The answer to your question is at the bottom. You can
see it's not an easy answer, because there is a long history
of this question. I would have thought that me threatening
to kill you was not proteced speech.
It may not be; but apparently you can say, "we're going
to break your neck if you do X" at a rally, and it's protected.
Now, let's put this thread to rest, or I'll personally
come to your house and burn it down.
Did they account for the fact that traditional
retailers must ship some unwanted goods?
To counter that, online buyers must return-ship
defective goods a greater distance. Or do they?
Don't traditional retailers then turn around and
ship defective goods back to the manufacturer anyway?
Is the incidence of unwanted goods significantly
greater than the incidence of defective goods? I would think
"yes", but that's pure speculation.
I turned Instant off almost immediately.
JavaScript speed was not the issue. Seeing
a screenfull of "jumpiness" was just "loud"
and obnoxious. I didn't like the aesthetics of it.
You still get hints in the text drop-down, even
without Instant. Those are useful.
Yep. For example, Rhode Island has about 1000 people per square mile, Wyoming has 5.
I've been to both states. You don't really feel crowded in Rhode Island, but you certainly feel isolated in Wyoming. Frighteningly isolated, and then you get to the city you've been wating to reach for several hours, and it's really just a town.
Bored, and under pressure to come up with something
quickly since the article already had quite a few posts.
I've been around here long enough to know you shouldn't waste too much
effort once a handful of posts have +5.
The only winners in an arms race are the arms dealers.
In this case, that'd be bandwidth providers, security
specialists, anybody who "helps" you in your attempt
to win the fight.
The ability to introspect about self-performance is key to human subjective experience, but the neuroanatomical basis of this ability is unknown
Error correction is important; but we're not sure where the EC functionality is on this board.
Such accurate introspection requires discriminating correct decisions from incorrect ones,
Let's parrot the definition of EC in pretentious sounding verbiage so we'll look more important.
a capacity that varies substantially across individuals
Some of the EC chips are better than others.
We dissociated variation in introspective ability from objective performance in a simple perceptual-decision task, allowing us to determine whether this interindividual variability was associated with a distinct neural basis.
We ran the bogomips benchmark while some logic probes were placed in strategic locations.
We show that introspective ability is correlated with gray matter volume in the anterior prefrontal cortex, a region that shows marked evolutionary development in humans
We found some interesting signals on pin 3A of the 3rd chip from the CPU. By the way, did I mention that the Homo Sapiens model rocks? That's us. We RULE!
Moreover, interindividual variation in introspective ability is also correlated with white-matter microstructure connected with this area of the prefrontal cortex. Our findings point to a focal neuroanatomical substrate for introspective ability, a substrate distinct from that supporting primary perception
We're pretty sure that the ATMEL 5344-C with the glob of thermal goo performs some of this functionality on the system too.
It looks like EC functionality is done on a couple of separate chips.
I took "platform" to mean "operating system and its installed applications".
I probably skimmed too quickly somewhere or something. If so, my bad, sorry.
Hopefully that clears up any confusion about where the confusion over the confusion
over what was confusing came from.
I was just using file delete as an example of
something that a system must be able to do; but that
you don't want being done at the request of an
arbitrary application.
Perhaps window creation
would have been a better example. I don't know how HTML5
is put together. I would hope that creation of new
windows outside the frame of the existing browser
(ie, popups) would be easy enough to trap in the browser
and subject to permissions.
A browser has to be capable of creating popups at
the request of the user (otherwise how would you even
set your preferences?) but it should be capable of limiting
popup requests by anything under its process hierarchy.
I actually use it quite a bit. I follow a few, carefully chosen
people. Of all the "Web 2.0" stuff, Twitter is the one that stuck.
I like the simplicity of it. A short character limit is twisted genius.
I don't tweet every day. I'm not following anybody who posts their location
all the time or tweets about their grocery shopping.
That said, I understand it's not everybody's cup of tea. I feel the
same way about FaceBook that some people feel about Twitter. I tried FB
for a while, and it just seems to have a way of making everybody look
like a drunken idiot.
It seems like it's possible to find quite a few people on Twitter
who tweet appropriately, and tweet interesting things. It hasn't
been infected with *ville applications yet.
