Flooded with blog articles about the same query now, and yes, it looks like there's probably a technological reason (or at least viable excuse) for it, but it still seems pretty shady to me.
I don't think you understand what it is that Palm is doing here, if they were doing what you described (cracking the security of iTunes) that would be at best questionable, I for one would be completely against that kind of behavior. All that Palm is doing is changing the Vendor ID on their phone to the Vendor ID used by iPods. Basically, iTunes says "Hey, who are you?" and the Pre says "I am definately, definately, an iPod".
Unless Apple adds a new requirement to sync, there's little they can do to detect if the iPod is actually a Pre, and if they add a new requirement they'll be breaking backward compatibility with all the iPods out there that don't have the requirement implemented.
Not trying to belittle the problem of moderators censoring what they don't agree with, but have you tried posting on sites that use different moderation schemes? Slashdot is well above average when it comes to giving all sides a voice, probably because the relative scarcity of mod points encourages people to mod up rather than mod down. It's a lot like democracy being a horrible form a government (but the best one that we've found); Slashdot's moderation system allows for abuse and community censorship, but it is the best system I've seen on the Internet.
Or you could try to make a comment that is interesting, insightful, and/or informative like everyone else who wants to maintain their karma. It isn't really that hard, and that goes for everyone looking to get the karma bonus. The biggest thing is to be patient and wait until you have something interesting to contribute, rather than feeling like you need to comment at every opportunity.
That's why I like the idea of a Launch Loop better (not that it doesn't have its issues too). It uses kinetic energy to maintain the structure rather than tension so it could in theory be built with modern materials. It also launches in minutes rather than the days, weeks, or even months that some space elevator designs call for. It would have a much higher launch capacity and is built on the ground rather than having to boost a cable into orbit. It doesn't require an anchor weight in high orbit and since the energy for launch is also transfered mechanically you don't have to worry about beaming power anywhere. Finally, it would act as a huge and efficient energy store, meaning we could, in theory, use 100% solar/wind power and use a launch loop as the worlds biggest battery for night time and cloudy days.
First, a control group could take care of this relatively easily. Statistically, the people in the control group are just as likely to make those changes as the people actually eating the chocolate; though in this case a good, double blind study is impossible (it might be that eating a chocolate bar every day encourages the women to do other, seemingly unhealthy, things).
The other option is to use statistics to control for external variables. Assuming you know about the changes in behavior, you can control for them when you do your analysis. Statistics are a wonderful thing and can be used for all manner of evils, but done correctly they can also produce good science out of what might at first glance appear to be a random jumble of information.
I agree, visiting NEOs is much easier than sending us to Mars and has the possibility of real economic (not just incidental R and D) impact. It would also serve as a test bed if we ever see a rock coming our way and need to do something about it. If we could find a source of rocket fuel that isn't at the bottom of a major gravity well, I would say go there first, but in the meantime visiting and eventually moving NEO would be the highest priority for me.
The cost would be massive, 10%+ of the worlds GDP for several decades just to get the thing built and stocked. The risks would be huge, we know next to nothing about the kinds of things that could go wrong with such a plan and the risks we do know about are already significant. And the payoff? Next to nothing. Certainly there would be no economic payoff, even if we were able to establish a colony (and there's about a thousand ifs that would need to be fulfilled for that to happen) there would be no way to set up any kind of trading system over those kinds of distances. Not leaving a colony behind is even less cost efficient, you're basically consigning generations of people to strict rationing and constant danger for the purpose all to be able to look and see what's going on the next star system over (hint: probably absolutely nothing).
No, there's only two ways that ark ships will be built.
One is if we have advanced warning of a catastrophe so horrible that spending a significant portion of the worlds wealth and resources just to save a few thousand people is preferable to actually trying to solve the problem. I can't even think about what that kind of catastrophe could be, in order to build an arkship you're going to have to be able to move and mine asteroids so that's out. Anything that would disrupt the inner solar system would still leave semi-habitable environment inside the solar system at less risk than sending an arkship into the unknown.
