Both are unable to prove anything I can see why you would say this, but I am stunned by the colossal gulf of ignorance it would have taken to be able to write this. Why don't you watch some of these lectures and get to know a bit about the subject?
I, for one, welcome our new--uh, wait, wrong line.
I, for one, haven't noticed a whole lot of disdain for psychology around here, except perhaps where it is justly deserved--e.g. when the methodology is suspect or the conclusions don't follow. Perhaps those sort of mistakes don't happen as often in the physics realm. Perhaps it's easier to get into the field of psychology, or easier for a non-expert to find flaws with the experiments. Perhaps it's because whenever we read a bad summary of a physics paper, we can go to arXiv and get the real story.
In short, I much doubt that there's many on here who would claim that one field of scientific investigation that is more valid than another--if the science was done right, we must accept the results.
I am not an expert in these matters, but from what I understand, they're completely different. Flash drives can only do so many read/write cycles, after which they fail. Also, if e.g. they go through the wash, there's nothing you can do--the stored charges are gone. If you're just talking about damaged filesystems, that sort of data should be recoverable. The idea of load leveling seems like it would make it easier to recover old data, and generally delete operations don't wipe out all of the file information, so as long as there isn't a hardware issue, I would suspect that it would be about the same degree of difficulty with any other storage technology.
But I don't know a whole lot about this matter, so someone may need to correct me on this.
It seems pretty basic. You have a projector and a screen that resembles a halved sphere. Set the game to a wide FOV, project that onto the screen. The sides are distorted, but you get the kind of peripheral vision that you have in real life, except more distorted than normal, especially to the sides. Presumably you could compensate for that with software to some degree. Immersive gaming on the cheap is what this amounts to. It seems like a good idea in theory.
Would this be worth it, though? What does it get you that a normal widescreen display doesn't already offer? Perhaps if you're a fast-twitch gamer that needs (distorted) eyes in the back of your head, this would be useful. I'm not really in that category, though---if I was looking for eye candy hardware, I'd probably want it to, y'know, look good?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. There's other evidence that the nation's founders intended the militia to serve as a civil defense force; most of them were extremely prejudiced against maintaining a standing army. Which makes a lot of sense--how can we be expected to defend our liberties from an overreaching government, if we don't have experience, y'know, defending our liberties?
I am sick to death of Microsoft being in bed with the large hardware manufacturers. I'm sure most other people here are too. I wonder if it's possible to look at this in a good light? Hmm...Spin Doctor says:
This move will bring the stability and usability of windows to those who have previously been priced out---damn, not working.
This move will bring the stability and usability of windows to a fresh new market that Microsoft has yet to abuse---dang.
It's just what everyone wanted---more stripped-down versions of windows!
I don't think I'm getting anywhere here. Anyone else care to give it a try?
Why do you think that doing away with copyright would mean anything at this point? Copyright in the digital age is unenforceable. People already know this. People already download whatever they want, whenever they want. I don't remember hearing about any major studios going under recently, what about you?
You're doing what the RIAA does, assuming that every download is a lost sale. It just does not add up that way, in Sweden or in any other country. People still rent movies, still go see them in theatres (which is where most of the money is at anyway), and still pay for movie-related toys and product tie-ins. There's just as much money to be made making movies as there ever was, even though you can't guarantee your distribution channel anymore.
Besides, even if there were no money to be made making movies, people would still make them. I have friends who did a short film (shameless plug!), for free, on a weekend, that are going to Cannes soon because of it. It's probably cost them a couple thousand dollars each to do that. Worth it? Hell yes.
Your suggestion is analogous to the closed source view on the GPL. "How can there be money in that?" How can there not be? People want software/movies/whatever, and they're willing to pay for it, whether or not they can get it for free. Kinda obvious, really...
God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
He was speaking of Shay's Rebellion. Since that time, our local militias have been absorbed into the regular army (as the National Guard). The revolution is overdue. We seem to have been fortunate so far, to be ruled by men wise enough not to abuse their power. That period of our history appears to be over.
