Uhhh... turn off voice recognition? Wow, that was easy.
Duh! I could have told you that from reading the article.
Some of us have been fortunate enough to have avoided exposure to Windows XP. So, is it an Office configuration option, part of the OS, or a stand-alone application?
Anyone having problems with this, because they don't understand what's happening, won't get much mileage out of being told to "turn off voice recognition."
Well, given the domination of Windows, and despite our own personal preferences, most in the Slashdot community, either formally or not, end up supporting Windows for our less clued brethren. Just think of how wise you'll seem when someone inevitably asks you why this is happening and you can tell them why.
How is that different from the current situation? Like it or not > 50% (I know, not all) of Muslims evidently already hate us.
Even if you're right about the percentage, people do different things with their hatred. For example, many people who read Slashdot hate Microsoft. What do most of them do about Microsoft? Nothing.
Using weapons of mass destruction will give focus to their hatred and a sense of urgency to act on it. And, as a bonus, it'll send many of our "allies" to their side, or a neutral corner.
Try to make them stop hating us. Any ideas how to do this?
Anyone who feels that they need everyone to like them is mentally ill. We don't need them to stop hating us. We just need them to stop acting on it.
Try to make them stop killing us. Any ideas how to do this?
While it seems crazy, currently, the approach that Israel is taking vis-a-vis the Palestinian situation may be the proper long term solution. To quote Sean Connery's character from The Untouchables:
"You wanna get Capone? Here's how you get him. He pulls a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way. And that's how you get Capone!"
You want to beat the terrorists? That's what you do. Don't make more terrorists by indiscriminately bombing civilians.
On the bright side, if they happen to kill you then that's one less detractor in the way of decisively ending this war.
(sarcasm)I'm glad you recognize one of our most sacred values. The right to have and express an opinion, even if it differs from the majority.(/sarcasm)
Well, you can't run a good ole-fashioned siege in 4 years, can you?
You can use modern technology to accomplish the same goal in less time. If you've got a foe in a hardened location, you only need to accomplish one of two things: get them to quit the location, or isolate the location until the foe is irrelevant.
Were it up to me, I'd do the following until intelligence sources indicate that one of the two goals have been met:
1. If area in 1 mile radius is inhabited, drop leaflets giving people one hour to leave area.
2. Beginning with known openings to bunker complex and working outward, introduce something that will burn for some time. The goal being two-fold: elimination of surface features that could obscure satellite observation; exhaust air supply of poorly design or poorly built bunker.
3. Observe cleared area with thermal imaging and strike, with convention bunker-busters, any location that indicates potential access to the bunker.
4. Cut off nearby communications that the target may be connected to.
5. This may be only a concept as I don't know if such equipment exists, or could be modified, but the next thing I'd do is drop robotic mining equipment on the bunker equipped with explosive charges large enough to blast out a 3 foot radius of reinforced concrete. Set it to go off for any of the following conditions: depth reached, stuck, water found, air found, metal found.
Even if all these efforts failed to silence the bunker's inhabitants, one would think that their forces in the field would be more inclined to surrender knowing that their leader is cut off.
If, as the article suggests, this is a reaction to the vulnerability felt after the attacks of 9/11, then it is a poorly thought-out one.
Stopping one person who is willing to die in an effort to do damage is a job for intelligence, not nukes.
Nuclear deterrence may not be at all effective against rogue nations and terrorist organizations. Do you think Hussien would actually give a crap if tens of thousands of Iraqis die simply because we bomb a place we think he's hiding. If Iraq sets off some kind of non-nuclear attack against the US, would we seriously nuke Baghdad in response? Would he care?
As for the likes of bin Laden, I would bet that if we promised to nuke him, he'd tell us where he is and setup a live television feed. This war would become US v Islam in the blink of an eye.
While we cannot put the nuclear genie back in the bottle, accepting this fact should not make the use of nuclear weapons desireable. We've had a solution for hardened fortifications for a couple millenia. While nukes might bust an unbustable bunker, so will a good old-fasioned siege.
While I'm sure you know, I'll volunteer the answer: He get's paid to see movies by virtue of writing about them afterward.
Unlike most of the Slashdot editorial staff, Katz is an actual writer/reporter type and a respected one (in other sectors.)
I take great pleasure in seeing a bad review from a paid reviewer. I'm not willing, generally, to defer to their judgement, mind. I just like to see them spend more time being forced to remember why they wasted two hours of their life.
Why is it that Hollywood scientists invariably are incredibly uncurious would-be action heroes who rarely do any actual science?
Generally, I agree. But, this is one of the reasons I liked Stargate. While Jackson ends up playing the hero role, it's his scientific curiousity that motivates him to inadvertantly strand the team in the first place.
