John Graham-Cumming's conference report presents a summary of data with the following properties:
no attempt at validation
no analysis of statistical significance
almost[1] no attempt at common-sense analysis
irritating typos
The conference presentations look invited rather than refereed, but doesn't a "scientist" usually have both interest in and obligation to the bases of the scientific method? Why bother to collect data if you intend to apply no analysis?
[1] There is one solitary mention of possible bad data, ignoring the fact that all the rest is totally unverified as well.
Re:Would it still have the rights of wooden paper?
on
E-Paper Moves Closer
·
· Score: 1
Baby, the killer app for e-ink isn't going to be in the realm of computing or mass infodisplay at all if this takes another five years to come to market, thanks to falling LCD prices & new 1" CRTs. It's clothing. How much would you pay for an infinitely and easily redesigned t-shirt? I'd probably go $300, and I doubt I'm alone. And once color comes, even better. Extrapolating from this & the people designing bacteria to live in clothing and eat odor molecules: in ten years we'll all have one or two pairs of clothing in each of the cuts we like, and just pick their color & logo according to the mood or fad of the moment.
>> It is rare, although perfectly legal, for a jury to, for example, decide that the law under which a defendent is being tried is unjust and therefore refuse to convict.
This is incorrect. You are referring to jury nullification, which has garnered jurors heavy contempt-of-court punishments in the past. From United States v. Avery, 717 F. 2d 1020 (6th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 104 S.Ct. 1683 (1984):
"Defendant's final contention is that the district court committed reversible error when it refused to instruct the jury that it had the power to acquit the defendant even though he was guilty of the charged offense. The instruction itself reads that "a jury is entitled to acquit the defendant because it has no sympathy for the government's position."
This argument is completely without merit. Although jurors may indeed have the power to ignore the law, their duty is to apply the law as interpreted by the court and they should be so instructed."
The only legal solution under current case law is to pester your representatives, so start writing those letters or attending those protests.
anyone interested in using remote desktops over IP networks ought to take a look at TightVNC, which implements lossy JPEG compression (finally). It's about 70% better than VNC and about 90% better than PCAnywhere 9 from my personal trials. To give you some idea of the improvement, you can now use TightVNC over ISDN from Japan with good responsiveness, compared to waiting two minutes for a screen refresh with plain VNC.
not only has SGI done the lavalamp for randomness, when Chris Pirazzi was there in 94 or 95 he made something called ttyvideo that works with any video-input-equipped workstation such as an Indy. Downloadable source & info:
http://reality.sgi.com/cpirazzi/ttyvideo.html
but since reality.sgi.com is down more often than not, you ought to hit the google cache at:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:reality.sgi .c om/cpirazzi/ttyvideo.html+ascii+video+sgi+site:rea lity.sgi.com&hl=en
after it fails to load directly.
I was just thinking:
unless one of the newish laws that seem to prevent thinking infringing thoughts prevents this, wouldn't it be perfectly legal to distribute
1. A file containing every ascii character in standard or randomized order
and
2. a list of numbers like 45,61,70,210,70 that corresponded to the DeCSS source character in file 1.
I can see how this could conceivably be illegal, but if you picked complex interpolations using large enough datasets, say from SETI raw data, it should be possible to interpolate the DeCSS source from perfectly legitimate starting points.
Of course, there's also the fantasy of finding the DeCSS source in ASCII char valuess occurring somewhere in a legitimate data source. Is simply providing the start & endpoints in a file of collected data illegal as well?
As earlier posters have pointed out, by obeying this decision Yahoo! would set an interesting precedent.
What they neglected to mention was that, by obeying this decision, Yahoo! would essentially kill b2c (business to consumer) transactions on the internet.
We should be rejoicing: never before has it made business sense for a company with a market cap of US$300b to virulently defend the right to free speech on the internet. They won't be able to avoid it now; can you imagine the sort of performance hit inherent in doing boolean matching for every possible offensive word, phrase, or idea in English and every other language in existence? And don't forget languages like arabic where transliteration follows the author's personal preference rather than standard rulesets. I've worked with large databases for years and the idea makes my head spin. They'd grind to a halt!