I finally read TFA (yeah, I know this is/., what was I thinking?)
The VCs have funded Twitter to the tune of $160 million. Ouch.
All is not lost. If Twitter is just USENET, and USENET died because
the RFC process was slow to innovate and USENET servers were a PiTA to
run, then the business model becomes apparent.
Twitter should sell enhanced services to ISPs. They could reinvent
USENET totally, and not just a short message hierarchy. For starters, make
the current services distributed. Then, colocate with the ISPs for a fee.
ISPs advertise "we haven't had a fail whale in a month" and/or "your tweets
snap up without delay", to their customers.
If you could go back in time and offer "outsourced USENET with innovative
features", it might not have sold. Enhanced, QoS'd, ISP branded Twitter might sell
though.
Reworking the Twitter business model wouldn't
be easy, but that seems like a direction that would allow Twitter to survive
as a business, and provide better service for users.
If it turns into an advertising cesspool, I don't see how it can survive.
There are enough things like that already, and people will just flock someplace
else.
No I'm not saying what Twitter should do.
Twitter will do whatever it can to survive.
That's its job.
I'm saying
I could replace my Twitter with alt.tweet.i.s.t.a.r.t.e.d.i where
the USENET protocol is enhanced to only permit 140 characters
and to limit posts under the alt.tweet hierarchy.
If USENET can't handle that in its current form
then of course the protocol would need some tweaks.
Also, USENET, AFAIK, came to be regarded as an administrative
hassle by a lot of ISPs. Everything moved under HTTP, and got
reinvented. From my PoV, Twitter is just restricted, centralized
USENET under the HTTP protocol.
The business model for USENET died at a lot of ISPs.
Either you pay admins for USENET servers, or you suffer ads
on Twitter. TANSTAAFL.
I guess what I'm really saying is that I've been on the Internet
too long (since 1992) and it has become my lawn, which most of you
should get off of.:)
I'm not just picking on Twitter here, honestly. In fact,
*most* of what's on the Internet shouldn't be a business. Before
the Internet was commercial, DNS was developed via the RFC process.
If the Internet had been commercialized before DNS, how many commercial
"IP namer" services would we have? Likewise, if SMS had been common
before the Internet was commercialized, something like Twitter would
likely have been developed via the RFC process. Tweets probably would
have been archived via a distributed protocol. Remember USENET? There
was a distributed posting and archiving system for messages of considerably
longer length. It was all specified via the RFC process. What is Twitter,
but USENET with a protocol that enforces a maximum message length, IDs users, and
has a non-distributed posting and archiving mechanism?
That's the problem. We don't want that to perform better. We don't
want it to perform at all. Not unless we tell it to, and only in very
specific circumstances.
1. System has ability to delete your files.
2. System loads file from the Internet. File from the Internet contains
instructions.
3. System is designed to accept delete() instructions
from users, but not from files downloaded from the Internet.
My idea for quite some time is that in the long run, all file
formats become programming languages. A web page should have always
been regarded as an application that is sandboxed by the browser, even
before we started building apps with them.
A few years ago, I read about a group
of highschool students who did a very similar thing. They worked
off a standard body, and built a hybrid drivetrain into it. They
may not have achieved 110 mpg, perhaps 70 mpg. The point is, a lot
of one-offs are doing this for very little money, and have been for a
long time.
Long before that, back in the 90s on USENET... I recall reading
a post from a guy who built an all-electric system in a light
sportscar body. I don't recall what the body was, it doesn't really
matter. The point is, he was TESLA MOTORS 15 YEARS AGO. Sure,
the battery tech was not as good. He was probably lead-acid with
a 30 mile range; but he claimed to have incredible speed off the
line and I don't have any reason to doubt it.
The difference? All that marketing, patent lawyer garbage,
investors, scale, etc. That's the hard part. The engineering
is pretty well established.
Oh, and I'm pretty happy I didn't put down a deposit
for my Aptera. I was actually toying with idea back when the
dough was rolling in. Those guys even have a really cool prototype, but they
keep delaying production. Why? Denied Federal funding due to 3-wheel design.
Management problems. The 3-wheel denial problem was fixed; but Tesla grabbed
the first round from Uncle Sam first. Still no production Aptera. Engineering
is easy compared to all that other stuff.
