A meter is a certain exact fraction of some property of earth, obviously having to do with the size in some way. There is a stick of iridium in Europe somewhere that is exactly the length of a meter, and it is on this that all meter-sticks are based.
Sorry about the lack of real, useful information, perhaps someone else has the numbers?
but ALL these laws (SSSCA, DMCA, etc) are unconstitutional, but as long as Congress is more powerful than the Constitution allows, they will never be repealed.
Actually, you make an interesting point. In order for a law to be repealed on account of its unconstitutionality, the Supreme Court has to do it. This will obviously not happen with the current generation of Justices (interesting pun...), but eventually, the Supreme Court Justices will be aware of these situations. If you want these terrible laws repealed, get them to the Supreme Court, and if they truly are unconstitutional, they will be deemed so by the Just Seven.
It will be interesting to see what happens in, say, fifteen years when the Justices being appointed have grown up with the RIAA/MPAA/DMCA/SSSCA collective fiasco, and bring justice back.
I hope some of the Congressmen realize the difference between "Rip, Mix, Burn" and "Download, Burn." When Apple advertises that their computers can do this, they are in no way advocating stealing anything from the music industry (obviously). When you "rip," you take the music off of a CD that you purchased, when you "mix," you remove the crappy songs from the album that were only included so you don't feel ripped off because you bought a CD with only 2 or 3 good songs on it, or you put the best songs from several albums that you purchased onto one CD, effectively discarding the excess crap that the good ol' music industry always surrounds the good stuff with. And I think that even the elected know what "burn" means.
"Rip, Mix, Burn" does not in any way advocate taking things away from the music industry, in fact it advocates getting rid of the things you paid for but deem worthless.
The symbol for something from one to the next was clearly different - such that historians now write tomes discussing the various styles of different artists.
Similarly, the methods of writing used by many artists are completely different, so much so, in fact, that historians (and other authors) have written entire texts discussing their various styles. Every form of written communication differs from itself in some way, and that is indeed what is exciting.
But you said that exploration should only be done for the purpose of colonization. It seems to me that regardless of the form that life may take elsewhere, we who discover it should at least try not to destroy it.
And though you may say that the development of our life is an "unbelievable against-all-odds occurence," what if it isn't? Would it take an Einstein-level discovery to change the way you look at developmental biology?
So a reporter can be sued for slander/libel by anyone, but a public official can only win if it was printed with "malicious intent?" I thought malicious intent pertained to everyone, though I could be wrong, after all, I am not a lawyer. Seems to me, though, that it should pertain equally to everyone.
IMHO, the only point in looking for "inhabitable" planets is for future colonization. All else is simply pointless.
And just what about contacting them for the sake of communication and the advancement of both our civilizations? The Europeans a few centuries ago cared about the New World only for the purpose of colonization, and ignored the life that already existed therein. Do we really want to make the same mistake again? Have I been under the illusion that it is a quality of the human race that we are capable of learning from our mistakes?
Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it.
But isn't it true that in order for any member of the media cannot be convicted of libel unless it is proved that not only was false and degrading, but was also printed with malicious intent? IANAL, but papers can say whatever they want about someone as long as they can prove it wasn't done with malicious intent. The lawyer who taught you guys was probably just being cautious (the paper still doesn't want people shooting their mouths off, it is a liability).
Although, Slashdot probably is printing this kind of stuff with malicious intent, especially when there is an infringement on Open Source or anything having to do with Microsoft. They certainly should be careful.
If I may retort briefly, though it may be true that the ability to react calmly to a criticism is associated with intelligence, intelligence is not necessarily associated with the ability to react calmly to criticism. The most intelligent people in history have had periods in their lives when they were unable to control their anger, due to criticism. In fact, many of the greatest discoveries have been made because a certain genius or another did not take kindly to being criticized, and exploded onto a new venture to show up his aggressors.
It is not always a bonus to respond calmly, though it may bend the weak-minded to you, it traps you in a dead end from which you can never experience a revelation worthy of the name.
And the definition I prefer to use for eloquence is:
1) The quality of persuasive, powerful expression. 2) Powerful and effective language.
I would not consider politicians or the clergy to be particularly eloquent, because for me, eloquence is much more closely associated with authors, or those who use words for a living.
Much as lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, demagoguery does not denote eloquence.
And while having no eloquence may not be equal to "speaking like an idiot," if I may point you to my sig yet again, they OFTEN COINCIDE.
