"MIT is an American institution which educates global students and works with global corporations."
This is only true to a small degree. MIT is very much an American institution meant to educate AMERICANS and work with AMERICAN companies. Most of the funding for MIT's research comes from none other than Uncle Sam, who has a very keen interest in promoting American success. MIT could not possibly have the number of American students it does if it did not have a highly-restrictive quota on international students.
What you are seeing here is simply global capitalism at work. In this case, it really was not sensitive to MIT to require American workers to do this job (it's not a defense contract or any major advanced technology), and cost-wise it made much more sense.
As always, both sides of this outsourcing debate have valid points, and they both tend to point to extreme cases. IT is not a particularly "hard" field in the way it tends to need most of its workers. IT design is certainly difficult, but I don't think the field of content management is developing new ideas so rapidly as to need the number of computer science graduates in this country. Most of the workers needed are simply for setting up infrastructure--digital construction workers, in a way.
I'm sorry if this comes off unsimpathetically, but programmer != computer scientist, even if many programming jobs incomprehensibly require a BS in computer science, which seems to confer some sense of entitlement. For basic database programming, being a hobbiest or getting a degree at a 2-year trade school would more than suffice.
An unfortunate and difficult part of living in capitalism is the requirement that one must adapt. If you're not pushing the limits of your own abilities, someone is apt to come and screw you over by giving your job away to a person that makes 1/5 of what you did. If you have a BS in computer science and were simply programming, you may need to go back to school to get more knowledge of theory or find a new profession (or move to Europe, where I hear they don't force you to take jobs outside of your profession).
I think its good for those students to learn what to expect in the work place. They are indeed paying $160k for a computer science, NOT programming, degree, so they better as hell use it wisely.
So what would be a bad thing for American corporations to do? Heavily investing with research funding for international schools. That would then be developing outside economies instead of simply trading with them.
This seem high on fluff and low on science. First, from what I know about the state of organic electronics, up to 13% efficient solar cells have been achieved in lab (I think that number sounds right). An organic solar cell would certainly be cheap and therefore would not have to be as good as Si solar cells. So in that way the article checks out.
However, and this is a big however, the production of organic solar cells has been greatly hampered by the instability of organic devices. Anything with dangling bonds will pretty much attack organics (read: oxygen in from water vapor in air). So, it is feasible that they've got 10% efficient solar cells, but it's the packaging that matters.
There are ridiculous amounts of public computer clusters (well, accessable with an MIT account) all over campus, including in the dormitories. Everywhere you turn there is either a Quickstation for checking e-mail (using Sunblades to do so, no less...talk about overkill). The main cluster in the Student Center must have at least 150 to 200 systems, including Sunblades and new Dell PCs running Linux.
It is very, very easy to make it through MIT without your own computer.
MIT's IP numbers in living groups (like fraternities, where the guy revealed lived) are assigned typically by a network admin at the house who registers the person's machine on the network.
It is very possible, especially over the summer, for one of the temporary residents (females from other schools typically at the fraternities) to just pick an IP from the block assigned to the house and end up looking like the user who originally registered the IP. There are no network checks to verify a MAC address unless you are using DHCP.
And if you registered a computer you borrowed under your account with DHCP, unless you specifically unregister it someone else could continue using the computer even though it's IP entries are registered to you (I even don't know how to do that on MIT's network, and I go to school there).
So, long story short, this guy's claims are very possible, especially if he has people that back up his claim that he borrowed the computer. If this guy really was in Romania, I imagine someone else actually committed the infringement, but those records would be impossible to find since you don't have to log in with your MIT account every time you use MIT's Internet access.
The RIAA going after kids' lunch money? What, are elementary school bullies going to be on their payroll? How many twinkies is the new Britney Spears album worth in copyright violations (say $.50 per twinkie maybe, 10 songs, that's 3,000,000 twinkies)?
"I see you decided not to use your allowance to pay for music. I hope you like working at McDonald's after school. If all goes well, you'll flunk out of that honors school and never get your high school diploma."
I don't know if this jab at the current state of the US is meant to be sarcastic, but here are some more realistic figures for those who are curious.