The way I see it, getting 110 mpg cars to consumers is 10 percent engineering,
90 percent politics.
Mexican Coca Cola is one of the occasional side benefits
of eating at the mom-n-pop tacquerias here. It's a sad comentary
that you can't get a real Coke unless it's imported from Mexico.
You have to be careful too. Just looking for the glass bottle
and the pasted-on relabel is not enough. Sometimes they use HFCS
in Mexico too. So, the process is like this: Visit tacqeria, open
their cooler, check label. If they keep it behind the counter and
there's a language barrier, it might be trickier. Make sure they
don't open it for you until you read that label!
Of course this design has no chance of achieving net power
output. It's useful as a source of low-energy neutrons. I've
always wondered what kinds of isotopes you could make with one.
The next "radioactive boyscout" might use them. If you aren't familiar
with that story, google it.
Common sense may not apply in this situation. Fighting gravity up a hill
might be more costly than shooting out at a slight angle and using aerodynamics
to vector up. I was thinking more along the lines of construction costs than
operational costs. You can't just drive a backhoe up there.
Mt. Whitney is not a candidate because AFAIK, it's in a national
park. Such construction would be fought tooth and nail. It may or may not be
legal without an act of Congress. More time. More money.
If altitude+equator is the dominant term in the operational cost equation,
then the US is at a disadvantage. The Himalayas make Mt. Whitney look rather
wimpy.
I think it's pobably outside both our knowledge domains to make a call
on this, unless you actually authored a well-researched report, with actual
calcs of construction costs for various scenarios, operational savings, and the
time to recoup the increased construction costs due to better operational
efficiency.
Of course, if the government does it, some political concern will probably
cause them to do it a dramaticly higher construction AND operational costs.
Senator from $BadLocation will bring the pork to his state.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. Never seen it. Not surprised it was thought of before though.
I can't think of a single person whom I would want up to the minute updates on
Neither can I. That's why I don't follow anybody who tweets their poops.
you can imagine how well orders to "occupy" your own country and shoot at the people you've been told to "protect and serve" would work out
Civil War? Reconstruction?
Here's an interesting link
The answer to your question is at the bottom. You can see it's not an easy answer, because there is a long history of this question. I would have thought that me threatening to kill you was not proteced speech.
It may not be; but apparently you can say, "we're going to break your neck if you do X" at a rally, and it's protected.
Now, let's put this thread to rest, or I'll personally come to your house and burn it down.
Did they account for the fact that traditional retailers must ship some unwanted goods?
To counter that, online buyers must return-ship defective goods a greater distance. Or do they? Don't traditional retailers then turn around and ship defective goods back to the manufacturer anyway?
Is the incidence of unwanted goods significantly greater than the incidence of defective goods? I would think "yes", but that's pure speculation.
Censorship applies to speech. Hate is speech.
Opinions may or may not be expressed as speech.
Opinions expressed as speech are protected in the US. Opinions expressed as DEEDs are not.
Why is that so hard for the rest of the world to get right?
Nazi marches down street with swastika flag in US. Protected.
Nazi smashes window of shop owned by Jewish man. Prosecuted.
Simple.
I turned Instant off almost immediately. JavaScript speed was not the issue. Seeing a screenfull of "jumpiness" was just "loud" and obnoxious. I didn't like the aesthetics of it.
You still get hints in the text drop-down, even without Instant. Those are useful.
Yep. For example, Rhode Island has about 1000 people per square mile, Wyoming has 5.
I've been to both states. You don't really feel crowded in Rhode Island, but you certainly feel isolated in Wyoming. Frighteningly isolated, and then you get to the city you've been wating to reach for several hours, and it's really just a town.
Bored, and under pressure to come up with something quickly since the article already had quite a few posts. I've been around here long enough to know you shouldn't waste too much effort once a handful of posts have +5.
At no point did I advise either side to employ Ghandi-style passive resistance.
The only winners in an arms race are the arms dealers. In this case, that'd be bandwidth providers, security specialists, anybody who "helps" you in your attempt to win the fight.
The ability to introspect about self-performance is key to human subjective experience, but the neuroanatomical basis of this ability is unknown
Error correction is important; but we're not sure where the EC functionality is on this board.
