Slashdot Mirror

For several years in the late 1990s and early 2000's I had an office in the former Pickett slide-rule factory building in Santa Barbara California, on Gutirrez Street. The building was originally a giant aircraft Quonset hut made out of sheet metal, and was located on the site of the former Santa Barbara airport before the airport moved north of town. While rummaging through some old materials in the attic area, we came across a giant 10 foot long slide rule, apparently used by Pickett for marketing or training purposes. In the 1960s and 70s,

Santa Barbara was a hotbed for DARPA projects, and sliderules were an important everyday engineering tool.

Ironically, another tenant of the building while I was there was Larry Green, who helped build the first node on the original ARPAnet, which ultimately became the Internet. Larry had an actual Internet message processor (IMP) front panel in his office, and all the associated documentation. It was fascinating listening to him tell about the early development of Internet communications technologies.

I just came across a blog entry of Larry Green's IMP work in Archive.org: http://web.archive.org/web/200...

Two revolutionary cusp technologies in the same obscure, non-description building. A fascinating coincidence.

He reused the MINIX filesystem layout, and initially hosted builds on MINIX, but to my knowledge he never directly incorporated code from MINIX. Some have claimed that, but no claim has ever stuck, especially given that Andrew Tanenbaum himself agrees that Linux didn't annex any MINIX code directly.

It appears Wikipedia's account jibes with my memory.

I've often had to feed blog URLs into the Web Archive to see when it was published. Which kind of works, provided that it was indexed not too long after it was published, or that Web Archive indexed it at all.

The tickets for LA->SF are going to be over $100, and likely closer to $200. So it will be both slower and more expensive than flying.

Are you sure? Even today, the average cost of a flight between LA and SF is $145.58 according to GoFox.com. When the HSR line opens, you can be sure that airfares will be even higher.

Also, if you had read the business plan, you would know that they're planning to set ticket prices at 83% of airfares.

So for not just one but two reasons, you're wrong about it being more expensive than flying.

As for it being slower than flying, do you really think you can get from downtown Los Angeles to downtown San Francisco in less than 2 hours 45 minutes? The time in the air alone is over an hour, plus there's the taxi rides, getting through security, getting on and off the plane, and retrieving your luggage at the end of your flight. On a good day, if you're in a rush, and you don't miss your flight by being late to the airport, just maybe flying will be faster.

Also, did you know that sometimes bicyclist are faster than flying?

"The pattern of damage observed in the forward fuselage and cockpit section of the aircraft was consistent with the damage that would be expected from a large number of high-energy objects that penetrated the aircraft from outside." ref

The Andasol solar uses an HTF fluid circulating in the solar field. This plant will use molten salt in the collector as well as in the storage medium. This is the big innovation of this new plant as it has higher temperatures and lower transfer loss. My concern is that pumping molten salt around is very different than pumping hot oil around. Oil does not solidify of the temperature drops If the salt solidifies in the tank it is no big deal. You just pump hot oil through the heat exchanger until the salt melts again. If the salt solidifies in the pumps and pipes between the collector and the storage tanks there is a much bigger problem. How do you melt salt inside a pump and hundreds of feet of piping? Another issue is that hot oil is nowhere near as corrosive as molten salt. With the tank method all you need to be corrosion resistant is the tank and heat exchangers in the tank. With the new technology every pipe, pump, solar collector, etc would have to be highly corrosion resistant. That can get very expensive and they may need to be replaced quite often.

A tank of molten salt with a couple of heat exchanges in it is very different than pumping molten salt around.

She stated in an interview that she did it for lesser known authors who lacked a publicity machine behind them; so that machine she became. Quite a noble thing to do in your spare time, which she, apparently, had quite a bit of.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...

Further, the family (AFAIK) has refused to sign any waiver allowing the school to explain their side of the story fully.

Dad's a media gadfly (from a profile of him long before the whole bomb thing)
http://www.okayafrica.com/news...
Calls himself a sheikh on his campaign page (one of them)
https://web.archive.org/web/20...

Computer Science has been around for centuries before anyone even gleened of the idea of the personal computer.

On the contrary, computers had been around for several years before anyone even conceived of the idea of computer science.

Take it from Donald Knuth quoting Forsythe:

"[Computers] are developing so rapidly that even computer scientists cannot keep up with them. It must be bewildering to most mathematicians and engineers...In spite of the diversity of the applications, the methods of attacking the difficult problems with computers show a great unity, and the name of Computer Sciences is being attached to the discipline as it emerges. It must be understood, however, that this is still a young field whose structure is still nebulous. The student will find a great many more problems than answers. [59, p. 177]"

"He identified the "computer sciences" as the theory of programming, numerical analysis, data processing, and the design of computer systems, and observed that the latter three were better understood than the theory of programming, and more available in courses."

And that's from Donald Fucking Knuth, who has forgotten more about CS than you'll ever know.

Don't fixate on a dead end platform. Either build a Flash decompiler to translate it to HTML5 or implement a Flash runtime in HTML5. Lobby Adobe to help you. If Adobe won't help you, then consider the option of not wasting your time on their proprietary platform.

To demonstrate what's possible with HTML5, here are 2,589 MS-DOS games playable in the HTML5 port of DOSBox. Here are 73 Sega SG-1000 games and 563 Sega Master System games and 575 Sega Genesis games all playble in the HTML5 port of MESS. Here are 607 arcade games playable in the HTML5 port of MAME. And so on and so forth.

If Newgrounds can't achieve what the Internet Archive achieves, then Newgrounds deserves to die.

Don't fixate on a dead end platform. Either build a Flash decompiler to translate it to HTML5 or implement a Flash runtime in HTML5. Lobby Adobe to help you. If Adobe won't help you, then consider the option of not wasting your time on their proprietary platform.

To demonstrate what's possible with HTML5, here are 2,589 MS-DOS games playable in the HTML5 port of DOSBox. Here are 73 Sega SG-1000 games and 563 Sega Master System games and 575 Sega Genesis games all playble in the HTML5 port of MESS. Here are 607 arcade games playable in the HTML5 port of MAME. And so on and so forth.

If Newgrounds can't achieve what the Internet Archive achieves, then Newgrounds deserves to die.

