Slashdot Mirror

Having a colony on Mars would not save the human race were the sun to be destroyed, for example. While scientists can /predict/ its heat death several billions of years into the future, that is a prediction and who knows how long it will /really/ burn. Additionally, large enough collisions could destroy the sun, and if a large enough scattering of asteroids passed through the solar system, both Mars and Earth could be wiped out.

If this kind of thinking interests you, you might be interested in some fiction over at kuro5hin.org:
Passages in the Void
The Passage Home
Mortal Passage

...went to Kuro5hin, dunno if he's still there. Glad to see it's still alive, though.

As I have already written in my article, the White House has no intention to pay for a fourth servicing mission, and I doubt it will pay for a new telescope. They seem to prefer to spend $80 billion for Iraq. Very simply, science isn't in the roadmap of Washington anymore. However, if anybody is willing to advocate a servicing mission, I can help.

Actually, only the lyrics are protected.

You can freely use the music (Good Morning to All) with no lyrics (or your own).

Check Exposing the Happy Birthday story.

Happy adding to your app ;)
Enrique

The only thing protected is the lyrics. The tune is the same as "Good Morning to All" which was written in the 1800's i.e. public domain. There should be no problem including the tune in your app, except to be extra safe you should make the first note split ("Hap-py") into a single note ("Good"). See this discussion.

was when he was called out for lying by another editor.

Seriously...how could they keep someone that asinine unethical around this long?

It did warm my heart after Katz vanished after the whole "Junis in Afghanistan" thing though - that was fricking brilliant. It's sad that he had to screw up that badly to get canned though.

The haves suddenly find themselves less motivated to care what anyone thinks (ask any Microsoftie about the "FYIFV" buttons that early employees wore when their options suddenly made them millionaires), so they work when they feel like it, on what they feel like.

The issue of some people getting rewards that others see as out of proportion is a toughie. The problem I've seen with it is that management usually sees management and marketing as the tough jobs, so that's where the rewards go.

So they could laugh at me for propagating an urban legend"?

Well, since I'm here on Slashdot again, setting my homepage to "Get back to work" really hasn't worked as advertised.

Howto: write bad documentation

I think you're hoping for an ideal that's a little "anti-American" (anti-capitalist, really) for the western world. Companies always want to protect their ip for as long as possible, so they can continue to sell games.

See Definition 1

Only if there is honest and real competition in the diamond market (even with the synthetics) will you see $5/carat diamonds As it stands now, many of the synthetics seem to cost as much as the real.

As the patents on diamond manufacture start to run out in the 2020s, trust me that the bottom will fall out of the diamond market. Or do you claim that De Beers will hire Cher as the spokeswoman for a proposed patent term extension act?

Mind if I give you some pointers? I've done something like that before.

is here:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/8/28/21547/2069

he describes some qualities of human hands and letter frequency, suggests some qualities an ideal keyboard should have, and looks at the two top religions.. err.. layouts.

Copyright is a law of property. Creators of works --writings, paintings, whatever --have natural property rights over their creations. Copyright law is the legal recognition and protection of those rights by the government.

Bullshit. Copyright law is the legal creation of monopoly rights for ideas. It is entirely an artificial construct. Under copyright law, ideas indeed are property -- but that doesn't make them natural property. And how could they be? With real property, only one person can possess it at any given time. The idea that I can say "this is mine" stems from the fact that if I'm holding it, you physically can't be. Ideas aren't like that -- it's not possible for me to give you an idea without keeping it for myself at the same time, and I don't lose anything by doing so. How can something be called "property" if you can give it away without losing it?! Here's further justification of that, in the form of a quote:

If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.

"He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me." Wow, what a great line! Wanna guess who said that? It was Thomas Jefferson! And who better to define copyright than the guy who wrote the Constitution in the first place?

Speaking of Jefferson, he didn't want legal monopolies (i.e., "intellectual property") in the Constitution at all:

The saying there shall be no monopolies lessens the incitements to ingenuity, which is spurred on by the hope of a monopoly for a limited time, as of 14 years; but the benefit even of limited monopolies is too doubtful to be opposed to that of their general suppression.

James Madison had to persuade him to put them in:

With regard to monopolies they are justly classed among the greatest nuisances in government. But is it clear that as encouragements to literary works and ingenious discoveries, they are not too valuable to be wholly renounced? Would it not suffice to reserve in all cases a right to the public to abolish the privilege at a price to be specified in the gra

You're being very squirrely here.

If you say, "Do you believe in intellectual property?", you'll get set of answers.

If you say, "Do you believe in copyright," you'll get another set of answers.