*nix's aren't hacked very often in mass groups, yet you put a non patched windows system on the net and it will be pwned by the time you can download the security updates. Okay, so *nixes (*nices?) have a better security model. That's good, but how different would things be if we had one vast monoculture of *nix machines? That's the question. Is there a perfect security system that we're getting closer to, or are we just running as fast as we can just to stay in the same place?
I'm not arguing against increased security efforts. I'm just arguing against draconian methods of doing so, on the basis that they may ultimately be ineffective, in the sense that they would not alter the eventual outcome.
If the answer is yes, then there would be some point to your idea. It would probably not be practical to do what you're suggesting, and it may run counter to some people's ideas of personal freedom. Probably you would piss off a hell of a lot of people.
If the answer is no, then the same flaws apply as above, except that it would be ultimately pointless. There's an evolutionary principle called the Red Queen effect that you should be aware of. It's kind of a consequence of selective pressure in an environment. Basically, if you close off all the security holes you know about, this creates a strong pressure for someone to find another security hole.
So, should we use draconian methods to try to achieve a perfectly secure internet? It seems like the same argument as the anti-terrorism efforts. I do not think such efforts would be successful, or worth the cost.
Shouldn't quote that without providing a link to The Devil's Dictionary. It's a masterpiece of satire. Other gems:
ABRIDGE, v.t.
To shorten.
When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for
people to abridge their king, a decent respect for the opinions of
mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel
them to the separation.
Oliver Cromwell
AUCTIONEER, n.
The man who proclaims with a hammer that he has picked a pocket with his tongue.
PATRIOTISM, n.
Combustible rubbish read to the torch of any one ambitious to illuminate his name.
In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first.
Damn, should have updated my groupthink subscription before posting. Microsoft sucks, and everyone who repeats that ad nauseum should be modded up! Ignoran^H^H^H^HUnity is strength!
What is this, a kookiest rant competition? I thought that event was celebrated later in the year. Personally, I'd like to see this guy and twitter in a cage match...
He adds nothing to a an argument that still has 'deadhorse' tags on it from three years ago.
Is a troll out of touch with reality, or does he think people care about another redundant comment?
The trolls seem unable to come up with original, accurate* or interesting criticism. What motivates them to do the same thing over and over in any vaguely related thread?
*Bill Gates retired from daily work at Microsoft on 7 January 2008.
No, no, no. You have it all wrong. In Unix, everything's a file. In open source, everything's a beta! It seems to be creeping into some proprietary software as well. Actually, I have this theory that the entire universe is just a beta project; it would explain a whole lot about these people around me...
I had an interesting conversation with a DHS agent the other day. He was buying equipment for an electronics van, some sort of mobile data recovery unit. How long would it take to copy all the interesting parts of your hard drive? How long are you at work each day? Not that this is something that would be called down upon you for copyvio, but keep in mind that that capability exists, and if the political climate shifts even further south, well...encrypt your data.
I don't suppose you'd regard Media Matters as being authoritative? Last time I was reading they were covering both sides of the smearfest, but things may have changed. Things seem to be pretty conservative whether or not they're republican or democrat.
This has been answered by others, but it's worth noting that the reason why this doesn't involve the RIAA is because the RIAA doesn't hold the copyrights involved. It's beginning to seem like copyright law is unenforceable...
I pay my ISP a set amount per month for a fixed amount of bandwidth. What business is it of theirs how I use it? They don't care if I have multiple computers behind a NAT, how is having an open wireless network functionally different? It's not illegal for me to use all of my bandwidth, or immoral. It's not like the ISP isn't getting paid for it. So why is it wrong if I share something when I'm not using it? Because the cable company wants me to be paying the full dollar when I only get ten cents of use out of it, and do the same with all my neighbors? Well, it's fine for them to think that, but there's no reason that I should have to toe any sort of line just to satisfy their business model. Again, the bandwidth has been paid for, and you can't tell if I'm running an open network or not. Whether or not this conflicts with a ToS agreement is really irrelevant. There is no "ethical" argument here. Whether or not your profit margin depends on my underutilization of your service is really not my problem.
