It's an interesting thought, but I think you're missing the point of supercavitation. Supercavitation is only truly effective (and truly possible) with vessels that are completely submerged in water (eg. submarines, torpedoes and the like). It works by creating a renewable pocket of air around the vessel, so that very little of the liquid touches the surface of the vessel. This reduces the vessel's viscous drag (bearing in mind that the resistance of water is somewhere in the order of 1400 times that of air) and allows it to travel much faster. This isn't the sort of thing that can't be done with a partly submerged vessel, as is the case here.
If you're interested in learning more about the specifics of supercavitation, then is an article on the Scientific American website and two articles on Slashdot (here and here). It should be interesting to see what the possible future applications of this technology would be. As always any constructive criticism is welcome.
Does anyone have any web pages that are more specific about the technical aspects of construction, such as material composition and so forth? The fact that this craft looks to be capable of 50 knots (92.60000000000001 km/h or 53.895mph thanks to Suntron Velocity Conversion) means that it would have to be constructed out of some pretty space-age type of materials (Carbon Steel, Titanium alloys and Carbon Fibre Composite come to mind here). The problem with the link provided by Slashdot is, besides the grammar difficulties involved in the translation from French (or any other language for that matter) to English, is that the details are sketchy and therefore it amounts to little more than your average press release. So if anyone has any interesting info they can post here, then go right ahead.
At any rate, I think the fact that this design was assisted by such large organisations as EADS (European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company) and CNES (Center National Space Studies) means that there's some pretty serious money being invested in this project. Also, the expertise being invested here is also amazing, given that the project has backgrounds in such high-tech fields as aeronautical and space engineering. So it's very likely that this will be more than a flash in the pan and that this will pave the way for bigger and more ambitious projects.
One of the key points that hasn't really been looked at enough is the fact that Microsoft's monopoly (for all intents and purposes) allows them an incredible amount of leverage with regards to the development of new products for Windows. Microsoft Windows, whatever version you use, is the operating system of 90% of the world's desktop computers (servers are a different matter although Microsoft does have significant market share in that department, too). This means that if you want your product to be efficient, easy to use and powerful (in other words, if you want people to want to use it) then you need access to the Windows source code. And since Windows is part of the closed-source old-school business world, then you have to do things Microsoft's way. And if you don't like it, then fine. They can find another business that will, or develop their own product and use their leverage in the OS market to drive you into the ground - one example most commonly referred to is the MSIE/Netscape debate, where MS's "incorporation" of its free browser reduced Netscape's market share from 80% to 50% in about two years (if anyone has any further details or constructive to add here feel free to post them).
So it doesn't come as any suprise to me that Kodak is getting its ass kicked by Microsoft in the same way that Netscape was. My question here is shouldn't this be under scrutiny by the Department of Justice (a department that many people regard as a toothless tiger, but they do the important task of bringing attention to such issues) in the same way that other similar tactics were during the antitrust investigation? All constructive comments are welcome.
I have serious concerns for the methods used by the Tampa State Police to find people with outstanding arrest warrants. My question is what if someone was photographed and because of the light or if the conditions were right then could they be falsely identified as someone else with an outstanding warrant?
Unless there's a human around to verify that the photographs are correct (as is the case with automated speed cameras in my country, Australia) then bad things could happen. False identification issues aside, I still don't think this is a good idea because it means that someone is collecting information on you without your knowledge or permission. And since this is done without your knowing, you're not always able to verify that the information collected about you is correct.
It might also be interesting to know that the Visionics website has a whole host of press releases concerning the use of FaceIt technology in places like Birmingham City Centre, London, in Iceland's Keflavk airport as part of the upgrade of their CCTV system, in the Oklahoma State Investigation Bureau as part of their Law Enforcement Identification Solution, in Mexico to eliminate duplicate voter registrations, in Rhode Island and even in the largest police department in Australia. In fact, the United States Immigration & Naturalisation Service (INS) has placed a $7.4 million order for an additional 276 live scan systems.
So while this development is not new, it's still worrying because it means that your freedom is now in the hands of computer software which is just as fallable and exploitable as the people who wrote it.
The problem with the arguments of the pro-censor lobby in that we must "protect" children from the harmful elements that exist on the Internet (George W. Bush is famously quoted as saying that the Internet "can turn [children's] hearts black") is that there is no proof either way. Just as there is no conclusive evidence that proves that a direct, cause-and-effect link doesn't exist between usage of the Internet and its effects on your child's/teenager's wellbeing, doesn't mean that it does exist. So both sides here can be accused of churning out biased, emotional and illogical crap in equal measures because there is this lack of proof either way.
The only fair way to decide on issues such as this is on a case-by-case basis after looking at all the facts (such as the maturity of the child and previous experience). If you believe that your 15-year-old can take care of themselves on the Internet (which the vast majority of well-adjusted teenagers with a minor degree of common sense can do anyway), then let them have unrestricted access to the Internet. It's impossible to teach your kids any degree of responsibility and to teach them how to handle themselves in the "real world" if we are continually shielding them from it. There's not much on the Internet that kids/teenagers won't come into contact to through the "real world" and if you don't know this by now then you really have a lot to learn about life.
So if you believe your kids/teenagers aren't ready for the joys (and dangers) that the Internet may hold then by all means install the software but make sure that you've talked it over with your son/daughter before you decide. If they feel that they are being left out of the decision- making process then they will most likely not feel compelled to follow your "rules". What we do need here is discussion, fact-finding and to include the kids/teenagers (ie. the people we are apparently trying to protect) in the process. What we don't need is inflammatory, baseless, "immediate action" rhetoric that only results in "Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt" (FUD) and reactionary legislation that in the end does nothing to protect these people anyway (and never mind the JonKatz cracks).
Self Bias Resistor
"If it's stupid but it works, then it's not stupid." - Murphy's Laws of Combat
First post insanity aside (trust me, it's only fun for about 5 minutes and bad for your karma because moderators despise it), there's this quote featured in the CNN article (yes, I do actually read the related articles before posting flamebait):
"Our goal with the software is to reveal how Web bugs are tracking all of us on the Internet and to get companies to 'fess up' about why they are using them," Richard Smith, the Privacy Foundation's chief technology officer, wrote in his privacy tip sheet.
"Any company that uses Web bugs on their site should say so clearly in their privacy policies and explain the following: why they are being used, what data is sent by a bug, who gets the data, and what they are doing with it," he added.
There are two things that I'd like to point out about those statements. First of all, companies with web sites are (in most countries) legally required to tell you about what kind of data they collect and what they do with it. The majority of such privacy statements either consist of the usual "we don't collect any information that can personally identify you" variety or they are hidden beneath so many links at the very bottom of the most obscure pages in the site that your average user never reads them.
