Could there be a case made for you being able to modify and use Ford's computer system in a way you legally cannot with Xbox? I mean, you can get in there tinker with the ECU..make something that mods the ECU or replaces totally in the system, with full expectation for the car running.
Why can you not do the exact same with the Xbox?
You can, but once you take the "ECU" out of an XBox and replace it with your own, you just have a custom computer in an XBox... box.
I guess the real question is, is there any legal impediment to you figuring out how to reprogram the stock ECU of that Mustang? Of course, Ford will build in all sorts of checksums and encryption and other such hoo-hah to try and stop you from modifying their car... but is it breaking the law to do so?
And if not, then now can it be breaking the law to mod an xbox so you can run all the porn games you want on it?
And in either case, how can it be breaking the law for the manufacturer to put in all that encryption and checksums and so forth?
'Nature' doesn't have any interests at heart, any more than gravity or fire or nuclear fusion. You're assigning intentionality to a physical process.
That said, I completely agree that despite the excellent P.R. campaign, organic or "natural" farming can lead to far more suffering for the animals involved. It can also lead to various nasty consequences for the consumers of the produce. Think of it this way - what's happier and healthier, a human living off the land in a rain forest or on a savanna, or a human living in civilized comfort in a first-world city? The former case is far more 'natural' (in the simplistic view espoused by the back-to-nature crowd) than the latter, but then so is dying of smallpox.
Of course, if you actually think about it logically, human nature is to analyse, understand, and manipulate our environment. So living in a high-rise apartment block, watching TV or using a computer, eating cheese and crackers and drinking red wine, is as 'natural' for you or I as living in a hollow tree and eating nuts is for a squirrel.
Form two groups of humans. Feed one group a diet low in antioxidants, and the other group with a diet high in antioxidants but otherwise equivalent. It may be necessary to stop the two groups comparing notes to maintain the double-blind nature of the trial. Observe the aging process in two groups and calculate the statistical probability of the observed aging occurring given either (a) the assumption that antioxidants improve human life expectancy, and (b) the assumption that they do not.
"Personal computer" the term and "personal computer" the two words next to each other don't mean the same thing. By simply going with the meanings of the two words, a basic four function calculator is a PC.
I don't believe the GP was just talking about a device with computing functions that is personal. A "personal computer" these days really means "an internet appliance and application platform, owned and usually used by a specific individual". In recent years that's usually implied a desktop computer, although notebooks and netbooks have been increasingly filling the role. In the last two or three years, the appliances we call 'phones' have increasingly taken over that role, at least while the user is away from their primary PC.
In large part, the shift towards tablets (with their very consumer-oriented interface) is possible because most people consume far more content than they create. For stationary use at home, tablets may still fill this use, but work computers will continue to require a physical input device such as a keyboard because 'work' generally involves creating content of some form.
Isn't it widely known that security by obscurity doesn't work? [...] If anything,/. should know that an open, transparent system can still be secure.
We're talking about the physical world here, not an internet banking application. In software, if we can implement a security measure we can then use that measure as many times as required, within the performance limits of our hardware. In the real world, however, we've only got so many troops, security guards etc. It's not feasible to guard every weak point in the state at the same time. In this scenario, obscurity adds a significant margin to the amount of firepower that's free to attend the more obvious weak points.
Let's say you have a train carrying a hundred tons of high explosive. If the route is obscured for the duration of the journey then the shipment is that much safer. It's not security-BY-obscurity, it's just security-INCLUDING-obscurity, and if the 'bad guys' never find out about that shipment then you've already won the battle. If they DO find out about it, that's where the rest of your security measures come in.
Isn't that begging the question a little? "Now, if they're going to be dicks and fight it" assumes that the authors in question still own the copyright to the works. It sounds like there's some doubt as to the legal status of the works. Unless, of course, you mean that it's dickish to publish something that someone would really rather you not, even if there's no legal reason not to.
Something tells me that a craft capable of traveling interstellar distances wouldn't have too much to worry about from chemical rockets armed with chemical explosive warheads.