You're kind of high-profile here, Ray, and you've identified yourself with a hot-button issue. Probably that sort of polarizing behavior is to be expected. However, I find it entertaining that your biggest detractors would be hanging on your every word like that.
In Alaska the laws are even more permissive. It's not illegal to possess or grow marijuana. It's illegal to sell or distribute, but no one minds if you grow your own.
Slashdot Mirror
I, for one, welcome our new--uh, wait, wrong line.
I, for one, haven't noticed a whole lot of disdain for psychology around here, except perhaps where it is justly deserved--e.g. when the methodology is suspect or the conclusions don't follow. Perhaps those sort of mistakes don't happen as often in the physics realm. Perhaps it's easier to get into the field of psychology, or easier for a non-expert to find flaws with the experiments. Perhaps it's because whenever we read a bad summary of a physics paper, we can go to arXiv and get the real story.
In short, I much doubt that there's many on here who would claim that one field of scientific investigation that is more valid than another--if the science was done right, we must accept the results.
I am not an expert in these matters, but from what I understand, they're completely different. Flash drives can only do so many read/write cycles, after which they fail. Also, if e.g. they go through the wash, there's nothing you can do--the stored charges are gone. If you're just talking about damaged filesystems, that sort of data should be recoverable. The idea of load leveling seems like it would make it easier to recover old data, and generally delete operations don't wipe out all of the file information, so as long as there isn't a hardware issue, I would suspect that it would be about the same degree of difficulty with any other storage technology.
But I don't know a whole lot about this matter, so someone may need to correct me on this.
Yeah, if you manage to do it pre-disaster. Afterwards, well, you learn an expensive lesson about doing backups.
It seems pretty basic. You have a projector and a screen that resembles a halved sphere. Set the game to a wide FOV, project that onto the screen. The sides are distorted, but you get the kind of peripheral vision that you have in real life, except more distorted than normal, especially to the sides. Presumably you could compensate for that with software to some degree. Immersive gaming on the cheap is what this amounts to. It seems like a good idea in theory.
Would this be worth it, though? What does it get you that a normal widescreen display doesn't already offer? Perhaps if you're a fast-twitch gamer that needs (distorted) eyes in the back of your head, this would be useful. I'm not really in that category, though---if I was looking for eye candy hardware, I'd probably want it to, y'know, look good?
So, another reason to move to IPv6?
I am sick to death of Microsoft being in bed with the large hardware manufacturers. I'm sure most other people here are too. I wonder if it's possible to look at this in a good light? Hmm...Spin Doctor says:
This move will bring the stability and usability of windows to those who have previously been priced out---damn, not working.
This move will bring the stability and usability of windows to a fresh new market that Microsoft has yet to abuse---dang.
It's just what everyone wanted---more stripped-down versions of windows!
I don't think I'm getting anywhere here. Anyone else care to give it a try?
Why do you think that doing away with copyright would mean anything at this point? Copyright in the digital age is unenforceable. People already know this. People already download whatever they want, whenever they want. I don't remember hearing about any major studios going under recently, what about you?
You're doing what the RIAA does, assuming that every download is a lost sale. It just does not add up that way, in Sweden or in any other country. People still rent movies, still go see them in theatres (which is where most of the money is at anyway), and still pay for movie-related toys and product tie-ins. There's just as much money to be made making movies as there ever was, even though you can't guarantee your distribution channel anymore.
Besides, even if there were no money to be made making movies, people would still make them. I have friends who did a short film (shameless plug!), for free, on a weekend, that are going to Cannes soon because of it. It's probably cost them a couple thousand dollars each to do that. Worth it? Hell yes.
Your suggestion is analogous to the closed source view on the GPL. "How can there be money in that?" How can there not be? People want software/movies/whatever, and they're willing to pay for it, whether or not they can get it for free. Kinda obvious, really...
That line is worth quoting in full:
...
God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.
And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."
He was speaking of Shay's Rebellion. Since that time, our local militias have been absorbed into the regular army (as the National Guard). The revolution is overdue. We seem to have been fortunate so far, to be ruled by men wise enough not to abuse their power. That period of our history appears to be over.
