I know that I'm not going to be with the majority on this one, but I support this.
The choice here isn't between a web with DRM and a web without DRM. The choice is between a web with one good standard, or a dozen crappy proprietary solutions.
Lets be realistic here. If DRM was not supported in the W3C standards then we would just end up with a mess of proprietary standards in its place. I hate DRM as much as the next slashdotter, but I hate having to load up shitty proprietary standards to handle DRM even more. During that last Olympics I had to boot into windows to watch the online stream because the CBC used silverlight, and the linux version was not compatible. Without some kind of standard this kind of shit we have going on with flash, silverlight, etc. is never going to stop.
I'm not American, but it seems to me that there is a growing geographical dichotomy between the left leaning states and the right leaning states. Some of the old confederate states esp. Texas seem to be moving more and more to the right as the coastal states seem to be moving more to the left.
The left states seem to be moving closer to the Europe and the rest of the world in terms of politics. That is being less religious, pro-choice, pro-gay, anti-war, pro-environment, etc. While the right leaning states seem to be rallying around the Church.
While I realize it is not a possibility anytime soon, but in 100 years could we see the return of the Confederate States of America?
You are not the only one. It is an eerily similar in name and function to RSHA.
The other thing that gets me is the flags. Holy hell do Americans love that flag.
TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562 - 3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474 - 881 were civilians, including 176 children.
So between 474/3325= 14% 881/2562 = 34% of those killed in drone strikes are civilians. That 2% statistic is (intentionally?) misleading, because it only counts "high-level" targets, without stating what counts as a high value target, or making the case that drone should only be used on high value targets.
So at worst there is 1 civilian killed for every 3 militants, so 1:3 at worst. For comparison I give you the average:
According to a 2001 study by the International Committee of the Red Cross, the civilian-to-soldier death ratio in wars fought since the mid-20th century has been 10:1, meaning ten civilian deaths for every soldier death.
Also the drones are bombing Pakistan from a Pakistani airbase with the full support of Pakistan (via cablegate):
One thing I don't understand, and perhaps someone on here can enlighten me, is why people always assume you will fill up only when the tank is empty? It seems to me that one of the big advantages of electric is that you don't need a speciallized fueling station. You should be able to fuel up all over the place (although perhaps not quickly) provided there were enough charging stations. For example charging while:
At home.
Parked at work.
Out to dinner.
Overnight at a hotel.
At a movie.
Shopping at a mall.
The tank doesn't have to be empty, and the charging doesn't have to be to fill. But consistantly charging a little bit here and there should be one of the main ways to extend range. I realize that infastructure like charging stations need to be installed and the electrical grid must be able to handle it all. But other than that, what am I missing?
I consider games not to be "software" for some time
Remove the game executable and see how well they work for you. Oh, they don't? Guess they're software.
While yes games certainly have software, the authors point is that the software is becoming an increasingly small part of the overall cost of game development.
Look at games like Mass Effect. You have the game code, yes. And you all the textures, models (by costume designers), maps, the voice actors (like Martin Sheen), music (by big name composers), the mountains text filling in the game's universe (usually written by professional writers), etc.
IMHO modern games are just a worthy of being defined as art as any Pixar Movie.
Mod parent up. I have computers with graphics cards from each. An older NVidia, a 5800 Radeon, and an Intel 3000. The intel open source (released by intel) kick ass. No kernel upgrade problems, no video rendering problems, no full screen problems, no multi-monitor problem. They don't include any extra BS software to make their stuff work.
If you don't need gaming graphics Intel is the place to be in terms of linux support. I know what my next purchase is going to be. I just wish Intel would expand their market and try to compete on the high end. I would love to see chipzilla enter this fight with thier opensource record.
Iraq or Afghanistan both of which just defeated NATO
You cannot honestly think this is true.
In Iraq NATO got the regime changed, put in place a democracy, built up the military to defend the fledgeling regime from terrorists (sponsored from neighboring countries) and then left. There new regime is still shaky, but not really in danger of falling a part despite the Americans leaving Baghdad almost a year ago.
In Afghanistan the Taliban have been pushed into Pakistan, hence all the drone strikes in Pakistan. So while they have not given up, that is mainly because they are hiding out in another country. Almost all of their "fighting" is roadside and truck bombs. They have not fielded a major force in years.
The only hope any of these places had of "winning" is if the Americans decide to go home before the new government was in place. This didn't happen in Iraq, and unless the drone strikes in Pakistan stop working, it probably won't happen in Afghanistan.
Exactly this. I have always interpreted it this way:
BSD == Freedom for the code.