Slashdot Mirror
The conference presentations look invited rather than refereed, but doesn't a "scientist" usually have both interest in and obligation to the bases of the scientific method? Why bother to collect data if you intend to apply no analysis?
[1] There is one solitary mention of possible bad data, ignoring the fact that all the rest is totally unverified as well.
...the one we already have, that is:
map connections between two words, concepts, or famous names
see a word's rhymes, synonyms, definitions
and I leave the rest to you.
Baby, the killer app for e-ink isn't going to be in the realm of computing or mass infodisplay at all if this takes another five years to come to market, thanks to falling LCD prices & new 1" CRTs. It's clothing. How much would you pay for an infinitely and easily redesigned t-shirt? I'd probably go $300, and I doubt I'm alone. And once color comes, even better. Extrapolating from this & the people designing bacteria to live in clothing and eat odor molecules: in ten years we'll all have one or two pairs of clothing in each of the cuts we like, and just pick their color & logo according to the mood or fad of the moment.
regards, dkl
the tessellated networks
>> It is rare, although perfectly legal, for a jury to, for example, decide that the law under which a defendent is being tried is unjust and therefore refuse to convict.
This is incorrect. You are referring to jury nullification, which has garnered jurors heavy contempt-of-court punishments in the past. From United States v. Avery, 717 F. 2d 1020 (6th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 104 S.Ct. 1683 (1984):
"Defendant's final contention is that the district court committed reversible error when it refused to instruct the jury that it had the power to acquit the defendant even though he was guilty of the charged offense. The instruction itself reads that "a jury is entitled to acquit the defendant because it has no sympathy for the government's position." This argument is completely without merit. Although jurors may indeed have the power to ignore the law, their duty is to apply the law as interpreted by the court and they should be so instructed."
The only legal solution under current case law is to pester your representatives, so start writing those letters or attending those protests.
anyone interested in using remote desktops over IP networks ought to take a look at TightVNC, which implements lossy JPEG compression (finally). It's about 70% better than VNC and about 90% better than PCAnywhere 9 from my personal trials. To give you some idea of the improvement, you can now use TightVNC over ISDN from Japan with good responsiveness, compared to waiting two minutes for a screen refresh with plain VNC.
not only has SGI done the lavalamp for randomness, when Chris Pirazzi was there in 94 or 95 he made something called ttyvideo that works with any video-input-equipped workstation such as an Indy. Downloadable source & info:
i .c om/cpirazzi/ttyvideo.html+ascii+video+sgi+site:rea lity.sgi.com&hl=en
http://reality.sgi.com/cpirazzi/ttyvideo.html
but since reality.sgi.com is down more often than not, you ought to hit the google cache at:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:reality.sg
after it fails to load directly.
cheers
I was just thinking:
unless one of the newish laws that seem to prevent thinking infringing thoughts prevents this, wouldn't it be perfectly legal to distribute
1. A file containing every ascii character in standard or randomized order
and
2. a list of numbers like 45,61,70,210,70 that corresponded to the DeCSS source character in file 1.
I can see how this could conceivably be illegal, but if you picked complex interpolations using large enough datasets, say from SETI raw data, it should be possible to interpolate the DeCSS source from perfectly legitimate starting points.
Of course, there's also the fantasy of finding the DeCSS source in ASCII char valuess occurring somewhere in a legitimate data source. Is simply providing the start & endpoints in a file of collected data illegal as well?
As earlier posters have pointed out, by obeying this decision Yahoo! would set an interesting precedent.
What they neglected to mention was that, by obeying this decision, Yahoo! would essentially kill b2c (business to consumer) transactions on the internet.
We should be rejoicing: never before has it made business sense for a company with a market cap of US$300b to virulently defend the right to free speech on the internet. They won't be able to avoid it now; can you imagine the sort of performance hit inherent in doing boolean matching for every possible offensive word, phrase, or idea in English and every other language in existence? And don't forget languages like arabic where transliteration follows the author's personal preference rather than standard rulesets. I've worked with large databases for years and the idea makes my head spin. They'd grind to a halt!
dkl