Apparently there are a bunch of bits in the book format that are toggled on or off to indicate the various permissions. Obviously whoever converted the text simply forgot to set them appropriately.
The response in this forum is really pathetic. If you're ranting here, you're either:
a) Stupid, because you really believe a company would try to assert copyright on a world-renowned piece of literature that has been in the public domain for many, many years, or
b) spiteful, because you KNOW they simply made a mistake, and you want to create a scandal by making a false accusation and hoping there are enough people who fall under a) above to buy it.
I assume that they mean there's a 1 in 250 chance of someone being injured or killed as the result of an impact -- indirect causes included.
The chances of someone actually getting clocked by the satellite itself couldn't be that high. It would have to be raining thousands or millions of them.
If having an Open Source OS is important, why would there be a demand for closed source software that you can already obtain for closed source operating systems?
This assumes that Linux's only value is in the fact that it's open source.
There are some people that believe it's simply a better OS, open source or otherwise.
Turing's point was that the definition of intelligence is subjective and arbitrary.
Most people, if you challenge them to define intelligence (and ask them if a computer is intelligent) will immediately start to try to find a definition that is based on the difference between humans and machines. You seem to be doing this.
Consider this: if you're determined to prove that machines are fundamentally different from humans in some way that makes them ineligable for intelligence, then you have to also prove that humans are not themselves simply elaborate finite state machines. I don't think you can do this.
What if the person is unconcious? Is that a dead person or an alive person? What if they're alive, but not breathing? Could it even tell if they were breathing? Could I fool the machine into thinking I was dead?
What the heck is your point? That this thing is useless because it doesn't save us the tedious effort of figuring out for ourselves if someone is dead?
The idea is that it can do an autonomous first-pass assesment of a scene, without putting any more humans into immediate danger. A human can then use the information to make more intelligent decisions on what to do next to minimize the loss of life.
Give your head a shake; they're not trying to automate the entire rescue process.
I didn't understand either, but apparently the Firecard ALSO behaves as an ethernet card for the local machine. So, the benefit is that it somewhat simplifies the setup of a home office workstation.
Re:More than a couple:
on
D&D Trailer
·
· Score: 2
The logical response to this would be to post all those suicides and murders that were motivated by Christianity.
Firstly, I'm a named contributor in Eric's Treasure Trove (which means I got a freebie copy of the printed version - wheee!).
[...]
I didn't keep a copy of the form, but I'm almost certain that I assigned copyright over my entries to CRC.
I hope you don't mind my asking, but why? A freebie book is a pretty cheap price to put on something you contributed to an effort to build a useful public resource.
Introducing NeuticlesUltra...
A third Neuticles model - 30% softer than NeuticlesNatural! Now there are three firmness level selections- rigid, natural and super soft
There are people out there for whom the feel of their pets' testicles is important.
but I also can see games being written for the least common denominator
That's the key here: the bread and butter of Capcom are precisely these common denominator games; namely the Street Fighter series. All consoles support the technology for these, because it's such an entrenched genre. So it's pretty straightforward to write an abstraction layer for them.
Capcom's business model is to provide good gameplay and content. They're not as focused on wringing every last cycle out of the unit to show off the technology. So the emulation techique will work just fine for them, but it's certainly not a good general solution for all developers.
However, demolition derby style racing is prohibited by the rules.
You can't put those rules in a program though. Bumping wheels is not against the rules. Doing it intentionally is. The line between them is subtle and subjective.
Even if it weren't, this car would either be disqualified
Unfortunately you can only make that decision after you've sent your possibly-psychopathic car to the track.
...or be run off the road by human drivers for such behavior. Thus losing.
*I* sure wouldn't be the guy trying to run the beast off the road. It's not necessarily going to do the "smart" thing and hit the ditch when there's no more room on the track for both of you. It'll expect *you* to give way right up until the moment both cars go up in flames.
Then you haven't lived in the same parts of
Canada I have.
I'll bite. Which parts?