Ok, let's say you're an elected member of congress. How would your constituents like you to prioritize the following:
A. Fight Terrorists B. Fix Economy C. Teach Our Children D. Fight Crime E. Cut Taxes F. Reduce deficit/Debt Reduction G. Explore Mars
Assuming you don't have enough money for everything, what do you leave out?
If you want NASA to go to Mars, I'd suggest you help the Chinese do it: The only thing that might sway congressional self-interest is competition. Nothing took the wind out of NASA's sails like the collapse of the Soviet Union.
But just because some copyrighted material will require licensing and payment, that doesn't mean all streaming audio is affected. If I record a program, which I do every week, I can put it online and stream it, because I own the copyright, and the technology to do that exists. Just because we have a new medium (internet streaming) doesn't mean we throw out the existing laws on copyright.
I'm not advocating trashing copyright. What I'm saying is that using copyright to choke off the technology is an abuse. Try comparing these figures:
From the article:
At issue are fees that online radio services would have to pay to artists and record companies for each song played. The fee is $1.40 per thousand listeners for Internet-only stations, and 70 cents per thousand listeners for over-the-air stations that simultaneously broadcast online.
If the station is among the top 25% of stations which paid the highest license fees to BMI in the previous year, each performance of a popular song on that station will be paid no less than 12 cents total for all participants.
Unless I'm misunderstanding something, the RIAA wants atleast $0.70 per performance to 1000 listeners over the net. Meanwhile, they charge $0.12 for X listeners at the largest radio stations (where X is likely to be greater than 1000.) If this isn't abuse, I don't know what is.
Actually, once things are organized and it's made into a real business, these 'inventors' should rake in a fortune licensing their creations to real, paying businesses.
Well, except that most streaming software is free for the client and pay for the server. Once the RIAA spends the next year or two cutting off server revenue. They'll be in a position to either write their own streaming software, or simply buy Real Networks for pennies.
I wonder what the founding fathers would have thought of these guys taking copyright to such an extreme that it threatens the usability of new technology.
Engineers have taken the time to create, patent and license technology to stream audio over the web. Now, copyright holders of the audio content are trying to price content so high that the use of the patented invention becomes infeasible.
I would think that copyright was never intended to be a weapon to strangle invention.
Atleast you know that they didn't make the story up. Noting the source is always a Good Thing (tm).
The Real Deal
on
Hack in Space
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Pretty clever hack. Every time I read about real scientists pulling off neat things like this, I get more and more disgusted with people who simply reboot a server whenever it hangs because it's easier than actually thinking about what the problem is and how to fix it.
You probably are right, but to me it doesn't seem logical that a 3rd party can sue for copyright violation.
IANAL, but...
When it comes to suing the government like he's suggesting, I don't think it's a matter of parties. The only way the Judicial Branch can check the Executive Branch's abuse/ignorance of the law is for someone to bring suit against the Executive Branch. Then the court can rule on whether the Executive Branch actually understands the law it's charged with carrying out.
If the FAA does this, anyone can ask the court if it's legal by bringing suit. You don't have to be a damaged party.
As I understand it, the Legislative Branch has sued the Executive many times just for the purpose of getting the Judiciary to weigh in on what a law they wrote really means and to explain it to the Executive.
It is not the copy protection itself that is the problem. The issue goes much deeper, and the point, I think, is being missed.
If CDs were clearly marked as copy protected or if stores were required to give an actual refund if you want to return them, these klunky, defective schemes would never have been launched in the first place.
The same can be said for software. Try buying software, and then, after rejecting the enclosed license, try to return it for a refund. Good luck.
Consumers don't need a law banning copy-protection on CDs. Manufacturers have a right to do this to their CDs. What consumers need is a right to a refund if were not satisfied with conditions of sale that were not disclosed upfront. Further, we need the right to a refund if the product is unusable. Obviously some time-frame is necessary (e.g., within 30 days,) but there's no reason why these rights aren't afforded us now.
Nothing new there, although they do make nice use of Brass on occasion as a stand in Watson to their Holmes.
My understanding is that this is why Doctor Who had companions. Since Katz mentions the X-Files, I would also suggest that this is the original reason for the Scully character (and now Doggett.)
Re:CSI - Crummy Science for Idiots
on
The Rise of CSI
·
· Score: 2
The conflict between Grissom and the guy who represents the mayor's office (I didn't think he was the sherrif, actually, but you could be right.) has nothing to do with authority figures being assholes.
It is the Sheriff that Grissom conflicts with: The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, LVMPD, reports to the Clark County Sheriff, not the mayor of the City of Las Vegas.
Most people, at least in the US, don't bother to sit through the ending credits; so, they'll miss the trailer for Two Towers unless they're told about it as the trailer will run, properly, after the movie.
Of course, given what theaters pay their workers, let's hope they actually tack it to the end and not the beginning.;)
Slashdot Mirror
These guns should come with protective eyewear for managers/clients who come within range.