Don't fixate on a dead end platform. Either build a Flash decompiler to translate it to HTML5 or implement a Flash runtime in HTML5. Lobby Adobe to help you. If Adobe won't help you, then consider the option of not wasting your time on their proprietary platform.

To demonstrate what's possible with HTML5, here are 2,589 MS-DOS games playable in the HTML5 port of DOSBox. Here are 73 Sega SG-1000 games and 563 Sega Master System games and 575 Sega Genesis games all playble in the HTML5 port of MESS. Here are 607 arcade games playable in the HTML5 port of MAME. And so on and so forth.

If Newgrounds can't achieve what the Internet Archive achieves, then Newgrounds deserves to die.

Don't fixate on a dead end platform. Either build a Flash decompiler to translate it to HTML5 or implement a Flash runtime in HTML5. Lobby Adobe to help you. If Adobe won't help you, then consider the option of not wasting your time on their proprietary platform.

To demonstrate what's possible with HTML5, here are 2,589 MS-DOS games playable in the HTML5 port of DOSBox. Here are 73 Sega SG-1000 games and 563 Sega Master System games and 575 Sega Genesis games all playble in the HTML5 port of MESS. Here are 607 arcade games playable in the HTML5 port of MAME. And so on and so forth.

If Newgrounds can't achieve what the Internet Archive achieves, then Newgrounds deserves to die.

Don't fixate on a dead end platform. Either build a Flash decompiler to translate it to HTML5 or implement a Flash runtime in HTML5. Lobby Adobe to help you. If Adobe won't help you, then consider the option of not wasting your time on their proprietary platform.

To demonstrate what's possible with HTML5, here are 2,589 MS-DOS games playable in the HTML5 port of DOSBox. Here are 73 Sega SG-1000 games and 563 Sega Master System games and 575 Sega Genesis games all playble in the HTML5 port of MESS. Here are 607 arcade games playable in the HTML5 port of MAME. And so on and so forth.

If Newgrounds can't achieve what the Internet Archive achieves, then Newgrounds deserves to die.

Did you think each paragraph was completely independent and unrelated?

Let me enlarge that quote again:

Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6ÃÂC higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the Nineties.

However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.

The effects of snow-free winter in Britain are already becoming apparent. This year, for the first time ever, Hamleys, Britain's biggest toyshop, had no sledges on display in its Regent Street store. "It was a bit of a first," a spokesperson said.

Notice that the two paragraphs immediately before and immediately after that quote talk about Britain exclusively, not southern England, lowland England, etc that is discussed elsewhere in the story. Before you lecture me pointlessly about reading comprehension, perhaps you could do a little of it yourself?

Now, perhaps Dr. Viner was speaking of southern England or whatever, but that doesn't show from either the sparse, broad quoting or the context of the surrounding paragraphs.

Incidentally, since the Independent story has disappeared for the time being (I was unable to surf to it yesterday or today and the Independent's search engine doesn't turn up the story for some reason), one can find a copy of it on Wayback.

You do not need a clock to determine longitude.

Yes you do. Maskelyne's method just uses the moon as a clock and required being able to accurately measure the angular separation between the moon and a bright star near its path to determine the time. Since the moon moves ~0.5 degrees every hour you need to measure the angle to at least this accuracy to get a time. While it worked it required great care measuring the angles, complex tables to convert the angle to a time and a clear view of the night sky. Even with all this extra effort on the one voyage where they were compared directly this method produced an error three times greater than Harrison's clock.

I would also disagree with your open tech argument. Have a look at the 1775 Nautical Almanac. Apart from copyright on the tables you had to have a government license to print them and the calculations on which the tables are based are not given anywhere (although there is some reassurance that the calculations have been checked multiple times). Worse this is a something you had to purchase every year. I don't see how this is any more open than Harrison's clock whose mechanism you could examine and tweak if you though you could do better.

Maybe the last 100 years of internal combustion engine evolution? Detroit whined it was impossible until the Japanese and Europeans started selling cars with improved mileage.

I'm guessing you weren't around in the 1970s during the Arab Oil Embargo. Detroit was just giving the consumers what they wanted - bigger cars. The Japanese automakers were unable to compete, so were forced into the niche market of econoboxes. Suddenly gas prices skyrocketed, and the market shifted towards those econoboxes. That's what brought Japanese car companies into prominence. Detroit took a while to re-engineer their product line to be more fuel efficient, by which time Toyota, Honda, and Datsun (Nissan) had become household names with a reputation for reliability.

The U.S. automakers never said higher fuel mileage targets were impossible to meet (at least not until the most recent CAFE standards negotiations). Their complaint has always been that this sort of supply-side market manipulation (regulating car mileage) results in a disconnect between supply and demand. They end up with more econoboxes than they can sell (resulting in their profit margin on those cars dropping to near-zero or even going negative), while the larger cars are impossible to keep on the lots.

If you don't believe that, just look at the trend in car vs light truck sales. (Apologies for the archive.org link - the actual site took the data behind a paywall last year). Light trucks fall into a less stringent fuel efficiency category under CAFE, so the automakers are able to build them bigger like consumers want. Every year from 1931 to 1973, light trucks made up about 12%-20% of total auto sales. Since 1973 when fuel efficiency began to become "important" (CAFE was implemented in 1975), light truck sales have gradually climbed to where they're now over 50% of all personal vehicle sales. The conspiracy theory that people would buy more efficient cars if Detroit would just build them is false. People want big cars even if they get crappy mileage, and will even pay the profit premium Detroit has to tack onto them to subsidize sales of economy cars so they can meet the CAFE fleet standards..

Europe (and Japan and Korea and Canada) actually do this right. They just tax gasoline up the wazoo. That's demand-side market manipulation. Car buyers see the high gas prices, and suddenly they want their car to get good mileage more than they want a bigger car. The automakers then build cars to suit the demand without having to deal with price distortions within their inventory caused by an arbitrary government standard making it a headache to predict how many of each type of car to build. That's what Detroit has been whining about.

Yep. Etherkillers have been around since forever. The oldest link I could find in 30 seconds is one one from 1999, but I'm sure I had one before than, and I certainly didn't come up with the concept. It's nice that he re-invented the etherkiller, but man, Google is your friend.

