Once, after programming and installing a replacement EPROM, I noticed that it seemed to have come equipped with an internal lightbulb. Hm, I thought, interesting. Why did they....holy shit, it's in BACKWARDS! Powerdown, wait to cool, turn it around--Presto!
I decided not to use it on general principles, but it did work.
Also buy Compaq and Cisco. No, none of these companies exist yet, but watch for them. And plastics, don't forget plastics; Dow, DuPont, 3M, and Monsanto exist now. Starve if you have to. Re-invest the interest. [Hey, everybody gives this advice because it's good advice.]
*sigh* Ask Dad.
We have great parents, by the way. Listen to what they say. Be nice to them. Don't stop hugging them, ever, or you'll forget how.
You oblivious dork, Dad has a stack of Playboys, somewhere. Find them. One or two off the bottom, now and then, won't be noticed, or at least admitted to. Don't dink around with the National Geographics; go for the gold.
Anything that seems at all cool now, books, magazines, comics, toys, whatever, buy one to use and one to save. Don't even take the saved one out of the box or wrapper.
No, the Playboys aren't worth saving. Dispose of them discreetly, or give them back. Unwrinkled, untorn, certainly unstained.
You're a goof. Goof is good, folks like being entertained, but avoid weird.
Those cool books in the school library about chemistry magic with all the fireworks recipes? Steal them now. (One at a time, and leave another, similar book from Adam's Used Books on the table so you won't be noticed.) The librarians will throw them out within three years anyway, to keep them out of the hands of budding revolutionaries. Don't make a habit of this, but those three are worth the risk and guilt, and you will use them for good, not evil.
That stupid idea about using computers for animation? Not stupid.
But learn to draw first. You actually have a talent for it. Draw at least one picture every day. Start today.
History is cool.
Your textbooks are gap-filled, error-ridden and often lie outright; embarrass your teachers.
Hey, George Washington grew pot! The Constitution is written on hemp paper! Honest! Look it up!
Never, ever, stand by and let someone else get hazed or belittled.
Hit bullies back. Hard.
Learn to shoot.
Dump the dorky book bag and get a good briefcase.
Dump the slide rule; it will be utterly obsolete by the time you really need it. No, I swear. See the notes above about collectibles.
Dump the cheap polyester pants and shirts too. Admit it, you do know what looks good. Nothing to be ashamed of.
Get a haircut. Carry a comb. Your hair will never be neat, but you can keep it from getting all ratty and tangled.
Read the top of the mayonaise jar: KEEP COOL BUT DON'T FREEZE. Nevertheless:
Be bold with girls.
Know what color her eyes are before you speak to her the first time. Occasionally, drop a hint that shows you are paying attention: a favorite color, a favorite flower, a favorite song. No, don't make them yours. Just be sure she knows you are noticing hers. This will be hard for you, I know. Practice casually, so that you will be ready when you meet HER.
When you touch her, be certain that when she looks at you, you are staring straight into her eyes. Mean it. Don't flinch.
These can't be your only tricks. Think of others. And they're not tricks. Once again, mean it.
Never blame on malice what can be attributed to stupidity.
Take risks in public, but think them through and practice privately first, if possible. For really risky stuff, have a trusted buddy standing by when you practice.
When you are the trusted buddy, and things go badly, stick it out, stand by your man, take your lumps along with his.
Above all, remember: EVERYBODY MAKES MISTAKES. HORRIBLE ONES. They are too wrapped up in their own to worry much about yours. You are free.
Another great thing to do with Iodine is the Iodine/Aluminum Volcano. Equal parts powdered Iodine and powdered Aluminum (combine by rolling back and forth on a sheet of paper). Make a little mound, and squirt a few drops of water on the top.
Yields an intense violet flame and large volumes of rich, gorgeous, royal purple smoke.
This really is not a Microsoft virus. Well, it does use the Outlook Contact List, but shouldn't it potentially be able to exploit the address list for any email client?
