I've delt with Nokia support for faulty handheld phones from them and I've delt with Apple.
Nokia is now blacklisted for me, they will never ever ever see a cent of my money, ever again. I don't care if god personally endorses their next phone.
It could be that the cost of transporting an invasion fleet great distances could be much less for a sufficiently advanced civilization.
But in that case the cost of the alternatives - building an artificial planet, terraforming an existing one or whatever - would also be lower.
My understanding is that terraforming is cheaper than interstellar travel (although, of course, neither option comes "cheap"). As I said, the odds are, even if they did have the resources to make such a trip, they could almost certainly get resources closer to home.
The only way I really see it as reasonable is if they have some kind of expansionist agenda. If that was the case, though, one would hope that we would've seen them coming before they actually contacted us.
Yes, I know that, but that's what I've heard many people suggesting. Really, really wrong.
Truthfully, though, even taking the next exit and finding a parking lot will increase the crash rate significantly. If more than 4 out of 5 wrecks are ramp-related wrecks, assuming that the rate of ramp-related accidents is proportional to the number of times people actually take those ramps (and there's every reason to believe that this is the case), if you doubled the number of times an average person enters or exits the highway, you should expect about 6 million additional automobile accidents per year in the U.S. alone....
The best way to make roads safer, then, is to stop worrying about what drivers do and make the stupid on-ramps twice as long. I suspect it would probably reduce the traffic accident rate by a good 30-40% if we extended every on-ramp in the U.S. to at least a quarter mile for accelerating and merging. Mandating lane change warning systems for large trucks would be another significant win (financially, if not in terms of the number of accidents).
I've not seen 768 lines on a sub 10" netbook, and certainly not on any netbook under $500 unless it was subsidized below that point by a $60/month data plan contract for a 2 year commitment.
1024x600 is not sufficient. I tried. I got by in 1024x768 for years. 768 wide is not bad either since it auto scales, and very few sites are designed for wider than 800 pixels. (there are a few, but then those are also designed for a lot more than 700 lines vertical too...
the point however was not the resolution, it was the experience, fluidity, rotation, and more. A netbook MIGHT have a better resolution screen (though certainly not IPS response and color in this price class), but netbooks don;t do portrait, weigh more, have more limited batteries, and don't do HDTV (in this price class).
Will it replace all uses for a netbook, hell no. It replaces 70% of the reason though, and likely half the users could easily exchange an iPad for 100% of their needs in this class. That's tens of millions of devices per year, and they're hoping to sell 4 million atm...
Mod parent up!
Seriously, people here love to talk about how the "new economy" makes it possible to remove "artificial scarcity" and make it so everything is free.
What these people ignore is that, even if it costs no money to copy something, it still costs money to create something. There is still, in this "new economy", the very real economics that the majority of content people use (Computer programs, movies, music, television programs, written articles, etc.) is content that would not exist if someone wasn't being paid to make it.
I enjoy reading all of the articles on the New York Times' front page every morning, and understand I soon may need to pay for the privilege of reading the quality journalism and writing the the NYT offers.
Now, I'm sure someone will point to open source software and say "Mr. MaraDNS, you don't know about open source software and how this proves that we can have all the compelling content we want for free in the 'new economy'". I will point out to people who think like this that I am, in fact, a developer of open-source software.
People who think open-source software (OSS) makes it possible for all content to be free don't understand how OSS changes the relationship between the developer and the user. A lot of people think an OSS program is like a commercial program, but free, and that they can ask for features or get support for free, and it gets pretty tiring to have people email me asking for free support, even though I make it clear that I don't provide free email support for my program.
The thinking behind OSS is that I donate some of my coding time and effort to the greater community. In return, people are free to contribute bug fixes or improvements to the program, or supply support on the mailing list. For example, someone wanted better IPv6 support, supplied patches, and now MaraDNS has good IPv6 support. Another person wanted better Windows service support, and supplied patches to make MaraDNS' new recursive core be a full Windows service. Other people answer user's questions on the mailing list or translate documentation. Webconquest very generously provides me a free Linux shell account and hosting for the web site.
Likewise, I found an OSS Doom random generator I liked and provided bug fixes and improvements to it; when I lost interest in it, another person became the maintainer and improvements continue to be made even though I no longer work on that code. And, there is a Free Windows Civilization clone for Windows which I have provided a bug fix and extended the documentation with.
OSS doesn't mean we have the right to demand all content be free or are justified in pirating media and software. OSS means that we can, together, make free content which complements the for-pay content out there.
This is the situation I've found myself in after damaging my ankle last year. It put me out of commission for a significant amount of time, and I've been pretty much sedentary for the past 12 months. I'm not obviously fat, and in fact my weight has dropped as I've lost muscle mass (I'm thin to start with, making this weight loss a *bad* thing). I also eat healthy, so I'm not gaining a lot of fat, but my fat/lean ratio has definitely gotten worse.
I have a 32 bit processor on a 32 bit motherboard and 2GB of DDR2.
Why in fucks name would I want 64 bit OS to do the same thing as I can do with a 32 bit OS, and mores to the point, why do *I* deserve crappy code written by someone else ?
You don't *have* to upgrade just because "it's the latest thing". And saying 64 bit is somehow better when it can't even run the same legacy code that 32 bit still can is hardly a valid reason to upgrade. (The fact that some of that legacy code is vulnerable is beside the point).
Dr Nicko van Someren reported at last year's Crypto 98 conference that he had disassembled the ADVADPI driver. He found it contained two different keys. One was used by Microsoft to control the cryptographic functions enabled in Windows, in compliance with US export regulations. But the reason for building in a second key, or who owned it, remained a mystery.
Two weeks ago, a US security company came up with conclusive evidence that the second key belongs to NSA. Like Dr van Someren, Andrew Fernandez, chief scientist with Cryptonym of Morrisville, North Carolina, had been probing the presence and significance of the two keys. Then he checked the latest Service Pack release for Windows NT4, Service Pack 5. He found that Microsoft's developers had failed to remove or "strip" the debugging symbols used to test this software before they released it. Inside the code were the labels for the two keys. One was called "KEY". The other was called "NSAKEY".
Fernandes reported his re-discovery of the two CAPI keys, and their secret meaning, to "Advances in Cryptology, Crypto'99" conference held in Santa Barbara. According to those present at the conference, Windows developers attending the conference did not deny that the "NSA" key was built into their software. But they refused to talk about what the key did, or why it had been put there without users' knowledge.
The NSA has also been "helping" Windows' security development since then as well.
I always thought that was one of China's motivations for Red Flag linux: take out the U.S's backdoor and put in their own. Red Flag first appeared in 1999, the same year that this speculation of the NSA backdoor began.
Every little picofarad has a nanohenry all its own. -- Don Vonada