Could this be a problem endemic to organizations that spend money that they didn't really do anything to earn in the first place?

When I hear about delays such as this, it reminds of me of Mozilla and how so many of their projects end up getting delayed by years and years.

A perfect example is Rust. Work on it started well before 2010. It was first publicly announced in 2010. The 1.0 release was anticipated "sometime in the coming year", back in 2012. But after delays and more delays, Rust 1.0 was finally released in May of 2015. By that time C++14 was widely available and usable, and tends to be superior to Rust. So there's really no need for Rust any longer.

Another example is the Electrolysis project, which changes Mozilla Firefox to use a multi-process model closer to that of Chrome. Work on that was ongoing as of 2010. Well, it's now late 2015, the stable release of Firefox is currently at version 40, and Electrolysis still isn't available for widespread use. Those who have used the dev builds that have it enabled have generally been disappointed. Meanwhile, we've seen Chrome's market share expand rapidly, while Firefox's is now in the single digits as a percentage.

Then there's Mozilla's Let's Encrypt initiative. It, too, has suffered from numerous delays. It was claimed it would be "Arriving Summer 2015", then "Arriving Mid-2015", then "Arriving September 2015", and then "Arriving Q4 2015". It has yet to get here, obviously.

Governments take tax money by threat of force and imprisonment. Mozilla had large sums of money just thrown at them by Google, and now Yahoo. Such organizations haven't really earned the money they have; they've either taken it or basically had it gifted to them. When the money comes easy, there's little to no incentive to spend it wisely. So projects don't get completed on-time and on-budget. We shouldn't be surprised, of course. Delays and failure are a predictable outcome given the circumstances.

Could this be a problem endemic to organizations that spend money that they didn't really do anything to earn in the first place?

When I hear about delays such as this, it reminds of me of Mozilla and how so many of their projects end up getting delayed by years and years.

A perfect example is Rust. Work on it started well before 2010. It was first publicly announced in 2010. The 1.0 release was anticipated "sometime in the coming year", back in 2012. But after delays and more delays, Rust 1.0 was finally released in May of 2015. By that time C++14 was widely available and usable, and tends to be superior to Rust. So there's really no need for Rust any longer.

Another example is the Electrolysis project, which changes Mozilla Firefox to use a multi-process model closer to that of Chrome. Work on that was ongoing as of 2010. Well, it's now late 2015, the stable release of Firefox is currently at version 40, and Electrolysis still isn't available for widespread use. Those who have used the dev builds that have it enabled have generally been disappointed. Meanwhile, we've seen Chrome's market share expand rapidly, while Firefox's is now in the single digits as a percentage.

Then there's Mozilla's Let's Encrypt initiative. It, too, has suffered from numerous delays. It was claimed it would be "Arriving Summer 2015", then "Arriving Mid-2015", then "Arriving September 2015", and then "Arriving Q4 2015". It has yet to get here, obviously.

Governments take tax money by threat of force and imprisonment. Mozilla had large sums of money just thrown at them by Google, and now Yahoo. Such organizations haven't really earned the money they have; they've either taken it or basically had it gifted to them. When the money comes easy, there's little to no incentive to spend it wisely. So projects don't get completed on-time and on-budget. We shouldn't be surprised, of course. Delays and failure are a predictable outcome given the circumstances.

Could this be a problem endemic to organizations that spend money that they didn't really do anything to earn in the first place?

When I hear about delays such as this, it reminds of me of Mozilla and how so many of their projects end up getting delayed by years and years.

A perfect example is Rust. Work on it started well before 2010. It was first publicly announced in 2010. The 1.0 release was anticipated "sometime in the coming year", back in 2012. But after delays and more delays, Rust 1.0 was finally released in May of 2015. By that time C++14 was widely available and usable, and tends to be superior to Rust. So there's really no need for Rust any longer.

Another example is the Electrolysis project, which changes Mozilla Firefox to use a multi-process model closer to that of Chrome. Work on that was ongoing as of 2010. Well, it's now late 2015, the stable release of Firefox is currently at version 40, and Electrolysis still isn't available for widespread use. Those who have used the dev builds that have it enabled have generally been disappointed. Meanwhile, we've seen Chrome's market share expand rapidly, while Firefox's is now in the single digits as a percentage.

Then there's Mozilla's Let's Encrypt initiative. It, too, has suffered from numerous delays. It was claimed it would be "Arriving Summer 2015", then "Arriving Mid-2015", then "Arriving September 2015", and then "Arriving Q4 2015". It has yet to get here, obviously.

Governments take tax money by threat of force and imprisonment. Mozilla had large sums of money just thrown at them by Google, and now Yahoo. Such organizations haven't really earned the money they have; they've either taken it or basically had it gifted to them. When the money comes easy, there's little to no incentive to spend it wisely. So projects don't get completed on-time and on-budget. We shouldn't be surprised, of course. Delays and failure are a predictable outcome given the circumstances.

Could this be a problem endemic to organizations that spend money that they didn't really do anything to earn in the first place?

When I hear about delays such as this, it reminds of me of Mozilla and how so many of their projects end up getting delayed by years and years.

A perfect example is Rust. Work on it started well before 2010. It was first publicly announced in 2010. The 1.0 release was anticipated "sometime in the coming year", back in 2012. But after delays and more delays, Rust 1.0 was finally released in May of 2015. By that time C++14 was widely available and usable, and tends to be superior to Rust. So there's really no need for Rust any longer.

Another example is the Electrolysis project, which changes Mozilla Firefox to use a multi-process model closer to that of Chrome. Work on that was ongoing as of 2010. Well, it's now late 2015, the stable release of Firefox is currently at version 40, and Electrolysis still isn't available for widespread use. Those who have used the dev builds that have it enabled have generally been disappointed. Meanwhile, we've seen Chrome's market share expand rapidly, while Firefox's is now in the single digits as a percentage.

Then there's Mozilla's Let's Encrypt initiative. It, too, has suffered from numerous delays. It was claimed it would be "Arriving Summer 2015", then "Arriving Mid-2015", then "Arriving September 2015", and then "Arriving Q4 2015". It has yet to get here, obviously.

