Slashdot Mirror

Now I can actually gamble at the same time, combining 2 dangerous habits.

Hey, now you're on to something! If they'd pay my earnings out in heroin, I could combine all 3 of my dangerous habits into one. Man, what a time-saver this will be!

Sign me up!

all i'm saying is that i was wondering *why* my own review didn't get posted here one week prior to now... it just seems sketchy that slashdot wouldn't post a reader-submitted story before one of their own staff had a whack at it... i fully realize you're not the first person to review this movie... i was referring to this site alone... and btw, it's spelled "enough"... pax -09
-----

Not to nitpick or anything :-P, but they called the quantum fluctuations the "zero-points".

Don't feel bad. "Chaos" used to mean "A condition or place of great disorder or confusion. or A disorderly mass; a jumble: The desk was a chaos of papers and unopened letters. or The disordered state of unformed matter and infinite space supposed in some cosmogonic views to have existed before the ordered universe.

But now "Chaos Theory" has brought us a whole new definition: "A property of some non-linear dynamic systems which exhibit sensitive dependence on initial conditions. This means that there are initial states which evolve within some finite time to states whose separation in one or more dimensions of state space depends, in an average sense, exponentially on their initial separation. Such systems may still be completely deterministic in that any future state of the system depends only on the initial conditions and the equations describing the change of the system with time. It may, however, require arbitrarily high precision to actually calculate a future state to within some finite precision."

("On defining chaos", R. Glynn Holt rgholt@voyager.jpl.nasa.gov and D. Lynn Holt lholt@seraph1.sewanee.edu.)

So don't feel bad about something like "zero-points" being redefined. Unfortunately, life does not generate compiler errors and halt nearly often enough; Usually you get a malformed birth, instead.

I don't think that Sony will bother to keep supporting MiniDisc for very long, as the format they're pushing is Memory Stick Anyway the capacity of MD isn't that great. I could be way off track here but isn't MD basically like a CD but using ATRAC3 compression?

Minidisc comes in two flavors now; An audio/data minidisc with a capacity of 120MB, and a video minidisc with a capacity of 650MB. The video minidisc, as far as I know, is used for nothing other than Sony camcorders, though I would certainly like to see a scsi, ide, usb, and firewire-connectable (different versions are okay) removable media drive using them.

Minidisc is read (and written) magnetically; Writing can only occur when the disc is heated to the Curie point with a laser (the only thing low-power enough for use in a portable device capable of heating up the precise spot on the disc to the proper level.)

Memory stick only comes in capacities up to 256MB, and only up to 128MB anywhere that isn't Japan. I could only find a 64MB memory stick (doing a rapid search) available on Circuit Shitty's webpage; They want $159.99 for one stupid MagicGate Memory Stick in the 64MB range. You can actually buy a Sharp MDSR60S player/recorder from CC for $199.99! And finally, a 5-pack of 80 minute minidiscs (which must be slightly over 120MB, since a 74 minute MD is 120MB, IIRC) is $11.99. Cheap off-brand? Nope. It's Memorex (Apparently, it's not Live.) A Memorex 20 pack (74 minute) is $34.99. A ten-pack is $19.99, a 5-pack of 74 minute is $9.99.

Two bucks for a minidisc which holds about the same amount of music (given a reasonable level of quality) as a 64MB Memory Stick which costs $159.99... Well, I know which one I'd choose. The memory stick is 80 times more expensive, and not 80 times more convenient (though it IS dramatically more convenient, not THAT dramatically.

I'm sorry, but I got a chuckle out of your statement that the theory of evolution is the best way to "make verifiable predictions about events." This is absolutely true and very well-documented if you are talking about natural selection. However, evolution requires much more substantial changes, to the point of speciation - a division into multiple species that can't interbreed. There are no documented cases of this happening in recorded history.

