Slashdot Mirror

The unnamed bullying "Cork Ireland Professor" in the Wall Street Journal article must regret using ReputationDefender, who succeeded in having him named as Professor Ivan Perry at http://www.geocities.com/stuartdneilson/Reputation DefenderInc.htm http://bulliedacademics.blogspot.com/2007/01/reput ation-defender-to-consider-bullied.html http://bulliedacademics.blogspot.com/2007_01_01_ar chive.htmlhttp://www.indymedia.ie/article/81398> http://www.iol.ie/~stuartneilson/bullying/ http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=6377 57&mc=4&forum_id=2

That is impressive results for a few dollars.

The best place to learn about the RIAA's "making available" theory, and the arguments pro and con, is the case file in Elektra v. Barker. Be sure to read the transcript, in which the Judge skeptically questions the RIAA lawyer about it.

I have no idea where you got that quote from, but whoever wrote it is referring to Fonovisa v. Does 1-41, where the RIAA was ordered, in 2004, to cease and desist from the illegal practice of joining multiple John Does for its own convenience in a single case. The RIAA has been ignoring that order ever since. This Boston case is yet another example of the RIAA ignoring the Fonovisa v. Does order.

The only thing worse than these poorly-written articles are the inane comments they generate.

The biologists who actually study DNA have known the following for a long damn time. Any "science" writer who gets them wrong should be sent back to writing obituaries and wedding announcements.

Most DNA in multicellular organisms does not code for proteins. Some non-coding DNA performs other functions. Lots and lots of non-coding DNA has no function at all. None. It's not "data", it's not "metadata", it's not structural or anything. There are very long stretches of DNA that you can alter radically or even delete and it makes no difference to the organism at all.

I'm just a layman and my technical knowledge on this subject is just about nil, so don't take my word for it. Go read what a Biochemistry Professor at UToronto (Larry Moran) says here or here or what another biologist (T. Ryan Gregory) says here.

Biology is insanely complex and messy, especially compared to computer science. Here's a hint for all the programmers, database admins, sysadmins, and other bright and talented professionals who feel moved to speculate about DNA and similar subjects: If the viability of your idea depends on the assumption that the actual researchers are too dim or ill-informed to make the connection, it's either a bad idea or it was done years ago.

The only thing worse than these poorly-written articles are the inane comments they generate.

The biologists who actually study DNA have known the following for a long damn time. Any "science" writer who gets them wrong should be sent back to writing obituaries and wedding announcements.

Most DNA in multicellular organisms does not code for proteins. Some non-coding DNA performs other functions. Lots and lots of non-coding DNA has no function at all. None. It's not "data", it's not "metadata", it's not structural or anything. There are very long stretches of DNA that you can alter radically or even delete and it makes no difference to the organism at all.

I'm just a layman and my technical knowledge on this subject is just about nil, so don't take my word for it. Go read what a Biochemistry Professor at UToronto (Larry Moran) says here or here or what another biologist (T. Ryan Gregory) says here.

Biology is insanely complex and messy, especially compared to computer science. Here's a hint for all the programmers, database admins, sysadmins, and other bright and talented professionals who feel moved to speculate about DNA and similar subjects: If the viability of your idea depends on the assumption that the actual researchers are too dim or ill-informed to make the connection, it's either a bad idea or it was done years ago.

The only thing worse than these poorly-written articles are the inane comments they generate.

The biologists who actually study DNA have known the following for a long damn time. Any "science" writer who gets them wrong should be sent back to writing obituaries and wedding announcements.

Most DNA in multicellular organisms does not code for proteins. Some non-coding DNA performs other functions. Lots and lots of non-coding DNA has no function at all. None. It's not "data", it's not "metadata", it's not structural or anything. There are very long stretches of DNA that you can alter radically or even delete and it makes no difference to the organism at all.

I'm just a layman and my technical knowledge on this subject is just about nil, so don't take my word for it. Go read what a Biochemistry Professor at UToronto (Larry Moran) says here or here or what another biologist (T. Ryan Gregory) says here.

Biology is insanely complex and messy, especially compared to computer science. Here's a hint for all the programmers, database admins, sysadmins, and other bright and talented professionals who feel moved to speculate about DNA and similar subjects: If the viability of your idea depends on the assumption that the actual researchers are too dim or ill-informed to make the connection, it's either a bad idea or it was done years ago.