(from the CIA World Factbook and other sources as listed)
1. 3% of the US population is illiterate 2. 12.7% of the US is under the US poverty line, defined as an individual earning less than USD 8,860 a year. The Indian poverty line, by comparison, is defined by the world bank to be earning less than USD 365 a year (from Poverty USA and India Watch). 3. Infant mortality in the US is not 10/1000. It is 6.75/1000. That is not the lowest in the world, but the figure ranks among most developed nations. Cholesterol-related teenager deaths? While the USA is getting too fat, causing a rise in diabetes in young people, I have not heard of a rise of teenage heart attacks or teenage heart disease fatalities, so I think your theory is way off. The obesity problem bodes poorly for lifespan and healthcare costs, but not so much for teenage mortality. 4. I won't dispute this last point much. The deficit now is ridiculous, and it was equally ridiculous when we went to the moon ourselves. Such spending is certainly not sustainable over the long haul. However, comparing deficit-per-capita means nothing without considering the deficit as percent of money brought in. A 30 billion deficit on 50 billion collected, as in India (if the previous posts were correct), is 60%, compared to $600 billion on 2 trillion, which is around 30%.
However, budget deficits aside, I think the point most people have is that India has many more places it should be spending its money other than space and nuclear weapons. Beside the high poverty in India, the caste system still rears its ugly head in the rural areas, which hampers development.
The Economist recently did a feature comparing China and India, basically showing how much farther China is ahead of its neighbor.
First, I think Snapster 2.0 might appeal as a middle-road of the services out there. The most profitable target audience would be users who listen to lots of music but not for a long time (e.g., to try out new bands or following fads).
But this is really not much more than a combination of the two types of services already out there (but a co-op model instead of top-down). In one corner are monthly-subscription services that offer a limited number of downloads. In the other, iTMS which charges per download, and then it's yours.
Snapster 2.0 instead has a subscription fee (share purchase) which determines how many CDs (or number of songs) you can keep out at a time. Then, each download costs a small amount of money to cover bandwidth and other expenses. You'd need to have some sort of protection to keep from CDs being locked up forever from users who pay once and then don't use the CD for a while, which would keep others from using it.
The physical-distribution record companies would fight hard, too. It would be only a matter of time before Snapster 2.0 would contract directly with artists and become another record company.
And, only music that is popular would really benefit since niche groups would only get a CD or two in licenses purchased.
Finally, how would you go about deciding which new licenses to purchase? If all CDs are taken, purchase another when requested? Since you ultimately cannot return the original purchase to the artist, this would end up losing money.
Somehow you would have to buy a new album only for each new share, but it might be difficult to decide which to buy. This would mean a critical mass of initial shareholders would have to join to make the library large enough to attract further shareholders.
I think I'd invest in it, but not my life savings.
You're right, that is very ironic.... (What I just said would be ironic were I to have said it with some sort of indication that I really mean that it is not ironic at all. Their posts are incorrect, but they are not ironic since they sincerely think those things are ironic. So much for the story resolving the misconceptions. That's NOT very ironic.)
Having gone through much of MIT's EE curriculum so far (only one year left), I can assure you that MIT requires plenty of hands-on lab work. The class they are referring to in the article is 6.002ex (you can still take 6.002, next year at least), one of 6.001 through 6.004 introductory classes that all course 6'ers (read: CS and EE) must take. The EE core are 6.011 through 6.013, which are communications, control, and signal processing; microelectronic physics and devices; and electromagnetism (i.e., antennas, transmission lines, etc. above and beyond basic 8.02, which is a freshman requirement). The core classes for EE are mostly theoretical in nature, but the design projects involve using HSPICE and MATLAB to simulate the circuits involved.
MIT EEs are still required to take above that at least one course 6 lab, and many opt for 2 or 3. 6.111 (a.k.a. Digital Death) is a popular one, as are 6.101 (analog), 6.115 (microcontrollers), and to a lesser extent 6.152 (microfabrication...class 10 clean room and bunny suits).
If you are ever in Cambridge you can check out the EE department yourself by heading over to buildings 34, 36, and 38 (just go through building 10 and 13 of course!).
I had Thomas for my 3.13 class last term (I am an undergrad at MIT), and of some of the stuff he showed us another possibility I can think of for "bending" light would be to use a material similar to a perfect mirror. By layering specific polymers, one is able to create a material that reflects about 99% of light from very high angles of incidence. Now, granted, this would not be a wise choice for typical battlefield combat, but imagine the confusion that such a thing could give an enemy in urban warfare settings, where lots of objects reflecting could make one blend in somewhat.
Also, on the nano-level you can also take advantage of size dependent properties, as happens in quantum dots. Imagine, perhaps you could match the wavelength of reflected light by changing the particle size of gold nanoparticles or cadmium selenide or similar material (E-ink does not work this way; what it is made of are little polymer bubbles with white pieces and charged black pieces or vice versa, so putting an electric field on the particles orients the ink on one side of the bubble).