The second is if the society of Earth persecutes a group to the point that they want to leave, while paradoxically giving that group the wealth, technical knowledge, and political influence to make such a project happen. I just don't see that happening, unless the singularity really is near, and the kind of power and technology to make an arkship happens becomes commonplace.
Reading the title and summary would make you think that the entire program has been cancelled and the planes aren't going to be used by the US military. This is not the case. The Senate reduced the number of aircraft being produced such that no additional planes will be made. The F22 is already in service and will remain in service for quite some time.
The problem is in 10 years the information will be so out of date that it may well be worse than worthless. Combine that with the fact that 95% of the kids in the class won't remember any of it even one year later (and the other 5% would have learned it on their own anyway) and it seems like a waste of time and effort in an already time crunched curriculum. Honestly, I'd rather see forced music classes than a forced A+ certification class, at least a love of music can last a lifetime.
I hope that you are also an expert in fixing... cars, plumbing, roofs, TVs, refrigerators, and washing machines; all of which I garauntee will break down at some point if your life. Let's also not forget other handy do it yourself projects like curing illnesses, neutering your pet, and pulling wisdom teeth. People get overcharged for all of these things every day. Just because the subject at hand happens to be your area of expertise doesn't mean you can just say 'learn a thing or two' and call that a valid resolution to the problem.
Use computer graphics to draw a sand sifter with one million grains of sand on top. Explain that each grain of sand represents a single person and that the sifter will only let suspected terrorists through. Also explain that ten of the grains of sand represent terrorists.
Then, graphically run the filter for them assuming a 10% failure rate, there will be a full 100,000 grains of sand below the filter which is still far, far to many to easily pick out the problem sand grains. Worse, there's a better than even chance that at least one of the terrorist grains of sand didn't make it through the sifter at all and is still mixed in with the general population.
The idea of ritual suicide in the face of failure confusing and slightly contradicting to me especially given Japanese culture's emphasis of 'triumph over adversity'. Japanese culture seems to love watching people try to overcome things that are almost impossible and/or unbearable.
As an example, have you ever seen 'Ninja Warrior'? Basically, it's like 'Wipeout' on NBC only a million times more difficult. I've watched 'Ninja Warrior' dozens of times and only seen someone complete the final course once; one person out of literally hundreds of competitors. They've had Olympic gymnasts on the show not even make it to the final round. The audience cheers on the failures almost as much as the success, because the failures gave it everything even though they had to know they probably weren't going to make it.
How is it that a culture that cheers on the underdog and loves it when people try in spite of horrible odds also finds honor in taking your own life when faced with a difficult situation?
I refuse to even look at the context that this comment is made in. The fact that it is moderated 'informative' is, quite possibly, the most awesome thing I have ever seen on slashdot.
Well, to be fair I remember paying $50 or $60 for new SNES games, and that was 15 years ago. If prices had kept up with general inflation, games would be costing $80-90 a pop today. I certainly don't complain about $60 for a game that I genuinely want, and if I'm not sure then I wait for the price to drop or rent/borrow/demo it first.
Mind you, eventually I'd like to see an end to paying for individual games at all. Instead, I pay a monthly subscription, and play whatever games I want. In turn, the developers for those games get a percentage of my subscription fee, based on how much I (and other subscribers) play their game.
As tempting as it is to get all the latest and greatest games for a cheap monthly price, I've got to say I hate this idea.
If nothing else there are times when I don't buy any new games for months at at time. Either they don't interest me much, or I'm too busy to make it worthwhile, or I have plenty of other games that I haven't exhausted yet. It would frustrate me to no end to have to continue paying $20 or more a month (and if you think it would be less than that you're ignoring reality) just to keep my subscription going.
I like owning my games. I like being able to take them over to a friends house to play. I like being able to lend them to a friend of mine after I'm done with them. I like being able to put them away without worrying about wasting money.