No, she simply understands the difference between a widely used technical reference and a legal standard. Again, the W3C does great work, but they are not Congress and are not empowered to make law.
Be careful what you wish for here. Do you really want the current HTML standard to be law? Do you really want to be held liable if you forget to close a tag?
I have to say I think the judge was wrong on this one, considering that all that was being asked was for was a little effort.
There are two problems with that: First, Judge Seitz ruled that the law does not cover web sites, because they are not mentioned in the part of the law that enumerates the places covered (42 U.S.C. 12181(7). Judges are not allowed to make new laws, however minor.
Second, she ruled that no standard for the degree and kind of effort involved exists, and that it was improper to impose a burden without specifying the limits on that burden. Again, for her to do so would have been to usurp the role of Congress.
The judge specifically ruled that the W3 standard was not recognized widely enough to be considered authoritative under the law. In addition, the W3C itself refers to the "standard" as "guidelines." If this were to acquire the color of law, alternative solutions to the problem would be disallowed. Finally, as much I applaude the Consortium's efforts, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of a unofficial working group, unaccountable to the public, essentially making law. Far too much of that goes on already.
Gumson, the original plaintiff, uses a text-to-voice converter. He claimed that the lack of text alternatives to graphic icons made navigation difficult, while admitting that it was possible. (That admission hurt his case.)
I'm not at all sure that the RIAA thinks that out-of-print works don't make money. I bet they think that keeping old works out of print encourages buying new works; who would buy the Extruded Music Product they're pushing now if everyone was listening to the Good Old Stuff? (Yes, there's Good New Stuff too, but that's been well dealt with in other posts.)
I've also heard this argument made to answer the question of why Hollywood doesn't do a better job preserving out-of-print movies. They want as much of the available mindshare as possible taken up by the latest release.
Just because you put your money into something doesn't give you any rights to do what you like with its product.
I live in Houston, so I have a stake in this. My public business is transacted on this network.
My tax records, my court records, my property records--I damn sure want this stuff secure, protected from snooping and alteration. The county left the file cabinet unlocked and the APPROVED stamp on the ink pad. Records could conceivably be added, altered, or deleted. How would you like to find out you didn't own your house anymore, and never had? How about suddenly having an arrest warrant go out because of all those unpaid traffic tickets you never got?
I'm personally grateful to the guy for pointing out the problem and bringing it to the public's attention via the press.
Are we required to watch each and every occurence of each and every ad? Do I really need to let an advertiser poke the same needle in my eye every five minutes?
And let's face it, the real issue is that it's not watching the ads that makes money for sponsors; it's actually buying the product. If it is found that we have an implied contract to watch the ad, how long before we'll be held to an implied contract to buy?
Microsoft is resorting to desperation tactics... they know they've lost.
Actually, this is entirely consistent with MS's strategy all along: it has been arguing that it and its products are so profoundly important to the American economy and security that any remedy which interferes with its ability to act as it pleases should be struck down by the court. Otherwise, everyone will suffer at least as much as MS will.
It's the exact equivalent of a mob boss saying that he shouldn't be imprisoned for running a protection racket, because then he wouldn't be able to protect his customers. Moreover, he wouldn't be able to provide for his innocent wife and children (even though it's been shown he abuses them as well).
Microsoft isn't at all desperate; they're just so arrogant, and so blind to basic security principles, that they don't really see a problem with what they're saying.
I would be very happy if all the SPAM I got every day said: "Hi. We're a crappy company. We engage in deceptive business practices."
Darn betcha, particularly if it was the last I ever heard from that outfit, and it had good contact info, with responses monitored by the court. I'd accept the load on my in-box as the cost of getting the word out to the less savvy.
"In essence, any publication, in any language, located anywhere in the world is valid prior art for invalidating a U.S. Patent. One copy of a thesis, written in the Chinese language and stored on a dusty shelf of the Beijing University Library will invalidate any and all U.S. patents that were filed one year after that thesis was published and that claims as an invention ANY of the subject matter that was disclosed in that thesis."
But I did always think it was a weird choice for a mascot, because the only cartoon I saw with the frog in it was the one where he sings for the guy, only to clam up whenever the guy tries to show him to other people.
Close: whenever the guy tries to make money by exhibiting the frog. He can't simply enjoy the miracle. That's why it's such a brilliant parable, and why Time-Warner pisses on their own hands every time they make the frog shill for them. It's as if Christians read about Christ driving the moneychangers out of the temple, and concluded that it meant that getting rich by stealing from their fellow Christians was OK.
It's all Disney's fault and that goddamn RAT Mickey!
Mickey is an abject slave; he does only what his evil corporate masters compel him to do.
Same for the Warner characters many of us grew up on. Originally great parodists and satirists, divine fools and court jesters, mockers of authority all, they are reduced now to mere corp-rat shills, touting for those they once would have treated to a dynamite cigar.
(I have always regarded Warner's use of that great symbol of intimate expression, the Vaudeville Frog, to flog their swill at the most public of troughs, as corporate obscenity of the highest order. It is unequivocal proof that the current copyright holders understand nothing about their creatures, that Judge Doom rules Toon Town. )
The whole point of this exercise is to free these slaves of expression so that they may once again speak with the voice of the common man.
Can someone explain why the Good Guys always have to keep the Bad Guy on the line for something like three minutes in order to trace the call, when all they should have to do is call up the Phone Company (on another line) and ask them to punch up the number of the person calling this number right now?
Because Hollyweird is out of date. That used to be true in the days of mechanical switches, but now...pfft.
Well, that, and it provides a lazy director three minutes worth of free suspense.
I recently saw the modern version of this old chestnut on Fox's 24, where the Good Guys (a powerful and secretive yet benevolent government organization, hm) were unable to track down the exact physical location of a cell phone before the desperate-to-found caller was cut off.
I think history also will show that Ben Franklin never flew on an airplane. Ben Franklin also had quaite a bit to say about private property rights... and you don't have a right to get on someone else's airplane and they certainly have a right to demand you do certain things to board their airplane.
The fact that security will now be handled by the US Government ought to be taken as indicating that the feds, anyway, regard the airlines as something more than simple private enterprise.
Shouldn't Constitutional guarantees about search and seizure, self incrimination, and so forth kick in as soon as federal agents take over?
Re:That's a funky organization scheme...
on
The Forever War
·
· Score: 1
I'd guess he's using a virtual-memory-like scheme: most recently read towards the front, less read towards the back.
Of course, with me "most recently read" translates to "under the bed".
Why must scientists hold to 'truths' that they know aren't?
What they're holding on to is the best theory they have -- that is, the one that has survived the most tests over the widest domain. Like any filter, you have to choose between letting through some stuff you don't want and blocking some stuff you do. Science tends to err on the conservative side, deeming garbage ideas to be more of a threat in the long run than the occassional missed gold flake. Sooner or later, the accumulating evidence will make that gold flake timely, and it will be found again.
Scientists know there are no truths in their work; only best fits. When the data gets gnarly enough, they'll move to something else that fits better.
Newton's mechanics, relativity, and quantum mechanics have all worked extremely well in their domains for a long time. The cracks are beginning to show, but until something comes up that works not just as well, but better, there's no reason to abandon what works.
I'm rooting for these guys, big time, because I've bought into the idea of emergent properties generally, and that's what solid state physics is all about. But apparently, the solid staters just don't have quite enough evidence or tight enough theories to overthrow the dominant reductionist paradigm. (Again, reductionist particle physics has worked extremely well, so it's going to be a hard fight, and rightly so.)
Slashdot Mirror
Are you offering to foot their legal bills?
I'm willing to help -- sent them my $20 last week to help cover their preliminary discussions with a lawyer.
If they get taken to court for real, I'll do more.
Once, after programming and installing a replacement EPROM, I noticed that it seemed to have come equipped with an internal lightbulb. Hm, I thought, interesting. Why did they....holy shit, it's in BACKWARDS! Powerdown, wait to cool, turn it around--Presto!
I decided not to use it on general principles, but it did work.
Also buy Compaq and Cisco. No, none of these companies exist yet, but watch for them. And plastics, don't forget plastics; Dow, DuPont, 3M, and Monsanto exist now. Starve if you have to. Re-invest the interest. [Hey, everybody gives this advice because it's good advice.]
*sigh* Ask Dad.
We have great parents, by the way. Listen to what they say. Be nice to them. Don't stop hugging them, ever, or you'll forget how.
You oblivious dork, Dad has a stack of Playboys, somewhere. Find them. One or two off the bottom, now and then, won't be noticed, or at least admitted to. Don't dink around with the National Geographics; go for the gold.
Anything that seems at all cool now, books, magazines, comics, toys, whatever, buy one to use and one to save. Don't even take the saved one out of the box or wrapper.
No, the Playboys aren't worth saving. Dispose of them discreetly, or give them back. Unwrinkled, untorn, certainly unstained.
You're a goof. Goof is good, folks like being entertained, but avoid weird.
Those cool books in the school library about chemistry magic with all the fireworks recipes? Steal them now. (One at a time, and leave another, similar book from Adam's Used Books on the table so you won't be noticed.) The librarians will throw them out within three years anyway, to keep them out of the hands of budding revolutionaries. Don't make a habit of this, but those three are worth the risk and guilt, and you will use them for good, not evil.
That stupid idea about using computers for animation? Not stupid.
But learn to draw first. You actually have a talent for it. Draw at least one picture every day. Start today.
History is cool.
Your textbooks are gap-filled, error-ridden and often lie outright; embarrass your teachers.
Hey, George Washington grew pot! The Constitution is written on hemp paper! Honest! Look it up!
Never, ever, stand by and let someone else get hazed or belittled.
Hit bullies back. Hard.
Learn to shoot.
Dump the dorky book bag and get a good briefcase.
Dump the slide rule; it will be utterly obsolete by the time you really need it. No, I swear. See the notes above about collectibles.
Dump the cheap polyester pants and shirts too. Admit it, you do know what looks good. Nothing to be ashamed of.
Get a haircut. Carry a comb. Your hair will never be neat, but you can keep it from getting all ratty and tangled.
Read the top of the mayonaise jar: KEEP COOL BUT DON'T FREEZE. Nevertheless:
Be bold with girls.
Know what color her eyes are before you speak to her the first time. Occasionally, drop a hint that shows you are paying attention: a favorite color, a favorite flower, a favorite song. No, don't make them yours. Just be sure she knows you are noticing hers. This will be hard for you, I know. Practice casually, so that you will be ready when you meet HER.
When you touch her, be certain that when she looks at you, you are staring straight into her eyes. Mean it. Don't flinch.
These can't be your only tricks. Think of others. And they're not tricks. Once again, mean it.
Never blame on malice what can be attributed to stupidity.
Take risks in public, but think them through and practice privately first, if possible. For really risky stuff, have a trusted buddy standing by when you practice.
When you are the trusted buddy, and things go badly, stick it out, stand by your man, take your lumps along with his.
Above all, remember: EVERYBODY MAKES MISTAKES. HORRIBLE ONES. They are too wrapped up in their own to worry much about yours. You are free.
Treasure of the Sierra Madres, directed by John Huston. See the IMDB.
Screw that! S-100 bus 4ever, d00dz!
Weenies. Point-to-point is the only way to wire.
Another great thing to do with Iodine is the Iodine/Aluminum Volcano. Equal parts powdered Iodine and powdered Aluminum (combine by rolling back and
forth on a sheet of paper). Make a little mound, and squirt a few drops of water on the top.
Yields an intense violet flame and large volumes of rich, gorgeous, royal purple smoke.
This really is not a Microsoft virus.
Well, it does use the Outlook Contact List, but
shouldn't it potentially be able to exploit the
address list for any email client?
Is this Judge smoking crack?
No, she simply understands the difference between a widely used technical reference and a legal standard. Again, the W3C does great work, but they are not Congress and are not empowered to make law.
Be careful what you wish for here. Do you really want the current HTML standard to be law? Do you really want to be held liable if you forget to close a tag?
I have to say I think the judge was wrong on this one, considering that all that was being asked was for was a little effort.
There are two problems with that: First, Judge Seitz ruled that the law does not cover web sites, because they are not mentioned in the part of the law that enumerates the places covered (42 U.S.C. 12181(7). Judges are not allowed to make new laws, however minor.
Second, she ruled that no standard for the degree and kind of effort involved exists, and that it was improper to impose a burden without specifying the limits on that burden. Again, for her to do so would have been to usurp the role of Congress.
The judge specifically ruled that the W3 standard was not recognized widely enough to be considered authoritative under the law. In addition, the W3C itself refers to the "standard" as "guidelines." If this were to acquire the color of law, alternative solutions to the problem would be disallowed. Finally, as much I applaude the Consortium's efforts, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of a unofficial working group, unaccountable to the public, essentially making law. Far too much of that goes on already.
What if you're completely blind?
Gumson, the original plaintiff, uses a text-to-voice converter. He claimed that the lack of text alternatives to graphic icons made navigation difficult, while admitting that it was possible. (That admission hurt his case.)
I'm not at all sure that the RIAA thinks that out-of-print works don't make money. I bet they think that keeping old works out of print encourages buying new works; who would buy the Extruded Music Product they're pushing now if everyone was listening to the Good Old Stuff? (Yes, there's Good New Stuff too, but that's been well dealt with in other posts.)
I've also heard this argument made to answer the question of why Hollywood doesn't do a better job preserving out-of-print movies. They want as much of the available mindshare as possible taken up by the latest release.
Just because you put your money into something doesn't give you any rights to do what you like with its product.
I live in Houston, so I have a stake in this. My public business is transacted on this network.
My tax records, my court records, my property records--I damn sure want this stuff secure, protected from snooping and alteration. The county left the file cabinet unlocked and the APPROVED stamp on the ink pad. Records could conceivably be added, altered, or deleted. How would you like to find out you didn't own your house anymore, and never had? How about suddenly having an arrest warrant go out because of all those unpaid traffic tickets you never got?
I'm personally grateful to the guy for pointing out the problem and bringing it to the public's attention via the press.
Are we required to watch each and every occurence of each and every ad? Do I really need to let an advertiser poke the same needle in my eye every five minutes?
And let's face it, the real issue is that it's not watching the ads that makes money for sponsors; it's actually buying the product. If it is found that we have an implied contract to watch the ad, how long before we'll be held to an implied contract to buy?
Sorry I don't have mod points; this is an excellent analysis of the mindset at work here.
I am Jack's unabashed greed.
Yeah, I'd love to see this in Reader's Digest....
Microsoft is resorting to desperation tactics... they know they've lost.
Actually, this is entirely consistent with MS's strategy all along: it has been arguing that it and its products are so profoundly important to the American economy and security that any remedy which interferes with its ability to act as it pleases should be struck down by the court. Otherwise, everyone will suffer at least as much as MS will.
It's the exact equivalent of a mob boss saying that he shouldn't be imprisoned for running a protection racket, because then he wouldn't be able to protect his customers. Moreover, he wouldn't be able to provide for his innocent wife and children (even though it's been shown he abuses them as well).
Microsoft isn't at all desperate; they're just so arrogant, and so blind to basic security principles, that they don't really see a problem with what they're saying.
I would be very happy if all the SPAM I got every day said: "Hi. We're a crappy company. We engage in deceptive business practices."
Darn betcha, particularly if it was the last I ever heard from that outfit, and it had good contact info, with responses monitored by the court. I'd accept the load on my in-box as the cost of getting the word out to the less savvy.
Also.. prior art means prior PATENTS that are similar.
That turns out not to be the case. Check out this Prior Art Tutorial:
"In essence, any publication, in any language, located anywhere in the world is valid prior art for invalidating a U.S. Patent. One copy of a thesis, written in the Chinese language and stored on a dusty shelf of the Beijing University Library will invalidate any and all U.S. patents that were filed one year after that thesis was published and that claims as an invention ANY of the subject matter that was disclosed in that thesis."
But I did always think it was a weird choice for a mascot, because the only cartoon I saw with the frog in it was the one where he sings for the guy, only to clam up whenever the guy tries to show him to other people.
Close: whenever the guy tries to make money by exhibiting the frog. He can't simply enjoy the miracle. That's why it's such a brilliant parable, and why Time-Warner pisses on their own hands every time they make the frog shill for them. It's as if Christians read about Christ driving the moneychangers out of the temple, and concluded that it meant that getting rich by stealing from their fellow Christians was OK.
It's all Disney's fault and that goddamn RAT Mickey!
Mickey is an abject slave; he does only what his evil corporate masters compel him to do.
Same for the Warner characters many of us grew up on. Originally great parodists and satirists, divine fools and court jesters, mockers of authority all, they are reduced now to mere corp-rat shills, touting for those they once would have treated to a dynamite cigar.
(I have always regarded Warner's use of that great symbol of intimate expression, the Vaudeville Frog, to flog their swill at the most public of troughs, as corporate obscenity of the highest order. It is unequivocal proof that the current copyright holders understand nothing about their creatures, that Judge Doom rules Toon Town. )
The whole point of this exercise is to free these slaves of expression so that they may once again speak with the voice of the common man.
Free the Mouse!
Can someone explain why the Good Guys always have to keep the Bad Guy on the line for something like three minutes in order to trace the call, when all they should have to do is call up the Phone Company (on another line) and ask them to punch up the number of the person calling this number right now?
Because Hollyweird is out of date. That used to be true in the days of mechanical switches, but now...pfft.
Well, that, and it provides a lazy director three minutes worth of free suspense.
I recently saw the modern version of this old chestnut on Fox's 24, where the Good Guys (a powerful and secretive yet benevolent government organization, hm) were unable to track down the exact physical location of a cell phone before the desperate-to-found caller was cut off.
I think history also will show that Ben Franklin never flew on an airplane. Ben Franklin also had quaite a bit to say about private property rights... and you don't have a right to get on someone else's airplane and they certainly have a right to demand you do certain things to board their airplane.
The fact that security will now be handled by the US Government ought to be taken as indicating that the feds, anyway, regard the airlines as something more than simple private enterprise.
Shouldn't Constitutional guarantees about search and seizure, self incrimination, and so forth kick in as soon as federal agents take over?
I'd guess he's using a virtual-memory-like scheme: most recently read towards the front, less read towards the back.
Of course, with me "most recently read" translates to "under the bed".
Why must scientists hold to 'truths' that they know aren't?
What they're holding on to is the best theory they have -- that is, the one that has survived the most tests over the widest domain. Like any filter, you have to choose between letting through some stuff you don't want and blocking some stuff you do. Science tends to err on the conservative side, deeming garbage ideas to be more of a threat in the long run than the occassional missed gold flake. Sooner or later, the accumulating evidence will make that gold flake timely, and it will be found again.
Scientists know there are no truths in their work; only best fits. When the data gets gnarly enough, they'll move to something else that fits better.
Newton's mechanics, relativity, and quantum mechanics have all worked extremely well in their domains for a long time. The cracks are beginning to show, but until something comes up that works not just as well, but better, there's no reason to abandon what works.
I'm rooting for these guys, big time, because I've bought into the idea of emergent properties generally, and that's what solid state physics is all about. But apparently, the solid staters just don't have quite enough evidence or tight enough theories to overthrow the dominant reductionist paradigm. (Again, reductionist particle physics has worked extremely well, so it's going to be a hard fight, and rightly so.)
Somebody, I think, moderated the wrong post.
This is in no way flamebait.
Come on, moderators, pay attention!