Has it ever occured to you that the statements made by Jobs about DRM were *precisely* made because of what the EU's doing. It's the old proven method to deal with "you shouldn't be doing X" by responding "I don't like it either, but Y is forcing me to do it". In this case, both the music companies and Apple want DRM, for very different reasons. The music industry wants you to buy your music 10 times, while Apple wants to make sure it won't work on anything other than an iPod.
You just entirely missed the point I was trying to make. I'm not saying people will more to cities. Quite the opposite, I'm saying that it would be totally unsustainable to have everyone moving to rural areas. We need cities, as they reduce the amount of land occupied by humans on this planet.
Well, how do we know that? Most of us only know whats written about them.
If you'd ever talked to Stallman, you'd know. Nothing bad to say about Linus though. He may lack some diplomacy (e.g. on lkml), but I don't think this ever prevented anyone from working with him.
I totally agree. People are moving to cities, cities are becoming more expensive. That's basic economics. Now, what would you think you happen if people moved *out* of cities now?
Or maybe we could have fewer people! Why doesn't anyone ever think of that?
Great! Now you tell me how to do that. You do what you like, but personally I'm not planning on committing suicide and I don't think a significant part of the world's population is.
Huh? Living in rural areas is usually far cheaper than living in any city. Again, what planet do you live on? Land is cheap, and taxes are very low in most rural places.
It may be cheaper *now* and where you live. That's because everyone wants to be in cities. Now, imagine everyone trying to move to rural areas. The pressure for land is going to go increase and the price of any land with go through the roof.
But that's even besides the point I was trying to make. When I say sustainable, I mean *environmentally* sustainable. There's simply too many people on this planet for them to all live in rural areas.
They generate huge islands of air, soil, and water pollution and export almost all of their waste where it's concentrated in very heavy ways.
It may be more localised, but the quantity remains the same. And if you put all those people in the country and they sent the pollution in the same river, that river will be exactly as polluted as if it were from a city.
Similarly my water usage and sewage disposal is all taken care of on-site
And again if everybody does the same, it's either going to end up awfully polluted (especially the underground water) or else it'll require a high amount of land for each person -- not possible with current polulation levels.
I can also install solar, wind and hydro generation, though I'm still waiting to afford that personally. Not a chance in a city apartment.
There could still be solar/wind/hydro generation at that place even if you don't live there.
Another problem is mass inattention to energy efficiency. Each time I'm in a city in the winter I see thousands of windows open on the top floors of buildings where the steam heating system is roasting the occupants and poorly balanced. 20 years ago I thought this would be solved by now, but it's just the same. Single family homes have strong economic incentives to maintain energy efficiency - this concept goes out the window in shared housing, especially if 'heat is included'.
Heating is still more efficient in an appartment building where most of the walls are shared with other heated appartments than a house which has only walls on the outside -- even if you take into accound inefficiencies (which are fixable without throwing the baby out with the bath water).
That's an overpopulation problem. There's not great solution there, they have more people than they have room for. There's plenty of Earth that's unsettled and it would be great if they could figure out how to do that.
Of course it's an overpopulation problem. There's too many people, so we need to put them in cities so there's still place for something other than houses on the planet. As for unsettled places, there's usually a reason for that (e.g. desert, mountains). Are you willing to move to one of those. Not to mention that people can't exactly move country that easily -- otherwise the US would have much more immigration.
I'm not saying cities are perfect, just (in general) more environment-friendly per capita. Would I like to live in a 10 m^2 appartment? No. Would it be better environmentally than a big house on a huge land? Definitely. Having a big piece of land for your home is a luxury. Maybe you can afford it, but it's not something everyone can do -- it would be totally unsustainable. Just look at the US, which has a relatively low population density (compared to Europe and Asia at least). You give everyone 180m x 180m of land and the entire country (including deserts and Alaska) is filled with homes, with no place for farming, parks, anything. Imagine Japan, China, India (and others) now?
you are simply looking at the residential and commercial allocations per person in a city, forgetting the farmland and industry which is simply moved elsewhere.
That part is common to all cases. Regardless of where you live, you still eat and consume all kinds of stuff. The fact you consume more or less doesn't depend on where you live. Even if you remove the small garden where you grow your tomatoes (at much less effiency than a farm anyway), each person living in a city still occupies *much* less land.
