Was away on a job for Christmas one year and some of the people wanted to decorate the work space for the holiday. We had a xmas tree but no lights and no way to get any (the company said they couldn't justify a chopper run for xmas lights). I took two wires and soldered them to pins 2 and 5 on a DB-9 connector, then ran the wires parallel to each other about a centimeter apart. Tore apart an old device to get a bunch of different colored LEDs out and then soldered them between the wires every 2-3", reversing the polarity of every other LED (used hot glue to make sure they wouldn't short out). Then I wrote a quick little program to open a serial port and turn the break state on and off at intervals of ~700ms. A serial port's idle state is -5V and its break state is +5V. So when I plugged the connector in, half the LEDs would light on the idle state, and the other half would light on the break state. I would consider that unusual.
How can you build good applications without knowledge of math, theories, and algorithms; and what use are such things if you're not going to apply them?
You may laugh now, but what will you do when riots break out in 2012? Hollywood is a bunch of Nazis (figuratively speaking). They see fear, and they see profit. They're just cashing in on the game the History Channel has been playing for years. If saying every prophet in the history of the world predicted destruction on 2012 gets you more money, then why not do it, right? Unfortunately, it seems this has gone much farther than the 2000 scare. With so many people freaked out about this whole thing, I think there is real potential for a minor cataclysm in 2012, caused by Hollywood and the television networks themselves. Not the end of the world, but possibly a major blow to civilization.
And I know it seems ridiculous, but you have to remember: Humans are emotional creatures. Poke their feelings and all logic goes out the window.
Religions didn't start off as a scam. But form any institution, and people will rise to power within that institution to take advantage of its constituents. It happens everywhere, from Catholicism to the government to the Red Cross. While the uppers of many religious institutions may have been taking advantage of the lowers for years, the central belief that holds them together has remained the same for centuries... this applies to all religious institutions that I've seen, except for Scientology: which is clearly, without question, a scam. I honestly can't figure out how Scientology still exists. The fact that people are willing to believe in such a thing as Scientology makes me question my faith as a Christian. And that makes me a sad panda.
I can't think of any reason at all why they shouldn't have named it Colbert. They asked what people wanted the name to be, the people said Colbert, and then NASA turned around and said, "oh, we meant what BESIDES Colbert should we call it?" And for what reason? Is there something inherently offensive about the name Colbert?
What's happened in the past doesn't apply here. All throughout human history, musicians and actors, okay well entertainers in general, have been confined to the lowest levels of society along with prostitutes and peasants. Hell, even the king's jester would regularly get killed for his royalty's amusement. While playwrites and composers may have earned some respect in the past, the actors and musicians never did.
Then came things like radio and the record. These inventions turned musicians into celebrities while making them rich at the same time (which are two mutually reinforcing conditions). And we all know that for every person who has a lot of money, there are 100 people ready to exploit them.
Is the ability to bypass payment for music not a return to the natural state of things? After all, while musicians may be making less money, they are probably enjoying greater popularity. And when in the past HASN'T popularity led to riches?
Besides, aren't we just praising and giving money to these people for possessing talent and beauty that is really not nearly as uncommon as they would have us imagine? There are thousands of girls who look like Christina Aguilera, can sing as well as her, and aren't dirty whores either. Why should Christina Aguilera have any more fame or money than the other women who possess the same talents and physical attractiveness? Do artists, actors, and the **AA really deserve all that money? Even if they never sold a single CD, they'd STILL be richer than 99% of the population.
In Jefferson's time, people regularly fought and died for their beliefs. Today, you may be right, but when Jefferson wrote those words, HE was right. And he still is. If no one is willing to risk death for freedom, then liberty will wither away (like it has been doing).
I don't even think it will have to go that far. If the content providers are able to log every IP that downloads their content, and report it, it won't be long at all before a third of the user base is kicked off the internet, maybe even half. ISP's will be screaming for this law to be repealed.
See, your summary makes it perfectly clear: obviously he didn't feel like being pulled over at the time, so if the cops had just let him go instead of infringing on his right to not be pulled over (and thus violating his right to drive drunk), everything would have been fine......oh yeah, what were we talking about? Browser speeds or something?
Okay in a way I was being facetious, but I kind of had a point: an action is supposed to be considered a crime because it somehow hurts someone. All those things you mentioned don't hurt anyone and therefore shouldn't be crimes (except for copyright infringement, but I know you're not talking about REAL copyright infringement, you're talking about downloading music, which for now I'd rather not address). These laws have a place only in certain situations (for example, there is no reason you should have to wait for the light to turn green if there's not a car around for miles) but law enforcement uses them to punish people as often as they can.