.
GPL == Freedom for the users
When you publish software the question is which is more important? That your code be used to improve the world of software? Or that your code be used to improve the freedom of users?
Which is the right answer depends not only on the person, but also on the project. I suspect many people release code under both forms at different times.
Its not sending a messages. Its presenting a decoy target.
The message is "Look, over here! No, over here! Hah, made you miss! You suck! That's right, slither away with your tail between your legs! Hahahaha, you don't have legs! Loser!"
It's just that at normal speed instead of squirrel speed, you can't hear the trash talk that accompanies the flagging.
So squirrels are the world's first trolls? I can dig it
Seems wrong to me. You shouldn't fire a scientist because they got something wrong. As long as he followed the procedure and acted in good faith I think the community should let him be. From what I can see he practiced due diligence. A quote from the guy:
We wanted to find a mistake - trivial mistakes, more complicated mistakes, or nasty effects - and we didn't. When you don't find anything, then you say 'well, now I'm forced to go out and ask the community to scrutinize this.'
Seems to me like he wasn't doing anything wrong, or make outrageous claims. They did an experiment and got questionable results. They tried to find the reason for the strange results and couldn't. So they asked for peer review. Peer reviewers found the mistake. Progress marches on.
Yes, but those remaining hours will be spent trying to get that picture to go right...here or getting those tables looking just right. Then once they get that all figured out, they will waste the rest of the time customizing the hell out of everything from margins, footers, paragraph spacing, etc.
Don't get me wrong, I love LaTeX and use it whenever I can. But don't underestimate the time wastage that goes into programming a text document;)
Surely you are not suggesting that we ignore variations in uranium concentration?
What you are say makes perfect sense on a global, or ever just a very large scale. But at the small local scale it it not the same.
If I pour a bucket of salt into the ocean did I make it saltier? Not really, a bucket in a ocean is worth nothing. But I'm quite positive that the water at my feet is a whole lot saltier than the ocean's average.
Burning coal doesn't create more uranium it just redistributes it, on that we agree. But moving the uranium from a high concentration coal mine, to a low concentration surface level does increase the level of uranium at the surface.
Touche'! And I agree with your sentiment. It made me smile.
But when we are talking about the failings and propensity for failure as a part of the human condition, I say the solutions are obvious and well established. Massive regulation and control.
I think your idea has merit, but I disagree. Industry capture, bribes, corruption will always enable large corporations to get around regulation. What we need to do is remove the profit motive.
IMHO nuclear power is just too dangerous to left in the hands of the free market, where safety has to compete with efficiency. I think that all nuclear power plants should be run by state/provincial governments, and regulated by federal governments. Will this be way more inefficient? Yes. Will it waste Billions of dollars? Yes. Is it worth it? I think so.
The US Navy has an exemplary nuclear safety record, despite operating these reactors under much more difficult conditions than in the private sector. How do they do this? By sparing no expense on safety. The Navy is not looking to turn a profit, or save a few bucks. They need nuclear power that is safe, reliable, durable, and they are willing to pay for it.
A bulldozer does spread radioactivity when it moves soil at a construction site, if the soil is it moving has higher concentrations of radiation than the surrounding environment.
The radioactive part of coal is retained in the ash which has the same content as the soil it originally was.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was always under the impression that the soil coal is extracted from has higher levels of lots of stuff, primarily coal, in it. Some of it ends ends up in coal slurry and some of it ends up in coal ash.
Was also going explain how burning the coal concentrates the level of radiation in the coal ash, but I think the United States Geological Survey has it covered:
The average ash yield of coal burned in the United States is approximately 10 weight percent. Therefore, the concentration of most radioactive elements in solid combustion wastes will be approximately 10 times the concentration in the original coal.
Now yes the initial level of nastiness is slow low that a 10 time increase don't make it toxic waste. But the argument that burning coal increases the level of radiation in the surrounding area is sound. Whether that increase is sufficient to cause health effects is a whole other argument.
While you are certainly right about the radiation producing a lot of noise, I suspect it would be quite easy to filter it out.
First the noise from the radiation will be high frequency (think counter going chirp,chirp) while temperature variation is very low frequency. Feeding a few thousand samples (hey its like like your going to use that probe for something later right?) into a low pass filter should solve the problem.
I also suspect (please correct me if I am wrong) that the noise from radiation is Gaussian. If I'm right, it is simply a matter of collecting enough samples to get an accurate mean.
While it can be hard/impossible to predict how they will effect us in the long term, I think it is quite easy to predict what will happen in the short term.
