4. Therefore, you have incentive not to nuke them in the first place (lest you lose vital data).
3. A larger drive equals a larger chunk of the involved virtual economy. Having a smaller drive means you're used less (and are therefore worth-less.) Larger drives?? pay for themselves.
2. The operating system handles hardware swaps, same as a realtime USB wizard would. When you tell the OS to start initiating a hard drive upgrade (your new hardware in hand, ready to be swapped in) the OS promptly swaps out the data of the current HD to points elsewhere; you swap in the new drive; the new drive immediately goes to work handling, well, whatever is out there to be handled. This doesn't even require guesswork; why'd you mention it?
1. Why would the data disappear at random intervals? You claim that this system defeats the redundancy of the internet. Where was it EVER stated in this article that redundancy wouldn't be maintained?
. . .
Give me a break. This proposal rocks and there is no real argument against it; especially considering that current OS hosting applications such as distributed signal processing, distributed data processing, and distributed process processing are already up and running and become more ubiquitous with each passing processor generation.
This, and all related stories, are all just too bad -- because each story like this, be it to reminisce or extrapolate, means that we're a mark of probability closer to experiencing these effects amplified as the result of direct, near-ground-zero exposure. Peace be with you, wherever your marker falls.
WHILE
As long as there's a patent office;
AND
As long as you aren't in the patent office;
THEN
You are going to find some/all patents offensive;
'NUFF.
but really. the patent office is a fucking moronic shambles. let's get rid of it already.
You know, I don't think that's the intended affect. I think the idea is to actually have transparent concrete.
There are some subtle differences, like, transparent concrete will still display what's on the other side after shelfving is screwed to it and the water cooler falls against it. Oh, and stuff like, it wouldn't need to use any power.
Commercials _are_ the new plastic art. Having your art displayed as "Commercial" is a seal of approval that you are good enough to make the cut. Commercialism doesn't make the medium; it just validates the content.
So that about sums it up. The art world isn't in the galleries any more, it's inside the commercials.
"...which over the course of a 30 minute program, can add up to 30 seconds..."
let's not forget that in a half hour of television, the show is already interjecting with a number of two-and-a-half-minute commercial segments and so isn't really a full half-hour long.
this isn't a bad idea. the process to automate this would probably cut a frame from the signal at regular intervals as its being broadcast, and then spit out the commercial time at the very end.
television broadcasts at either 25 or 29.97 frames per second -- to get a second every minute, you need to cut that many frames a minute; one frame about every other second.
but what happens if the stream is cut at various points? suppose the network plays a pre-cut,
minus-30-sec version of the tape. and suppose they also broadcast with a second-a-minute cut. that's one minute. suppose the satellite provider also cuts a second a minute, and suppose the local affiliate sells a full cut-minute to the local sponsors. by that time it's already two a half minutes shorter -- hmm, that's another commercial segment.
however, if i was an ad exec, what i would do instead is rally all the sponsors to lobby to censor more material after the networks have already filmed their episodes. it would probably be very easy to cut the average show or movie by two and a half minutes. however, the time-machien way disperses more money among all of those involved. however, my way of doing it would simply just involve more people -- including myself and all the lawyers, lobbyists, and paperworkers involved. however, it would also give all the anti-censorship proponents something to be pissed off about. however, this time-machine-cutting process will make everybody appear jerkier anyways, and so it wouldn't make any damn difference.
the internet is this cybernetic super-interface to civilization and theology and you name it. but, it's also just a bunch of electrons and gates. oh well. oh hey, oh well. hey -- hey -- hey. oi oi.
you know, though, that weinberger's statements are extrapolated (overly confusive) diagrams of very simple matters...
for example, weinberger analyzes EBAY to be this vast virtual world. sure, it's a large database, the but actualy world is much larger are versatile (and capable of storage) than the backup drives at ebay. i agree with the BS tag -- how can it be space occupying no space? space doesn't occupy space in the first place.
