*nod* I was initially thinking that if gaim wasn't in the wrong for using the Oscar protocol to talk to AIM servers, then the Gaia people couldn't be in the wrong either. I still don't think they're exactly in the wrong. But I do feel that the proper thing for them to do is agree to Google's terms precisely because the data Google is serving up is not licensed for the use Gaia is putting it to. Essentially they are being nice and helping Google honor agreements it has made with third parties.
OTOH, I don't know if I would've been happy with Google if they'd sued the Gaia people. I'm not sure though. I think the situation is kind of murky.
I could say the same thing about guns. If everyone and anyone might have a gun, hoodlums will think twice before robbing, mugging, or car jacking people.
I don't disagree.
About three days before the software to add the digital signature or watermark to edited video becomes available.
Strangely enough, that's actually a harder problem than removing the information from copyrighted materials is. It would be possible to extract the signing key from a particular device and make a program to add a signature stating that the video was made by that particular device. But it would be difficult to write a program that would generate the key for any random device, or extract the key from any random device. The key would be stuck inside a bunch of hardware and would require a lot of fiddling to extract.
While I expect I would generally find you horribly repugnant, I agree with you here. I don't think surveillance is avoidable. I think David Brin is right. This means that it should be possible to watch everybody.
I don't think banning camera phones is the answer because then you'll have schools doing exactly what you said. Now if all parties have video equipment, that's a much fairer situation.
I'm kind of wondering how long it will be before video content is digitally signed or watermarked by the device so you can tell if it's been edited or not.
You might want to go read this post before you start with your garbage justifications.
Also, you have the facts wrong in several particulars:
The student was already leaving the library when the officers showed up. They didn't need to touch him at all.
I do not believe he started thrashing until they tasered him.
The didn't need to taser him again after the first time, unless maybe he had a gun or starting hitting the officers. But he went limp. So, you carry him, you don't try to taser him into walking. The latter is torture pure and simple
Lastly, you got my reference wrong. I meant that I feel that mass student resistance of the police could've been accomplished without violence on the part of the students.
Anybody who's watched that video and tries to justify the police in any way is a wannabe goose stepper IMHO. You'd follow anybody as long as they had some claim on being an authority, no matter what they did. Sadly, people like you are probably a majority.
What wouldn't have been justified? If the police had said "Get up and walk or we'll shoot!", would they have been justified in blowing his brains out? Would they have been justified in tasering people who didn't put their cameras away when asked?
The police should not be allowed to get away with that kind of thing. Ever. It could've been done non-violently, and somebody could've called for some police with clearer heads to show up.
No, I'm 35, and I've suffered at the hands of bullies like that before. I'm not positive that's what I would've done. I might not have been able to think of it in time and under that much stress, and I might not have felt that I could get enough people to go along with me to do it.
I never want to see another comment by you about anything ever again. You are such a complete asshole. I will likely be denied the privelege since we have the 1st amendment and this is Slashdot, but I'm certainly going to try hard.
Being limp on the ground and refusing to move when they tell you to is not resisting by any definition. Protesters do it all the time, and cops just carry them off. Those cops were on a complete power trip.
Maybe you get off on that kind of thing. I wouldn't be surprised. Got your own dungeon with your own little kidnapped kid that you taser until she makes you dinner or whatever?
The second time they tased him, I would've gotten as many students as I could together, pulled the police off of him and formed a circle around him several layers deep if necessary. They would've had to have gotten a full riot squad in there before I would've let them do a single thing to the guy again. That was horrible.
I'm so angry after watching that I can hardly type.
I don't like working contract because I like having a long-term effect on the evolution of a product. But given my recent history, maybe I should just give up on that notion.:-( I've only worked one place where I felt I had a significant impact on their business. I worked there twice in fact.
I know it's hot fusion. I only mentioned cold fusion because it was relevant in explaining about neutrons being the usual product of a fusion reaction.
In fact, the first reaction they tried was either deuterium/deuterium or tritium/helium or something of that nature. And they were using measurements of neutron flux as proof that they'd actually achieved fusion.
Your post seems a result of misreading or misinterpreting my post. A knee-jerk reaction to mentions of cold fusion perhaps?
I just knew this petulant and ignorant whine would show up [whiny voice] But the promised, they did! They did![/whiny voice] Grow the fuck up - R&D isn't amenable to precise scheduling and prediction, especially when working at the frontiers of science and technology.
Of course it isn't. But I regard with great suspicion anybody involved in mainstream fusion research who doesn't want anybody to pursue anything else. Tunnel vision happens everywhere. And while it seems that Mr. Bussard may suffer from it, I have no doubt that people who have their entire careers wrapped up in magnetic confinement have it even worse.
