My wife and I just dumped cellular (AT&T with 5GB/month cap) for dialup (the only two options in our area). As I put it to her, I'd rather have a slow car that can take me anywhere than a race car that can only go in circles.
You somewhat answer yourself in the question: "what is keeping you from volunteering...?"
The need to volunteer is. If I devoted my life to volunteering my family would starve and be forced to live on the streets.
To ask a more reasonable question, why companies aren't investing more into accessible interfaces, it comes down to numbers. As many have pointed out, you're talking about a small fraction of the userbase who can't use the typical keyboard and mouse setup. But even beyond that, you don't even define "disabled". There are countless types of disabilities, each requiring specialized adaptations. You can't simply build an interface "for the disabled" because you first need to know how a user is disabled. This means that, in many cases, you're talking about a customized device. That's rarely cheap, even if insurance is involved. If the customer isn't willing or able to pay for it, nobody's going to make it.
So how long until we see this misused on CSI as a technique to somehow find the killer?
"And then we'll use his online handle to get his IP address and trace that to his house..." Ugh.
Raise your hand if this reminds you at all of that old Bill Gates/Car Industry joke.
The reason the medical field is "lagging" is a very simple one: acceptable losses.
Here's what I mean: I used to work at a local computer store. We were good (people came from neighboring counties and even states) but we weren't cheap either. I often wound up having to make phone calls that basically went like this:
Me: "Mr. Smith, this is Steve and I've been working on your computer for a while. It turns out that you had some pretty bad spyware that's trashed your TCP/IP stack. That's why you can't get on the Internet. Now, I can do the long, arduous repair that will take the better part of the rest of the day and maybe into tomorrow and cost you almost $300 or I can do a Windows reinstall that will take an hour and cost about $90. Which would you like?"
Mr. Smith: "I'll take the reinstall, please." And of course he would. That gets his computer back to working order and saves a lot of money. Sure, his hard drive gets wiped but at least it's working again. We could probably even back up his important stuff.
Now, a medical analogy:
Doctor: "Mr. Smith, I'm afraid that you've suffered major injuries in that car accident. There's two things we can do: you could be in physical therapy for four or five years. It's painful and very expensive, even with your insurance. However you'll have a 98% chance of walking and living normally afterward. Otherwise you can skip the therapy, live the rest of your life in a wheelchair and be on pain medication. It's much cheaper but you'll never walk again."
Mr. Smith: "When can I start therapy?"
Now, it kind of seems like the difference I'm pointing out is the money, but that's not it. The difference is the acceptable loss. It's mostly acceptable, in the grand scheme of things, to lose all or most of the data on your computer. It's not acceptable to lose the use of your lower body. This brings me to my main point: computer science has to be good enough, medical science has to be perfect. The acceptable margin of error is orders of magnitude smaller when we're talking about people's lives. It takes much more time to fix a problem under those circumstances. If it was possible to reinstall a person's mind or yank out a malfunctioning kidney and replace it with nVidia's latest offering medical science would be much more "ahead". Unfortunately our bodies weren't built with simple upgrades in mind.
See, in the article it mentions briefly before getting to the feather part that the Veliciraptor may be smaller than originally thought. Then it goes on about how this guy found bumps on the arm bone that correspond to bumps on the same bone in birds. Alright. But then it mentions that the bumps have never been found on any Velociraptor bones before.
My question: Why is the conclusion that Velociraptor had feathers and not that they've discovered a different species?
Thank you, you beat me to the reply and then even made the second point that I forgot to make more clearly in my first post. In fact, please allow me to sharpen the point more: do you really think that a computer is really the best use of $199 to $399 for a "poor, rural Chinese" person?
It's one thing for a government to buy laptops for severely under-priviledged kids in Africa. At least the kids aren't spending their own money which could be better-spent on food, medicine, clean water, etc. But to think that somebody described as "poor" in China could even afford $199 for a computer is crazy. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Chinese_social _structure#Chinese_Social_Stratification_after_199 3:
An October 2002 official report showed that, in 2001, the annual income per capita of urban residents was 6860 yuan (US$825), and of peasants 2366 yuan (US$285). On the surface, the gap is three to one. However, 40 percent of peasants' income is in goods, not currency, so the currency is only 1800 yuan/year (US$217) or 150 yuan/month (US$18). Of this 150 yuan, 20 percent must be spent for seed, agricultural chemicals, chemical fertilizers, diesel oil, and so on. As a result, the monthly purchasing power of a peasant is only 120 yuan (US$14)...