Something tells me that a craft capable of travelling intercontinental distances wouldn't have too much to worry about from spears armed with sharpened points.
He's not in any of of the fields the OP asked for, including being an inventor, what with the idea for Facebook having been stolen. Also, if it were me, I wouldn't want my kids looking up to him, similarly to how I wouldn't want them looking up to Bill Gates - he's far from heroic in any sense of the word.
You seem to think that taking an untested idea and developing it into a billion dollar industry is somehow not difficult or notable. I don't like the guy either (or Gates for that matter) but I'd still hold them up as examples for my kids because they're ridicu-fuckoff-ability-ously successful.
"Stealing the idea" is a pretend crime invented by people that love to dream things up but are too lazy to follow through with them. An idea is worthless until someone takes it and makes something real with it. If there's one lesson I'd want my kids to learn from people like Zuckerberg, or Gates, or Jobs, it's that having big ideas and fantastic dreams means jack shit. Seeing an opportunity (be your big idea, someone else's big idea, or a simple market opportunity), building a vision around it, forming a plan, and making that vision happen... THAT is worth everything.
The reason turbines aren't used for automotive use is more to do with the power delivery characteristics than their peak performance. Cars tend to spend the vast majority of their time running at far less than peak power, and turbines are most efficient when run at a constant speed and load. Also, turbines require higher-grade alloys to handle their higher temperatures and RPMs. Traditionally, this means that turbine powered cars have had poor throttle response and been very expensive.
However, the current trend towards series hybrid electric cars allows turbine power plants to start playing to their strengths. If used as a range extender, a turbine generator will be running consistently at optimum power and speed and can be sized for average, rather than peak, power output. For example check out the Capstone CMT-380.
Ambiguous terminology here, as 'diesel' is used these days to refer to both the pressure/volume cycle and to the fuel oil. So if it's running on diesel, it's still a "diesel engine" even if it's running on the Ericsson cycle. Likewise, it's also a diesel engine if it's running on the diesel cycle while burning some alternative fuel.
I would contend that the early game in Starcraft is far more important than the early game in Chess. An early rush, if successful, practically guarantees a win.
I'm not disputing that excellent micro and strategy mid-game is often a decisive factor. I'm just saying that, all else (skill, strategic ability etc) being equal, a player with a good build order will have a strong advantage over a player with weak or no build order.
(Also, I must confess to being a bit of a Boxer fan. It's precisely his incredible micro and mid- to late-game strategy that make his games so interesting to me. Did you see that game where he took down half a dozen Carriers with about 20 stimmed marines?:) )
I'd bet on human ingenuity vs generic build orders though. We learn build orders from each other and adapt far faster to disruptive tactics than any AI can at this point.
You bet wrong. Build orders only influence the first few minutes of the game, but they set the economic foundation for the entire early and mid game. A strong build order will give an otherwise average player a huge advantage over similar level players with weaker build orders. That's why the first thing you should do when trying to become competitive at an RTS is research build orders (even if you create your own, you still need to research standard build orders to give yourself a benchmark to work towards).
This reminds me of the old 'double hero rush' build that someone (madfrog?) came up with in Warcraft 3. By sacrificing a large portion of your early game economy you can buy your town hall upgrade much earlier than usual, leading to the ability to build two heroes very early in the game. Normally a build like that would be suicide but in the hands of a skilled player it became pretty strong.
Slashdot Mirror
Could there be a case made for you being able to modify and use Ford's computer system in a way you legally cannot with Xbox? I mean, you can get in there tinker with the ECU..make something that mods the ECU or replaces totally in the system, with full expectation for the car running.
Why can you not do the exact same with the Xbox?
You can, but once you take the "ECU" out of an XBox and replace it with your own, you just have a custom computer in an XBox... box.
I guess the real question is, is there any legal impediment to you figuring out how to reprogram the stock ECU of that Mustang? Of course, Ford will build in all sorts of checksums and encryption and other such hoo-hah to try and stop you from modifying their car... but is it breaking the law to do so?
