Since courts in most states that do not have UTICA laws have found EULAs to be invalid contracts, this clause will probably only be effective in UTICA states. Since most of the versions of UTICA kicking around require lawsuits related to software agreements be tried in the state in question, this clause will most likely not be enforced even in UTICA states. IANAL, but legally this clause seems to be toothless pretty much regaurdless. The whole thing seems more like scare tactics than anything....
Great conspiricy theory, but it (like most gran conspiricy theories) ignores one fact. The federal government is nnot some huge well oiled machine that takes actions with a with unitary goals in mind. It is a huge behemoth with thousands of agaencies and millions of people all trying to make themselves or their department look like the most important thing in Washington. Most of these people never talk to each other, and a lot of the ones that do have to talk to each other don't like each other. Agencies of the executive answer to the president, but often do things that individual presidents don't know about and may well disapprove of. The level of collution you speak of between n agency of the executive, and the legislature is not likely, the FBI can barly get congress to accept that carnivore is a moderatly good idea... They certainly aren't going to get them to pass laws for the purpose of indirectly helping them implement the system maybe six or seven years down the line.
Umm... YOu're not really supposed to be able to understand scientific journals unless you have background knowledege. Articles in journals are by experts for experts. If you want data digestable by "everyman" wait for the terciary literature. Hell the knowledge required to understand some of this stuff is such that if you have Phd in physics and specialise in one subject, you really don't understand what another PhD in physic (who specialises in another area) does. If this stuff was easilly accesable and understandable, you wouldn't need to soend year of your life gettting a PhD and more year on reasearch to do it.
Well, I don't specifically know of any servers that does this, bbut CGI Programing with Perl from O'Reilley's reccomends checksums as a way to vailidate CGI input... Seems similar enough to me to warretn a prior art claim
PS: if you wanted to beat it down, you should have just said they ripped of the story from the Christian Bible... OH WAIT! that describes Star Wars too...
Hell, that describes many of the major works of science fiction and fanasy in existance, and no small part of more mainstream litereature. Examples, just off the Top of my head, include: The Lord of the Rings, The Cronicles of Narnia, The Foundation, The Aurthurean Legends, The cycles of Finn MacCool (an ancient Irish cycle), Braveheart, even Titanic. The concepts of death and rebirth, sacrifice bringing new life, etc. are among the oldest literary archtypes. The idea of the "forever hero" has been analysed to death by students of literature, socialology, comparitive religions, and virtually every other social science out there, but it continues to compell us despite itself. The Christian Bible "stole" the story from the Mithric cults of Rome, who "stole" from the rites of Isis and Osirus, which probably "stole" from some even earlier and unremembered cult. Not that I am disagreeing with you... the story is borrowed, but it is borrowed from one of the most long standing traditions in literature.
He didn't have to break any encryption to reverse engineer the game, so I don't think DCMA applies (IANAL). He is only distrubuting a patch to the ROM, not a modified ROM, so all the code being distributed by this person is his own. He may have some Copyright issues, but I don't think so (this is similar to fan fiction I think). If you're going to be a troll, at least be subtle
This stuff has always been volitile. We have a fraction of the historical data we would like to have from any time period. Yes, the letters of the Medici are still around and available, similarly the corresponsdence of the major players of our time will be archived (either electronically or in hard copy. Probably both.) The letters of the common man were as often discarded in times past as e-mail is today. Some of it will not doubt still be around (just as the data on many of those eight inch disks still survives on more modern media today), but the vast majority will be lost. This is fine, especially since there is a finite amount of data that historians can analyse anyway. Generally speaking it is nearly impossible to tell what will or will not be historically sigifigant from the point of event origins anyway. I would venture to say that considering the level of literacy in our culture today, and the varied data storage mediums available, historians will have far more data from our time than current historians have from anytime before World War II.
You're right, and that is exactly the problem. I think Katz has hit on something here, but you have to understand the history and culture of both countries to really grasp it. This situation was most likely not the fault of the US, and we would NEVER apologise for something that was not our fault. As Katz says, Bush would be eaten alive by congress and the electorate. We have a culture that does like to aplologise, but hates and loathes to apologise for something it doesn't believe it did. You might convince Bush to say he was sorry if he thought it was our fault, but he doesn't and isn't likely to be convinced (for once I agree with him).
China has a very different culture. As far as the the Chinese Gov't is concerned, bad things are NEVER the fault of the the Chinese gov't. When Governments are to blame for bad things, the mandate of Heaven that allows them to rule is in jeapardy, and that is very serious. China will insist on an apology. They could find a black box from the Chinese plane in which the pilot says "Damn, how foolish of me. I have run into a defenseless plane over international waters, because of a boneheaded manuver on my part. This entire incident is my fault and I must die now as my plane hits the water." and the Chinese would still demand an apology. They have to... to do otherwise shows unconciousable weakness, and admit fault (which is of course impossible.) It is also typical of Chinese culture for the weakest party in any confillct to apologise for it, again, regaudles of fault. This means that in addition to admitting to making mistakes (impossible), the Chinese gov't would also have to admit that they are the weaker party (never going to happen).