That computer would cost the equivalent of more than 14 months of income if they never bought anything else during that time, and that's the cheap model.
Um... seems to me that I can go to Newegg and put together a fairly kick-ass computer (certainly when compared to what Lenovo seem to be offering) for ~$400US. At least OLPC seems worth the price tag, considering what you get. In this case it sounds like a total rip-off. Unless that $399 machine has some really impressive specs (how can it if it plugs into a freaking TV?) this idea blows. Especially when it's marketed toward those with a lower income who will want to get the most possible for their money.
Hell, if there are rural Chinese people who are willing to drop $400 on a pc give them my phone number. I'll build them something a hell of a lot better than this.
But then what happens when the officer does need to subdue someone? If all he has is a gun, lethal force is his only option. Let's say he's being attacked by somebody with a baseball bat and they're swinging really hard. He could blind and subdue them or shoot.
I'm not a cop nor do I know any personally, but killing someone, no matter the cause, is something that would haunt anybody for the rest of their life. I would think that any cop would rather have, maybe in addition to their sidearm, a non-lethal means to protect themself.
God forbid that our poor children's virgin ears should hear from their TV the same words that they hear every day at school. Or that they should ever see a *gasp* boobie. Oh no, that's horrible and will surely corrupt our youth.
Now, showing live video from the Virginia Tech massacre (you know, the camera phone that recorded the shootings from outside) or showing massive explosions and horrific, gory deaths, that's fine. Totally fine. We want to breed killers so we can send them to fight our wars... er... defend Freedom(TM)
OK maybe I missed something but that would seem to say that it's impossible to create identical particles in identical quantum states. Isn't that, though, what this whole experiment did? Two identical, entangled particles that act as one? If I'm reading your post correctly (granted, I'm probably not) it says that what they've already done is impossible. I submit that I'm probably misunderstanding. Any help please?
Slashdot Mirror
... you know... the moon...?
So can I now, finally, get something better than dialup and AT&T EDGE at my house? My house that's 30 minutes from a major metropolitan area? Please?
Are you talking about Rackspace in San Antonio? If so, they actually purchased an abandoned shopping mall so... no paying for rent.
As seen here: http://www.cockeyed.com/incredible/solardish/dish01.shtml
Ok really curious here: If this new clock is twice as precise as the previous clock... how do they know they've set its time right?
I dunno. We might also get Jessica Alba in heat every three months. This could work to our advantage...
Two phone lines. Oh, and a webcache server.
My wife and I just dumped cellular (AT&T with 5GB/month cap) for dialup (the only two options in our area). As I put it to her, I'd rather have a slow car that can take me anywhere than a race car that can only go in circles.
You somewhat answer yourself in the question: "what is keeping you from volunteering...?"
The need to volunteer is. If I devoted my life to volunteering my family would starve and be forced to live on the streets.
To ask a more reasonable question, why companies aren't investing more into accessible interfaces, it comes down to numbers. As many have pointed out, you're talking about a small fraction of the userbase who can't use the typical keyboard and mouse setup. But even beyond that, you don't even define "disabled". There are countless types of disabilities, each requiring specialized adaptations. You can't simply build an interface "for the disabled" because you first need to know how a user is disabled. This means that, in many cases, you're talking about a customized device. That's rarely cheap, even if insurance is involved. If the customer isn't willing or able to pay for it, nobody's going to make it.
Sure, sure. It's possible in a long, drawn-out and circular way. I just get annoyed when it's portrayed as:
"Quick, where is he located?"
"Pinging his router now. He's at 123 Maple St."
I know it's done for brevity, but come on.
IP address != physical address. That's the problem. Also, you can find the ip address someone is using to access their myspace page? Really?
So how long until we see this misused on CSI as a technique to somehow find the killer? "And then we'll use his online handle to get his IP address and trace that to his house..." Ugh.
...global warming? *ducks*
Raise your hand if this reminds you at all of that old Bill Gates/Car Industry joke.
The reason the medical field is "lagging" is a very simple one: acceptable losses.
