Just like your original post suggested, people often read different things into the words you use.
I dig the robot, too... but, there's some pretty interesting stuff in that old book.
Re:Jesus didn't walk on the water
on
Robot Walks on Water
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Doubtful.
The most prevalent form of the Matthew text is Greek (the most widely understood written language in the region). The Greek word used in the Matthew text is transliterated "peripateo" - to walk. The Greek word for "swim" is transliterated "kolympo" - to bathe or swim.
However, tradition strongly suggests that the original Matthew writings would have favored Hebrew (highly plausible - given his background). If so, it's original form is lost. Yet, there are distinct words for walk and swim in Hebrew, also. Translators understanding both languages would have been able to avoid a confusion pretty easily.
Depends on if you want to watch TV in the same room as your box or not. An Athlon-64 outfit with all the fans necessary to run it won't be quiet without additional expense. Likewise, it won't be the tinest box either and, assuming you leave it on 24/7, it would eat a fair amount of power.
The PVR-250 offers onboard MPEG-2 compression which gets you decent quality and acceptable file sizes and you don't need your CPU to do all the work. It would be nice to save some of those cycles to use on playback of the recorded stream (which you'd need to do if watching live TV or a recorded program while your system was recording something else).
You might even sacrifice some of that extraneous processing power and build a fanless Mini-ITX system. No fan noise, lower power consumption, and a tiny box to amaze your friends and fool your enemies.
Probably. But business is business. The only successful way to dodge problems (certain incompatibilities with OS and hardware, yada-yada) and development costs with rolling out DRM is to make sure the technology for doing it is ubiquitous. This pushes toward cooperation (like the DVD consortium that administers licensing CSS).
As far as the tax, Microsoft is more likely to pass the costs off in the other direction. The content providers won't pay because they've agreed to adopt it. Rather, they will pass the tax off to the players (like DVD).
Don't touch it with a 10 foot pole - it is most likely tainted!
Any moment now, I'm sure we'll hear how SCO (through an ownership rationalization chain that will make Rube Goldberg pack his bags and head to the nether regions of shame) actually owns this (without having actually coded a bloody thing) and that IBM has no rights to give away anything it developed.
Save yourself the grief, expense, and the ensuing barrage of Slashdot rants about SCO! Just say 'NO'.
You made a lot of interesting points but your response took a little creative license WRT the original letter:
* The RIAA does not specifically attack BitTorrent. BitTorrent is not named in any part of the RIAA document.
* The RIAA does not say P2P is wrong. On the contrary, it makes one statement saying the technology is "magnificent". It points out that the law makes it mighty difficult to enforce a copyright when P2P is used.
Editorialize all you want about the quality of the artists but the bottom line is there are people paying for "creative product". These artists are agreeing to the terms of the deals that make their material available and assigning the distribution rights to members of the RIAA and they have a choice (albeit an anemic one - the RIAA has quite a hold on the industry - like Microsoft).
RIAA members have invested money and have a right to protect their investment. However, they must do so legally and should to so ethically. Going after kids is legal, though, perhaps, not the most ethical thing. However, what deterent means do they have to protect their investment in copyright which has been granted under US law?
And, THAT'S the fundamental issue. Should the law be changed to make it easier to inforce copyright?
The onus for protecting copyright has always been on the owner. That being said, Congress has the sole responsibility under the Constitution to create a legal environment that makes protection of copyright possible in order "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts."
Technological innovation happens. Photocopiers made it easier to copy print. Tape made it easier to copy audio. VCRs made it easier to copy video. The very nature of technology is to make things easier. So, attempting to prevent making things easier is an attempt to prevent technological innovation.
To change the law to stifle innovation in order to protect a recording industry failing to innovate is inconsistent with the responsibilities of Congress.
Existing law is enough. Innovation happens and it's up to the recording industry to adapt. They can continue to sue, if they want - that's their right. But, the world is becoming difficult for them to make any headway by sueing people. They are better off figuring out a different way.