They aren't the same thing, although some people try to take the generlaly broad support that copyright has and smear it over a whole bunch of other things, using the rubric "intellectual property". For one thing, the very term itself tries to define the terms of the debate -- a sure sign of intellectual dishonesty. I can believe that creators should be able to receive an alienable (that is to say sellable) monopoly over the economic proceeds from their work without believing that this is a form of property in the same sense a deed to a piece of land is. I refer you to my K5 article on Lord Macaulay's classic speech before Parliament on copyright extension if you need this distinction explained.

Finally, the question should be "Should a corporation be able to use accounting gimmicks to cheat another party out of the proceeds guaranteed under a contract?" I don't think you'll get many people for that.

Nice job of not picking up on the technology.

<shameless plug>I wrote an article about how this stuff works about four months ago.</shameless plug>

"Baldrson" is a well-known racist nutjob from Kuro5hin, which is sort of refuge for all sorts of nutjobs these days.

He is talking about this comment.

There is additional background information and historical perspective available at the following sites:

Sllort's journal
Kuro5hin article

When will the arithmetic coding patent be expired?

Depends on whether the software patent lobby and the pharmaceutical lobby can get Cher as a spokesperson the way the copyright industry got the late Sonny Bono.

Depends on whether or not the pharmaceutical companies can get Cher to be their spokeswoman for a proposed Patent Term "Harmonization" Act.

I feel I should chime in here, as the person who originally removed the geocities links from the article.

I removed the link because; number one - wikipedia does not publish original research, two -Jim Baldrson has been a known trollish crazy on Kuro5hin for years and a troll on Usenet for over a DECADE landing himself on a kook-of-the-month list way back in 1994, three -The ideas expressed on his geocities site (which is down now but I'll link anyway, maybe it'll be back up) are just plain insane. Here's a real gem: "Immigration Causes Autism" a lovely little racist tract (also, racist extremists endorse his views), fourth -he started editing wikipedia articles in suspicious anti-semitic and racist ways (see here, though these are merely revivals of his MANY earlier anti-Jewish ramblings) though his changes were reverted by other users fairly quickly, fifth -he seems to go "underground" when he's noticed by others as a problem and then starts posting changes to articles using only his IP. So in conclusion I think its quite clear that neither he nor his ideas or motives are trustworthy. He is closely watched on wikipedia right now and I doubt he will get away with too much shenanigans.

One hilarious bit of irony I can't help but relish is that he came here to cry a river about how he was being "censored" on wikipedia and then had four +5 comments posted below him agreeing with his opposition after recognizing him for the kook he is. Wow, congrats Jim!

...your kind is recieved very poorly here.

...your kind is recieved very poorly here.

...your kind is recieved very poorly here.

You scoop losers always fail it.

This is simply not true, and has not been for years (k5 link). It has been known in the independent music community for quite a while that signing with a major label is career suicide 90% of the time. Volumes have been written on the subject (google around a little bit), it just seems that the prospect of success in the music industry is alluring enough that most artists are willing to take that chance. Most of those that do end up owing a major for the remainder of their life. Why, might you ask, would someone take such a chance? Jello Biafra answered this question:

"I ain't no artist, I'm a business man
No ideas of my own.

Conviently enough, TrackBack is probably the main reason a lot of people hate what weblogs are doing to google. As has been said by others google was not designed to deal with a billion people linking around to each other. It's as bad as intentional google spamming and all other forms of spam.

News flash: software is nothing like building construction.

I recently came across this article at Kuro5hin about a guy (the author) that took to learning to read, write, and speak French fluently in one year. The author has a background in computer programming, and so his perspectives are probably easy to understand for a lot of Slashdot readers. While there's a good deal of the article that focuses on French in particular, a lot of his techniques can be applied to any language. I'd like to use them to learn Spanish, myself. I recommend this read if you're interested in learning a foreign language. There's a lot of great tips and motivation in there.

See his kuro5hin post.

Wikipedia article on Larry Sanger (permanent link) states that: "Lawrence Mark Sanger (born July 16, 1968 in Bellevue, Washington and raised in Anchorage, Alaska) is best known as the cofounder of Wikipedia, along with Jimmy Wales."

Larry Sanger also says: "I co-founded Wikipedia".

This is in response to your statement that: "First, about the title of this thread - calling Larry Sanger a co-founder of Wikipedia is a bit of a stretch."

You Sad Bastard.

Yeah, try Kuro5hin! It's this cool site filled with smart people discussing stuff. And no trolls, either! One day hanging out there and you'll throw in the /. towel for good! Sshhhh... keep it a secret, ok bud?

...it has a good side and a bad side. There's someone on Kuro5hin who's documented the dark side of Movable Type and, subsequently, Xanga weblogs. It turns out that in addition to "empowering" people's abilities to communicate, weblogs can also be used to stifle them, especially in the insidious case of Xanga. We always need to keep in mind how new technological advances have negative side-effects in addition to positive ones.