In fact most people that really don't seem to help the environment much live in big cities
If you look at it carefully, big cities are *good* for the environment. That is, it's much environment-friendly to put millions of people into a few square km than having each of them build a house in the country. Not only do cities require less land per inhabitant (cut less trees), but they tend to also require less energy per inhabitant (at least if public transportation is half-decent). Saying cities are bad for the environment because there's no trees, etc is like saying buses are bad because one bus causes more pollution than one car.
If you're still not convinced. Try imagine what kind of environmental disaster would happen if every Japanese had his own house in the country.
Aside from that, PNG should have dethroned JPG long ago for the very simple reason that it contains an alpha channel -- but I still see plenty of JPG's.
I think that statement alone disqualifies you for giving any sort of opinion on image format. PNG and JPEG are totally different formats, trying to compress different types of images. Each of then sucks at what the other one does well.
Actually, your analogy is bad because in the case of cars in a traffic jam, if wave of cars did indeed move faster than light (even if the individual ones didn't), that would still violate special relativity because there would be information (there's no more blockage) transmitted faster than the speed of light.
Oh, and you forgot the fact that most of the work to get the paper in (once the paper's written) is done by the reviewers, which aren't paid either and don't even get to see the final paper. I'm not sure whether the associate editors are paid, but I would assume they're not.
I'm a Canadian living in Australia. The first thing that shocked me here was that it costs about as much to heat my house when it's 10 degrees outside than it did in Canada when it was -20 degrees. I mean WTF?? I think mandating proper insulation of houses would have a lot more impact on CO2 emissions. Even better, it would pay for itself in a few years just with reduction of energy consumption (both in the winter and in the summer BTW). Just to give an idea to people from northern countries, my house (like many, many others) is 100% free from any insulation material and the only thing that separates the inside from the outside is solid brick.
It's more than that. My main objection against GM is not the food it produces, but the side effects it has. Those things are being pushed onto the marked with (relatively) very little research about its impact. I'm talking about effects on the ecosystems and the economy (screw up badly and you can kill a whole country's production). Now we're hearing that it's next to impossible to grow canola without contamination from GM grops, what's next? There's lots of long-term effects too. When you patent a plant that's more robust to pest X and people start using it, what usually happens is that pest X becomes more resistant too. The result is that now you still have the same problem with that pest, except that a) you now have to pay for the patented plant and b) you can't go back to your previous crops because the pest is now "too strong". I believe messing up with crops should be done much more carefully than what's happening now -- even much more than drugs. Vioxx is nothing compared to screwing up badly with wheat, corn or anything vital to country's economies.
Thanks. This is something that's forgotten way too often. I'd add that in general when reviewing a paper, reviewers must make the basic assumption that the author is acting in good faith. When that assumption is violated, then there isn't much the reviewers can do and it's usually up to the scientific organisation (and community) to take actions.
If AMD can produce a better performing chip at 65nm, then who the hell cares if Intel - or anyone else - move to a 45nm process?
They care. Just moving the chip from 65 nm to 45 nm means you can produce twice as much on the same silicon wafer. Also, if a 65 nm chip performs well, then a 45 nm version of it (with slight modifications of course) will work even better.
The school has every right to do so. They also have the right to ask him not to cover the topic in the class. These are the people paying his salary, and if they don't want this going on, they can tell him to stop.
Sure, just like they have the right to tell all biology professors to only teach creat^H^H^H^H^H intelligent design, right? It's their money after all.
I see that as an advantage actually. Last laptop I had, the CDROM broke and they (Dell) wouldn't replace it until I checked that the Windows CD that came with the laptop (and took a few days to find) couldn't be read either. That's because "we only support Windows". Now, I have an n-series laptop, so hopefully they can't tell me to "check with windows" before replacing broken hardware.
...and very few snipers are interested at shooting robots. Unless the robot is following you closely, it's likely *it* wouldn't have line of sight. Also, if the sniper is fast enough/far enough, he might even be able to get out of the way (e.g. window) before the sound reaches the robot. I guess they'd still know the building...
Actually, echo shouldn't be too much of a problem because it always arrives *after* the initial sound -- as long as you've got line of sight, which I'm guessing would be the main limitation. I suspect another source of error would be the refraction caused by temperature gradients, but I'm not sure how much effect that has. Otherwise, I also share your impression that this is probably a great lab gadget...
Slashdot Mirror
Has it ever occured to you that the statements made by Jobs about DRM were *precisely* made because of what the EU's doing. It's the old proven method to deal with "you shouldn't be doing X" by responding "I don't like it either, but Y is forcing me to do it". In this case, both the music companies and Apple want DRM, for very different reasons. The music industry wants you to buy your music 10 times, while Apple wants to make sure it won't work on anything other than an iPod.