And if not, then now can it be breaking the law to mod an xbox so you can run all the porn games you want on it?
And in either case, how can it be breaking the law for the manufacturer to put in all that encryption and checksums and so forth?
That's what happens when you don't get enough soluble fiber in your diet. You get cranky.
'Nature' doesn't have any interests at heart, any more than gravity or fire or nuclear fusion. You're assigning intentionality to a physical process.
That said, I completely agree that despite the excellent P.R. campaign, organic or "natural" farming can lead to far more suffering for the animals involved. It can also lead to various nasty consequences for the consumers of the produce. Think of it this way - what's happier and healthier, a human living off the land in a rain forest or on a savanna, or a human living in civilized comfort in a first-world city? The former case is far more 'natural' (in the simplistic view espoused by the back-to-nature crowd) than the latter, but then so is dying of smallpox.
Of course, if you actually think about it logically, human nature is to analyse, understand, and manipulate our environment. So living in a high-rise apartment block, watching TV or using a computer, eating cheese and crackers and drinking red wine, is as 'natural' for you or I as living in a hollow tree and eating nuts is for a squirrel.
Form two groups of humans. Feed one group a diet low in antioxidants, and the other group with a diet high in antioxidants but otherwise equivalent. It may be necessary to stop the two groups comparing notes to maintain the double-blind nature of the trial. Observe the aging process in two groups and calculate the statistical probability of the observed aging occurring given either (a) the assumption that antioxidants improve human life expectancy, and (b) the assumption that they do not.
Seems pretty straightforward to me.
This was a triumph?
And by the juxstaposition of your posts, I can infer that it was sribe's car you nearly crashed into. O.o
When was the last time you gasped at a car driving next to you? Yeah, people get used to technology.
For some time now I've insisted that most of the cars on the road are photoshopped.
"Personal computer" the term and "personal computer" the two words next to each other don't mean the same thing. By simply going with the meanings of the two words, a basic four function calculator is a PC.
I don't believe the GP was just talking about a device with computing functions that is personal. A "personal computer" these days really means "an internet appliance and application platform, owned and usually used by a specific individual". In recent years that's usually implied a desktop computer, although notebooks and netbooks have been increasingly filling the role. In the last two or three years, the appliances we call 'phones' have increasingly taken over that role, at least while the user is away from their primary PC.
In large part, the shift towards tablets (with their very consumer-oriented interface) is possible because most people consume far more content than they create. For stationary use at home, tablets may still fill this use, but work computers will continue to require a physical input device such as a keyboard because 'work' generally involves creating content of some form.
Isn't it widely known that security by obscurity doesn't work? [...] If anything, /. should know that an open, transparent system can still be secure.
We're talking about the physical world here, not an internet banking application. In software, if we can implement a security measure we can then use that measure as many times as required, within the performance limits of our hardware. In the real world, however, we've only got so many troops, security guards etc. It's not feasible to guard every weak point in the state at the same time. In this scenario, obscurity adds a significant margin to the amount of firepower that's free to attend the more obvious weak points.
Let's say you have a train carrying a hundred tons of high explosive. If the route is obscured for the duration of the journey then the shipment is that much safer. It's not security-BY-obscurity, it's just security-INCLUDING-obscurity, and if the 'bad guys' never find out about that shipment then you've already won the battle. If they DO find out about it, that's where the rest of your security measures come in.
Isn't that begging the question a little? "Now, if they're going to be dicks and fight it" assumes that the authors in question still own the copyright to the works. It sounds like there's some doubt as to the legal status of the works. Unless, of course, you mean that it's dickish to publish something that someone would really rather you not, even if there's no legal reason not to.
Something tells me that a craft capable of traveling interstellar distances wouldn't have too much to worry about from chemical rockets armed with chemical explosive warheads.
Something tells me that a craft capable of travelling intercontinental distances wouldn't have too much to worry about from spears armed with sharpened points.
Captain Cook may disagree, however briefly.