Such accurate introspection requires discriminating correct decisions from incorrect ones,
Let's parrot the definition of EC in pretentious sounding verbiage so we'll look more important.
a capacity that varies substantially across individuals
Some of the EC chips are better than others.
We dissociated variation in introspective ability from objective performance in a simple perceptual-decision task, allowing us to determine whether this interindividual variability was associated with a distinct neural basis.
We ran the bogomips benchmark while some logic probes were placed in strategic locations.
We show that introspective ability is correlated with gray matter volume in the anterior prefrontal cortex, a region that shows marked evolutionary development in humans
We found some interesting signals on pin 3A of the 3rd chip from the CPU. By the way, did I mention that the Homo Sapiens model rocks? That's us. We RULE!
Moreover, interindividual variation in introspective ability is also correlated with white-matter microstructure connected with this area of the prefrontal cortex. Our findings point to a focal neuroanatomical substrate for introspective ability, a substrate distinct from that supporting primary perception
We're pretty sure that the ATMEL 5344-C with the glob of thermal goo performs some of this functionality on the system too. It looks like EC functionality is done on a couple of separate chips.
I took "platform" to mean "operating system and its installed applications". I probably skimmed too quickly somewhere or something. If so, my bad, sorry. Hopefully that clears up any confusion about where the confusion over the confusion over what was confusing came from.
(foghorn-leghorn (Ahh say, that's a joke, son.))
I was just using file delete as an example of something that a system must be able to do; but that you don't want being done at the request of an arbitrary application.
Perhaps window creation would have been a better example. I don't know how HTML5 is put together. I would hope that creation of new windows outside the frame of the existing browser (ie, popups) would be easy enough to trap in the browser and subject to permissions.
A browser has to be capable of creating popups at the request of the user (otherwise how would you even set your preferences?) but it should be capable of limiting popup requests by anything under its process hierarchy.
I actually use it quite a bit. I follow a few, carefully chosen people. Of all the "Web 2.0" stuff, Twitter is the one that stuck. I like the simplicity of it. A short character limit is twisted genius. I don't tweet every day. I'm not following anybody who posts their location all the time or tweets about their grocery shopping.
That said, I understand it's not everybody's cup of tea. I feel the same way about FaceBook that some people feel about Twitter. I tried FB for a while, and it just seems to have a way of making everybody look like a drunken idiot.
It seems like it's possible to find quite a few people on Twitter who tweet appropriately, and tweet interesting things. It hasn't been infected with *ville applications yet.
I finally read TFA (yeah, I know this is /., what was I thinking?)
The VCs have funded Twitter to the tune of $160 million. Ouch.
All is not lost. If Twitter is just USENET, and USENET died because the RFC process was slow to innovate and USENET servers were a PiTA to run, then the business model becomes apparent.
Twitter should sell enhanced services to ISPs. They could reinvent USENET totally, and not just a short message hierarchy. For starters, make the current services distributed. Then, colocate with the ISPs for a fee. ISPs advertise "we haven't had a fail whale in a month" and/or "your tweets snap up without delay", to their customers.
If you could go back in time and offer "outsourced USENET with innovative features", it might not have sold. Enhanced, QoS'd, ISP branded Twitter might sell though.
Reworking the Twitter business model wouldn't be easy, but that seems like a direction that would allow Twitter to survive as a business, and provide better service for users.
If it turns into an advertising cesspool, I don't see how it can survive. There are enough things like that already, and people will just flock someplace else.
No I'm not saying what Twitter should do. Twitter will do whatever it can to survive. That's its job.
I'm saying I could replace my Twitter with alt.tweet.i.s.t.a.r.t.e.d.i where the USENET protocol is enhanced to only permit 140 characters and to limit posts under the alt.tweet hierarchy.
If USENET can't handle that in its current form then of course the protocol would need some tweaks.
Also, USENET, AFAIK, came to be regarded as an administrative hassle by a lot of ISPs. Everything moved under HTTP, and got reinvented. From my PoV, Twitter is just restricted, centralized USENET under the HTTP protocol.
The business model for USENET died at a lot of ISPs. Either you pay admins for USENET servers, or you suffer ads on Twitter. TANSTAAFL.