Second of all, I agree with your point regarding the suggestion that companies should be required to thoroughly explain what kind of bugs they use (if any), what's sent and received and where the data goes. I personally think it's a great idea. And it's all well and good for sites that deploy their own web bugs. But what about the web sites who use web bugs belonging to other websites (e.g sites who use DoubleClick web bugs, or Slashdot using a web bug from OSDN)? The application should be the same, of course, but how is that handled from a legal perspective? Who is responsible for the "bug"? The company who wrote/owns it, or the company that deploys it? Answers to any of these questions are more than welcome (particularly by someone involved in the legal profession), as I'm sure that there's at least some of us Slashdot readers that would like to know.
Self Bias Resistor
"Imagination is more important that knowledge." - Albert Einstein
I think that Thomson can't and should not succeed for a number of different reasons.
I don't want to see a hardware "Microsoft" running all of our TV's, set-top boxes, DVRs and HDTV sets because it would give Thomson an immeasurable amount of leverage in regards to pricing. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but if the company is hell bent on having their hardwaree in all these devices, and they're trying to get the government to mandate it (a highly unlikely outcome), then they'll gain a huge amount of market control. If their devices are in a large enough proportion of what people buy, then companies are going to need to use Thomson's stuff, and pay their prices. Similar thing with Windows, funnily enough.
No copyright protection schemes, even those embedded in hardware, are crackproof. PSX/PS One "mod" chips used to play pirate copies of PS games and DeCSS (even though it's software it still counts) are telling examples of the industry's failed attempts at hardware-level copyright control. Even if the hardware cracks do not become ubiquitous (their very illegality prevents such a possibility), people will merely figure out ways around them, and we may end up with a TV/video Napster (assuming that such a technology is possible to apply with receiving devices - DVRs maybe).
The uptake of Thomson's products relies on a marked increase in the purchasing of DVRs, HDTV sets and set-top boxes. This is not the case because such devices for the moment are too expensive for Mr Joe Average to consider replacing his old TV/VCR. The uptake of technologies even in techno-crazed countries such as Australia (who has one of the highest rates of mobile/cell phone ownership in the world) is still going to take a while. There needs to be a huge drop in price, which just isn't going to happen because the devices are complicated and expensive to make and the content just isn't there to make it worthwhile. So there's not much point in worrying about the effects of such a development because for the moment it will remain a plan to implement changes to what are currently considered niche, rich-bastard devices.
Even Thomson themselves (via their government affairs representative) admit that these devices won't completely solve the problem. They say that "the SmartRight technology is "not a panacea" for securely distributing digital video, but he scoffs at the notion that consumers won't buy devices dependent on smart cards." Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that quite a lot of consumers would not like to buy a device that is; a) not completely necessary (since the revenue in TV is advertising and not actual content) and b) obsolete in a few years.
Therefore, the chances of Thomson achieving their goal is quite remote considering the number of obstacles in their way and the considering that the hardware makers have historically been very resistant in implementing these changes from Day One. There are just too many obstacles in the way for them to succeed.
Self Bias Resistor
"When the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is no longer our friend." - Murphy's Laws Of Combat
My main point (expressed rather poorly, I'll be the first to admit) was not that video games did cause violence, but that the argument that "no study has shown they do" is an argument that really doesn't win many points
Point taken. But what I was arguing was not so much that video games don't cause violence because there is no proof (and to be fair that argument is somewhat defensive), but that there is no proof either way. No study has conclusively shown beyond a reasonable doubt that video games either do or don't cause violence because, like you said, not enough time has passed for the study of violence in our culture (which I would argue is not at saturation point) to be observed in any substantial way.
And, to be fair, I wasn't making a personal attack on you specifically not reading the whole story before you post, but as a general comment to the Slashdot readers who don't observe this crucial step. And I will be fair in saying that there are politicians out there who do know about these issues and do their research and don't do speeches by soundbites. But it's the ones who don't that worry me because some politicians do this and it's when the really good comments are drowned out by the rhetorical rubbish of these ignorant politicians that I start to worry.
So I'd just like to say that you had some good points there, but to legislate against the "harmful" effects of media violence when (as you rightly said) we don't know exactly what effect, if any, that this violence is having is a path we should not go down.
Self Bias Resistor
"I don't think video games are affecting kids. If Pac Man had affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in dark rooms, munching on pills and listening to repetitive music." - Unknown
Unfortunately Inazuma, you appear to be missing the point. While JonKatz can often get a little emotional in his writing, he does have a point in that there is no direct connection that you can make between playing a violent video game (e.g. Counter-Strike) and real-life violence. If such a link existed, then there would be a rise in violent crime to support the rise in video game usage. The fact is that there is no such statistical link and furthermore, your claim that violent video games "help" a violent person down the "path of violence" is misleading because it ignores the fact that the individual was predisposed to violence anyway, and the fact that he played video games was actually a very minor factor. Study after study has shown that poverty, real-life violence, harassment and bullying are amongst the main causes of violence and that video games in the vast majority of cases aren't a factor at all.
The truth is that children (and teenagers) learn so much more from the real world (ie. what kids are in when they're not playing Quake 3) than they do from video games. Many violent crimes are committed by people who grew up in poverty and where violence was a daily, accepted practice in real life. Furthermore, repeated, continual schoolyard harassment and bullying as well as the inability of administrators to do something about it is what causes events such as Columbine. Combine that with the impulsiveness of adolesence and the easy access to firearms (which should always remain secure in your home) and you have your school massacre. Sure, the killers played violent video games, but the step from playing Doom to planning and actually committing a violent crime of such a magnitude is so large that the vast majority of the population will never take that step. Also, the idea that games desensitise children to violence holds no ground when one truly considers how realistic games are. Even the most realistic violent game around (eg. Soldier Of Fortune) pales in comparison to the real-life act of violence. There, it's so much more shocking because it's real, and you can't press Stop or select Quit to make it go away.
The proposed legislation is, in fact, unconstitutional because it takes away the person's right to choose what they want to do. If you don't want to play violent video games, then don't. Just don't ruin it for the rest of us who are able to realise that in the end, it's just entertainment. Granted, there are restrictions on your personal freedom (eg. can't murder/steal/etc) but these are more often than not for a good reason. Public indecency laws are questionable in their nature and often assume the role of defacto public censorship. While it's true that JonKatz needs more to back up some of his statements (something we all need to do more often), it's the ignorance of the elected representatives that worrys people because more often than not they don't do the proper research and their speeches consist of not much more than soundbites for the 6:00 news. These result in knee-jerk legislation that is not properly considered before being rushed through so that the government can say that it's "protecting children", which is supposed to be the responsibility of the parents. Parents need to take a more active role in their children's lives, and be open-minded about what their kids play.