Also, don't get your hopes up for lots of computer-related stuff. Although this is not specifically part of the Department of Materials Science, Thomas is a DMSE (here course 3) professor so expect more of a leaning toward materials (granted, for some of the stuff described you need computers, but whatever).
Perhaps, but I think that is unlikely. Apply Occam's Razor to the situation; is it more likely that the big media companies are conspiring all the way down to the editorial and reporter level to prevent Joe Public from reading about the case in the morning paper, or is it more likely that Joe Reporter and Joe Editor in general do not know much about technology and law issues (not to mention does Joe Law-Column-Writer knows about the technology issues involved?) to be able to understand the nuances of the story?
Also, consider an editor's take on the issue; even if the editor does understand the technology and law nuances, does he think that his audience will understand well enough to make a story worthwhile or newsworthy?
The bottom line is that YOU, the audience, need to start writing more letters-to-the-editor and op-ed submissions to make the editors and reporters realize the importance of the issue instead of laying back and producing conspiracy theories as to why the issue has not appeared in mainstream media.
I can cite all sorts of foreign (to Americans) news, including civil wars in Central and South America, kidnappings of American citizens abroad, etc. that never even make it to the "World Summary" columns of your major newspapers because the editors do not seem to think that it is newsworthy. There are stories about it; you can go to the Voice of America and read a lot of the wire copy that the major media outlets certainly get as well, but the bottom line is it is deemed "un-newsworthy" for Joe Public.
While I agree this is at least implied at times in the context that it is used, "jock" is simply a synonym of "athlete," so they are one and the same, unless of course you are referring to jockeys, who may be bullies to horses but I doubt would have much success in beating up geeks (see Merriam-Webster's dictionary online...www.m-w.com)
Plus, you don't wear an "athletestrap," do you? No, you wear a jockstrap, and that does not make you an asshole.
(A) Katz is not the thought police, he is simply telling his opinions and conclusions; at least he is explaining his reasoning as opposed to simply stating something wtihout support, which other/. editors do very frequently.
(B) Katz is a writer, and writers do analysis. He is not an editor, so he does not simply post and give brief opinions (which, BTW, tells what/. really is. It is an opinion site, not a news site, being that the editorial staff, in charge of news, is in no way separated from the opinion staff). So, if he is going to analyze something, one would hope he would reach a conclusion, which presumably he would include.
True, the fact that he is selling the Elcomsoft product is important to consider.
I think, though, that the analogy to making a bomb and bringing it in to the United States is a bit overblown and a false one. A better analogy would be to carrying around lock-picking tools and other such devices. Essentially, that is what this product is; it is a tool to get access to another's property (IP discussions aside, for now).
From what I know of the laws, it is not a crime in most parts of the country to carry around tools that allow you to pick locks. Courts may have problems with a company selling a "Super-dooper lock picking gizmo-widget", but I would imagine the courts would issue an injunction against the company against selling the product as opposed to arresting the person who has the patent (or copyright, for IP) to the product. Or, of what a lock-making company might do, in such a case it might try to sue the person producing the product to stop them from selling it (or for perceived damages, but that seems like it would be shaky).
Bottom line of all this is that as with carrying around lock-picking tools (crowbars, keys, even "super-dooper lock-picking gizmo"), for the sake of freedom we prosecute people only for using such tools to commit or to try to commit a crime. I would give the same argument for the DeCSS case.
So, even if he was pushing Elcomsoft's line of products, the only thing that should be allowed is for Adobe to (a) sue Elcomsoft or ask the court for an injunction against the product, or (b) sue Sklyarov. Certainly, though, he should not be jailed for his actions.
If the digital-publishers don't like it, they need to use better encryption or not use the new technologies. I mean, hey, I like CDs and DVDs and might warm up to the idea of eBooks one day (though not yet), I am not willing to lose my rights so that companies can cut their publishing costs or provide a few new features.
The Register also has an article concerning this here which is a little more detailed.
My head is kind of turning in circles on what exactly Microsoft is trying to say...let's see if we can decode this...
So first Microsoft tried to say that they could not take IE out since it was an integral part of the OS, which was mostly shot down in trial by government lawyers with the "Look, you can uninstall IE, and the OS still works fine, so you guys were bundling the browser with the OS."
Then the Appeals court happened, and the court decided concerning commingling that MS had illegally thrown source code of IE into other parts of the OS (i.e., in a somewhat random manner as to "tie" the browser to the OS).
