I'll admit that I don't know what he's talking about. But it's not really a unique theory, in that there are other "fate of the universe" theories that predict that an end of one universe will bring the beginning of another. Or something along those lines. I had a lecture recently, where the professor talked about some of the wildly speculative theories of the future of the universe. It goes something like the following:
The common view now is that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. As the universe ages, galaxies will be spread further away, and the amount of hydrogen and helium in any given galaxy will start to decrease to the point that it would be difficult to produce any stars. Galaxies will be full of brown dwarfs, white dwarfs, and black holes. Over a long time frame, galaxies will start shedding some of their stars, and black holes will decay via the process of Hawking radiation. Eventually, about a googol years from now, protons will start to decay. As the universe runs out of ways to generate energy, there will be parts of the universe, starting with the large empty gaps left behind by the expansion, that will undergo a phase transition. Once some pockets of the universe undergo phase transition, they will act as seeds that spread the transition to other parts of the universe (like the process of water turning into ice). When the phase transition is complete, the laws of physics will change drastically, and there may be a new seed for a new universe.
As I mentioned earlier, it's WILDLY speculative, so don't take this comment as anything definitive. I just wanted to illustrate one of the many theories out there that share some of the most basic premises of the one in the story.
Good points, though I think it can be explained in a much easier manner.
As someone who regularly uses the functions "copy" and "paste", I can tell you that there are many times where I c/p a blob of text and forgot to change something crucial in it. This happens to many people. Apparently, the folks at Apple are not immune to human flaws.
It's probably just an oversight. A HUGE oversight. But there's really no need to make a circus out of it. Then again, this is Slashdot, right?
Just like drug companies had no interest in eliminating small pox? There are plenty of diseases to go around, and more of them turn up all the time.
Admittedly, I'm too young to appreciate the politics that went on when small pox was "eradicated", so it would be nice if anyone can point out what's so different about the small pox issue and the AIDS issue.
Regardless, it's fruitless for Apple to try & stop free third party apps. Yeah, the core of the problem is locking-in the SDK in the first place. They should adopt a less rotten attitude and just open it up for any developer to contribute free apps to the platform.
I don't think TFA is being fair in its language when describing the possibilities of the DataPortability Workgroup becoming "walled-garden data-horders" or "truly open platforms". It somehow implies that the Alliance is more capable of governing the organization in a way that allows for an open trading of information. I'll let them know that our use of the Goblin Zeppelin technology is much more cost-effective and flexible than their under-ground tram system between Stormwind and Ironforge.
Glancing over the case briefly, the Supreme Court of Canada reached a conclusion that ISPs act merely as a "conduit" (which is the word specifically used in the decision), and should therefore not be liable for anything that happens over their networks (unless the content is hosted on their networks, and they explicitly reject to do anything about the contested content). They can only act as a "conduit" and enjoy a "don't shoot the messenger" protection if the "participation is content neutral", meaning it doesn't do anything with the content other than communicating it. ISPs can only claim exemption from liability if they act merely as conduits. The moment they tamper with the content, they stop being a "conduit". Once they have some control over the content, it COULD be argued that whenever copyright infringement occurs over their networks, they should be able to stop it.
Which is what makes this move by Rogers TOTALLY bizarre. Since Rogers is now modifying the content of web sites, they can no longer, it can be implied from this case, claim exemption from liability of copyright infringement. I don't think they consulted with their legal department before rolling these "features" out. The CRIA should jump on this opportunity to quickly sue Rogers and cite this case.
Actually, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled time and again that if a law is left largely unenforced, it will be effectively void. The reasoning is exactly to prevent what you mentioned: selective enforcement.
Sorry, I'm a little (read: a lot) hungover, so I don't know what the rest of your post says. But there's one thing I take issue with:
Media is nice, just not all that important Do you really think so? Maybe you should ask those dictators who use government-controlled media streams to send out their propoganda if they think media is important. Maybe you should look up the relationship between the prevalency of free press in a country and its government's human rights violations. Media, and to a greater extent free press, is INTEGRAL for any democratic society.
Oh, and I suppose you don't consider that book you just cited as a medium? Books are as much of a part of media as newspapers, TV, radio, and the internet. In fact, there are many times that books, as media, changed the face of the world. Martin Luther's writings led to the Reformation that created many of the Protestant sects of Christianity.
Yeah, I'm off-topic, but I'm willing to take a bit of a karma beating to set this guy straight.
