And in other news,"Scientists investigating the mass disappearance of the Australian male have received confirmation today that it was indeed the Aussie males and their robots friends who stole the space shuttle. The space shuttle is currently heading towards a region of the galaxy known as W3(OH)."
In my opinion, you would save a lot more lives by taking the twenty nine million dollars and investing it in sewerage systems. Nobody seems to remember that the reason we don't have huge outbreaks of disease in our countries is because of sewerage systems. Not doctors, not laptops, not electricity, just decent toilets, some soap, and some clean water.
(And on the subject of toilets, can someone design some larger toilet bowls. I'm sick of having my dick touch the bowl. Whoever designed these things either forgot about the penis, or had a weird sense of humour.)
Internet. A vast amount of office workers go into the city every day and sit at their desk, maybe have a meeting, and play with figures, etc....As far as I can see, none of them actually need to be there and the only reason they are there is to be under someones authority. Take all the people who don't actually need to be there and get them to work from home. It would require a certain amount of automation (eg; you have to keep paper records of invoices. Thus, you would need a records department who scanned documents for online access), encryption, and bandwidth (and quite probably, new business rules).
I think that buying goods online and having it delivered would save money and reduce energy costs/emissions. Imagine all the supermarkets (malls in America?) owned by a company in a city being amalgamated into one. No longer do people drive to the supermarket to buy their groceries. They order them and the the groceries are delivered to their door. Trucks are more efficient than cars.....You get the idea, Dell does this already (non-perisable though). (At this point "Brave New World" from War of the Worlds came on and I thought I should stop for comment, or laughter)
It scares me that not one person sofar has thought of decentralising cities. If no office workers have to travel to work, then you can discount that pollution immediately. More school buses to kill the mom taking kids to school. Internet shopping for food (without the hideous transport bill). Just kill the problem at the source and the source is travel.
Did a little searching and it looks like New Zealand may well be ahead of you. To quote from InternetNZ.
"Clause 19 introduces a new computer offence of intentionally accessing a computer system without authorisation; commonly known as "hacking" (new section 305ZFA) (the unauthorised access offence). However, the offence will not apply to everyone because clause 19 provides qualified exemptions for the following State agencies:
1)the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (the SIS) (new section 305ZFB) 2)the Government Communications Security Bureau (the GCSB) (new section 305ZFC) 3)"law enforcement agencies", such as the police (new section 305ZFD)."
Etc...Can't find if it has been passed yet though. That was in 2001. Would look more, but I'm supposed to be studying.
"Terrorists want one thing - BODY COUNT - you don't get that from DOS'ing a bank's web site, or even by breaking into a bank's web site."
Thats is not true. Definitely not true after the attack on the World Trade Center. Terrorists want to destroy symbols. They cannot kill all Americans, but they can make them all scared. They can make the American people question their governments right to rule. They can make people question the indoctrination the government gives them in their educational years. If they concentrate on economic targets enough, they could conceivably bankrupt America enough to force it into third world status or, more likely, war for money.
These days, if you can kill a banks database then they are ####ed. Modern business cannot survive with paper based transactions. Drop the power grid and see how much that costs every day. Mess up a cities traffic lights. Access the water supply and drain the water. None of these things will kill immediately but they cost money, just like airport checks, homeland security, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The more money America loses, the less power it has in the world.
Actually, I would say that R&D should be the governments problem. Take the H.I.V. drugs fiasco. The people who really needed the drugs didn't have the money so all that R&D was a waste of time. Besides, the article says five years monopoly.
For all the people complaining about the use of gorgeous in the article, think back to the comments that were made on "Sandals and Ponytails Behind Slow Linux Adoption" and mod yourselves sexist.
Male culture is just as valid as female culture. You are, in my opinion, suffering from the inevitable backlash of the fight for equal rights between the sexes.
And you know you are a sceptic when your next thought is,"hold on, they sent these particle's through an object they know next to nothing about and then use the fact that some of them didn't turn up as proof". Then you read more and you get,"Of course, most of them travel right through our detectors as well, but once in a blue moon one of them will interact - about one or so per day."
I suppose I am being pedantic, but can anybody explain to me why I should believe their explanation that their not turning up in such large numbers is proof?
No. But maybe the first evidence of "Narrative" as predicted by Terry Pratchett.
The Science of Diskworld is recommended reading. Our universe from a Diskworld perspective. 1-Everything wants to be a ball. 2-All balls want to crash into each other. 3-There are no turtles anywhere.
And there I was hoping for worm that installs Linux/Thunderbird/Firefox complete with link to a fake F-Secure page. Still, it's better than http://en.opensuse.org/Time_machine.
A thought. Perhaps, this whole patent issue is just a metter of perspective. Perhaps, from a top down viewpoint, our governments do not care about these issues because in reality they benefit from them.
For instance; *Would you prefer to deal with many small companies or a few large ones? *Would dealing with a few companies allow for better forcasting? *Would you prefer to deal with people you know, or people you don't?
If smaller companies are litigated out of existence in patent litigation, then how does the government loose. The method is still available, the owner of the method has many more resources to put it into practice, and the government still makes its money on taxes.
From a top down viewpoint, it would seem be a hell of a lot easier to only have to watch a few companies, deal with a few persons, and have stability.
Of course, I'm probably totally wrong (it's my day for it). What do you think?
The U.S. government,"nations will extend certain courtesies to other nations, particularly by recognizing the validity and effect of their executive, legislative, and judicial acts."?
Slashdot Mirror
And in other news,"Scientists investigating the mass disappearance of the Australian male have received confirmation today that it was indeed the Aussie males and their robots friends who stole the space shuttle. The space shuttle is currently heading towards a region of the galaxy known as W3(OH) ."