If the original poster had given even a shred of a reason why the idea wouldn't work, especially if (s)he gave a pointer or to to some pages describing why it wouldn't work in detail, I'd be all impressed and credulous. As it is, Mr. Bussards idea of confinement with electric forces doesn't seem particularly ridiculous to me, and it seems like it deserves to be on an equal footing for funding.
I stand by my claim that the original poster engaged in exactly the same kind of mudflinging and ad-hominem attack that Mr. Bussard did and from the shield of 'Anonymous Coward' no less. Neither of them deserve any respect for engaging in such attacks, though I submit that the anonymous coward was being much nastier for trashing an individual rather than an idea. But I also see no evidence presented that his idea stands a lower chance of working than the magnetic confinement ideas that have been being pursued for all these years.
I don't know enough to be able to evaluate the ideas. But from what I know of Tokamak research, it deserves every helping of scorn that he heaps upon it. It has been a ridiculously expensive failure. About as useful for advancing the cause of fusion power as string theory has been for advancing our understanding of physics.
This post of yours is very elegantly written and completely trashes Mr. Bussard. In its way, it's exactly the same level of attack as he levels against other fusion research.
In my mind, taking 1/20th of the budget allocated to 'traditional' fusion research and allocating it to weird fusion research seems like a very prudent investment. Especially when traditional fusion research has been promising results in 20 years for upwards of 40 years. Mr. Bussard wants 1/75th of the budget. Let him have it and see if he can produce something repeatable.
I believe the fuel is tritium (one proton and two neutron hydrogen, radioactive and unstable, but not very much so) and boron. The end result is 4 stable helium nuclei. There is no plutonium or other weapons grade material produced. These are all nuclear reactions at the very low end of the periodic table. You might be able to build a hydrogen bomb, but there are lots easier ways to do that.
From your confusion, I would suggest reading up on fission and fusion on Wikipedia.
It isn't just fusion. There's some fission involved too in the particular chain of reactions he wants to use. But it's fission of light elements, and Bussard claims it won't produce gamma rays or speeding neutrons.
In fact, pure fusion reactions do produce neutrons that go flying off and have to be captured, which means that they produce harmful radiation. The seeming lack of neutrons is what makes many very skeptical of cold fusion claims. But the reaction chain he proposes involves fusion and fission and produces no neutrons or gamma rays.
Yeah, this is pretty much how I feel. Trademark law can get out-of-hand sometimes. But it's generally a good thing and has not overstepped its bounds in any severe manner.
My experience is that perl is nearly impossible to maintain and that Python is very easy to maintain. Python is a little slower than perl, and Ruby is a lot slower than Python. My feeling with Ruby is that it brings back some of the maintainability problems of perl, though not to nearly so great an extent.
My coding experience has generally been with small (sometimes performance critical) programs where failure was very bad. The one time I was given a really large system to work with, I couldn't wrap my head around the large number of intricacies that nobody knew why were there anymore.
My experience with Java was one of excitement followed by extreme disappointment. It felt to me like it solved few of C++s problems and was significantly more painful and cumbersome to work with than a scripting language. I do not find the intricacies of C++ to be that much of an issue, but I can see how it would be for someone who doesn't have my history with it.
My usual modus operandi these days is to code in Python, and when I encounter something that needs to be faster, I code it in C++. There are a few clever coding tricks in Python that can be used to significantly increase speed in certain situations, so the case where I need C++ is fairly tiny. In fact I believe the major case I encountered recently has been solved by a module that is now distributed as part of the language.
I recently worked in a Ruby shop, and I was apalled when I realized that they turned all their ruby code into shared libraries and executables in order to shield it from customers. That must have cost them a lot of development effort because it suddenly removed some of the biggest benefits of using a scripting language. I tried, but couldn't figure out a way to do the "I write a bunch of code at the interpreter prompt, play with it a bit and then turn it into system code." thing at all.
You are the first person I've ever seen who responded to a reasonable criticism of Java with a decent answer. Woohoo! Most people who post about it are kids who learned it in college and think it's now the one true way because it's their chosen hammer.
I'm wondering if now that Java is Open Source if someone can do something about the horrible start-up time for the average application. Though, I still like Python a lot better.:-)
That is sort of interesting. Most of the things I think they might do that are really serious problems aren't things I know they do. I'm very reluctant to bring up any of those without hard evidence. If I were a reverse engineer and had a Windows box to play with, there are a bunch of things I'd be testing carefully.
Yes, it does. It means at the expense of my ability to give a copies of things to my friends. That ability is pretty important and losing it represents a cost, even it's not a monetary cost.