TIME? if time is a bunch of server ticks, then immortality would just be a matter of requesting a larger timeslice from god. obviously it's not that easy. time exists as a human invention -- an abstraction of the motion of objects as divided between one another. we take it for granted by ignoring some objects in reference to others; it's as simple as that. virtual time shares exist as electrons prodding gates around other electrons. it's really no more romantic than a sluice.
SELF? i don't see how an online persona is different than an irl one. they both present opporunities and challenges, and the fact is while you have to live with your real life persona, you can delete your online persona at any time. sure, it might be cybernetically plugged into your ass, but once in awhile you do have to take a shit.
KNOWLEDGE. well, wienberger likes quilts. any old hag who hangs out at his gay knitting parties would know that. what does the internet have to do with it? the medium isn't solely representative of the content -- sorry.
weinberger says the web 'zaps' out economy. yeah, like a lightning bolt striking a big fat stock pool and electrocuting everyone with their head underwater. what the hell ever.
a person who wants to become one with the 'net has to realize that the 'net is as mundane, if not moreso, than themself. this cycle does not end, despite some asshole like weinberger holding his hand out to stop the quickly spinning stone wheel of reality. i hope his hand gets ground off into soilent green chuck. ten dollars a pound on ebay! weinberger soilent green, going once... twice?
you know, i was having trouble figuring this out; whether there's an internet or not. i mean, didn't al gore invent it? for that matter, didn't bill clinton try to regulate it, and didn't george bush sr. pretend it didn't existed? didn't ronald reagan think it belonged to the military? what does all of that say about the internet user who is inxtrorably (at least of their own volition) and cybernetically tied to the net? i really don't have answers, just questions.
"now i'm finding truth is a ruined, nauseous end that nobody is pursuin' -- every famine virtual; retrovertigo... giga-giga-gilgamesh." -- mister bungle
oh, yeah? well fuck my former employers. they suck. *shrug?* i don't get it. this'll never be 'law'; it infringes too much on freedom of speech. telling the honest-to-god truth about your evil former employers is necessary to the working man's freedom in the capitalist system.
besides;
the simple fact that you have former employers is testament to the fact that they are stupid assholes who couldn't hold onto you. what the fuck; are they going to sue you for firing you?!?!?!?!!? what the FAAWWWKKK!?!?!?!? give me a fucking break already. go pass the bar or something, bored asshole.
i would be much more worried about their patent than their technique.
why worry? i don't know; i guess because you can get away with patenting one-click-purchasing and a-book-on-a-disk. those patent clerks wouldn't know obvious if it was spraypainted in blood on the side of harsh goatsex.
my gut tells me they are trying to patent the idea that you can derive a seed (for an algorhythm) from a string of bytes -- and then turn around, seed the algorhythm and get your bytes back.
pretty damn obvious, right? but if you also say you're doing it "to cause compression", and you also shroud it in a fit of higher function theoretical math theories, and viola. if you're hyper-slick you can even get away with charging royalties on every inclusion of rnd(). at least until some nerds get jobs as patent clerks, lawyers, and justices, and show up in high orders on jury duty. that could take decadess, meanwhile they'll be living the high life and stowing it all away in corporate sponsorships or wtfe.
i don't know. they did say in plain english, "random data". all they've really promised is that for any given sequence of randomly generated bytes, they can get the seed. or so it appears to me.
Slashdot Mirror
surprise, it's actually a seed to algorhtmically produce a startling new gigapixel image of god's buttcrack!
has any other 'work' begged more for erasure?
~/maxlyons> rm gigapixel_junk.jpg
4. Therefore, you have incentive not to nuke them in the first place (lest you lose vital data).
3. A larger drive equals a larger chunk of the involved virtual economy. Having a smaller drive means you're used less (and are therefore worth-less.) Larger drives?? pay for themselves.
2. The operating system handles hardware swaps, same as a realtime USB wizard would. When you tell the OS to start initiating a hard drive upgrade (your new hardware in hand, ready to be swapped in) the OS promptly swaps out the data of the current HD to points elsewhere; you swap in the new drive; the new drive immediately goes to work handling, well, whatever is out there to be handled. This doesn't even require guesswork; why'd you mention it?