I guess what I'm really saying is that I've been on the Internet too long (since 1992) and it has become my lawn, which most of you should get off of. :)
I'm not just picking on Twitter here, honestly. In fact, *most* of what's on the Internet shouldn't be a business. Before the Internet was commercial, DNS was developed via the RFC process. If the Internet had been commercialized before DNS, how many commercial "IP namer" services would we have? Likewise, if SMS had been common before the Internet was commercialized, something like Twitter would likely have been developed via the RFC process. Tweets probably would have been archived via a distributed protocol. Remember USENET? There was a distributed posting and archiving system for messages of considerably longer length. It was all specified via the RFC process. What is Twitter, but USENET with a protocol that enforces a maximum message length, IDs users, and has a non-distributed posting and archiving mechanism?
html5 will actually make that perform better
That's the problem. We don't want that to perform better. We don't want it to perform at all. Not unless we tell it to, and only in very specific circumstances.
I disagree. For example:
1. System has ability to delete your files.
2. System loads file from the Internet. File from the Internet contains instructions.
3. System is designed to accept delete() instructions from users, but not from files downloaded from the Internet.
My idea for quite some time is that in the long run, all file formats become programming languages. A web page should have always been regarded as an application that is sandboxed by the browser, even before we started building apps with them.
This article actually explains it better, and uses the phrase "piece of pi". I love it.
A few years ago, I read about a group of highschool students who did a very similar thing. They worked off a standard body, and built a hybrid drivetrain into it. They may not have achieved 110 mpg, perhaps 70 mpg. The point is, a lot of one-offs are doing this for very little money, and have been for a long time.
Long before that, back in the 90s on USENET... I recall reading a post from a guy who built an all-electric system in a light sportscar body. I don't recall what the body was, it doesn't really matter. The point is, he was TESLA MOTORS 15 YEARS AGO. Sure, the battery tech was not as good. He was probably lead-acid with a 30 mile range; but he claimed to have incredible speed off the line and I don't have any reason to doubt it.
The difference? All that marketing, patent lawyer garbage, investors, scale, etc. That's the hard part. The engineering is pretty well established.
Oh, and I'm pretty happy I didn't put down a deposit for my Aptera. I was actually toying with idea back when the dough was rolling in. Those guys even have a really cool prototype, but they keep delaying production. Why? Denied Federal funding due to 3-wheel design. Management problems. The 3-wheel denial problem was fixed; but Tesla grabbed the first round from Uncle Sam first. Still no production Aptera. Engineering is easy compared to all that other stuff.
The way I see it, getting 110 mpg cars to consumers is 10 percent engineering, 90 percent politics.
Mexican Coca Cola is one of the occasional side benefits of eating at the mom-n-pop tacquerias here. It's a sad comentary that you can't get a real Coke unless it's imported from Mexico. You have to be careful too. Just looking for the glass bottle and the pasted-on relabel is not enough. Sometimes they use HFCS in Mexico too. So, the process is like this: Visit tacqeria, open their cooler, check label. If they keep it behind the counter and there's a language barrier, it might be trickier. Make sure they don't open it for you until you read that label!
Of course this design has no chance of achieving net power output. It's useful as a source of low-energy neutrons. I've always wondered what kinds of isotopes you could make with one. The next "radioactive boyscout" might use them. If you aren't familiar with that story, google it.
Common sense may not apply in this situation. Fighting gravity up a hill might be more costly than shooting out at a slight angle and using aerodynamics to vector up. I was thinking more along the lines of construction costs than operational costs. You can't just drive a backhoe up there.
Mt. Whitney is not a candidate because AFAIK, it's in a national park. Such construction would be fought tooth and nail. It may or may not be legal without an act of Congress. More time. More money.
If altitude+equator is the dominant term in the operational cost equation, then the US is at a disadvantage. The Himalayas make Mt. Whitney look rather wimpy.
I think it's pobably outside both our knowledge domains to make a call on this, unless you actually authored a well-researched report, with actual calcs of construction costs for various scenarios, operational savings, and the time to recoup the increased construction costs due to better operational efficiency.
Of course, if the government does it, some political concern will probably cause them to do it a dramaticly higher construction AND operational costs. Senator from $BadLocation will bring the pork to his state.