Same as it always has. Survival, improvement, curiosity.
Okay, now in this case money is an added motivator.
We have seen an explosion in the number of inventions over the last two centuries, but we have also seen an explosion in the number of skilled people over that period.
That's easy enough to prove. Let's see a graph that shows the rate of inventions running parallel to the birth rate.
The iPhone interface -- a bunch of icons arranged in a grid, each of which launches a different task. See also: Windows 95.
The complaint was way more specific with a lot more points than just that. Then again, the GroupThink around here thinks patents are just 6 words long anyway.
Re:In case you don't want to read the article
on
Google's Six-Front War
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The difference: MS was trying to force people to use their new products. Google is creating good products and inviting people to use the
Some free work I did for an on-line game did a lot more for my career than the paid work I was doing at the time. This is partly because I used the free work to expand my capabilities and partly because the paid work wasn't aiming for a high enough quality to meet my goals. I treated it as an educational experience and the results dramatically improved my situation.
Im tired of hearing whining about paid internships. Soon ppl will bitch that they don't earn income while in school.
You're acting as if this somehow makes the event immeasurably worse.
That's because it was. It took almost two years for the country to recover from what happened on 9-11. The world would have been very different if, for example, 3,000 people had heart attacks across the country.
There were more than 42,000 deaths from auto accidents the year that 2752 people died in the World Trade Center collapse. It was about a month's worth of auto accidents.
There were 50,000 people in the buildings when the planes hit, that's what Osama was aiming for. It was a miracle that only 3,000 people died. Also, those 42,000 didn't tank the economy.
Devoting the kind of money and focus that's been given to 9/11 to almost any other cause of death would almost certainly have better results.
I agree in the sense that the money has not been used wisely. I don't agree that if the money was being used competently that would be the case. There were lots of people on unemployment for 18+ months as a result of those events.
Getting overly worked up over any one thing isn't sensible.
We agree on this. That's why I think spending money in both directions (if being done competently...) is good.
Unless there's some sort of truly huge upswing in terrorist attacks, I don't see how the numbers don't make it more sensible to spend the money on making cars safer, developing alternative energy sources etc.
The answer to that is simple: Do both. (Note: When I say do both, I mean do both competently. That's not what's happening now.) Diversity is important and events like 9-11 have a way of setting us back. We've already seen that.
I did not acknowledge that it is worse. I acknowledged that a more concentrated event can overwhelm emergency services.
I know you didn't acknowledge it, you still proved it. That distinction really isn't one. You've shown one way that having it happen at once is worse than having it spread out. That means that this whole 'perception' concept is bunk.
As concentrated as 9/11 was, the total amount of death and destruction was less than the cumulative effects of auto accidents.
You're saying a finite event is less than the total of all events throughout eternity.
We don't know how many more attacks will happen. We don't know how effective it would be to actually spend money to stop them. We don't know that we can actually reduce/stop car crashes or how much that will cost. We don't know how successful those attacks will be, afterall there were over fifty thousand people in the towers when they were struck. We don't know that they won't manage to, for example, use a really powerful nuke. We don't know how long we'll have cars to actually crash. We can't measure the value of the quality of life. Etc.
Spending money on one and not the other is unwise.
But the original poster wasn't saying "what if all those auto accidents happened at once?", just that the cumulative death, injury and damage was worse.
He's trying to make the point that we should take whatever effort is being done to prevent a terrorist attack and put it into stopping car crashes, the assumption being that at the end of the universe, the numbers will change showing there were fewer deaths and low unemployment. It's a tempting assumption for a few reasons:
1. The timeline has no limit, leaving lots of possibilities open. 2. It assumes 1 major terrorist attack a year tops. 3. The gov't hasn't handled it well, annoying everybody. 4. It's is an oversimplification of the numbers that doesn't take reality into account. There's a big difference between living through something and reading the Wikipedia summary of it 10 years later.
It still seems to me that you're basically just saying that anything that is perceived as worse is actually worse, simply because it's perceived as such.