1. Why would the data disappear at random intervals? You claim that this system defeats the redundancy of the internet. Where was it EVER stated in this article that redundancy wouldn't be maintained?
. . .
Give me a break. This proposal rocks and there is no real argument against it; especially considering that current OS hosting applications such as distributed signal processing, distributed data processing, and distributed process processing are already up and running and become more ubiquitous with each passing processor generation.
THAT -- When they said "Communism Doesn't Work on Paper!", micro-computers had yet to be invented!
This, and all related stories, are all just too bad -- because each story like this, be it to reminisce or extrapolate, means that we're a mark of probability closer to experiencing these effects amplified as the result of direct, near-ground-zero exposure. Peace be with you, wherever your marker falls.
[ka-boom]
*WHAT* ?!
what the HELL ?!?!
this post is an echelon magnet!!!
WHILE
As long as there's a patent office;
AND
As long as you aren't in the patent office;
THEN
You are going to find some/all patents offensive;
'NUFF.
but really. the patent office is a fucking moronic shambles. let's get rid of it already.
What the fuck is a FOTR?
You know, I don't think that's the intended affect. I think the idea is to actually have transparent concrete.
There are some subtle differences, like, transparent concrete will still display what's on the other side after shelfving is screwed to it and the water cooler falls against it. Oh, and stuff like, it wouldn't need to use any power.
Commercials _are_ the new plastic art. Having your art displayed as "Commercial" is a seal of approval that you are good enough to make the cut. Commercialism doesn't make the medium; it just validates the content.
So that about sums it up. The art world isn't in the galleries any more, it's inside the commercials.
just the fact that there are pig dogs at all pisses me off. i'm with you!
"...which over the course of a 30 minute program, can add up to 30 seconds..."
let's not forget that in a half hour of television, the show is already interjecting with a number of two-and-a-half-minute commercial segments and so isn't really a full half-hour long.
this isn't a bad idea. the process to automate this would probably cut a frame from the signal at regular intervals as its being broadcast, and then spit out the commercial time at the very end.
television broadcasts at either 25 or 29.97 frames per second -- to get a second every minute, you need to cut that many frames a minute; one frame about every other second.
but what happens if the stream is cut at various points? suppose the network plays a pre-cut,
minus-30-sec version of the tape. and suppose they also broadcast with a second-a-minute cut. that's one minute. suppose the satellite provider also cuts a second a minute, and suppose the local affiliate sells a full cut-minute to the local sponsors. by that time it's already two a half minutes shorter -- hmm, that's another commercial segment.
however, if i was an ad exec, what i would do instead is rally all the sponsors to lobby to censor more material after the networks have already filmed their episodes. it would probably be very easy to cut the average show or movie by two and a half minutes. however, the time-machien way disperses more money among all of those involved. however, my way of doing it would simply just involve more people -- including myself and all the lawyers, lobbyists, and paperworkers involved. however, it would also give all the anti-censorship proponents something to be pissed off about. however, this time-machine-cutting process will make everybody appear jerkier anyways, and so it wouldn't make any damn difference.
i dunno. maybe it's a good idea.
[customer]: i'll take the x-bird four gig.
[cashier]: alriiiight. *pokes display case* okay. *pokes counter* that'll be seven eighty-five ninety-five.
[customer]: alrighty-o. *digs through wallet* can you split the tender? i have some extra cash.
[cashier]: okay. *tenders cash* alright. *tenders credit card* great. sign here.
[customer]: *signs*
[cashier]: thanks for shopping at fuqu-tron! have a nice day.
[customer]: *waiting...* great. man i love the sound of these new chips.
[cashier]: great. i hope you enjoy your purchase.
[customer]: yup. *waiting...* oh yeah could you put it in a static bag?
[cashier]: oh yeah! sure. *pokes under counter* *pokes counter* *pokes counter again* there ya go, lad.
[customer]: um... *waiting...*
[cashier]: can i help who's next?