So what you're getting at here is... you want MORE than one instance of the OS for each core? :P
He's not in any of of the fields the OP asked for, including being an inventor, what with the idea for Facebook having been stolen. Also, if it were me, I wouldn't want my kids looking up to him, similarly to how I wouldn't want them looking up to Bill Gates - he's far from heroic in any sense of the word.
You seem to think that taking an untested idea and developing it into a billion dollar industry is somehow not difficult or notable. I don't like the guy either (or Gates for that matter) but I'd still hold them up as examples for my kids because they're ridicu-fuckoff-ability-ously successful.
"Stealing the idea" is a pretend crime invented by people that love to dream things up but are too lazy to follow through with them. An idea is worthless until someone takes it and makes something real with it. If there's one lesson I'd want my kids to learn from people like Zuckerberg, or Gates, or Jobs, it's that having big ideas and fantastic dreams means jack shit. Seeing an opportunity (be your big idea, someone else's big idea, or a simple market opportunity), building a vision around it, forming a plan, and making that vision happen... THAT is worth everything.
+1 for Tony Stark.
A terrorists in Saudi Arabia
Clearly this mixed singular/plural notation denotes a successful detonation.
If, by forgoing this liberty, we can garner a little additional temporary safety...
The reason turbines aren't used for automotive use is more to do with the power delivery characteristics than their peak performance. Cars tend to spend the vast majority of their time running at far less than peak power, and turbines are most efficient when run at a constant speed and load. Also, turbines require higher-grade alloys to handle their higher temperatures and RPMs. Traditionally, this means that turbine powered cars have had poor throttle response and been very expensive.
However, the current trend towards series hybrid electric cars allows turbine power plants to start playing to their strengths. If used as a range extender, a turbine generator will be running consistently at optimum power and speed and can be sized for average, rather than peak, power output. For example check out the Capstone CMT-380.
Ambiguous terminology here, as 'diesel' is used these days to refer to both the pressure/volume cycle and to the fuel oil. So if it's running on diesel, it's still a "diesel engine" even if it's running on the Ericsson cycle. Likewise, it's also a diesel engine if it's running on the diesel cycle while burning some alternative fuel.
People with lots of friends are more likely to attend social events where they can have sex, drink and take drugs.
People with lots of friends send lots of texts.
Simple.
for someone who refuses to fill in a login form you sure are knowledgeable
Fixed. Just because you're capable of something, doesn't mean you SHOULD do it just because someone else demands it of you.
http://slashdot.org/~Anonymous+Coward/friends/friends - it's the URL of the listing of the friends of the beast.
*sigh* A goatse link after all this time... just like the old days, I'm all nostalgic.
I would contend that the early game in Starcraft is far more important than the early game in Chess. An early rush, if successful, practically guarantees a win.
:) )
I'm not disputing that excellent micro and strategy mid-game is often a decisive factor. I'm just saying that, all else (skill, strategic ability etc) being equal, a player with a good build order will have a strong advantage over a player with weak or no build order.
(Also, I must confess to being a bit of a Boxer fan. It's precisely his incredible micro and mid- to late-game strategy that make his games so interesting to me. Did you see that game where he took down half a dozen Carriers with about 20 stimmed marines?
Nothing, because the only way to win is not to play.
Unlike Blizzard's other popular game, where the only way to play is not to work...
I'd bet on human ingenuity vs generic build orders though. We learn build orders from each other and adapt far faster to disruptive tactics than any AI can at this point.
You bet wrong. Build orders only influence the first few minutes of the game, but they set the economic foundation for the entire early and mid game. A strong build order will give an otherwise average player a huge advantage over similar level players with weaker build orders. That's why the first thing you should do when trying to become competitive at an RTS is research build orders (even if you create your own, you still need to research standard build orders to give yourself a benchmark to work towards).
This reminds me of the old 'double hero rush' build that someone (madfrog?) came up with in Warcraft 3. By sacrificing a large portion of your early game economy you can buy your town hall upgrade much earlier than usual, leading to the ability to build two heroes very early in the game. Normally a build like that would be suicide but in the hands of a skilled player it became pretty strong.