Governments take tax money by threat of force and imprisonment. Mozilla had large sums of money just thrown at them by Google, and now Yahoo. Such organizations haven't really earned the money they have; they've either taken it or basically had it gifted to them. When the money comes easy, there's little to no incentive to spend it wisely. So projects don't get completed on-time and on-budget. We shouldn't be surprised, of course. Delays and failure are a predictable outcome given the circumstances.

Could this be a problem endemic to organizations that spend money that they didn't really do anything to earn in the first place?

When I hear about delays such as this, it reminds of me of Mozilla and how so many of their projects end up getting delayed by years and years.

A perfect example is Rust. Work on it started well before 2010. It was first publicly announced in 2010. The 1.0 release was anticipated "sometime in the coming year", back in 2012. But after delays and more delays, Rust 1.0 was finally released in May of 2015. By that time C++14 was widely available and usable, and tends to be superior to Rust. So there's really no need for Rust any longer.

Another example is the Electrolysis project, which changes Mozilla Firefox to use a multi-process model closer to that of Chrome. Work on that was ongoing as of 2010. Well, it's now late 2015, the stable release of Firefox is currently at version 40, and Electrolysis still isn't available for widespread use. Those who have used the dev builds that have it enabled have generally been disappointed. Meanwhile, we've seen Chrome's market share expand rapidly, while Firefox's is now in the single digits as a percentage.

Then there's Mozilla's Let's Encrypt initiative. It, too, has suffered from numerous delays. It was claimed it would be "Arriving Summer 2015", then "Arriving Mid-2015", then "Arriving September 2015", and then "Arriving Q4 2015". It has yet to get here, obviously.

Governments take tax money by threat of force and imprisonment. Mozilla had large sums of money just thrown at them by Google, and now Yahoo. Such organizations haven't really earned the money they have; they've either taken it or basically had it gifted to them. When the money comes easy, there's little to no incentive to spend it wisely. So projects don't get completed on-time and on-budget. We shouldn't be surprised, of course. Delays and failure are a predictable outcome given the circumstances.

Could this be a problem endemic to organizations that spend money that they didn't really do anything to earn in the first place?

When I hear about delays such as this, it reminds of me of Mozilla and how so many of their projects end up getting delayed by years and years.

A perfect example is Rust. Work on it started well before 2010. It was first publicly announced in 2010. The 1.0 release was anticipated "sometime in the coming year", back in 2012. But after delays and more delays, Rust 1.0 was finally released in May of 2015. By that time C++14 was widely available and usable, and tends to be superior to Rust. So there's really no need for Rust any longer.

Another example is the Electrolysis project, which changes Mozilla Firefox to use a multi-process model closer to that of Chrome. Work on that was ongoing as of 2010. Well, it's now late 2015, the stable release of Firefox is currently at version 40, and Electrolysis still isn't available for widespread use. Those who have used the dev builds that have it enabled have generally been disappointed. Meanwhile, we've seen Chrome's market share expand rapidly, while Firefox's is now in the single digits as a percentage.

Then there's Mozilla's Let's Encrypt initiative. It, too, has suffered from numerous delays. It was claimed it would be "Arriving Summer 2015", then "Arriving Mid-2015", then "Arriving September 2015", and then "Arriving Q4 2015". It has yet to get here, obviously.

Governments take tax money by threat of force and imprisonment. Mozilla had large sums of money just thrown at them by Google, and now Yahoo. Such organizations haven't really earned the money they have; they've either taken it or basically had it gifted to them. When the money comes easy, there's little to no incentive to spend it wisely. So projects don't get completed on-time and on-budget. We shouldn't be surprised, of course. Delays and failure are a predictable outcome given the circumstances.

I think very few people would. The fact is a lot of Slashdot's value comes from user commentary. Asking those users to pay money to contribute value to Slashdot doesn't sound like a very successful way to run a business.

If Slashdot were to die, there are other ways of doing what Slashdot does [summary of news articles of interest to techies and community discussion.] Usenet immediately comes to mind. It would be far, far less expensive than web hosting (one NNTP server can handle many newsgroups), require less bandwidth, and would not be a vector for media-rich advertisements.

It would also be centralized. Instead of having to join multiple communities to discuss a topic, there is only one "discussion board." Case in point, Slashdot sometimes references articles from Ars Technica. The discussion on Ars Technica and Slashdot might be interesting. It seems silly to have to join follow two different web sites for community commentary.

Slashdot offers Subscriptions (and has for some time). There's no way to know how many paid subscribers there are, unless Dice is willing to divulge (they most likely aren't), but I would suspect that there aren't enough subscribers to offset more than a miniscule fraction of Slashdot's operating budget. Doubly so since subscriptions don't seem to be hawked much anymore, and the number of comments per article seems to be way down from even a few years ago (which would depress pageviews, which depresses ad revenue, etc).

2,692 files are still accessible from here and here. Grab 'em while you can folks!

2,692 files are still accessible from here and here. Grab 'em while you can folks!

I have no idea how many of my bookmarks I have changed to point to Archive.org's newest page before the site got deleted. Even some of those, Archive didn't get the site's content completely, but sometimes going to older versions yields more material.
https://web.archive.org/web/20... is a good example of the loss of data issue.

... Even if that Manuel guy had been a member, he isn't a "convicted child raper". And since you saw the charges against him (YOU showed them to me!), you already know that. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-10]

As usual, the most charitable explanation is that Jane/Lonny keeps defending Oliver K. Manuel because he hasn't actually clicked on the links I've showed him. So before you continue, click here and tell everyone what crime Manuel was convicted of, and how old the victim was.

Then read the first two paragraphs here and tell everyone how many of his children said he abused them, and at what ages.

Then read this courageous testimony and tell everyone why Manuel's children finally decided enough was enough. It had to do with a little girl, right? Tell everyone how old she was.

Again, hopefully Jane just hadn't actually clicked on any of those links before continuing to defend Manuel. Can Jane/Lonny prove that he knows the facts by answering those simple questions? If so, could Jane/Lonny really look all those victims in the eyes and keep defending Manuel?