So please, do post to Slashdot if you feel the need to comment about issues such as these, seeing as how America's a democracy and all. But try to think it through before you do so, otherwise your comments might be equally misleading as some of Katz's.
Self Bias Resistor
"For if you doubt your courage or your strength, come ne'er further. For death awaits ye with nasty, big pointy teeth." - John Cleese, Monty Python & The Quest For The Holy Grail
I think it would be wise to point out that the idea of corporate control over media is not exactly a new idea here. The vast majority of newspapers that (more than several) people read are owned by two men. Rupert Murdoch and Kerry Packer, both of whom also own large chunks of our commercial, free-to-air television (Packer owns Channel 9, for instance). Murdoch's News Limited company is also the part owner of Foxtel Australia (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).
Now both "media moguls" have been attempting to "modify" (ie. dissolve) cross-media ownership laws that control how much and what types of media that they can legally own. This is done through control of the print media, which involves being very selective, not about what you report (which would be too obvious) but how you report it. This involves things such as politically motivated editorials and the way articles, particularly articles concerning politics, are written. At election time, our government being the poll-driven, reactionary PR machine that it is (the Liberals more so), the media suddenly holds more power because the coverage of election-time events (particularly the election itself) can subtly influence the election results.
This phenomena is particularly evident during the HDTV debacle, where the moguls wanted the proposed restrictions on datacasting lifted so that they could provide extra services besides just TV. So far, at least, these efforts have not been successful and as a result HDTV is simply not much more than glorified (and digitised) free-to-air TV broadcast about 10 seconds later. Hence, it makes this story about the ACCC (a government body) taking an interest in the legal conflict with DVD region encoding a little more interesting. Especially when the ACCC has in the past been regarded as little more than the government's toothless tiger. So I doubt that much can be done by the ACCC about this region encoding debacle, considering that the companies who instituted this system are US-owned. And since the practice of region encoding is deemed entirely legal in the US, the strategy we should be taking at this stage is not a direct legal challenge to the system of region encoding but a way around the system as is proposed here (ie. make all DVD players available in Australia multi-zone capable). Although given that the Australian media moguls are part of multi-national companies this may make things difficult. But I'd personally like to see it happen.
Self Bias Resistor
"If it's stupid but it works, then it's not stupid." - Murphy's Laws of Combat
It's quite obvious that censorship of the Internet does not work for a variety of reasons:
Ideological: It removes the right of the people to decide what they can and can't see. This goes against every idea of a free, democratic society which, among other things, allows the populace a free media. Now practically every mainstream newspaper and television station is owned by either Rupert Murdoch or Kerry Packer. Channel 10 is also commercially owned, which leaves only SBS and the ABC, which has been subject to repeated funding cuts and accusations of bias simply because the government doesn't like what it's saying. Both Murdoch and Packer have enconomic interests in controlling the news (e.g. HDTV spectrum selloff), so one of your last options (besides small-time publications like The Big Issue) for a free media is the Internet. Now the government wishes to control that, too. It wishes to "protect" the public from the dangerous and "prohibited" content that might corrupt us or our children. So basically, any information that does not conform to an amorphous and undefined set of parameters is considered "prohibited" and must be taken down.
Technical: Because the Internet is a global communications medium, then given the right conditions information can be accessed from anywhere on the planet. That's right, Mr Brian "Pornophobia" Harradine (the politician who screwed the people big-time by making this a condition of the introduction of the GST), anywhere. And it's incredibly easy to transfer content from one web server to another. So if, for example, you find a web site that hosts "prohibited" content (a term which has remained undefined) and report it then the "take-down" order is issued. Big deal. The content of that web site can be transferred to another web server and the site can be up again in a number of hours. The program also holds ISPs responsible for hosting this content, which puts an unreasonable expectation on the service provider to filter their content 24/7, further degrading the quality of service.
Economic: The economics of this decision are simple. If the rules governing the conduct of businesses in a given country are too strict, then they'll simply take their very large amounts of money and jobs and go elsewhere. Likewise, a company is less likely to host its website in Australia if it runs the risk of being taken down by a few minor complaints. This means that less businesses will be willing to invest in Australia, which means that the government is missing out on revenue that they would be getting if they simply removed this legislation and this program. It's a complete waste of money, since over $2.5 million has been invested for practically no effect.
Whatever way you look at it, sooner or later the madness has to stop. So what do you do about it? Make your views known at election time. Vote for the party based on its long-term goals, not one that's willing to screw the country for short-term gain and the vote of some old-fashioned politicians who have no idea how the world really works. If you don't like what the Liberals are doing, then it's simple. Vote them out. Something has to be done before this goes too far.
Self Bias Resistor "No one expects the Spanish Inquisition." - Monty Python
Intel's gotten badly burned a couple of times lately trying to lead the market places it didn't want to go.
True, Intel's previous efforts to introduce technology that goes beyond x86 but that can easily be explained by the introduction of such technologies when the market was not ready. So the question here is, when will the market be ready? Most likely when serious deficiencies are shown to be inherent in x86 and the demand for better stuff is there. That's the key. Supply and demand. There's absolutely no use having supply if there's no demand.
Self Bias Resistor
Imagination is more important than knowledge. - Albert Einstein
Intel has been using the same basic archetecture for the past 20 years.
The question that must be posed after bitching about Intel's dogged adherence to the x86 architecture is how will you get the world to change from x86 when we are already heading towards the dream of one billion connected devices, all using x86? If we suddenly decide to change to a completely new way of processing then we are going to render all of these one billion connected devices entirely obsolete - and you thought you had enough trouble keeping up with clock speed changes!
It's the same problem with the oil industry. There are too many people who have invested too much time, people and money into petroleum fuel for it to be chucked away at a moment's notice. That's the reason we're not driving Hydrogen-fuelled fuel cell cars now. So it obviously seems that if Intel won't make the switch to the next level (whatever that is) then we're going to be using the same old shit for the next 20 years!
Self Bias Resistor
Computer: A device that multiplies a user's ability to make mistakes.
Self Bias Resistor
"If ye doubt your courage or your strength, then come ne'er further. For death awaits ye with large big pointy teeth." - John Cleese, Monty Python and the Quest For The Holy Grail
If this new technology becomes reasonable in price, then it would be a complete kick up the ass for home movies and DVD. If it can project with the image quality it says it has, then watching The Matrix on the big screen is going to be a whole lot more fun than having to buy a 120cm rear-projection TV! Imagine Quake 3:Arena on your living room wall...
