Slashdot Mirror

Video games ARE too expensive. IIRC I paid $30 for the original Duke Nukem registration and they threw in another shareware title to boot.

And "inflation" is a terrible metric for comparing prices. In 1990 a new computer was around $3,000-4,000, had a 20 meg hard drive (if that), 360k of ram. I paid 1/10th that for my Acer Aspire with its dual core CPU, 1 gig memory and 180 gigs drive space. In 1976 I paid $600 for a 25 inch TV set. Some prices have risen, some have gone down.

A far better metric is your country's minimum wage (the US has one of the lowest in the developed world). In 1990 (according to this graph) the US minimum wage was $2 less than it is today. That's a 29% increase. By that metric, the 1990 $30 game comes to about $36. They're charging $70 now. I'd say it's highway robbery, and is one reason I stopped playing video games.

Ah crap. Me and my lazy googling. Try this one:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/PM5644-1920x1080.gif

However, I still think CCTV is beneficial to society as a whole. I'd rather get arrested for climbing a wall, than have a mugger or rapist go free because there is no evidence.

Would you rather have a reformer politician blackmailed into silence because the entrenched powers acquired a clip of him entering a motel with a hooker? Even if he she just happened to be walking in the lobby door at the same time as him?

Then there's that funny thing - CCTV footage getting "lost" when it would have contained official misconduct.

The pantopticon is a tool of the powerful for the powerful sold to the citizens by convincing them that they are weak.

Errr... you mean Server Name Indication? Unless you are using IE6, it works.

Has been done already.

Actually, we did send a radio signal--but it was to Gliese 581 c.

Actually, that brings up a question--when they transmit these messages, do they lead the target, aiming for where it should be in 40 years, or just blanket the system?

Measuring browser market share is kind of a tricky task since any one site can only tell you who visits *their* site, or the sites whose stats they aggregate.
Check out the stats here:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers#Summary_table and you'll see that depending on whom you ask, IE has anywhere between 48 and 63% of the market share. Stats from sites that cater to developers (notably w3schools are skewed heavily* towards Firefox and Chrome, mainstream sites towards IE. Then there's the factors that lead to over-estimation, under-estimation... it's a sticky wicket for sure.

I say look at the aggregate results. Then I mention I have no idea how those aggregates are tabulated and weighted (Do W3Schools' stats have the same weight as WeTrack10mSites.com?). The only thing you can know for sure (more or less), is the traffic statistics on *your* site, which, to the developer, should be pretty much the only ones that matter. Pro tip: explain that last sentence to your clients.

*I don't really know if something can be "skewed heavily," but what the heck, you only live once, right?

There's more to 3D than parallax, which is how stereoscopic "3D" works. There are, as you say, various forms of perspective (which the wikipedia articles on perspective completely misses*, such as color perspective and "hazy distance" (I've forgotten the name of this type of perspective, sorry) perspective.

Then there is focus, which filmmakers have been using effectively for about as long as there has been filmmaking.

When your eye is trying to focus on an object that parallax tells the brain is four meters in front of the screen and the eye's focus must be on the screen because that's really how far away the image is, you get headaches from your focus muscles fighting your stereoscopic parallax muscles.

Wake me up when they have holography. That's the only true 3D outside the real world.

* The wiki article displays this image (Hogarth's "satire on false perspective"). Note how the foreground is darker than the background; that is a form of perspective. Note the variation of the thicknesses of the lines, another form of perspective. Note how linear perspective isn't used at all in the picture; look at the buildings on the right and the church in the background. Hogarth did this deliberately; note the caption "whoever makes a design without knowledge of perspective will be liable to such absurdities as shown in this frontspiece".

cruising around in great big ships with canons on them

I didn't know they took canons.

Well... now you do. Sometimes the Pope goes along for the ride too.

cruising around in great big ships with canons on them

I didn't know they took canons.

You mean dithering? Um, I don't think so. Check out the bottom-middle square in this. Every pixel on my screen is exactly the same color, and yes I looked closer.

Um.

there are also references to "Myrtus" within a path left in the code.

Considering the virus targets the PLCs in SCADA systems where RTUs are standard system components, I'm willing to bet that "myrtus" is short for something like "My RTU Source" rather than an obscure reference to guavas.

there are also references to "Myrtus" within a path left in the code.

Considering the virus targets the PLCs in SCADA systems where RTUs are standard system components, I'm willing to bet that "myrtus" is short for something like "My RTU Source" rather than an obscure reference to guavas.

there are also references to "Myrtus" within a path left in the code.