I think Mr. O'Sullivan would be interested to know about your claim that he is a "psychopathic pedophile" ... "Psychopathic pedophile" is not exactly a friendly phrase, and once again I have to wonder why you're using it, even for someone else, when I have no association with that group, and I personally do not know a single person, either in or out of that group, who has been shown to be a "psychotic pedophile" or "child raper". ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-10]

Jane, you've already been shown that John O'Sullivan wrote (and illustrated!) a book shamelessly bragging about his erotic obsession with an underage schoolgirl. And yet you still refuse to apologize for helping O'Sullivan blame his victim.

Jane, read O'Sullivan's own words and then ask yourself if you really want to keep defending this psychopathic pedophile:

... on my own particular indiscretion my friend still had a further question for me.
"Didn't you say you had some theory that a man can't really be a kiddie fiddler if the object of his affections was a female with the fully-ripened body of a woman?"
Now he was broaching on a facet of this matter I felt peculiarly pertinent to the positing of paedophilia.
"I did indeed. It's all in the hip-to-waist formula! I have my facts to aid my theoretical arguments, too!"
I put my case to him thus: a girl becomes a woman from the time the distribution her body fat attains that Darwinian perfection of a waist to hip ratio of 0.7. That is what makes the fertile female human form so unique. He looked somewhat askance at the implausibility of my opening gambit but I continued with my theory.
"By looking at the female waist to hip ratio, you know when a female is of the right age for reproduction. At that time, and if the mind is mature enough you can argue that you are dealing with a woman and not a child. If nature says she a woman then she is a woman-it's not arbitrary like the age of consent laws that vary so wildly throughout the wor

... Even if that Manuel guy had been a member, he isn't a "convicted child raper". And since you saw the charges against him (YOU showed them to me!), you already know that. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-10]

As usual, the most charitable explanation is that Jane/Lonny keeps defending Oliver K. Manuel because he hasn't actually clicked on the links I've showed him. So before you continue, click here and tell everyone what crime Manuel was convicted of, and how old the victim was.

Then read the first two paragraphs here and tell everyone how many of his children said he abused them, and at what ages.

Then read this courageous testimony and tell everyone why Manuel's children finally decided enough was enough. It had to do with a little girl, right? Tell everyone how old she was.

Again, hopefully Jane just hadn't actually clicked on any of those links before continuing to defend Manuel. Can Jane/Lonny prove that he knows the facts by answering those simple questions? If so, could Jane/Lonny really look all those victims in the eyes and keep defending Manuel?

I think Mr. O'Sullivan would be interested to know about your claim that he is a "psychopathic pedophile" ... "Psychopathic pedophile" is not exactly a friendly phrase, and once again I have to wonder why you're using it, even for someone else, when I have no association with that group, and I personally do not know a single person, either in or out of that group, who has been shown to be a "psychotic pedophile" or "child raper". ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-10]

Jane, you've already been shown that John O'Sullivan wrote (and illustrated!) a book shamelessly bragging about his erotic obsession with an underage schoolgirl. And yet you still refuse to apologize for helping O'Sullivan blame his victim.

Jane, read O'Sullivan's own words and then ask yourself if you really want to keep defending this psychopathic pedophile:

... on my own particular indiscretion my friend still had a further question for me.
"Didn't you say you had some theory that a man can't really be a kiddie fiddler if the object of his affections was a female with the fully-ripened body of a woman?"
Now he was broaching on a facet of this matter I felt peculiarly pertinent to the positing of paedophilia.
"I did indeed. It's all in the hip-to-waist formula! I have my facts to aid my theoretical arguments, too!"
I put my case to him thus: a girl becomes a woman from the time the distribution her body fat attains that Darwinian perfection of a waist to hip ratio of 0.7. That is what makes the fertile female human form so unique. He looked somewhat askance at the implausibility of my opening gambit but I continued with my theory.
"By looking at the female waist to hip ratio, you know when a female is of the right age for reproduction. At that time, and if the mind is mature enough you can argue that you are dealing with a woman and not a child. If nature says she a woman then she is a woman-it's not arbitrary like the age of consent laws that vary so wildly throughout the wor

Disclosure: This post was written in collaboration with the American Egg Board, who is encouraging consumers to get a fresh start on health by eating real, all natural foods like eggs. I have a similar vision, so this partnership was a good match for me and my readers.

So Recipe Girl did indeed disclose. Was it there the day she wrote it? Probably.

A fully compatible version of Delphi

Seems you are about ten years too late for that.

For me Google was better from day 1. With AltaVista you could spend 30 minutes crafting the perfect query and the result you needed was still buried on page 5, while Google just seemed to know what you wanted. You're right about the attempts of AltaVista, Yahoo, and other to be "portals" rather than simple search engines hurt them badly, but Google was simply better at search as well. Your recollection of Google's early functionality is incorrect. Automatic AND, "-" for NOT, and phrase searches were in place at the start of 1999. https://web.archive.org/web/19...

Sad the article didn’t even mention the early 90s Skipjack / Clipper Chip mess, which was ANOTHER great reason to mistrust NIST. https://twitter.com/eachus/sta...

Wasn't that the same NIST that has been "implicated" in developing atomic clocks and quantum computers/encryption? That NIST? It is to laugh.

We may be getting to the point where Mozilla, as an organization, is suffering from death throes.

As an organization, maybe they know that Firefox, their only successful product, is on its way out. It's being rejected by the market. The changes Mozilla has made to it over the past several years have been near-universally despised, and their competitors have been getting better and better. Nobody wants to use Firefox when they can get a much better experience by using Chrome, Safari, and even modern versions of IE.

Maybe they also know that none of their other efforts have seen much success. Firefox OS is a total failure. Thunderbird has pretty much been abandoned. Firefox for Android and Persona have been ignored. Rust took forever to get a 1.0 release out, and we're already seeing the hype surrounding it pretty much die off completely, now that people realize it isn't all that useful and that C++ is still a better choice. Servo is a toy, at best. Bugzilla is a relic. Let's Encrypt keeps getting delayed, from "Summer 2015" to "Mid-2015" to "September 2015" to "Q4 2015" as of today.

Then there are the political shenanigans, like how they ganged up on Brendan Eich. Nobody should have to lose his job, voluntarily or involuntarily, and regardless of his sexual orientation, merely because of his beliefs regarding marriage. I don't know what came of it, but I also remember hearing about some executive there getting worked up about some comments that were posted at reddit from an alleged Mozilla employee.