In short, what we have here is a US gov't that cannot apologise (it doesn't need an apology from the Chinese, it's willing to deal with a "no fault" situation), and a Chinese gov't that HAS to have an apology (a determination of fault being needed for the Chinese to show their relative strength, and to prove that they AREN'T at fault). This immpass would be relativly trival of course, if their weren't a US aircrew stuck in China waiting for a resolution. That's what this article is about... Cultural norms getting in the way of practicle resoltion. China is risking it's increasing standing in the international community by insisting on an apology it probably has not right to. Why? cultural norms insist on it. The US is risking the lives of its service members instead of just mealey mouthing a quick "I'm sorry" it doesn't really mean. Why? Cultural norms. Ironically, though I see this, I still agree with the US position. Why? Because I am affected by the same cultural norms. Until someone bends (or the aircrew croaks which will cause a whole new set of issues), this situation will continue.
Why are non-American kids not blowing away their classmates?
Or for that matter, why has this started in the U.S.? I don't think it used to be that common. Part of it is that the current situation has been blown out of proportion. If you listen to the media, there are millions of school kids walking around out there intent on killing or blowing up their school. That's just not the case. I actually heard of some first graders who were suspended for playing cops and robbers because "they were making threats against students".
I think a signifigant issue is media coverage of these events. Things like this most likely did happen in the past, but I doubt they were as as common, and I doubt they were as well reported. I think there is certain vicious circle going on here. The situation feeds on itself. Kids hear about other kids who have done what they have thought of doing, and decide to take action themselves. The media reports these instances and more kids get ideas. This is hardly the only cause, but I think one can attribute a certain amount of the "rash" of school shootings to copy cat crime. Most of these kids would not have had the guts (or perhaps not even the idea) if someone else hadn't done it first. There are many contributing cuases to crimes like this, but at this point, and in this time, I think a major factor for the sheer numbers of these crimes is the fact that kids see other kids getting away with it (note: I realize that in most of our minds these kids are not "getting away with it" they are either killing themselves as part of the deal, or getting lengthly prison sentences. It would seem however, that in the minds of certain of their peers, they have in fact gotten away with it.)
Unfortunatly, i do not know that there is real solution to this particular cause. Any attempt to prevent the reporting of these events is doomed to failure, and counter to what most Americans (including myself) consider right. "Protecting" children from the news of these events wouls most likely be counter-productive, and exacerbate other contibuting causes (most of us here would agree that if anything children are already to "protected" from real life). Perhaps an effort to really talk to kids about these crimes, and how they make the kids feel would be the best measure (not a "How to spot the Phsycos in your class" talk, but rather a real parent child "what do these events say to you" talk)
What'd you miss out on college? All the benefits you mention to high school, plus your psrents aren't around to bug you, you only have classes a few hours a day, and the people are (in general) much nicer. High School sucked, undergrad was the best time of my life. (Officer Basic Course wasn't bad either, but there was a good bit more responsibility to go with the fun)
The real difference is that Cable modems are variable speeds, a lot like a shared T1, while DSL is guaranteed throughput at the speed you pay for. If you pay for 128kbps, you get it (anything slower is the other side's fault).
You're assuming business class DSL here I'm guessing? I typically get between 400 and 600 Kbs down, and about 200Kbs up (Telocity ADSL, New Orleans, LA), but I have no guarentee on either. Basically we get what we get (not that I'm complaining, the service is rarely a problem, and the bandwidth usually quite good, but not gaurenteed). I like Telocity for the static IP (Only service in the area that guarentees my IP won't change, and encourages servers while most are forbiding them), and their server policies, but I would not use them for anything mission critical. My business (if such a thing existed) would have SDSL through a large provider like PSI, or a fractional T-1.
I've seen articles about advertisers spying on downloads in order to send "targeted ads", usually in the form of instant messages, to users about other products/songs/whatever they may be intrerested in. These protocols are totally open, so basically anyone can see waht you trade.
However, with a DOCSYS cable modem (virtually all, now), all the traffic between your modem and the head-end router are encrypted with DES (with DH key exchange IIRC). Also, there is also authentication done via the MAC address of the device(s) connected to the cable modem. The cable modem is actually a router, and is not supposed to pass any packets to the LAN other than ones directed to the ip(s) it serves.
This is exactly what I later propose doing to ensure that the ethernet traffic is reasonably secure. So basically the problems and solutions are similar, which is what I thought.
A large percentage of your total bandwidth is taken up by protocol overheads - frame headers, packet headers, control messages, which is why your maximum effective data transfer rate is going to be around 8 Mb/s on a 10 Mb/sec connection if you are using TCP/IP; probably a little higher if you were using UDP.
Right, that's basically what I meant. Sorry if Iwas unclear (though I don't think I caould honestly say I've even gotten 8Mb/s when I was actrually watching. That may just be my equipment though). My point is the article nicely divided our theoretical 10 Mb pipe into 10 Mb's of data streams, when in reality, some signifigant fraction of that bandwidth will be unavailable for dta at any given time.