I completely agree with you that people shouldn't dig up this information. They should respect others' right to privacy. If the woman did something wrong, it's up to the police to deal with it, not a mob (not even a virtual one). The problem is that these bloggers are usually people who don't agree with or understand the position that even those who commit moral "faux-pas" (for a lack of a better term - since I honestly don't know if the woman's actions constituted a crime) have these rights to privacy. They either a) don't understand that revealing this information will expose the subject(s) in question to huge risks; or b) WANT the subject(s) in question to be exposed to huge risks.
So while I agree with your position, I don't think it's a realistic one. If there's someone stupid enough to pretend to be a teenage boy in order to grief an emotionally unstable teenage girl, there's someone stupid enough to uncover that person's identity.
Isn't that their strategy when they use a finer fab process anyway? I remember reading an article (possibly linked from a previous/. submission) about how they had a 2-step development process. When they switch to a finer fab process, they only have incremental, conservative upgrades. Then with the 2nd step, they use the same fab process, but introduce more aggressive instruction sets/upgrades/etc.
I couldn't find the article with a quick Google, but I'm sure someone will dig it up.
It's wrong to teach BMI in schools. It's wrong to use it as a measure. If you want to know fat, break out the calipers. "Suzie! Stop poking Scott with those calipers!"
"Danny, stop running around with them, you're going to poke someone's eyes out!"
"NO, LIZ!! You're not supposed to use them on your private area!! STOP IT NOW!!"
That's nothing but a new name for an age old process. The process of adding heat to reagents (a.k.a. cooking) is in itself a chemical process.
Take baking, for example. For those who've never tried it, baking is a very precise exercise. You have to add precise amounts of reagents, mix them together in a certain order, and add a precise amount of heat for a precise amount of time. That whole undertaking is very chemical in nature. If you time it wrong, add the wrong amount of heat and/or reagents, then you're going to end up with some pretty disastrous results. The chemical reactions that make a cake or a loaf of bread is not very different than making a vinegar/baking soda volcano.
The whole "molecular gastronomy" trend is simply applying the same strategy to "warm" dishes. Instead of adding a "dash" of salt or a "pinch" of pepper, you're now adding precisely X mg of chemical Y. I know we usually don't think of food and cooking as endeavours relating to chemistry, but I don't see why so many people are so surprised when that fact is pointed out.
Regardless, I think this is a very good thing. I love food and I love science. Now I can eat food that's created by using scientific principles!
Actually, no. I use two sets of slides. One for myself, that I put on my Macbook that rests on the pedastal/desk/whatever-the-case-may-be that I use as cue cards, and another that is actually presented to the audience. The set for myself is usually more detailed so I don't lose track of what I'm talking about.
The set presented to the audience is of a lot better quality:)
They might have requested anonymity so people don't ridicule themabout paying for the low UID. Well, actually, it doesn't matter why they requested anonymity. The fact of the matter is that they did. It's a little rude to point out their account when they explicitly wanted to keep it hidden.
With all the concern about the right to remain anonymous on/., I don't see why you would purposely go out of your way to lift that veil off of someone else.
But hey, your curiousity is sated. What do you care. Mod me troll, mod me whatever you like. I think it was irresponsible and inconsiderate to do that.
I wouldn't put it beyond BioWare to make something on the level of WoW, or perhaps even better. They've shown that they can make in-depth, gripping, epic RPGs in the Baldur's Gate series and NWN. They've shown that they can execute a cleaner, simpler style of play in KotOR. The sweet spot for an MMO lies somewhere in-between simple enough so anyone can pick it up, but with enough diversity so any two given people playing the same race/class can have completely different play-styles.
If Blizzard was able to strike that balance (for the most part, anyway), BioWare, with a vast amount of RPG experience under its belt, certainly has the potential to as well.
Uh... it's bad. At a theoretical level, "natural monopoly" sectors (of which telecommunications is a part of), should either be State/Crown Corporations or heavily, heavily regulated. Although the ultimate goal (in free market societies) of any sector is to promote competition to lead to the deregulation of the industry, it is very much impractical (if not outright impossible) for "natural monopoly" sectors. Telecomms is considered a "natural monopoly" sector because the barrier of entry is unrealistically high for any real competitors to emerge. We're not talking about pseudo-competitors who are able to lease the lines that big telcos have laid, but rather REAL competitors who lay down their own lines and govern their own lines themselves.
(Warning: Completely hypothetical and utterly unrealistic scenario ahead; I realize that it's totally off-base, but I'm just trying to provide a frame of reference.)
Imagine, if you will, a beach with 5 stores selling food. However, 4 of the stores don't actually control where they're getting the food. 1 store controls the supply line (analogical equivelent of the telecomm lines), and the 4 other stores can only buy food off of that 1 store. Any outside observer would assume, prima facie, that there is real competition there are 5 stores on the beach, all with similar prices and products. However, 4 of those stores are actually at the beck and call of the 5th store. That 5th store is the "real monopoly", so to speak, and the 4 other stores are the pseudo-competitors.