What happened to your parting bit of wit? It was dreadfully hilarious, wot?
So, what you're saying is... that you were wrong? Because usually when you cite sources you at least try to cite ones that enforce your position. Or, at the very least, don't undermine it.
the speech of poorly educated people straining to sound stylish
it is still often regarded as incorrect
the Usage Panel found it unacceptable in an earlier survey
I don't know exactly to what end you were aiming, but for your sake I hope you just missed the mark. In one quote you managed to call yourself uneducated, that you are straining to sound stylish, and that the language you are using is incorrect and unacceptable. If you think this quote supports you, you are grossly mistaken, it just makes you seem like the type of person who will do anything to win a conflict, even switch positions in the middle to avoid a loss. You are arguing on my behalf, but take no offense if I am reluctant to thank you for it.
If I may reply, you obviously have trouble dealing with semantics, or possibly with what these funny little things called "words" mean. They do, after all, have distinct definitions. What the sig means appears to have escaped you. In the first clause, it says "Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence," which does not mean that they are one and the same. In fact, the first part of the sentence says exactly the opposite. The second part of the sentence, however, says that they "often coincide." The key word is "often," though "coincide" is also fairly important. It basically means that if someone talks like an idiot, it can be assumed that they might well be an idiot, and if someone is an idiot, you can assume that they will in turn speak like one. That is what "often coincide" means.
Oh, and by the way, I don't know where you heard that Einstein wasn't known for his eloquence (to paraphrase your poor sentence), but you obviously haven't read his books and letters. He was a prolific writer, and better at it than most. Just because he was the premier genius in the fields of math and science, does not mean, by default, that he spoke like a seven year old and was basically unable to read or write.
You may consider yourself good at math or science, which is evident from your lack of consideration of your words, but just because you are mostly illiterate doesn't mean that everyone who is good at math or science is as well. And, regardless of what you may tell yourself, you are not on par with Einstein. Try studying his work before you invoke his name.
And feel free to log in on your alternate nick and that of all your friends to mod me down to the bowels of hell for this, but you needed to hear it.
I was born and raised in America, and I consider myself monolingual, though I have studied Spanish and Latin for 4 years each. My point is, I don't find that I "think" in any language, English or otherwise. This always made it harder to speak Spanish, because English is better suited to abstract imagery than the Spanish they teach you in high school. The way I find that I think is in images, both moving and still, and in order to communicate, I need to translate these images into a language (English).
When people say they can't "hear themselves think," I don't know what to make of it. Does anyone else find that they don't think in any language?
I couldn't help but notice that he has only USB devices, which includes his CD-ROM. My second CD drive is a USB, and I find that it is way too slow to use frequently. I'm amazed that he can stand it, if he indeed can.
The story is that "customers aren't demanding it yet", but that didn't stop them from introducing the router when no one was demanding them, did it?
Once someone does what the customers don't demand, and they succeed, they are much less likely to try again, lest they fail. If Cisco were to adopt IPv6 completely, and it didn't catch, Cisco would be out. They obviously don't want that to happen, so they want to be absolutely sure that it will catch on.
You don't need any blasted iPod!
on
iWarez
·
· Score: 2
iPod- pah! Back in my day, when we wanted to steal software from the Apple Store, we didn't buy a $400 piece of equipment to steal a $500 piece of software. We went in with CD-RWs and burned $3000 worth of software over a period of about an hour and a half. If you want to test your bravery and/or your espionage skills, go in and try that!
By the way, when an employee asks why you just put a CD in the drive, tell him that you're installing Office. They like that...
I've installed this (actually, I installed the free Redmond Linux, the previous version), and it strikes me as just a little too user-friendly: it does not have gcc in the default install. Now, I installed it because I thought it would be a good way to get my feet wet in Linux for the first time. But I run Apache on Windows 2000, and without gcc, Apache cannot be made to run, and without gcc, gcc cannot be compiled to run on the system. What do you do with a machine that lacks a compiler and is too new to have binaries available? What do you do?
I will only use it at length once it can do what Windows can do, for my only critical application (Apache).
But if companies were to do this, they might alienate the geeks. If computers suddenly became "hip" for everyone, and the average computing Joe had an uber-mod case, what would we at Slashdot do? That's right, we'd all go back to the ugliest beige boxes we can find, and we'd disconnect the LEDs, and we'd unplug every speaker except the one on the inside that beeps when something goes wrong.