Doesn't cable have the same basic issue though... You're still sitting on the same network loop as everyone else in the neighborhood. Actually, a good possible solution to this (considering the amount of bandwidth that would be avavilable) would be to have the subscriber's router and the local exchange router encrypt traffic between them. It would require a bit more power out of the local exchange router, but not so much as to be a huge issue. If each subscriber had their own encryption key, there could be no neighbor snooping. Anyone else see a problem with this scheme?
My issue with the article was this:
The flexibility of such an architecture is enormous. Over one connection, a user could conceivably run an Internet hookup at 6 Mbits/s, four concurrent telephone calls at 0.064 Mbit/s each and four concurrent videophone conversations at up to 768 kbits/s each
I personally have never gotten anything close to 10 Mbits a sec on a 10 Mbit/sec ethernet connection. At best they could reasonably hope for 5, and that would assume nearly ideal conditions.... While we are still talking about a vast improvement, I think they are being a little optimistic.
I do systems work for a math deptarment at a large university. One of our Professors is very involved in using computation and simulation to study various bio-medical phenomenon. Simulation is an important part of her work. By taking experimantal data, she can create simulation models that closely approximate the "real" world. Experimental data is needed to create these models, and then to validate results, but simulation is useful for running multiple senerios to see where to look for experimental research. I don't think that simulations will ever totally replace experimentation, but it will increasingly focus it, and reduce the amount of experimentation necesary to gather specific data.
I don't entirely understand your comment. My point was that I could build (or buy complete for that matter) a more powerful PC for around the price of the Imac. The PC I designed had every advantage over the Imac listed, and you can do even better than that these days just by going to buy a Compaq or Dell. Plus, with a PC I can just open it up and upgrade whatever I want whenever I want (this is true about non-Imac Macs as well, but we were specifically talking about an Imac here). "Real People" do indeed open up their computers and upgrade hardware too. My dad just put in a larger hard drive. I talked him through it on the phone, and the whole thing took 30 minutes. Why would I want to replace my workstation with a $900 Imac and retire my current workstation, when instead I could replace it with a $900 PC that is more powerful than the Imac? Now if you want to talk PowerMacs, the whole situation is different, but you still hit the same wall... Apple wants more for a computer than PC vendors want for an equivliant computer. I'm not going to get into a processor holy war, so we will assume that the most powerful G-4 chips are equal to the most powerful x86 chips. Assuming this, you will as a rule get more memory, a larger monitor, more HD space and better video for the same price from a PC vendor than from apple. OSX looks neat, but not neat enough to spend more money on less machine just to run it.
P.S. There's no "garage trick here" I am completely confident in the quality of the components I choose for that system, and my ability to put them together. All of my machines are home built, and I have had fewer problems with them than I ever did when I used to buy boxed systems.
10GB Ultra ATA drive
CD-ROM
RAGE 128 Pro w/ 8MB
10/100BASE-T Ethernet
56K internal modem
15-inch display
Two USB ports
Two FireWire ports
Very nice, let's build a PC for that price.
AMD DURON 850 MHz w/MB (FIC) $200 (Ok, so architecture differences mean this is probably only equal to, not greater than the 400MHz G3)
256 MB PC 133 Corsair RAM $90 (Wow that's alot more).
Generic Case $55
IBM 20 Gig HD $130 (That's twice the size)
Asus 50X CDROM $40.00
Princton 17" Monitor $160 (Two whole extra inches)
A-open PA-3000 TNT2 32MB SGRAM video $60 (That a lot of extra 3-D performance)
Creative SB-Live Value $50
10/100 NIC (Netgear) $20
56K Modem $40 (Diamond)
Sundries (KB, mouse, speakers) $65
$910.
Damn, you beat me by 20 bucks, I don't have firewire. Guess you're right, the Mac is a better deal. Course, I only looked one place.. There are dozens of PC suppliers, and I put this togetheer out of parts, complete boxes are usually a little cheaper thses days. MS will charge you about the same for Win 2k Pro as apple will for OSX, so we're a wash there (unless I use Linux). I know the point you're trying to make, Macs aren't THAT expensive when compared to PCs, but the price to performance ratio is still way off. No to mention the fact that Mac hardware ties you to Apple, whereas with a PC I can alway buy expanstions or upgrades from anyone. The value stills seems to be in the PC world.
I think the thread got confused. At some point someone mentioned that public schools also seem to ignore students first amendment rights (True to an extent, Though they can't get away with wuite as much as private schools). This seems to have confused several people into thinking that either this story involved public schools, or that private schools were also governed byu the same rules.
PThat seems to be what theses scientists are proposing. They mention harvesting the cells from the adults that are sick, and also mention bone marrow stem cells.
Look at the size of the Apollo landers, and of the Saturn V rockets. Notice a difference in size? If you wanted to put one poxy nanobot into space you'd still need huge rocket, as for most of the time the rocket needs to propel itself with its fuel as well as the nanobot.