Uhhh... turn off voice recognition? Wow, that was easy.
Duh! I could have told you that from reading the article.
Some of us have been fortunate enough to have avoided exposure to Windows XP. So, is it an Office configuration option, part of the OS, or a stand-alone application?
Anyone having problems with this, because they don't understand what's happening, won't get much mileage out of being told to "turn off voice recognition."
Exactly why is this "Stuff that matters"
Well, given the domination of Windows, and despite our own personal preferences, most in the Slashdot community, either formally or not, end up supporting Windows for our less clued brethren. Just think of how wise you'll seem when someone inevitably asks you why this is happening and you can tell them why.
Maybe someone will post how to fix it.
Makes you wonder if we're here to discover it happened because it happened.
Even if you're right about the percentage, people do different things with their hatred. For example, many people who read Slashdot hate Microsoft. What do most of them do about Microsoft? Nothing.
Using weapons of mass destruction will give focus to their hatred and a sense of urgency to act on it. And, as a bonus, it'll send many of our "allies" to their side, or a neutral corner.
Try to make them stop hating us. Any ideas how to do this?
Anyone who feels that they need everyone to like them is mentally ill. We don't need them to stop hating us. We just need them to stop acting on it.
Try to make them stop killing us. Any ideas how to do this?
While it seems crazy, currently, the approach that Israel is taking vis-a-vis the Palestinian situation may be the proper long term solution. To quote Sean Connery's character from The Untouchables:
You want to beat the terrorists? That's what you do. Don't make more terrorists by indiscriminately bombing civilians.
On the bright side, if they happen to kill you then that's one less detractor in the way of decisively ending this war.
(sarcasm)I'm glad you recognize one of our most sacred values. The right to have and express an opinion, even if it differs from the majority.(/sarcasm)
Well, you can't run a good ole-fashioned siege in 4 years, can you?
You can use modern technology to accomplish the same goal in less time. If you've got a foe in a hardened location, you only need to accomplish one of two things: get them to quit the location, or isolate the location until the foe is irrelevant.
Were it up to me, I'd do the following until intelligence sources indicate that one of the two goals have been met:
1. If area in 1 mile radius is inhabited, drop leaflets giving people one hour to leave area.
2. Beginning with known openings to bunker complex and working outward, introduce something that will burn for some time. The goal being two-fold: elimination of surface features that could obscure satellite observation; exhaust air supply of poorly design or poorly built bunker.
3. Observe cleared area with thermal imaging and strike, with convention bunker-busters, any location that indicates potential access to the bunker.
4. Cut off nearby communications that the target may be connected to.
5. This may be only a concept as I don't know if such equipment exists, or could be modified, but the next thing I'd do is drop robotic mining equipment on the bunker equipped with explosive charges large enough to blast out a 3 foot radius of reinforced concrete. Set it to go off for any of the following conditions: depth reached, stuck, water found, air found, metal found.
Even if all these efforts failed to silence the bunker's inhabitants, one would think that their forces in the field would be more inclined to surrender knowing that their leader is cut off.
If, as the article suggests, this is a reaction to the vulnerability felt after the attacks of 9/11, then it is a poorly thought-out one.
Stopping one person who is willing to die in an effort to do damage is a job for intelligence, not nukes.
Nuclear deterrence may not be at all effective against rogue nations and terrorist organizations. Do you think Hussien would actually give a crap if tens of thousands of Iraqis die simply because we bomb a place we think he's hiding. If Iraq sets off some kind of non-nuclear attack against the US, would we seriously nuke Baghdad in response? Would he care?
As for the likes of bin Laden, I would bet that if we promised to nuke him, he'd tell us where he is and setup a live television feed. This war would become US v Islam in the blink of an eye.
While we cannot put the nuclear genie back in the bottle, accepting this fact should not make the use of nuclear weapons desireable. We've had a solution for hardened fortifications for a couple millenia. While nukes might bust an unbustable bunker, so will a good old-fasioned siege.
Why does Katz bother...
While I'm sure you know, I'll volunteer the answer: He get's paid to see movies by virtue of writing about them afterward.
Unlike most of the Slashdot editorial staff, Katz is an actual writer/reporter type and a respected one (in other sectors.)
I take great pleasure in seeing a bad review from a paid reviewer. I'm not willing, generally, to defer to their judgement, mind. I just like to see them spend more time being forced to remember why they wasted two hours of their life.
At least I got to see the trailer for "Minority Report".
Not the best trailer for the movie. There is a longer one available. The movie looks good, but two facts make me wonder if I should really see it:
1. It stars Tom Cruise.
2. It's directed by Spielberg (sp?) who, in my opinion, couldn't avoid ruining sci-fi to save his life.
Why is it that Hollywood scientists invariably are incredibly uncurious would-be action heroes who rarely do any actual science?