I'm not saying that it's seems worse because it's perceived worse, I'm saying it's worse because it is worse. You acknowledged it yourself in your last post.
Keeps them clean and removes a lot of crap (not just viruses, but old unwanted programs).
I use Portable Apps wherever possible. (I think the address is portableapps.com, I am not affiliated.) Basically they're just apps that are compressed into a self extracting file. You extract them and they just run, no installation needed. This means after a reinstall (or new computer) I still have my browsers with bookmarks, text/script editors, and a handful of other things I use a lot. When I get a laptop or something I just copy the files over to that machine and I'm running over there, too.
This post is off-topic, but it may help extend the life of your OS's.
Well that's great if all the servers are in the same location. But what about cases where you've got some servers in LA and others in NYC, like Amazon and I think Google does, how do they sync up?
Are we talking about a total outage or are we talking about a percentage of users left unable to get their data?
I ask because I imagine it's a huge technical challenge to have constantly editable data synchronized across all the machines in the 'cloud'. (I will be up front and admit that I don't know a lot about how something like this works.)
No, you'll need to explain how consumers moving their data to The Cloud......So consumers storing data at home as well as data in The Cloud means more hard drives in use, not less.
See how you used the word 'move' there in the beginning? You already understand my point.
Slashdot Mirror
Same as it always has. Survival, improvement, curiosity.
Okay, now in this case money is an added motivator.
We have seen an explosion in the number of inventions over the last two centuries, but we have also seen an explosion in the number of skilled people over that period.
That's easy enough to prove. Let's see a graph that shows the rate of inventions running parallel to the birth rate.
Right, so how does motivation factor into this equation?
Because none of those things would have happened without patents.
In the same time frame?
The iPhone interface -- a bunch of icons arranged in a grid, each of which launches a different task. See also: Windows 95.
The complaint was way more specific with a lot more points than just that. Then again, the GroupThink around here thinks patents are just 6 words long anyway.
The difference: MS was trying to force people to use their new products. Google is creating good products and inviting people to use the
Looks like Google's marketing was successful.
OMG! How on earth did the human race survive for millenia before patents?
Without global communication, running water, food that was safe to eat, and an epically large pile of medicine.
Patents and copyrights are designed from the beginning to restrict the transfer and sharing of knowledge.
Yeah, that's why they're very specific, detailed, and published for all to see.
Which movie were you picturing in your head during that obvious karma bait?
Some free work I did for an on-line game did a lot more for my career than the paid work I was doing at the time. This is partly because I used the free work to expand my capabilities and partly because the paid work wasn't aiming for a high enough quality to meet my goals. I treated it as an educational experience and the results dramatically improved my situation.
Im tired of hearing whining about paid internships. Soon ppl will bitch that they don't earn income while in school.
You're acting as if this somehow makes the event immeasurably worse.
That's because it was. It took almost two years for the country to recover from what happened on 9-11. The world would have been very different if, for example, 3,000 people had heart attacks across the country.
There were more than 42,000 deaths from auto accidents the year that 2752 people died in the World Trade Center collapse. It was about a month's worth of auto accidents.
There were 50,000 people in the buildings when the planes hit, that's what Osama was aiming for. It was a miracle that only 3,000 people died. Also, those 42,000 didn't tank the economy.
Devoting the kind of money and focus that's been given to 9/11 to almost any other cause of death would almost certainly have better results.
I agree in the sense that the money has not been used wisely. I don't agree that if the money was being used competently that would be the case. There were lots of people on unemployment for 18+ months as a result of those events.
Getting overly worked up over any one thing isn't sensible.
We agree on this. That's why I think spending money in both directions (if being done competently...) is good.
Unless there's some sort of truly huge upswing in terrorist attacks, I don't see how the numbers don't make it more sensible to spend the money on making cars safer, developing alternative energy sources etc.
The answer to that is simple: Do both. (Note: When I say do both, I mean do both competently. That's not what's happening now.) Diversity is important and events like 9-11 have a way of setting us back. We've already seen that.