In fairness, I have seen a lot of bad creation science. I am a Christian, and I have great respect for the historical accuracy of the Bible relative to other works of the time. However, I don't read the early chapters of Genesis literally. I think that there is a very strong case for the traditional scientific view that the age of the earth is measured in billions of years, not thousands.

That being said, there are a number of tough problems with the theory of evolution that any good mathematician or biologist will tell you about. The oft-cited Darwin on Trial is actually a fairly balanced read on that subject. I personally believe that there are a number of ways that evolutionary theory may be salvaged, but like the current state of textbook physics, the current theory doesn't account for all the evidence well.

I still think it sucks, as the only "effective" methadone therapy is maintenance (which is the way methadone treatment was commonly done in the late-80's/early-90's in the Northeast, whence my exposure to people familiar with methadone occured). I.e., the premise is "to cure the addict, let's keep him addicted, but to a drug isn't quite as euphoria-inducing, that's cheaper, legally availbe - to addicts- and doesn't cause the onset of withdrawl symptoms as soon." Thus, not only does one remain dependant on drugs, but on the state as the supplier of drugs.

For tapering, methadone sucks, because it takes so long to completely leave the system, and no tapering therapy gets rid of the addict's underlying desire for an altered state of consciousness. It's that desire which leads an addict to do drugs in the first place, whether the desire itself is merely the expression of people's natural desire to get fsck'd up -- all known human cultures (except Mormons) use intoxicants of one form or another -- or, partly a reaction to an unpleasant "normal" state of consciousness caused by depression or anxiety disorders.

Moderators, any chance of a "Interesting even though completely off topic?"

I still think it sucks, as the only "effective" methadone therapy is maintenance (which is the way methadone treatment was commonly done in the late-80's/early-90's in the Northeast, whence my exposure to people familiar with methadone occured). I.e., the premise is "to cure the addict, let's keep him addicted, but to a drug isn't quite as euphoria-inducing, that's cheaper, legally availbe - to addicts- and doesn't cause the onset of withdrawl symptoms as soon." Thus, not only does one remain dependant on drugs, but on the state as the supplier of drugs.

For tapering, methadone sucks, because it takes so long to completely leave the system, and no tapering therapy gets rid of the addict's underlying desire for an altered state of consciousness. It's that desire which leads an addict to do drugs in the first place, whether the desire itself is merely the expression of people's natural desire to get fsck'd up -- all known human cultures (except Mormons) use intoxicants of one form or another -- or, partly a reaction to an unpleasant "normal" state of consciousness caused by depression or anxiety disorders.

Moderators, any chance of a "Interesting even though completely off topic?"

"Surprizing" is actually an acceptable spelling.

Alex Bischoff
---

oh i'm sorry could you point out where i said you couldn't have an opinion?

all i said is that your time would be better spent fixing the problem than complaining about it. that is of course my opionion... which does not negate yours.
FreeNet dev. is slow.
im glad to see you have found a problem

I'm not involved in FreeNet dev.
it is a shame you do not want to do anything about the problem you so skillfully pointed out.

Those two facts do not cancel each other out.
i would only condsider the second point to be a fact. the first is what we call your opinion

use LaTeX? want an online reference manager that

Some links for the humor-impaired...

Sarcasm

Exaggeration

"Free your mind and your ass will follow"

Some links for the humor-impaired...

Sarcasm

Exaggeration

"Free your mind and your ass will follow"

Apparently you are not clued in to a concept called "context". I was responding to the poster's point (and his implied "roving band of do-gooder white hat 'crackers'"), not the overall "honey pot" article.

--

Idioms:
hear, hear Used to express approval.

Default
Sean

And, just for the hell of it, I'd like to point out that MAPS has effectively become socialist thanks to their discrimation by association [to a given IP network number].

Socialism? Try this. You know, just for the hell of it.

Go look it up on dictionary.com and you will find in the dictionary. They are sourcing WordNet 1.6 Copyright 1997 by Princeton University which predates their use by a little while. I'd bet that it goes much farther back then that. They are going to have to try a lot harder than that if they intend on using a "dictionary" word.