Self Bias Resistor
"You've got a half-stoned girl under one arm, and a bag of fertiliser under the other. You don't look like your average horti-fuckin-culturalist!" - Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels
With all these questions flying around about the quality of the audio/video in this new videophonee system, perhaps the AV content could be encoded using MPEG-4 (Windows Media perhaps, considering the phones run on Windows)? If what we need is acceptable video and sound quality at low bitrates (ie. QCIF or 160x120-size MS-MPEG4 V3 video, 8kHz Mono ACELP.net 5kbit audio) then maybe MPEG-4 is the codec we're looking for?
I mean, it's just a thought and any further comment/constructive criticism on that topic would be welcome but considering that MPEG-4 was designed for exactly this purpose (ie. mobile video telephony), it would be a good idea wouldn't it?
Self Bias Resistor
Never met a wise man, if so it's a woman. - Territorial Pissings, Nirvana
"An Australian listed company, Autogen, has acquired research rights to the Kingdom of Tonga's gene pool. The Pacific island's 108,000 residents will be used by the company to identify genes that cause common diseases. Autogen says serum or DNA samples collected in Tonga shall remain the property of Tonga, while Autogen will build the genetic database on which the research will be based."
Arguably, the big concern in the purchase of the genome (ie. genetic information) about a given population is not the fact that people are literally being "bought" by corporations (which is entirely false because they have only bought the information regarding the people's DNA for research) but that this information might be misused by insurance companies.
Insurance companies charge people on the basis of risk. The higher the risk, the higher the premium. The risk with DNA is that if the insurance company finds out that a person is prone to a particular disease or condition (such as heart disease or diabetes) then the insurance company might charge a higher premium or even deny insurance altogether, because the person presents too great a risk.
This would make medical (and other types of) insurance harder to get because of people's genetic history, something which they cannot change. It's not the purchase of genetic information that we have to worry about, but the exploitation of that information for commercial gain at the expense of the people.
- Self Bias Resistor
"Anyone who says that money is the root of all evil, hasn't got any!" - Ben Affleck, Boiler Room
I think that far from putting a stop to the development of a Dreamcast PC card, Sega should be putting all their effort and marketing might behind it.
Consider, for a moment, Sega's financial position. They've been losing money for the past four (count 'em four) financial quarters and they need the money. A Dreamcast PC card would dramatically increase the revenue Sega gets from games sales would help their financial woes and would open them up to a whole new untapped market. I mean, the PC market would benefit greatly from Sega's gamemaking expertise.
So if Sega were smart, then they could save themselves the uphill battle against the marketing and corporate juggernaut of Sony and give themselves an edge selling to the PC market who are fussy about quality of software and hence would take to Sega's longstanding history of making great games. So what I'm saying is Sega - use this opportunity because it will give you the advantage like nothing else. Because if there's anything Sega needs right now, it's an advantage.
Self Bias Resistor
"Honestly, babe, the world is being FedEx-ed to hell in a package." -Nicolas Cage, The Rock
I think the main thing that people are forgetting here is that it's not the fact that computers on the Internet are just physically connected by copper wires, fibre optics, DSL or microwave that makes us connected in a way. I mean, if you really think about the Internet in terms of what actually happens, this so-called "virtual community" hype is just the transfers of zeros and ones from computer to computer and back again.
What makes these "virtual communities" communities is the interaction between people, not software and hardware. It's the human factor that makes the Internet what it is today. This idea of a virtual community is merely an extension of our real-life communities. What people do online is a supplement to what people do offline. People still work, drive, read newspapers, watch TV, play with their kids and their friends and do normal human stuff. They just happen to log onto a website (like Slashdot) for a couple or more hours a day to find information that they are looking for.
The real point of this is that virtual communites are only real because people make them real. Computers are always exchanging data, but it takes people to take that data and convert it to information, to give it some meaning so it actually makes sense. Without people, virtual communities wouldn't exist.
Self Bias Resistor
Open the pod bay doors, HAL.
I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that - 2001: A Space Odyssey
I like the concept because it's very original. I mean, you never see this kind of game show around very often and it's great way to recycle:-). It would appeal to geeks, true because it challenges you to construct something from bitty parts and to use your skills to build something. Kinda like Lego with bigger and dirtier parts...
Self Bias Resistor
"You'll never need more than 640k of memory." -Bill Gates
There is a theoretical superconductor that is a long n-alkane-like hydrocarbon chain with regularly spaced halogen molecules outboard to the backbone. The theoretical stats were impressive, something like superconductivity to 200 degrees C. The problem was forming the molecules long enough to be useful and then orienting them.
There are hydrocarbons that can perform this type of function and they are called Buckminsterfullerines. They come in two main varieties: Buckyballs (soccer-ball type molecules - C60 and C90) and Buckytubes (long Carbon nanotubes). Buckytubes are nanometres wide but can be made to incredible lengths (theoretically they can bypass the typical 70-mile length limit of regular cables). These tubes can be made to such incredible lengths by chemically bonded the ends of each piece of tubing together. Does this STM process have anything to do with that? Because to construct long Buckytubes, you would need to manipulate molecules at the atomic level which this STM process can provide.
Apparently these Buckytubes can be used to make ultra-small circuits. Which should bring computers up to enough speed to complete one of those bloody SETI@home packets in less than a day!
Self Bias Resistor
"You gotta save yourselves, from yourselves." - Rennes, Cube
it could be a waste of money simply to search for black holes.
I disagree because it's not the fact that we find the black holes because we can. We look for them because of what we can learn from them. Black holes and worm holes bend spacetime to such a degree that they may open up ideas for future space travel. Theoretically, physics does allow objects to travel from Point A to Point B faster than light in a straight line by taking a short cut through black holes and worm holes. So if we can do that, then we'll have learned something from black holes that will not only revolutionise space travel but the way we look at physics.
Self Bias Resistor "Anyone who can contemplate quantum mechanics without getting dizzy hasn't understood it." -Niels Bohr
I think it's really sad when record companies are stifling technological innovation just because it means the end of the Big Five screwing artists and the consumers by getting fat on big profits. If CD's weren't the price they were today chances are you would be worrying less about piracy and the "threat" of MP3 to the current order of things.
MP3 is the format that puts the power back to the artist and the consumer where it belongs. You can't stop it, so the only smart thing to do is not to fight it but to roll with it. Take advantage of the MP3 explosion. If MP3 is so widespread then use it to spread word about new music (like MP3.com) and to make more money. But unless the Big Five pulls their head of their ass then they'll suffer the consequences.
Self Bias Resistor
"You'll never need more then 640k of memory." -Bill Gates
Wasn't Intel or someone else experimenting with a design that had channels in the circuits that conducted and dissipated heat so that a cooling fan would be unnecessary?
Self Bias Resistor
"You know you're successful when you've pissed off your parents."
