Slashdot Mirror

Things will get pirated. It's undeniable. I'm also not familiar with Pogue's writing.

But 99% of what I need to read is already freely available on the internet not only because of books, but also forums about specialty topics, news sites and things of that nature. Years back, when I was looking to learn lisp I found the easiest/best book was available free (by Touretzky).

And several newer ones (and highly acclaimed) were freely available as well. They sold well when they made it to print.

The way I see it, good books/resources are already so widely available on the internet that authors are shooting themselves in the foot by not putting themselves out there on a digital format. It's rather like refusing to print books because the library offers them for free and they can be xeroxed.

They don't have to compete on price, but just be better than the free competiton. I know I would be more apt to buy a book on computer languages written by Touretzky. I know this because I have been a repeat customer of other authors I like from fiction to mathematical textbooks -- my time is more valuable than trying to cop a free book. If I know an author can entertain/teach me in the allotted time, I'll pay the price.

When you consider the average American moves every 7 years, the hassle of libraries, the expense/convenience of keeping a paper library, and the inherent advantages of a digital e-ink readers; these will become a major market soon especially for the younger generation.*

It's rather like artists/RIAA of the 90s saying they wouldn't put their music out as mp3s because of piracy, they'll stick with the good old CD. The format exploded despite the content providers liking it or not.

*(Although I have dealt with DRMed digital textbooks, I won't have anything to do with them. IMO, DRMed books are a million times worse than a DRMed song. Stallman was right on the money here.)

Not to mention that in the early US history, it was routinely upheld that states had the right to regulate weapons (the issue didn't come to a federal level until much later).

US v. Cruikshank and Presser v. Illinois said that the 2nd Amendment applied only to the federal government. However, these cases pre-dated incorporation of the Bill of Rights via the 14th Amendment against the states (see below).

However, Presser v. Illinois stated that there is a limit upon state restriction of firearms ownership:

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect.

However, Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove disposed of this as "dicta quoted out of context", and the US Supreme Court denied cert for the appeal.

Items generally restricted were weapons designed to be easy to conceal -- pistols, dirks, cane swords, etc.

One of these (Aymette v. State of TN), was cited by the Court in US v. Miller -- relying on the phrase "for the common defense" in the state constitution. However, that particular phrase was explicitly rejected by the US Senate during the debate of the Bill of Rights, as it may have been enough for some of the ratifying states to reject it.

Often there were commonsense exceptions -- in Arkansas, they left an exception for those who were "on a journey", for example.

It sounds like "common sense", until you understand the reason behind it and similar laws in the South. We had the same exception in Texas law, but it was really code for "if your skin is the right color". For almost a century, state and local law enforcement used it as a discretionary method to enforce the prohibition against carrying weapons against people they didn't like. When anti-gun police chiefs in Texas started enforcing the prohibition against the white majority in the large cities, popular support for a non-discretionary CHL law grew until it was passed in 1995.

An interesting piece of trivia: Texas Governor Ann Richards publicly threatened a veto of a CHL law if it was sent to her desk. That act was widely credited as a substantial contributor to her defeat in the subsequent 1994 election. The winner of that election was George W. Bush, whose only prior political asset was his name.

I think there could be a legitimate argument made that the federal government doesn't have the right to regulate weapons without constitutional amendment (it depends on the reading), but you'd be hard-pressed to support that line of argument in relation to the right of states to do so.

It depends on the interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

Although the authors of the 14th Amendment explicitly said it was intended to apply the first 8 amendments in the Bill of Rights to the states, the Supreme Court declined to interpret it that way, and has instead been incorporated the Bill of Rights piece-meal, as the cases are brought before them.

At the moment, the

Not to mention that in the early US history, it was routinely upheld that states had the right to regulate weapons (the issue didn't come to a federal level until much later).

US v. Cruikshank and Presser v. Illinois said that the 2nd Amendment applied only to the federal government. However, these cases pre-dated incorporation of the Bill of Rights via the 14th Amendment against the states (see below).

However, Presser v. Illinois stated that there is a limit upon state restriction of firearms ownership:

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect.

However, Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove disposed of this as "dicta quoted out of context", and the US Supreme Court denied cert for the appeal.

Items generally restricted were weapons designed to be easy to conceal -- pistols, dirks, cane swords, etc.

One of these (Aymette v. State of TN), was cited by the Court in US v. Miller -- relying on the phrase "for the common defense" in the state constitution. However, that particular phrase was explicitly rejected by the US Senate during the debate of the Bill of Rights, as it may have been enough for some of the ratifying states to reject it.

