Slashdot Mirror

Before you TN residents/lovers start bashing me, I have to say I like the state. Very beautiful and the mountains/hills are great. I've got some real neat photographs of thunderstorms running through valleys.

That said, if these guys want to make laws, maybe they should look at Newport, TN. They had a big cock fighting ring busted down there. They even snagged cops and judges in the bust. Before cock fighting, it was stolen cars. Before that, drugs. Before that, moonshine. Although I'm fairly libertarian, I'd say if they want to work on eradicating "bad" behavior, maybe they should work on other things....

Ok everyone. Now this isn't really a news story but I am so frustrated with the terrible weekend I had attempting to complete a VERY simple procedure with Vonage's Customer Service/Technical Service that I wanted to share and warn other users.

Jeffrey Citron-Chairman
Michael Snyder-CEO
John Rego-CFO
Louis Mamakos-CTO
Sharon O'Leary-Chief Legal Officer
Michael Tribolet-President, Vonage America
Louis Holder-EVP Product Development
Bill Rainey-President, Vonage Canada
Kerry Ritz-Managing Director, Vonage UK

All of you listed above, You Suck! I am so tired of not being able to get anything but the most simple tasks or questions answered because Vonage uses overseas outsourced call centers. Now, I work in IT so I understand the need for many companies to use these, however these aren't even "good" outsourced call centers. They are all heavily accented and all completely unempowered to work outside the given script.

I spent 6 hours Friday with another Vonage customer attempting to move a Vonage telco device from his service to mine. It wasn't until we were finally connected to the advanced support center in Holmdel, NJ that someone actually knew what the heck they were talking about and fixed the problem. The sad part was it took Mark at the US call center 5 minutes to actually do what we needed, but it took us 6 hours to get there.

If that wasn't frustrating enough there isn't even anywhere to go and complain about this problem. They have absolutely NO QUALITY CONTROL devices such as after call surveys, operator numbers or even a simple email address I can send my frustrations to. As a result, I had all the classic bad customer service experiences rolled into one:

The classic phantom disconnect after being on hold for 17 minutes.
The repeated transfers to 'other departments' which all seem to have the same phone queue--Not surprisingly none of the people we were transferred to could fix the problem either.
The, 'What you are asking for is not possible' idiotic response.
Flat refusal to be connected to a supervisor by a CSR.
Other CSRs who said they were connecting us to a supervisor, but simply rerouted us to the back of the hold queue for the same call center.
Refusal to be connected to advanced support in Holmdel, NJ.
Being told that based on the MAC address on the bottom of my device that the device did not exist.
Being told the only way to complete this would be if the other party terminated their Vonage service.
Listening to literally hours of terribly distorted hold music because they have the bandwidth dialed down so far on their customer service lines.

I am so frustrated with vonage at this point I'm looking around at other VoIP providers. I have both a home and business account with vonage and I am frankly tired of their terrible customer service. The competition for this type of business is simply too tight to do this to customers for long and Vonage seems only to be getting worse. There are many other companies out there with very similar or cheaper pricing structures. Frankly, price isn't everything to me at this point, though. Who knows, I might just call back my ILEC and order a land-line again. At least I can understand what they are saying when they answer the phone.

surprisingly enough konqueror passes the test perfect ! :-)

and even then, peoples perceptions of the "early days" are more often than not incorrect.

This is Francis Bacon's "Idol of the Den" (Idola Specus). It is a recognized form of human bias, specific to the individual. See the above link, or this one higher in the thread for a description of the four fundamental types of human bias.

and even then, peoples perceptions of the "early days" are more often than not incorrect.

This is Francis Bacon's "Idol of the Den" (Idola Specus). It is a recognized form of human bias, specific to the individual. See the above link, or this one higher in the thread for a description of the four fundamental types of human bias.

Back to the Moon was a cute book, but Hickam glossed over a LOT of details there. According to some back of the envelope calculations I did, the astronauts were severely short on fuel. So in short, they never should have made it to the moon in the first place. His "Big Dog" engines would have to be the most powerful engines ever designed (including all but the most exotic stuff on the blackboards) in order to propel the Space Shuttle to the moon on the fuel from a single commercial launch.