So let me get this straight. At 16 years old you are allowed to have sex, have control over medical treatment and be legally seperated from your parents but you can't go out and buy a copy of Half-Life or Soldier Of Fortune because some grumpy old bastard Senator with his head firmly implanted in his ass says that you shouldn't view such "objectionable content"? If you'r allowed to do such things at 16, then what's the deal with buying a Mature game. Isn't a 16-year-old mature enough?
This is exactly the kind of idiocy and blatant ignorance that is perpetuated and, hell, even rewarded in US Congress and in the general public. Blaming violent video games and heavy music on the problems kids face today is not the answer. I know that it's already been said a million times in a million chat rooms by a million teenagers AND a million extra reasonable adults (a rarity I know) but it's exactly this point that the people in power are not facing. Normally, you'd expect that the people that are elected to Congress display at least some degree of intelligence and common sense but these latest comments by ill-informed knuckle-headed twits like Senator Jeff Sessions defy belief. His dubious theory of young kids who are exposed to violent video games becoming violent is essentially a crock of shit because it relies solely on the notion that kids can't distinguish fantasy and reality. The fact that statistics freely available from the Department of Justice show a decrease in violent crime as video game and music sales increase is the nail in the coffin for the so-called "protection" of children (read as thin disguise for censorship agenda).
We live in a violent society. It's a regrettable fact but still unavoidable. Just watch the freakin' news! Children are allowed to see graphics pictures of the Vietnam War yet can't see less graphic images playing Soldier Of Fortune is inexcusable. It's essentially denying reality and keeping the public in a dream world.
If you don't like Postal, Carmageddon, Half-Life or any other game intended for a mature audience then don't buy it! But don't screw it up for the rest of us because you're incapable of not giving a shit. Because aren't video games meant to be fun?
Self Bias Resistor
"A minute ago this was the safest job in the world. Now it's turning into a bad day in Bosnia." - Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels
Slashdot Mirror
It's an interesting thought, but I think you're missing the point of supercavitation. Supercavitation is only truly effective (and truly possible) with vessels that are completely submerged in water (eg. submarines, torpedoes and the like). It works by creating a renewable pocket of air around the vessel, so that very little of the liquid touches the surface of the vessel. This reduces the vessel's viscous drag (bearing in mind that the resistance of water is somewhere in the order of 1400 times that of air) and allows it to travel much faster. This isn't the sort of thing that can't be done with a partly submerged vessel, as is the case here.
If you're interested in learning more about the specifics of supercavitation, then is an article on the Scientific American website and two articles on Slashdot (here and here). It should be interesting to see what the possible future applications of this technology would be. As always any constructive criticism is welcome.
Self Bias Resistor
Does anyone have any web pages that are more specific about the technical aspects of construction, such as material composition and so forth? The fact that this craft looks to be capable of 50 knots (92.60000000000001 km/h or 53.895mph thanks to Suntron Velocity Conversion) means that it would have to be constructed out of some pretty space-age type of materials (Carbon Steel, Titanium alloys and Carbon Fibre Composite come to mind here). The problem with the link provided by Slashdot is, besides the grammar difficulties involved in the translation from French (or any other language for that matter) to English, is that the details are sketchy and therefore it amounts to little more than your average press release. So if anyone has any interesting info they can post here, then go right ahead.
At any rate, I think the fact that this design was assisted by such large organisations as EADS (European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company) and CNES (Center National Space Studies) means that there's some pretty serious money being invested in this project. Also, the expertise being invested here is also amazing, given that the project has backgrounds in such high-tech fields as aeronautical and space engineering. So it's very likely that this will be more than a flash in the pan and that this will pave the way for bigger and more ambitious projects.
Self Bias Resistor
One of the key points that hasn't really been looked at enough is the fact that Microsoft's monopoly (for all intents and purposes) allows them an incredible amount of leverage with regards to the development of new products for Windows. Microsoft Windows, whatever version you use, is the operating system of 90% of the world's desktop computers (servers are a different matter although Microsoft does have significant market share in that department, too). This means that if you want your product to be efficient, easy to use and powerful (in other words, if you want people to want to use it) then you need access to the Windows source code. And since Windows is part of the closed-source old-school business world, then you have to do things Microsoft's way. And if you don't like it, then fine. They can find another business that will, or develop their own product and use their leverage in the OS market to drive you into the ground - one example most commonly referred to is the MSIE/Netscape debate, where MS's "incorporation" of its free browser reduced Netscape's market share from 80% to 50% in about two years (if anyone has any further details or constructive to add here feel free to post them).
So it doesn't come as any suprise to me that Kodak is getting its ass kicked by Microsoft in the same way that Netscape was. My question here is shouldn't this be under scrutiny by the Department of Justice (a department that many people regard as a toothless tiger, but they do the important task of bringing attention to such issues) in the same way that other similar tactics were during the antitrust investigation? All constructive comments are welcome.
Self Bias Resistor
I have serious concerns for the methods used by the Tampa State Police to find people with outstanding arrest warrants. My question is what if someone was photographed and because of the light or if the conditions were right then could they be falsely identified as someone else with an outstanding warrant?
Unless there's a human around to verify that the photographs are correct (as is the case with automated speed cameras in my country, Australia) then bad things could happen. False identification issues aside, I still don't think this is a good idea because it means that someone is collecting information on you without your knowledge or permission. And since this is done without your knowing, you're not always able to verify that the information collected about you is correct.
It might also be interesting to know that the Visionics website has a whole host of press releases concerning the use of FaceIt technology in places like Birmingham City Centre, London, in Iceland's Keflavk airport as part of the upgrade of their CCTV system, in the Oklahoma State Investigation Bureau as part of their Law Enforcement Identification Solution, in Mexico to eliminate duplicate voter registrations, in Rhode Island and even in the largest police department in Australia. In fact, the United States Immigration & Naturalisation Service (INS) has placed a $7.4 million order for an additional 276 live scan systems.
So while this development is not new, it's still worrying because it means that your freedom is now in the hands of computer software which is just as fallable and exploitable as the people who wrote it.
Self Bias Resistor
The problem with the arguments of the pro-censor lobby in that we must "protect" children from the harmful elements that exist on the Internet (George W. Bush is famously quoted as saying that the Internet "can turn [children's] hearts black") is that there is no proof either way. Just as there is no conclusive evidence that proves that a direct, cause-and-effect link doesn't exist between usage of the Internet and its effects on your child's/teenager's wellbeing, doesn't mean that it does exist. So both sides here can be accused of churning out biased, emotional and illogical crap in equal measures because there is this lack of proof either way.