And, as someone pointed out, it's costing me bandwidth.
Slashdot Mirror
*nod* I was initially thinking that if gaim wasn't in the wrong for using the Oscar protocol to talk to AIM servers, then the Gaia people couldn't be in the wrong either. I still don't think they're exactly in the wrong. But I do feel that the proper thing for them to do is agree to Google's terms precisely because the data Google is serving up is not licensed for the use Gaia is putting it to. Essentially they are being nice and helping Google honor agreements it has made with third parties.
OTOH, I don't know if I would've been happy with Google if they'd sued the Gaia people. I'm not sure though. I think the situation is kind of murky.
I don't disagree.
Strangely enough, that's actually a harder problem than removing the information from copyrighted materials is. It would be possible to extract the signing key from a particular device and make a program to add a signature stating that the video was made by that particular device. But it would be difficult to write a program that would generate the key for any random device, or extract the key from any random device. The key would be stuck inside a bunch of hardware and would require a lot of fiddling to extract.
I just looked it up on my periodic table t-shirt with the radioative elements marked with glow-in-the-dark radioactivity symbols.
While I expect I would generally find you horribly repugnant, I agree with you here. I don't think surveillance is avoidable. I think David Brin is right. This means that it should be possible to watch everybody.
I don't think banning camera phones is the answer because then you'll have schools doing exactly what you said. Now if all parties have video equipment, that's a much fairer situation.
I'm kind of wondering how long it will be before video content is digitally signed or watermarked by the device so you can tell if it's been edited or not.
So, I should run around tasing the kids sitting on the floor and screaming? They obviously deserve it. They just want martyrdom.
You might want to go read this post before you start with your garbage justifications.
Also, you have the facts wrong in several particulars:
Anybody who's watched that video and tries to justify the police in any way is a wannabe goose stepper IMHO. You'd follow anybody as long as they had some claim on being an authority, no matter what they did. Sadly, people like you are probably a majority.
What wouldn't have been justified? If the police had said "Get up and walk or we'll shoot!", would they have been justified in blowing his brains out? Would they have been justified in tasering people who didn't put their cameras away when asked?
I was thinking something along those lines myself. I would've been happy to hand him over to cops who were sane. But those cops clearly weren't.
You're right. Being a dumbass and a jerk is a perfect reason to be tased. Please come over here so I can do it to you!
The police should not be allowed to get away with that kind of thing. Ever. It could've been done non-violently, and somebody could've called for some police with clearer heads to show up.
No, I'm 35, and I've suffered at the hands of bullies like that before. I'm not positive that's what I would've done. I might not have been able to think of it in time and under that much stress, and I might not have felt that I could get enough people to go along with me to do it.
I will second that. Thanks for posting this, and thanks for being a good cop (or at least sounding like one :-).
If being a jackass deserves tasering, maybe I should give those cops your address. It seems like you're s deserving fellow.
I never want to see another comment by you about anything ever again. You are such a complete asshole. I will likely be denied the privelege since we have the 1st amendment and this is Slashdot, but I'm certainly going to try hard.
Being limp on the ground and refusing to move when they tell you to is not resisting by any definition. Protesters do it all the time, and cops just carry them off. Those cops were on a complete power trip.
Maybe you get off on that kind of thing. I wouldn't be surprised. Got your own dungeon with your own little kidnapped kid that you taser until she makes you dinner or whatever?
The second time they tased him, I would've gotten as many students as I could together, pulled the police off of him and formed a circle around him several layers deep if necessary. They would've had to have gotten a full riot squad in there before I would've let them do a single thing to the guy again. That was horrible.
I'm so angry after watching that I can hardly type.
I don't like working contract because I like having a long-term effect on the evolution of a product. But given my recent history, maybe I should just give up on that notion. :-( I've only worked one place where I felt I had a significant impact on their business. I worked there twice in fact.
I know it's hot fusion. I only mentioned cold fusion because it was relevant in explaining about neutrons being the usual product of a fusion reaction.
In fact, the first reaction they tried was either deuterium/deuterium or tritium/helium or something of that nature. And they were using measurements of neutron flux as proof that they'd actually achieved fusion.
Your post seems a result of misreading or misinterpreting my post. A knee-jerk reaction to mentions of cold fusion perhaps?
Of course it isn't. But I regard with great suspicion anybody involved in mainstream fusion research who doesn't want anybody to pursue anything else. Tunnel vision happens everywhere. And while it seems that Mr. Bussard may suffer from it, I have no doubt that people who have their entire careers wrapped up in magnetic confinement have it even worse.