Your comment ignores two factors. First, although you are right that every a small device would require a huge rocket, I believe the idea behind micro satalites (and a "nanaobot" by extention) is to put large numbers of them into orbit from a single rocket launch. Hence you are saving money by spreading the cost. If (as an example I have no real idea) it costs 2 million to put a small rocket into space, and 200 different companies put microsatilites on the rocket none of the companies has to bear the full cost of the launch, but all get their craft up. Second, if a sufficcently small device could be deisigned, at some point in the future they could be built and launched from the ISS. Thus eliminating the incredible cost of actually putting the object into space (by far the most epensive part of space flight).
Actually they had more, but not better. Most historians estimate that the rifled barrels used by the Colonial military were signifiganly more accurate than the unrifled barrels of the British. At any rate, the point is moot. The briths miliatry wwas foot solider and the colonial were foot soldier both had relativly small amounts of cavalry, and some artillery. Every unit on the field was vulnerable to every other unit. Tactics and individual skill could overcome advantages of superior weaponry and strategy. Comparitivly the current citizenry would be completely ineffective against the US Amry. Hanguns, hunting rifles, shotguns, etc are completely ineffective against armored vehicles, let alone aircraft. If somehow a rebel goup were to get ahold of weapons that were actually able to damage their opponent, who would deploy them prorperly? The colonials borrowed from a long tradition of a standing military seperate from the British. The US has no such corps at this time (don't even talk about militia groups. Most of the members of such societies would not know how to deploy armored forces, aircraft, engineering assets, and mobile artillery pieces effectivly any more than a three year old.) The modern battlefield has gotten to the point where mere guns are barely even a consideration. Even at the squad level foot soldiers carry several antitank weapons just to give them a hope of survival. An M-2 Bradely would make lunch meat out of an entire platoon of men armed only with small arms, You'd never even penetrate the skin, and the 20mm chain gun would cut to ribbons any armor avaiable to civilians. Much better to rely on the constitutional protections against deploying the military inside the US than the second amendment to protect your rights.
Of course, like all security, the more parnoid you are, the more it starts to inconvenience you. With coppermesh in the walls you would be largely unable to use any device that recieves a wireless signal from the inside. No cell phones, no rabbit ears for the extra TV that you don't have cable for, no listening to the radio inside, no HAM radio (unless you use an external antenna), no pagers... You get the picture.
Those are gross margins; The book store sells books for 40-60% more than it paid for them. Same with grocery stores. Actual profits are considerably lower. They have to pay staff, rent, electricity, eat the loss of stolen propery, eat the loss of damaged books retured to them, eat a considerable chunck of the loss on unsold merchandise (You know all those books that sit in the front of the Barnes and Noble, and collect dust wearing 5 and 6 dollar price tags? When they were originally 25 and thirty dollars? You think they make any money off of those?). I used to work in a book store, trust me they don't make 40-60 % net profit.
Microsoft is making 24% net profit. In other words, If I add up everything that MS Spent this year, against everything they earned, they earned 24% more than they spent. Very few bussinesses can claim a 24 % net profit.
This has NOTHING to do with First Amendement which deals with laws restricting speach - merely with not having to pay for it. Ditto NEA issue.
Intriguing. Try this on for size. The parts of the Internet you object to are free with the rest of the internet (Note that I am not saying that Internet access is free, only that the "bad" parts come free as an extra bonus to the "good" parts that yo apparently ARE willing to pay for. Internet porn does not cost anymore than the rest of the Internet). Censorware on the otherhand does incur an additional cost above and beyond that of standard Internet access. So you are in effect not paying for the "bad" stuff on the Internet, but you will be paying to stop it. This lead me to the conclution that either your arguemnet is flawed (you are NOT paying for it) or you are argueing that ALL Internet access should be taken out of the public libraries (At which point you will not be paying for any content, "bad" or "good".)
I also feel compelled to point out that art is intrinsically not like science. It is the Antithesis of science. Science is the purest form of objective work, art the purest form of subjective work. Most of what we as human do blends the two in some way. If art were treated like science it would loose it's value as art.
Finally, let me say that I, no more than you, believe that anyone should be able to veiw whatever they want on a public terminal. I simply don't beleive that censorware is a viable judge for what is appropriate. I am personally a fan of the librarian as the judge, since he or she is the person who must answer to the community. if the librarian allows children to view sites that the community would deem inappropriate, it's their butt on the line. This has nothing to do with the First Amendment, but rather with the "Irrate parents will get you ass fired" rule. Make sure terminals are set up to allow the librarian to monitor use. Some stuff will get through, but probably no more or no less thab gets through filtering software, and the chance of things like Breast Cancer Awareness sites being blocked is reduced to nill.
In closing, allow me to point out that I would really like it if this site developed a spell checker.