So amid this uncertainty, we see organizational flailing. We see them grasping here and there, trying to remain relevant. Yet this clearly isn't working, because of the lack of focus, and because all of this flailing totally ignores what current and potential users actually want and need.

I think it would be a shame if Mozilla became irrelevant like, say, Netscape did. But then again, maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing. Maybe it would allow them the rebirth they need. A return to their earlier days, when they produced actually-usable versions of Firefox, instead of spinning their wheels endlessly like they seem to be doing these days.

We may be getting to the point where Mozilla, as an organization, is suffering from death throes.

As an organization, maybe they know that Firefox, their only successful product, is on its way out. It's being rejected by the market. The changes Mozilla has made to it over the past several years have been near-universally despised, and their competitors have been getting better and better. Nobody wants to use Firefox when they can get a much better experience by using Chrome, Safari, and even modern versions of IE.

Maybe they also know that none of their other efforts have seen much success. Firefox OS is a total failure. Thunderbird has pretty much been abandoned. Firefox for Android and Persona have been ignored. Rust took forever to get a 1.0 release out, and we're already seeing the hype surrounding it pretty much die off completely, now that people realize it isn't all that useful and that C++ is still a better choice. Servo is a toy, at best. Bugzilla is a relic. Let's Encrypt keeps getting delayed, from "Summer 2015" to "Mid-2015" to "September 2015" to "Q4 2015" as of today.

Then there are the political shenanigans, like how they ganged up on Brendan Eich. Nobody should have to lose his job, voluntarily or involuntarily, and regardless of his sexual orientation, merely because of his beliefs regarding marriage. I don't know what came of it, but I also remember hearing about some executive there getting worked up about some comments that were posted at reddit from an alleged Mozilla employee.

So amid this uncertainty, we see organizational flailing. We see them grasping here and there, trying to remain relevant. Yet this clearly isn't working, because of the lack of focus, and because all of this flailing totally ignores what current and potential users actually want and need.

I think it would be a shame if Mozilla became irrelevant like, say, Netscape did. But then again, maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing. Maybe it would allow them the rebirth they need. A return to their earlier days, when they produced actually-usable versions of Firefox, instead of spinning their wheels endlessly like they seem to be doing these days.

We may be getting to the point where Mozilla, as an organization, is suffering from death throes.

As an organization, maybe they know that Firefox, their only successful product, is on its way out. It's being rejected by the market. The changes Mozilla has made to it over the past several years have been near-universally despised, and their competitors have been getting better and better. Nobody wants to use Firefox when they can get a much better experience by using Chrome, Safari, and even modern versions of IE.

Maybe they also know that none of their other efforts have seen much success. Firefox OS is a total failure. Thunderbird has pretty much been abandoned. Firefox for Android and Persona have been ignored. Rust took forever to get a 1.0 release out, and we're already seeing the hype surrounding it pretty much die off completely, now that people realize it isn't all that useful and that C++ is still a better choice. Servo is a toy, at best. Bugzilla is a relic. Let's Encrypt keeps getting delayed, from "Summer 2015" to "Mid-2015" to "September 2015" to "Q4 2015" as of today.

Then there are the political shenanigans, like how they ganged up on Brendan Eich. Nobody should have to lose his job, voluntarily or involuntarily, and regardless of his sexual orientation, merely because of his beliefs regarding marriage. I don't know what came of it, but I also remember hearing about some executive there getting worked up about some comments that were posted at reddit from an alleged Mozilla employee.

So amid this uncertainty, we see organizational flailing. We see them grasping here and there, trying to remain relevant. Yet this clearly isn't working, because of the lack of focus, and because all of this flailing totally ignores what current and potential users actually want and need.

I think it would be a shame if Mozilla became irrelevant like, say, Netscape did. But then again, maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing. Maybe it would allow them the rebirth they need. A return to their earlier days, when they produced actually-usable versions of Firefox, instead of spinning their wheels endlessly like they seem to be doing these days.

Nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising. ... [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-25]

Really? Are you absolutely sure about that?

... Projections like: rising sea levels. (23 years later: nope. Nothing measurable.) ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-11-15]

(I won't mention to the other party that some other sources say there has been no measurable overall rise at all.) [Lonny Eachus, 2014-01-21]

Later, Lonny Eachus linked to yet another "PSI Sky Dragon Slayer" blog post which cites Mörner (2012) and claims that after excluding "distorting effects" the "sea-level trend is zero." "Mörner (2012)" seems to be (summarized by?) a blog post called "Sea Level Is Not Rising" which (SPOILER ALERT!!) concludes that "sea level is not rising" and we're facing "a very grave, unethical 'sea-level-gate'."

So as Jane/Lonny Eachus might say, it's VERY hard to believe that Jane/Lonny believes himself when he says "nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising."

"Sea level has not risen in 50 years," says Swedish sea-level expert Nils-Axel Mörner. goo.gl/UoGx3K
Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told' The uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story, writes Christopher Booker. [JunkScience, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-30]

Wow. Once again, it's VERY hard to believe that Jane/Lonny believes himself when he says "nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising" considering that he's also retweeting an article by creationist Christopher Booker titled "Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told'".

Dr. Mörner also tilts graphs (p33) as "evidence that sea level is not rising" and gave an interview: "Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud". Check out Mörner's clumsily (and hilariously ironic!) doctored photographic "evidence" on page 35, which Anthony Watts uncritically regurgitated. What a charming conspiracy theory. Dr. Mörner also believes in that "dowsing" nonsense so strongly that he embarrassed himself on TV by trying and (unsurprisingly) failing

Nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising. ... [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-25]

Really? Are you absolutely sure about that?

... Projections like: rising sea levels. (23 years later: nope. Nothing measurable.) ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-11-15]

(I won't mention to the other party that some other sources say there has been no measurable overall rise at all.) [Lonny Eachus, 2014-01-21]

Later, Lonny Eachus linked to yet another "PSI Sky Dragon Slayer" blog post which cites Mörner (2012) and claims that after excluding "distorting effects" the "sea-level trend is zero." "Mörner (2012)" seems to be (summarized by?) a blog post called "Sea Level Is Not Rising" which (SPOILER ALERT!!) concludes that "sea level is not rising" and we're facing "a very grave, unethical 'sea-level-gate'."