Or to put it another way: The Space Shuttle is too damn heavy. It's a good craft and it's life support structure is a good choice. But all the extra baggage it carries in the form of wings and a giant cargo bay severely limit utility as a general purpose space craft. :-(

get or mirror http://lodbrok.homeip.net:7080/software/unixtk-bet a2.iso.gz

The little boxes are still there. Still green, pink, blue, and yellow. In Daly City, California. And they're now very expensive little boxes, because they are in a beautiful location, overlooking the ocean and just south of San Francisco.

I think you're wrong. MPlayer has broader OS support than VLC but nothing stops you from using both. Personally I use MPlayer for everything but DVD's.

Here's a Windows version: http://mplayer.sunset-utopia.homeip.net/

I doubt that VLC can be run on all of these:

Amiga
BeOS
BSD
Linux
Mac OS X
MorphOS
QNX
Windows
Zaurus

1. What if A and B are in a constant causal loop. There is no logical inconsistency here is there? If so, then a causal loop of arbitrary length is also consistent. A causes B causes C causes ... causes A ... ad infinitum.
2. A cause can have more than one effect, while an effect has only one cause.

Thats absolutely right. Since the dawn of time humans have been trading in a free competitive market economy, sharing ideas, changing (modding) their tools to better suit themselves and their needs, and overall pushing forward technology and innovation.

The US of A, became powerful, just like Britain before it, by having a competitive free market economy where ideas are shared and move everyone forward. But now the US is leading the world in restrictive laws and monopolies on ideas - i.e. restricting others from using ideas.

This trend is indeed bad for all of society. For society to improve, it must be able to freely share ideas and to change (mod) and their tools in the way the people see fit.

These restrictive practices will become evident within a generation how negative an effect it can have on society and the USs technological lead.

And some links:

1.1 Free Matter Economy, Part 1:
http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/free_issues/is sue_07/free_matter_economy/
1.2 Free Matter Economy, Part 2:
http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/free_issues/is sue_08/free_matter_economy_2/

2.
A Groklaw article complete with discussion:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200510251 65105685

3.
An Economist article:
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory .cfm?story_id=5014990

4.
Slashdot discussion on Economist article:
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/23/17 37218&tid=187&tid=155

5.
The GNU Organisation for the development of software, its official stance on the negative effect of IP on software development:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml

6.
A longish non-academic article, but starts getting to the point eventualy:
http://www.reason.com/0303/fe.dc.creation.shtml

7.
A pdf:
http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/pci23.pdf
( http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/pci23.htm )

8.
Discussion on the above pdf:
http://activeclub.homeip.net/forums/view.php?bn=ac discussions_activeclubreflections&key=1046014645

The whole patent problem can be reduced to a single point: the patent system, as currently implemented, does not scale, both in registration (filing for patents), and in resolution (resolving disputes). This is the natural result of trying manage a decentralized process (R&D) with a centralized system (patents); we are feeling these effects the most now, because of the drastic increase in the importance of information.

There have been a number of solutions to this problem proposed, including eliminating patents altogether, or significant patent reform of some kind. Both could resolve the situation.

However, one thing is clear: the problem is one of scaling a centralized system. Each patent that comes in requires decoding from legalese, and comparison with every other patent in the system that was ever recorded for prior art. For you programmers out there, that's an O(n) algorithm. 'n' is very large nowadays. 'n' will continue getting larger. Without managing this complexity in some sort of structured fashion, it will inevitably become unmangeable, just like any poorly chosen algorithm. If this is the best we can hope to do, then we have to scale our efforts at O(n) to keep up with the growth (funding, man power, etc.).

I think they could do better. Heck, hire Google properly index some the patents and come up with an appropriate process for the examiners. Personally, I prefer as little intervention as possible; in other words, a decentralized system, which can scale with decentralized development, or no patent system at all; the patent system imposes significant hidden costs to the economy via litigation and lost time. But a centralized solution can work, as long as it is designed to scale properly.

Now all you smart computer scientists, programmers, hackers, and mathematicians, let's hear some decentralized and/or scalable solutions; that's what we really need if we want to keep patents around. :-)

Allow me to pipe up here:

I know what you said, and you are wrong.

Keep in mind that not everyone has to be smart enough, as long as we're smart enough on average to make good decisions (or perhaps, good enough?). Even this can become a non-issue given the right system of Direct Democracy (see below).