Here's what I mean: I used to work at a local computer store. We were good (people came from neighboring counties and even states) but we weren't cheap either. I often wound up having to make phone calls that basically went like this:
Me: "Mr. Smith, this is Steve and I've been working on your computer for a while. It turns out that you had some pretty bad spyware that's trashed your TCP/IP stack. That's why you can't get on the Internet. Now, I can do the long, arduous repair that will take the better part of the rest of the day and maybe into tomorrow and cost you almost $300 or I can do a Windows reinstall that will take an hour and cost about $90. Which would you like?"
Mr. Smith: "I'll take the reinstall, please." And of course he would. That gets his computer back to working order and saves a lot of money. Sure, his hard drive gets wiped but at least it's working again. We could probably even back up his important stuff.
Now, a medical analogy:
Doctor: "Mr. Smith, I'm afraid that you've suffered major injuries in that car accident. There's two things we can do: you could be in physical therapy for four or five years. It's painful and very expensive, even with your insurance. However you'll have a 98% chance of walking and living normally afterward. Otherwise you can skip the therapy, live the rest of your life in a wheelchair and be on pain medication. It's much cheaper but you'll never walk again."
Mr. Smith: "When can I start therapy?"
Now, it kind of seems like the difference I'm pointing out is the money, but that's not it. The difference is the acceptable loss. It's mostly acceptable, in the grand scheme of things, to lose all or most of the data on your computer. It's not acceptable to lose the use of your lower body. This brings me to my main point: computer science has to be good enough, medical science has to be perfect. The acceptable margin of error is orders of magnitude smaller when we're talking about people's lives. It takes much more time to fix a problem under those circumstances. If it was possible to reinstall a person's mind or yank out a malfunctioning kidney and replace it with nVidia's latest offering medical science would be much more "ahead". Unfortunately our bodies weren't built with simple upgrades in mind.
See, in the article it mentions briefly before getting to the feather part that the Veliciraptor may be smaller than originally thought. Then it goes on about how this guy found bumps on the arm bone that correspond to bumps on the same bone in birds. Alright. But then it mentions that the bumps have never been found on any Velociraptor bones before.
My question: Why is the conclusion that Velociraptor had feathers and not that they've discovered a different species?
Wonderful to know how it works. But will it blend?
I'm not following. Could somebody PLEASE use a car analogy?
As opposed to the "real" kind?
It's one thing for a government to buy laptops for severely under-priviledged kids in Africa. At least the kids aren't spending their own money which could be better-spent on food, medicine, clean water, etc. But to think that somebody described as "poor" in China could even afford $199 for a computer is crazy. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Chinese_socia
That computer would cost the equivalent of more than 14 months of income if they never bought anything else during that time, and that's the cheap model.
Um... seems to me that I can go to Newegg and put together a fairly kick-ass computer (certainly when compared to what Lenovo seem to be offering) for ~$400US. At least OLPC seems worth the price tag, considering what you get. In this case it sounds like a total rip-off. Unless that $399 machine has some really impressive specs (how can it if it plugs into a freaking TV?) this idea blows. Especially when it's marketed toward those with a lower income who will want to get the most possible for their money.
Hell, if there are rural Chinese people who are willing to drop $400 on a pc give them my phone number. I'll build them something a hell of a lot better than this.
But then what happens when the officer does need to subdue someone? If all he has is a gun, lethal force is his only option. Let's say he's being attacked by somebody with a baseball bat and they're swinging really hard. He could blind and subdue them or shoot.
I'm not a cop nor do I know any personally, but killing someone, no matter the cause, is something that would haunt anybody for the rest of their life. I would think that any cop would rather have, maybe in addition to their sidearm, a non-lethal means to protect themself.
On first reading the topic I thought it somehow had to do with the MPAA
The Saitek X-45, which is already a high-quality joystick/throttle combo, has a hat-as-mouse function built in. Fantastic, intuitive product.
God forbid that our poor children's virgin ears should hear from their TV the same words that they hear every day at school. Or that they should ever see a *gasp* boobie. Oh no, that's horrible and will surely corrupt our youth.
Now, showing live video from the Virginia Tech massacre (you know, the camera phone that recorded the shootings from outside) or showing massive explosions and horrific, gory deaths, that's fine. Totally fine. We want to breed killers so we can send them to fight our wars... er... defend Freedom(TM)
OK maybe I missed something but that would seem to say that it's impossible to create identical particles in identical quantum states. Isn't that, though, what this whole experiment did? Two identical, entangled particles that act as one? If I'm reading your post correctly (granted, I'm probably not) it says that what they've already done is impossible.
I submit that I'm probably misunderstanding. Any help please?