The only fair way to decide on issues such as this is on a case-by-case basis after looking at all the facts (such as the maturity of the child and previous experience). If you believe that your 15-year-old can take care of themselves on the Internet (which the vast majority of well-adjusted teenagers with a minor degree of common sense can do anyway), then let them have unrestricted access to the Internet. It's impossible to teach your kids any degree of responsibility and to teach them how to handle themselves in the "real world" if we are continually shielding them from it. There's not much on the Internet that kids/teenagers won't come into contact to through the "real world" and if you don't know this by now then you really have a lot to learn about life.
So if you believe your kids/teenagers aren't ready for the joys (and dangers) that the Internet may hold then by all means install the software but make sure that you've talked it over with your son/daughter before you decide. If they feel that they are being left out of the decision- making process then they will most likely not feel compelled to follow your "rules". What we do need here is discussion, fact-finding and to include the kids/teenagers (ie. the people we are apparently trying to protect) in the process. What we don't need is inflammatory, baseless, "immediate action" rhetoric that only results in "Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt" (FUD) and reactionary legislation that in the end does nothing to protect these people anyway (and never mind the JonKatz cracks).
Self Bias Resistor
"If it's stupid but it works, then it's not stupid." - Murphy's Laws of Combat
First post insanity aside (trust me, it's only fun for about 5 minutes and bad for your karma because moderators despise it), there's this quote featured in the CNN article (yes, I do actually read the related articles before posting flamebait):
"Our goal with the software is to reveal how Web bugs are tracking all of us on the Internet and to get companies to 'fess up' about why they are using them," Richard Smith, the Privacy Foundation's chief technology officer, wrote in his privacy tip sheet.
"Any company that uses Web bugs on their site should say so clearly in their privacy policies and explain the following: why they are being used, what data is sent by a bug, who gets the data, and what they are doing with it," he added.
There are two things that I'd like to point out about those statements. First of all, companies with web sites are (in most countries) legally required to tell you about what kind of data they collect and what they do with it. The majority of such privacy statements either consist of the usual "we don't collect any information that can personally identify you" variety or they are hidden beneath so many links at the very bottom of the most obscure pages in the site that your average user never reads them.
Second of all, I agree with your point regarding the suggestion that companies should be required to thoroughly explain what kind of bugs they use (if any), what's sent and received and where the data goes. I personally think it's a great idea. And it's all well and good for sites that deploy their own web bugs. But what about the web sites who use web bugs belonging to other websites (e.g sites who use DoubleClick web bugs, or Slashdot using a web bug from OSDN)? The application should be the same, of course, but how is that handled from a legal perspective? Who is responsible for the "bug"? The company who wrote/owns it, or the company that deploys it? Answers to any of these questions are more than welcome (particularly by someone involved in the legal profession), as I'm sure that there's at least some of us Slashdot readers that would like to know.
Self Bias Resistor
"Imagination is more important that knowledge." - Albert Einstein
I think that Thomson can't and should not succeed for a number of different reasons.
Therefore, the chances of Thomson achieving their goal is quite remote considering the number of obstacles in their way and the considering that the hardware makers have historically been very resistant in implementing these changes from Day One. There are just too many obstacles in the way for them to succeed.
Self Bias Resistor
"When the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is no longer our friend." - Murphy's Laws Of Combat
My main point (expressed rather poorly, I'll be the first to admit) was not that video games did cause violence, but that the argument that "no study has shown they do" is an argument that really doesn't win many points
Point taken. But what I was arguing was not so much that video games don't cause violence because there is no proof (and to be fair that argument is somewhat defensive), but that there is no proof either way. No study has conclusively shown beyond a reasonable doubt that video games either do or don't cause violence because, like you said, not enough time has passed for the study of violence in our culture (which I would argue is not at saturation point) to be observed in any substantial way.
And, to be fair, I wasn't making a personal attack on you specifically not reading the whole story before you post, but as a general comment to the Slashdot readers who don't observe this crucial step. And I will be fair in saying that there are politicians out there who do know about these issues and do their research and don't do speeches by soundbites. But it's the ones who don't that worry me because some politicians do this and it's when the really good comments are drowned out by the rhetorical rubbish of these ignorant politicians that I start to worry.
So I'd just like to say that you had some good points there, but to legislate against the "harmful" effects of media violence when (as you rightly said) we don't know exactly what effect, if any, that this violence is having is a path we should not go down.
Self Bias Resistor
"I don't think video games are affecting kids. If Pac Man had affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in dark rooms, munching on pills and listening to repetitive music." - Unknown
Unfortunately Inazuma, you appear to be missing the point. While JonKatz can often get a little emotional in his writing, he does have a point in that there is no direct connection that you can make between playing a violent video game (e.g. Counter-Strike) and real-life violence. If such a link existed, then there would be a rise in violent crime to support the rise in video game usage. The fact is that there is no such statistical link and furthermore, your claim that violent video games "help" a violent person down the "path of violence" is misleading because it ignores the fact that the individual was predisposed to violence anyway, and the fact that he played video games was actually a very minor factor. Study after study has shown that poverty, real-life violence, harassment and bullying are amongst the main causes of violence and that video games in the vast majority of cases aren't a factor at all.
The truth is that children (and teenagers) learn so much more from the real world (ie. what kids are in when they're not playing Quake 3) than they do from video games. Many violent crimes are committed by people who grew up in poverty and where violence was a daily, accepted practice in real life. Furthermore, repeated, continual schoolyard harassment and bullying as well as the inability of administrators to do something about it is what causes events such as Columbine. Combine that with the impulsiveness of adolesence and the easy access to firearms (which should always remain secure in your home) and you have your school massacre. Sure, the killers played violent video games, but the step from playing Doom to planning and actually committing a violent crime of such a magnitude is so large that the vast majority of the population will never take that step. Also, the idea that games desensitise children to violence holds no ground when one truly considers how realistic games are. Even the most realistic violent game around (eg. Soldier Of Fortune) pales in comparison to the real-life act of violence. There, it's so much more shocking because it's real, and you can't press Stop or select Quit to make it go away.
The proposed legislation is, in fact, unconstitutional because it takes away the person's right to choose what they want to do. If you don't want to play violent video games, then don't. Just don't ruin it for the rest of us who are able to realise that in the end, it's just entertainment. Granted, there are restrictions on your personal freedom (eg. can't murder/steal/etc) but these are more often than not for a good reason. Public indecency laws are questionable in their nature and often assume the role of defacto public censorship. While it's true that JonKatz needs more to back up some of his statements (something we all need to do more often), it's the ignorance of the elected representatives that worrys people because more often than not they don't do the proper research and their speeches consist of not much more than soundbites for the 6:00 news. These result in knee-jerk legislation that is not properly considered before being rushed through so that the government can say that it's "protecting children", which is supposed to be the responsibility of the parents. Parents need to take a more active role in their children's lives, and be open-minded about what their kids play.