Considering the virus targets the PLCs in SCADA systems where RTUs are standard system components, I'm willing to bet that "myrtus" is short for something like "My RTU Source" rather than an obscure reference to guavas.

My error.
Oops.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/JPEG_example_JPG_RIP_001.jpg

Oh. I though PNG could do lossy compression. My error. BTW PNG can be used for photography - just not very good results: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d5/LossyDemonstration-Original.png

And here's what Compressed Dialup looks like. I had to use this when the tropical storm killed my high speed line:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a7/LossyDemonstration-98less.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/JPEG_example_JPG_RIP_001.jpg

Oh. I though PNG could do lossy compression. My error. BTW PNG can be used for photography - just not very good results: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d5/LossyDemonstration-Original.png

And here's what Compressed Dialup looks like. I had to use this when the tropical storm killed my high speed line:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a7/LossyDemonstration-98less.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/JPEG_example_JPG_RIP_001.jpg

Oh. I though PNG could do lossy compression. My error. BTW PNG can be used for photography - just not very good results: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d5/LossyDemonstration-Original.png

And here's what Compressed Dialup looks like. I had to use this when the tropical storm killed my high speed line:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a7/LossyDemonstration-98less.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/JPEG_example_JPG_RIP_001.jpg

ICANN's doesn't help cause thousands deaths together with big-pharma... When you consider "do no harm" a prime directive (in my opinion the only inherent required limitation of freedom) the FDA loses out big time. Whatever the problems with ICANN I'm fairly sure they haven't infected people with HIV yet...

The point of this comparison was exactly to point out that scumbag untrustworthy corporations/organizations are still more reliable than a lot of government institutions.

I really don't see why you would want to do that

Because it would be a LOT cheaper to use recycled water to make beer than to bring it out of the gravity well. I've drunk recycled water for a year and by itself it's not that great. Turning it to beer is a great improvement.

In a zero-G environment, these globules will instead stay in suspension and the yeast will remain in an active state for a longer period of time.

Yes, and how do you filter it out then ? It's supposed to occur slowly thanks to gravity, either towards the bottom or the top. So we'd at least need a new name for it! And if they need anybody up there for trials, I'm available. [and I just brewed some stout yesterday]

I really don't see why you would want to do that

Because it would be a LOT cheaper to use recycled water to make beer than to bring it out of the gravity well. I've drunk recycled water for a year and by itself it's not that great. Turning it to beer is a great improvement.

In a zero-G environment, these globules will instead stay in suspension and the yeast will remain in an active state for a longer period of time.

Yes, and how do you filter it out then ? It's supposed to occur slowly thanks to gravity, either towards the bottom or the top. So we'd at least need a new name for it! And if they need anybody up there for trials, I'm available. [and I just brewed some stout yesterday]

Maybe we should sent an expedition to check for life on the sun

It's been done: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeelee_Sequence_species#Photino_birds

Or this one

some virii have a strategy to insert their genetic material into the host, where it will remain dormant, until some event triggers the conversion of the dormant virus into the active form.
see https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Lysogenic_cycle

sometimes virii that employ this strategy will be rendered inactive by dna methylation. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/DNA_methylation

random mutation can then distort these DNA sequences in a way which is unlikely to be reversible, creating a "fossil virus"

some virii have a strategy to insert their genetic material into the host, where it will remain dormant, until some event triggers the conversion of the dormant virus into the active form.
see https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Lysogenic_cycle

sometimes virii that employ this strategy will be rendered inactive by dna methylation. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/DNA_methylation

random mutation can then distort these DNA sequences in a way which is unlikely to be reversible, creating a "fossil virus"

and also https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Pseudogene,
It is not all that clear to me that these viral DNA fragments are in fact capable of being "involved in virus creation".

Or more specifically, I have yet to see any specific evidence that they are in fact "involved in virus creation".

To be fair you seem to be advocating for the possibility, rather than the actuality.

Also I need to point out I am not a professional molecular biologist (I'm sure there is one around here somewhere), but to me the links did not seem to argue conclusively one way or the other.

The section on functional pseudogenes seems to indicate that there is still some active debate on the subject.

Many of the source articles seem to be locked behind paywalls, but a few are accessible.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1456316/?tool=pmcentrez

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1567693/?tool=pmcentrez

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/5/654.abstract

wait I thought we were talking about hepatitis B

or its 19 million year old predecessors?

TFA doesn't really explain "prevent human viral pandemics that originate in birds"

Way to completely sidestep the point.

The fact that software is a different class of "stuff" and not subject to the same laws as previously existing "stuff" doesn't change the fact that you didn't create the software. You didn't invest the work to create it, you didn't invest the time to create it, you didn't invest the money to create it.

