Actually, back in the day the Zeplins got up to about 130 MPH. When was the last time you saw a bus doing 130? (Speed doesnt count) At 130 Mph, zepplins would be faster than everything except airplanes, at least in the US. And flying, no even if it were at bus speed, beats driving any day.
And thats why the "sequels" to the Lord of the rings are going to rock, because they arent actually sequels, they are seperate installments to one story.
I agree with your points about p2p, however, microsofts definition of innovation does not include any of merriam websters. That would require MS to come up with something new, when all they do is "embrace and extend" i.e. they take something somone else thought of, "innovated" and use it themselves. This is hardly innovation
Fine, have software patents, no problem, on one condition. All software patents must include the FULL SOURCE CODE. You wouldnt patent a steam engine simply by saying "well you heat up a liquid, and eventually it turns a shaft" That could apply to everything from steam turbines to the damn drinking bird. The source is the inner workings of your software, and no patent should be complete without it. After all, couldnt somone else come up with a similar function, but using a different method? THAT is innovation, and that is the kind of innovation that traditional patenting fosters. A patent on a specific type of steam engine means that either you liscence the patent, or you go out and you invent one that does the same thing in a different way, maybe even a better way. And god forbid we have beter software. Full source code or no software patents. You might as well patent a buisness plan otherwise.
Absolutely true, I paid 1299 for the original iMac, and after $200 for a 64M ram upgrade and 20 gig HD, its still working just fine, I can run all the latest stuff and have never had a problem. So far my invenstment comes out to about 500 a year, but I figure I can go at least another 2 years or so, so ultimately ill be investing about 300 a year, not too bad, IMHO
Is this guy a crackpot? Judge for yourself.
From http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
A -5 point starting credit.
1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.
5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).
5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".
10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.
10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it.
10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.
10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.
10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".
10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.
10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".
10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".
20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.
20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.
20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".
20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".
30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)
30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.
30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).
40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)
50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.
I also love how they give the characters a human touch, theyre not superhuman. O'neil always goes "Ok, thats a needle" whenever hes about to be poked, clasic.
So that means it would be a movie based on a TV series that was based on a Movie. Please tell me that it was further based on a book which was based on a true story;-)
Its true, I work at a campus lab, and we have a room called the "craporium" everything that we want to get rid of but cant throw away goes there. I once found a declassified report from 1963 on the effects of all out Nuclear war with the russians (1000 megaton bombload) The report estimated that 180 days after war was beginning the US power supply would be back to 75% of prewar levels. The big assumetion the report makes is that power plants themselves would not be targeted, that only city centers and military bases would be targets. oops.
Atom smashing, bah, why back in the day we smashed atoms the old fashioned way, by hand! Or should I say, the gave us big hammers and a block of uranium and we had at it, and we liked it!
Mutually Assured Destruction is the concept of discouraging war by the promise that the two parties involved would be mutually obliterated. There is no purpose is destroying the other person if there is nobody left to enjoy it.
Right, and Missile defense will do nothing to alter the brinksmanship of MAD. MAD presumes large numbers of warheads on each side, such as the US and russia. Take out 90% of either sides warheads using NMD and there are still more than enough to destroy both countries.
It would be foolish to assume every incoming warhead would be destroyed. It would be just as foolish to consider the destruction of the vast majority (or even a large minority) of warheads a failure.
A success yes, but quite the phyrric victory. Say 100 Warheads are launched at the US, and the interceptor system is 99% accurate (which im sure you would consider very sucessful) That still leaves 1 warhead that strikes its intended target, or nearby (close counts in nuclear war). Granted, you are saving millions of lives, but you are still losing all the lives and property from the one that got away. Not only that, but multiple missiles target the same place, so that taking down several can still mean the target is destroyed. The difference between ten warheads hitting the pentagon and 1 is not that much, you are still equally dead.
The purpose of a missile defense shield is not to protect us from terrorism. It is to protect us from being Saddam Hussein's bitch.
Heres a valid point, yes NMD will prevent us from being saddam husseins bitch. Knowing saddam, however, it will encourage him to actually launch, in order to "test" our NMD Since any NMD system will have a finite amount of missiles, why wouldnt saddam simply launch hundreds of fake warheads. Warheads that look like the real thing, but lack any nukes. The US is compelled to launch NMD against each launch due to "what if" Finally, when our defensive missiles are depleted, saddam launches the real thing, or not. Even showing he can do so puts the gun right back to our heads. Even if NMD is 100% effective, the finite nature of interceptors means that we are back in the same boat we were before we started.