I grew up in northern Manitoba and now live in Ontario. My wife has much Quebecer family. My parents now live on the west coast, and I've got several maritimer friends (what Canadian doesn't?). I've never heard someone say aboot.
...users can actually walk around the display to inspect the imagery from 360 degrees.
So, instead of sitting at a workstation, and being able to rotate and manipulate a pseudo-3D image on my CRT, I have to get up and walk around, craning my head to see the object from a certain angle. Why?
We see in 2D, for the most part. (I don't think there's _that_ much gain in taking advantage of depth perception. Heck, I get by with almost none every day.) So for scene reproduction, it's can't be much better than 2D. And I think the user-interface aspect of 3D displays is _worse_ than 2D.
It's got huge Hollywood potential, but I don't see what real advantage this has over "regular" 3D graphics on a 2D display. Especially since the pseudo-3D display can have FAR higher detail and complexity than a real 3D display at a given price-point.
Thanks to its built-in encryption, the CueCat could become a secure computer passcard reader. Instead of logging on with a username and password, a bar code is scanned before access is granted to a machine.
Yep, that encryption certainly has proven to be very secure. I feel safer already.
It's an interesting story, but the lead-in above is entirely misleading.
Abrash has nothing but good things to say about the new hardware. Granted, he works for the company, but he has more than enough credibility outside of the Microsoft arena for me to listen when he speaks.
He talks about the constraints that ALL hardware-level developers have to deal with, but he says nothing that indicates the X-Box hardware is especially limited.
To wit: "the bottom line is that this is the most powerful chip I could imagine anyone getting into a console in 2001"
"Ratios" in processing power are not mentioned anywhere in the article. Apparently some overenthusaistic PR guy (probably not Gates) said it was 3 generations ahead of current parts, and Abrash says that's a bit of an overstatement. It's merely 1.5 or 2 generations ahead. Wow, that really sucks.:)
I think this may have been falsely identified as a troll.
While most technically savvy readers know that public code review is more important for cryptographic systems than any other kind of software, I think that Froid is simply still in the "security through obscurity" frame of mind.
Digital books will break down, become worn out. REAL books don't have that limitation.
That's funny; the way I see it, it's exactly the other way around. If you have a copy of Programming Perl on your wireless network server, and drop your "Star Trek Pad" into the water while reading it in the bathtub, you haven't destroyed your copy of the book.
You're getting too bogged down in implementation issues. When I say "digital book", I don't mean product X from company Y, I mean the notion of using a digital device to access a "soft" version of the book's contents. This might be a Palm device reading a Gutenberg project text from internal memory, it might be the Hitchhiker's Guide pulling down a short description of the Earth out of the sub-ether.
The key point is that the "book" is merely an access device. The content is an abstract digital work that can be viewed or manipulated in a thousand ways. The device and the content are divorced.
...the batteries will go dead. Somebody might not be able to service it. There is no sticker on the back of a real book that says "no user serviceable parts inside". Not only that, but you can loan a REAL book to your friend. [IP lawyers suck]...
Implementation, implementation. Yes, it has to be done right. Your original post was against digital media in a purely aesthetic sense.
There's something to be said for being able to hold a book in your hand. The flexible pages, the weight, the simple fact that you know it is something tangible.
Pbbbbbttt!!
The only important thing about books is the content.
I think that book-luddites annoy me more than any other sort. Berating digital media because it doesn't have the "feel", "weight", or "substance" of a hardcover book is akin to dismissing art lovers who purchase prints instead of originals. It's incredibly elitist. I can imagine that in Gutenberg's time, the owners of original illuminated texts of great works reacted in the same way, scoffing at the substandard products being produced for the masses by those newfangled "printing presses".
And then there's the casual dismissal of the incredible cost that paper media has on the environment. We should be clear-cutting forest because books "feel better"? Give your head a shake. No, digital media isn't environmentally "free", but it's a one time cost that is negligible compared to an ongoing cost of printing new books every day.
A book has texture, substance, density, weight, alot of things that make it much more physical, and therefore real, than these digital books do.
That's very, very sad.
If I were a writer, I'd be incredibly offended at someone that said my words had less meaning if they weren't printed on the right kind of paper. What the hell does the media have to do with what I'm trying to say? The value of a piece of text is in the message that it conveys, not the quality of the paper it's printed on.
Digital books are fundamentally the Right Thing. The implementation needs to improve, to be sure, but we're almost there. It would be tragic if they failed to take root because of some traditional notion of they way text is "supposed" to be read.
Notice the spaces in the middle of that text you so carefully captured? It's your lameass Mac+Microsoft browser that's butchering the content. Look at the source of the page. There are carriage returns after every 65 chars in that block. Browsers should break on all whitespace to fit content to the page.
Here's a nickle. Go buy yourself a real OS and browser.
Slashdot Mirror
Not only that, but they won in spite of a patent war -- with 3dfx!
They won by simply flat out making a better product.
No question at all about that. Here's hoping that they stay hungry and keep driving the industry forward.
Apparently there are a bunch of bits in the book format that are toggled on or off to indicate the various permissions. Obviously whoever converted the text simply forgot to set them appropriately.
The response in this forum is really pathetic. If you're ranting here, you're either:
a) Stupid, because you really believe a company would try to assert copyright on a world-renowned piece of literature that has been in the public domain for many, many years, or
b) spiteful, because you KNOW they simply made a mistake, and you want to create a scandal by making a false accusation and hoping there are enough people who fall under a) above to buy it.
The chances of someone actually getting clocked by the satellite itself couldn't be that high. It would have to be raining thousands or millions of them.
$20 million budget. $20 Million on the opening weekend, $70 million total domestic. Pushing $40 million in rentals.
Nice "flop"!
This assumes that Linux's only value is in the fact that it's open source.
There are some people that believe it's simply a better OS, open source or otherwise.
The bit that got me was the high-speed braking manuever that was described to him as "a courtesy maneuver to allow tailgating traffic to pass".
Most people, if you challenge them to define intelligence (and ask them if a computer is intelligent) will immediately start to try to find a definition that is based on the difference between humans and machines. You seem to be doing this.
Consider this: if you're determined to prove that machines are fundamentally different from humans in some way that makes them ineligable for intelligence, then you have to also prove that humans are not themselves simply elaborate finite state machines. I don't think you can do this.
What the heck is your point? That this thing is useless because it doesn't save us the tedious effort of figuring out for ourselves if someone is dead?
The idea is that it can do an autonomous first-pass assesment of a scene, without putting any more humans into immediate danger. A human can then use the information to make more intelligent decisions on what to do next to minimize the loss of life.
Give your head a shake; they're not trying to automate the entire rescue process.
I didn't understand either, but apparently the Firecard ALSO behaves as an ethernet card for the local machine. So, the benefit is that it somewhat simplifies the setup of a home office workstation.
But I doubt that slashdot has enough storage.
[...]
I didn't keep a copy of the form, but I'm almost certain that I assigned copyright over my entries to CRC.
I hope you don't mind my asking, but why? A freebie book is a pretty cheap price to put on something you contributed to an effort to build a useful public resource.
Only on slashdot would someone use a programming analogy to explain an automotive system!
There are people out there for whom the feel of their pets' testicles is important.
That's the key here: the bread and butter of Capcom are precisely these common denominator games; namely the Street Fighter series. All consoles support the technology for these, because it's such an entrenched genre. So it's pretty straightforward to write an abstraction layer for them.
Capcom's business model is to provide good gameplay and content. They're not as focused on wringing every last cycle out of the unit to show off the technology. So the emulation techique will work just fine for them, but it's certainly not a good general solution for all developers.
You can't put those rules in a program though. Bumping wheels is not against the rules. Doing it intentionally is. The line between them is subtle and subjective.
Even if it weren't, this car would either be disqualified
Unfortunately you can only make that decision after you've sent your possibly-psychopathic car to the track.
*I* sure wouldn't be the guy trying to run the beast off the road. It's not necessarily going to do the "smart" thing and hit the ditch when there's no more room on the track for both of you. It'll expect *you* to give way right up until the moment both cars go up in flames.