On what grounds do you claim to have a right to get a complete, unrestricted copy of software someone else created, just because said software exists and could be copied for free?

Why would the mere fact that you could obtain something for no cost to anyone justify just taking it?

I also challenge your bullshit notion that software "is completely and utterly different from any other economic product that mankind has ever produced". That's nonsense. Software is exactly like art.
Just like you film a movie once, and then sell copies of the finished product, you write software once, and then sell copies of the finished product. With "special editions" and "director's cuts" you even have an analogue to patches and updates.
Just like you write a book once, and then sell copies of the finished product, you write software once, and then sell copies of the finished product. With newer and improved editions of scientific and educational books, you, again, have an analogue to patches and updates.
Just like you paint a painting once, and then sell copies of the finished product, you write software once, and then sell copies of the finished product. (And before you argue paintings are sold in the original, ponder how much money was made off of Mona Lisa posters and postcards over the years - or off of copies of Andy Warhol's works.)
Even songs, while they are slightly different due to the possibility of live performances, mostly operate by the same principle: Record once, then sell the copies. In fact, the digital copies are sold right next to software. (And yes, even songs have analogues to patches and updates. Compare studio demos vs. released songs, for example. Hell, Celldweller not only has a song only released as beta, but actually released an entire album full of "non-release versions".)

To pretend that nothing like software ever existed before, just because a software is not a physical object or a direct service, is denial at best, and a lie at worst.

The coder creates the software. Without the coder, the software would not exist. There might be similar software, but not that particular software. So if you want that software, you pay the coder for having created it.
To justify just taking it based on the fact that the act of copying itself won't cost him anything is not only immoral, but actually violates your own argumentation:

If you argue that software is completely different from physical products and direct services, then you also have to accept that the payment structure for software is completely different from physical products and direct services; you can't argue "well, I would pay you the same way I'd pay a gardener, but since your product is nothing like the service a gardener provides, I'm just not gonna pay you at all". Either you consider software a physical product, then pay for it like a product. Or consider it a service, then pay for the service. Or consider it as something else, then accept the fact that its payment conditions are not like the ones for physical products or services: You pay the coder for the creation of the product after the fact, when it becomes apparent he created something you want to use.

To argue that paying for software is different from paying for physical products or services is fine. It is. But the fact that you're paying for something different doesn't mean you don't have to pay at all. You just pay for something different.

Trust me, I'm not a fan of the notion of "intellectual

Way to completely sidestep the point.

The fact that software is a different class of "stuff" and not subject to the same laws as previously existing "stuff" doesn't change the fact that you didn't create the software. You didn't invest the work to create it, you didn't invest the time to create it, you didn't invest the money to create it.

On what grounds do you claim to have a right to get a complete, unrestricted copy of software someone else created, just because said software exists and could be copied for free?

Why would the mere fact that you could obtain something for no cost to anyone justify just taking it?

I also challenge your bullshit notion that software "is completely and utterly different from any other economic product that mankind has ever produced". That's nonsense. Software is exactly like art.
Just like you film a movie once, and then sell copies of the finished product, you write software once, and then sell copies of the finished product. With "special editions" and "director's cuts" you even have an analogue to patches and updates.
Just like you write a book once, and then sell copies of the finished product, you write software once, and then sell copies of the finished product. With newer and improved editions of scientific and educational books, you, again, have an analogue to patches and updates.
Just like you paint a painting once, and then sell copies of the finished product, you write software once, and then sell copies of the finished product. (And before you argue paintings are sold in the original, ponder how much money was made off of Mona Lisa posters and postcards over the years - or off of copies of Andy Warhol's works.)
Even songs, while they are slightly different due to the possibility of live performances, mostly operate by the same principle: Record once, then sell the copies. In fact, the digital copies are sold right next to software. (And yes, even songs have analogues to patches and updates. Compare studio demos vs. released songs, for example. Hell, Celldweller not only has a song only released as beta, but actually released an entire album full of "non-release versions".)

To pretend that nothing like software ever existed before, just because a software is not a physical object or a direct service, is denial at best, and a lie at worst.

The coder creates the software. Without the coder, the software would not exist. There might be similar software, but not that particular software. So if you want that software, you pay the coder for having created it.
To justify just taking it based on the fact that the act of copying itself won't cost him anything is not only immoral, but actually violates your own argumentation:

If you argue that software is completely different from physical products and direct services, then you also have to accept that the payment structure for software is completely different from physical products and direct services; you can't argue "well, I would pay you the same way I'd pay a gardener, but since your product is nothing like the service a gardener provides, I'm just not gonna pay you at all". Either you consider software a physical product, then pay for it like a product. Or consider it a service, then pay for the service. Or consider it as something else, then accept the fact that its payment conditions are not like the ones for physical products or services: You pay the coder for the creation of the product after the fact, when it becomes apparent he created something you want to use.