Little apples and oranges mix here - you've got a Linux boost in 64 bit but the comparison breaks because XP is using a 32 bit binary. Windows hangs on here.
Actually, I'd argue differently. IP addresses are like street addresses. Physical houses are like MAC addresses.
A house is an object that is distinct from it's location and is independent of it's neighbors. You can pick up a house and move it (with some difficulty).
Your street address points to where your house is located - it implies a route. If you move the street address to somewhere else, you're neighbors are affected because you can no longer generalize the route.
Yes, it is not a final judgement. However, it is enforceable, pending final judgement. One of the references quotes the TRO:
"NAC shall permit CUSTOMER to continue utilization through any carrier or carriers of CUSTOMER's choice of any IP addresses that were utilized by, through or on behalf of CUSTOMER under the April 2003 Agreement during the term thereof (the "Prior CUSTOMER Addresses") and shall not interfere in any way with the use of the Prior CUSTOMER Addresses, including, but not limited to:
(i) by reassignment of IP address space to any customer; aggregation and/or BGP announcement modifications,
(ii) by directly or indirectly causing the occurrence of superseding or conflicting BGP Global Routing Table entries; filters and/or access lists, and/or
(iii) by directly or indirectly causing reduced prioritization or access to and/or from the Prior CUSTOMER Addresses, (c) provide CUSTOMER with a Letter of Authorization (LOA) within seven (7) days of CUSTOMER's written request for same to the email address/ticket system (network@nac.net), and (d) permit announcement of the Prior CUSTOMER Addresses to any carrier, IP transit or IP peering network."
The beginning of our fourth mission year brought a new challenge... perhaps beyond our capabilities. Upon entry into Cyberian space, the efficiency of the Enterprise warp engines was reduced to nearly 1% of their rated capacity. Working together, Science Office Spock and Chief Engineer Scott have determined the physics of the region of space we currently occupy is somehow different from normal space - rapid movement, at least in the conventional sense, is impossible. Originally observed and reported by a member of the Engineering staff, the phenomena has been unofficially named for him.
Recommend commendation for Ensign Sleesh Doot for identification and communication of this phenomena. Let us all hope we are all able to make it out to be able to see he actually gets it.
IANACE (Chemical Engineer) but I believe "cracking" oil refers to a refining process where longer hydrocarbon molecules are broken into shorter molecules. As the carbon chains shorten, they become more able to be used effectively as fuels for internal combustion engines.
I agree - that was a question similar to "have you stopped beating your wife?"
I worked for a contracting company that 1) wrote and marketed its own software, 2) developed software at the request and for other companies, and 3) developed software for its own use to accomplish work tasks for other companies. Depending on the nature of work, either the client owned it (also, we contracted with the Federal gov - which, by law, requires software developed by them to pass in the public domain) or the company retained ownership. Also, the terms of my employment agreement stipulated (at my insistance) that software I develop not directly related to accomplishing a specific project function is mine.
Absolutely; the Federal gov represents the whole and, as such, can trump state law. The Federal gov routinely regulates commerce and can regulate international commerce - that's spelled out in the Constitution. I'm not saying they can't do it; rather, the point I'm making is that this will force the gov of the whole to disinfranchise a group or state. Though it can do a thing does not make it palletable to actually do it.
As far as gambling is concerned, I believe you would be hard pressed in making the case that gambling is speech. It's commerce; it can and is regulated (just like drugs, prostitution, TV, utilities,...).
The US doesn't allow gambling; the US allows the states to make the decision and the states individually allow or prohibit gambling. Allowing unrestricted internet gambling undermines the authority of an individual state by providing a means to circumvent state law.
This issue gets pretty sticky because of the implications on states rights and our means of government.
Well, apparently, it is a US Department of Agriculture facility. It appears to be have been established for research into diseases afflicting agriculture.