Slashdot Mirror
Since courts in most states that do not have UTICA laws have found EULAs to be invalid contracts, this clause will probably only be effective in UTICA states. Since most of the versions of UTICA kicking around require lawsuits related to software agreements be tried in the state in question, this clause will most likely not be enforced even in UTICA states. IANAL, but legally this clause seems to be toothless pretty much regaurdless. The whole thing seems more like scare tactics than anything....
Great conspiricy theory, but it (like most gran conspiricy theories) ignores one fact. The federal government is nnot some huge well oiled machine that takes actions with a with unitary goals in mind. It is a huge behemoth with thousands of agaencies and millions of people all trying to make themselves or their department look like the most important thing in Washington. Most of these people never talk to each other, and a lot of the ones that do have to talk to each other don't like each other. Agencies of the executive answer to the president, but often do things that individual presidents don't know about and may well disapprove of. The level of collution you speak of between n agency of the executive, and the legislature is not likely, the FBI can barly get congress to accept that carnivore is a moderatly good idea... They certainly aren't going to get them to pass laws for the purpose of indirectly helping them implement the system maybe six or seven years down the line.
Umm... YOu're not really supposed to be able to understand scientific journals unless you have background knowledege. Articles in journals are by experts for experts. If you want data digestable by "everyman" wait for the terciary literature. Hell the knowledge required to understand some of this stuff is such that if you have Phd in physics and specialise in one subject, you really don't understand what another PhD in physic (who specialises in another area) does. If this stuff was easilly accesable and understandable, you wouldn't need to soend year of your life gettting a PhD and more year on reasearch to do it.
Well, I don't specifically know of any servers that does this, bbut CGI Programing with Perl from O'Reilley's reccomends checksums as a way to vailidate CGI input... Seems similar enough to me to warretn a prior art claim
There is piece of CAD software called ARRIS that has been doing this for years. I rather like it, but it's not that new.
PS: if you wanted to beat it down, you should have just said they ripped of the story from the Christian Bible... OH WAIT! that describes Star Wars too...
Hell, that describes many of the major works of science fiction and fanasy in existance, and no small part of more mainstream litereature. Examples, just off the Top of my head, include: The Lord of the Rings, The Cronicles of Narnia, The Foundation, The Aurthurean Legends, The cycles of Finn MacCool (an ancient Irish cycle), Braveheart, even Titanic. The concepts of death and rebirth, sacrifice bringing new life, etc. are among the oldest literary archtypes. The idea of the "forever hero" has been analysed to death by students of literature, socialology, comparitive religions, and virtually every other social science out there, but it continues to compell us despite itself. The Christian Bible "stole" the story from the Mithric cults of Rome, who "stole" from the rites of Isis and Osirus, which probably "stole" from some even earlier and unremembered cult. Not that I am disagreeing with you... the story is borrowed, but it is borrowed from one of the most long standing traditions in literature.
He didn't have to break any encryption to reverse engineer the game, so I don't think DCMA applies (IANAL). He is only distrubuting a patch to the ROM, not a modified ROM, so all the code being distributed by this person is his own. He may have some Copyright issues, but I don't think so (this is similar to fan fiction I think). If you're going to be a troll, at least be subtle
This stuff has always been volitile. We have a fraction of the historical data we would like to have from any time period. Yes, the letters of the Medici are still around and available, similarly the corresponsdence of the major players of our time will be archived (either electronically or in hard copy. Probably both.) The letters of the common man were as often discarded in times past as e-mail is today. Some of it will not doubt still be around (just as the data on many of those eight inch disks still survives on more modern media today), but the vast majority will be lost. This is fine, especially since there is a finite amount of data that historians can analyse anyway. Generally speaking it is nearly impossible to tell what will or will not be historically sigifigant from the point of event origins anyway. I would venture to say that considering the level of literacy in our culture today, and the varied data storage mediums available, historians will have far more data from our time than current historians have from anytime before World War II.
You're right, and that is exactly the problem. I think Katz has hit on something here, but you have to understand the history and culture of both countries to really grasp it. This situation was most likely not the fault of the US, and we would NEVER apologise for something that was not our fault. As Katz says, Bush would be eaten alive by congress and the electorate. We have a culture that does like to aplologise, but hates and loathes to apologise for something it doesn't believe it did. You might convince Bush to say he was sorry if he thought it was our fault, but he doesn't and isn't likely to be convinced (for once I agree with him).
China has a very different culture. As far as the the Chinese Gov't is concerned, bad things are NEVER the fault of the the Chinese gov't. When Governments are to blame for bad things, the mandate of Heaven that allows them to rule is in jeapardy, and that is very serious. China will insist on an apology. They could find a black box from the Chinese plane in which the pilot says "Damn, how foolish of me. I have run into a defenseless plane over international waters, because of a boneheaded manuver on my part. This entire incident is my fault and I must die now as my plane hits the water." and the Chinese would still demand an apology. They have to... to do otherwise shows unconciousable weakness, and admit fault (which is of course impossible.) It is also typical of Chinese culture for the weakest party in any confillct to apologise for it, again, regaudles of fault. This means that in addition to admitting to making mistakes (impossible), the Chinese gov't would also have to admit that they are the weaker party (never going to happen).