Generally, I agree. But, this is one of the reasons I liked Stargate. While Jackson ends up playing the hero role, it's his scientific curiousity that motivates him to inadvertantly strand the team in the first place.
Ok, let's say you're an elected member of congress. How would your constituents like you to prioritize the following:
A. Fight Terrorists
B. Fix Economy
C. Teach Our Children
D. Fight Crime
E. Cut Taxes
F. Reduce deficit/Debt Reduction
G. Explore Mars
Assuming you don't have enough money for everything, what do you leave out?
If you want NASA to go to Mars, I'd suggest you help the Chinese do it: The only thing that might sway congressional self-interest is competition. Nothing took the wind out of NASA's sails like the collapse of the Soviet Union.
I'm not advocating trashing copyright. What I'm saying is that using copyright to choke off the technology is an abuse. Try comparing these figures:
From the article:
From BMI:
Unless I'm misunderstanding something, the RIAA wants atleast $0.70 per performance to 1000 listeners over the net. Meanwhile, they charge $0.12 for X listeners at the largest radio stations (where X is likely to be greater than 1000.) If this isn't abuse, I don't know what is.
Actually, once things are organized and it's made into a real business, these 'inventors' should rake in a fortune licensing their creations to real, paying businesses.
Well, except that most streaming software is free for the client and pay for the server. Once the RIAA spends the next year or two cutting off server revenue. They'll be in a position to either write their own streaming software, or simply buy Real Networks for pennies.
I wonder what the founding fathers would have thought of these guys taking copyright to such an extreme that it threatens the usability of new technology.
Engineers have taken the time to create, patent and license technology to stream audio over the web. Now, copyright holders of the audio content are trying to price content so high that the use of the patented invention becomes infeasible.
I would think that copyright was never intended to be a weapon to strangle invention.
Just my $.02. Keep the change.
treble == triple in this case, I assume, as damages sung at a high-pitch would make the court seem somewhat silly.
Atleast you know that they didn't make the story up. Noting the source is always a Good Thing (tm).
Pretty clever hack. Every time I read about real scientists pulling off neat things like this, I get more and more disgusted with people who simply reboot a server whenever it hangs because it's easier than actually thinking about what the problem is and how to fix it.
You probably are right, but to me it doesn't seem logical that a 3rd party can sue for copyright violation.
IANAL, but...
When it comes to suing the government like he's suggesting, I don't think it's a matter of parties. The only way the Judicial Branch can check the Executive Branch's abuse/ignorance of the law is for someone to bring suit against the Executive Branch. Then the court can rule on whether the Executive Branch actually understands the law it's charged with carrying out.
If the FAA does this, anyone can ask the court if it's legal by bringing suit. You don't have to be a damaged party.
As I understand it, the Legislative Branch has sued the Executive many times just for the purpose of getting the Judiciary to weigh in on what a law they wrote really means and to explain it to the Executive.
Aren't checks and balances fun.
Or don't have the hardware yet.
Or anything to connect the hardware to. We take things like power and phone for granted.
It is not the copy protection itself that is the problem. The issue goes much deeper, and the point, I think, is being missed.
If CDs were clearly marked as copy protected or if stores were required to give an actual refund if you want to return them, these klunky, defective schemes would never have been launched in the first place.
The same can be said for software. Try buying software, and then, after rejecting the enclosed license, try to return it for a refund. Good luck.
Consumers don't need a law banning copy-protection on CDs. Manufacturers have a right to do this to their CDs. What consumers need is a right to a refund if were not satisfied with conditions of sale that were not disclosed upfront. Further, we need the right to a refund if the product is unusable. Obviously some time-frame is necessary (e.g., within 30 days,) but there's no reason why these rights aren't afforded us now.
But then the No-click crowd gets in on the action...
;)
I think AOL has got you there.
First a Teddy Bear switch. What's next, a potpourri heat-sink for your CPU, perhaps?
Smell the over-clocked goodness.
Nothing new there, although they do make nice use of Brass on occasion as a stand in Watson to their Holmes.
My understanding is that this is why Doctor Who had companions. Since Katz mentions the X-Files, I would also suggest that this is the original reason for the Scully character (and now Doggett.)
The conflict between Grissom and the guy who represents the mayor's office (I didn't think he was the sherrif, actually, but you could be right.) has nothing to do with authority figures being assholes.
It is the Sheriff that Grissom conflicts with: The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, LVMPD, reports to the Clark County Sheriff, not the mayor of the City of Las Vegas.
Most people, at least in the US, don't bother to sit through the ending credits; so, they'll miss the trailer for Two Towers unless they're told about it as the trailer will run, properly, after the movie.
;)
Of course, given what theaters pay their workers, let's hope they actually tack it to the end and not the beginning.