Anyone who claims that the missile defense shield's purpose is to stop all nuclear threat is either lying or a fool. The missile defense shield is to protect us from other nations who wish to threaten us with Mutually Assured Destruction.
These two sentences are logically inconsistant with each other. The Principle of Mutually Assured Destruction is that the other nation has so many missiles, that you cannot knock them all out with your own missiles without some of them launching and destroying your own country. China, at present, does not have the capability for MAD. If we had the inclination to first strike, we could concievably wipe out the 20-30 missiles that China has without them being able to fire off a shot. Not so with The Soviet Union, and now Russia. Were either we or they to launch all the missiles in their posession at the other, the other side would have enough missiles left to still destroy everyone. The Missile shield EXPLICITLY does not protect us from a MAD scenario It would only protect us in a limited exchange scenario, and not very well even then. Ultimately, a briefcase nuke or even a shipping crate nuke on a ship going into NY harbor would be much better. Instead of having to develop both missile and nuclear weapons technology, a rogue nation only has to develop Nuclear weapons technology. And i didnt see any "how to build an ICBM" chapters in the anarchists cookbook. If somone did send us a briefcase nuke, it is doubtful that we would be able to retaliate. First of all, all physical evidence would be obliterated. Second, any group that new the response would not claim responsibility. third, what if its a domestic terrorist? would we nuke ourselves?
If you read the article, it clearly states that both sides negotiate with each other to settle on a liscencing fee, and if no agreement can be reached, both sides must accept binding arbitration by an independant panel, which will set a fair value for the property.
No, because neither god nor you own your DNA. Specific DNA sequences can and have been patented by whatever drug company first discovers them. Ignoring of course the fact that its a discovery, not an invention, but hey the USPTO is wacky like that. For example, theres a certain gene that will tell wether or not you have a predisposition towards certain types of breast cancer. In order to test to see if you have that gene, you have to pay a drug company a royalty, because they have a patent on that gene. If anything, the drug companies can sue God for patent infringement.
MS complains about how the GPL erects a wall between public and private development of code. Essentially hes saying that No private company can use GPL'd code because then they would no longer be private, all their source would have to be released under the GPL. I think that the GPL is a reaction to the draconian copyright laws now on the books. A good compromise would be a limited monopoly, you can keep code private for say 15 years and then it becomes public domain. Surprise surprise, this very compromise is what copyright holders destroyed in the last century in their quest for more money. Current Copyright law tips the balance completely away from fair use and public domain, the pendulum has swung all the way to the right. Reactionary actions beget more reactionary actions. The GPL is just as unfair to copyright holders as current copyright law is to citizens who use copyrighted material. The compromise is to go back to where we were 200 years ago. Copyright is temporary but well enforced. After 15 years or so, the source gets released. This is a good compromise because it makes nobody happy, yet it allows for free dissemination of ideas, while allowing commercial exploitation of said ideas in a closed source sense.
Hey I once derived the quadratic formula while sitting in calc @ class simply because the lecture was so boring, that the derivation was more interesting than anything els i could do at the time ( i had already gotten bored with doodling;-)
The picard quote is supposed to be funny, the jefferson one, not funny. I mean, c'mon, how exactly are you going to corrupt the borg? they seem pretty corrupt already. The episode im referring to, the borg go from assimilating every life form they encounter and using said life forms body and mind against their will, to killing all life forms. You could actually make the argument that Lore had IMPROVED the borg by giving them compassion. but i digress.
Sir, are you implying that if the opportunity arose, that I would not be willing to give my life in the defense of principles I hold dear? For shame Sir, For shame. Perhaps you are the one who would shirk your responsibility to eternal vigilance, and by implying that I am a coward, you validate your own cowardace.
Hey, the russians are already doing capitalism better than we are, who put the first paying customer in space? Maybe now they can do freedom better too;-)
Wouldnt this mean wed have to Kill Linus? After all, Mundie says that the GPL is a "viral" Liscense. Logically, everyone who writes under the GPL is writing viruses, and therefore, a witch! Throw her into the pond!::shakes head:: sorry, MP flashback.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, back in the day the Zeplins got up to about 130 MPH. When was the last time you saw a bus doing 130? (Speed doesnt count) At 130 Mph, zepplins would be faster than everything except airplanes, at least in the US. And flying, no even if it were at bus speed, beats driving any day.
