And it was labeled a "theory", as all good scientific explanations are. At the time. I think by now, "theory" is a misnomer when it comes to evolution. Scientifically speaking, it's on the same par as the "laws" of gravitation, planetary motion, and thermodynamics. Note I put these things in quotes, because even laws are subject to change, such as when Newtonian gravity was altered and enhanced by Einstein's theories.
2) I might give them, but it's pretty iffy. 1) I don't buy -- even at the discounts Amazon gives on books, rarely do they ever sell them at a loss. If that's the case, then not charging shipping doesn't create a loss. This is a case of a government trying to manipulate the definitions to fit their needs, in this case: money.
When you think about it, "net neutrality" is hard to describe in terms of the current Internet, because it is based on commercial systems, not on some government-supported network. Government could theoretically legislate neutrality, but the government had spent the better part of the last three decades deregulating industries. There's only one reason the government would get involved: if they could tax it. If the "net neutrality" debate meant legislation that allowed the United States Government to somehow tax Internet traffic, you can bet you'd have it in a minute.
It all hinges on going to a malicious web site. Just like email trojans, if you resist temptaion and use some common sense, do you really have to worry about this?
Want to replace the helium lost and create cleaner, more abundant energy? Now is a good time to pour some more money into fusion research to try and get over the hump and create sustainable fusion reactions.
Having gone up in a small plane for a lesson as a birthday present, I can honestly say that there is absolutely nothing automatic about flying a plane, especially a small. You're talk thousand, perhaps tens-of-thousands of people flying the equivalent of small planes without any idea how they work or how to handle them in an emergency. System of the damned, indeed! I wouldn't get in a flying car if the sky was the equivalent of the New Jersey Turnpike.
I still hear the LifeLock commercials on the radio as I drive to work all the time. I don't see how they can prevent someone from stealing your identity, especially if you're dumb enough to give out the information to people who will use it for nefarious purposes. If all there offering is a service to undo the damage, that might be useful given how time-consuming it is, but then can they necessarily represent you to organizations where you need the information changed or charges nullified?
Well, giving away the information for free doesn't make it a crime for you to possess the information. If you then use it, claiming you are a person you are not, that's fraud and illegal in most jurisdictions.
Imagine if they had partnered with Napster. The landscape of music might be quite different and the iPod and iTunes might never have come to pass, or might have been more of an afterthought. If nothing else the music industry made Steve Jobs richer by not anticipating the coming music revolution.
It's not really a business model, as they are still trying to do business the old-fashioned way, and that's where they are getting into trouble. They've failed to realize that the Internet has allowed a music artist to move beyond the need for a big-name music company to "discover" them. An artist can now produce their own music, create their own artwork, package and distribute their own material, and place it such that it's easily accessible by their fans. Their fans provide the publicity by blogging and cross-linking to the artist's site, and the rest is history. Mind you, this hasn't happened with major bands yet, though their are signs (Radiohead, Madonna, etc.) that the old model is cracking under the pressure from the Internet.
The lawsuits are the vain attempt to re-legitimize their current business model as the only way you can publish popular music, and that very act is what will cause its eventual destruction.
The parallels with SCO are amazing, especially given the sizes of the companies we are talking about. That they could fail to see the future coming at them and more importantly read the trends (i.e. Napster) and react to them in a positive, money-making fashion, is an indictment of the corporate system, where over-priced CEOs sit in their glass-lined offices looking like suit-wearing fish and providing just about as much value to their company. When you start treating your customers as criminals, you have slipped over the edge and down the slippery slope toward oblivion.
It's bad enough to have a profile on one social networking site... if you have multiple profiles on multiple sites and need some kind of aggregating software... bah! 'Nuff said. We could beat this to death. Killer app? More like killer hype -- in the end, we'll be talking in December about how the promise of social networking aggregation was the greatest disappointment of 2008.
Yeah, automatic breaking would really be kind of pointless unless the car was actually doing the driving itself. I remember watching a science show years ago (thinking it was Scientific American Frontiers, but could have been Nova) where they were discussing the automation of driving and showed a group of cars driving around a circular track bumper-to-bumper, maintaining speed and distance using sensors and each cars' on-board computer to hold the cars steady relative to each other. They claimed that this was far safer, as the cars would automatically react to each other far quicker than human drivers, and more importantly by taking advantage of the drafting advantage, the cars got significantly better mileage. I haven't seen much about this since, but I imagine the first thing that will come up is the cost followed by driver's being unwilling to give up control of their cars.
I was about to write the very same... I remember several studies of traffic that showed that it only takes one driver to slow down traffic, especially on roads that are above their actual capacity. It is kind of like the Slinky effect, where you send a pulse down it and it rebounds. Car stops ahead and the cars behind begin breaking, and this begins a chain reaction... I'd love to catch this in the act at night and film the tail-lights lighting up in sequence.
Except that the dictum "Do No Evil" will sweep down on DoubleClick, and lo, there will be a conversion, and DoubleClick will be truned from its evil ways... and peace will reign over the Net.
Slashdot Mirror
And it was labeled a "theory", as all good scientific explanations are. At the time. I think by now, "theory" is a misnomer when it comes to evolution. Scientifically speaking, it's on the same par as the "laws" of gravitation, planetary motion, and thermodynamics. Note I put these things in quotes, because even laws are subject to change, such as when Newtonian gravity was altered and enhanced by Einstein's theories.