So now Microsoft is what, trying to say, "No, actually we did not tie IE into the OS, but rather IE's sources/functions were put into separate files"?
I guess this means that the last quote would be conveniently missing the "... which means that you can easily separate IE from the OS," which would go against their initial argument and show them to be trying to deceive the courts and the public.
This is what I have been wondering about: once
Windows XP goes mainstream after its store release, will the activation line be a toll-free number?
Somehow I would doubt it based on the number of
copies that will eventually come out and since
Microsoft's tech support has always been a
long-distance call. If it is not toll-free, then
that means Microsoft is forcing you to pay for
something they cause to happen on your machine. That seems a little overboard to me. I hope if this happens at least MS will act truly disgraceful and try to get some kickbacks from the phone company for all that long distance traffic.
As much as I wish hydrogen-burning cars would solve all the world's problems, unfortunately hydrogen burns with many of the same problems as gasoline-powered cars. Burning hydrogen may not cause CO2 to be created, but it does not use pure oxygen in combustion; it uses air. Air has a lot of nitrogen, and all of the NOx molecules are just about as bad as CO2 in the sense of greenhouse pollution.
This is getting out of hand; yes, free software has had a definite impact on the computer industry, but citing the "Open Source Movement" as the source of the "information wants to be free" perspective is quite a logical jump that needs more evidence than a post hoc ergo propter hoc (i.e., after the fact, therefore because of the fact) approach.
A few obvious points repeatedly need to be pointed out in this country, which suggests that more ignorance or apathy than an inherent problem in the political system is at fault for problems in the government. Yes, it is true that every eligible voter has the right not to vote; but our government is run by those who participate, so if you are not going to participate by at the very least voting, do not complain.
Too many people cite solely the presidential election as evidence that the current political process has failed. I will concede that this year's election has been greatly influenced by corporate money. However, the president does not make campaign finance laws. Did that get through, or do I need to say it again?
The Congress makes the laws, the president only approves them. Yes, the president could veto campaign finance laws if he/she wanted to, but any president desiring a second term would not go against a united Congress, and especially populace, attempting such reform.
Pieces like this article only encourage people to not vote AT ALL, but a single vote does have considerably more power when it comes down to Congressional elections (Congress, you know, those people that made the DMCA).
For all I care, don't vote in the presidential election. Overall, a single vote for the president does not really hold much weight (if everyone thought that, which largely many do, than the situation does change). But in Congressional elections, your very much does count, so if you have complaints about the laws, at least VOTE, and if you do not like the candidates, then RUN for a Congressional seat--those are very possible to win.
A method of describing in a uniform manner the sender of information electronically through a predefined "device" containing such information. One such "device" showing this innovative method is the production of a "file" containing lines of text to be used by several different e-mail programs without the need of conversion (named ".sig" to be hidden from normal use).
I have no problems with the BNL using Napster to propagate ads for their new album. If I only hear the ad, though, will I really consider buying their album? No, likely I will not. I think the amazing aspect of services like Napster is that those services allow various uses, such as the propagation of ads. Unfortunately, I would be slightly angered by BNL pretending their ad is a song because I would feel as though they are spamming, so as a marketing tool I do not think propagating ads in such a way would work.
It really depends if you look at their use as an exploit of the service or as a planned marketing move (in this case, the former almost definitely wins out).
There has been some talk recently about a new device that local cable companies can use to cut time out of broadcasts. The device looks for almost duplicate frames and cuts them out, allowing for a good minute or two extra for commercial time.
There has also been talk of devices that will cut out commercials, and such devices have actually prompted networks to examine alternatives (essentially pay-TV) to avoid lost advertising.
I am not completely sure how I feel on the issue being that it is so new, but at the same time I think corporations are going to have to begin realizing that with the advent of all of these new technologies (like TiVo, Napster, etc.) they are not going to be able to simply treat people as mere consumers to be manipulated. It adds quite an element of hypocrisy for the same media to denounce something that improves the watcher's experience by removing commercials but to then support the opposite for profit's sake. Consumers do have rights too.
Slashdot Mirror
"MIT is an American institution which educates global students and works with global corporations."
This is only true to a small degree. MIT is very much an American institution meant to educate AMERICANS and work with AMERICAN companies. Most of the funding for MIT's research comes from none other than Uncle Sam, who has a very keen interest in promoting American success. MIT could not possibly have the number of American students it does if it did not have a highly-restrictive quota on international students.