By artificial gravity, I assume you mean using rotation to produce centrifugal force? I just don't see that being likely until we have a more efficient way than rockets to get material into space, or possible until we have a way to mine and refine metal from space.
Human physiology limits you to 2 RPM, any higher than this and motion sickness becomes very common. That means that to get a full G of apparent gravity, you need a station with a radius of nearly 225 meters. Obviously, you could probably make do with less than a full G. How much less while still maintaining muscle mass and bone density is an unanswered question so far. If a half G is enough, you're in a much better situation, the radius would only have to be 110 meters. If you don't care about everyone not getting motion sickness you could probably up the RPMs to 4, getting the radius down to 28 meters. Of course, that means that your head will be under 10% less force than your feet, which I imagine might take some getting used to.
Don't count on debunking the conspiracy theories quite so easily. All you would prove is that there is something there which reflects the light back at the Earth. Now, that is almost definitely an artificial, human made something (though conspiracy theorists might even argue that) but it certainly doesn't prove that we landed people there.
The best proof is, arguably, the fact that the Russians never disputed it. They had the tracking necissary to see the ship heading out, the recievers necissary to recieve the transmissions coming back, and the motivation to destroy the US's reputation; but not once did the Russian government ever dispute the facts of the moon landing.
First and foremost, there's two kinds of electro-shock therapy. One is simple aversion therapy, putting the person in front of the computer and when they try to open the browser a painful shock is given. That doesn't sound like what they are trying to accomplish here so I'll assume that it is the second kind, the kind which actually tries to change the way a person thinks and feels about memories.
Done correctly there's nothing inherently wrong with that kind of shock therapy, it's even made something of a minor resurgance in the US for treating PTSD and depression. The idea is that you shock the brain while it is remembering the dramatic memory, cuasing the brain to either fail to store the memory or to store the memory without the emotional content.
And the crazy thing is that it actually works pretty much as advertised. The problem is that there is no garauntee that the patient is thinking 100% about what you told them to think about; people's minds wander and if the person just happens to be thinking about something important to them, significant damage can be done to the persons memory. Obviously, the people being treated were not giving their informed consent for those procedures, nor does it seem to me that 30 minutes at a time (if accurate) is the correct way to administer the treatment.
You're really complaining about $.50 for the level of service you get from the USPS? For that price, you can send a standard letter anywhere in the US (including the non-continental US) usually arriving in less than 5 days with a loss rate of virtually zero. They deliver mail to (nearly) every address in the US 6 days a week, and will even come to check for outgoing if you don't have any incoming. They even manage to deliver when the roads are absolute shit and no one in their right mind would be out and about.
All for a price that has actually been decreasing over the years if you take into account inflation, let alone the increases in gas prices that have occurred over the last 10 years. Personally, I think that's pretty damn good and wouldn't complain if they raised the price to an even dollar, it would still be under priced for the service they provide.
You misunderstand their argument. Of course they want it indexed, just look at how many thousands of people look at their news everyday that wouldn't if it weren't indexed. They desperately want that readership... to pay them for the service. They aren't saying "we don't want people to read us", they're saying "we want everyone who reads us to pay for it".
Saying robots.txt is like telling a hungry 2 year old that they can't have a Popsicle and should go eat a green beans instead. Yeah, the green beans will make them not hungry, but it's the damn Popsicle that they want (incidentally, you'll get about the same response from either group).
Hence the 'accounting nightmare' part of my statement. It would be entirely possible to have an independent third part accept donations and turn them over at the end of the week or even day. The third party could even hand over a list of names, sans amounts, of who donated that chunk of money so that the campaign could contact those people later.
Don't be insane! They can't have technically minded, well informed people making decisions! If this goes through, whose going to pay the lawyer's and lobbyist's welfare, that's what I want to know.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe they can use the real world data to fix this issue
http://www.bing.com/search?q=why+is+microsoft+word+so+expensive&form=QBLH&qs=n
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=why+is+microsoft+word+so+expensive&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g1
Flooded with blog articles about the same query now, and yes, it looks like there's probably a technological reason (or at least viable excuse) for it, but it still seems pretty shady to me.