To argue that paying for software is different from paying for physical products or services is fine. It is. But the fact that you're paying for something different doesn't mean you don't have to pay at all. You just pay for something different.

Trust me, I'm not a fan of the notion of "intellectual

Archimede's death ray

The name is Archimedes. Its possessive is either Archimedes' or Archimedes's, depending on style.

Not quite so - _the_ "Buran" is one and only craft that really visited space. Later models were meant to be named differently, but only one of them was named at all (model 1.02 "Burya")

To correct my first post - "Buran" was destroyed in 2002 on Baykonur, and version in theme park is only a test model, never meant to fly in space (still capable of atmospheric flights, as I understood). And what was "discovered" is version 2.01 - there's even a photo in Russian Wiki article.

Bingo. That's why I wear bike shorts. Good sweat wicking without seams or folded fabric prevents crotch rot and chaffing. For really long rides (>60-miles), having the thin gel pad is really nice. Of course I'm reasonably fit and don't look too bad in them. I personally don't find the really heavy-set guys or girls in spandex t all that pleasant to look at. But on the positive side, they are out there exercising trying to improve themselves instead of being couch potatoes.

When I participate in a race and see a really large woman struggling to finish, I recognize that she probably put out more effort and guts than the guy who won the race in half the time.

One in every three Americans, one in every four British, Australian, New Zealand and Canadian people are obese. English speaking people are the fattest, slobbiest, laziest people on the planet. The only non-English speaking country to make it into the top seven fattest countries is Mexico. So what if fat people in cycling shorts look fugly? OK, I agree, they do. But they are out there doing something about it, and next year they're going to look less ugly and be healthy, while you car-driving couch potatoes are just getting uglier and less healthy.

People don't wear lycra to show off or look good. Most people don't look good in lycra (Vicky Pendleton excepted, of course). People wear lycra because it's comfortable and practical. But hey, if you're content to waddle from your car to the burger joint until you're too fat to eat anywhere but a drive in, don't mind us. We're not complaining about how you look. Live and let live, after all... at least until you die of stroke or heart attack or diabetes from all that cholesterol and corn syrup.

Dane-geld today is what're called Monopoly Rents. Corporations that seek this kind of payment are rent-seeking (as opposed to profit-seeking, meaning to gain profits by value-add).

An open content archive of cats doing funny things would be within the scope of Wikimedia's goals.

Only if you can explain how cats doing funny things are useful for an educational purpose.

a) Wikimedia is (allegedly [wikipedia.org]) encyclopaedic media, whilst youtube is cats. Not direct competition.

No, you're confusing Wikimedia with Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Wikimedia Commons is a collection of media that complements Wikipedia. Wikimedia is a non-profit organisation that runs a large number of open content wikis, and was founded by the same people as (and used to share some infrastructure with) Wikia, which is a for-profit wiki-hosting company.

An open content archive of cats doing funny things would be within the scope of Wikimedia's goals.

More specifically, he was the chairman of HESCO bastion, a company that makes large cube-shaped wire & cloth baskets you fill with sand. They are used for flood control as well as by the military for defensive walls.

Drugs were originally prohibited as a tool to control Americans and immigrants of black and mexican persuasion. It than grew into a form of direct control of the population and a great source of funds for the enforcement/detainment industry and government 'Black Ops'.

LOL. You are one paranoid fruitcake. Your rant proves my point about drugs (and their users). How about you read this (obviously misinformation planted by the Greys out of Area 51, ha!):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_LSD

It's not clear what you are referring to in that lengthy article on LSD, but since you want to cite wikipedia, how about you start with the criminalization of marijuana which long predated even the invention of LSD:

Considerable issues existed involving illegal immigration of Mexicans into the United States, and the one thing Mexicans were identified as being in possession of was cannabis, aka marijuana,[17]. The southern border states called for action.[17] After the enactment, illegal immigrants and U.S. citizens could be arrested for possession of cannabis.

the politicians/upper class/tax evaders all have their money going through Jersey which the Queen of England owns.

check out Jersey's gross revenue, remember that they have minimal exports!

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Jersey

They win insurance... Or probably other interesting state secrets that are encrypted. Presuming there are some yet unknown-to-the-public-flaws in AES for example (and like with all algorithms there are) governments could possibly be able to decrypt these kind of files in a matter of years instead of billions. In which case it can be quite beneficial to be a month ahead of 'the other guys' with decryption, with some information a few extra petaflop (or soon exaflop) could mean a world of difference.