It's already in a dictionary.

The REAL jabber has the /. user id: 13196

The REAL jabber has the /. user id: 13196

Catholicism, the religion, is indeed capitalised. The name "Catholic" was chosen by the Catholic Church because it meant "universal". They were thus stating "We are the universal Church".

The word catholic, on the other hand, is just a word that means universal or complete.

Can someone tell me the definition of Borneo?

dictionary.com says:

An island of the western Pacific Ocean in the Malay Archipelago between the Sulu and Java seas southwest of the Philippines. It is the third-largest island in the world. The sultanate of Brunei is on the northwest coast; the rest of the island is divided between Indonesia and Malaysia.

3rd largest island in the world; in the western Pacific north of Java; largely covered by dense jungle and rain forest; part of the Malay Archipelago

You can't say we went to the badlands, unless you are talking about he ones in South Dakota - other wise you just went to badlands.

$ man reality

Puede verse este término en Altamirano, J.C. Diccionario Ecuestre Español, A.M.C. Ediciones ecuestres, 1994. El término "haca" es un apócope de "hacanea" y éste es la traducción del bretón "haquenne" -donde aparece por primera vez en 1363-, que a su vez procede del vocablo inglés "hackney", del que se conoce su presencia desde 1292.

And to top it off, the assholes didn't even look up the word ornithopter!!!!!!

I give it a five billion thumbs down

Amazing - you know it's from middle english, and yet don't know it's proper definition. Ere means before, and the palindrome is in reference to Napoleon, who was exiled to Elba for awhile. He came back, but only a few months later was the battle of Waterloo, and his days as Emporer were pretty much over.

Idiot.

I'm not who you're responding to, but i'd say these days that the kernel is what an OS used to be refered to. A complete OS, IMO, is the kernel, filesystem support, networking support, user input support, and display support (including GUI and fonts).

Just because one thing runs in the kernel and another thing runs in the user space doesn't mean that they're not all part of the operating system.

From dictionary.com:
system: 1 -A group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole.

Ouch. I'd certainly hate to suffer a decapitating injury. However, I would be very impressed if someone wasn't hindered by the loss. Actually, come to think of it, a few of the people I know probably wouldn't be hindered by the loss.

Discrimination:

- Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit
- The act of discriminating, distinguishing, or noting and marking differences.

Rural is a category. That fits the definition quite nicely.

>when a company chooses not to provide service where it's not cost effective, that isn't discrimination

It is when the phone company won't even bother to offer you a price for the service (this has happened to me in Canada way too many times).

>I just think people who act like they have some natural right to those subsidies are pricks.

I'm going to say that to the next prick in the city that bitches the government should do something about the nasty air in the city. They should simply move out into the country.

So what if the air smells like sulphur? If it won't kill you, it doesn't count!

uh, "subtle"? Try this.
<p>
:)
<p>
But otherwise, you're absolutely <!--stating the obvious--> right.

<!--Yes, the extrans is on purpose. sheesh, guys-->
--

While you are an extremely intelligent, gregarious individual with varied interests and a penchant for dialogue

I'm also a person who understands the power in a succinct statement. People don't have a right not to have their 'feelings hurt' in the real world. They do have a right to say just about whatever they want. And for a very good reason, you might want to read Fahrenheit 451 some day. Once we start arbitrarily deciding what is people are allowed to say based on the political content, anything is possible. And I hope you're not going to say that the a government would be capable of making sure the power was only used for 'good'.

If we stopped racist literature now, why couldn't we also block Communist tracts? Or perhaps harbingers of the religion of Islam?

When you teach evolution in schools, are you violating the rights of fundamentalist christens? Are you hurting their feelings?

When you teach the history of world war II, are you violating the rights of holocaust deniers? Are you hurting their feelings?

You may not be an actually be an idiot, but, provided you actually believe what you're saying, you certainly lack some pretty basic critical thinking skills (like generalization, for instance).

Oh, and congratulations on using Dictonary.com's word of the day for august 2nd 1999. Although I don't think you actually knew what it meant...

He's right.

Puh-leez.

There is one very important to reconsider this ballot: it decides the fate of the nation.

The Republicans are calling fowl in Iowa and in other states, stating that every state has irregularities. Their retort is that if we raise such a fuss over Florida, why not other states; why not every state? Hey, if you want to have a recount there and the law allows it, then by all means do it. All that will happen will be a more accurate (2) and more precise (2) measurement of the will of the people who voted. In a race as tight as this, that precision matters a lot.

In '96, the race was nowhere near as tight as it is now. Even with a relatively generous margin of error, the election was accurate (2); it needn't be so precise (2).

In an election where the accuracy is in question, the precision must be enhanced to confirm the will of the people, rather than who voted for whom. The latter is an inprecise compromise, that for the sake of time and money, approximates the former in the majority of elections. This election is the exception. Our government has a duty to serve its people and their will, not marks on ballots or numbers on a TV screen.

We should not let our nation's fate be decided by confusion or irregularities just because it is easier. Every vote counts, so let's count every vote.

I'd like to note now that there is every chance that Bush will still win in the final count. Would you rather be absolutely sure to the last vote that this is what the people want (and maybe the people want Bush) or would you rather just give up at the first sign of a victor? Why didn't Bush concede Florida when the networks predicted Gore? Is there supposed to be some arbitrary level at which we should no longer be vigilant in our democracy?

--

Puh-leez.

There is one very important to reconsider this ballot: it decides the fate of the nation.

The Republicans are calling fowl in Iowa and in other states, stating that every state has irregularities. Their retort is that if we raise such a fuss over Florida, why not other states; why not every state? Hey, if you want to have a recount there and the law allows it, then by all means do it. All that will happen will be a more accurate (2) and more precise (2) measurement of the will of the people who voted. In a race as tight as this, that precision matters a lot.

In '96, the race was nowhere near as tight as it is now. Even with a relatively generous margin of error, the election was accurate (2); it needn't be so precise (2).

In an election where the accuracy is in question, the precision must be enhanced to confirm the will of the people, rather than who voted for whom. The latter is an inprecise compromise, that for the sake of time and money, approximates the former in the majority of elections. This election is the exception. Our government has a duty to serve its people and their will, not marks on ballots or numbers on a TV screen.

We should not let our nation's fate be decided by confusion or irregularities just because it is easier. Every vote counts, so let's count every vote.

I'd like to note now that there is every chance that Bush will still win in the final count. Would you rather be absolutely sure to the last vote that this is what the people want (and maybe the people want Bush) or would you rather just give up at the first sign of a victor? Why didn't Bush concede Florida when the networks predicted Gore? Is there supposed to be some arbitrary level at which we should no longer be vigilant in our democracy?

--

Puh-leez.

There is one very important to reconsider this ballot: it decides the fate of the nation.

The Republicans are calling fowl in Iowa and in other states, stating that every state has irregularities. Their retort is that if we raise such a fuss over Florida, why not other states; why not every state? Hey, if you want to have a recount there and the law allows it, then by all means do it. All that will happen will be a more accurate (2) and more precise (2) measurement of the will of the people who voted. In a race as tight as this, that precision matters a lot.

In '96, the race was nowhere near as tight as it is now. Even with a relatively generous margin of error, the election was accurate (2); it needn't be so precise (2).

In an election where the accuracy is in question, the precision must be enhanced to confirm the will of the people, rather than who voted for whom. The latter is an inprecise compromise, that for the sake of time and money, approximates the former in the majority of elections. This election is the exception. Our government has a duty to serve its people and their will, not marks on ballots or numbers on a TV screen.

We should not let our nation's fate be decided by confusion or irregularities just because it is easier. Every vote counts, so let's count every vote.

I'd like to note now that there is every chance that Bush will still win in the final count. Would you rather be absolutely sure to the last vote that this is what the people want (and maybe the people want Bush) or would you rather just give up at the first sign of a victor? Why didn't Bush concede Florida when the networks predicted Gore? Is there supposed to be some arbitrary level at which we should no longer be vigilant in our democracy?

--

Puh-leez.

There is one very important to reconsider this ballot: it decides the fate of the nation.

The Republicans are calling fowl in Iowa and in other states, stating that every state has irregularities. Their retort is that if we raise such a fuss over Florida, why not other states; why not every state? Hey, if you want to have a recount there and the law allows it, then by all means do it. All that will happen will be a more accurate (2) and more precise (2) measurement of the will of the people who voted. In a race as tight as this, that precision matters a lot.

In '96, the race was nowhere near as tight as it is now. Even with a relatively generous margin of error, the election was accurate (2); it needn't be so precise (2).

In an election where the accuracy is in question, the precision must be enhanced to confirm the will of the people, rather than who voted for whom. The latter is an inprecise compromise, that for the sake of time and money, approximates the former in the majority of elections. This election is the exception. Our government has a duty to serve its people and their will, not marks on ballots or numbers on a TV screen.

We should not let our nation's fate be decided by confusion or irregularities just because it is easier. Every vote counts, so let's count every vote.

I'd like to note now that there is every chance that Bush will still win in the final count. Would you rather be absolutely sure to the last vote that this is what the people want (and maybe the people want Bush) or would you rather just give up at the first sign of a victor? Why didn't Bush concede Florida when the networks predicted Gore? Is there supposed to be some arbitrary level at which we should no longer be vigilant in our democracy?

--

There is a difference between encoding something and encrypting it.

encode: To format (electronic data) according to a standard format.
encrypt: To scramble access codes to (computerized information) so as to prevent unauthorized access.

mp3s are a standard format (encoded). SDMI tries to prevent unauthorised access (encrypted).

There is a difference between encoding something and encrypting it.

encode: To format (electronic data) according to a standard format.
encrypt: To scramble access codes to (computerized information) so as to prevent unauthorized access.

mp3s are a standard format (encoded). SDMI tries to prevent unauthorised access (encrypted).

• I vote with the masses: IOHO, the century changed along with the millenium when we went from 19 to 20.
• "turn of the century" refers not to the moment, but to the period straddling. We are in a turn of the century period right now, no matter which way you measure it.
• To back up that claim I looked "turn of the century" up and discovered this definition has a Y-mod-100 bug: "the period from about 1890 to 1910"

Yes, so they could make lots of money. Instead, the made no money...actually negative money. Saying NEtscape won is like saying Xerox won because PARC got everyone using GUIs.

Read the original post again. Do you know what makes a "Pyhrric [sic] victory" Pyrrhic?

hint

somebody had to respond :)

oh, and slashdot doesn't seem to like that link - the space in the middle of the url is supposed to be %20

Hampster is a surname; hamster is a species.
Pearson is a surname; person is a species.

Asinine

martyr

; 1.One who chooses to suffer death rather than renounce religious principles.
2.One who makes great sacrifices or suffers much in order to further a belief, cause, or principle.
3. a.One who endures great suffering: a martyr to arthritis. b.One who makes a great show of suffering in order to arouse sympathy.

so by this defination i wouldnt call missing 2 days of school a great sacrifice-unless it was meatloaf day.

i think the previous poster was saying that being burned at the steak is a little greater sacrafice than missing 2 days of school, and calling the kid a martyr belittles the contribution of other martyrs. similar in the way that katz comparied this kid to washington.

john

Effective access control? Hee hee hee... well now, that in itself is open to debate isn't it?

No, it isn't. RTFA:

17 U.S.C., 1201. (a)(3)(B) A technological measure "effectively controls access to a work" if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.