We don't buy CK because we can wear clothes without the 5x surcharge. We don't buy home furnishings from Pottery Barn because we can buy adequate furnishings elsewhere for much less money, we avoid things that are expensive for the sake of being popular (or vice versa), so would we then avoid the case-mod?
But what about the recent article about Intel's newest architecture, using 533MHz RAMBUS DRAM? That article, and the comments associated with it, state that, price-wise, the RDRAM is no longer significantly higher than DDR SDRAM, and with the new faster FSB, will blow DDR right out of the proverbial water.
Is Intel reneging on their statements of yesterday, or is Tom's Hardware or Anandtech just getting false information?
If RDRAM is no longer more expensive and is in fact a better choice for a fast system, should the company be left out in the cold? Bear in mind that I don't like the way RAMBUS has been treating people, but I do believe that the best product should always be able to live on, and RDRAM has surely been making strides.
You may well be right. In fact, this could be AMD's way to get back at Microsoft. For so long, MS and Intel have been sleeping together, both helping eath other out in each other's industries, forcing the other computer manufacturers to use their products in computers.
In the transition to 64 bits, if AMD can get there faster (and by there, I mean readily available to the consumer, not readily available to the bored millionaire), they can enlist Linux as their Microsoft and do the same thing to the market that has been happening for a decade: only with a free OS.
Actually, I wouldn't mind, and I don't think many would.
That's a lot of frames per second. Who needs 339 FPS when they're playing Quake? Is it even possible to view that many frames in one second, for the human eye? Or even on the monitor? Say you have an 85 Hz refresh rate on your monitor. Are any FPS levels above that going to improve your performance? I thought not.
So basically, the Athlon 850 is way more than enough to play Quake on. All you need is 85 FPS and you're as good as it gets. Who needs the extra, unnoticeable 254 frames in each second?
Slashdot Mirror
A meter is a certain exact fraction of some property of earth, obviously having to do with the size in some way. There is a stick of iridium in Europe somewhere that is exactly the length of a meter, and it is on this that all meter-sticks are based.
Sorry about the lack of real, useful information, perhaps someone else has the numbers?
Guess. ;)
but ALL these laws (SSSCA, DMCA, etc) are unconstitutional, but as long as Congress is more powerful than the Constitution allows, they will never be repealed.
Actually, you make an interesting point. In order for a law to be repealed on account of its unconstitutionality, the Supreme Court has to do it. This will obviously not happen with the current generation of Justices (interesting pun...), but eventually, the Supreme Court Justices will be aware of these situations. If you want these terrible laws repealed, get them to the Supreme Court, and if they truly are unconstitutional, they will be deemed so by the Just Seven.
It will be interesting to see what happens in, say, fifteen years when the Justices being appointed have grown up with the RIAA/MPAA/DMCA/SSSCA collective fiasco, and bring justice back.
Go Supreme Court!
Here's a good poll question:
What would you do with the power of a tactical nuke in your pocket?
Please don't say CowboyNeal...
Why not pick on Redhat for shipping GRip and and MP3 encoder with their distro?
Oops, now you've done it. You've alerted them to Red Hat's criminal ways! Disney will attack Red Hat next, and after that, who knows?
I hope some of the Congressmen realize the difference between "Rip, Mix, Burn" and "Download, Burn." When Apple advertises that their computers can do this, they are in no way advocating stealing anything from the music industry (obviously). When you "rip," you take the music off of a CD that you purchased, when you "mix," you remove the crappy songs from the album that were only included so you don't feel ripped off because you bought a CD with only 2 or 3 good songs on it, or you put the best songs from several albums that you purchased onto one CD, effectively discarding the excess crap that the good ol' music industry always surrounds the good stuff with. And I think that even the elected know what "burn" means.
"Rip, Mix, Burn" does not in any way advocate taking things away from the music industry, in fact it advocates getting rid of the things you paid for but deem worthless.
The symbol for something from one to the next was clearly different - such that historians now write tomes discussing the various styles of different artists.
Similarly, the methods of writing used by many artists are completely different, so much so, in fact, that historians (and other authors) have written entire texts discussing their various styles. Every form of written communication differs from itself in some way, and that is indeed what is exciting.
But you said that exploration should only be done for the purpose of colonization. It seems to me that regardless of the form that life may take elsewhere, we who discover it should at least try not to destroy it.