Never underestimate the efficiency of TV as a country-wide birth control method.
You just entirely missed the point I was trying to make. I'm not saying people will more to cities. Quite the opposite, I'm saying that it would be totally unsustainable to have everyone moving to rural areas. We need cities, as they reduce the amount of land occupied by humans on this planet.
Well, how do we know that? Most of us only know whats written about them.
If you'd ever talked to Stallman, you'd know. Nothing bad to say about Linus though. He may lack some diplomacy (e.g. on lkml), but I don't think this ever prevented anyone from working with him.
I totally agree. People are moving to cities, cities are becoming more expensive. That's basic economics. Now, what would you think you happen if people moved *out* of cities now?
Or maybe we could have fewer people! Why doesn't anyone ever think of that?
Great! Now you tell me how to do that. You do what you like, but personally I'm not planning on committing suicide and I don't think a significant part of the world's population is.
Huh? Living in rural areas is usually far cheaper than living in any city. Again, what planet do you live on? Land is cheap, and taxes are very low in most rural places.
It may be cheaper *now* and where you live. That's because everyone wants to be in cities. Now, imagine everyone trying to move to rural areas. The pressure for land is going to go increase and the price of any land with go through the roof.
But that's even besides the point I was trying to make. When I say sustainable, I mean *environmentally* sustainable. There's simply too many people on this planet for them to all live in rural areas.
They generate huge islands of air, soil, and water pollution and export almost all of their waste where it's concentrated in very heavy ways.
It may be more localised, but the quantity remains the same. And if you put all those people in the country and they sent the pollution in the same river, that river will be exactly as polluted as if it were from a city.
Similarly my water usage and sewage disposal is all taken care of on-site
And again if everybody does the same, it's either going to end up awfully polluted (especially the underground water) or else it'll require a high amount of land for each person -- not possible with current polulation levels.
I can also install solar, wind and hydro generation, though I'm still waiting to afford that personally. Not a chance in a city apartment.
There could still be solar/wind/hydro generation at that place even if you don't live there.
Another problem is mass inattention to energy efficiency. Each time I'm in a city in the winter I see thousands of windows open on the top floors of buildings where the steam heating system is roasting the occupants and poorly balanced. 20 years ago I thought this would be solved by now, but it's just the same. Single family homes have strong economic incentives to maintain energy efficiency - this concept goes out the window in shared housing, especially if 'heat is included'.
Heating is still more efficient in an appartment building where most of the walls are shared with other heated appartments than a house which has only walls on the outside -- even if you take into accound inefficiencies (which are fixable without throwing the baby out with the bath water).
That's an overpopulation problem. There's not great solution there, they have more people than they have room for. There's plenty of Earth that's unsettled and it would be great if they could figure out how to do that.
Of course it's an overpopulation problem. There's too many people, so we need to put them in cities so there's still place for something other than houses on the planet. As for unsettled places, there's usually a reason for that (e.g. desert, mountains). Are you willing to move to one of those. Not to mention that people can't exactly move country that easily -- otherwise the US would have much more immigration.
I'm not saying cities are perfect, just (in general) more environment-friendly per capita. Would I like to live in a 10 m^2 appartment? No. Would it be better environmentally than a big house on a huge land? Definitely. Having a big piece of land for your home is a luxury. Maybe you can afford it, but it's not something everyone can do -- it would be totally unsustainable. Just look at the US, which has a relatively low population density (compared to Europe and Asia at least). You give everyone 180m x 180m of land and the entire country (including deserts and Alaska) is filled with homes, with no place for farming, parks, anything. Imagine Japan, China, India (and others) now?
you are simply looking at the residential and commercial allocations per person in a city, forgetting the farmland and industry which is simply moved elsewhere.
That part is common to all cases. Regardless of where you live, you still eat and consume all kinds of stuff. The fact you consume more or less doesn't depend on where you live. Even if you remove the small garden where you grow your tomatoes (at much less effiency than a farm anyway), each person living in a city still occupies *much* less land.
In fact most people that really don't seem to help the environment much live in big cities
If you look at it carefully, big cities are *good* for the environment. That is, it's much environment-friendly to put millions of people into a few square km than having each of them build a house in the country. Not only do cities require less land per inhabitant (cut less trees), but they tend to also require less energy per inhabitant (at least if public transportation is half-decent). Saying cities are bad for the environment because there's no trees, etc is like saying buses are bad because one bus causes more pollution than one car.
If you're still not convinced. Try imagine what kind of environmental disaster would happen if every Japanese had his own house in the country.