I don't think you understand what it is that Palm is doing here, if they were doing what you described (cracking the security of iTunes) that would be at best questionable, I for one would be completely against that kind of behavior. All that Palm is doing is changing the Vendor ID on their phone to the Vendor ID used by iPods. Basically, iTunes says "Hey, who are you?" and the Pre says "I am definately, definately, an iPod".
Unless Apple adds a new requirement to sync, there's little they can do to detect if the iPod is actually a Pre, and if they add a new requirement they'll be breaking backward compatibility with all the iPods out there that don't have the requirement implemented.
Not trying to belittle the problem of moderators censoring what they don't agree with, but have you tried posting on sites that use different moderation schemes? Slashdot is well above average when it comes to giving all sides a voice, probably because the relative scarcity of mod points encourages people to mod up rather than mod down. It's a lot like democracy being a horrible form a government (but the best one that we've found); Slashdot's moderation system allows for abuse and community censorship, but it is the best system I've seen on the Internet.
Or you could try to make a comment that is interesting, insightful, and/or informative like everyone else who wants to maintain their karma. It isn't really that hard, and that goes for everyone looking to get the karma bonus. The biggest thing is to be patient and wait until you have something interesting to contribute, rather than feeling like you need to comment at every opportunity.
That's why I like the idea of a Launch Loop better (not that it doesn't have its issues too). It uses kinetic energy to maintain the structure rather than tension so it could in theory be built with modern materials. It also launches in minutes rather than the days, weeks, or even months that some space elevator designs call for. It would have a much higher launch capacity and is built on the ground rather than having to boost a cable into orbit. It doesn't require an anchor weight in high orbit and since the energy for launch is also transfered mechanically you don't have to worry about beaming power anywhere. Finally, it would act as a huge and efficient energy store, meaning we could, in theory, use 100% solar/wind power and use a launch loop as the worlds biggest battery for night time and cloudy days.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_loop
First, a control group could take care of this relatively easily. Statistically, the people in the control group are just as likely to make those changes as the people actually eating the chocolate; though in this case a good, double blind study is impossible (it might be that eating a chocolate bar every day encourages the women to do other, seemingly unhealthy, things).
The other option is to use statistics to control for external variables. Assuming you know about the changes in behavior, you can control for them when you do your analysis. Statistics are a wonderful thing and can be used for all manner of evils, but done correctly they can also produce good science out of what might at first glance appear to be a random jumble of information.
I agree, visiting NEOs is much easier than sending us to Mars and has the possibility of real economic (not just incidental R and D) impact. It would also serve as a test bed if we ever see a rock coming our way and need to do something about it. If we could find a source of rocket fuel that isn't at the bottom of a major gravity well, I would say go there first, but in the meantime visiting and eventually moving NEO would be the highest priority for me.
It all comes down to one thing: What's the point?
The cost would be massive, 10%+ of the worlds GDP for several decades just to get the thing built and stocked. The risks would be huge, we know next to nothing about the kinds of things that could go wrong with such a plan and the risks we do know about are already significant. And the payoff? Next to nothing. Certainly there would be no economic payoff, even if we were able to establish a colony (and there's about a thousand ifs that would need to be fulfilled for that to happen) there would be no way to set up any kind of trading system over those kinds of distances. Not leaving a colony behind is even less cost efficient, you're basically consigning generations of people to strict rationing and constant danger for the purpose all to be able to look and see what's going on the next star system over (hint: probably absolutely nothing).
No, there's only two ways that ark ships will be built.
One is if we have advanced warning of a catastrophe so horrible that spending a significant portion of the worlds wealth and resources just to save a few thousand people is preferable to actually trying to solve the problem. I can't even think about what that kind of catastrophe could be, in order to build an arkship you're going to have to be able to move and mine asteroids so that's out. Anything that would disrupt the inner solar system would still leave semi-habitable environment inside the solar system at less risk than sending an arkship into the unknown.