Seems to be a pretty legitimate area of research in it's own right. You'd want a highly rigorously contained facility so you don't run the risk of a nasty escaping and killing off all the cows (or people) on the eastern seaboard. There doesn't have to be a defense component to justify it.
Add to it the bioterror and defense issues, particularly as they relate to effects on agriculture and food supply, and it seems like a rational (albeit a little unsettling) approach for gov funded research.
Though the appellate court found that the CSS is not really a trade secret anymore, that doesn't have very much to do with the issue of why DVDXCOPY exists - to make copies of CSS encrypted media.
The DMCA prohibits the distribution of a means to circumvent a method used to restrict access to copyrighted material. This issue remains regardless of the trade secret status of the algorithm.
There was no discrimination; SCO opted out of accepting the licensing terms of the NMAP software. Since they have said publicly that they do not accept the GPL, usage of any GPL licensed software is immediately forbidden under the terms of the license. The NMAP folks simply pulled the trigger in textual form.
Sure; "trickle down" economics can work. However, it's naive to assume it works everywhere and in every condition.
To work, there has to be a positive pressure for dispersement on the receiver of wealth - it has to be in their best interest to disperse concentrated wealth.
The desire for wealth is not a very good motivator to disperse wealth.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, hello, 911?
... I'm sure I'll have it resolved by the time I reach my home.
It seems my car *refuses* to stop at red lights. Whenever I approach one turning red, the car mysteriously speeds up through the intersection.
Do be a peach and clear the way for me until I can get this under control
You're taking this pretty seriously, aren't you?
... but, there's some pretty interesting stuff in that old book.
Couldn't tell how serious you were.
Just like your original post suggested, people often read different things into the words you use.
I dig the robot, too
Doubtful.
The most prevalent form of the Matthew text is Greek (the most widely understood written language in the region). The Greek word used in the Matthew text is transliterated "peripateo" - to walk. The Greek word for "swim" is transliterated "kolympo" - to bathe or swim.
However, tradition strongly suggests that the original Matthew writings would have favored Hebrew (highly plausible - given his background). If so, it's original form is lost. Yet, there are distinct words for walk and swim in Hebrew, also. Translators understanding both languages would have been able to avoid a confusion pretty easily.
Depends on if you want to watch TV in the same room as your box or not. An Athlon-64 outfit with all the fans necessary to run it won't be quiet without additional expense. Likewise, it won't be the tinest box either and, assuming you leave it on 24/7, it would eat a fair amount of power.
The PVR-250 offers onboard MPEG-2 compression which gets you decent quality and acceptable file sizes and you don't need your CPU to do all the work. It would be nice to save some of those cycles to use on playback of the recorded stream (which you'd need to do if watching live TV or a recorded program while your system was recording something else).
You might even sacrifice some of that extraneous processing power and build a fanless Mini-ITX system. No fan noise, lower power consumption, and a tiny box to amaze your friends and fool your enemies.
Probably. But business is business. The only successful way to dodge problems (certain incompatibilities with OS and hardware, yada-yada) and development costs with rolling out DRM is to make sure the technology for doing it is ubiquitous. This pushes toward cooperation (like the DVD consortium that administers licensing CSS).
As far as the tax, Microsoft is more likely to pass the costs off in the other direction. The content providers won't pay because they've agreed to adopt it. Rather, they will pass the tax off to the players (like DVD).
but is still alive today to tell about it.
... and considers no longer requiring a lamp to read by at night a bonus.
... He'd have provided more engineering graduate students.
Don't touch it with a 10 foot pole - it is most likely tainted!
Any moment now, I'm sure we'll hear how SCO (through an ownership rationalization chain that will make Rube Goldberg pack his bags and head to the nether regions of shame) actually owns this (without having actually coded a bloody thing) and that IBM has no rights to give away anything it developed.
Save yourself the grief, expense, and the ensuing barrage of Slashdot rants about SCO! Just say 'NO'.