First, if we do get room temperature superconductors working at a reasonably useful scale, they will be expensive. The first batch of any new technology is expensive because: 1) Manufacturing capacity is still being built. 2) Recovering research costs. 3) Little in the way of competition.
So any use of these superconductors will have to 1) Be used by people with large budgets. 2) Be used by people willing to take risks with unproven technology. 3) Have the technical skill and know how to actually make use of room temperature superconductors. So who fits the bill? Same people as always: 1) Military, 2) Scientific Research, 3) Very large corporations (ie. typically the ones who can get massive government contracts.).
Military: I can think of a few applications: Replacing catapults on aircraft carriers. Rail guns (massive current creates a lot of head in the wiring, not just the rails). Electronic warfare (ie. high powered radar/jammers, miniaturization). Active stealth with powerful magnets.
Scientific community: Atom smashers like the LHC could become much much cheaper if they didn't need to cool the superconductor magnets. Same thing for fusion reactors. Anything using a lot of current: ie. lasers, plasma physics, etc.
Large corporations: Power transmission lines. Those big DC super high voltage lines would be good candidates. Power substations near large power stations (especially nuclear). Maglev trains, industrial flywheels, exotic electric sports cars, aircraft (to cut down on cabling weight), industrial batteries, anything in space.
The key point is that there are many, many uses for room temperature superconductors before they get cheap enough to use in consumer goods. This is one of the technologies that can be immediately applied all over the place.
Civil disobedience (a form of activism) is also a crime, yet often we hold people who do it in high regard. Sometimes civil disobedience is acclaimed moral courage.
Now I'm not saying we can group hacktivism in with civil disobedience. But in many cases I don't think that it would be a stretch.
The issue of of motive is critical. When we speak of criminals we usually mean people who did something illegal for personal gain at the expense of another. But if someone did something illegal in defense of the common good would you still call them criminals even if technically the term still applies? I think not.
The distinction is dangerous, but so long as there are differences between what is legally right and what is morally right, it is one society is going to face over and over.
Slashdot Mirror
I know that I'm not going to be with the majority on this one, but I support this.
The choice here isn't between a web with DRM and a web without DRM. The choice is between a web with one good standard, or a dozen crappy proprietary solutions.
Lets be realistic here. If DRM was not supported in the W3C standards then we would just end up with a mess of proprietary standards in its place. I hate DRM as much as the next slashdotter, but I hate having to load up shitty proprietary standards to handle DRM even more. During that last Olympics I had to boot into windows to watch the online stream because the CBC used silverlight, and the linux version was not compatible. Without some kind of standard this kind of shit we have going on with flash, silverlight, etc. is never going to stop.
Pretty sure that the people in Guantanamo are prisoners.
It is the only thing that protects them from the wrath of US army...
You mean other than China of course.
I'm not American, but it seems to me that there is a growing geographical dichotomy between the left leaning states and the right leaning states. Some of the old confederate states esp. Texas seem to be moving more and more to the right as the coastal states seem to be moving more to the left.
The left states seem to be moving closer to the Europe and the rest of the world in terms of politics. That is being less religious, pro-choice, pro-gay, anti-war, pro-environment, etc. While the right leaning states seem to be rallying around the Church.
While I realize it is not a possibility anytime soon, but in 100 years could we see the return of the Confederate States of America?
You are not the only one. It is an eerily similar in name and function to RSHA. The other thing that gets me is the flags. Holy hell do Americans love that flag.
Dear God yes. Please do this!
TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562 - 3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474 - 881 were civilians, including 176 children.
So between 474/3325= 14% 881/2562 = 34% of those killed in drone strikes are civilians. That 2% statistic is (intentionally?) misleading, because it only counts "high-level" targets, without stating what counts as a high value target, or making the case that drone should only be used on high value targets.
So at worst there is 1 civilian killed for every 3 militants, so 1:3 at worst. For comparison I give you the average:
According to a 2001 study by the International Committee of the Red Cross, the civilian-to-soldier death ratio in wars fought since the mid-20th century has been 10:1, meaning ten civilian deaths for every soldier death.
Also the drones are bombing Pakistan from a Pakistani airbase with the full support of Pakistan (via cablegate):
Malik suggested we hold off alleged Predator attacks until after the Bajaur operation. The PM brushed aside Rehman,s remarks and said "I don,t care if they do it as long as they get the right people. We,ll protest in the National Assembly and then ignore it."
This idea that the drones are illegally attacking Pakistan and killing scores of civilians is total BS.
I had no idea that is crazy. Does anyone know of other research services are being left in the dust like this?