And as far as the damn cameras go, imagine if you couldn't run a red light (after stopping, of course) in the middle of the night or walk across the street when there are no cars coming, for fear of the government seeing you and sending you a ticket in the mail.
The financial crisis is the government's fault, not really the banks'. And it isn't because of lack of legislation. It's because they print money at will that has no intrinsic value. It's not backed by gold or silver, it's just debt. Such a system is bound to collapse, and the banks handing out loans like hookers hand out VD just pushed it over the edge.
We already have a policy in place for legal, recreational drug use: alcohol.
You can buy and use as much as you want, do it at home or at a bar, but you can't drive on it. And if you do something stupid under the influence, you generally face the same penalties as if you'd done it sober. I don't know how insurance companies treat alcoholics, but as long as healthcare remains privatized, they are free to cover whomever they wish (to an extent... no racism, sexism, that kind of thing) and the government doesn't much have a say in it. Now if we go to national healthcare that'd be different.
There is no reason to think we couldn't legalize other drugs and treat them the same way. In some ways I think highly addictive drugs should be made illegal, but on the other hand, an adult should be allowed to do what they want. And hell, cigarettes are legal. But I think it's easy for a drug dealer to abuse addictive substances by getting unwitting victims hooked, so perhaps there should be some regulation. But not for pot, of course.
The problem with these cameras is A) it costs a lot of money and doesn't really make a difference (the small problem) and B) It's a significant step toward loss of liberties and privacy (the big problem). Once the cameras are already there, it becomes a lot easier for the government to pass and enforce a law which makes something everyone does on a regular basis illegal, something we think is absurd now but in 10 years will be expected. Then, once everyone gets used to a camera being on every street corner, they'll be much more willing to accept them in their homes, which is the government's ultimate goal. The idea that they're doing this to protect us is absurd. They're already aware of the fact that the cost-effectiveness of using cameras to prevent crime is practically zero, and usually they aren't very effective at assisting prosecution either.
Microsoft are already trying to get market share on your idea though
It's a trap!!!
I really don't think this will damage bt that much though, even if they do lose. There are still other countries people can hide servers in. And if this does spell the end for bt, or even hinder it severely, I suspect a lot of people will go back to Gnutella until a less centralized replacement emerges.
At least somebody has the balls to stand up to these atheist assholes. I have to work with one and he never shuts up about how he thinks there is no God, it's like he's obsessed or something.
Actually, digital requires a much lower SNR to work. That's why when cellphones went digital, they went from transmitting at 3 watts to transmitting at.6 watts. With digital, the receiver only has to tell whether it's receiving a 1 or 0. With analog, it has to determine the phase between a number of possible points, which makes it more susceptible to interference.
This thread has been largely about digital vs analog, but I don't think that's relevant to the topic. The technology this system is geared toward is already mostly digital. Also, if you RTFA, you can see that they're not talking about polarization (which, now that I think about it, seems like a good idea), what they're describing is transmitting the wave over an array of antennas, each with a phase offset from the previous antenna. By modifying the phase of the antenna array, they can essentially create a wave within a wave. How much bandwidth this nested wave will have, or how they plan on decoding it, wasn't mentioned.
I don't think you appreciate the difference between natural forest and a clear-cut, replanted tree farm. It's like grass vs. astroturf. The replanted area is lacking all of the birds, plants, mammals, even bugs and microbes that are in the ecology of natural forest.
As the owner of a replanted tree farm that is now 19 years old, I think you should know that your eloquent conjecture is completely false.
I'm sure your tree farm is doing just fine, but are you aware of how many corporations cut down forests full of diverse deciduous species and replant the whole area with pine trees? Also, a lot of times no one at all replants after logging.
It takes 100 years for a forest to recover from being clear cut.
I think he was saying was that many of the trees that are cut down are hundreds of years old, and having both old and new trees is important to the ecosystem. Also, there is no question as to whether deforestation wipes out whole species.
Recycling reduces demand and hence ruins the economic incentive for preserving or creating a forest on one's property.
Most people don't create or preserve a forest on their own property for an economic incentive. Perhaps you do because you're in the paper business, but I don't think our economy would crumble if everyone stopped printing off emails today.
Of course solar cells don't save trees, but they do mean one less drain on the power supply, which means less carbon in the air, which is overall good for everybody. The phones are made of recycled plastic, not recycled paper, so I don't see how that's relevant here.
Slashdot Mirror
Was away on a job for Christmas one year and some of the people wanted to decorate the work space for the holiday. We had a xmas tree but no lights and no way to get any (the company said they couldn't justify a chopper run for xmas lights). I took two wires and soldered them to pins 2 and 5 on a DB-9 connector, then ran the wires parallel to each other about a centimeter apart. Tore apart an old device to get a bunch of different colored LEDs out and then soldered them between the wires every 2-3", reversing the polarity of every other LED (used hot glue to make sure they wouldn't short out). Then I wrote a quick little program to open a serial port and turn the break state on and off at intervals of ~700ms. A serial port's idle state is -5V and its break state is +5V. So when I plugged the connector in, half the LEDs would light on the idle state, and the other half would light on the break state. I would consider that unusual.