But you'd have us believe that you'd take the time out of your life to not only vote in dozens of referendums each day, but also to generate legislation. Fah!

You are operating under the mistaken assumption that Direct Democracy implies direct political involvement from each and every citizen on each and every issue; this need not be the case. See: Direct Democracy by Delegable Proxy. I'll take this chance to pimp my own thoughts on the above proposal here.

I think everyone would do well to read up a little more about Direct Democracy. Knowledge never stands still; something that seemed impossible yesterday, might be in use tomorrow.

My Ipod

Had mine for a couple of weeks. I've found out the hard way that phones don't mix with keys, and the worst this ipod has endured is a pocket with a mobile phone, for perhaps an hour a day. Rest of the time it's on a desk.

Admittedly, this photo is a worst case with the scratches highlighted, but it is starting to interfere even with best viewing conditions.

http://compaq.homeip.net/slashdot/winvlin/

In American society, it seems like this kind of selfishness is a virtue Ayn Rand crap is increasingly becoming an accepted part of the culture. The crap that American is more successful because we have sociopaths running the government and corporations makes no sense.

I agree with your last statement. Can't say I see the connection with your first statement though. Was there supposed to be one? Unless you're suggesting there's a one-to-one correspondance between self-interested individuals and sociopaths.

The Enrons and Haliburtons are draining our society and only bringing American down.

I agree. Good thing we have hundreds of thousands of other self-interested businesses and people keeping America alive then hm?

Selfish politicians are killing the government.

I'm not so sure. I happen to be of the opinion that most unintentional evil is committed out of ignorance, or a failure of foresight, rather than evil "self-interest", greed, etc. Remember, "never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. But, this guy said it better, Re: politicians.

People who subscribe to the philosophy that selfishness is a virtue need people who have a consciences to feed on.

That's a pretty bold statement. The U.S. constitution itself recognizes people's rights to pursue their own interests as, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Are you calling the founding fathers sociopaths and leeches?

Perhaps I'm just dense, because I just can't see the difference between "self-interest" and "private business" that's currently driving our economy and is enabling us to live. We seem to be doing pretty well on the latter so far. Both are founded on the concept of "mutual trade for mutual gain". Could you perhaps expand on the line of reasoning that demarcates the two?

A world full of Ayn Rand sociopaths would not even be a place were Ayn Rand sociopaths want to live in.

I wouldn't want to live in a world of any kind of sociopath. But maybe I misunderstood. Did you actually mean to imply that all Objectivists (Ayn Rand's philosophy), or egoists (pursuers of self-interest), are sociopaths?

Large scale deployment of wind power induces climate change.

Yes, *BUT* if you're one of those people with a DirecTiVo, you don't get any of those spiffy things. DirecTV won't allow it.

Here are a few to please corporate marketing, sales and management types (yes, they're work safe):

http://prague.tv/galleries/funny-pics7/freebsd.jpg -- Remember, sometimes less is more.

http://www.nrg4u.com/freebsd/baby-doll-1-small.jpg (yeah yeah, I know, but they could learn a thing or two from them)

http://intdata.homeip.net/img/freeBSD-girl.jpg (mmh, amazing how many critical pieces of infrastructure are held together by duct tape)

Redundant components: http://tinyurl.com/a2uhp

One for the marketing department: http://www.servepath.com/images/better_devil_250x2 80.jpg

One to compensate for corporate randomness: http://images-jp.amazon.com/images/P/483990930X.09 .LZZZZZZZ.jpg (what is it about Japanese graphics that just screams "weird!"?)

And finally of course, http://homepage.tinet.ie/~cullenm/2dart/regi.jpg (just to piss off the zealots)

Ok, of course I'm single-minded, but seriously, folks, stick to working on the (fantastic) OS, let the sysadmins smuggle it into the enterprise like they've been doing for years :)

In searching for something in a similar vein, I just realized you and I have debated a similar subject before. I don't know if you remember, but I reproduced the thread on my discussion forums. It was very interesting. :-)

They are completely different concepts, and frankly, I find yours to be infinitely more silly than my own.

That's because you haven't thought about it carefully enough. They are certainly different concepts, but "the ends justifies the means" as a moral theory is corrupt. What kind of ethics requires you to violate them to achieve a desirable outcome? An inconsistent or incomplete one.