In short, what we have here is a US gov't that cannot apologise (it doesn't need an apology from the Chinese, it's willing to deal with a "no fault" situation), and a Chinese gov't that HAS to have an apology (a determination of fault being needed for the Chinese to show their relative strength, and to prove that they AREN'T at fault). This immpass would be relativly trival of course, if their weren't a US aircrew stuck in China waiting for a resolution. That's what this article is about... Cultural norms getting in the way of practicle resoltion. China is risking it's increasing standing in the international community by insisting on an apology it probably has not right to. Why? cultural norms insist on it. The US is risking the lives of its service members instead of just mealey mouthing a quick "I'm sorry" it doesn't really mean. Why? Cultural norms. Ironically, though I see this, I still agree with the US position. Why? Because I am affected by the same cultural norms. Until someone bends (or the aircrew croaks which will cause a whole new set of issues), this situation will continue.
Why are non-American kids not blowing away their classmates?
Or for that matter, why has this started in the U.S.? I don't think it used to be that common. Part of it is that the current situation has been blown out of proportion. If you listen to the media, there are millions of school kids walking around out there intent on killing or blowing up their school. That's just not the case. I actually heard of some first graders who were suspended for playing cops and robbers because "they were making threats against students".
I think a signifigant issue is media coverage of these events. Things like this most likely did happen in the past, but I doubt they were as as common, and I doubt they were as well reported. I think there is certain vicious circle going on here. The situation feeds on itself. Kids hear about other kids who have done what they have thought of doing, and decide to take action themselves. The media reports these instances and more kids get ideas. This is hardly the only cause, but I think one can attribute a certain amount of the "rash" of school shootings to copy cat crime. Most of these kids would not have had the guts (or perhaps not even the idea) if someone else hadn't done it first. There are many contributing cuases to crimes like this, but at this point, and in this time, I think a major factor for the sheer numbers of these crimes is the fact that kids see other kids getting away with it (note: I realize that in most of our minds these kids are not "getting away with it" they are either killing themselves as part of the deal, or getting lengthly prison sentences. It would seem however, that in the minds of certain of their peers, they have in fact gotten away with it.)
Unfortunatly, i do not know that there is real solution to this particular cause. Any attempt to prevent the reporting of these events is doomed to failure, and counter to what most Americans (including myself) consider right. "Protecting" children from the news of these events wouls most likely be counter-productive, and exacerbate other contibuting causes (most of us here would agree that if anything children are already to "protected" from real life). Perhaps an effort to really talk to kids about these crimes, and how they make the kids feel would be the best measure (not a "How to spot the Phsycos in your class" talk, but rather a real parent child "what do these events say to you" talk)What'd you miss out on college? All the benefits you mention to high school, plus your psrents aren't around to bug you, you only have classes a few hours a day, and the people are (in general) much nicer. High School sucked, undergrad was the best time of my life. (Officer Basic Course wasn't bad either, but there was a good bit more responsibility to go with the fun)
The real difference is that Cable modems are variable speeds, a lot like a shared T1, while DSL is guaranteed throughput at the speed you pay for. If you pay for 128kbps, you get it (anything slower is the other side's fault).
You're assuming business class DSL here I'm guessing? I typically get between 400 and 600 Kbs down, and about 200Kbs up (Telocity ADSL, New Orleans, LA), but I have no guarentee on either. Basically we get what we get (not that I'm complaining, the service is rarely a problem, and the bandwidth usually quite good, but not gaurenteed). I like Telocity for the static IP (Only service in the area that guarentees my IP won't change, and encourages servers while most are forbiding them), and their server policies, but I would not use them for anything mission critical. My business (if such a thing existed) would have SDSL through a large provider like PSI, or a fractional T-1.
I've seen articles about advertisers spying on downloads in order to send "targeted ads", usually in the form of instant messages, to users about other products/songs/whatever they may be intrerested in. These protocols are totally open, so basically anyone can see waht you trade.
However, with a DOCSYS cable modem (virtually all, now), all the traffic between your modem and the head-end router are encrypted with DES (with DH key exchange IIRC). Also, there is also authentication done via the MAC address of the device(s) connected to the cable modem. The cable modem is actually a router, and is not supposed to pass any packets to the LAN other than ones directed to the ip(s) it serves.
This is exactly what I later propose doing to ensure that the ethernet traffic is reasonably secure. So basically the problems and solutions are similar, which is what I thought.
A large percentage of your total bandwidth is taken up by protocol overheads - frame headers, packet headers, control messages, which is why your maximum effective data transfer rate is going to be around 8 Mb/s on a 10 Mb/sec connection if you are using TCP/IP; probably a little higher if you were using UDP.
Right, that's basically what I meant. Sorry if Iwas unclear (though I don't think I caould honestly say I've even gotten 8Mb/s when I was actrually watching. That may just be my equipment though). My point is the article nicely divided our theoretical 10 Mb pipe into 10 Mb's of data streams, when in reality, some signifigant fraction of that bandwidth will be unavailable for dta at any given time.
Doesn't cable have the same basic issue though... You're still sitting on the same network loop as everyone else in the neighborhood. Actually, a good possible solution to this (considering the amount of bandwidth that would be avavilable) would be to have the subscriber's router and the local exchange router encrypt traffic between them. It would require a bit more power out of the local exchange router, but not so much as to be a huge issue. If each subscriber had their own encryption key, there could be no neighbor snooping. Anyone else see a problem with this scheme?
My issue with the article was this:
The flexibility of such an architecture is enormous. Over one connection, a user could conceivably run an Internet hookup at 6 Mbits/s, four concurrent telephone calls at 0.064 Mbit/s each and four concurrent videophone conversations at up to 768 kbits/s each
I personally have never gotten anything close to 10 Mbits a sec on a 10 Mbit/sec ethernet connection. At best they could reasonably hope for 5, and that would assume nearly ideal conditions.... While we are still talking about a vast improvement, I think they are being a little optimistic.
I do systems work for a math deptarment at a large university. One of our Professors is very involved in using computation and simulation to study various bio-medical phenomenon. Simulation is an important part of her work. By taking experimantal data, she can create simulation models that closely approximate the "real" world. Experimental data is needed to create these models, and then to validate results, but simulation is useful for running multiple senerios to see where to look for experimental research. I don't think that simulations will ever totally replace experimentation, but it will increasingly focus it, and reduce the amount of experimentation necesary to gather specific data.
I don't entirely understand your comment. My point was that I could build (or buy complete for that matter) a more powerful PC for around the price of the Imac. The PC I designed had every advantage over the Imac listed, and you can do even better than that these days just by going to buy a Compaq or Dell. Plus, with a PC I can just open it up and upgrade whatever I want whenever I want (this is true about non-Imac Macs as well, but we were specifically talking about an Imac here). "Real People" do indeed open up their computers and upgrade hardware too. My dad just put in a larger hard drive. I talked him through it on the phone, and the whole thing took 30 minutes. Why would I want to replace my workstation with a $900 Imac and retire my current workstation, when instead I could replace it with a $900 PC that is more powerful than the Imac? Now if you want to talk PowerMacs, the whole situation is different, but you still hit the same wall... Apple wants more for a computer than PC vendors want for an equivliant computer. I'm not going to get into a processor holy war, so we will assume that the most powerful G-4 chips are equal to the most powerful x86 chips. Assuming this, you will as a rule get more memory, a larger monitor, more HD space and better video for the same price from a PC vendor than from apple. OSX looks neat, but not neat enough to spend more money on less machine just to run it.
P.S. There's no "garage trick here" I am completely confident in the quality of the components I choose for that system, and my ability to put them together. All of my machines are home built, and I have had fewer problems with them than I ever did when I used to buy boxed systems.
$899.00
400MHz
PowerPC G3
512K L2 cache
(at 160MHz)
64MB SDRAM
10GB Ultra ATA drive
CD-ROM
RAGE 128 Pro w/ 8MB
10/100BASE-T Ethernet
56K internal modem
15-inch display
Two USB ports
Two FireWire ports
Very nice, let's build a PC for that price.
AMD DURON 850 MHz w/MB (FIC) $200 (Ok, so architecture differences mean this is probably only equal to, not greater than the 400MHz G3)
256 MB PC 133 Corsair RAM $90 (Wow that's alot more).
Generic Case $55
IBM 20 Gig HD $130 (That's twice the size)
Asus 50X CDROM $40.00
Princton 17" Monitor $160 (Two whole extra inches)
A-open PA-3000 TNT2 32MB SGRAM video $60 (That a lot of extra 3-D performance)
Creative SB-Live Value $50
10/100 NIC (Netgear) $20
56K Modem $40 (Diamond)
Sundries (KB, mouse, speakers) $65
$910.
Damn, you beat me by 20 bucks, I don't have firewire. Guess you're right, the Mac is a better deal. Course, I only looked one place.. There are dozens of PC suppliers, and I put this togetheer out of parts, complete boxes are usually a little cheaper thses days. MS will charge you about the same for Win 2k Pro as apple will for OSX, so we're a wash there (unless I use Linux). I know the point you're trying to make, Macs aren't THAT expensive when compared to PCs, but the price to performance ratio is still way off. No to mention the fact that Mac hardware ties you to Apple, whereas with a PC I can alway buy expanstions or upgrades from anyone. The value stills seems to be in the PC world.I think the thread got confused. At some point someone mentioned that public schools also seem to ignore students first amendment rights (True to an extent, Though they can't get away with wuite as much as private schools). This seems to have confused several people into thinking that either this story involved public schools, or that private schools were also governed byu the same rules.
PThat seems to be what theses scientists are proposing. They mention harvesting the cells from the adults that are sick, and also mention bone marrow stem cells.
Look at the size of the Apollo landers, and of the Saturn V rockets. Notice a difference in size? If you wanted to put one poxy nanobot into space you'd still need huge rocket, as for most of the time the rocket needs to propel itself with its fuel as well as the nanobot.
Your comment ignores two factors. First, although you are right that every a small device would require a huge rocket, I believe the idea behind micro satalites (and a "nanaobot" by extention) is to put large numbers of them into orbit from a single rocket launch. Hence you are saving money by spreading the cost. If (as an example I have no real idea) it costs 2 million to put a small rocket into space, and 200 different companies put microsatilites on the rocket none of the companies has to bear the full cost of the launch, but all get their craft up. Second, if a sufficcently small device could be deisigned, at some point in the future they could be built and launched from the ISS. Thus eliminating the incredible cost of actually putting the object into space (by far the most epensive part of space flight).
Actually they had more, but not better. Most historians estimate that the rifled barrels used by the Colonial military were signifiganly more accurate than the unrifled barrels of the British. At any rate, the point is moot. The briths miliatry wwas foot solider and the colonial were foot soldier both had relativly small amounts of cavalry, and some artillery. Every unit on the field was vulnerable to every other unit. Tactics and individual skill could overcome advantages of superior weaponry and strategy. Comparitivly the current citizenry would be completely ineffective against the US Amry. Hanguns, hunting rifles, shotguns, etc are completely ineffective against armored vehicles, let alone aircraft. If somehow a rebel goup were to get ahold of weapons that were actually able to damage their opponent, who would deploy them prorperly? The colonials borrowed from a long tradition of a standing military seperate from the British. The US has no such corps at this time (don't even talk about militia groups. Most of the members of such societies would not know how to deploy armored forces, aircraft, engineering assets, and mobile artillery pieces effectivly any more than a three year old.) The modern battlefield has gotten to the point where mere guns are barely even a consideration. Even at the squad level foot soldiers carry several antitank weapons just to give them a hope of survival. An M-2 Bradely would make lunch meat out of an entire platoon of men armed only with small arms, You'd never even penetrate the skin, and the 20mm chain gun would cut to ribbons any armor avaiable to civilians. Much better to rely on the constitutional protections against deploying the military inside the US than the second amendment to protect your rights.
Of course, like all security, the more parnoid you are, the more it starts to inconvenience you. With coppermesh in the walls you would be largely unable to use any device that recieves a wireless signal from the inside. No cell phones, no rabbit ears for the extra TV that you don't have cable for, no listening to the radio inside, no HAM radio (unless you use an external antenna), no pagers... You get the picture.
Those are gross margins; The book store sells books for 40-60% more than it paid for them. Same with grocery stores. Actual profits are considerably lower. They have to pay staff, rent, electricity, eat the loss of stolen propery, eat the loss of damaged books retured to them, eat a considerable chunck of the loss on unsold merchandise (You know all those books that sit in the front of the Barnes and Noble, and collect dust wearing 5 and 6 dollar price tags? When they were originally 25 and thirty dollars? You think they make any money off of those?). I used to work in a book store, trust me they don't make 40-60 % net profit.
Microsoft is making 24% net profit. In other words, If I add up everything that MS Spent this year, against everything they earned, they earned 24% more than they spent. Very few bussinesses can claim a 24 % net profit.
This has NOTHING to do with First Amendement which deals with laws restricting speach - merely with not having to pay for it. Ditto NEA issue.
Intriguing. Try this on for size. The parts of the Internet you object to are free with the rest of the internet (Note that I am not saying that Internet access is free, only that the "bad" parts come free as an extra bonus to the "good" parts that yo apparently ARE willing to pay for. Internet porn does not cost anymore than the rest of the Internet). Censorware on the otherhand does incur an additional cost above and beyond that of standard Internet access. So you are in effect not paying for the "bad" stuff on the Internet, but you will be paying to stop it. This lead me to the conclution that either your arguemnet is flawed (you are NOT paying for it) or you are argueing that ALL Internet access should be taken out of the public libraries (At which point you will not be paying for any content, "bad" or "good".)
I also feel compelled to point out that art is intrinsically not like science. It is the Antithesis of science. Science is the purest form of objective work, art the purest form of subjective work. Most of what we as human do blends the two in some way. If art were treated like science it would loose it's value as art.
Finally, let me say that I, no more than you, believe that anyone should be able to veiw whatever they want on a public terminal. I simply don't beleive that censorware is a viable judge for what is appropriate. I am personally a fan of the librarian as the judge, since he or she is the person who must answer to the community. if the librarian allows children to view sites that the community would deem inappropriate, it's their butt on the line. This has nothing to do with the First Amendment, but rather with the "Irrate parents will get you ass fired" rule. Make sure terminals are set up to allow the librarian to monitor use. Some stuff will get through, but probably no more or no less thab gets through filtering software, and the chance of things like Breast Cancer Awareness sites being blocked is reduced to nill.
In closing, allow me to point out that I would really like it if this site developed a spell checker.