After reading what some actual scientists have to say about this, I think its worth noting that the way this article phrases and "explains" things is seriously confused and confusing, and most of our discussion here is a complete mess because of it. Understanding biology's position on JunkDNA is a LOT more complicated than just thinking you know what the word "junk" implies.

Here's some posts relevant to this issue:
http://genomicron.blogspot.com/2007/06/more-about- encode-from-scientific.html
http://genomicron.blogspot.com/2007/06/junk-dna-ge ts-wired.html
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/06/wired-on-junk -dna.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/06/its_jun k_get_over_it.php

After reading what some actual scientists have to say about this, I think its worth noting that the way this article phrases and "explains" things is seriously confused and confusing, and most of our discussion here is a complete mess because of it. Understanding biology's position on JunkDNA is a LOT more complicated than just thinking you know what the word "junk" implies.

Here's some posts relevant to this issue:
http://genomicron.blogspot.com/2007/06/more-about- encode-from-scientific.html
http://genomicron.blogspot.com/2007/06/junk-dna-ge ts-wired.html
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/06/wired-on-junk -dna.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/06/its_jun k_get_over_it.php

After reading what some actual scientists have to say about this, I think its worth noting that the way this article phrases and "explains" things is seriously confused and confusing, and most of our discussion here is a complete mess because of it. Understanding biology's position on JunkDNA is a LOT more complicated than just thinking you know what the word "junk" implies.

Here's some posts relevant to this issue:
http://genomicron.blogspot.com/2007/06/more-about- encode-from-scientific.html
http://genomicron.blogspot.com/2007/06/junk-dna-ge ts-wired.html
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/06/wired-on-junk -dna.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/06/its_jun k_get_over_it.php

Nuclear power makes sense in the outer solar system and it is used there for unmanned exploration. It makes little sense in the inner solar system where the Sun's power is easier to harvest. The whole thing is about launch mass. At the distance of Saturn you need about 100 times more in solar panels for the same power so nuclear power becomes competitive.
--
Apropriate technology for the third rock: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

More deeply rooted plants are more resistant to drought. I wonder if it would make sense to do a sacrificial second sowing with a different batch of seeds to encourage root development as a hedge against drought?
--
Rent solar power with no maintenance fee: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

http://paulbuchheit.blogspot.com/2007/06/email-bla ckmail-is-unnecessary.html

But not on alternative fuel in NC. http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/progs/view_ind.cgi ?afdc/5664/0.
--
Don't pay a fuel tax for electricity: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

http://larholm.com/2007/06/12/safari-for-windows-0 day-exploit-in-2-hours/

These bugs have been verified in the current PRODUCTION copy on OSX (Safari 2.0.4):

http://erratasec.blogspot.com/2007/06/niiiice.html

I tagged it humor because of the keystone cops aspect. We are just beginning to do something about a problem that has been going on since the seventies. Our idea of fair is market competition or regulated monopolies. OPECs idea of fair is collusion in price fixing and sharing the profits. We can't win against that unless we do some investing in alternatives that the market won't spring for because OPEC can just lower prices and destroy any hope of return on investment. So, on the one hand we are beginning to find ways to protect such investments but on the other, we are so in OPEC's thrawl that our systems of taxation work against the inovations we need. You are right that it is a little inappropriate to laugh at the guy this is happening to, though a John Cleese prat fall is funny because of the manner in which he injures himself, but it is appropriate to laugh at the awkwardness of a government that is defeating itself; we are laughing at ourselves. The derision may also lead to improvement though the guy's respectful response is likely to be more effective. Jokes explained are no longer funny, but the question came up a few times.
--
Have fun with solar: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

This is a bad idea if the idea is revenue. As George Monbiot points out, the whole road culture is based on the illusion of freedom. So, a big brother system is going to reduce revenue.

A better system is to build road maintenance into road financing (allocate-in-advance) for roads where trucks are not allowed. This puts it on income, property and sales taxes and basically acknowledges that the benefits accrue most to those who profit most by the development. For roads where trucks are allowed, trucks are the main cause of wear because this goes as the 4th power of axle weight. In this case, since it is a commercial activity, monitoring can make sense (short hairs situation) and a pay-as-you-go system can work using the fourth power of the axle weight together with regulations such as requiring dump truck tires to be clean when they hit the pavement and their loads fully covered.