What you are seeing here is simply global capitalism at work. In this case, it really was not sensitive to MIT to require American workers to do this job (it's not a defense contract or any major advanced technology), and cost-wise it made much more sense.
As always, both sides of this outsourcing debate have valid points, and they both tend to point to extreme cases. IT is not a particularly "hard" field in the way it tends to need most of its workers. IT design is certainly difficult, but I don't think the field of content management is developing new ideas so rapidly as to need the number of computer science graduates in this country. Most of the workers needed are simply for setting up infrastructure--digital construction workers, in a way.
I'm sorry if this comes off unsimpathetically, but programmer != computer scientist, even if many programming jobs incomprehensibly require a BS in computer science, which seems to confer some sense of entitlement. For basic database programming, being a hobbiest or getting a degree at a 2-year trade school would more than suffice.
An unfortunate and difficult part of living in capitalism is the requirement that one must adapt. If you're not pushing the limits of your own abilities, someone is apt to come and screw you over by giving your job away to a person that makes 1/5 of what you did. If you have a BS in computer science and were simply programming, you may need to go back to school to get more knowledge of theory or find a new profession (or move to Europe, where I hear they don't force you to take jobs outside of your profession).
I think its good for those students to learn what to expect in the work place. They are indeed paying $160k for a computer science, NOT programming, degree, so they better as hell use it wisely.
So what would be a bad thing for American corporations to do? Heavily investing with research funding for international schools. That would then be developing outside economies instead of simply trading with them.
This seem high on fluff and low on science. First, from what I know about the state of organic electronics, up to 13% efficient solar cells have been achieved in lab (I think that number sounds right). An organic solar cell would certainly be cheap and therefore would not have to be as good as Si solar cells. So in that way the article checks out.
However, and this is a big however, the production of organic solar cells has been greatly hampered by the instability of organic devices. Anything with dangling bonds will pretty much attack organics (read: oxygen in from water vapor in air). So, it is feasible that they've got 10% efficient solar cells, but it's the packaging that matters.
There are ridiculous amounts of public computer clusters (well, accessable with an MIT account) all over campus, including in the dormitories. Everywhere you turn there is either a Quickstation for checking e-mail (using Sunblades to do so, no less...talk about overkill). The main cluster in the Student Center must have at least 150 to 200 systems, including Sunblades and new Dell PCs running Linux.
It is very, very easy to make it through MIT without your own computer.
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V123/N38/38riaa.38n.html
MIT's IP numbers in living groups (like fraternities, where the guy revealed lived) are assigned typically by a network admin at the house who registers the person's machine on the network.
It is very possible, especially over the summer, for one of the temporary residents (females from other schools typically at the fraternities) to just pick an IP from the block assigned to the house and end up looking like the user who originally registered the IP. There are no network checks to verify a MAC address unless you are using DHCP.
And if you registered a computer you borrowed under your account with DHCP, unless you specifically unregister it someone else could continue using the computer even though it's IP entries are registered to you (I even don't know how to do that on MIT's network, and I go to school there).
So, long story short, this guy's claims are very possible, especially if he has people that back up his claim that he borrowed the computer. If this guy really was in Romania, I imagine someone else actually committed the infringement, but those records would be impossible to find since you don't have to log in with your MIT account every time you use MIT's Internet access.
The RIAA going after kids' lunch money? What, are elementary school bullies going to be on their payroll? How many twinkies is the new Britney Spears album worth in copyright violations (say $.50 per twinkie maybe, 10 songs, that's 3,000,000 twinkies)?
"I see you decided not to use your allowance to pay for music. I hope you like working at McDonald's after school. If all goes well, you'll flunk out of that honors school and never get your high school diploma."
So much for helping the poor.
SB
I don't know if this jab at the current state of the US is meant to be sarcastic, but here are some more realistic figures for those who are curious.
(from the CIA World Factbook and other sources as listed)
1. 3% of the US population is illiterate
2. 12.7% of the US is under the US poverty line, defined as an individual earning less than USD 8,860 a year. The Indian poverty line, by comparison, is defined by the world bank to be earning less than USD 365 a year (from Poverty USA and India Watch).
3. Infant mortality in the US is not 10/1000. It is 6.75/1000. That is not the lowest in the world, but the figure ranks among most developed nations. Cholesterol-related teenager deaths? While the USA is getting too fat, causing a rise in diabetes in young people, I have not heard of a rise of teenage heart attacks or teenage heart disease fatalities, so I think your theory is way off. The obesity problem bodes poorly for lifespan and healthcare costs, but not so much for teenage mortality.