So please, do post to Slashdot if you feel the need to comment about issues such as these, seeing as how America's a democracy and all. But try to think it through before you do so, otherwise your comments might be equally misleading as some of Katz's.
Self Bias Resistor
"For if you doubt your courage or your strength, come ne'er further. For death awaits ye with nasty, big pointy teeth." - John Cleese, Monty Python & The Quest For The Holy Grail
I think it would be wise to point out that the idea of corporate control over media is not exactly a new idea here. The vast majority of newspapers that (more than several) people read are owned by two men. Rupert Murdoch and Kerry Packer, both of whom also own large chunks of our commercial, free-to-air television (Packer owns Channel 9, for instance). Murdoch's News Limited company is also the part owner of Foxtel Australia (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).
Now both "media moguls" have been attempting to "modify" (ie. dissolve) cross-media ownership laws that control how much and what types of media that they can legally own. This is done through control of the print media, which involves being very selective, not about what you report (which would be too obvious) but how you report it. This involves things such as politically motivated editorials and the way articles, particularly articles concerning politics, are written. At election time, our government being the poll-driven, reactionary PR machine that it is (the Liberals more so), the media suddenly holds more power because the coverage of election-time events (particularly the election itself) can subtly influence the election results.
This phenomena is particularly evident during the HDTV debacle, where the moguls wanted the proposed restrictions on datacasting lifted so that they could provide extra services besides just TV. So far, at least, these efforts have not been successful and as a result HDTV is simply not much more than glorified (and digitised) free-to-air TV broadcast about 10 seconds later. Hence, it makes this story about the ACCC (a government body) taking an interest in the legal conflict with DVD region encoding a little more interesting. Especially when the ACCC has in the past been regarded as little more than the government's toothless tiger. So I doubt that much can be done by the ACCC about this region encoding debacle, considering that the companies who instituted this system are US-owned. And since the practice of region encoding is deemed entirely legal in the US, the strategy we should be taking at this stage is not a direct legal challenge to the system of region encoding but a way around the system as is proposed here (ie. make all DVD players available in Australia multi-zone capable). Although given that the Australian media moguls are part of multi-national companies this may make things difficult. But I'd personally like to see it happen.
Self Bias Resistor
"If it's stupid but it works, then it's not stupid." - Murphy's Laws of Combat
It's quite obvious that censorship of the Internet does not work for a variety of reasons:
Whatever way you look at it, sooner or later the madness has to stop. So what do you do about it? Make your views known at election time. Vote for the party based on its long-term goals, not one that's willing to screw the country for short-term gain and the vote of some old-fashioned politicians who have no idea how the world really works. If you don't like what the Liberals are doing, then it's simple. Vote them out. Something has to be done before this goes too far.
Self Bias Resistor
"No one expects the Spanish Inquisition." - Monty Python
Intel's gotten badly burned a couple of times lately trying to lead the market places it didn't want to go.
True, Intel's previous efforts to introduce technology that goes beyond x86 but that can easily be explained by the introduction of such technologies when the market was not ready. So the question here is, when will the market be ready? Most likely when serious deficiencies are shown to be inherent in x86 and the demand for better stuff is there. That's the key. Supply and demand. There's absolutely no use having supply if there's no demand.
Self Bias Resistor
Imagination is more important than knowledge. - Albert Einstein
Intel has been using the same basic archetecture for the past 20 years.
The question that must be posed after bitching about Intel's dogged adherence to the x86 architecture is how will you get the world to change from x86 when we are already heading towards the dream of one billion connected devices, all using x86? If we suddenly decide to change to a completely new way of processing then we are going to render all of these one billion connected devices entirely obsolete - and you thought you had enough trouble keeping up with clock speed changes!
It's the same problem with the oil industry. There are too many people who have invested too much time, people and money into petroleum fuel for it to be chucked away at a moment's notice. That's the reason we're not driving Hydrogen-fuelled fuel cell cars now. So it obviously seems that if Intel won't make the switch to the next level (whatever that is) then we're going to be using the same old shit for the next 20 years!
Self Bias Resistor
Computer: A device that multiplies a user's ability to make mistakes.
If anyone needs the address for the Freenet website then here it is:
http://freenet.sourceforge.net
Self Bias Resistor
"If ye doubt your courage or your strength, then come ne'er further. For death awaits ye with large big pointy teeth." - John Cleese, Monty Python and the Quest For The Holy Grail
If this new technology becomes reasonable in price, then it would be a complete kick up the ass for home movies and DVD. If it can project with the image quality it says it has, then watching The Matrix on the big screen is going to be a whole lot more fun than having to buy a 120cm rear-projection TV! Imagine Quake 3:Arena on your living room wall...
Self Bias Resistor
"You've got a half-stoned girl under one arm, and a bag of fertiliser under the other. You don't look like your average horti-fuckin-culturalist!" - Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels
With all these questions flying around about the quality of the audio/video in this new videophonee system, perhaps the AV content could be encoded using MPEG-4 (Windows Media perhaps, considering the phones run on Windows)? If what we need is acceptable video and sound quality at low bitrates (ie. QCIF or 160x120-size MS-MPEG4 V3 video, 8kHz Mono ACELP.net 5kbit audio) then maybe MPEG-4 is the codec we're looking for?
I mean, it's just a thought and any further comment/constructive criticism on that topic would be welcome but considering that MPEG-4 was designed for exactly this purpose (ie. mobile video telephony), it would be a good idea wouldn't it?
Self Bias Resistor
Never met a wise man, if so it's a woman. - Territorial Pissings, Nirvana
"An Australian listed company, Autogen, has acquired research rights to the Kingdom of Tonga's gene pool. The Pacific island's 108,000 residents will be used by the company to identify genes that cause common diseases. Autogen says serum or DNA samples collected in Tonga shall remain the property of Tonga, while Autogen will build the genetic database on which the research will be based."
Arguably, the big concern in the purchase of the genome (ie. genetic information) about a given population is not the fact that people are literally being "bought" by corporations (which is entirely false because they have only bought the information regarding the people's DNA for research) but that this information might be misused by insurance companies.
Insurance companies charge people on the basis of risk. The higher the risk, the higher the premium. The risk with DNA is that if the insurance company finds out that a person is prone to a particular disease or condition (such as heart disease or diabetes) then the insurance company might charge a higher premium or even deny insurance altogether, because the person presents too great a risk.
This would make medical (and other types of) insurance harder to get because of people's genetic history, something which they cannot change. It's not the purchase of genetic information that we have to worry about, but the exploitation of that information for commercial gain at the expense of the people.