For revenue purposes, you want to keep the mall parking lots full and have lots more trips than actually needed so you want to hide the cost of driving as much as you can. The question of why a state's primary concern is revenue is another matter.
--
Get ready to go electric: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/2007/05/my-little-po ny-tribute-video.html

Only alchemists and very poor cooks feel the need to have secret recipes. Look how little mark they leave on the world.

You mean like Sir Isaac Newton?

People can have all the benefits of open source code in their closed source products, they just need to stay away from the stinkin' communists who fly to Communist enemies of the free world and write wierd songs about their trips there while brainwashing the youth of America to give up the competitive advantage that their forefathers faught and severely died for to be used by a country with a population three times larger than ours, further empowering our modern day robber barons to ruin the lives of all of generations of Americans to come. Take what you want and tell the Communist or Self-Serving foreign open source people to S.T.F.U.

The cracks that allow the water in come from wear. This goes as the fourth power of the axle weight http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road#Maintenance. If you don't weaken the road surface, you don't get potholes as frequently.
--
Convert to solar power for what you pay now: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

I kind of think those cars will be lighter and won't be grinding up potholes so the costs for road maintenance will be lower.
--
Sign up for the solar part now: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

It looks like the fuel is tax exempt in any case: http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/progs/view_ind.cgi ?afdc/5664/0. So, the tax guys didn't know their own law! OMG PONIES LOL!!!!!
--
If you don't pay tax to rent a generator, then don't pay tax for electricity (no fuel so no tax): http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

NC has a 20.2 cpg subsidy for B20 http://www.globalsubsidies.org/IMG/pdf/biofuels_su bsidies_us.pdf which he is not getting since he is buying his oil at the store. Since he is basically using B100, the state should be paying him 5*20.2-29.9(use tax)=71.1 cpg. So, fining him for this seems about as funny as it gets.
--
No Joke! Rent solar power and fix your electric rates for 25 years: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

That should not have been any more than a three story building. The atmosphere can only support a column of water about 32 feet high. This is why you have to put a pump at the bottom of a deep well (force pump) rather than using suction from the top.
--
Rent solar power with no installation cost: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

this happened to my friend in Carlise in March
here is his crappy misspelled blog of it
http://carlislepolicecorruption.blogspot.com/2007/ 03/police-corruption.html

Time travel
and here is the news of the future ...
News of the future

Disclamer:
This is not my blog

Time travel
and here is the news of the future ...
News of the future

Disclamer:
This is not my blog

Could be that Google, who's stock is now selling for about $500 a share, is trying to come up with their own OS.
But, how will they get it on the PC's?
The consumers are going to be confused if they tried to get it on PC's in the stores. "Google OS" you say? The average consumer knows nothing about any OS but Microsoft's, and a boxed PC with "Google OS" on it would be intrepreted as just being a "Google Toolbar" or something like that.
Impossible hurdle, all the Linux people have been trying to hop over that for a long time now.
Check out my blog post entitled "Assisting Windows Vista".
That's a true story, just proving that Vista is not "all powerful", and can leave it's users in the lurch just like earlier versions of Windows did. Sure, the same sort of thing can happen to a linux OS, but in this particular case, a livecd linux came to the rescue of a PC with Vista Home Premium on it, and quickly accomplished what this PC could not do. Not to say that all PC's with Vista have this same problem, but this one did.

• Apps developed with Web 2.0 + AJAX to run under Safari on iPhone will also be able to run on Nokia's Symbian S60WebKit browser, and Safari on Windows and Mac OS X, giving developers a bigger market out of the gate than just the iPhone (Nokia has been shipping a WebKit based browser on phones for a long time)
• Safari on Windows is really a gambit to roll back Microsoft Internet Explorer's standards-breaking dominance of the internet
• Safari on Windows added to Nokia's WebKit based browser, the iPhone, Safari on Mac OS X and FireFox 3 will total a significant percentage of the "web market" by next year, putting pressure on web designers and admins to support standards compliance, rather than IE bug compliance, benefiting the iPhone user experience, and the Macintosh user experience as a primary and intended side-effect.