In Canada, this sort of works for the DSL sector, because Bell Canada (the "real monopoly", so to speak) is HEAVILY regulated. They MUST have their prices at a certain level, and the MUST lease their lines out to pseudo-competitors at dirt cheap prices (not really, but a lot cheaper than it would if it were unregulated). Of course, thus far, I haven't touched upon the actual issue, but I will. Don't rush me.
Now that we understand that big telcos are monopolies, here is where we get to the supposed "deregulation". The deregulation of a certain subset of rules (not ALL the rules are deregulated), in this case allowing telcos to discriminate between traffic, gives the telcos MASSIVE influence and power over the content that is brought forth via their lines.
To bring it back to my (awfully constructed) food analogy, this would be the equivelent of the "real monopoly" store demanding that the food providers give them a share of the profits (or more practically, reduce the prices at which the food is provided to the store), or else the food will no longer be carried in any of the stores. The food providers HAVE NO CHOICE but to comply. This is because they can't go to another store to sell their wares (remember that all other stores' supply lines are controlled by the "real monopoly").
Likewise, if big telcos demand Google a certain share of their profits, or else everyone would have to wait 10 seconds before the Google home page loads, Google HAS NO CHOICE but to comply, lest they take a massive hit on marketshare. This has limitless implications on the net as a whole.
(Disclaimer: I have purposely left out many detailed workings and purposely made blatantly incorrect - though theoretically merited - statements to make this a simpler post to understand for those who are unfamiliar with how this works. If you feel that you should correct me or expand upon certain concepts, please feel free to do so. But please don't flame me for trying to make this an easier pill to swallow for some people. Thanks in advance.)
Regardless of whether you're right or not (about grabbing back marketshare), the fonts that they're introducing aren't all that bad in themselves. Although I recognize that it's probably a subjective judgment, I think that the new set of fonts are more readable. For example, I think Calibiri and Candara are easier to read than Arial and Helvetica, respectively.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll admit that I don't know what he's talking about. But it's not really a unique theory, in that there are other "fate of the universe" theories that predict that an end of one universe will bring the beginning of another. Or something along those lines. I had a lecture recently, where the professor talked about some of the wildly speculative theories of the future of the universe. It goes something like the following:
The common view now is that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. As the universe ages, galaxies will be spread further away, and the amount of hydrogen and helium in any given galaxy will start to decrease to the point that it would be difficult to produce any stars. Galaxies will be full of brown dwarfs, white dwarfs, and black holes. Over a long time frame, galaxies will start shedding some of their stars, and black holes will decay via the process of Hawking radiation. Eventually, about a googol years from now, protons will start to decay. As the universe runs out of ways to generate energy, there will be parts of the universe, starting with the large empty gaps left behind by the expansion, that will undergo a phase transition. Once some pockets of the universe undergo phase transition, they will act as seeds that spread the transition to other parts of the universe (like the process of water turning into ice). When the phase transition is complete, the laws of physics will change drastically, and there may be a new seed for a new universe.
As I mentioned earlier, it's WILDLY speculative, so don't take this comment as anything definitive. I just wanted to illustrate one of the many theories out there that share some of the most basic premises of the one in the story.
Good points, though I think it can be explained in a much easier manner.
As someone who regularly uses the functions "copy" and "paste", I can tell you that there are many times where I c/p a blob of text and forgot to change something crucial in it. This happens to many people. Apparently, the folks at Apple are not immune to human flaws.
It's probably just an oversight. A HUGE oversight. But there's really no need to make a circus out of it. Then again, this is Slashdot, right?
Dilemma. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Just like drug companies had no interest in eliminating small pox? There are plenty of diseases to go around, and more of them turn up all the time.
Admittedly, I'm too young to appreciate the politics that went on when small pox was "eradicated", so it would be nice if anyone can point out what's so different about the small pox issue and the AIDS issue.
OK, I'm done. Ready to take the karma beating.
I don't think TFA is being fair in its language when describing the possibilities of the DataPortability Workgroup becoming "walled-garden data-horders" or "truly open platforms". It somehow implies that the Alliance is more capable of governing the organization in a way that allows for an open trading of information. I'll let them know that our use of the Goblin Zeppelin technology is much more cost-effective and flexible than their under-ground tram system between Stormwind and Ironforge.
Oh, they meant data-hoArders?