How can you build good applications without knowledge of math, theories, and algorithms; and what use are such things if you're not going to apply them?
So, this is the oil companies' way of ensuring future income? Perhaps they will use this to argue that oil is, in fact, a renewable resource.
You may laugh now, but what will you do when riots break out in 2012? Hollywood is a bunch of Nazis (figuratively speaking). They see fear, and they see profit. They're just cashing in on the game the History Channel has been playing for years. If saying every prophet in the history of the world predicted destruction on 2012 gets you more money, then why not do it, right? Unfortunately, it seems this has gone much farther than the 2000 scare. With so many people freaked out about this whole thing, I think there is real potential for a minor cataclysm in 2012, caused by Hollywood and the television networks themselves. Not the end of the world, but possibly a major blow to civilization.
And I know it seems ridiculous, but you have to remember: Humans are emotional creatures. Poke their feelings and all logic goes out the window.
Religions didn't start off as a scam. But form any institution, and people will rise to power within that institution to take advantage of its constituents. It happens everywhere, from Catholicism to the government to the Red Cross. While the uppers of many religious institutions may have been taking advantage of the lowers for years, the central belief that holds them together has remained the same for centuries... this applies to all religious institutions that I've seen, except for Scientology: which is clearly, without question, a scam. I honestly can't figure out how Scientology still exists. The fact that people are willing to believe in such a thing as Scientology makes me question my faith as a Christian. And that makes me a sad panda.
I can't think of any reason at all why they shouldn't have named it Colbert. They asked what people wanted the name to be, the people said Colbert, and then NASA turned around and said, "oh, we meant what BESIDES Colbert should we call it?"
And for what reason? Is there something inherently offensive about the name Colbert?
What's happened in the past doesn't apply here. All throughout human history, musicians and actors, okay well entertainers in general, have been confined to the lowest levels of society along with prostitutes and peasants. Hell, even the king's jester would regularly get killed for his royalty's amusement. While playwrites and composers may have earned some respect in the past, the actors and musicians never did.
Then came things like radio and the record. These inventions turned musicians into celebrities while making them rich at the same time (which are two mutually reinforcing conditions). And we all know that for every person who has a lot of money, there are 100 people ready to exploit them.
Is the ability to bypass payment for music not a return to the natural state of things? After all, while musicians may be making less money, they are probably enjoying greater popularity. And when in the past HASN'T popularity led to riches?
Besides, aren't we just praising and giving money to these people for possessing talent and beauty that is really not nearly as uncommon as they would have us imagine? There are thousands of girls who look like Christina Aguilera, can sing as well as her, and aren't dirty whores either. Why should Christina Aguilera have any more fame or money than the other women who possess the same talents and physical attractiveness? Do artists, actors, and the **AA really deserve all that money? Even if they never sold a single CD, they'd STILL be richer than 99% of the population.
In Jefferson's time, people regularly fought and died for their beliefs. Today, you may be right, but when Jefferson wrote those words, HE was right. And he still is. If no one is willing to risk death for freedom, then liberty will wither away (like it has been doing).
I don't even think it will have to go that far. If the content providers are able to log every IP that downloads their content, and report it, it won't be long at all before a third of the user base is kicked off the internet, maybe even half. ISP's will be screaming for this law to be repealed.
So what happens when I visit the page in Linx?
See, your summary makes it perfectly clear: obviously he didn't feel like being pulled over at the time, so if the cops had just let him go instead of infringing on his right to not be pulled over (and thus violating his right to drive drunk), everything would have been fine... ...oh yeah, what were we talking about? Browser speeds or something?
1999 suicide rates per WHO:
(per 100,000)
JAPAN...M: 36.5 F: 14.1
US..........M: 17.6 F: 4.1
UK.........M: 11.8 F: 3.3
My take on these stats: honor is not taken lightly in Japan, and females just want attention, not the sweet release of death.
And how would this be different from the old legal standard?
Okay in a way I was being facetious, but I kind of had a point: an action is supposed to be considered a crime because it somehow hurts someone. All those things you mentioned don't hurt anyone and therefore shouldn't be crimes (except for copyright infringement, but I know you're not talking about REAL copyright infringement, you're talking about downloading music, which for now I'd rather not address). These laws have a place only in certain situations (for example, there is no reason you should have to wait for the light to turn green if there's not a car around for miles) but law enforcement uses them to punish people as often as they can.