- Self Bias Resistor
"Anyone who says that money is the root of all evil, hasn't got any!" - Ben Affleck, Boiler Room
I think that far from putting a stop to the development of a Dreamcast PC card, Sega should be putting all their effort and marketing might behind it.
Consider, for a moment, Sega's financial position. They've been losing money for the past four (count 'em four) financial quarters and they need the money. A Dreamcast PC card would dramatically increase the revenue Sega gets from games sales would help their financial woes and would open them up to a whole new untapped market. I mean, the PC market would benefit greatly from Sega's gamemaking expertise.
So if Sega were smart, then they could save themselves the uphill battle against the marketing and corporate juggernaut of Sony and give themselves an edge selling to the PC market who are fussy about quality of software and hence would take to Sega's longstanding history of making great games. So what I'm saying is Sega - use this opportunity because it will give you the advantage like nothing else. Because if there's anything Sega needs right now, it's an advantage.
Self Bias Resistor
"Honestly, babe, the world is being FedEx-ed to hell in a package." -Nicolas Cage, The Rock
I think the main thing that people are forgetting here is that it's not the fact that computers on the Internet are just physically connected by copper wires, fibre optics, DSL or microwave that makes us connected in a way. I mean, if you really think about the Internet in terms of what actually happens, this so-called "virtual community" hype is just the transfers of zeros and ones from computer to computer and back again.
What makes these "virtual communities" communities is the interaction between people, not software and hardware. It's the human factor that makes the Internet what it is today. This idea of a virtual community is merely an extension of our real-life communities. What people do online is a supplement to what people do offline. People still work, drive, read newspapers, watch TV, play with their kids and their friends and do normal human stuff. They just happen to log onto a website (like Slashdot) for a couple or more hours a day to find information that they are looking for.
The real point of this is that virtual communites are only real because people make them real. Computers are always exchanging data, but it takes people to take that data and convert it to information, to give it some meaning so it actually makes sense. Without people, virtual communities wouldn't exist.
Self Bias Resistor
Open the pod bay doors, HAL.
I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that - 2001: A Space Odyssey
I like the concept because it's very original. I mean, you never see this kind of game show around very often and it's great way to recycle :-). It would appeal to geeks, true because it challenges you to construct something from bitty parts and to use your skills to build something. Kinda like Lego with bigger and dirtier parts...
Self Bias Resistor
"You'll never need more than 640k of memory." -Bill Gates
There is a theoretical superconductor that is a long n-alkane-like hydrocarbon chain with regularly spaced halogen molecules outboard to the backbone. The theoretical stats were impressive, something like superconductivity to 200 degrees C. The problem was forming the molecules long enough to be useful and then orienting them.
There are hydrocarbons that can perform this type of function and they are called Buckminsterfullerines. They come in two main varieties: Buckyballs (soccer-ball type molecules - C60 and C90) and Buckytubes (long Carbon nanotubes). Buckytubes are nanometres wide but can be made to incredible lengths (theoretically they can bypass the typical 70-mile length limit of regular cables). These tubes can be made to such incredible lengths by chemically bonded the ends of each piece of tubing together. Does this STM process have anything to do with that? Because to construct long Buckytubes, you would need to manipulate molecules at the atomic level which this STM process can provide.
Apparently these Buckytubes can be used to make ultra-small circuits. Which should bring computers up to enough speed to complete one of those bloody SETI@home packets in less than a day!
Self Bias Resistor
"You gotta save yourselves, from yourselves." - Rennes, Cube
it could be a waste of money simply to search for black holes.
I disagree because it's not the fact that we find the black holes because we can. We look for them because of what we can learn from them. Black holes and worm holes bend spacetime to such a degree that they may open up ideas for future space travel. Theoretically, physics does allow objects to travel from Point A to Point B faster than light in a straight line by taking a short cut through black holes and worm holes. So if we can do that, then we'll have learned something from black holes that will not only revolutionise space travel but the way we look at physics.
Self Bias Resistor
"Anyone who can contemplate quantum mechanics without getting dizzy hasn't understood it." -Niels Bohr
I think it's really sad when record companies are stifling technological innovation just because it means the end of the Big Five screwing artists and the consumers by getting fat on big profits. If CD's weren't the price they were today chances are you would be worrying less about piracy and the "threat" of MP3 to the current order of things.
MP3 is the format that puts the power back to the artist and the consumer where it belongs. You can't stop it, so the only smart thing to do is not to fight it but to roll with it. Take advantage of the MP3 explosion. If MP3 is so widespread then use it to spread word about new music (like MP3.com) and to make more money. But unless the Big Five pulls their head of their ass then they'll suffer the consequences.
Self Bias Resistor
"You'll never need more then 640k of memory." -Bill Gates
Wasn't Intel or someone else experimenting with a design that had channels in the circuits that conducted and dissipated heat so that a cooling fan would be unnecessary?
Self Bias Resistor
"You know you're successful when you've pissed off your parents."
So let me get this straight. At 16 years old you are allowed to have sex, have control over medical treatment and be legally seperated from your parents but you can't go out and buy a copy of Half-Life or Soldier Of Fortune because some grumpy old bastard Senator with his head firmly implanted in his ass says that you shouldn't view such "objectionable content"? If you'r allowed to do such things at 16, then what's the deal with buying a Mature game. Isn't a 16-year-old mature enough?
This is exactly the kind of idiocy and blatant ignorance that is perpetuated and, hell, even rewarded in US Congress and in the general public. Blaming violent video games and heavy music on the problems kids face today is not the answer. I know that it's already been said a million times in a million chat rooms by a million teenagers AND a million extra reasonable adults (a rarity I know) but it's exactly this point that the people in power are not facing. Normally, you'd expect that the people that are elected to Congress display at least some degree of intelligence and common sense but these latest comments by ill-informed knuckle-headed twits like Senator Jeff Sessions defy belief. His dubious theory of young kids who are exposed to violent video games becoming violent is essentially a crock of shit because it relies solely on the notion that kids can't distinguish fantasy and reality. The fact that statistics freely available from the Department of Justice show a decrease in violent crime as video game and music sales increase is the nail in the coffin for the so-called "protection" of children (read as thin disguise for censorship agenda).
We live in a violent society. It's a regrettable fact but still unavoidable. Just watch the freakin' news! Children are allowed to see graphics pictures of the Vietnam War yet can't see less graphic images playing Soldier Of Fortune is inexcusable. It's essentially denying reality and keeping the public in a dream world.
If you don't like Postal, Carmageddon, Half-Life or any other game intended for a mature audience then don't buy it! But don't screw it up for the rest of us because you're incapable of not giving a shit. Because aren't video games meant to be fun?
Self Bias Resistor
"A minute ago this was the safest job in the world. Now it's turning into a bad day in Bosnia." - Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels