Back in it's day, the Stileproject operated from Canada for years and years, and hosted new shocking shit daily. Stile himself checked with authorities and everything was just fine. WTF happened with this site that is so different? Selective enforcement because the site operator is a mouthy prick?
I've never tried DuckDuckGo, but did today because of this article. I chose a type of search that I do often and tried it on Duck, Google, and Bing. (Searching for a specific string on a large forum website.) Google, my usual favourite, came in last. Middle was Bing, and for some reason, DuckDuckGo was the best, and found things for me I had never before known about. I was mildly impressed. I know this is totally anecdotal, but it made me happy. That, along with the slightly better privacy, made me switch today. Also, I think it's important to punish Google for rolling over for the US government. They were somewhat good at standing up to the Chinese government for privacy issues, yet did nothing when the USA decided to do far worse. In my opinion, they've lost every bit of good will they've gained with their "don't be evil" slogan and policies. They're no better morally than Goldman Sachs, Monsanto, or Microsoft, the slow slide into corruption is now complete. On to the next underdog...
Seeing how some people have no concerns at all about metadata, wouldn't everyone be better off if a law was passed forcing ALL metadata to be accessible publicly? Then we could crowd source the search for terrorists and really win. There is no way that info is detailed enough to be mis-used (or so we have been told). If it's really that harmless then we should all see.
Why is some mediocre product launch even news on Slashdot? Maybe I'm jaded on this, but it's not exactly new technology. Haven't tablet pc's running a Windows OS been around since windows XP was new? I can hear 2002 calling, they want their tablet back. I can't see anything remarkable about this. This is not news, this is advertising. What blows my mind is that some people post like they're excited about it. It makes me question giving up Slashdot altogether.
No doubt your CPU would win. But when looking at power/price as well, you'd have to pit your CPU against 50 or so ARM chips in parallel. For some solutions, it may be a far better choice. One size doesn't fit all.
Some local newspaper has grabbed hold of the story and the implication is that the result is solid science, where in fact it is either a preliminary discovery, or an aberration of some sort. Things like this happen all the time, which is why there is a need for reproducing the results, which has not yet been done. However, the story is already circling the globe and no doubt this will add more fuel to the fire of people claiming this type of radiation is harmful. It's irresponsible journalism on Slashdot's part by posting this story and over-hyping something that could be nothing. Next thing we know, every lab error will be either heralded as cold fusion, the discovery of dark matter, or space aliens, if we go by the standard of proof in this article. When this most likely goes sour, I hope it doesn't turn off those hard working kids from science altogether.
That being said, I would be interested if this experiment was reproduced by several respectable researchers, but the skeptic in me says that this will likely not happen. This story is really jumping the gun, and doesn't belong in anything but a small town Danish newspaper, let alone Slashdot.
here is a great use case... Human foetuses can be made with just this one gene flipped, so now babies can be made strictly for the purpose of organ donation. Since the brain would be the equivalent of a rodent's, there wouldn't be as much of a moral quandary.
I donate older computers I have refurbished to the local food bank, because at least in my town, they are most in-tune with who would a computer the most.
After reading the article, it appears that the magic formula is subjecting a nickel metal hydride to T-waves. Perhaps all the existing NiMH batteries out on the market can be somehow re-purposed to last forever if someone can invent a portable terahertz wave generator.
If you read the article, the reactions only work if you subject it to THz wave EM energy. So damaging this type of reactor would only ever have one kind of effect... it would stop working and go back to being a big lump of inert metal. Assuming it works in the first place after all.
That is for cars, where those features actually cost a lot to manufacture. For cell phones there are no features that could raise the price to $10,000. Diamonds glued to the case aren't functional, so this excludes decoration.
The problem is that once such a beast is designed and built, it's relatively easy to build the factory to stamp them out by the millions, and that's where the real profits are. The only players big enough to pull that off are too big to care about the few rich fools who would pay that kind of markup. Until the rate of technological progress slows, it will be the masses that are closest to the bleeding edge, and any $10,000 phone will either be a prototype on it's way to market (and subject to so many NDA's that no rich person could pay enough to be allowed to show it off), or a sub-par phone with diamonds glued to the case. That what you wish for cannot exist is a quirk of the amazing world we live in.
I designed buildings for a living. Not only did I need to be very creative, but very technical as well. If I made mistakes, there was the possibility of huge amounts of money or even lives lost. Wouldn't it be nice if the copyright on my blueprints would allow me to get a royalty from everyone who steps inside one of my works. Unfortunately for me, I don't have a whiny industry organization working on my behalf twisting laws in my favour. The reason why the media organizations have this influence and income is because communications is what they are good at, and that they also had a lot of power over distribution of information. They've been using their skills to twist the market unfavourably in their favour for the latter half of the 20th century, and now that the Internet is here, the power is no longer as centralized in their hands. The tide is now shifting back to the way it ought to be. They aren't the only content creators out there, not by far.
What we are seeing now is a market correction where those content creators are being dragged back down to undistorted market value for their work. Kicking and screaming of course, which is pretty much the basis of the original article.
If you're talking about the last image, where they have a row of drinking glasses, it only works at first glance. The background through that first glass moves as it should. But the background through the further glasses does not.
You know, I could get the equivalent to a master's degree in braiding my nose hairs and singing about my exploits, and then whine about not being able to feed my kids on a nose hair braiders salary. The whole point is that the market has spoken, and that there are too many world class cellists for the market to bear. Her righteous indignation is equivalent to someone who trained to be a master ferrier at the beginning of the 20th century. Markets change, technology changes, and it's her own damn fault for building her entire life around something with only a dubious chance of providing for a family in the first place. If she had minored in something else that actually has a large market and a demand, she wouldn't be in this mess.
It's not like I don't have a degree of compassion. I "followed my dream" and got educated in something that didn't give me much of a chance of ever making decent coin, so I had a backup plan. Her backup plan seems to be whining that she deserves more money just because she's very qualified, while ignoring the realities of the market and technology.
As for the righteous indignation of artists being taken advantage of, it's been covered here plenty of times, take your strawman elsewhere.
On the other hand, no matter how much technology outpaces the music industry, I know in my heart of hearts that human beings will always sing, make, and listen to music far into the future. When we stop, I'm sure that will be very near the defining moment at which we will no longer be considered human. The only thing that will change over time is our ability to make money doing what we love to do.
On the other hand, more albums can mean more fame, therefore more listeners per album. Plus more opportunity to make more money in other venues, or cross licensing in other forms such as movies, tv shows, etc. More opportunity to perform, and make real money. Why is there some presumption that anyone can, or even should make a "living" just from royalties? Most of the real money is in selling albums and making performances.
Also is it our fault she chose a profession with little hope for huge money or international stardom? What's she hoping for, wealth like Beyonce just for playing a cello very well? It sounds like following her dream has led her into the poor house because it's not financially viable. People can't just randomly choose to do something in their life and expect there to be a living at the end of the tunnel, forethought is required as well.
I worked in a creative profession that requires a hell of a lot more knowledge, skill, creativity, and responsibility than a mere cello player. And you know what, I'd be happy for half of that in royalties for every time someone used one of my works. But because this is the MEDIA industry, they are masters at getting the public ear and whining until they get what they want.
I say that half a penny per use is ridiculously HIGH for the kind of work she does. Apparently the market has found a balance somewhere in between her and my opinion of what the price should be. (Not that I think my opinion has anything to do with it, but surely the collective opinion of the general populace and the marketplace surely does.)
Or the other solution is, that now she knows what her music is worth, she now knows how many albums she needs to produce to hit the magic number for her retirement. Instead of whining, she should get to work! Judging by how entitled she seems to come across as feeling, I bet she doesn't work half as hard as your average carpenter, programmer, or Walmart cashier. Real financial success either requires careful planning and years of grinding hard work (or dumb luck).
I don't feel sorry for her that she hasn't "made it" yet financially. With most creative professions, like architects, web designers, interior designers, cake decorators, hair stylists, tatoo artists, custom harley shops, floral arrangers, etc etc.... the motto is "Create! Create! Create!" When you stop creating you starve.
It's time musicians were cut down from that huge pedestal they have put themselves up on.
This is the value the market has decided in this case. To quote the whiner: "'No artist will be able to survive to be professionals except those who have a significant live business, and that’s very few," (emphasis mine).
That's right. Unless you're actually willing to put time and effort into the industry, you're not going to make very much money. There's nothing wrong with that, welcome to the real world. No more free rent. The rock star lifestyle just slammed into the real world where people work hard every day to pay their bills. Why shouldn't musicians have to "sing for their supper" like everyone else does?
"We were stress-testing our beta servers so shut your mouth bitch" as a reply to that post probably would not have gotten EA any bad publicity. Deleting that post would probably never be noticed. It sounds like the forum team is due for a shareholder mandated witch hunt.
Slashdot Mirror
Back in it's day, the Stileproject operated from Canada for years and years, and hosted new shocking shit daily. Stile himself checked with authorities and everything was just fine. WTF happened with this site that is so different? Selective enforcement because the site operator is a mouthy prick?
He may be remembered as the USA's Alberto Fujimori.
I've never tried DuckDuckGo, but did today because of this article. I chose a type of search that I do often and tried it on Duck, Google, and Bing. (Searching for a specific string on a large forum website.) Google, my usual favourite, came in last. Middle was Bing, and for some reason, DuckDuckGo was the best, and found things for me I had never before known about. I was mildly impressed. I know this is totally anecdotal, but it made me happy. That, along with the slightly better privacy, made me switch today. Also, I think it's important to punish Google for rolling over for the US government. They were somewhat good at standing up to the Chinese government for privacy issues, yet did nothing when the USA decided to do far worse. In my opinion, they've lost every bit of good will they've gained with their "don't be evil" slogan and policies. They're no better morally than Goldman Sachs, Monsanto, or Microsoft, the slow slide into corruption is now complete. On to the next underdog...
Seeing how some people have no concerns at all about metadata, wouldn't everyone be better off if a law was passed forcing ALL metadata to be accessible publicly? Then we could crowd source the search for terrorists and really win. There is no way that info is detailed enough to be mis-used (or so we have been told). If it's really that harmless then we should all see.
Why is some mediocre product launch even news on Slashdot? Maybe I'm jaded on this, but it's not exactly new technology. Haven't tablet pc's running a Windows OS been around since windows XP was new? I can hear 2002 calling, they want their tablet back. I can't see anything remarkable about this. This is not news, this is advertising. What blows my mind is that some people post like they're excited about it. It makes me question giving up Slashdot altogether.
No doubt your CPU would win. But when looking at power/price as well, you'd have to pit your CPU against 50 or so ARM chips in parallel. For some solutions, it may be a far better choice. One size doesn't fit all.
I wonder how the performance vs power consumption compares to the old Transmeta chips that started the trend.
Some local newspaper has grabbed hold of the story and the implication is that the result is solid science, where in fact it is either a preliminary discovery, or an aberration of some sort. Things like this happen all the time, which is why there is a need for reproducing the results, which has not yet been done. However, the story is already circling the globe and no doubt this will add more fuel to the fire of people claiming this type of radiation is harmful. It's irresponsible journalism on Slashdot's part by posting this story and over-hyping something that could be nothing. Next thing we know, every lab error will be either heralded as cold fusion, the discovery of dark matter, or space aliens, if we go by the standard of proof in this article. When this most likely goes sour, I hope it doesn't turn off those hard working kids from science altogether.
That being said, I would be interested if this experiment was reproduced by several respectable researchers, but the skeptic in me says that this will likely not happen. This story is really jumping the gun, and doesn't belong in anything but a small town Danish newspaper, let alone Slashdot.
here is a great use case... Human foetuses can be made with just this one gene flipped, so now babies can be made strictly for the purpose of organ donation. Since the brain would be the equivalent of a rodent's, there wouldn't be as much of a moral quandary.
I donate older computers I have refurbished to the local food bank, because at least in my town, they are most in-tune with who would a computer the most.
Well, it looks like Dr. Joe Zawodny himself agrees with you that the extraordinary evidence to prove this even works has yet to be demonstrated:
http://joe.zawodny.com/ That's his private blog, and an interesting read. Looks like he's into model rocketry too.
After reading the article, it appears that the magic formula is subjecting a nickel metal hydride to T-waves. Perhaps all the existing NiMH batteries out on the market can be somehow re-purposed to last forever if someone can invent a portable terahertz wave generator.
If you read the article, the reactions only work if you subject it to THz wave EM energy. So damaging this type of reactor would only ever have one kind of effect... it would stop working and go back to being a big lump of inert metal. Assuming it works in the first place after all.
That is for cars, where those features actually cost a lot to manufacture. For cell phones there are no features that could raise the price to $10,000. Diamonds glued to the case aren't functional, so this excludes decoration.
The problem is that once such a beast is designed and built, it's relatively easy to build the factory to stamp them out by the millions, and that's where the real profits are. The only players big enough to pull that off are too big to care about the few rich fools who would pay that kind of markup. Until the rate of technological progress slows, it will be the masses that are closest to the bleeding edge, and any $10,000 phone will either be a prototype on it's way to market (and subject to so many NDA's that no rich person could pay enough to be allowed to show it off), or a sub-par phone with diamonds glued to the case. That what you wish for cannot exist is a quirk of the amazing world we live in.