Concerned Blood Elf
Silvermoon City
Quel'Thalas
This WAS in Korea, after all.
The only case I could find with a quick Google search in Canada was Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Canadian Assn. of Internet Providers, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 427, 2004 SCC 45 .
Glancing over the case briefly, the Supreme Court of Canada reached a conclusion that ISPs act merely as a "conduit" (which is the word specifically used in the decision), and should therefore not be liable for anything that happens over their networks (unless the content is hosted on their networks, and they explicitly reject to do anything about the contested content). They can only act as a "conduit" and enjoy a "don't shoot the messenger" protection if the "participation is content neutral", meaning it doesn't do anything with the content other than communicating it. ISPs can only claim exemption from liability if they act merely as conduits. The moment they tamper with the content, they stop being a "conduit". Once they have some control over the content, it COULD be argued that whenever copyright infringement occurs over their networks, they should be able to stop it.
Which is what makes this move by Rogers TOTALLY bizarre. Since Rogers is now modifying the content of web sites, they can no longer, it can be implied from this case, claim exemption from liability of copyright infringement. I don't think they consulted with their legal department before rolling these "features" out. The CRIA should jump on this opportunity to quickly sue Rogers and cite this case.
Actually, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled time and again that if a law is left largely unenforced, it will be effectively void. The reasoning is exactly to prevent what you mentioned: selective enforcement.
Oh, and I suppose you don't consider that book you just cited as a medium? Books are as much of a part of media as newspapers, TV, radio, and the internet. In fact, there are many times that books, as media, changed the face of the world. Martin Luther's writings led to the Reformation that created many of the Protestant sects of Christianity.
Yeah, I'm off-topic, but I'm willing to take a bit of a karma beating to set this guy straight.
I completely agree with you that people shouldn't dig up this information. They should respect others' right to privacy. If the woman did something wrong, it's up to the police to deal with it, not a mob (not even a virtual one). The problem is that these bloggers are usually people who don't agree with or understand the position that even those who commit moral "faux-pas" (for a lack of a better term - since I honestly don't know if the woman's actions constituted a crime) have these rights to privacy. They either a) don't understand that revealing this information will expose the subject(s) in question to huge risks; or b) WANT the subject(s) in question to be exposed to huge risks.
So while I agree with your position, I don't think it's a realistic one. If there's someone stupid enough to pretend to be a teenage boy in order to grief an emotionally unstable teenage girl, there's someone stupid enough to uncover that person's identity.
Isn't that their strategy when they use a finer fab process anyway? I remember reading an article (possibly linked from a previous /. submission) about how they had a 2-step development process. When they switch to a finer fab process, they only have incremental, conservative upgrades. Then with the 2nd step, they use the same fab process, but introduce more aggressive instruction sets/upgrades/etc.
I couldn't find the article with a quick Google, but I'm sure someone will dig it up.
You can drive 140 on the 401?!?!!? I can barely go up to 40 most days!! :)
"Danny, stop running around with them, you're going to poke someone's eyes out!"
"NO, LIZ!! You're not supposed to use them on your private area!! STOP IT NOW!!"
That's nothing but a new name for an age old process. The process of adding heat to reagents (a.k.a. cooking) is in itself a chemical process.
Take baking, for example. For those who've never tried it, baking is a very precise exercise. You have to add precise amounts of reagents, mix them together in a certain order, and add a precise amount of heat for a precise amount of time. That whole undertaking is very chemical in nature. If you time it wrong, add the wrong amount of heat and/or reagents, then you're going to end up with some pretty disastrous results. The chemical reactions that make a cake or a loaf of bread is not very different than making a vinegar/baking soda volcano.
The whole "molecular gastronomy" trend is simply applying the same strategy to "warm" dishes. Instead of adding a "dash" of salt or a "pinch" of pepper, you're now adding precisely X mg of chemical Y. I know we usually don't think of food and cooking as endeavours relating to chemistry, but I don't see why so many people are so surprised when that fact is pointed out.
Regardless, I think this is a very good thing. I love food and I love science. Now I can eat food that's created by using scientific principles!
Actually, no. I use two sets of slides. One for myself, that I put on my Macbook that rests on the pedastal/desk/whatever-the-case-may-be that I use as cue cards, and another that is actually presented to the audience. The set for myself is usually more detailed so I don't lose track of what I'm talking about.
:)
The set presented to the audience is of a lot better quality
That's not so much a critique of presentation software so much as a critique of how people USE it.
Whoever sets up the presentations for Steve Jobs, for example, tends to do a pretty good job for his keynotes.
I personally use presentation software not to present information to others, but as "cue cards" for myself.