So as Jane/Lonny Eachus might say, it's VERY hard to believe that Jane/Lonny believes himself when he says "nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising."

"Sea level has not risen in 50 years," says Swedish sea-level expert Nils-Axel Mörner. goo.gl/UoGx3K
Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told' The uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story, writes Christopher Booker. [JunkScience, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-30]

Wow. Once again, it's VERY hard to believe that Jane/Lonny believes himself when he says "nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising" considering that he's also retweeting an article by creationist Christopher Booker titled "Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told'".

Dr. Mörner also tilts graphs (p33) as "evidence that sea level is not rising" and gave an interview: "Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud". Check out Mörner's clumsily (and hilariously ironic!) doctored photographic "evidence" on page 35, which Anthony Watts uncritically regurgitated. What a charming conspiracy theory. Dr. Mörner also believes in that "dowsing" nonsense so strongly that he embarrassed himself on TV by trying and (unsurprisingly) failing

Nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising. ... [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-25]

Really? Are you absolutely sure about that?

... Projections like: rising sea levels. (23 years later: nope. Nothing measurable.) ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-11-15]

(I won't mention to the other party that some other sources say there has been no measurable overall rise at all.) [Lonny Eachus, 2014-01-21]

Later, Lonny Eachus linked to yet another "PSI Sky Dragon Slayer" blog post which cites Mörner (2012) and claims that after excluding "distorting effects" the "sea-level trend is zero." "Mörner (2012)" seems to be (summarized by?) a blog post called "Sea Level Is Not Rising" which (SPOILER ALERT!!) concludes that "sea level is not rising" and we're facing "a very grave, unethical 'sea-level-gate'."

So as Jane/Lonny Eachus might say, it's VERY hard to believe that Jane/Lonny believes himself when he says "nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising."

"Sea level has not risen in 50 years," says Swedish sea-level expert Nils-Axel Mörner. goo.gl/UoGx3K
Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told' The uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story, writes Christopher Booker. [JunkScience, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-30]

Wow. Once again, it's VERY hard to believe that Jane/Lonny believes himself when he says "nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising" considering that he's also retweeting an article by creationist Christopher Booker titled "Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told'".

Dr. Mörner also tilts graphs (p33) as "evidence that sea level is not rising" and gave an interview: "Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud". Check out Mörner's clumsily (and hilariously ironic!) doctored photographic "evidence" on page 35, which Anthony Watts uncritically regurgitated. What a charming conspiracy theory. Dr. Mörner also believes in that "dowsing" nonsense so strongly that he embarrassed himself on TV by trying and (unsurprisingly) failing

I know that in general people can flee from the USA if they so choose (when not detained). I do know there is a difference in degree between what the Germans did and what the US is doing now, as many Muslims and many blacks and latins are doing fine even with the indefinite detentions, but I can also see that they are not completely different. It's some people losing their lives and their freedom way more often than other people, because of their races/religions. It is worth mentioning that the prison system is very lucrative, both for the work done in prisons and for the subsidies that they get for keeping people in prison.

I answered the other post mentioning facts and suggesting important reads. "Hate mongering" is a very common expression used to dismiss what other people are saying, but it should be used against angrier posts, not concern about serious issues and others knowledge.

As I look upon the front page today, I fail to see a single story above 200 comments. Many of the stories have 30 or fewer comments. There are two that have been up for hours that have only 11 and 12 comments!

I've been visiting this site for many, many years. I've seen its ups, and I've seen its downs. But I don't remember it ever being as slow and quiet as it has been lately.

To see if it was always this slow on Saturdays, I went back to the 27th of August, 2005, which was the closest Saturday 10 years ago from today.

The difference is like night and day! Back then, in 2005, there was only one story on the front page that had less than 100 comments, and it still managed to have 65! All of the rest were well over 100 comments. Some were even above 200 and one was almost at 400 comments.

I don't think we should play blame games. At this point, it doesn't matter who is responsible for there being so few comments here. What we need to do is investigate fixing the situation. I have some solutions.

The first thing that needs to go are the comment limits. We should be able to post as many times as we wish, with at most a minute delay between comments. It isn't 2005 any longer, clearly! Back then it made sense to limit the number of comments people could post, because there were so many people posting comments, and some order had to be maintained. But now it's completely the opposite situation. There are too few people posting comments, and artificially hindering them is harmful, not helpful.

The second thing that needs to go is the moderation. By that I mean all comments should be shown by default. When we're dealing with less than 100 comments, it makes sense just to show them all, even those from ACs, and even ones that got downmodded. If they aren't all shown by default, then we end up with situations like this story from today, where there are 26 comments posted, but only 1 is visible by default! It's not even a particularly good comment, either.

We heard about the rumors that Slashdot will be sold yet again. So the sensible thing to do would be to try to raise the value of this site prior to such a sale. Getting rid of the archaic limitations that made sense in 2005, but not in 2015, would be a superb start! Make it easy for us to comment here. Make it easy for discussion to arise. Discussion is what attracts people these days. Imposing posting limits after only a couple of comments just drives people away, and that's exactly what Slashdot of today does not need!

Obama: "sea level rise" is "hitting ... across the country". Absolute bullshit. Sea has been rising at exactly the same rate for 300 years. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-03]

Once again, absolute bullshit. Once again, I did the math by calculating trends and accelerations for Church and White 2011 reconstructed sea level data. This PDF was made using my R code which accounts for autocorrelation- the red lines are 2 sigma uncertainties. The trends and accelerations are calculated over periods which all end at 2009.5

If the sea "has been rising at exactly the same rate for 300 years" then the estimated trends on page 1 should have exactly the same value regardless of the starting year. But that's not true. More recent trends are higher than trends starting in the 1880s.

The second page also fits an acceleration term to those sea level data. If the sea "has been rising at exactly the same rate for 300 years" then those accelerations should be zero or at least average to zero. But that's not true. Every single best-fit acceleration is positive. Using the entire dataset, the acceleration since ~1880 is positive and statistically significant.

