Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Electric Shock (Score 1) 951

by Nickodeemus (#31319208) Attached to: How Do You Get Users To Read Error Messages?
Just because you fail to be able to do this does not mean an end user fails to comprehend descriptions of what these cables look like, what the shapes are, where they connect, possibly what color they are, etc. End users can be can be infuriatingly dense at times but it is up to you as the support professional to find a level at which they can communicate thier needs to you and you communicate the fix to them. If you cannot do this then you should not be in the support business.

Comment: Re:Time Machine (Score 1) 441

by kenshin33 (#30382826) Attached to: AT&T Moves Closer To Usage-Based Fees For Data
Good point there, but in this world ... why should they care. BELL canada for instance wanted (and still wants) UBB one there DSL lines (wholesale and retail). in a throttled environment about 20% of the traffic is dropped (DROP rule in contrast of REJECT iptables wise, the peers are not informed that connection is not permitted) hence retransmitted a couple of times. you think that was included in their plan? Not a chance. so you end up paying for the consequences of their own equipment. So why should they care about 3rd parties ?

Comment: Re:Why all energy efficiency regulations are wrong (Score 1) 619

by lighthouse10 (#30178534) Attached to: Response To California's Large-Screen TV Regulation
More fun with Lighthouse10

Guess what?

Other factors contribute to a lack of savings too!

If households use less energy,
then utility companies make less money,
and will just raise electricity prices to cover their costs.
So people don't save as much money as they thought.

Conversely,
energy efficiency in effect means cheaper energy,
so people just leave TV sets etc on more, knowing that energy bills are lower,
as also shown by Scottish and Cambridge research
http://ceolas.net/#cc214x

Either way, supposed energy - or money - savings aren't there.

__________________________________________________________
Why all energy efficiency regulations are wrong
http://ceolas.net/#cc2x

Summary: Politicians don't object to energy efficiency as it sounds too good to be true. It is.

--The Consumer Side
Product Performance -- Construction and Appearance
Price Increase -- Lack of Actual Savings: Money, Energy or Emissions. Choice and Quality affected

-- The Manufacturer Side
Meeting Consumer Demand -- Green Technology -- Green Marketing

--The Energy Side
Energy Supply -- Energy Security -- Cars and Oil Dependence

--The Emission Side
Buildings -- Industry -- Power Stations -- Light Bulbs

Comment: Re:Hmm.. (Score 1) 664

by Ash Vince (#30164866) Attached to: Google Releases Source To Chromium OS

This has always been my concern about cloud computing and moving toward web apps and online content. Honestly I don't think that the idea of turning our desktops into terminals will catch on, and I'm not really sure that advocates have considered the cost. You're really just moving the hardware requirements to the server side as far as I can tell. Plus, the necessity of perpetual highspeed internet connections...

Errr, no. Think AJAX. A great deal of processing can still be done on the client, but it can be done in a more universal interpreted language that is separated from the hardware it is running on. This is actually good news for application / service providers as it can allow them to only develop a single version of a product for any hardware.

All the people posting stuff about this being inefficient are spot on though, but who cares. The average PC nowadays is so far over specified for what it actually needs to do in and office environment that we no longer need to worry as much about efficiency. Instead the bottle neck in most situations is manpower as man hours are more expensive than mips.

Comment: Re:WTF? (Score 2, Interesting) 332

by Chris Mattern (#30161466) Attached to: Secret UK Plan To Appoint "Pirate Finder General"

Gendo Ikari? No, wait, it was David Xanatos. On second thought, it was Light Yagami. Then again, it might have been Ozymandius. There's always the possibility that it was Hari Seldon. And, of course, *everything* is a Nemesis plot. But when you get right down to it, the Count of Monte Cristo did it first.

Comment: Re:Speaking as a chemist (Score 1) 229

by m50d (#29436885) Attached to: Most Detailed Photos of an Atom Yet
There is no proven violation of causality. As for non-locality, the Bell inequalities say nothing, but entanglement can cause what seems to be non-local behaviour - and it is measurable. We won't really understand entanglement until we understand decoherence, and that's still an open problem.

What the Bell inequalities tell us is that reality really is fundamentally nondeterministic - quantum mechanics can't possibly be a "layer" on top of some more fundamental, underlying, deterministic system.

Comment: Re:fat cells and muscle cells, too? (Score 2, Interesting) 117

by Crafack (#29436817) Attached to: Birdsong Studies Lead To a Revolution In Biology

Short answer: No.

If you look at the history of "modern science", from circa Newton and forward, the hard science has been separated from philosophy.

In a way you can say that the philosophers are constantly trying to catch up, and integrate the new knowledge in their world perceptions.

As a whole I do not think that is a problem. We might occationally stumble upon a field or a method that we in hindsight can see was a bad idea, for ethical reasons, but the checks and balances that is built into academia and science/science funding will soon enough learn to handle these areas (and perhaps give the philosophers a helping hand in the process).

I see philosophy as contemplative and reactive to the given facts. If we insist that all science must keep pace with philosophy, we will stifle progress enough to start a new "dark age". /Crafack

Comment: Re:Desktop multitouch: a tool looking for a purpos (Score 1) 352

by thebjorn (#29436777) Attached to: Windows 7 Touch, Dead On Arrival

The millions of office workers out there really do not want to sit for eight hours a day holding their arms in front of them like mummies.

The obvious solution would be to put the touch-screen flat on the desk (and split the keyboard out to either side). Add eye-tracking to switch context/windows, multi-touch on-screen interaction, and built-in windex for a potentially workable solution..?

Take your work seriously but never take yourself seriously; and do not take what happens either to yourself or your work seriously. -- Booth Tarkington

Working...