You made a lot of interesting points but your response took a little creative license WRT the original letter:
* The RIAA does not specifically attack BitTorrent. BitTorrent is not named in any part of the RIAA document.
* The RIAA does not say P2P is wrong. On the contrary, it makes one statement saying the technology is "magnificent". It points out that the law makes it mighty difficult to enforce a copyright when P2P is used.
Editorialize all you want about the quality of the artists but the bottom line is there are people paying for "creative product". These artists are agreeing to the terms of the deals that make their material available and assigning the distribution rights to members of the RIAA and they have a choice (albeit an anemic one - the RIAA has quite a hold on the industry - like Microsoft).
RIAA members have invested money and have a right to protect their investment. However, they must do so legally and should to so ethically. Going after kids is legal, though, perhaps, not the most ethical thing. However, what deterent means do they have to protect their investment in copyright which has been granted under US law?
And, THAT'S the fundamental issue. Should the law be changed to make it easier to inforce copyright?
The onus for protecting copyright has always been on the owner. That being said, Congress has the sole responsibility under the Constitution to create a legal environment that makes protection of copyright possible in order "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts."
Technological innovation happens. Photocopiers made it easier to copy print. Tape made it easier to copy audio. VCRs made it easier to copy video. The very nature of technology is to make things easier. So, attempting to prevent making things easier is an attempt to prevent technological innovation.
To change the law to stifle innovation in order to protect a recording industry failing to innovate is inconsistent with the responsibilities of Congress.
Existing law is enough. Innovation happens and it's up to the recording industry to adapt. They can continue to sue, if they want - that's their right. But, the world is becoming difficult for them to make any headway by sueing people. They are better off figuring out a different way.
Um, *reading* the article shows Linux slugging out pretty well compared to Windows WRT rendering.
Benchmark render times - less is better. Times are shown as 64 bit (32 bit)
Mental Ray 3.3.1 (32 bit app *only*):
Windows: 91.97s (92.08s)
SUSE: 85.29s (86.73s)
FC2: 84.15s (85.88s)
Looks like Linux slugs it out with XP pretty well here.
POV-Ray (32 bit app for Windows only):
Windows: 1589s (1592s)
SUSE: 1399s (1762s)
FC2: 1700s (1864s)
Little apples and oranges mix here - you've got a Linux boost in 64 bit but the comparison breaks because XP is using a 32 bit binary. Windows hangs on here.
Actually, I'd argue differently. IP addresses are like street addresses. Physical houses are like MAC addresses.
A house is an object that is distinct from it's location and is independent of it's neighbors. You can pick up a house and move it (with some difficulty).
Your street address points to where your house is located - it implies a route. If you move the street address to somewhere else, you're neighbors are affected because you can no longer generalize the route.
Yes, it is not a final judgement. However, it is enforceable, pending final judgement. One of the references quotes the TRO:
... even if temporary.
"NAC shall permit CUSTOMER to continue utilization through any carrier or carriers of CUSTOMER's choice of any IP addresses that were utilized by, through or on behalf of CUSTOMER under the April 2003 Agreement during the term thereof (the "Prior CUSTOMER Addresses") and shall not interfere in any way with the use of the Prior CUSTOMER Addresses, including, but not limited to:
(i) by reassignment of IP address space to any customer; aggregation and/or BGP announcement modifications,
(ii) by directly or indirectly causing the occurrence of superseding or conflicting BGP Global Routing Table entries; filters and/or access lists, and/or
(iii) by directly or indirectly causing reduced prioritization or access to and/or from the Prior CUSTOMER Addresses, (c) provide CUSTOMER with a Letter of Authorization (LOA) within seven (7) days of CUSTOMER's written request for same to the email address/ticket system (network@nac.net), and (d) permit announcement of the Prior CUSTOMER Addresses to any carrier, IP transit or IP peering network."