Presentation software has its uses, although I would agree with you that most of the time, it's used very, very poorly.
They might have requested anonymity so people don't ridicule themabout paying for the low UID. Well, actually, it doesn't matter why they requested anonymity. The fact of the matter is that they did. It's a little rude to point out their account when they explicitly wanted to keep it hidden.
/., I don't see why you would purposely go out of your way to lift that veil off of someone else.
With all the concern about the right to remain anonymous on
But hey, your curiousity is sated. What do you care. Mod me troll, mod me whatever you like. I think it was irresponsible and inconsiderate to do that.
I wouldn't put it beyond BioWare to make something on the level of WoW, or perhaps even better. They've shown that they can make in-depth, gripping, epic RPGs in the Baldur's Gate series and NWN. They've shown that they can execute a cleaner, simpler style of play in KotOR. The sweet spot for an MMO lies somewhere in-between simple enough so anyone can pick it up, but with enough diversity so any two given people playing the same race/class can have completely different play-styles.
If Blizzard was able to strike that balance (for the most part, anyway), BioWare, with a vast amount of RPG experience under its belt, certainly has the potential to as well.
Um ... you DO realize they're called stars for a reason, right? Maybe YOU don't care about them, but clearly SOMEBODY does.
However it turns out, I'm just glad that I got my R4 from HK before the crackdown happened.
Uh ... it's bad. At a theoretical level, "natural monopoly" sectors (of which telecommunications is a part of), should either be State/Crown Corporations or heavily, heavily regulated. Although the ultimate goal (in free market societies) of any sector is to promote competition to lead to the deregulation of the industry, it is very much impractical (if not outright impossible) for "natural monopoly" sectors. Telecomms is considered a "natural monopoly" sector because the barrier of entry is unrealistically high for any real competitors to emerge. We're not talking about pseudo-competitors who are able to lease the lines that big telcos have laid, but rather REAL competitors who lay down their own lines and govern their own lines themselves.
(Warning: Completely hypothetical and utterly unrealistic scenario ahead; I realize that it's totally off-base, but I'm just trying to provide a frame of reference.)
Imagine, if you will, a beach with 5 stores selling food. However, 4 of the stores don't actually control where they're getting the food. 1 store controls the supply line (analogical equivelent of the telecomm lines), and the 4 other stores can only buy food off of that 1 store. Any outside observer would assume, prima facie, that there is real competition there are 5 stores on the beach, all with similar prices and products. However, 4 of those stores are actually at the beck and call of the 5th store. That 5th store is the "real monopoly", so to speak, and the 4 other stores are the pseudo-competitors.
In Canada, this sort of works for the DSL sector, because Bell Canada (the "real monopoly", so to speak) is HEAVILY regulated. They MUST have their prices at a certain level, and the MUST lease their lines out to pseudo-competitors at dirt cheap prices (not really, but a lot cheaper than it would if it were unregulated). Of course, thus far, I haven't touched upon the actual issue, but I will. Don't rush me.
Now that we understand that big telcos are monopolies, here is where we get to the supposed "deregulation". The deregulation of a certain subset of rules (not ALL the rules are deregulated), in this case allowing telcos to discriminate between traffic, gives the telcos MASSIVE influence and power over the content that is brought forth via their lines.
To bring it back to my (awfully constructed) food analogy, this would be the equivelent of the "real monopoly" store demanding that the food providers give them a share of the profits (or more practically, reduce the prices at which the food is provided to the store), or else the food will no longer be carried in any of the stores. The food providers HAVE NO CHOICE but to comply. This is because they can't go to another store to sell their wares (remember that all other stores' supply lines are controlled by the "real monopoly").
Likewise, if big telcos demand Google a certain share of their profits, or else everyone would have to wait 10 seconds before the Google home page loads, Google HAS NO CHOICE but to comply, lest they take a massive hit on marketshare. This has limitless implications on the net as a whole.
(Disclaimer: I have purposely left out many detailed workings and purposely made blatantly incorrect - though theoretically merited - statements to make this a simpler post to understand for those who are unfamiliar with how this works. If you feel that you should correct me or expand upon certain concepts, please feel free to do so. But please don't flame me for trying to make this an easier pill to swallow for some people. Thanks in advance.)
Regardless of whether you're right or not (about grabbing back marketshare), the fonts that they're introducing aren't all that bad in themselves. Although I recognize that it's probably a subjective judgment, I think that the new set of fonts are more readable. For example, I think Calibiri and Candara are easier to read than Arial and Helvetica, respectively.
I misread the title as "RIAA Uses Usenet.com".
Wow, what a difference two letters make, huh?