...it has a good side and a bad side. There's someone on Kuro5hin who's documented the dark side of Movable Type and, subsequently, Xanga weblogs. It turns out that in addition to "empowering" people's abilities to communicate, weblogs can also be used to stifle them, especially in the insidious case of Xanga. We always need to keep in mind how new technological advances have negative side-effects in addition to positive ones.

If, Sir, I wished to find a strong and perfect illustration of the effects which I anticipate from long copyright, I should select,--my honourable and learned friend will be surprised,--I should select the case of Milton's granddaughter. As often as this bill has been under discussion, the fate of Milton's granddaughter has been brought forward by the advocates of monopoly. My honourable and learned friend has repeatedly told the story with great eloquence and effect. He has dilated on the sufferings, on the abject poverty, of this ill-fated woman, the last of an illustrious race. He tells us that, in the extremity of her distress, Garrick gave her a benefit, that Johnson wrote a prologue, and that the public contributed some hundreds of pounds. Was it fit, he asks, that she should receive, in this eleemosynary form, a small portion of what was in truth a debt? Why, he asks, instead of obtaining a pittance from charity, did she not live in comfort and luxury on the proceeds of the sale of her ancestor's works? But, Sir, will my honourable and learned friend tell me that this event, which he has so often and so pathetically described, was caused by the shortness of the term of copyright? Why, at that time, the duration of copyright was longer than even he, at present, proposes to make it. The monopoly lasted, not sixty years, but for ever. At the time at which Milton's granddaughter asked charity, Milton's works were the exclusive property of a bookseller. Within a few months of the day on which the benefit was given at Garrick's theatre, the holder of the copyright of Paradise Lost,--I think it was Tonson,--applied to the Court of Chancery for an injunction against a bookseller who had published a cheap edition of the great epic poem, and obtained the injunction. The representation of Comus was, if I remember rightly, in 1750; the injunction in 1752. Here, then, is a perfect illustration of the effect of long copyright. Milton's works are the property of a single publisher. Everybody who wants them must buy them at Tonson's shop, and at Tonson's price. Whoever attempts to undersell Tonson is harassed with legal proceedings. Thousands who would gladly possess a copy of Paradise Lost, must forego that great enjoyment. And what, in the meantime, is the situation of the only person for whom we can suppose that the author, protected at such a cost to the public, was at all interested? She is reduced to utter destitution. Milton's works are under a monopoly. Milton's granddaughter is starving. The reader is pillaged; but the writer's family is not enriched. Society is taxed doubly. It has to give an exorbitant price for the poems; and it has at the same time to give alms to the only surviving descendant of the poet.

I spent an entire summer on a polyphasic sleep cycle and I suffered no adverse effects. I managed to whittle myself down to an hour of sleep a day (5.75 hours awake, 15 minutes asleep) and I did not end up going insane. The most important thing is to keep yourself busy. I spent my time in a well-lit room reading almost constantly. Your mileage may vary.

You are all pretentious twats

Every last one of you. You're all latte-sipping, iMac-using, suburban-living tertiary-industry-working WASPs who offer absolutely no new insights on anything whatsoever apart from maybe one specialist field if we're lucky.

Quite an enjoyable rant.

xox,
Dead Nancy

I didn't use the XMLHTTP object to do this, but I implemented something similar a while ago. I think I originally tried to use XMLHTTP (or possibly something similar), but ran into Mozilla security issues that were blocking it from being used without requiring the user to have a heap of trust-related things set up in a friendly way. (On the other hand, I didn't go to great lengths to figure out if I was using it properly.)

The trick I used, which I borrowed from kuro5hin and it's dynamic comment fetching, was to use a hidden iframe element in the page.

Essentially you just put an iframe on the page with style=display:none (or perhaps just create one), set the location property, let it fetch the page. Then you can grab the DOM or text from it and do what you like with it. It's hacky and so obviously you have to be careful not to break things, but it's an alternative approach in some cases you might run into where XMLHTTP isn't properly supported.

Even better - maybe if people make 'good' comments, they should get more points to give to (or take from) other comments as they see fit. Nah, it would never work.

Actually what would happen is that the owners/editors of the site would decide that their opinion is more worthy that anyone and everyone else's. They might (pulls an idea out of the air) give themselves the power to award a very large number of rating points or something - they could then practically outvote the world. They might even come up with an automated way to distribute said points.

But now we're getting into fantasy - that would never ever work, even downhill with a following wind.

This article explains that while you can learn anything with pen and paper just fine, computers, used sensibly, can be another tool to add to your teaching repertoire.

careful what you say. big brother really is watching.

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/12/20/211923/84

D'you think it's because North Carolina was John Edwards' home state, mebbe

Except, of course, that the errors were in Bush's favor. That means it's a vicious Democratic conspiracy, natch.

Look man, I'm a Democrat because the GOP has become so jaw-droppingly criminal and almost cult-like. And don't give me any of that "they're all corrupt" BS, because when it comes to corruption, no one can hold a candle to the modern Republican party. Don't believe me? Do your own research. I did, and was as surprised as anyone at the outcome.

Yes, there are crooks on both sides of the aisle. No, it is not a 50/50 split.

When it comes to vote fraud, though, if the Democrats had any balls they'd be stringing up certain Republicans up by their scrawny fascist necks. Justice freakin' demands it.

Sorry I just don't agree that the XHTML standard is bad. I take it that you don't consider the ESPN and Red Hat (there are many more) sites either "real-world" enough or they are "doing it wrong"?

I'm not saying that XHTML is bad. I'm saying that doing XHTML properly can be a nightmare. And no, ESPN and Red Hat and many more don't do it right; go back to Evan Goer's X-Philes list and read the criteria. Or read my by-no-means comprehensive guide to some of the things you have to do just to switch from HTML 4.01 to XHTML 1.0, and remember that these languages are element-for-element identical.

Consider the HTML 4 spec, which is syntactically difficult to decipher. After writing XHTML pages for several years now (thanks, I'm not a newbie to the web standards world) it's impossible to go back to HTML 4 and have it actually make any sense. For every open tag, you need a closing tag, except if it's horizontal line or a line break or an input or a meta tag or an image or...

And in XHTML you still don't have closing tags, you just have a closing slash on the opening tag; how is that any less confusing? And by the way, that closing slash is fine if you're doing XHTML and serving it with an XML or XHTML MIME-type, but if you serve it as text/html you're gonna give conformant SGML parsers fits (Google "SGML SHORTTAG" sometime). And there's nothing in HTML 4.01 that says you can't close your paragraphs and list items and lots of other elements... I close them because it's good coding practice no matter what version of HTML I'm using. You can do that too if you like.

It's just ugly and difficult to parse. By using XHTML, any XML parser can read a document. It's simple, if there's an open tag, close it. If there's a stand-alone tag, it better have a self-closing end. That is just one small piece of what I like about XHTML.

You've obviously never met the Yellow Screen of Death. And if you seriously believe that parsing XML is as easy as "open the tag, close the tag", I recommend you hang out on XML-related mailing lists for a while. Or just read Sam Ruby's weblog.

Insisting that if a webpage meets the XHTML Strict spec, it doesn't work in IE is just pure ignorance. Yes, typically developers have to put a little extra work into their CSS to get their pages looking as good in IE as they do in Mozilla/Firefox/Netscape/Opera/Safari/etc...

No, it's not ignorance. Go read the article by Ian Hickson I linked in my last comment; if you won't take my word, maybe you'll listen to somebody who's worked on both Mozilla and Opera and who leads the WHAT-WG. This is not about CSS bugs or quirks or rendering differences. This is about the simple fact that XHTML, according to the W3C, should be served with the MIME-type application/xhtml+xml. No version of Internet Explorer ever released on any platform anywhere is capable of dealing with that MIME-type. If you give it a page marked as application/xhtml+xml, IE will prompt you to download the page or specify another application to handle it; it literally does not know what to do with such a document.

Now, with XHTML 1.0 you are allowed to continue serving as text/html so long as you meet the HTML Compatibility Guidelines outlined in Appendix C of the XHTML 1.0 spec. Best practice here is to use some form of content negotiation to send application/xhtml+xml to user-agents which support it. However, XHTML 1.1 makes no provision of any sort for this; XHTML 1.1 is to be served as application/xhtml+xml, which means that there is no such thing as a conformant XHTML 1.1 document which will display in Intern

Using the Coral Web cache for RSS is simple and requires NO modifications to web sites and RSS clients. The server load and bandwidth usage can be reduced in no time. See Making RSS scale with Coral.

I'll refer you to Kuro5hin. I can't see the problem either, but people are strange.

One: Yes, this is fucking ridiculous. I assumed right off the bat that every post in this article would be "no shit, Sherlock" -- hell, even michael knew it. (from the breaking-news dept.) This is why I'm wasting time dicking around replying to your post instead of to the story.

Two: I believe kuro5hin lets you mod stories. (Sorry, don't know if it's inappropriate to mention kuro5hin on Slashdot...? Posting AC just in case. ;-))

Finally: Did you just say "heck"?

One: Yes, this is fucking ridiculous. I assumed right off the bat that every post in this article would be "no shit, Sherlock" -- hell, even michael knew it. (from the breaking-news dept.) This is why I'm wasting time dicking around replying to your post instead of to the story.

Two: I believe kuro5hin lets you mod stories. (Sorry, don't know if it's inappropriate to mention kuro5hin on Slashdot...? Posting AC just in case. ;-))

Finally: Did you just say "heck"?