This is a lot of disruption
The beginning of our fourth mission year brought a new challenge ... perhaps beyond our capabilities. Upon entry into Cyberian space, the efficiency of the Enterprise warp engines was reduced to nearly 1% of their rated capacity. Working together, Science Office Spock and Chief Engineer Scott have determined the physics of the region of space we currently occupy is somehow different from normal space - rapid movement, at least in the conventional sense, is impossible. Originally observed and reported by a member of the Engineering staff, the phenomena has been unofficially named for him.
Recommend commendation for Ensign Sleesh Doot for identification and communication of this phenomena. Let us all hope we are all able to make it out to be able to see he actually gets it.
IANACE (Chemical Engineer) but I believe "cracking" oil refers to a refining process where longer hydrocarbon molecules are broken into shorter molecules. As the carbon chains shorten, they become more able to be used effectively as fuels for internal combustion engines.
I agree - that was a question similar to "have you stopped beating your wife?"
... where is the "ALL OF THE ABOVE" selection?
I worked for a contracting company that 1) wrote and marketed its own software, 2) developed software at the request and for other companies, and 3) developed software for its own use to accomplish work tasks for other companies. Depending on the nature of work, either the client owned it (also, we contracted with the Federal gov - which, by law, requires software developed by them to pass in the public domain) or the company retained ownership. Also, the terms of my employment agreement stipulated (at my insistance) that software I develop not directly related to accomplishing a specific project function is mine.
So
Absolutely; the Federal gov represents the whole and, as such, can trump state law. The Federal gov routinely regulates commerce and can regulate international commerce - that's spelled out in the Constitution. I'm not saying they can't do it; rather, the point I'm making is that this will force the gov of the whole to disinfranchise a group or state. Though it can do a thing does not make it palletable to actually do it.
...).
As far as gambling is concerned, I believe you would be hard pressed in making the case that gambling is speech. It's commerce; it can and is regulated (just like drugs, prostitution, TV, utilities,
The US doesn't allow gambling; the US allows the states to make the decision and the states individually allow or prohibit gambling. Allowing unrestricted internet gambling undermines the authority of an individual state by providing a means to circumvent state law.
This issue gets pretty sticky because of the implications on states rights and our means of government.
Well, apparently, it is a US Department of Agriculture facility. It appears to be have been established for research into diseases afflicting agriculture.
Seems to be a pretty legitimate area of research in it's own right. You'd want a highly rigorously contained facility so you don't run the risk of a nasty escaping and killing off all the cows (or people) on the eastern seaboard. There doesn't have to be a defense component to justify it.
Add to it the bioterror and defense issues, particularly as they relate to effects on agriculture and food supply, and it seems like a rational (albeit a little unsettling) approach for gov funded research.
I'd agree with that. But. you'd have to admit - an internal email by a Micron executive saying:
"The consensus from all suppliers is that if Micron makes the move all of them will do the same and make it stick."
smells of gunpowder.
Probably not.
Though the appellate court found that the CSS is not really a trade secret anymore, that doesn't have very much to do with the issue of why DVDXCOPY exists - to make copies of CSS encrypted media.
The DMCA prohibits the distribution of a means to circumvent a method used to restrict access to copyrighted material. This issue remains regardless of the trade secret status of the algorithm.
There was no discrimination; SCO opted out of accepting the licensing terms of the NMAP software. Since they have said publicly that they do not accept the GPL, usage of any GPL licensed software is immediately forbidden under the terms of the license. The NMAP folks simply pulled the trigger in textual form.
We have a hard enough time tracking the breakup of stuff we left up there in the past.
... even without the odd orbital debris. Just the odd paint chip can make for a very bad day.
Space travel is hazardous enough
Sure; "trickle down" economics can work. However, it's naive to assume it works everywhere and in every condition.
To work, there has to be a positive pressure for dispersement on the receiver of wealth - it has to be in their best interest to disperse concentrated wealth.
The desire for wealth is not a very good motivator to disperse wealth.
... come to think of it, he kinda "quivers", too ...
A quick google session shows how:
Using a watch as a compass.