And as far as the damn cameras go, imagine if you couldn't run a red light (after stopping, of course) in the middle of the night or walk across the street when there are no cars coming, for fear of the government seeing you and sending you a ticket in the mail.
The financial crisis is the government's fault, not really the banks'. And it isn't because of lack of legislation. It's because they print money at will that has no intrinsic value. It's not backed by gold or silver, it's just debt. Such a system is bound to collapse, and the banks handing out loans like hookers hand out VD just pushed it over the edge.
We already have a policy in place for legal, recreational drug use: alcohol.
You can buy and use as much as you want, do it at home or at a bar, but you can't drive on it. And if you do something stupid under the influence, you generally face the same penalties as if you'd done it sober. I don't know how insurance companies treat alcoholics, but as long as healthcare remains privatized, they are free to cover whomever they wish (to an extent... no racism, sexism, that kind of thing) and the government doesn't much have a say in it. Now if we go to national healthcare that'd be different.
There is no reason to think we couldn't legalize other drugs and treat them the same way. In some ways I think highly addictive drugs should be made illegal, but on the other hand, an adult should be allowed to do what they want. And hell, cigarettes are legal. But I think it's easy for a drug dealer to abuse addictive substances by getting unwitting victims hooked, so perhaps there should be some regulation. But not for pot, of course.
The problem with these cameras is A) it costs a lot of money and doesn't really make a difference (the small problem) and B) It's a significant step toward loss of liberties and privacy (the big problem). Once the cameras are already there, it becomes a lot easier for the government to pass and enforce a law which makes something everyone does on a regular basis illegal, something we think is absurd now but in 10 years will be expected. Then, once everyone gets used to a camera being on every street corner, they'll be much more willing to accept them in their homes, which is the government's ultimate goal. The idea that they're doing this to protect us is absurd. They're already aware of the fact that the cost-effectiveness of using cameras to prevent crime is practically zero, and usually they aren't very effective at assisting prosecution either.
This whole thing is bs.
If you commit a crime and no one notices, how is it really a crime?
Microsoft are already trying to get market share on your idea though
It's a trap!!!
I really don't think this will damage bt that much though, even if they do lose. There are still other countries people can hide servers in. And if this does spell the end for bt, or even hinder it severely, I suspect a lot of people will go back to Gnutella until a less centralized replacement emerges.
Yeah that was my point. Just wait. Next, they'll be suicide-bombing churches.
At least somebody has the balls to stand up to these atheist assholes. I have to work with one and he never shuts up about how he thinks there is no God, it's like he's obsessed or something.
They don't have to be curious. The Galactic Supreme Council holds earth in the lowest regard, and they don't want us finding about them!
Actually, digital requires a much lower SNR to work. That's why when cellphones went digital, they went from transmitting at 3 watts to transmitting at .6 watts. With digital, the receiver only has to tell whether it's receiving a 1 or 0. With analog, it has to determine the phase between a number of possible points, which makes it more susceptible to interference.
This thread has been largely about digital vs analog, but I don't think that's relevant to the topic. The technology this system is geared toward is already mostly digital. Also, if you RTFA, you can see that they're not talking about polarization (which, now that I think about it, seems like a good idea), what they're describing is transmitting the wave over an array of antennas, each with a phase offset from the previous antenna. By modifying the phase of the antenna array, they can essentially create a wave within a wave. How much bandwidth this nested wave will have, or how they plan on decoding it, wasn't mentioned.
I don't think you appreciate the difference between natural forest and a clear-cut, replanted tree farm. It's like grass vs. astroturf. The replanted area is lacking all of the birds, plants, mammals, even bugs and microbes that are in the ecology of natural forest.
As the owner of a replanted tree farm that is now 19 years old, I think you should know that your eloquent conjecture is completely false.
I'm sure your tree farm is doing just fine, but are you aware of how many corporations cut down forests full of diverse deciduous species and replant the whole area with pine trees? Also, a lot of times no one at all replants after logging.
It takes 100 years for a forest to recover from being clear cut.
I think he was saying was that many of the trees that are cut down are hundreds of years old, and having both old and new trees is important to the ecosystem. Also, there is no question as to whether deforestation wipes out whole species.
Recycling reduces demand and hence ruins the economic incentive for preserving or creating a forest on one's property.
Most people don't create or preserve a forest on their own property for an economic incentive. Perhaps you do because you're in the paper business, but I don't think our economy would crumble if everyone stopped printing off emails today.
Of course solar cells don't save trees, but they do mean one less drain on the power supply, which means less carbon in the air, which is overall good for everybody. The phones are made of recycled plastic, not recycled paper, so I don't see how that's relevant here.
Optional accessory: a 15,000-candlepower indoor floodlight pointed in the corner for hi-speed recharge, day or night!