If you support true consequentialism as a basis for ethics (as your "ends justifies the means" suggests), then it is never evil to go to war if the alternative is worse. That you would still believe yourself committing evil when you are choosing the best possible outcome is the height of silliness. Going to war would totally suck, would have horrible consequences, but in that context it is not evil.

"...I've seen the Borealis here on Earth, and they're beautiful. I can't imagine what they must look like in a Martian night."

For those who haven't seen them, I happened to get some nice pictures of the bunch from this past May 14/15. Please don't melt down my server, but enjoy the pictures.

On the other hand, it doesn't seem likely anyone here hasn't already seen them in pictures, but what the heck.

This is in Pickering, Ontario.

(be paitent - it's a slow machine on a dsl connection).

Are you kidding? OS/2? Sendo? Apple?

Here's one google hit.
http://dfarq.homeip.net/article/935

They're remarkably notorious for making deals with other companies, stealing the details they need from them, then abandoning them and doing it on their own.

The implementation for CPM/86 itself (copyright) was not copied, modified or distributed.

That's not as clear as you make it out to be, actually. The "look and feel" were certainly copied, and there are signs that the implementation was little more than a binary port from 8080/8085 to 8086/8088 code. Then there's the easter egg. Why would Tim Patterson put an easter egg into his own code that popped up Kildall's name and a copyright notice? Gary Kildall never sued, but that doesn't mean copyright violation did not occur. If SCP modified CP/M and distributed the result without a license allowing them to do so (which would have included the BSD license, to address the analogy to Linux vs. UNIX) then they were in the wrong.

More importantly, though, no matter how you slice it neither Patterson nor Gates invented much of anything. At best they had a clean but utterly unoriginal and strikingly similar implementation of functionality that already existed. Linus's implementation of a UNIX-like OS was original even if some of the concepts weren't, creating another point of distinction between the two cases, but it remains the case that both the AT&T and UCB groups did far more original work than he did. The whole structure that Linux uses of processes and memory spaces, pipes and signals, how drivers and filesystems etc. interact, and so on owe far more to their ingenuity than to his (and let's not forget Tanenbaum either). That doesn't mean they can lay claim to his original implementation, but let's give credit where credit is due. The whole point of Linux is that it's a collaborative effort, and those predecessors (unlike SCO) were an essential part of that effort. CP/M was not such an effort, was never intended to be, was not licensed as such, and so copies of CP/M at any level take on a very different character.

To use your own charming phrase, this is all so bloody obvious that only a total moron would question it. Instead of just being a prick, go educate yourself.

hello, with a friend we tried to build a 0db pc. it works for a couple of weeks, before a dead guppy indicates an error. look this: http://kluftern.homeip.net/files/0dB/0db.jpg

Yet V is defined as the universal superset composed of everything that has been, is, or will be. But claiming that V includes everything that will ever be violates the underpinning of P1, since V cannot preceed the existence of its components. If V contains things that are not yet but will be, then V is an invalid set.

The set of all states of finite state machine is quite well-defined regardless of the machine's current state; similarly, so is the set of all things that have been, is or will be.

The argument "Therefore, there must exist..." is predicated upon the assumption that there must exist a cause for V. This isn't proven, nor is it listed in the definitions which define the assumptions.

You are suggesting a noncausal phenomenon? Show me one shred of epistemological evidence that suggests the existence of noncausal phenomena and I'll accept your criticism as valid.

Either that, or you are perhaps falling back on the possibility of an infinite regression of causes. Hatcher did specifically address this point, but either I didn't get it down in time, or his argument was fallacious. You'll note that I already addressed this point in my followup post noting the proof's potential flaws. I recall him discussing it, but I also recall either not following his reasoning or not being satisfied with his explanation.

As I've noted elsewhere however, infinite regression of causes interacts negatively with entropy. An adequate resolution, on way or the other, remains to be seen.

In fact, the definitions specifically say:

"D1. B is without cause (uncaused) if, for no A does A->B hold"

It specifically allows for the possibility of B being without cause. If one simply asserts that there is no A for which A -> V, V is therefore uncaused, there is no need to postulate G, and the rest of the proof falls apart.

I believe Hatcher made that definition merely for completeness. Epistemologically, we have no experience with noncausal phenomena and no justification to believe they have any manifestation in reality. Until we do, we must omit them from any metaphysical arguments.

