That a felon happened to kill someone while on parole isn't, in itself, a case for not letting people out on parole any more than someone without a previous criminal record killing another person is a case for putting everyone in jail where they can't hurt anyone.
The DRM in digital cinema copies is pretty evil alright. You'd think that digital distribution would make it easier for small moviemakers to put their work out, what with the ease of duplication as compared to 35 mm film copies? Dream on - the digital copies are mastered in such a way that each copy is essentially locked to a single projector, so you'll have to make a copy for each theatre you want to show your film in, and that of course means going to some post production house with the proper equipment, and forking over cash. Not pennies either, from what I'm told.
Imagine you're in a position where you have some amount of responsibility over what others do. You find someone you don't know particularly well making threatening comments about another person. Do you ignore it and take the chance of the threats being real? If you're wrong, it's your ass on the line. If you're not, someone else gets into trouble. Without any real knowledge of the situation, what do you do?
In a system as legalistic as most western societies are, allowing individuals to systematically corrupt the system is a failure of the protocols intended to protect the system against such corruption.
A society that expects a group of people to judge the actions of other people, but is too large to allow these people to know each other well enough to be able to make such judgement combined with an increasing amount of private information being publicly communicated = recipe for trouble.
Is that really the common way to do it? Shoot a potential bomb and hope it blows up?? AFAIK the usual method involves a very strong container and some real explosives.
Well, this is based on a completely unscientific poll of my brain cells, but it seems older users would be more likely to, at least initially, treat sites like Facebook as something new to just try out, a fun toy more than a serious part of their lives, and thus less likely to care that much about how they expose themselves on such a site.
I think there's a good reason there is no good definition of "supernatural" for the purposes of discussing religion - to define it is to accept the set of premises of one belief system that won't agree with the premises of another. For example, as a materialist I don't think it is even possible for there to be anything supernatural that we can perceive. Anything we can observe interacts physically with the natural world and must therefore be part of that world. Anything that doesn't interact with the natural world can not be observed. Therefore nothing supernatural can be observed and everything we've ever observed is completely natural. Obviously this statement conflicts with most religious views.
Personally, I think anyone who says Windows 7 looks like OS X has never seen either Windows 7 or OS X. The only reason I can think of that Microsoft even bothered to issue a rebuttal to that claim is that if they did indeed tried to copy OS X, they sure failed embarrassingly.
I believe reading my father's collection of english-language underground comics as a child contributed significantly to my English skills. (Not a native speaker) I remember first leafing through them when I was maybe 7 years old, and I would return to them from time to time when I was bored. At first I found the more adult-oriented stuff boring (and it really was not what you would call suitable material for children, what with all the drug use and sexual content), skipping it altogether for strips with more pictures and fewer words. Gradually, though, as my ability to read the language grew and I matured otherwise, I began to appreciate the more complex stories as well. Fortunately my parents never saw it fit to prevent me from reading the material - conventional wisdom certainly would suggest I should have been seriously damaged by it. Instead, I learned from it.
If you've ever been to prison, you'll know saying a long sentence will make a person fit into society better is more than a little dubious. It can happen, but often the opposite is true.
I've got an old grandmother that I've been trying to rejuvenate.She has a failing heart, dementia, arthritis and no bladder control. She does not have education past grammar school or language skills. She has alzheimer's and I do have the medication for that. My goal is to get a household helper able to run errands, go to the store and lift heavy objects. I can't get her to shut up about the constant pain she's in. Have old people really become that useless? Is there no way to just get her to do what I want her to?
Replacing with CFLs may not make that much sense actually, at least if you live in an area where you need to heat your home. The "waste" heat from incandescent bulbs goes straight into that.
Judging by the shape of the device, I'd say it's done by projecting onto a rapidly rotating surface (mirror?), relying on persistence of vision to create the image. At least I've seen a demo of such a technique before.
Nah, he just wants to run things his way and have the search companies pay him. If he blocks Google et al. from indexing his sites, there's no money in that for him. So it's better for him to pretend robots.txt etc. don't exist at all and instead make a case for a very different kind of web - one that allows him to get more money.
I thought the bigger practical obstacle was node density? Also, ISPs don't want people to share their Internet connections with unknown numbers of strangers. And people mostly want mobile networking for Internet connectivity, so if you can't guarantee an Internet connection almost 100% of the time, I think a lot of people are not going to be interested in your mesh. That means there's little commercial incentive to develop such a system, and here we are, few meshes around.
To really start a mesh network up, you'd need some high-bandwidth internet connectivity nodes all around a city, and then a bunch of people with mesh-enabled devices. Without both of these the system doesn't really work. And that's kind of the problem with the mesh - it's not worth much without a large userbase, and it's difficult to get a large userbase without a useful product.
Slashdot Mirror
1. 1
2. 1
3. 2
4. ???
5. Profit!
Who needs scientists when so many other countries have hare-brainedly agreed that cellphones may cause cancer?
Nothing, presumably. And it'll be quite interesting if that happens.