Because Russia is also a cold northern country with lots of trees. And we cannot allow a maple syrup gap!
One thing I don't understand, and perhaps someone on here can enlighten me, is why people always assume you will fill up only when the tank is empty? It seems to me that one of the big advantages of electric is that you don't need a speciallized fueling station. You should be able to fuel up all over the place (although perhaps not quickly) provided there were enough charging stations. For example charging while:
At home.
Parked at work.
Out to dinner.
Overnight at a hotel.
At a movie.
Shopping at a mall.
The tank doesn't have to be empty, and the charging doesn't have to be to fill. But consistantly charging a little bit here and there should be one of the main ways to extend range. I realize that infastructure like charging stations need to be installed and the electrical grid must be able to handle it all. But other than that, what am I missing?
I consider games not to be "software" for some time
Remove the game executable and see how well they work for you. Oh, they don't? Guess they're software.
While yes games certainly have software, the authors point is that the software is becoming an increasingly small part of the overall cost of game development.
Look at games like Mass Effect. You have the game code, yes. And you all the textures, models (by costume designers), maps, the voice actors (like Martin Sheen), music (by big name composers), the mountains text filling in the game's universe (usually written by professional writers), etc.
IMHO modern games are just a worthy of being defined as art as any Pixar Movie.
If you don't need gaming graphics Intel is the place to be in terms of linux support. I know what my next purchase is going to be. I just wish Intel would expand their market and try to compete on the high end. I would love to see chipzilla enter this fight with thier opensource record.
Iraq or Afghanistan both of which just defeated NATO
You cannot honestly think this is true.
In Iraq NATO got the regime changed, put in place a democracy, built up the military to defend the fledgeling regime from terrorists (sponsored from neighboring countries) and then left. There new regime is still shaky, but not really in danger of falling a part despite the Americans leaving Baghdad almost a year ago.
In Afghanistan the Taliban have been pushed into Pakistan, hence all the drone strikes in Pakistan. So while they have not given up, that is mainly because they are hiding out in another country. Almost all of their "fighting" is roadside and truck bombs. They have not fielded a major force in years.
The only hope any of these places had of "winning" is if the Americans decide to go home before the new government was in place. This didn't happen in Iraq, and unless the drone strikes in Pakistan stop working, it probably won't happen in Afghanistan.
Exactly this. I have always interpreted it this way:
BSD == Freedom for the code.
.
GPL == Freedom for the users
When you publish software the question is which is more important? That your code be used to improve the world of software? Or that your code be used to improve the freedom of users?
Which is the right answer depends not only on the person, but also on the project. I suspect many people release code under both forms at different times.
Its not sending a messages. Its presenting a decoy target.
The message is "Look, over here! No, over here! Hah, made you miss! You suck! That's right, slither away with your tail between your legs! Hahahaha, you don't have legs! Loser!"
It's just that at normal speed instead of squirrel speed, you can't hear the trash talk that accompanies the flagging.
So squirrels are the world's first trolls? I can dig it
Seems wrong to me. You shouldn't fire a scientist because they got something wrong. As long as he followed the procedure and acted in good faith I think the community should let him be. From what I can see he practiced due diligence. A quote from the guy:
We wanted to find a mistake - trivial mistakes, more complicated mistakes, or nasty effects - and we didn't. When you don't find anything, then you say 'well, now I'm forced to go out and ask the community to scrutinize this.'
Seems to me like he wasn't doing anything wrong, or make outrageous claims. They did an experiment and got questionable results. They tried to find the reason for the strange results and couldn't. So they asked for peer review. Peer reviewers found the mistake. Progress marches on.
If EMACS never swap then I guess 640k ^H^H^H^H 64GB ought to be enough for anyone.
Emacs only costs nothing if your soul is worthless.
This message is brought to you by the Coalition for the Ethical Treatment of Swap Space.
Yes, but those remaining hours will be spent trying to get that picture to go right...here or getting those tables looking just right. Then once they get that all figured out, they will waste the rest of the time customizing the hell out of everything from margins, footers, paragraph spacing, etc.
Don't get me wrong, I love LaTeX and use it whenever I can. But don't underestimate the time wastage that goes into programming a text document ;)
Surely you are not suggesting that we ignore variations in uranium concentration?
What you are say makes perfect sense on a global, or ever just a very large scale. But at the small local scale it it not the same.
If I pour a bucket of salt into the ocean did I make it saltier? Not really, a bucket in a ocean is worth nothing. But I'm quite positive that the water at my feet is a whole lot saltier than the ocean's average.