You dismissed this above by deferring to the authority of physicists, but this proof isn't based upon the work of physics. It's self-contained - it depends only upon its own assumptions and definitions. It either stands or falls upon its own weight, not upon the word of physicists.

I did not argue by physics authority. I made an epistemological argument based on observation (about which physicists have simply been more thorough).

The proof is a metaphysical assertion of reality, so it cannot stand on its own two feet; it must also agree with our epistemological knowledge of the world.

There are other problems as well. Let us say that g is the set of all things which are self caused. g contains one element - G. Thus we have, by definition, G el g. Since V is the superset of all things, it follows that g el V.

Since G->V, then P2 says that G->g.

On the other hand, given G el g, P1 says that G-/->g.

So it is the case that both G->g and G-/->g, which violates P3.

This is a misapplication of P1. g is logically equivalent to G, ie. g<=>G, so P1 doesn't apply since it reduces to G->G which is already established.

Yet V is defined as the universal superset composed of everything that has been, is, or will be. But claiming that V includes everything that will ever be violates the underpinning of P1, since V cannot preceed the existence of its components. If V contains things that are not yet but will be, then V is an invalid set.

The set of all states of finite state machine is quite well-defined regardless of the machine's current state; similarly, so is the set of all things that have been, is or will be.

The argument "Therefore, there must exist..." is predicated upon the assumption that there must exist a cause for V. This isn't proven, nor is it listed in the definitions which define the assumptions.

You are suggesting a noncausal phenomenon? Show me one shred of epistemological evidence that suggests the existence of noncausal phenomena and I'll accept your criticism as valid.

Either that, or you are perhaps falling back on the possibility of an infinite regression of causes. Hatcher did specifically address this point, but either I didn't get it down in time, or his argument was fallacious. You'll note that I already addressed this point in my followup post noting the proof's potential flaws. I recall him discussing it, but I also recall either not following his reasoning or not being satisfied with his explanation.

As I've noted elsewhere however, infinite regression of causes interacts negatively with entropy. An adequate resolution, on way or the other, remains to be seen.

In fact, the definitions specifically say:

"D1. B is without cause (uncaused) if, for no A does A->B hold"

It specifically allows for the possibility of B being without cause. If one simply asserts that there is no A for which A -> V, V is therefore uncaused, there is no need to postulate G, and the rest of the proof falls apart.

I believe Hatcher made that definition merely for completeness. Epistemologically, we have no experience with noncausal phenomena and no justification to believe they have any manifestation in reality. Until we do, we must omit them from any metaphysical arguments.

You dismissed this above by deferring to the authority of physicists, but this proof isn't based upon the work of physics. It's self-contained - it depends only upon its own assumptions and definitions. It either stands or falls upon its own weight, not upon the word of physicists.

I did not argue by physics authority. I made an epistemological argument based on observation (about which physicists have simply been more thorough).

The proof is a metaphysical assertion of reality, so it cannot stand on its own two feet; it must also agree with our epistemological knowledge of the world.

There are other problems as well. Let us say that g is the set of all things which are self caused. g contains one element - G. Thus we have, by definition, G el g. Since V is the superset of all things, it follows that g el V.

Since G->V, then P2 says that G->g.

On the other hand, given G el g, P1 says that G-/->g.

So it is the case that both G->g and G-/->g, which violates P3.

This is a misapplication of P1. g is logically equivalent to G, ie. g<=>G, so P1 doesn't apply since it reduces to G->G which is already established.

The deeper theorists dig the universe appears to get more random, not less. Virtual particles appear from seemingly nothing and then disappear again without a trace. At the lowest meaningful levels it is postulated that time and space have none of the linearity that we percieve at higher levels. Will we eventually find our universe to be the clockwork world idealized by Newton? Maybe. But let's be realistic, we're nowhere near that today.

Ok, I have a few qualms with this:
1. You are talking about a model of reality as if it were real.
2. There is nothing in modern physics that says nor implies that any event, including virtual particle creation and annihilation, is noncausal. Unpredictable yes, noncausal no.

I don't believe entaglement is what he was referring to when he said that "God does not play dice with the universe".

Here's a good link explaining Einstein's philosophical difference of opinion on the interpretation quantum physics. It essentially boils down to causal determinism, and predictive determinism. While all events are causal, we cannot necessarily gather enough information to be able to predict outcomes even given a correct model of reality. I'm sure there are physicists who would adaondon all sense determinism, but it's my distinct impression they are few and far between (and not well regarded at all).

By the explanation given in the link I included, the creative force is not described as causing the big bang, they sound to be one and the same.

Not necessarily. G can give rise to E1 which can then cause E2 which can then cause the big bang. There can be any number of steps between G and the big bang. There is no reason why G cannot be the cause of V by transitive closure. As long as the intervening causal events are one-shots, ie. they merely cause the next stage of the process, I don't see why the proof would discount them.

Again, from the one who posted the proof

That being me... ;-)

The poster confirms what you say that later in his book Hatcher goes more indepth about the nature of god, but he doesn't say what the nature is.

It's mentioned further here (thought not in much more detail than I outlined here).

It is said he has no other attributes at all which based on that proof, somewhat rules out an "all good" or "all knowing" creative force.

To be fair, it's not at all clear to me what "non-composite" means exactly. What exactly does it mean to be a member of a set in the proof's model? I'm not sure that an "attribute" is a member of a set for instance.

This may leave open the possibility for much interpretation unfortunately.

I know you're tracking my posts via my message list. I suggest you read this before you continue posting personal information.

That is not correct. Previous to quantum mechanics this was true and is exactly why Einstein was so reluctant to accept it. However, these days no legitimate physicist doubts quantum mechanics or the fact that many quantum effects are perfectly random, i.e. they have no cause.

Sorry, this is incorrect. Just because the outcome of an event cannot be predicted, does not mean it did not have a cause. The meaning of "randomness" is unpredictability, not noncausality. I challenge you to cite me a single noncausal event studied in physics (or any science for that matter, but physics is the most likely place you would find one if it exists). I myself made the mistake of believing randomness and causality were mutually exclusive when, in fact, they are not.

Einstein had trouble accepting quantum physics because of its apparent non-local effects (faster than light signalling between particles) which contradicted his theories of relativity.

No explanation is given how this very limited definition of god is anything more then the big bang.

Indeed, the 'creative force' would be the cause of the big bang itself.

Even if this is a valid logical proof, it doesn't appear to accomplish much of anything.

If you're looking for a valid logical proof of a creator (given you accept the assumptions), then you have one. Many people would consider that a significant step forward.

Hatcher (the originator of the proof), apparently goes on in his book to demonstrate that the god he proved was also "all good", "all knowing", etc. but I haven't read it, so don't take my word for it.

Ask any physicist whether there are non-causal events; you will receive a resounding 'no'. Ask them to prove it, and you'll get funny looks.

That is not correct. Previous to quantum mechanics this was true and is exactly why Einstein was so reluctant to accept it. However, these days no legitimate physicist doubts quantum mechanics or the fact that many quantum effects are perfectly random, i.e. they have no cause.

Ok now, getting past that, if you read the notes the original poster himself clarified that what was proved was not a god as is described by Christianity or most any other faith, it is merely a "creative" force that did nothing other then create itself and the universe and does nothing else. No explanation is given how this very limited definition of god is anything more then the big bang.

Even if this is a valid logical proof, it doesn't appear to accomplish much of anything.

>It doesn't matter whether or not the Creator is part of the Universe or not. If you can postulate that the Creator exists without cause, then you can postulate that the universe exists without cause.

This is not necessarily true

> If the complexity of the universe requires a Creator, then the complexity of the Creator requires a MetaCreator as well.

Also not true. Does a fundamental force require a more fundamental force to explain it's existence? Accepting the existence of a creative force, does not imply that that force is somehow further reducible, or even necessarily complex at all. You r preconceptions of what constitutes a "creator" are causing the contradictions you see.

In the above proof by Hatcher, the "Creator", whatever it may be, is part of the universe (not oustide it), but creates the universe.

The Franklin eBookman is a pda-style device designed for reading books. Internal storage is between 8-16 megs but additional storage can be handled through mmc cards. Even the os can be backed up on a mmc card. http://pdaref.homeip.net/ for advice and programs.

See: AWSTATS page. (Yes, it will be dog slow if everyone hits it at the same time...)

A modchip is not acting as a replacement part. It does not 'unlock' or permit operation of the console. The purpose of a modchip is to bypass the signing mechanism used to prevent you from playing pirated games.

Okay, time for a list of modchip uses:

- Playing unofficial/unlicensed software (ex: Game Enhancer, which was almost definately first developed with the help of a modchip, since absolutely ZERO Sony code or patents were used to complete the software)
- Using unofficial devices (ex: New max memory devices made by Datel)
- Cheating devices (ex: Game genie by Galoob)
- Playing backups
- Bypassing region protection

These are all locks placed on the device by the manufacturer in an attempt to stop the usage of third party items, such as:

1 - Third party discs not authorized by the console manufacturer
2 - Third party software not authorized by the console manufacturer
3 - Third party hardware not authorized by the console manufacturer
4 - Authorized software from the manufacturer that was not intended to be used in your country

As far as I know, in all three situations, doing those things is legal. It is legal for me to put Maxell media in an HP burner (item 1), it's legal for me to install Windows XP to a Mac (item 2), it's legal for me to use a non sony DV tape in my Sony DV camcorder (item 3), and it's legal for me to watch a PAL videotape in the USA (item 4).

Now, for some reason, the person who built the device decided for me they didn't like items 1 - 4. So they built the device not to allow this. Now this law says such locks are illegal. And since the actions were legal to start with, where's your beef?

That someone might do items 1 - 4 with an illegal intent? Yeah, they could. In fact, you could install a pirated Windows XP on a Mac using an emulator. Does that make the emulator illegal? You could copy a copyrighted gameboy game into a blank flash memory cartridge and play it on your gameboy. Does that make computer memory illegal?

This is no different than banning box cutters on airlines because you think a terrorist is going to slash your throat with one. You're using an (extremely poor) band-aid to cover up what is a societal problem that already has PLENTY of legal recourse against the act, and you are inconveniencing and embarassing people as you do it. It's nasty and wrong, and, quite honestly, it makes me, as an outsider, afraid to enter your country. It's no different than trying to ban chewing gum just because someone might stick it under a desk.

I disagree

About what? We seem to be saying the same thing. :-)

Bulk payload (which will comprise most of the mass) can (and likely will) be taken to Mars ahead of time via ion drives, which make even NERVA look inefficient.

Agreed. But that's not the point of Nuclear Engines. Nuclear Engines are for the craft that have to carry humans who don't have months or years to get to their destination.

Let's use a moonshot as an example. I did this cost estimate a little while ago to try to find how cost effective it would be to use the shuttle as a lunar vehicle. The problem was less the issue of getting the vehicle bulk into the air, and more of an issue of flying the refueling tanks. The shuttle had so much mass, that it needed a LOT more fuel. However, these figures are also useful for testing better engines. The current figures assume state of the art LHOx engines (similar to those used on the Saturn V). By changing the exhaust velocity to be consistent with nuclear engines, you will find that the number of Delta II flights drop drastically as the fuel requirements drop.

In other words, nuclear engines make human space transport cheaper by requiring less mass to be boosted into orbit. :-)

You gain a lot more by reducing surface to LEO costs, because all of your ion-propelled cargo benefits, plus your habicraft gets a lot more bang for its buck than it would by working on improving that 4.7 km/s.

Which is exactly what I'm saying. Only NASA is trying to reduce the cost of flying via the economies of staging and scale. (Weren't you the one arguing that more small boosters is cheaper than super-boosters?)

Furthermore, scramjets are not a very expensive new technology. It's hard to find an official estimate, but I ran into a French page which stated that the entire X-43 project was expected to run 230 million dollars.

The engine is not the issue. As you say, it's pretty darn simple. The issue is the Mach 15 airframe (no such thing yet exists!), the Jet Takeoff System, and the Orbital Approach Boosters. Not to mention the issue of packing these systems into a working and well tested craft. This is very expensive! Certainly far more expensive than the 230 million you quoted.


Even if scramjets aren't the be-all, end-all of surface to LEO tech, there are a lot of things that have the potential to make major improvements. First off, just building out of better alloys alone would be an incredibly nice shift if you're going for a reusable craft. :) There are lower maintenance engine designs, simplified types of TPS, simplified actuators (self-contained hydraulic and pure electric), and dozens of other things to come out in the past couple decades - and a number of things are on the horizon as well.