I'm not arguing against increased security efforts. I'm just arguing against draconian methods of doing so, on the basis that they may ultimately be ineffective, in the sense that they would not alter the eventual outcome.
Is perfect security possible? Serious question.
If the answer is yes, then there would be some point to your idea. It would probably not be practical to do what you're suggesting, and it may run counter to some people's ideas of personal freedom. Probably you would piss off a hell of a lot of people.
If the answer is no, then the same flaws apply as above, except that it would be ultimately pointless. There's an evolutionary principle called the Red Queen effect that you should be aware of. It's kind of a consequence of selective pressure in an environment. Basically, if you close off all the security holes you know about, this creates a strong pressure for someone to find another security hole.
So, should we use draconian methods to try to achieve a perfectly secure internet? It seems like the same argument as the anti-terrorism efforts. I do not think such efforts would be successful, or worth the cost.
unbelievably poor taste.
ABRIDGE, v.t.
To shorten.
When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for
people to abridge their king, a decent respect for the opinions of
mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel
them to the separation.
Oliver Cromwell
AUCTIONEER, n.
The man who proclaims with a hammer that he has picked a pocket with his tongue.
PATRIOTISM, n.
Combustible rubbish read to the torch of any one ambitious to illuminate his name.
In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first.
Damn, should have updated my groupthink subscription before posting. Microsoft sucks, and everyone who repeats that ad nauseum should be modded up! Ignoran^H^H^H^HUnity is strength!
What is this, a kookiest rant competition? I thought that event was celebrated later in the year. Personally, I'd like to see this guy and twitter in a cage match...
He adds nothing to a an argument that still has 'deadhorse' tags on it from three years ago.
Is a troll out of touch with reality, or does he think people care about another redundant comment?
The trolls seem unable to come up with original, accurate* or interesting criticism. What motivates them to do the same thing over and over in any vaguely related thread?
*Bill Gates retired from daily work at Microsoft on 7 January 2008.
No, no, no. You have it all wrong. In Unix, everything's a file. In open source, everything's a beta! It seems to be creeping into some proprietary software as well. Actually, I have this theory that the entire universe is just a beta project; it would explain a whole lot about these people around me...
And counterquote
"...they're playing a losing game, and that trying to make digital files uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet." - B. SchneierI had an interesting conversation with a DHS agent the other day. He was buying equipment for an electronics van, some sort of mobile data recovery unit. How long would it take to copy all the interesting parts of your hard drive? How long are you at work each day? Not that this is something that would be called down upon you for copyvio, but keep in mind that that capability exists, and if the political climate shifts even further south, well...encrypt your data.
I don't suppose you'd regard Media Matters as being authoritative? Last time I was reading they were covering both sides of the smearfest, but things may have changed. Things seem to be pretty conservative whether or not they're republican or democrat.
This has been answered by others, but it's worth noting that the reason why this doesn't involve the RIAA is because the RIAA doesn't hold the copyrights involved. It's beginning to seem like copyright law is unenforceable...
You misspelled "Vista".
I pay my ISP a set amount per month for a fixed amount of bandwidth. What business is it of theirs how I use it? They don't care if I have multiple computers behind a NAT, how is having an open wireless network functionally different? It's not illegal for me to use all of my bandwidth, or immoral. It's not like the ISP isn't getting paid for it. So why is it wrong if I share something when I'm not using it? Because the cable company wants me to be paying the full dollar when I only get ten cents of use out of it, and do the same with all my neighbors? Well, it's fine for them to think that, but there's no reason that I should have to toe any sort of line just to satisfy their business model. Again, the bandwidth has been paid for, and you can't tell if I'm running an open network or not. Whether or not this conflicts with a ToS agreement is really irrelevant. There is no "ethical" argument here. Whether or not your profit margin depends on my underutilization of your service is really not my problem.
You're kind of high-profile here, Ray, and you've identified yourself with a hot-button issue. Probably that sort of polarizing behavior is to be expected. However, I find it entertaining that your biggest detractors would be hanging on your every word like that.
In Alaska the laws are even more permissive. It's not illegal to possess or grow marijuana. It's illegal to sell or distribute, but no one minds if you grow your own.