And thats why the "sequels" to the Lord of the rings are going to rock, because they arent actually sequels, they are seperate installments to one story.
1: the introduction of something new
2:: a new idea, method, or device : NOVELTY
I agree with your points about p2p, however, microsofts definition of innovation does not include any of merriam websters. That would require MS to come up with something new, when all they do is "embrace and extend" i.e. they take something somone else thought of, "innovated" and use it themselves. This is hardly innovation
Fine, have software patents, no problem, on one condition. All software patents must include the FULL SOURCE CODE. You wouldnt patent a steam engine simply by saying "well you heat up a liquid, and eventually it turns a shaft" That could apply to everything from steam turbines to the damn drinking bird. The source is the inner workings of your software, and no patent should be complete without it. After all, couldnt somone else come up with a similar function, but using a different method? THAT is innovation, and that is the kind of innovation that traditional patenting fosters. A patent on a specific type of steam engine means that either you liscence the patent, or you go out and you invent one that does the same thing in a different way, maybe even a better way. And god forbid we have beter software. Full source code or no software patents. You might as well patent a buisness plan otherwise.
Absolutely true, I paid 1299 for the original iMac, and after $200 for a 64M ram upgrade and 20 gig HD, its still working just fine, I can run all the latest stuff and have never had a problem. So far my invenstment comes out to about 500 a year, but I figure I can go at least another 2 years or so, so ultimately ill be investing about 300 a year, not too bad, IMHO
A -5 point starting credit.
1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.
5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).
5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".
10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.
10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it.
10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.
10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.
10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".
10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.
10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".
10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".
20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.
20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.
20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".
20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".
30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)
30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.
30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).
40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)
50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.
I also love how they give the characters a human touch, theyre not superhuman. O'neil always goes "Ok, thats a needle" whenever hes about to be poked, clasic.
So that means it would be a movie based on a TV series that was based on a Movie. Please tell me that it was further based on a book which was based on a true story ;-)
Its true, I work at a campus lab, and we have a room called the "craporium" everything that we want to get rid of but cant throw away goes there. I once found a declassified report from 1963 on the effects of all out Nuclear war with the russians (1000 megaton bombload) The report estimated that 180 days after war was beginning the US power supply would be back to 75% of prewar levels. The big assumetion the report makes is that power plants themselves would not be targeted, that only city centers and military bases would be targets. oops.
Atom smashing, bah, why back in the day we smashed atoms the old fashioned way, by hand! Or should I say, the gave us big hammers and a block of uranium and we had at it, and we liked it!
Besides, they would all be destroyed when they ate through the crust. Everything would be drowned by liquid hot magma
Right, and Missile defense will do nothing to alter the brinksmanship of MAD. MAD presumes large numbers of warheads on each side, such as the US and russia. Take out 90% of either sides warheads using NMD and there are still more than enough to destroy both countries.
It would be foolish to assume every incoming warhead would be destroyed. It would be just as foolish to consider the destruction of the vast majority (or even a large minority) of warheads a failure.
A success yes, but quite the phyrric victory. Say 100 Warheads are launched at the US, and the interceptor system is 99% accurate (which im sure you would consider very sucessful) That still leaves 1 warhead that strikes its intended target, or nearby (close counts in nuclear war). Granted, you are saving millions of lives, but you are still losing all the lives and property from the one that got away. Not only that, but multiple missiles target the same place, so that taking down several can still mean the target is destroyed. The difference between ten warheads hitting the pentagon and 1 is not that much, you are still equally dead.
The purpose of a missile defense shield is not to protect us from terrorism. It is to protect us from being Saddam Hussein's bitch.
Heres a valid point, yes NMD will prevent us from being saddam husseins bitch. Knowing saddam, however, it will encourage him to actually launch, in order to "test" our NMD Since any NMD system will have a finite amount of missiles, why wouldnt saddam simply launch hundreds of fake warheads. Warheads that look like the real thing, but lack any nukes. The US is compelled to launch NMD against each launch due to "what if" Finally, when our defensive missiles are depleted, saddam launches the real thing, or not. Even showing he can do so puts the gun right back to our heads. Even if NMD is 100% effective, the finite nature of interceptors means that we are back in the same boat we were before we started.