The second is if the society of Earth persecutes a group to the point that they want to leave, while paradoxically giving that group the wealth, technical knowledge, and political influence to make such a project happen. I just don't see that happening, unless the singularity really is near, and the kind of power and technology to make an arkship happens becomes commonplace.
Reading the title and summary would make you think that the entire program has been cancelled and the planes aren't going to be used by the US military. This is not the case. The Senate reduced the number of aircraft being produced such that no additional planes will be made. The F22 is already in service and will remain in service for quite some time.
The problem is in 10 years the information will be so out of date that it may well be worse than worthless. Combine that with the fact that 95% of the kids in the class won't remember any of it even one year later (and the other 5% would have learned it on their own anyway) and it seems like a waste of time and effort in an already time crunched curriculum. Honestly, I'd rather see forced music classes than a forced A+ certification class, at least a love of music can last a lifetime.
I hope that you are also an expert in fixing... cars, plumbing, roofs, TVs, refrigerators, and washing machines; all of which I garauntee will break down at some point if your life. Let's also not forget other handy do it yourself projects like curing illnesses, neutering your pet, and pulling wisdom teeth. People get overcharged for all of these things every day. Just because the subject at hand happens to be your area of expertise doesn't mean you can just say 'learn a thing or two' and call that a valid resolution to the problem.
How about this:
Use computer graphics to draw a sand sifter with one million grains of sand on top. Explain that each grain of sand represents a single person and that the sifter will only let suspected terrorists through. Also explain that ten of the grains of sand represent terrorists.
Then, graphically run the filter for them assuming a 10% failure rate, there will be a full 100,000 grains of sand below the filter which is still far, far to many to easily pick out the problem sand grains. Worse, there's a better than even chance that at least one of the terrorist grains of sand didn't make it through the sifter at all and is still mixed in with the general population.
The idea of ritual suicide in the face of failure confusing and slightly contradicting to me especially given Japanese culture's emphasis of 'triumph over adversity'. Japanese culture seems to love watching people try to overcome things that are almost impossible and/or unbearable.
As an example, have you ever seen 'Ninja Warrior'? Basically, it's like 'Wipeout' on NBC only a million times more difficult. I've watched 'Ninja Warrior' dozens of times and only seen someone complete the final course once; one person out of literally hundreds of competitors. They've had Olympic gymnasts on the show not even make it to the final round. The audience cheers on the failures almost as much as the success, because the failures gave it everything even though they had to know they probably weren't going to make it.
How is it that a culture that cheers on the underdog and loves it when people try in spite of horrible odds also finds honor in taking your own life when faced with a difficult situation?
I refuse to even look at the context that this comment is made in. The fact that it is moderated 'informative' is, quite possibly, the most awesome thing I have ever seen on slashdot.
I have no problem with God...
It's his fan club that I hate.
'Third World Country'
You keep saying this word.. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Well, to be fair I remember paying $50 or $60 for new SNES games, and that was 15 years ago. If prices had kept up with general inflation, games would be costing $80-90 a pop today. I certainly don't complain about $60 for a game that I genuinely want, and if I'm not sure then I wait for the price to drop or rent/borrow/demo it first.
Mind you, eventually I'd like to see an end to paying for individual games at all. Instead, I pay a monthly subscription, and play whatever games I want. In turn, the developers for those games get a percentage of my subscription fee, based on how much I (and other subscribers) play their game.
As tempting as it is to get all the latest and greatest games for a cheap monthly price, I've got to say I hate this idea.
If nothing else there are times when I don't buy any new games for months at at time. Either they don't interest me much, or I'm too busy to make it worthwhile, or I have plenty of other games that I haven't exhausted yet. It would frustrate me to no end to have to continue paying $20 or more a month (and if you think it would be less than that you're ignoring reality) just to keep my subscription going.