And though you may say that the development of our life is an "unbelievable against-all-odds occurence," what if it isn't? Would it take an Einstein-level discovery to change the way you look at developmental biology?
So a reporter can be sued for slander/libel by anyone, but a public official can only win if it was printed with "malicious intent?" I thought malicious intent pertained to everyone, though I could be wrong, after all, I am not a lawyer. Seems to me, though, that it should pertain equally to everyone.
IMHO, the only point in looking for "inhabitable" planets is for future colonization. All else is simply pointless.
And just what about contacting them for the sake of communication and the advancement of both our civilizations? The Europeans a few centuries ago cared about the New World only for the purpose of colonization, and ignored the life that already existed therein. Do we really want to make the same mistake again? Have I been under the illusion that it is a quality of the human race that we are capable of learning from our mistakes?
Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it.
But isn't it true that in order for any member of the media cannot be convicted of libel unless it is proved that not only was false and degrading, but was also printed with malicious intent? IANAL, but papers can say whatever they want about someone as long as they can prove it wasn't done with malicious intent. The lawyer who taught you guys was probably just being cautious (the paper still doesn't want people shooting their mouths off, it is a liability).
Although, Slashdot probably is printing this kind of stuff with malicious intent, especially when there is an infringement on Open Source or anything having to do with Microsoft. They certainly should be careful.
If I may retort briefly, though it may be true that the ability to react calmly to a criticism is associated with intelligence, intelligence is not necessarily associated with the ability to react calmly to criticism. The most intelligent people in history have had periods in their lives when they were unable to control their anger, due to criticism. In fact, many of the greatest discoveries have been made because a certain genius or another did not take kindly to being criticized, and exploded onto a new venture to show up his aggressors.
It is not always a bonus to respond calmly, though it may bend the weak-minded to you, it traps you in a dead end from which you can never experience a revelation worthy of the name.
And the definition I prefer to use for eloquence is:
1) The quality of persuasive, powerful expression.
2) Powerful and effective language.
I would not consider politicians or the clergy to be particularly eloquent, because for me, eloquence is much more closely associated with authors, or those who use words for a living.
Much as lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, demagoguery does not denote eloquence.
And while having no eloquence may not be equal to "speaking like an idiot," if I may point you to my sig yet again, they OFTEN COINCIDE.
What happened to your parting bit of wit? It was dreadfully hilarious, wot?
So, what you're saying is... that you were wrong? Because usually when you cite sources you at least try to cite ones that enforce your position. Or, at the very least, don't undermine it.
the speech of poorly educated people straining to sound stylish
it is still often regarded as incorrect
the Usage Panel found it unacceptable in an earlier survey
I don't know exactly to what end you were aiming, but for your sake I hope you just missed the mark. In one quote you managed to call yourself uneducated, that you are straining to sound stylish, and that the language you are using is incorrect and unacceptable. If you think this quote supports you, you are grossly mistaken, it just makes you seem like the type of person who will do anything to win a conflict, even switch positions in the middle to avoid a loss. You are arguing on my behalf, but take no offense if I am reluctant to thank you for it.
Because I can't see it, little man!
If I may reply, you obviously have trouble dealing with semantics, or possibly with what these funny little things called "words" mean. They do, after all, have distinct definitions. What the sig means appears to have escaped you. In the first clause, it says "Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence," which does not mean that they are one and the same. In fact, the first part of the sentence says exactly the opposite. The second part of the sentence, however, says that they "often coincide." The key word is "often," though "coincide" is also fairly important. It basically means that if someone talks like an idiot, it can be assumed that they might well be an idiot, and if someone is an idiot, you can assume that they will in turn speak like one. That is what "often coincide" means.
Oh, and by the way, I don't know where you heard that Einstein wasn't known for his eloquence (to paraphrase your poor sentence), but you obviously haven't read his books and letters. He was a prolific writer, and better at it than most. Just because he was the premier genius in the fields of math and science, does not mean, by default, that he spoke like a seven year old and was basically unable to read or write.
You may consider yourself good at math or science, which is evident from your lack of consideration of your words, but just because you are mostly illiterate doesn't mean that everyone who is good at math or science is as well. And, regardless of what you may tell yourself, you are not on par with Einstein. Try studying his work before you invoke his name.
And feel free to log in on your alternate nick and that of all your friends to mod me down to the bowels of hell for this, but you needed to hear it.