Often there were commonsense exceptions -- in Arkansas, they left an exception for those who were "on a journey", for example.

It sounds like "common sense", until you understand the reason behind it and similar laws in the South. We had the same exception in Texas law, but it was really code for "if your skin is the right color". For almost a century, state and local law enforcement used it as a discretionary method to enforce the prohibition against carrying weapons against people they didn't like. When anti-gun police chiefs in Texas started enforcing the prohibition against the white majority in the large cities, popular support for a non-discretionary CHL law grew until it was passed in 1995.

An interesting piece of trivia: Texas Governor Ann Richards publicly threatened a veto of a CHL law if it was sent to her desk. That act was widely credited as a substantial contributor to her defeat in the subsequent 1994 election. The winner of that election was George W. Bush, whose only prior political asset was his name.

I think there could be a legitimate argument made that the federal government doesn't have the right to regulate weapons without constitutional amendment (it depends on the reading), but you'd be hard-pressed to support that line of argument in relation to the right of states to do so.

It depends on the interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

Although the authors of the 14th Amendment explicitly said it was intended to apply the first 8 amendments in the Bill of Rights to the states, the Supreme Court declined to interpret it that way, and has instead been incorporated the Bill of Rights piece-meal, as the cases are brought before them.

At the moment, the

What the CMU scientists have done is some preliminary brain imaging using MRI.

Here is a better CMU link with more details and pictures. The scientists hope that this research to could have applications in the study of autism, disorders of thought such as paranoid schizophrenia, and semantic dementias such as Pick's disease. Not once did they ominously dub their research as "mind reading" as claimed by the submitter.

P.S. I found the Mark Kryder video about magnetic recording technology (1 hour 22 minutes):
http://www.ece.cmu.edu/news/seminar/2007/fall/kryder_11_29_07.asx

You could try this.

For those who missed it, Johnny Lee and his cheap Wii hacks can do it for a handful of bucks on really big screens too.

http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/245

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~johnny/projects/wii/

This is a pretty cool project, and I actually saw it when I was at CMU a bit ago (and was wondering what the hell it was).

There's a CMU press release about it.
The site with all the pictures is http://www.gigapan.org/
You can see the hardware here.

The only problem with this, and any other multi-picture stitching, is that you get obvious stitching problems when there is any movement in the scene, like the trolley in the middle of this scene.

Here

Yep. There are obviously simple lens options to get around this, but he doesn't make any mention of using one. All in all pretty boring. And donations? For something he's going to make a profit on? Where I'm from that's called an investment.

These guys at CMU did some (I think) cooler work a while ago.

Until a self-driving car can have that level of awareness and make those sorts of predictions and act accordingly, I don't see computers doing any serious driving.

It's closer than you think. Check out No hands across america.

---

It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work.
It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons.
Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA abuse.

There are even sites out there to generate your own DMCA counterclaim quick and fast.
One such is: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Terrorism/form-letter.html or here: http://www.ucmo.edu/dmca/counter.html

People unfortunately probably go to lawyers first, a little bit of knowledge goes a long way.

However, DMCA misuse is something that can be sued for and withdrawing the already DMCA'd request doesn't lift that vulnerability in court...there is a provision for DMCA misuse.

Premature Optimization is the root of all evil.

I've never seen anything saying otherwise.

Follow any of these sets of rules:

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?RulesOfOptimization
http://schwern.org/~schwern/talks/What_Works/What_Works/slide016.html
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~jch/java/rules.html

Or my version--
1) Don't optimize, no really, don't.
2) If you absolutely have to, write it unoptimized, test it, write it optimized, then:
2a) If the first is anywhere in the ballpark, throw away the second,
2b) If the second has enough of a proven, documented speed gain to get you past some accept/no accept barrier, comment out the slower one, but keep it so the next guy can follow the "Good" code.

If you don't document exactly what you did in the code and why, I'm going to refactor it into something readable the second I see it.

Also--know how to program. Choosing a linked list instead of an array list for an insertion sort is just programming correctly. It's not an optimization.

-1 offtopic... Just wanted to help the parent out with his cow-orker.

It is possible that many could even be realized at the same location. As in Greg Egan's dust theory or, relatedly, the Hans Moravec essay that Egan links to.

Interesting stuff.

But can you trust the compiler?

It's really nothing new, and there is no real solution other than you have to trust someone at some point. For an entertaining paper about this exact problem in the software world, check out "Reflections on Trusting Trust" by Ken Thompson

Yes, there are statistics, neural networks, genetic algorithms, clustering/distance measures, etc.

I might call it "the best PRACTICAL/APPLIED book on machine learning ever written". :)

For a more theoretical approach, this book is quite nice: Machine Learning, Tom Mitchell, McGraw Hill, 1997.
( http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~tom/mlbook.html )

(Btw: great signature. :))

Wik below links to a video which gives an overview of the theory. About 17 minutes in, he talks about maximum theoretical data density, about 1 bit per cubic wavelength, or 2 TB/cm^2.

If you want to learn more about this, I suggest Dr. Wilson's talk on InPhase's technology at CMU in November. It's a very accessible and interesting talk for someone who is not familiar with the field.

If you stare at text all day long, I've found that high contrast (black on white default) and high color saturation (brightly colored syntax highlighting) is very tiring. Turning both down a notch goes a long way for extending readability.

My terminals all use a light white on dark grey scheme, and my preferred vim color scheme has been ps_color for quite a while. (here's a useful site for visually comparing a ton of color schemes (in iframes) all at once: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~maverick/VimColorSchemeTest/. )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag

The cult is doing this to make Anonymous look bad.

I used to be a Scientologist, and I can tell you based on first hand experience that this is EXACTLY what the cult would do.

This is not the work of those who fight and oppose the cult of Scientology.

The cult has already taken to creating fake videos and messages that appear to be from Anonymous and that contain threats of violence against the cult itself. This latest stunt is simply the next step in their campaign of demonizing Anonymous.

The problem with Anonymous is that anyone can pretend to be part of the group. While they are highly resistant to efforts by the cult to target them as individuals, they are vulnerable to false-flag tactics such as this one.

This is not the first time the cult has done this. Back in the 70's they targeted a woman for writing a book that revealed the evil nature of the cult. The cult responded by forging evidence linking her to a fake bomb threat, among other things:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Freakout

She was facing a long prison sentence until the FBI accidentally discovered that the cult had set her up while conducting another investigation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White

Scientology is evil. It is something that most people who have never dealt with the cult have a hard time understanding or believing. To describe the nature of this cult to someone who is unfamiliar with it is very difficult because polite society lacks the terms needed to accurately convey the depth of evil found within this organization. It is also difficult because an accurate description defies belief. Most people are unable to contemplate something so evil actually existing in the real world.

But scientology is that bad, and it is real. Its victims are a multitude and its crimes are horrific.

But don't take my word for it, read up on it yourself:

http://www.xenu.net/
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/

How dare you point out a flaw in slashdot's article handling! You are hereby excommunicated from the Church of Slashdot. Turn in your E-Meter and get out, you treasonous traitor.

Sunlight is pretty darn smooth, but it's not really necessary to emulate sunlight.

When you dim the lights for a cozy mood, you are trying to emulate firelight or candlelight - not sunlight. Dimming CFLs just get dimmer and dimmer, not redder and cozier. The effect is somewhat like leaving your LCD monitor on in a dark room - not a warm candlelight.

Here's a neat site that lets you see the actual spectrum of all these things...

A bit of a handholder, this book starts out basic but is really accesible for the beginning programmer (or someone just trying to wrap their head around lisp never having used a Functional language):

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/LispBook/index.html

I think he has some of the more interesting hacks for the wii: Johnny Chung Lee. I figure he isn't the only one, but he does make some interesting things happen.

The Hon Ed Lollington has ruled masks legal.

Scientology vs various John Does, Jane "Gasmask" Doe, Xenu, LisaMcPhersonWasMurdered, TravoltaIsGay, John Desu, Desu Desu, Desu Desu Desu Desu Desu et al, proceedings of the Internet Court 2008.

I think current VR systems tend to be a bit expensive, but they are around. Disney Quest has quite a few VR attractions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisneyQuest/

Also, Carnegie Mellon has a course where you build VR games. http://www.etc.cmu.edu/bvw/

I imagine the expense of these systems will rapidly decrease as pattern recognition software gets better and the hardware gets cheaper allowing for more widespread adoption. (for example see http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~johnny/projects/wii/)

I think current VR systems tend to be a bit expensive, but they are around. Disney Quest has quite a few VR attractions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisneyQuest/

Also, Carnegie Mellon has a course where you build VR games. http://www.etc.cmu.edu/bvw/

I imagine the expense of these systems will rapidly decrease as pattern recognition software gets better and the hardware gets cheaper allowing for more widespread adoption. (for example see http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~johnny/projects/wii/)

Go into one of these centers and have them hook you up. Lick your other palm and every so often jam a 9v battery against it.

[Insert Slashdot-obligatory reference to "Trusting Trust" here.]

Considering that hiring a contractor is an outside case, it seems fair that the government prove that the only people ever involved in making the video were all contractors. Every single person involved in the video (I'm betting there's a nice long list of credits at the end of it) should be questioned, in court, to find if at the time they were employed by the government. I'm willing to bet in the case of something such as a video, while contractors would be involved, there would also be some government employees involved, as actors or otherwise, muddying the copyright waters. Those sections of the video involving anyone working for the government should be permitted to be stripped from the video and made public.

And, of course, this is why the DMCA is bad, since it's an act-first, ask-questions-later, law. Hopefully the affected individual will stand up for their right to a hearing by posting a counter notification, forcing the government's hand. It's not likely they will, though.

no flame bait either .. but just as most always ..

i will most likely receive the flame bait .. troll label .. written off as paranoid etc.

that was the whole idea ..

"they" the ruling class have known for a long time that the vast majority of people will simply not believe that it could happen .. it's called denial .. their most reliable and important weapon ..

modern democracies .. such as america have been useful and necessary distractions .. to give the lower classes the illusion that they have some power over the system .. while their plans could unfold ..

if you still believe the official story of 9/11 events .. time to think again ..

google "false flag operations"

this really has been a private planet since the military was outsourced to the private sector read:the ruling class .. after the first world war .. the real beginning of the modern phase of the plan .. as it was the only realistic option for the ruling class after the industrial revolution .. that or lose their control of the planet .. and subjugation to the lower classes .. ie. being just like everyone else .. no privileges .. no power over others (the real aphrodisiac by the way)

they almost lost the war in the sixties with a relatively open and FREE press (their only real achilles heel) but they were able to gain control of the mass media .. game over .. end of story ..

there have been a lot of canaries in the mine .. but the majority have refused to take them seriously .. just as expected ..

just a few interesting links ..

once you really start looking .. you will be overwhelmed with information .. another thing working in their favor ..

this is a good place to begin as it was a modern pivotal event .. even if it appears a little insignificant ..

http://www.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=21

most people thing the Nazis lost the war .. think again .. just a temporary setback ..

http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/noon.html

and a few more to get you started ..

http://www.surfingtheapocalypse.net/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?noframes;read=73328
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/aliensindenver.htm
http://www.trufax.org/
http://www-bsac.eecs.berkeley.edu/archive/users/warneke-brett/SmartDust/
http://www.freezone.org/mc/swfqw.htm
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ST/ST.html
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/raisethefist/
http://www.alpha-education.co.uk/

this one is even fun ..
http://www.theyrule.net/

you can find more "truthful" information out there than you probably want to know .. as "they" do not believe that it posses a t

It seems that they can work wireless.
The swimming motion does not use the tether.(5th section down in the linky below)
http://download.srv.cs.cmu.edu/~biorobotics/projects/modsnake/newwebsite/gaits/diff_gaits/index.html

On the flip side, by having mass warnings it will be easy to figure out which techniques are undetectable and which aren't. We're actually very close to a totally secure protocol from TPB & various researches.

See:
http://securep2p.net/index.php/Tracker_Design
http://securep2p.org/index.php?title=MultiSource
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dga/papers/nsdi2007-set/

Sounds like End System Multicast (ESM)

http://lycos.cs.cmu.edu/ is in my head from the day, and it still works!!!

and more info [cmu.edu] on how to use it.

-Anonymous

and more info [cmu.edu] on how to use it.

-Anonymous

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets/E-Meter/

Now everyone go make your own knock-off. Call it a p-meter, or a g-meter, or a niceta-meter and sell them as alternatives to e-meters ... or better yet, sell them as parodies of e-meters!!

wait. let me re-state this in slashdot-ese

1. obtain e-meter schematics from web
2. build clone or parody e-meter
3. sell them on ebay
4. profit!!!

Or build one, for fun and profit!!! Schematics here and more info on how to use it. -Anonymous

Or build one, for fun and profit!!! Schematics here and more info on how to use it. -Anonymous

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets/E-Meter/ Including how to make your own!

I would recommend reading Ken Thompson's lecture: "Reflections on Trusting Trust" - A PDF can be found here.

Spoiler: If you didn't build it/write it/create it yourself you can't trust it. Oh, and you could have made a mistake so you can't trust that either.

It's Diet Coke and Mentos. Regular Coke doesn't work.

And Mythbusters? I mean, sure, they're great showmen, but sometimes they could benefit from consulting some experts in the fields they're messing with instead of just assuming they know what they're doing, screwing everything up, claiming "Busted!" and patting themselves on the back.

Because you can build a radio (albeit a lousy, AM-only one, and only if there is an AM transmitter nearby) out of dental work. There's a circuit for it that was in all of the old Radio Shack n-in-one kits. But they couldn't make it work, so they said "Busted!" Quitters. (Snopes reference: http://www.snopes.com/radiotv/tv/fillings.asp Radio circuit: http://www.ece.cmu.edu/~ee321/spring00/lab3.pdf. Getting rid of the tuning capacitor, coil, and ferrite rod just kills your gain and you can only "tune" the strongest signal. You can build a Schottky diode out of a semiconductor-to-metal junction; the tooth could provide the semiconductor, and the filling the metal. The "earphone" can be anything piezoelectric, again, the materials used. There will be some gain since the sound will be conducted via bones instead of the air.)

I digress, but my point remains: Mythbusters is lots of fun, but peer reviewed and repeatable it isn't.

And back on topic: The inventor may get the rocket over the 100 km into space, but unless he can get it up in excess of 15000 knots parallel to the ground, it's not going to be in orbit. Most of an orbital rocket's thrust isn't for gaining altitude, it's for getting orbital velocity. This is why something like SpaceShip One has a long way to go before it could achieve orbit. A satellite must throw itself at the ground and miss.

If you're interested in pretty, shiny, mathematical things that you can run on Linux, check out:
  - electricsheep: animated fractal flames: http://www.electricsheep.org/ (I highly recommend running this as your screensaver, though it takes a bit for the first sheep to download)
  - Jenn: pretty, shiny, blue(?) polytopes, rendered on your computer: http://www.math.cmu.edu/~fho/jenn/

Anyone have any others?

Something you have to understand is that Scientologists _know_ they have the answers to everything (because L. Ron Hubbard said so). If a member has any doubts, then they're "out of ethics" and have to report for additional training (at their expense). The CoS does not use the same meaning of the word ethics that you or I would. To them, ethics is doing and believing exactly what you're told. If you don't understand something, or have questions, then you are assumed to simply not understand the material; because if you did understand the material, you wouldn't have any questions.

The organization is set up so that it slowly isolates members from normal society, both physically but also mentally. Everything the CoS teaches becomes the truth and any conflicting information is actively ignored. The group as a whole forms a sort of feedback loop whereby members receive positive affirmation from the group when they do, experience or feel something the CoS wants them to feel regardless of whether or not it's true. This is why some people claim that Scientology has helped them, it's not because of the "tech", it's because they feel acceptance and safety within that group.

The church has several ways of dealing with dissent and criticism. The first is by declaring someone a suppressive person, or SP. SPs are considered to be very, very evil people as they're trying to suppress or prevent the CoS from saving mankind (yes, that's their stated mission). People who leave the church, or people outside of the church that are trying to talk someone into leaving are "declared" SP which means that Scientologists are forbidden from speaking to them about anything meaningful. If you're a Scientologist and someone is an SP it doesn't matter whether or not they're your father, mother, brother or daughter, they're dead to you. The second way is through their "fair game" doctrine which basically states that the CoS will not punish a member for anything they do towards an SP, be it harassment, extortion, assault or murder.

David Touretzky (yes, _that_ Touretzky) has some great information about Scientology available on his homepage. There's a fantastic article available that describes exactly how someone gets sucked into the cult, little by little. Note I say cult and not religion because the CoS _is_ a cult. They simply call themselves a religion in order to attempt to shield themselves from "interference" from government and to take advantage of IRS tax breaks (so they can keep more money). In addition, they have members sign contracts that absolve the church of any responsibility should something like you dying from their Introspection Rundown happen. Check out this contract they have you sign. Pay particular attention to this sentence,

I understand, acknowledge and agree that the Introspection Rundown addresses only the individual's spiritual needs and I freely consent, without reservation, and without condition or limitation, to Church members conducting the Introspection Rundown, and that I accept and assume all known and unknown risks of injury, loss, or damage resulting from my decision to participate in the Introspection Rundown and specifically absolve all persons and entities from all liabilities of any kind, without limitation, associated with my participation or their participation in my Introspection Rundown.

Notice it says "only the individual's spiritual needs", which means that it doesn't meet your physical needs and you can die from their "ritual" like Lisa McPherson did.

I could go on and on about things like church members being locked into compounds with patrolling armed guards, related organizations like Narconon treating drug abuse problems with long saunas and megadoses of niacin or actual proved conspiracies like Operation Snow White and Operation Freakout, but I'd prefer the reader follow some of the links I provided and educate themselves.