In my opinion, you would save a lot more lives by taking the twenty nine million dollars and investing it in sewerage systems. Nobody seems to remember that the reason we don't have huge outbreaks of disease in our countries is because of sewerage systems. Not doctors, not laptops, not electricity, just decent toilets, some soap, and some clean water.
(And on the subject of toilets, can someone design some larger toilet bowls. I'm sick of having my dick touch the bowl. Whoever designed these things either forgot about the penis, or had a weird sense of humour.)
Don't you mean;
Step 1. Anything
Step 2. Google
Step 3. Beta!
I think that buying goods online and having it delivered would save money and reduce energy costs/emissions. Imagine all the supermarkets (malls in America?) owned by a company in a city being amalgamated into one. No longer do people drive to the supermarket to buy their groceries. They order them and the the groceries are delivered to their door. Trucks are more efficient than cars.....You get the idea, Dell does this already (non-perisable though).
(At this point "Brave New World" from War of the Worlds came on and I thought I should stop for comment, or laughter)
It scares me that not one person sofar has thought of decentralising cities. If no office workers have to travel to work, then you can discount that pollution immediately. More school buses to kill the mom taking kids to school. Internet shopping for food (without the hideous transport bill). Just kill the problem at the source and the source is travel.
Did a little searching and it looks like New Zealand may well be ahead of you. To quote from InternetNZ .
"Clause 19 introduces a new computer offence of intentionally accessing a computer system without authorisation; commonly known as "hacking" (new section 305ZFA) (the unauthorised access offence). However, the offence will not apply to everyone because clause 19 provides qualified exemptions for the following State agencies:
1)the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (the SIS) (new section 305ZFB)
2)the Government Communications Security Bureau (the GCSB) (new section 305ZFC)
3)"law enforcement agencies", such as the police (new section 305ZFD)."
Etc...Can't find if it has been passed yet though. That was in 2001. Would look more, but I'm supposed to be studying.
Of course not......whats an email?
You could get halfway there by posting torrents on Freenet and then downloading them with Torrentopia.
Its all a lead up to the,"War to end all wars".
"Terrorists want one thing - BODY COUNT - you don't get that from DOS'ing a bank's web site, or even by breaking into a bank's web site."
Thats is not true. Definitely not true after the attack on the World Trade Center. Terrorists want to destroy symbols. They cannot kill all Americans, but they can make them all scared. They can make the American people question their governments right to rule. They can make people question the indoctrination the government gives them in their educational years. If they concentrate on economic targets enough, they could conceivably bankrupt America enough to force it into third world status or, more likely, war for money.
These days, if you can kill a banks database then they are ####ed. Modern business cannot survive with paper based transactions. Drop the power grid and see how much that costs every day. Mess up a cities traffic lights. Access the water supply and drain the water. None of these things will kill immediately but they cost money, just like airport checks, homeland security, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The more money America loses, the less power it has in the world.
Actually, I would say that R&D should be the governments problem. Take the H.I.V. drugs fiasco. The people who really needed the drugs didn't have the money so all that R&D was a waste of time. Besides, the article says five years monopoly.
"I for.... one...." salute our David Hasselhoff look a like overlords.....Nooooooooo!
You forgot the link on the rss feed.
For all the people complaining about the use of gorgeous in the article, think back to the comments that were made on "Sandals and Ponytails Behind Slow Linux Adoption" and mod yourselves sexist.
Male culture is just as valid as female culture. You are, in my opinion, suffering from the inevitable backlash of the fight for equal rights between the sexes.
Thank you. I may not watch T.V. but you have just given me about two hundred hours viewing, by the looks of things. You might like these.
#4 shouldn't even be in there as I understood G.A.Y. originally stood for "Good As You".
Do you think I should tell him what a faggot is?
And you know you are a sceptic when your next thought is,"hold on, they sent these particle's through an object they know next to nothing about and then use the fact that some of them didn't turn up as proof".
Then you read more and you get,"Of course, most of them travel right through our detectors as well, but once in a blue moon one of them will interact - about one or so per day."
I suppose I am being pedantic, but can anybody explain to me why I should believe their explanation that their not turning up in such large numbers is proof?
Hey dude, like, there's no f in easter or happy.
No. But maybe the first evidence of "Narrative" as predicted by Terry Pratchett.
The Science of Diskworld is recommended reading. Our universe from a Diskworld perspective.
1-Everything wants to be a ball.
2-All balls want to crash into each other.
3-There are no turtles anywhere.
Oh, you too? I think Beta 9 might have some bugs to work out.
On a more serious note. WTF happened to the RC 1 release yesterday. I thought they were skipping nine and going to RC 1 on the 31st, not beta 9.
"but to bring fiery servers to random "cute" sites on the internet, this is one cruel april fools prank for someone out there."
I don't know about that. They seem to be holding up so far. Maybe we should all have spent more time in Home Economics.
The goggles, they do nothing?
And there I was hoping for worm that installs Linux/Thunderbird/Firefox complete with link to a fake F-Secure page. Still, it's better than http://en.opensuse.org/Time_machine.
For instance;
*Would you prefer to deal with many small companies or a few large ones?
*Would dealing with a few companies allow for better forcasting?
*Would you prefer to deal with people you know, or people you don't?
If smaller companies are litigated out of existence in patent litigation, then how does the government loose. The method is still available, the owner of the method has many more resources to put it into practice, and the government still makes its money on taxes.
From a top down viewpoint, it would seem be a hell of a lot easier to only have to watch a few companies, deal with a few persons, and have stability.
Of course, I'm probably totally wrong (it's my day for it). What do you think?
(not meant as troll, just ironic)