I like owning my games. I like being able to take them over to a friends house to play. I like being able to lend them to a friend of mine after I'm done with them. I like being able to put them away without worrying about wasting money.
By artificial gravity, I assume you mean using rotation to produce centrifugal force? I just don't see that being likely until we have a more efficient way than rockets to get material into space, or possible until we have a way to mine and refine metal from space.
Human physiology limits you to 2 RPM, any higher than this and motion sickness becomes very common. That means that to get a full G of apparent gravity, you need a station with a radius of nearly 225 meters. Obviously, you could probably make do with less than a full G. How much less while still maintaining muscle mass and bone density is an unanswered question so far. If a half G is enough, you're in a much better situation, the radius would only have to be 110 meters. If you don't care about everyone not getting motion sickness you could probably up the RPMs to 4, getting the radius down to 28 meters. Of course, that means that your head will be under 10% less force than your feet, which I imagine might take some getting used to.
Don't count on debunking the conspiracy theories quite so easily. All you would prove is that there is something there which reflects the light back at the Earth. Now, that is almost definitely an artificial, human made something (though conspiracy theorists might even argue that) but it certainly doesn't prove that we landed people there.
The best proof is, arguably, the fact that the Russians never disputed it. They had the tracking necissary to see the ship heading out, the recievers necissary to recieve the transmissions coming back, and the motivation to destroy the US's reputation; but not once did the Russian government ever dispute the facts of the moon landing.
First and foremost, there's two kinds of electro-shock therapy. One is simple aversion therapy, putting the person in front of the computer and when they try to open the browser a painful shock is given. That doesn't sound like what they are trying to accomplish here so I'll assume that it is the second kind, the kind which actually tries to change the way a person thinks and feels about memories.
Done correctly there's nothing inherently wrong with that kind of shock therapy, it's even made something of a minor resurgance in the US for treating PTSD and depression. The idea is that you shock the brain while it is remembering the dramatic memory, cuasing the brain to either fail to store the memory or to store the memory without the emotional content.
And the crazy thing is that it actually works pretty much as advertised. The problem is that there is no garauntee that the patient is thinking 100% about what you told them to think about; people's minds wander and if the person just happens to be thinking about something important to them, significant damage can be done to the persons memory. Obviously, the people being treated were not giving their informed consent for those procedures, nor does it seem to me that 30 minutes at a time (if accurate) is the correct way to administer the treatment.
You're really complaining about $.50 for the level of service you get from the USPS? For that price, you can send a standard letter anywhere in the US (including the non-continental US) usually arriving in less than 5 days with a loss rate of virtually zero. They deliver mail to (nearly) every address in the US 6 days a week, and will even come to check for outgoing if you don't have any incoming. They even manage to deliver when the roads are absolute shit and no one in their right mind would be out and about.
All for a price that has actually been decreasing over the years if you take into account inflation, let alone the increases in gas prices that have occurred over the last 10 years. Personally, I think that's pretty damn good and wouldn't complain if they raised the price to an even dollar, it would still be under priced for the service they provide.
You misunderstand their argument. Of course they want it indexed, just look at how many thousands of people look at their news everyday that wouldn't if it weren't indexed. They desperately want that readership... to pay them for the service. They aren't saying "we don't want people to read us", they're saying "we want everyone who reads us to pay for it".
Saying robots.txt is like telling a hungry 2 year old that they can't have a Popsicle and should go eat a green beans instead. Yeah, the green beans will make them not hungry, but it's the damn Popsicle that they want (incidentally, you'll get about the same response from either group).
Hence the 'accounting nightmare' part of my statement. It would be entirely possible to have an independent third part accept donations and turn them over at the end of the week or even day. The third party could even hand over a list of names, sans amounts, of who donated that chunk of money so that the campaign could contact those people later.
Don't be insane! They can't have technically minded, well informed people making decisions! If this goes through, whose going to pay the lawyer's and lobbyist's welfare, that's what I want to know.