4. I won't dispute this last point much. The deficit now is ridiculous, and it was equally ridiculous when we went to the moon ourselves. Such spending is certainly not sustainable over the long haul. However, comparing deficit-per-capita means nothing without considering the deficit as percent of money brought in. A 30 billion deficit on 50 billion collected, as in India (if the previous posts were correct), is 60%, compared to $600 billion on 2 trillion, which is around 30%.
However, budget deficits aside, I think the point most people have is that India has many more places it should be spending its money other than space and nuclear weapons. Beside the high poverty in India, the caste system still rears its ugly head in the rural areas, which hampers development.
The Economist recently did a feature comparing China and India, basically showing how much farther China is ahead of its neighbor.
--Scott
First, I think Snapster 2.0 might appeal as a middle-road of the services out there. The most profitable target audience would be users who listen to lots of music but not for a long time (e.g., to try out new bands or following fads).
But this is really not much more than a combination of the two types of services already out there (but a co-op model instead of top-down). In one corner are monthly-subscription services that offer a limited number of downloads. In the other, iTMS which charges per download, and then it's yours.
Snapster 2.0 instead has a subscription fee (share purchase) which determines how many CDs (or number of songs) you can keep out at a time. Then, each download costs a small amount of money to cover bandwidth and other expenses. You'd need to have some sort of protection to keep from CDs being locked up forever from users who pay once and then don't use the CD for a while, which would keep others from using it.
The physical-distribution record companies would fight hard, too. It would be only a matter of time before Snapster 2.0 would contract directly with artists and become another record company.
And, only music that is popular would really benefit since niche groups would only get a CD or two in licenses purchased.
Finally, how would you go about deciding which new licenses to purchase? If all CDs are taken, purchase another when requested? Since you ultimately cannot return the original purchase to the artist, this would end up losing money.
Somehow you would have to buy a new album only for each new share, but it might be difficult to decide which to buy. This would mean a critical mass of initial shareholders would have to join to make the library large enough to attract further shareholders.
I think I'd invest in it, but not my life savings.
You're right, that is very ironic. ...
(What I just said would be ironic were I to have said it with some sort of indication that I really mean that it is not ironic at all. Their posts are incorrect, but they are not ironic since they sincerely think those things are ironic. So much for the story resolving the misconceptions. That's NOT very ironic.)
Having gone through much of MIT's EE curriculum so far (only one year left), I can assure you that MIT requires plenty of hands-on lab work. The class they are referring to in the article is 6.002ex (you can still take 6.002, next year at least), one of 6.001 through 6.004 introductory classes that all course 6'ers (read: CS and EE) must take. The EE core are 6.011 through 6.013, which are communications, control, and signal processing; microelectronic physics and devices; and electromagnetism (i.e., antennas, transmission lines, etc. above and beyond basic 8.02, which is a freshman requirement). The core classes for EE are mostly theoretical in nature, but the design projects involve using HSPICE and MATLAB to simulate the circuits involved.
MIT EEs are still required to take above that at least one course 6 lab, and many opt for 2 or 3. 6.111 (a.k.a. Digital Death) is a popular one, as are 6.101 (analog), 6.115 (microcontrollers), and to a lesser extent 6.152 (microfabrication...class 10 clean room and bunny suits).
If you are ever in Cambridge you can check out the EE department yourself by heading over to buildings 34, 36, and 38 (just go through building 10 and 13 of course!).
I had Thomas for my 3.13 class last term (I am an undergrad at MIT), and of some of the stuff he showed us another possibility I can think of for "bending" light would be to use a material similar to a perfect mirror. By layering specific polymers, one is able to create a material that reflects about 99% of light from very high angles of incidence. Now, granted, this would not be a wise choice for typical battlefield combat, but imagine the confusion that such a thing could give an enemy in urban warfare settings, where lots of objects reflecting could make one blend in somewhat.
Also, on the nano-level you can also take advantage of size dependent properties, as happens in quantum dots. Imagine, perhaps you could match the wavelength of reflected light by changing the particle size of gold nanoparticles or cadmium selenide or similar material (E-ink does not work this way; what it is made of are little polymer bubbles with white pieces and charged black pieces or vice versa, so putting an electric field on the particles orients the ink on one side of the bubble).
Also, don't get your hopes up for lots of computer-related stuff. Although this is not specifically part of the Department of Materials Science, Thomas is a DMSE (here course 3) professor so expect more of a leaning toward materials (granted, for some of the stuff described you need computers, but whatever).
"Excuse me, what's this cord hooked to the wall."
"Oh, well, uh, that's, uh, that's powering the house! Yeah, that's it!"
"But that's just a power outlet."
"Look over there!"
(running sound as Jasker guy runs off)
What, you mean you really didn't want my advice on what I thought of your pr0n collection (the "stuff" directory you sent me)?
*sniff* *sniff* but I thought our friendship had gotten that closer
Perhaps, but I think that is unlikely. Apply Occam's Razor to the situation; is it more likely that the big media companies are conspiring all the way down to the editorial and reporter level to prevent Joe Public from reading about the case in the morning paper, or is it more likely that Joe Reporter and Joe Editor in general do not know much about technology and law issues (not to mention does Joe Law-Column-Writer knows about the technology issues involved?) to be able to understand the nuances of the story?
Also, consider an editor's take on the issue; even if the editor does understand the technology and law nuances, does he think that his audience will understand well enough to make a story worthwhile or newsworthy?
The bottom line is that YOU, the audience, need to start writing more letters-to-the-editor and op-ed submissions to make the editors and reporters realize the importance of the issue instead of laying back and producing conspiracy theories as to why the issue has not appeared in mainstream media.
I can cite all sorts of foreign (to Americans) news, including civil wars in Central and South America, kidnappings of American citizens abroad, etc. that never even make it to the "World Summary" columns of your major newspapers because the editors do not seem to think that it is newsworthy. There are stories about it; you can go to the Voice of America and read a lot of the wire copy that the major media outlets certainly get as well, but the bottom line is it is deemed "un-newsworthy" for Joe Public.
While I agree this is at least implied at times in the context that it is used, "jock" is simply a synonym of "athlete," so they are one and the same, unless of course you are referring to jockeys, who may be bullies to horses but I doubt would have much success in beating up geeks (see Merriam-Webster's dictionary online...www.m-w.com)
Plus, you don't wear an "athletestrap," do you? No, you wear a jockstrap, and that does not make you an asshole.
why doesn't he let us draw our own conculions?
/. editors do very frequently.
/. really is. It is an opinion site, not a news site, being that the editorial staff, in charge of news, is in no way separated from the opinion staff). So, if he is going to analyze something, one would hope he would reach a conclusion, which presumably he would include.
I am presuming that you mean "conclusions."
(A) Katz is not the thought police, he is simply telling his opinions and conclusions; at least he is explaining his reasoning as opposed to simply stating something wtihout support, which other
(B) Katz is a writer, and writers do analysis. He is not an editor, so he does not simply post and give brief opinions (which, BTW, tells what
True, the fact that he is selling the Elcomsoft product is important to consider.
I think, though, that the analogy to making a bomb and bringing it in to the United States is a bit overblown and a false one. A better analogy would be to carrying around lock-picking tools and other such devices. Essentially, that is what this product is; it is a tool to get access to another's property (IP discussions aside, for now).
From what I know of the laws, it is not a crime in most parts of the country to carry around tools that allow you to pick locks. Courts may have problems with a company selling a "Super-dooper lock picking gizmo-widget", but I would imagine the courts would issue an injunction against the company against selling the product as opposed to arresting the person who has the patent (or copyright, for IP) to the product. Or, of what a lock-making company might do, in such a case it might try to sue the person producing the product to stop them from selling it (or for perceived damages, but that seems like it would be shaky).
Bottom line of all this is that as with carrying around lock-picking tools (crowbars, keys, even "super-dooper lock-picking gizmo"), for the sake of freedom we prosecute people only for using such tools to commit or to try to commit a crime. I would give the same argument for the DeCSS case.
So, even if he was pushing Elcomsoft's line of products, the only thing that should be allowed is for Adobe to (a) sue Elcomsoft or ask the court for an injunction against the product, or (b) sue Sklyarov. Certainly, though, he should not be jailed for his actions.
If the digital-publishers don't like it, they need to use better encryption or not use the new technologies. I mean, hey, I like CDs and DVDs and might warm up to the idea of eBooks one day (though not yet), I am not willing to lose my rights so that companies can cut their publishing costs or provide a few new features.
The Register also has an article concerning this here which is a little more detailed.
My head is kind of turning in circles on what exactly Microsoft is trying to say...let's see if we can decode this...