I'll bite. Which parts?
I grew up in northern Manitoba and now live in Ontario. My wife has much Quebecer family. My parents now live on the west coast, and I've got several maritimer friends (what Canadian doesn't?). I've never heard someone say aboot.
This is not surprising. If it's a typical Japanese animated film, this effect will be used in every shot. :)
So, instead of sitting at a workstation, and being able to rotate and manipulate a pseudo-3D image on my CRT, I have to get up and walk around, craning my head to see the object from a certain angle. Why?
We see in 2D, for the most part. (I don't think there's _that_ much gain in taking advantage of depth perception. Heck, I get by with almost none every day.) So for scene reproduction, it's can't be much better than 2D. And I think the user-interface aspect of 3D displays is _worse_ than 2D.
It's got huge Hollywood potential, but I don't see what real advantage this has over "regular" 3D graphics on a 2D display. Especially since the pseudo-3D display can have FAR higher detail and complexity than a real 3D display at a given price-point.
Yep, that encryption certainly has proven to be very secure. I feel safer already.
Abrash has nothing but good things to say about the new hardware. Granted, he works for the company, but he has more than enough credibility outside of the Microsoft arena for me to listen when he speaks.
He talks about the constraints that ALL hardware-level developers have to deal with, but he says nothing that indicates the X-Box hardware is especially limited.
To wit: "the bottom line is that this is the most powerful chip I could imagine anyone getting into a console in 2001"
"Ratios" in processing power are not mentioned anywhere in the article. Apparently some overenthusaistic PR guy (probably not Gates) said it was 3 generations ahead of current parts, and Abrash says that's a bit of an overstatement. It's merely 1.5 or 2 generations ahead. Wow, that really sucks. :)
While most technically savvy readers know that public code review is more important for cryptographic systems than any other kind of software, I think that Froid is simply still in the "security through obscurity" frame of mind.
There seemed to be some Mac widgets in there. They may all simply be mockups.
That's funny; the way I see it, it's exactly the other way around. If you have a copy of Programming Perl on your wireless network server, and drop your "Star Trek Pad" into the water while reading it in the bathtub, you haven't destroyed your copy of the book.
You're getting too bogged down in implementation issues. When I say "digital book", I don't mean product X from company Y, I mean the notion of using a digital device to access a "soft" version of the book's contents. This might be a Palm device reading a Gutenberg project text from internal memory, it might be the Hitchhiker's Guide pulling down a short description of the Earth out of the sub-ether.
The key point is that the "book" is merely an access device. The content is an abstract digital work that can be viewed or manipulated in a thousand ways. The device and the content are divorced.
Implementation, implementation. Yes, it has to be done right. Your original post was against digital media in a purely aesthetic sense.
Pbbbbbttt!!
The only important thing about books is the content.
I think that book-luddites annoy me more than any other sort. Berating digital media because it doesn't have the "feel", "weight", or "substance" of a hardcover book is akin to dismissing art lovers who purchase prints instead of originals. It's incredibly elitist. I can imagine that in Gutenberg's time, the owners of original illuminated texts of great works reacted in the same way, scoffing at the substandard products being produced for the masses by those newfangled "printing presses".
And then there's the casual dismissal of the incredible cost that paper media has on the environment. We should be clear-cutting forest because books "feel better"? Give your head a shake. No, digital media isn't environmentally "free", but it's a one time cost that is negligible compared to an ongoing cost of printing new books every day.
A book has texture, substance, density, weight, alot of things that make it much more physical, and therefore real, than these digital books do.
That's very, very sad.
If I were a writer, I'd be incredibly offended at someone that said my words had less meaning if they weren't printed on the right kind of paper. What the hell does the media have to do with what I'm trying to say? The value of a piece of text is in the message that it conveys, not the quality of the paper it's printed on.
Digital books are fundamentally the Right Thing. The implementation needs to improve, to be sure, but we're almost there. It would be tragic if they failed to take root because of some traditional notion of they way text is "supposed" to be read.
Here's a nickle. Go buy yourself a real OS and browser.