Burning coal doesn't create more uranium it just redistributes it, on that we agree. But moving the uranium from a high concentration coal mine, to a low concentration surface level does increase the level of uranium at the surface.
Touche'! And I agree with your sentiment. It made me smile.
But when we are talking about the failings and propensity for failure as a part of the human condition, I say the solutions are obvious and well established. Massive regulation and control.
I think your idea has merit, but I disagree. Industry capture, bribes, corruption will always enable large corporations to get around regulation. What we need to do is remove the profit motive.
IMHO nuclear power is just too dangerous to left in the hands of the free market, where safety has to compete with efficiency. I think that all nuclear power plants should be run by state/provincial governments, and regulated by federal governments. Will this be way more inefficient? Yes. Will it waste Billions of dollars? Yes. Is it worth it? I think so.
The US Navy has an exemplary nuclear safety record, despite operating these reactors under much more difficult conditions than in the private sector. How do they do this? By sparing no expense on safety. The Navy is not looking to turn a profit, or save a few bucks. They need nuclear power that is safe, reliable, durable, and they are willing to pay for it.
A bulldozer does spread radioactivity when it moves soil at a construction site, if the soil is it moving has higher concentrations of radiation than the surrounding environment.
The radioactive part of coal is retained in the ash which has the same content as the soil it originally was.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was always under the impression that the soil coal is extracted from has higher levels of lots of stuff, primarily coal, in it. Some of it ends ends up in coal slurry and some of it ends up in coal ash.
Was also going explain how burning the coal concentrates the level of radiation in the coal ash, but I think the United States Geological Survey has it covered:
The average ash yield of coal burned in the United States is approximately 10 weight percent. Therefore, the concentration of most radioactive elements in solid combustion wastes will be approximately 10 times the concentration in the original coal.
Now yes the initial level of nastiness is slow low that a 10 time increase don't make it toxic waste. But the argument that burning coal increases the level of radiation in the surrounding area is sound. Whether that increase is sufficient to cause health effects is a whole other argument.
While you are certainly right about the radiation producing a lot of noise, I suspect it would be quite easy to filter it out.
First the noise from the radiation will be high frequency (think counter going chirp,chirp) while temperature variation is very low frequency. Feeding a few thousand samples (hey its like like your going to use that probe for something later right?) into a low pass filter should solve the problem.
I also suspect (please correct me if I am wrong) that the noise from radiation is Gaussian. If I'm right, it is simply a matter of collecting enough samples to get an accurate mean.
While it can be hard/impossible to predict how they will effect us in the long term, I think it is quite easy to predict what will happen in the short term.
First, if we do get room temperature superconductors working at a reasonably useful scale, they will be expensive. The first batch of any new technology is expensive because: 1) Manufacturing capacity is still being built. 2) Recovering research costs. 3) Little in the way of competition.
So any use of these superconductors will have to 1) Be used by people with large budgets. 2) Be used by people willing to take risks with unproven technology. 3) Have the technical skill and know how to actually make use of room temperature superconductors. So who fits the bill? Same people as always: 1) Military, 2) Scientific Research, 3) Very large corporations (ie. typically the ones who can get massive government contracts.).
Military: I can think of a few applications: Replacing catapults on aircraft carriers. Rail guns (massive current creates a lot of head in the wiring, not just the rails). Electronic warfare (ie. high powered radar/jammers, miniaturization). Active stealth with powerful magnets.
Scientific community: Atom smashers like the LHC could become much much cheaper if they didn't need to cool the superconductor magnets. Same thing for fusion reactors. Anything using a lot of current: ie. lasers, plasma physics, etc.
Large corporations: Power transmission lines. Those big DC super high voltage lines would be good candidates. Power substations near large power stations (especially nuclear). Maglev trains, industrial flywheels, exotic electric sports cars, aircraft (to cut down on cabling weight), industrial batteries, anything in space.
The key point is that there are many, many uses for room temperature superconductors before they get cheap enough to use in consumer goods. This is one of the technologies that can be immediately applied all over the place.
Civil disobedience (a form of activism) is also a crime, yet often we hold people who do it in high regard. Sometimes civil disobedience is acclaimed moral courage.
Now I'm not saying we can group hacktivism in with civil disobedience. But in many cases I don't think that it would be a stretch.
The issue of of motive is critical. When we speak of criminals we usually mean people who did something illegal for personal gain at the expense of another. But if someone did something illegal in defense of the common good would you still call them criminals even if technically the term still applies? I think not.
The distinction is dangerous, but so long as there are differences between what is legally right and what is morally right, it is one society is going to face over and over.