Pay close attention to the following:
I mean, how dumb do you gotta be to not realise that you dont HAVE to send anything in?!
Ummm.... just about dumb enough to buy Windows XP. Oh wait- that's a "feature," never mind.
:)
I was born and raised in America, and I consider myself monolingual, though I have studied Spanish and Latin for 4 years each. My point is, I don't find that I "think" in any language, English or otherwise. This always made it harder to speak Spanish, because English is better suited to abstract imagery than the Spanish they teach you in high school. The way I find that I think is in images, both moving and still, and in order to communicate, I need to translate these images into a language (English).
When people say they can't "hear themselves think," I don't know what to make of it. Does anyone else find that they don't think in any language?
I couldn't help but notice that he has only USB devices, which includes his CD-ROM. My second CD drive is a USB, and I find that it is way too slow to use frequently. I'm amazed that he can stand it, if he indeed can.
The story is that "customers aren't demanding it yet", but that didn't stop them from introducing the router when no one was demanding them, did it?
Once someone does what the customers don't demand, and they succeed, they are much less likely to try again, lest they fail. If Cisco were to adopt IPv6 completely, and it didn't catch, Cisco would be out. They obviously don't want that to happen, so they want to be absolutely sure that it will catch on.
iPod- pah! Back in my day, when we wanted to steal software from the Apple Store, we didn't buy a $400 piece of equipment to steal a $500 piece of software. We went in with CD-RWs and burned $3000 worth of software over a period of about an hour and a half. If you want to test your bravery and/or your espionage skills, go in and try that!
By the way, when an employee asks why you just put a CD in the drive, tell him that you're installing Office. They like that...
I've installed this (actually, I installed the free Redmond Linux, the previous version), and it strikes me as just a little too user-friendly: it does not have gcc in the default install. Now, I installed it because I thought it would be a good way to get my feet wet in Linux for the first time. But I run Apache on Windows 2000, and without gcc, Apache cannot be made to run, and without gcc, gcc cannot be compiled to run on the system. What do you do with a machine that lacks a compiler and is too new to have binaries available? What do you do?
I will only use it at length once it can do what Windows can do, for my only critical application (Apache).
But if companies were to do this, they might alienate the geeks. If computers suddenly became "hip" for everyone, and the average computing Joe had an uber-mod case, what would we at Slashdot do? That's right, we'd all go back to the ugliest beige boxes we can find, and we'd disconnect the LEDs, and we'd unplug every speaker except the one on the inside that beeps when something goes wrong.
We don't buy CK because we can wear clothes without the 5x surcharge. We don't buy home furnishings from Pottery Barn because we can buy adequate furnishings elsewhere for much less money, we avoid things that are expensive for the sake of being popular (or vice versa), so would we then avoid the case-mod?
Just a suggestion.
But what about the recent article about Intel's newest architecture, using 533MHz RAMBUS DRAM? That article, and the comments associated with it, state that, price-wise, the RDRAM is no longer significantly higher than DDR SDRAM, and with the new faster FSB, will blow DDR right out of the proverbial water.
Is Intel reneging on their statements of yesterday, or is Tom's Hardware or Anandtech just getting false information?
If RDRAM is no longer more expensive and is in fact a better choice for a fast system, should the company be left out in the cold? Bear in mind that I don't like the way RAMBUS has been treating people, but I do believe that the best product should always be able to live on, and RDRAM has surely been making strides.
Will the driver-less cabs understand the line: "Follow that car!"
:)
If not, the private investigator business is going to get much more difficult...
You may well be right. In fact, this could be AMD's way to get back at Microsoft. For so long, MS and Intel have been sleeping together, both helping eath other out in each other's industries, forcing the other computer manufacturers to use their products in computers.
In the transition to 64 bits, if AMD can get there faster (and by there, I mean readily available to the consumer, not readily available to the bored millionaire), they can enlist Linux as their Microsoft and do the same thing to the market that has been happening for a decade: only with a free OS.
Actually, I wouldn't mind, and I don't think many would.
That's a lot of frames per second. Who needs 339 FPS when they're playing Quake? Is it even possible to view that many frames in one second, for the human eye? Or even on the monitor? Say you have an 85 Hz refresh rate on your monitor. Are any FPS levels above that going to improve your performance? I thought not.
So basically, the Athlon 850 is way more than enough to play Quake on. All you need is 85 FPS and you're as good as it gets. Who needs the extra, unnoticeable 254 frames in each second?