Agreed. But don't you think that these technologies will get far more funding once there is a market? ;-)

Yes, it was in Cringely's book, but the quote from Kildall was, "Ask Bill why function code 6 ends in a dollar sign. No one in the world knows that but me."

See this link http://dfarq.homeip.net/article/1197

I run gentoo SELinux on my server. SELinux is a difficult to use system, and I suspect is even less powerful than a full capability system like EROS/Coyotos/KeyKOS. The only advantage of SELinux is it's current hardware support.

DOS was bought for [Microsoft] by IBM

See:

Mac SE Server
Webserver Mac SE
Another Mac SE Server

( The SE is a 68000 Motorola running at 8mhz on 4MB of ram. So if you can *avoid* clicking the last link directly *today* I'm sure the owner would appricate it. )

As for short life cycles - oh please. I've was using a G4 single CPU then a G4 dual CPU for 3 yrs before the G5 came out. The G4 was a VERY long life cycle for a CPU.

As for getting parts, in my 20+ yrs with Apple hardware I have NEVER replaced anything other than hard drives which have ALWAYS been stock (and NOT made by Apple). OMG this is a pointless argument. Where do you misinformed twats come from anyway? It's a never ending story with you WinTel people is it?

I wrote this script after hearing the rumours.. can also be a good thing if you just want a backup of your livejournal.

LJExport v0.1

Any comments are welcome.. released under the BSD license.

I wrote this script after hearing the rumours.. can also be a good thing if you just want a backup of your livejournal.

LJExport v0.1

Any comments are welcome.. released under the BSD license.

That Bungie.net's Halo 2 Stats are really cool. They don't always show every game you played, although most of the time things show up as they should. If only their website didn't suck, and I'd also like to be able to access those same stats from the game itself, which you can't do. The fact that there's an RSS feed for them is an even better added bonus, in that for those of us that can't actually hit Bungie.net from work (like me) you can have a stats page that'll go fetch the RSS for you so that you can rub the results in a co-worker's face the next day. Excellent.

I wish other game companies would do this as well, like UBISoft with their Tom Clancy line of games. It's also nice to be able to check your friend's stats to see how often they play, which weapons they use, and how they're fairing online, so that the next time you play them, you'll know that they have a tendency to run a certain route, or go straight for the shotgun, for example. An invaluable tool.

Darn! Should have used the preview. :)


Official Homepage:

http://www.mplayerhq.hu/



Unofficial Win32 binaries + installers and/or GUI's:

http://armory.nicewarrior.org/projects/cygmp/

http://csant.info/mplayer.htm

http://deje.uw.hu/

http://mplayer.sunset-utopia.homeip.net/

http://mplayerc.uw.hu/

http://oss.netfarm.it/mplayer-win32.php

(I'll let someone else refute the rest of your nonsense...)

The SCI.SKEPTIC faq/Creationism
The Skeptical Creationism Website

And much more at: Google, You Fool!

The interface might not be the best for kids, but i LOVE FRINK! http://futureboy.homeip.net/frinkdocs/

Regardless of your political affiliations (this was taken at Bank One Ball Park at the Republican Rally)
The Bush Family walking onto the field.

This is an excellent shot for a "cheap" camera and a pair of binoculars. I was sitting in the nose bleeds behind home plate a couple hundred feet from the president.

Before the Pres showed up I was playing around and managed to get a full frame picture of the cop at the opposite end of the ballpark.

I also got the camera to work with a telescope and found it can get crisp images of the moon. It's not sensitive enough to take low light shots so night objects need to be well lit.

My objection to this "review" it the big giant ad for very expensive point and shoot cameras which is unnecessary. I don't know who the audience is for that review or even if the author knows. Digital SLRs can be had for $500 or less. Quality point and shoots can be had for under $200. The A330 is about $180.

The review would have been less junk if the author had bothered to compare pictures taken with various cameras. I know why my old point and shoot sucked (Vivitar something or other). I have plenty of images to showcase where it went wrong. But also a lot to show where it worked.

Ben

I'm not the parent poster, but many of the ideas are expressed and discussed elsewhere. See especially this sub-thread on intellectual property. Also see some quotes from historical and influential figures on IP

I'm not the parent poster, but many of the ideas are expressed and discussed elsewhere. See especially this sub-thread on intellectual property. Also see some quotes from historical and influential figures on IP