Bait taken (i might regret it)
I designed buildings for a living. Not only did I need to be very creative, but very technical as well. If I made mistakes, there was the possibility of huge amounts of money or even lives lost. Wouldn't it be nice if the copyright on my blueprints would allow me to get a royalty from everyone who steps inside one of my works. Unfortunately for me, I don't have a whiny industry organization working on my behalf twisting laws in my favour. The reason why the media organizations have this influence and income is because communications is what they are good at, and that they also had a lot of power over distribution of information. They've been using their skills to twist the market unfavourably in their favour for the latter half of the 20th century, and now that the Internet is here, the power is no longer as centralized in their hands. The tide is now shifting back to the way it ought to be. They aren't the only content creators out there, not by far.
What we are seeing now is a market correction where those content creators are being dragged back down to undistorted market value for their work. Kicking and screaming of course, which is pretty much the basis of the original article.
If you're talking about the last image, where they have a row of drinking glasses, it only works at first glance. The background through that first glass moves as it should. But the background through the further glasses does not.
You know, I could get the equivalent to a master's degree in braiding my nose hairs and singing about my exploits, and then whine about not being able to feed my kids on a nose hair braiders salary. The whole point is that the market has spoken, and that there are too many world class cellists for the market to bear. Her righteous indignation is equivalent to someone who trained to be a master ferrier at the beginning of the 20th century. Markets change, technology changes, and it's her own damn fault for building her entire life around something with only a dubious chance of providing for a family in the first place. If she had minored in something else that actually has a large market and a demand, she wouldn't be in this mess.
It's not like I don't have a degree of compassion. I "followed my dream" and got educated in something that didn't give me much of a chance of ever making decent coin, so I had a backup plan. Her backup plan seems to be whining that she deserves more money just because she's very qualified, while ignoring the realities of the market and technology.
As for the righteous indignation of artists being taken advantage of, it's been covered here plenty of times, take your strawman elsewhere.
On the other hand, no matter how much technology outpaces the music industry, I know in my heart of hearts that human beings will always sing, make, and listen to music far into the future. When we stop, I'm sure that will be very near the defining moment at which we will no longer be considered human. The only thing that will change over time is our ability to make money doing what we love to do.
On the other hand, more albums can mean more fame, therefore more listeners per album. Plus more opportunity to make more money in other venues, or cross licensing in other forms such as movies, tv shows, etc. More opportunity to perform, and make real money. Why is there some presumption that anyone can, or even should make a "living" just from royalties? Most of the real money is in selling albums and making performances.
Also is it our fault she chose a profession with little hope for huge money or international stardom? What's she hoping for, wealth like Beyonce just for playing a cello very well? It sounds like following her dream has led her into the poor house because it's not financially viable. People can't just randomly choose to do something in their life and expect there to be a living at the end of the tunnel, forethought is required as well.
I worked in a creative profession that requires a hell of a lot more knowledge, skill, creativity, and responsibility than a mere cello player. And you know what, I'd be happy for half of that in royalties for every time someone used one of my works. But because this is the MEDIA industry, they are masters at getting the public ear and whining until they get what they want.
I say that half a penny per use is ridiculously HIGH for the kind of work she does. Apparently the market has found a balance somewhere in between her and my opinion of what the price should be. (Not that I think my opinion has anything to do with it, but surely the collective opinion of the general populace and the marketplace surely does.)
Or the other solution is, that now she knows what her music is worth, she now knows how many albums she needs to produce to hit the magic number for her retirement. Instead of whining, she should get to work! Judging by how entitled she seems to come across as feeling, I bet she doesn't work half as hard as your average carpenter, programmer, or Walmart cashier. Real financial success either requires careful planning and years of grinding hard work (or dumb luck).
I don't feel sorry for her that she hasn't "made it" yet financially. With most creative professions, like architects, web designers, interior designers, cake decorators, hair stylists, tatoo artists, custom harley shops, floral arrangers, etc etc.... the motto is "Create! Create! Create!" When you stop creating you starve.
It's time musicians were cut down from that huge pedestal they have put themselves up on.
This is the value the market has decided in this case. To quote the whiner: "'No artist will be able to survive to be professionals except those who have a significant live business, and that’s very few," (emphasis mine).
That's right. Unless you're actually willing to put time and effort into the industry, you're not going to make very much money. There's nothing wrong with that, welcome to the real world. No more free rent. The rock star lifestyle just slammed into the real world where people work hard every day to pay their bills. Why shouldn't musicians have to "sing for their supper" like everyone else does?
"We were stress-testing our beta servers so shut your mouth bitch" as a reply to that post probably would not have gotten EA any bad publicity. Deleting that post would probably never be noticed. It sounds like the forum team is due for a shareholder mandated witch hunt.
My first Arduino was an Ardweeny. It costs $9.95. So far it's done everything I've wanted it to do.
https://solarbotics.com/product/kardw/
You can even go cheaper and more harcore if you want:
http://shrimping.it/blog/shrimp/
Is price really such a problem?