If the original poster had given even a shred of a reason why the idea wouldn't work, especially if (s)he gave a pointer or to to some pages describing why it wouldn't work in detail, I'd be all impressed and credulous. As it is, Mr. Bussards idea of confinement with electric forces doesn't seem particularly ridiculous to me, and it seems like it deserves to be on an equal footing for funding.
I stand by my claim that the original poster engaged in exactly the same kind of mudflinging and ad-hominem attack that Mr. Bussard did and from the shield of 'Anonymous Coward' no less. Neither of them deserve any respect for engaging in such attacks, though I submit that the anonymous coward was being much nastier for trashing an individual rather than an idea. But I also see no evidence presented that his idea stands a lower chance of working than the magnetic confinement ideas that have been being pursued for all these years.
I don't know enough to be able to evaluate the ideas. But from what I know of Tokamak research, it deserves every helping of scorn that he heaps upon it. It has been a ridiculously expensive failure. About as useful for advancing the cause of fusion power as string theory has been for advancing our understanding of physics.
This post of yours is very elegantly written and completely trashes Mr. Bussard. In its way, it's exactly the same level of attack as he levels against other fusion research.
In my mind, taking 1/20th of the budget allocated to 'traditional' fusion research and allocating it to weird fusion research seems like a very prudent investment. Especially when traditional fusion research has been promising results in 20 years for upwards of 40 years. Mr. Bussard wants 1/75th of the budget. Let him have it and see if he can produce something repeatable.
I believe the fuel is tritium (one proton and two neutron hydrogen, radioactive and unstable, but not very much so) and boron. The end result is 4 stable helium nuclei. There is no plutonium or other weapons grade material produced. These are all nuclear reactions at the very low end of the periodic table. You might be able to build a hydrogen bomb, but there are lots easier ways to do that.
From your confusion, I would suggest reading up on fission and fusion on Wikipedia.
It isn't just fusion. There's some fission involved too in the particular chain of reactions he wants to use. But it's fission of light elements, and Bussard claims it won't produce gamma rays or speeding neutrons.
In fact, pure fusion reactions do produce neutrons that go flying off and have to be captured, which means that they produce harmful radiation. The seeming lack of neutrons is what makes many very skeptical of cold fusion claims. But the reaction chain he proposes involves fusion and fission and produces no neutrons or gamma rays.
Yeah, this is pretty much how I feel. Trademark law can get out-of-hand sometimes. But it's generally a good thing and has not overstepped its bounds in any severe manner.
My experience is that perl is nearly impossible to maintain and that Python is very easy to maintain. Python is a little slower than perl, and Ruby is a lot slower than Python. My feeling with Ruby is that it brings back some of the maintainability problems of perl, though not to nearly so great an extent.
My coding experience has generally been with small (sometimes performance critical) programs where failure was very bad. The one time I was given a really large system to work with, I couldn't wrap my head around the large number of intricacies that nobody knew why were there anymore.
My experience with Java was one of excitement followed by extreme disappointment. It felt to me like it solved few of C++s problems and was significantly more painful and cumbersome to work with than a scripting language. I do not find the intricacies of C++ to be that much of an issue, but I can see how it would be for someone who doesn't have my history with it.
My usual modus operandi these days is to code in Python, and when I encounter something that needs to be faster, I code it in C++. There are a few clever coding tricks in Python that can be used to significantly increase speed in certain situations, so the case where I need C++ is fairly tiny. In fact I believe the major case I encountered recently has been solved by a module that is now distributed as part of the language.
I recently worked in a Ruby shop, and I was apalled when I realized that they turned all their ruby code into shared libraries and executables in order to shield it from customers. That must have cost them a lot of development effort because it suddenly removed some of the biggest benefits of using a scripting language. I tried, but couldn't figure out a way to do the "I write a bunch of code at the interpreter prompt, play with it a bit and then turn it into system code." thing at all.
You are the first person I've ever seen who responded to a reasonable criticism of Java with a decent answer. Woohoo! Most people who post about it are kids who learned it in college and think it's now the one true way because it's their chosen hammer.
I'm wondering if now that Java is Open Source if someone can do something about the horrible start-up time for the average application. Though, I still like Python a lot better. :-)
That is sort of interesting. Most of the things I think they might do that are really serious problems aren't things I know they do. I'm very reluctant to bring up any of those without hard evidence. If I were a reverse engineer and had a Windows box to play with, there are a bunch of things I'd be testing carefully.
Yes, it does. It means at the expense of my ability to give a copies of things to my friends. That ability is pretty important and losing it represents a cost, even it's not a monetary cost.
And, as someone pointed out, it's costing me bandwidth.