[customer]: dude where's my fucking processor?
the internet is this cybernetic super-interface to civilization and theology and you name it. but, it's also just a bunch of electrons and gates. oh well. oh hey, oh well. hey -- hey -- hey. oi oi.
you know, though, that weinberger's statements are extrapolated (overly confusive) diagrams of very simple matters...
for example, weinberger analyzes EBAY to be this vast virtual world. sure, it's a large database, the but actualy world is much larger are versatile (and capable of storage) than the backup drives at ebay. i agree with the BS tag -- how can it be space occupying no space? space doesn't occupy space in the first place.
TIME? if time is a bunch of server ticks, then immortality would just be a matter of requesting a larger timeslice from god. obviously it's not that easy. time exists as a human invention -- an abstraction of the motion of objects as divided between one another. we take it for granted by ignoring some objects in reference to others; it's as simple as that. virtual time shares exist as electrons prodding gates around other electrons. it's really no more romantic than a sluice.
SELF? i don't see how an online persona is different than an irl one. they both present opporunities and challenges, and the fact is while you have to live with your real life persona, you can delete your online persona at any time. sure, it might be cybernetically plugged into your ass, but once in awhile you do have to take a shit.
KNOWLEDGE. well, wienberger likes quilts. any old hag who hangs out at his gay knitting parties would know that. what does the internet have to do with it? the medium isn't solely representative of the content -- sorry.
weinberger says the web 'zaps' out economy. yeah, like a lightning bolt striking a big fat stock pool and electrocuting everyone with their head underwater. what the hell ever.
a person who wants to become one with the 'net has to realize that the 'net is as mundane, if not moreso, than themself. this cycle does not end, despite some asshole like weinberger holding his hand out to stop the quickly spinning stone wheel of reality. i hope his hand gets ground off into soilent green chuck. ten dollars a pound on ebay! weinberger soilent green, going once... twice?
you know, i was having trouble figuring this out; whether there's an internet or not. i mean, didn't al gore invent it? for that matter, didn't bill clinton try to regulate it, and didn't george bush sr. pretend it didn't existed? didn't ronald reagan think it belonged to the military? what does all of that say about the internet user who is inxtrorably (at least of their own volition) and cybernetically tied to the net? i really don't have answers, just questions.
"now i'm finding truth is a ruined, nauseous end that nobody is pursuin' -- every famine virtual; retrovertigo... giga-giga-gilgamesh." -- mister bungle
oh, yeah? well fuck my former employers. they suck. *shrug?* i don't get it. this'll never be 'law'; it infringes too much on freedom of speech. telling the honest-to-god truth about your evil former employers is necessary to the working man's freedom in the capitalist system.
besides;
the simple fact that you have former employers is testament to the fact that they are stupid assholes who couldn't hold onto you. what the fuck; are they going to sue you for firing you?!?!?!?!!? what the FAAWWWKKK!?!?!?!? give me a fucking break already. go pass the bar or something, bored asshole.
the whole universe decompresses at a ratio of 100:1 except for your file. you laugh, then you die. the end.
i would be much more worried about their patent than their technique.
why worry? i don't know; i guess because you can get away with patenting one-click-purchasing and a-book-on-a-disk. those patent clerks wouldn't know obvious if it was spraypainted in blood on the side of harsh goatsex.
my gut tells me they are trying to patent the idea that you can derive a seed (for an algorhythm) from a string of bytes -- and then turn around, seed the algorhythm and get your bytes back.
pretty damn obvious, right? but if you also say you're doing it "to cause compression", and you also shroud it in a fit of higher function theoretical math theories, and viola. if you're hyper-slick you can even get away with charging royalties on every inclusion of rnd(). at least until some nerds get jobs as patent clerks, lawyers, and justices, and show up in high orders on jury duty. that could take decadess, meanwhile they'll be living the high life and stowing it all away in corporate sponsorships or wtfe.
i don't know. they did say in plain english, "random data". all they've really promised is that for any given sequence of randomly generated bytes, they can get the seed. or so it appears to me.
one thing has to be admitted about script kiddies, and that's the they are expressive.