What rise there has been shown has not varied from the same rate of rise the last 300 years. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-25]

As usual, Jane/Lonny Eachus just keeps making up numbers rather than actually doing the math.

Nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising. But it’s rising at the same average < 1mm per year rate for hundreds of years. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-25]

Nonsense. The best estimate of the rate of global sea level rise hasn't ever been as low as Lonny claims, not even starting in 1880. More importantly, recent trends like those starting in 1990 are almost three times higher than the made-up "< 1mm per year rate" which Lonny Eachus wrongly assures us has not varied for hundreds of years.

The most charitable explanation is that Lonny Eachus is such a busy professional that he doesn't have time to download global sea level data and run the code I've given him. So...

The new significance.zip (backup copies) contains my R statistics folder, including many data sets and the R code which produced that sea level acceleration PDF.

The new significance.r (backup copies) can load many datasets, one (and only one) of

Obama: "sea level rise" is "hitting ... across the country". Absolute bullshit. Sea has been rising at exactly the same rate for 300 years. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-03]

Once again, absolute bullshit. Once again, I did the math by calculating trends and accelerations for Church and White 2011 reconstructed sea level data. This PDF was made using my R code which accounts for autocorrelation- the red lines are 2 sigma uncertainties. The trends and accelerations are calculated over periods which all end at 2009.5

If the sea "has been rising at exactly the same rate for 300 years" then the estimated trends on page 1 should have exactly the same value regardless of the starting year. But that's not true. More recent trends are higher than trends starting in the 1880s.

The second page also fits an acceleration term to those sea level data. If the sea "has been rising at exactly the same rate for 300 years" then those accelerations should be zero or at least average to zero. But that's not true. Every single best-fit acceleration is positive. Using the entire dataset, the acceleration since ~1880 is positive and statistically significant.

What rise there has been shown has not varied from the same rate of rise the last 300 years. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-25]

As usual, Jane/Lonny Eachus just keeps making up numbers rather than actually doing the math.

Nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising. But it’s rising at the same average < 1mm per year rate for hundreds of years. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-25]

Nonsense. The best estimate of the rate of global sea level rise hasn't ever been as low as Lonny claims, not even starting in 1880. More importantly, recent trends like those starting in 1990 are almost three times higher than the made-up "< 1mm per year rate" which Lonny Eachus wrongly assures us has not varied for hundreds of years.

The most charitable explanation is that Lonny Eachus is such a busy professional that he doesn't have time to download global sea level data and run the code I've given him. So...

The new significance.zip (backup copies) contains my R statistics folder, including many data sets and the R code which produced that sea level acceleration PDF.

The new significance.r (backup copies) can load many datasets, one (and only one) of

Jane, you're still just regurgitating accusations from the script kiddie who can't tell the difference between blackmail and courtesy. Are you regurgitating his accusations because you saw them at Jo Nova's website? Remember that Jo Nova snipped Lonny's comments and finally called him "Loony". Is it possible that Jo Nova made a mistake, or is Lonny Loony?

I have it on good authority that those comments on Jo Nova's site were made by an imposter. I wonder who it could have been? Any ideas? [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

Ask Lonny Eachus. He suspects he knows who it was:

It's old news, but someone just pointed out this page to me: http://joannenova.com.au/2010/... ... Comments on that page were not made by me. Someone used my name (and I even suspect I know who it was), but it definitely wasn't me. As you can probably guess, there aren't many people running around with that name. Someone was trying to smear me. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-22]

Who does Lonny suspect it was? This should be hilarious.

... I wasn't "regurgitating" anything. Nor was I repeating "accusations". ... whose words do you imagine I am "regurgitating"? I haven't done so. ... Again, all the evidence in my possession says Motl's accusation was correct. If you wish me to think otherwise, show me some contrary evidence. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

Jane, you regurgitated Motl's accusation of identity theft which doubled as a blackmail threat. Then you repeatedly aided and abetted his nonsensical attempt at character assassination.

And here you are, continuing to insist that Motl's baseless accusation of identity theft was somehow correct. Why aren't you and Motl accusing political cartoonists like WUWT's Josh of "identity theft" and threatening them with blackmail?

Jane, you're still just regurgitating accusations from the script kiddie who can't tell the difference between blackmail and courtesy. Are you regurgitating his accusations because you saw them at Jo Nova's website? Remember that Jo Nova snipped Lonny's comments and finally called him "Loony". Is it possible that Jo Nova made a mistake, or is Lonny Loony?

... before I entertain your notion that any of it was due to "hacking", I would need to see some real evidence. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

Be honest, Jane. You're so thoroughly brainwashed that you'd NEVER accept that "hacking" took place. Just like you'll never accept that scientists' emails were hacked.

If you aren't brainwashed, why can't you see the overwhelming hypocrisy when you whine about how "stalkish" it is when I bring up public comments from years ago, while you regurgitate accusations based on private comments from years ago?

... I did not claim, as some others have, that it was "identity theft". The worst anyone you are vilifying here has done was quote someone else who asked the question. So again: nothing that really needs any defending... except from your distortions aimed at insult, character assassination, and guilt by association. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

Jane, you regurgitated Motl's accusation of identity theft and blackmail threat and repeatedly aided and abetted his nonsensical attempt at character assassination.

Thanks. After spending a few hours navigating the site, I can see that you are right, the Superman cartoons are easily found. Unfortunately, there are only a handful of movies that can be found that way. Here is the list: https://archive.org/search.php...

I believe Macromedia did the real-time adaptive video playback first.

Gee, I wonder: Did they call it "Macromedia Flash"?

Here's what a friendly law professor wrote (and he specifically checked for the superman image): You check to see if the copyright was renewed. If it wasn’t then it is in the public domain. Took me about 10 seconds to find a document from the copyright office showing that no renewal exists for this copyright: https://archive.org/stream/Cop... For all the films: see https://archive.org/details/Co...

Here's what a friendly law professor wrote (and he specifically checked for the superman image): You check to see if the copyright was renewed. If it wasn’t then it is in the public domain. Took me about 10 seconds to find a document from the copyright office showing that no renewal exists for this copyright: https://archive.org/stream/Cop... For all the films: see https://archive.org/details/Co...