These two sentences are logically inconsistant with each other. The Principle of Mutually Assured Destruction is that the other nation has so many missiles, that you cannot knock them all out with your own missiles without some of them launching and destroying your own country. China, at present, does not have the capability for MAD. If we had the inclination to first strike, we could concievably wipe out the 20-30 missiles that China has without them being able to fire off a shot. Not so with The Soviet Union, and now Russia. Were either we or they to launch all the missiles in their posession at the other, the other side would have enough missiles left to still destroy everyone. The Missile shield EXPLICITLY does not protect us from a MAD scenario It would only protect us in a limited exchange scenario, and not very well even then. Ultimately, a briefcase nuke or even a shipping crate nuke on a ship going into NY harbor would be much better. Instead of having to develop both missile and nuclear weapons technology, a rogue nation only has to develop Nuclear weapons technology. And i didnt see any "how to build an ICBM" chapters in the anarchists cookbook. If somone did send us a briefcase nuke, it is doubtful that we would be able to retaliate. First of all, all physical evidence would be obliterated. Second, any group that new the response would not claim responsibility. third, what if its a domestic terrorist? would we nuke ourselves?
If you read the article, it clearly states that both sides negotiate with each other to settle on a liscencing fee, and if no agreement can be reached, both sides must accept binding arbitration by an independant panel, which will set a fair value for the property.
I always knew taco was a troll at heart
No, because neither god nor you own your DNA. Specific DNA sequences can and have been patented by whatever drug company first discovers them. Ignoring of course the fact that its a discovery, not an invention, but hey the USPTO is wacky like that. For example, theres a certain gene that will tell wether or not you have a predisposition towards certain types of breast cancer. In order to test to see if you have that gene, you have to pay a drug company a royalty, because they have a patent on that gene. If anything, the drug companies can sue God for patent infringement.
MS complains about how the GPL erects a wall between public and private development of code. Essentially hes saying that No private company can use GPL'd code because then they would no longer be private, all their source would have to be released under the GPL. I think that the GPL is a reaction to the draconian copyright laws now on the books. A good compromise would be a limited monopoly, you can keep code private for say 15 years and then it becomes public domain. Surprise surprise, this very compromise is what copyright holders destroyed in the last century in their quest for more money. Current Copyright law tips the balance completely away from fair use and public domain, the pendulum has swung all the way to the right. Reactionary actions beget more reactionary actions. The GPL is just as unfair to copyright holders as current copyright law is to citizens who use copyrighted material. The compromise is to go back to where we were 200 years ago. Copyright is temporary but well enforced. After 15 years or so, the source gets released. This is a good compromise because it makes nobody happy, yet it allows for free dissemination of ideas, while allowing commercial exploitation of said ideas in a closed source sense.
in base pi, pi= 10. not exactly random. Therefore, pi is not random in all bases.
Hey I once derived the quadratic formula while sitting in calc @ class simply because the lecture was so boring, that the derivation was more interesting than anything els i could do at the time ( i had already gotten bored with doodling ;-)
The picard quote is supposed to be funny, the jefferson one, not funny. I mean, c'mon, how exactly are you going to corrupt the borg? they seem pretty corrupt already. The episode im referring to, the borg go from assimilating every life form they encounter and using said life forms body and mind against their will, to killing all life forms. You could actually make the argument that Lore had IMPROVED the borg by giving them compassion. but i digress.
Sir, are you implying that if the opportunity arose, that I would not be willing to give my life in the defense of principles I hold dear? For shame Sir, For shame. Perhaps you are the one who would shirk your responsibility to eternal vigilance, and by implying that I am a coward, you validate your own cowardace.
Hey, the russians are already doing capitalism better than we are, who put the first paying customer in space? Maybe now they can do freedom better too ;-)
-Thomas Jefferson
And ill probably be arrested for quoting him.
Simple, just have Jon Katz write all the articles posted.
Wouldnt this mean wed have to Kill Linus? After all, Mundie says that the GPL is a "viral" Liscense. Logically, everyone who writes under the GPL is writing viruses, and therefore, a witch! Throw her into the pond! ::shakes head:: sorry, MP flashback.