So first Microsoft tried to say that they could not take IE out since it was an integral part of the OS, which was mostly shot down in trial by government lawyers with the "Look, you can uninstall IE, and the OS still works fine, so you guys were bundling the browser with the OS."
Then the Appeals court happened, and the court decided concerning commingling that MS had illegally thrown source code of IE into other parts of the OS (i.e., in a somewhat random manner as to "tie" the browser to the OS).
So now Microsoft is what, trying to say, "No, actually we did not tie IE into the OS, but rather IE's sources/functions were put into separate files"?
I guess this means that the last quote would be conveniently missing the "... which means that you can easily separate IE from the OS," which would go against their initial argument and show them to be trying to deceive the courts and the public.
Go figure.
This is what I have been wondering about: once
Windows XP goes mainstream after its store release, will the activation line be a toll-free number?
Somehow I would doubt it based on the number of
copies that will eventually come out and since
Microsoft's tech support has always been a
long-distance call. If it is not toll-free, then
that means Microsoft is forcing you to pay for
something they cause to happen on your machine. That seems a little overboard to me. I hope if this happens at least MS will act truly disgraceful and try to get some kickbacks from the phone company for all that long distance traffic.
As much as I wish hydrogen-burning cars would solve all the world's problems, unfortunately hydrogen burns with many of the same problems as gasoline-powered cars. Burning hydrogen may not cause CO2 to be created, but it does not use pure oxygen in combustion; it uses air. Air has a lot of nitrogen, and all of the NOx molecules are just about as bad as CO2 in the sense of greenhouse pollution.
Fuel cells are the way to go.
This is getting out of hand; yes, free software has had a definite impact on the computer industry, but citing the "Open Source Movement" as the source of the "information wants to be free" perspective is quite a logical jump that needs more evidence than a post hoc ergo propter hoc (i.e., after the fact, therefore because of the fact) approach.
A few obvious points repeatedly need to be pointed out in this country, which suggests that more ignorance or apathy than an inherent problem in the political system is at fault for problems in the government. Yes, it is true that every eligible voter has the right not to vote; but our government is run by those who participate, so if you are not going to participate by at the very least voting, do not complain.
Too many people cite solely the presidential election as evidence that the current political process has failed. I will concede that this year's election has been greatly influenced by corporate money. However, the president does not make campaign finance laws. Did that get through, or do I need to say it again?
The Congress makes the laws, the president only approves them. Yes, the president could veto campaign finance laws if he/she wanted to, but any president desiring a second term would not go against a united Congress, and especially populace, attempting such reform.
Pieces like this article only encourage people to not vote AT ALL, but a single vote does have considerably more power when it comes down to Congressional elections (Congress, you know, those people that made the DMCA).
For all I care, don't vote in the presidential election. Overall, a single vote for the president does not really hold much weight (if everyone thought that, which largely many do, than the situation does change). But in Congressional elections, your very much does count, so if you have complaints about the laws, at least VOTE, and if you do not like the candidates, then RUN for a Congressional seat--those are very possible to win.
"Internal Server Error
The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request."
Submitted respectfully.
SB
A method of describing in a uniform manner the sender of information electronically through a predefined "device" containing such information. One such "device" showing this innovative method is the production of a "file" containing lines of text to be used by several different e-mail programs without the need of conversion (named ".sig" to be hidden from normal use).
I have no problems with the BNL using Napster to propagate ads for their new album. If I only hear the ad, though, will I really consider buying their album? No, likely I will not. I think the amazing aspect of services like Napster is that those services allow various uses, such as the propagation of ads. Unfortunately, I would be slightly angered by BNL pretending their ad is a song because I would feel as though they are spamming, so as a marketing tool I do not think propagating ads in such a way would work.
It really depends if you look at their use as an exploit of the service or as a planned marketing move (in this case, the former almost definitely wins out).
There has been some talk recently about a new device that local cable companies can use to cut time out of broadcasts. The device looks for almost duplicate frames and cuts them out, allowing for a good minute or two extra for commercial time.
There has also been talk of devices that will cut out commercials, and such devices have actually prompted networks to examine alternatives (essentially pay-TV) to avoid lost advertising.
I am not completely sure how I feel on the issue being that it is so new, but at the same time I think corporations are going to have to begin realizing that with the advent of all of these new technologies (like TiVo, Napster, etc.) they are not going to be able to simply treat people as mere consumers to be manipulated. It adds quite an element of hypocrisy for the same media to denounce something that improves the watcher's experience by removing commercials but to then support the opposite for profit's sake. Consumers do have rights too.
SB