What the industry wanted was a DCMA type act in Canada. They didn't get that and they won't get that. Instead they settled for an anti-camcording law.

I hope you know something I don't. With regards to the anti-camcording bill, the head of the Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association[2] said it "is really the first step - not only for the movie industry - where the government has shown it will seriously address the whole area of intellectual property theft." Reports are that the government intends to go ahead with a DMCA-style "reform". Bev Oda, one of the two ministers responsible for copyright, has previously said Canada will ratify international treaties, implying that includes the WIPO treaty on which the DMCA is based[1]. The 2007-2008 Report on Plans and Priorities lists "copyright reform" as a priority to which the government has "previously committed". Given the

On the up side, now is not the time to give up: the significant opposition to stronger copyright provisions seems be having an effect. While the RPP's statement on the issue points towards anti-circumvention legislation and a flawed conception of copyright as a simple conflict between creators and consumers (when in fact there are creators on both sides, and citizens and the public interest are directly affected), it avoids committing to any paricular course of action:

even though technological advances open the way for innovation and renewed creativity, they do bring with them challenges for the arts and cultural community and for government, especially in terms of balancing the rights of creators and consumers. . . . Actions: reforming copyright; . . .

I wrote to her in January and received a similarly ambiguous reply: "the Government is continuing to consider the concerns of all Canadians . . . The Government wants to ensure that the rights of Canadian creators are adequately protected by law, and that these rights are balanced with the ability of the public to access works."

[1] I should point out that Canada is under no obligation to ratify the WIPO treaty. Even if we do, the treaty's anti-circumvention provisions don't require all of the excesses of the DMCA:

Contracting Parties shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by authors in connection with the exercise of their rights under this Treaty or the Berne Convention and that restrict acts, in respect of their works, which are not authorized by the authors concerned or permitted by law.

[2] For the most part we don't make Canadian films, we distribute American ones. For the distributors, maximalist intellectual monopoly laws are in their interests even if they inhibit the production of Canadian films.

I've wondered why so few seem to pay attention to his ideas. He has offered the only explanation for the weirdness of quantum mechanics that makes any sense to me. See http://laputan.blogspot.com/2003_09_21_laputan_arc hive.html for Carver Mead's take on it.
Fred

http://erratasec.blogspot.com/2007/01/disclosure-e thics-apply-to-both-parties.html
up yours, fanboi :/

What the fuck are you talking about. Have you even read this ?
http://erratasec.blogspot.com/2007/01/disclosure-e thics-apply-to-both-parties.html

Anyone who was expecting a pat, neatly wrapped up ending clearly hasn't been watching the series. Or if they were, they weren't thinking about the guy who wrote it. When was the last time we saw David Chase wrap up something neatly?

I think the folks arguing that Tony was killed at the cut-to-black are on to something, but it's not really worth arguing about. Either there will be a movie or not (my money is on not), and if there is, the folks arguing that Tony is dead will likely feel pretty dumb.

Anyway, this is probably the best thing I've read so far about the series conclusion. (Not my blog.) Make of it what you will.

There are a number of companies with interesting captchas you might want to look at http://cacheyourcash.blogspot.com/2007/05/annoying -captchas.html

It's not because of the oil in darfur. It's not. There isn't enough oil. There is no stability and it's too hard to get oil out of darfur. It will take decades before the infrastructure is up to speed and by then oil will probably be a very very cheap liquid.

Why is this kept silent ? Because it's muslims carrying out jihad. Because it would bring up questions that have "unsatisfactory" answers :

1) muslims here know very well that it's mass-murder and that it's jihad, yet they're HELPING these people commit them. WHY ? (because this is islam : massacring anyone who thinks different)
2) it's the (muslim) government of the country that is carrying out the jihad. They do this in the name of allah. Iran (and Saddam, before ...) and Saudi Arabia are helping them. In short it would bring the reality of the war of civilizations, and the massacres that the other side commits in the spotlight
3) these are muslims, they're not like the american government. If we don't go there and kill a number of them, they won't stop. They won't accept arbitration, they won't accept peace forces. It's kill or be killed.
4) fair reporting of the darfur crisis would make it painfully obvious what islam is.