I did not acknowledge that it is worse. I acknowledged that a more concentrated event can overwhelm emergency services.
I know you didn't acknowledge it, you still proved it. That distinction really isn't one. You've shown one way that having it happen at once is worse than having it spread out. That means that this whole 'perception' concept is bunk.
As concentrated as 9/11 was, the total amount of death and destruction was less than the cumulative effects of auto accidents.
You're saying a finite event is less than the total of all events throughout eternity.
We don't know how many more attacks will happen. We don't know how effective it would be to actually spend money to stop them. We don't know that we can actually reduce/stop car crashes or how much that will cost. We don't know how successful those attacks will be, afterall there were over fifty thousand people in the towers when they were struck. We don't know that they won't manage to, for example, use a really powerful nuke. We don't know how long we'll have cars to actually crash. We can't measure the value of the quality of life. Etc.
Spending money on one and not the other is unwise.
I can't believe I actually fell for clicking on this... ... good thing it's legit.
I'm willing to believe it's the truth, that he's an idiot, but it's not a valid excuse for anything.
Heh. "I know what a bunch of computer industry terms mean, I'm not an idiot!"
Correcting a maths mistake with an English mistake.
...on a Friday night before a major US holiday...
100% chance nobody here will get an STD.
You have no idea how high this site in the priorities of iTurfers and how good they get paid for being successull here.
Oh? How much?
This is the first time I've ever seen it said on Slashdot that Apple's price on something is justified.
But the original poster wasn't saying "what if all those auto accidents happened at once?", just that the cumulative death, injury and damage was worse.
He's trying to make the point that we should take whatever effort is being done to prevent a terrorist attack and put it into stopping car crashes, the assumption being that at the end of the universe, the numbers will change showing there were fewer deaths and low unemployment. It's a tempting assumption for a few reasons:
1. The timeline has no limit, leaving lots of possibilities open.
2. It assumes 1 major terrorist attack a year tops.
3. The gov't hasn't handled it well, annoying everybody.
4. It's is an oversimplification of the numbers that doesn't take reality into account. There's a big difference between living through something and reading the Wikipedia summary of it 10 years later.
It still seems to me that you're basically just saying that anything that is perceived as worse is actually worse, simply because it's perceived as such.
I'm not saying that it's seems worse because it's perceived worse, I'm saying it's worse because it is worse. You acknowledged it yourself in your last post.
I think you're right. Registry rot....
I've noticed my Windows installs last a lot longer when I use portable apps. (i.e. apps that don't require an install.)
Okay, what am I doing wrong?
Keeps them clean and removes a lot of crap (not just viruses, but old unwanted programs).
I use Portable Apps wherever possible. (I think the address is portableapps.com, I am not affiliated.) Basically they're just apps that are compressed into a self extracting file. You extract them and they just run, no installation needed. This means after a reinstall (or new computer) I still have my browsers with bookmarks, text/script editors, and a handful of other things I use a lot. When I get a laptop or something I just copy the files over to that machine and I'm running over there, too.
This post is off-topic, but it may help extend the life of your OS's.
The benefit of regular reinstalls ended with Windows ME.
No, it didn't. Windows 7 is definitely working better for me, but XP required the yearly reinstall just like all the previous Win OS's.
Give us Windows users credit, we are trained to back up our data!
Well that's great if all the servers are in the same location. But what about cases where you've got some servers in LA and others in NYC, like Amazon and I think Google does, how do they sync up?
Are we talking about a total outage or are we talking about a percentage of users left unable to get their data?
I ask because I imagine it's a huge technical challenge to have constantly editable data synchronized across all the machines in the 'cloud'. (I will be up front and admit that I don't know a lot about how something like this works.)
No, you'll need to explain how consumers moving their data to The Cloud ... ...So consumers storing data at home as well as data in The Cloud means more hard drives in use, not less.
See how you used the word 'move' there in the beginning? You already understand my point.