Certainly the CIA/US color revolutions are much better organized (and relatively peaceful) relative to the older methods of getting a regime changed (usually to secure rights to mineral and other natural resources, like the previous Congo/Lumumba reference or many others you could choose from.

What makes the CIA organized "color revolution" overthrow of the old Georgia government interesting is that without Georgia "we" (as in our oil companies) may not have been interested in Afghanistan - and if we were, Europe would not be interested in participating. Europe and the US are "investing" (money, lives, you name it) in the Afghan war so that the US can sell the oil through Afghan/Georgia pipeline into Europe. Profit!

lot of other countries such as Iran and China, apparently consider the free exchange of information to be an information technology threat.

WTF are they going on about - have they been living under a rock?! The greatest current threats to the free exchange of information via the internet are coming from the US, UK, Canada and Australia. All China, Iran etc can do is limit their own population - much less threaten the wider internet like these "Spreading Democracy" countries are.

Woodie Guthrie's guitar read "This Machine Kills Fascists". And indeed, every musical instrument, poet's pen, comedian's voice, do also.

(Photo of Guthrie and his facist-killing machine)

"This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright #154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin' it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don't give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that's all we wanted to do."

This painting was credited by an art historian who taught a class I took as starting the French revolution. The arts and information (e.g., The Federalist Papers which contributed to starting the American revolution) have always been political weapons.

My point exactly... *The* World Chess Championship - the classical time control match with Topalov.

Our every friendly Wiki Link -
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/World_Chess_Championship_2010

"Arctic Securities Chess Stars" is, to quote Chessbase,
"This rapid chess tournament is taking place in Kristiansund from Saturday, August 28th to Monday, August 30th 2010. It is a double round robin with four players: Magnus Carlsen, Viswanathan Anand, Judit Polgar and Jon Ludvig Hammer. On Monday there follows the finals between the two leading players, together with the bronze final for third place. Time controls are 20 minutes + 10 seconds increment per move."
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6641

So respectfully your remark isn't formally logical. However, I'll give you total leeway for being confused because the chess world has been a mess of "championship tournaments" for about 10 years. But the Arctic Securities was a typical publicity event. World Championships do occasionally fail to take first in alternate time controls like Rapid.

I have here a server that cost well over $450,000 new and I use it only to run Quake 3 tourneys after work.

Using worn out hardware to do other work is simply smart. the rovers are worn out, hell it's a engineering miracle they are still operating. have you SEEN photos of how dust covered they are?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/Mars_Spirit_rover's_solar_panels_covered_with_Dust_-_October_2007.jpg

this was in 2007, it now has 3 more years of dirt and dust on them.

Please retain a sense of civility, both of you.

The two of you do illustrate the debate over whether mathematics is a science or not. That it is a field of knowledge is not disputed. That you cannot apply the scientific method to it - no data to measure, no experiments to perform - seems clear.

Then you get into things like computational mathematics and simulation, and the line begins to gray out a bit...

Vote, encourage others to vote - for anyone, just get out and vote. Don't buy into the bullshit that is often repeated: "my vote does not matter, anyway" - this phrase is music to radical-wing political parties ears for it means that their small band of supporters, who will certainly be voting, will have a great piece of the smaller voting pie. With voting rates trending lower as laws get more draconian - the media of various countries has sold their populations on apathy (more on this here).

Create websites to profile politicians, track what politicians say vs what they (and gov employees) actually do on the ground. Make funny viral video "ad's" encouraging young people to vote, how it is their one and only opportunity every few years to actually change shit. Instruct and show people how easy it is to vote.... the list of creative things that can be done is long here.

Apathy is the enemy and the mainstream media has helped to paralyzed the population well with it... making yet another public forum to discuss it will get you lost endlessly debating hypotheticals. Instead, pick a well defined task like the ones I have suggested above, start the project and try to get others to join up to help.

I would have thought that this would have been more appropriate, but YMMV, and obviously does.

The word Spacecraft & Orion instant brings to mind Project Orion. For a brief moment I thought NASA had gone for something cool & insane. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

The US already has a transparent UAV in development.

You might do well to check who is part of the council of Europe. The council of Europe includes all of the European countries, all of the former USSR, and has the USA, Canada, and Japan as official observers. That's a huge proportion of the industrialised world.

It seems like Blu-Ray support on Linux a bit limited at the moment, but there is at least some freeware/shareware that can handle it: MakeMKV which has a Linux beta and DVDFab which appears to run under Wine. DumpHD may also be worth looking at.