Quran 9:111 - all muslims fight and kill for allah, or they don't go to heaven
Quran 2:216 - all muslims must fight, even if they think it's stupid, because allah knows better ...

http://coalitionfordarfur.blogspot.com/2007/05/dar fur-jihad-on-horseback.html

It's not a massacre. It's muslims murdering blacks and enslaving children, imitating their prophet. It's not a massacre for the same reason muslims aren't genocidal maniacs. It's "just" "religious observance" :

(just one example, straight from the muslim "holy text")

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsun nah/bukhari/084.sbt.html#009.084.057 (slaughtering of atheists because they're, well, atheists)

http://coalitionfordarfur.blogspot.com/2007/05/dar fur-jihad-on-horseback.html

This darfur, and kashmir, is what people call "moderate" islam. Care to see extremism ?

Still not what I wrote. I'm not at all convinced by your link that these weren't under FISA's jurisdiction (and neither are they, given that they are literally claiming that the president can violate laws at his discretion) (and even beyond that, let's face it, how ridiculously frivolous do these taps have to be that they can't be arsed to get retroactive permission three days later?), but that's irrelevant to the point I was making.

• There is a big political controversy over this program.
• This administration has shown no reluctance to leak information to score political points.
• But there have been no leaks of successful uses of this program to thwart actual terrorist plots.

Enforcing copyright is one thing, invading privacy and all the other loony things going on now is something completely different.

While I kind of like the idea of copyleft, if copyrights were to be done away with completely, it would bother me less than not finding some effective fixes to the mess we have today.

If you would like to carry on a londer term conversation on this:

http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/2007/04/some-thoughts- on-copyright-offensive.html

all the best,

drew

Apparently it's possible to stream your iTunes library to Wii:
http://hackaddict.blogspot.com/2007/06/tutorial-it unes-on-wii-for-free.html

Haven't tried it yet though.

what you pay for then stop paying for it.

in the contract or at very least in the sale, they promise you a certain bandwidth, if they can't deliver what they promise you don't need to pay what you promised.

Unfortunately it doesn't matter. I've gone through this issue over and over again. They simply don't care. I've created a blog to help other's learn exactly what to expect from companies such as this. BTW, my contract said "unlimited use for a flat monthly fee". It's very clear they don't intend to honor that part since they are terminating customers who "abuse their network". Pathetic.

Basically if you use more than 9% of a 6 meg residential service then you are an offender and they can terminate your service up to a year. Time Warner isn't much different from what I'm told.

This is why we need a public infrastructure such as Utopianet. This way if a company abuses it's customers they can switch to another provider and keep their infrastructure.

Time Warner and Comcast simply don't care about the customer or investing in the infrastructure. They are in business to make money. Period.

There could be something to that. (Very close to fake bill's greatest fear, by the way. :-)

Bill Gates seems to have noticed. See "My Deepest Fear".

It is not too suprising to find pretty good adaptation to a radiation environment among bacteria. They started earlier when natural radiation levels were higher. Some http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/06101 9192814.htm are adapted to using remaining radioactivity as an energy source. The ruggedness of bacteria was one of the motivations of the panspermia theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia.
--
Rent solar power at 2005 electric rates: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

We can expect up to 11 billion people coming up. We need to figure out how to make all of them welcome and at the same time, and this is very important, support and sustain the ecosystem. At a billion people, there was no paradise, at 11 billion there will have to be. See http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/05/scrooge.html for more on this.

Humm... There is a bit less there for the natural predators I suppose. But I have to disagree with your characterization that the high rate of malformation is fine. Animal reproduction is actually suppose to be pretty high fidelity, this retains adaptive traits. There is a problem with basic function here whereas predation is normal.
--
Get electricity from the Sun at competitive rates: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

Souldn't an adaptive mutation do better in a larger pool? Since reproduction is attenuated in the smaller pool, the first propogation is less likely as would be the next few I think.
--
Fission free nuclear power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS _Best_Practices_Guide#Memory_and_Dynamic_Reconfigu ration_Recommendations

is a good place to start looking, but as you can see here:

http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messag eID=122983

You can use the command located here:
http://milek.blogspot.com/2006/09/how-much-memory- does-zfs-consume.html

to show how much is being consumed by ZIO buffers.

Posted anonymously for your enjoyment:

http://googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com/2007/06/w eb-server-software-and-malware.html