Aside from that, PNG should have dethroned JPG long ago for the very simple reason that it contains an alpha channel -- but I still see plenty of JPG's.
I think that statement alone disqualifies you for giving any sort of opinion on image format. PNG and JPEG are totally different formats, trying to compress different types of images. Each of then sucks at what the other one does well.
Actually, your analogy is bad because in the case of cars in a traffic jam, if wave of cars did indeed move faster than light (even if the individual ones didn't), that would still violate special relativity because there would be information (there's no more blockage) transmitted faster than the speed of light.
Which is the better biological explanation for a belief in God -- evolutionary adaptation or neurological accident?
:-)
That's an easy one! Humans believe in God because they've been designed that way by God, no?
Oh, and you forgot the fact that most of the work to get the paper in (once the paper's written) is done by the reviewers, which aren't paid either and don't even get to see the final paper. I'm not sure whether the associate editors are paid, but I would assume they're not.
I'm a Canadian living in Australia. The first thing that shocked me here was that it costs about as much to heat my house when it's 10 degrees outside than it did in Canada when it was -20 degrees. I mean WTF?? I think mandating proper insulation of houses would have a lot more impact on CO2 emissions. Even better, it would pay for itself in a few years just with reduction of energy consumption (both in the winter and in the summer BTW). Just to give an idea to people from northern countries, my house (like many, many others) is 100% free from any insulation material and the only thing that separates the inside from the outside is solid brick.
It's more than that. My main objection against GM is not the food it produces, but the side effects it has. Those things are being pushed onto the marked with (relatively) very little research about its impact. I'm talking about effects on the ecosystems and the economy (screw up badly and you can kill a whole country's production). Now we're hearing that it's next to impossible to grow canola without contamination from GM grops, what's next? There's lots of long-term effects too. When you patent a plant that's more robust to pest X and people start using it, what usually happens is that pest X becomes more resistant too. The result is that now you still have the same problem with that pest, except that a) you now have to pay for the patented plant and b) you can't go back to your previous crops because the pest is now "too strong". I believe messing up with crops should be done much more carefully than what's happening now -- even much more than drugs. Vioxx is nothing compared to screwing up badly with wheat, corn or anything vital to country's economies.
The terminator gene is useful here because it prevents the crop from spreading into the wild. In this way it's a safeguard.
Apparently, it doesn't work so well.
Thanks. This is something that's forgotten way too often. I'd add that in general when reviewing a paper, reviewers must make the basic assumption that the author is acting in good faith. When that assumption is violated, then there isn't much the reviewers can do and it's usually up to the scientific organisation (and community) to take actions.
No, it means the exploit came in 0-day after the patch, i.e. you're screwed even if you're up-to-date with the security patches.
Just wait and we will hear theories that dinosaurs have caused current global warming.
:-)
Considering that the main cause is CO2 from fossil fuel, this statement is actually not too far off
If AMD can produce a better performing chip at 65nm, then who the hell cares if Intel - or anyone else - move to a 45nm process?
They care. Just moving the chip from 65 nm to 45 nm means you can produce twice as much on the same silicon wafer. Also, if a 65 nm chip performs well, then a 45 nm version of it (with slight modifications of course) will work even better.
The school has every right to do so. They also have the right to ask him not to cover the topic in the class. These are the people paying his salary, and if they don't want this going on, they can tell him to stop.
Sure, just like they have the right to tell all biology professors to only teach creat^H^H^H^H^H intelligent design, right? It's their money after all.
I see that as an advantage actually. Last laptop I had, the CDROM broke and they (Dell) wouldn't replace it until I checked that the Windows CD that came with the laptop (and took a few days to find) couldn't be read either. That's because "we only support Windows". Now, I have an n-series laptop, so hopefully they can't tell me to "check with windows" before replacing broken hardware.
Actually, I believe they removed the double-pumped ALU from Prescott and later to allow for even higher clock rates.
...and very few snipers are interested at shooting robots. Unless the robot is following you closely, it's likely *it* wouldn't have line of sight. Also, if the sniper is fast enough/far enough, he might even be able to get out of the way (e.g. window) before the sound reaches the robot. I guess they'd still know the building...
Actually, echo shouldn't be too much of a problem because it always arrives *after* the initial sound -- as long as you've got line of sight, which I'm guessing would be the main limitation. I suspect another source of error would be the refraction caused by temperature gradients, but I'm not sure how much effect that has. Otherwise, I also share your impression that this is probably a great lab gadget...