As I posted in a previous article, whereas most /.ers take "effectively" to mean "in an effective way", the law is written so that it means "for all practical purposes" (thank you, dictionary.com). This means that if someone uses even the simplest of access controls, like base-64 + XOR, it "effectively controls access", even if that access control becomes widely known.

Hold it right there. Neither you nor ESR is "fighting" anything. Your lives are not on the line, and you insult genuine freedom fighters by pretending they are.

The correct term for you and Eric Raymond would be "freedom whiner"

Oooo! Night vision IR!

This page (a primer on photodiodes) has a chart of Photodiode Responsivity. You start to get reasonable response out of them around 600nm, which is actually before the infrared range, which begins at 750nm. Interestingly enough, this page also have a chart which compares their Series E photodiode to that of the Human Eye.

In any case, you could almost certainly tune one of these suckers to let you see into the IR range. I'm not sure you'd want to, if you had ever had normal eyesight, but it is an interesting idea. Certainly if you could embed them as seperate entities, AND turn them on and off, then you could selectively see into the infrared range in a selective manner without seriously compromising your natural vision.

I've submitted a number of relevent articles over the past year or so. They dealt with real issues and questions about technology. This morning I start up my browser and see an article which is asking how to spell a word???????

Yup, that's right. Welcome to Slashdot.

Slashdot is run by a few guys looking to have fun. (They have also become moderately wealthy because Andover.net apparently considered Slashdot to be of great value, but due to their contractually guaranteed editorial independence, that is another matter entirely.) They do not run it to keep you happy, nor do they present or intend it to be an unbiased, objective, or even useful news source.

Please take note of the word "Submit" in the "Submit Story" link. Submit. "To commit to the consideration or judgment of another", according to my dictionary. The emphasis is mine. First, "consideration". When you submit a story, it is explicitly NOT guaranteed to be posted. Second, "by another". Not you. Them. The Slashdot editors will post what they darn well please, and if you don't like, that's just too bad.

... or you will eventually start to lose that portion of your readership which may be influential and have real decision-making powers.

Somehow, I suspect this is somewhere far below "refrigerator mold" on Rob's list of things to worry about.

In short: The submission queue is NOT your personal ego enhancement tool. If you don't like that, leave. And don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

I went to http://www.dictionary.com/c gi- bin/dict.pl?term=womyn and it came back with the following:

No entry found for "womyn" in the dictionary.

Suggestions:

woman
women
Woman
Women
woman
woman
Woman
woman
women

For better results, try our search tips.

Who am I insulting again?

I went to http://www.dictionary.com/c gi- bin/dict.pl?term=womyn and it came back with the following:

No entry found for "womyn" in the dictionary.

Suggestions:

woman
women
Woman
Women
woman
woman
Woman
woman
women

For better results, try our search tips.

Who am I insulting again?

Hmm. Perhaps you should read down to the bottom of this article. No wait, never mind, I'll paste it.

Asked about his Internet statement during a visit to California this week, Gore said, "I'm proud of the work that I did do in the Congress to help facilitate the development of the Internet as we know it." But when pressed on his claim of creating it, Gore tried to make a joke.

"The day I made that statement," Gore said, "I was tired because I had been up all night inventing the Camcorder."

Of course, the Boston Globe is managing to smear Gore even there, when they said he tried to make a joke. Now I ask you to look at the very first definition of the word joke: "Something said or done to evoke laughter or amusement, especially an amusing story with a punch line." This is exactly what Gore was doing - Making a joke. His intent was to evoke laughter or amusement; If you look at the second definition of the verb form from the American Heritage Dictionary (my favorite) you'll see the other thing he was doing, which was speaking in fun.

It's frightening when a junior college dropout like myself seemingly knows more about the English language than the press. Perhaps I should write political commentary; At least I know what words mean. And when I don't, I have the cranial capacity to look them up.