That a felon happened to kill someone while on parole isn't, in itself, a case for not letting people out on parole any more than someone without a previous criminal record killing another person is a case for putting everyone in jail where they can't hurt anyone.
The DRM in digital cinema copies is pretty evil alright. You'd think that digital distribution would make it easier for small moviemakers to put their work out, what with the ease of duplication as compared to 35 mm film copies? Dream on - the digital copies are mastered in such a way that each copy is essentially locked to a single projector, so you'll have to make a copy for each theatre you want to show your film in, and that of course means going to some post production house with the proper equipment, and forking over cash. Not pennies either, from what I'm told.
Hollywood money means Hollywood rules of filmmaking.
Imagine you're in a position where you have some amount of responsibility over what others do. You find someone you don't know particularly well making threatening comments about another person. Do you ignore it and take the chance of the threats being real? If you're wrong, it's your ass on the line. If you're not, someone else gets into trouble. Without any real knowledge of the situation, what do you do?
In a system as legalistic as most western societies are, allowing individuals to systematically corrupt the system is a failure of the protocols intended to protect the system against such corruption.
A society that expects a group of people to judge the actions of other people, but is too large to allow these people to know each other well enough to be able to make such judgement combined with an increasing amount of private information being publicly communicated = recipe for trouble.
Is that really the common way to do it? Shoot a potential bomb and hope it blows up?? AFAIK the usual method involves a very strong container and some real explosives.
Well, this is based on a completely unscientific poll of my brain cells, but it seems older users would be more likely to, at least initially, treat sites like Facebook as something new to just try out, a fun toy more than a serious part of their lives, and thus less likely to care that much about how they expose themselves on such a site.
I think there's a good reason there is no good definition of "supernatural" for the purposes of discussing religion - to define it is to accept the set of premises of one belief system that won't agree with the premises of another. For example, as a materialist I don't think it is even possible for there to be anything supernatural that we can perceive. Anything we can observe interacts physically with the natural world and must therefore be part of that world. Anything that doesn't interact with the natural world can not be observed. Therefore nothing supernatural can be observed and everything we've ever observed is completely natural. Obviously this statement conflicts with most religious views.
Perhaps, but that is hardly proof of anything supernatural. It just means there are limits to our understanding.
Personally, I think anyone who says Windows 7 looks like OS X has never seen either Windows 7 or OS X. The only reason I can think of that Microsoft even bothered to issue a rebuttal to that claim is that if they did indeed tried to copy OS X, they sure failed embarrassingly.
I believe reading my father's collection of english-language underground comics as a child contributed significantly to my English skills. (Not a native speaker) I remember first leafing through them when I was maybe 7 years old, and I would return to them from time to time when I was bored. At first I found the more adult-oriented stuff boring (and it really was not what you would call suitable material for children, what with all the drug use and sexual content), skipping it altogether for strips with more pictures and fewer words. Gradually, though, as my ability to read the language grew and I matured otherwise, I began to appreciate the more complex stories as well. Fortunately my parents never saw it fit to prevent me from reading the material - conventional wisdom certainly would suggest I should have been seriously damaged by it. Instead, I learned from it.
If you've ever been to prison, you'll know saying a long sentence will make a person fit into society better is more than a little dubious. It can happen, but often the opposite is true.
For one thing, human intelligence is something we already have. Strong AI is something we might have one day.
I've got an old grandmother that I've been trying to rejuvenate.She has a failing heart, dementia, arthritis and no bladder control. She does not have education past grammar school or language skills. She has alzheimer's and I do have the medication for that. My goal is to get a household helper able to run errands, go to the store and lift heavy objects. I can't get her to shut up about the constant pain she's in. Have old people really become that useless? Is there no way to just get her to do what I want her to?
Replacing with CFLs may not make that much sense actually, at least if you live in an area where you need to heat your home. The "waste" heat from incandescent bulbs goes straight into that.
Judging by the shape of the device, I'd say it's done by projecting onto a rapidly rotating surface (mirror?), relying on persistence of vision to create the image. At least I've seen a demo of such a technique before.
It's better than that. You really CAN not cook dinner, it is impossible.
Nah, he just wants to run things his way and have the search companies pay him. If he blocks Google et al. from indexing his sites, there's no money in that for him. So it's better for him to pretend robots.txt etc. don't exist at all and instead make a case for a very different kind of web - one that allows him to get more money.
NVIDIA Cease-and-desist e-mails going out in 3...2...1...
I thought the bigger practical obstacle was node density? Also, ISPs don't want people to share their Internet connections with unknown numbers of strangers. And people mostly want mobile networking for Internet connectivity, so if you can't guarantee an Internet connection almost 100% of the time, I think a lot of people are not going to be interested in your mesh. That means there's little commercial incentive to develop such a system, and here we are, few meshes around.
To really start a mesh network up, you'd need some high-bandwidth internet connectivity nodes all around a city, and then a bunch of people with mesh-enabled devices. Without both of these the system doesn't really work. And that's kind of the problem with the mesh - it's not worth much without a large userbase, and it's difficult to get a large userbase without a useful product.
I bet you also played games a lot more back then. Maybe you just grew up?