth not subject to personal beliefs, is the greatest fallicy. Man wrote the texts. Man translated the texts, a very inexact science. Just being knowledgable in a subject does not preclude fallicy from existing.
You can only believe without reason that "God" had a hand in their writings to justify any claims made.
I am not as "geekey" (geeky?) as some people I know, and I am sure I missed a lot. But I still enjoyed the show.
I think a lot of people got at least part of the humor quite a bit of the time. Also, the plots were well written with interesting moral story lines.
The "experts" who measure the popularity of such programs got it wrong as they did "Star Trek", because of their faulty ways of measuring viewership.
But like you, I will prefer seeing the DVD's rather than watching all the commercials, like I do "Count Duckula".
Excellent article. You have shown a deep understanding of today's (pseudo)journalistic style, and your commentary is enlightening.
I see a problem with the term "experts" being bandied about. Who determines who is an expert? Who determines they are free from idiocyncracies and predjudices? Use of the term "experts" is an ad Hominum argument to keep people from thinking for themselves and making up hteir own minds.
The arguments here assume time is a constant. What if time is changing and is not a distinct or constant dimension?
From Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time ): "Currently standard time interval (called conventional second, or simply second) is defined as 9 192 631 770 oscillations of specified transition in Cs-133 atom."
Again from Wikipedia : "According to the special theory of relativity, in the high-speed particle's frame of reference, it exists for the same amount of time as usual, and the distance it travels in that time is what would be expected for that velocity. Relative to a frame of reference at rest, time seems to "slow down" for the particle. Relative to the high-speed particle, distances seems to shorten. Even in Newtonian terms time may be considered the fourth dimension of motion; but Einstein showed how both temporal and spatial dimensions can be altered (or "warped") by high-speed motion."
If you assume time is a variable, then the rotation of the earth could be constant and the "time" of a second would vary instead of the rotational velocity.
The stars and planets move ever so slightly constantly, as shown by a time-lapse configuration by Carl Sagan on "Cosmos" and in astronomy calculations.
Add to this Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and it becomes evident that time may not be a constant, as measuring time accurately is uncertain at best.
As to the practicality of measuring time by observing star positions, It may suffice over short periods, but must be periodically adjusted as adjusting a proposed algorithm is suggested.
So there!