2) I might give them, but it's pretty iffy. 1) I don't buy -- even at the discounts Amazon gives on books, rarely do they ever sell them at a loss. If that's the case, then not charging shipping doesn't create a loss. This is a case of a government trying to manipulate the definitions to fit their needs, in this case: money.
When you think about it, "net neutrality" is hard to describe in terms of the current Internet, because it is based on commercial systems, not on some government-supported network. Government could theoretically legislate neutrality, but the government had spent the better part of the last three decades deregulating industries. There's only one reason the government would get involved: if they could tax it. If the "net neutrality" debate meant legislation that allowed the United States Government to somehow tax Internet traffic, you can bet you'd have it in a minute.
It all hinges on going to a malicious web site. Just like email trojans, if you resist temptaion and use some common sense, do you really have to worry about this?
Want to replace the helium lost and create cleaner, more abundant energy? Now is a good time to pour some more money into fusion research to try and get over the hump and create sustainable fusion reactions.
Having gone up in a small plane for a lesson as a birthday present, I can honestly say that there is absolutely nothing automatic about flying a plane, especially a small. You're talk thousand, perhaps tens-of-thousands of people flying the equivalent of small planes without any idea how they work or how to handle them in an emergency. System of the damned, indeed! I wouldn't get in a flying car if the sky was the equivalent of the New Jersey Turnpike.
I still hear the LifeLock commercials on the radio as I drive to work all the time. I don't see how they can prevent someone from stealing your identity, especially if you're dumb enough to give out the information to people who will use it for nefarious purposes. If all there offering is a service to undo the damage, that might be useful given how time-consuming it is, but then can they necessarily represent you to organizations where you need the information changed or charges nullified?
Well, giving away the information for free doesn't make it a crime for you to possess the information. If you then use it, claiming you are a person you are not, that's fraud and illegal in most jurisdictions.
...part of a sysadmin's job description?
Imagine if they had partnered with Napster. The landscape of music might be quite different and the iPod and iTunes might never have come to pass, or might have been more of an afterthought. If nothing else the music industry made Steve Jobs richer by not anticipating the coming music revolution.
Perhaps, but adaptation would have given them the chance to remain relevant, as opposed to going on the offensive and driving customers away.
It's not really a business model, as they are still trying to do business the old-fashioned way, and that's where they are getting into trouble. They've failed to realize that the Internet has allowed a music artist to move beyond the need for a big-name music company to "discover" them. An artist can now produce their own music, create their own artwork, package and distribute their own material, and place it such that it's easily accessible by their fans. Their fans provide the publicity by blogging and cross-linking to the artist's site, and the rest is history. Mind you, this hasn't happened with major bands yet, though their are signs (Radiohead, Madonna, etc.) that the old model is cracking under the pressure from the Internet.
The lawsuits are the vain attempt to re-legitimize their current business model as the only way you can publish popular music, and that very act is what will cause its eventual destruction.
The parallels with SCO are amazing, especially given the sizes of the companies we are talking about. That they could fail to see the future coming at them and more importantly read the trends (i.e. Napster) and react to them in a positive, money-making fashion, is an indictment of the corporate system, where over-priced CEOs sit in their glass-lined offices looking like suit-wearing fish and providing just about as much value to their company. When you start treating your customers as criminals, you have slipped over the edge and down the slippery slope toward oblivion.
It's ok. I find it humorous that it was modded both "Redundant" and "Interesting"...
...the answer to Life, The Universe, and Everything?
It's bad enough to have a profile on one social networking site... if you have multiple profiles on multiple sites and need some kind of aggregating software... bah! 'Nuff said. We could beat this to death. Killer app? More like killer hype -- in the end, we'll be talking in December about how the promise of social networking aggregation was the greatest disappointment of 2008.
Chairs... conference tables... lights... cubicles... free copy of Unix with each purchase...
And here in NJ, 95% of the population is from the aforementioned group.
Yeah, automatic breaking would really be kind of pointless unless the car was actually doing the driving itself. I remember watching a science show years ago (thinking it was Scientific American Frontiers, but could have been Nova) where they were discussing the automation of driving and showed a group of cars driving around a circular track bumper-to-bumper, maintaining speed and distance using sensors and each cars' on-board computer to hold the cars steady relative to each other. They claimed that this was far safer, as the cars would automatically react to each other far quicker than human drivers, and more importantly by taking advantage of the drafting advantage, the cars got significantly better mileage. I haven't seen much about this since, but I imagine the first thing that will come up is the cost followed by driver's being unwilling to give up control of their cars.
I was about to write the very same... I remember several studies of traffic that showed that it only takes one driver to slow down traffic, especially on roads that are above their actual capacity. It is kind of like the Slinky effect, where you send a pulse down it and it rebounds. Car stops ahead and the cars behind begin breaking, and this begins a chain reaction... I'd love to catch this in the act at night and film the tail-lights lighting up in sequence.
No, I think he's saying if you apply numerology to trojans/virii, you can gain insight into their personalities...
"Don't lase me, bro!"
Better add some new domains to your list:
It won't surprise me when they come up with new vectors to push the ads through.
Except that the dictum "Do No Evil" will sweep down on DoubleClick, and lo, there will be a conversion, and DoubleClick will be truned from its evil ways... and peace will reign over the Net.
Death Star