Sorry to seem pedantic, but so far as I could ever tell, the RedHat X-Windows/GNOME package update tool, "Update Agent" does Just This [patent pending]. It only downloads a truncated list. (Don't know quite how, however, so maybe there's some innovation by MS here.) It's actually a pretty good tool, although, inevitably, a pain over a slow wire. Give thanks to your particular divine/nondivine entity/entities/nonentity/ies (for athiests;-), cosmic being(s) or random chaos effects, as is your personal preference, for DSL lines!;-)
PS. Used to run W'95 on a 486 sx 25 w/8mb RAM, 200HD, and then run CivII -- which technically required a DX/66... God bless wemu387.sys;-) (Or at least circumstantial evidence suggests that this file acted as an emulator: name, CivII not working w/o it, etc.)
Seriously, I can agree. If configured properly, even the oldest computer can be highly functional in some roles, even as a gaming machine -- if you play strategy.
But even here, there is a constant shift toward the high tech. It's hard to say what drives it -- novelty must certainly be an issue, bigger (neater, cooler, faster) is always easier than better -- but it should be noted that the monopoly leader of the main consumer market (at the moment) has a vested interest in upping hardware req.s -- remember that they get the MS tax on (nearly) all new machines sold? And since they supply the de facto system libraries, notably DirectX, in the Games market, well, I hardly need to finish this sentence. (Hardly can, given how convoluted it got;-) This is, if you'll forgive me for harping on, why Linux/GNU (type) OSs in general are so good: they want to be correct, not commercial. This is why the benefits of 98SE are debateable (and its req.s higher) while Linux is better on less hardware.
Excuse me for answering questions posed to others, but...;-) Most of the actual content is already HTML, on the web. What the book is is a reformatting. So really, those people who are interested can see the raw stuff here. And most of the people who would use an e-format are the kind of people who won't mind Slashdot formatting. Still, at least at the margin, you do have a valid question, although an interesting counterargument often advanced on/. is that new media require new messeges (formats, sorry, gratuitous and O.T. McLuhan referance...;-)______________
Pulling a microsoft. What's more, the busses with the physical capacity to work are superficially identical (Irongate 750), and in some cases the BIOS setting is available even when the actual hardware is broken. So it's hard to tell what your getting, which is a shame as this feature (forgot it's name) is meant to be worth 5-8% more power. Still, now you can by the VIA boards, which are usually slighlty faster anyways... and soon DDR-SDRAM...
Well, leaving aside the fact that the 1ghz PIII is still a largely mythical beast, if you read the reviews, youu'll actually find that with newer busses, activating techs in their newer releases of old busses (they used to be broken), etc, AMD are actually on par again... For some applications (i.e., ones which don't really fit in cache), they are dramatically ahead, as much as 10-20%. www.Anandtech.com is an excellent source (but you knew this), even if their bleeping HTML takes For Ever to render (on anything)... Thunderbird soon (1.2ghz?), Athlon w/onchip @clock cache. here's their review of Athlons 0.9-1.0 Ghz, latest benchmarks, etc.... .
Continuing on the communications security/theory theme of the evening, and leaving behind the flame "crisis" (not quite a war, but ultimatums issued) over (OT) Cultural Property, how precisely are they going to accomplish this? Anyone know?
I feel the irresistable urge to be the raging voice of reason.
At the end of World War II, their were probably a few thousand of these devices about. (The brits actually sold them to some of the new colonial gov'ts!). Quite apart from the hundreds of experimental replicas built by the Poles and British, the entire German Navy, Army, and Luftwaffe and some of the lower civil service were equiped with them. The value of this lies not in the fact it is a "nazi encryption machine" (to paraphrase), but in the fact that someone -- in this case, Bletchley Park -- preserved it.
The idea that since it was once a German device (property of a gov't which legitimately and uncoditionally surrendered to Allied forces), it is somehow eternally German property, is, while sympathetic, silly. Why should someone in Britain be called a theif for buying one when they were common and taking the trouble to preserve it? Perhaps, in the interests of Germany's memory of the war, one should be given outright (as opposed to the usual touring arrangements), but what claim to WWII memorabilia (and trivial ones at that: this is really very sensationalistic) does Germany have above UK or US, or even the countries overrun: France or, for that matter, Poland. Would it not be equally theft if Germany had the Enigma machine, thus depriving countries who struggled hard to defeat Hitler, among other ways through codebreaking, of it. For example, the Poles, who perhaps equally should remember WWII, of a great part of their nat'l heritage (they broke into it first, realised it could be done), as well as the Brits and the French, and even, sortof, maybe the Americans. (They really had a small role... Just a contingent, started after it was worked out & set up).
What this really is is culture theft from the world, since it is unlikely to ever again resurface in public display, and one less is oneless. (Germany's quite close to the UK, too). While it is unfortunate that it can't be everywhere, arrangements for touring, sharing, etc. can/should be reached -- when legal owners are involved. (and people refrain from wild allegations of "theivery".)
If you ask me, the Brits, the French and (especially) the Poles have the greatest claim on the Enigmas, if it is that desperate that they have a "nazi-used" one (what a fascination with that we have...), since they are the countries which did the greatest and most daring part of the most interesting aspect of the whole affair: the codebreaking.
But a far more interesting monument by far would be a) one of the first Bombes, designed by Rejewski, Rozycki and Zygalski (Polish), or b) Collosus, the first programmable, interactive, w/ memory, "real" computer. (British, not used for Enigma but Geheimschrieber [ironically, what Enigma was once called] a digital based diplomatic security level cipher system). Even a reproduction of either of these...
I'm sorry, it's a weekend, there's no news anyways, I think this is rather cool -- and as for babelfish, if they really did use it, just think of it as babel-fish proofing -- the equivalent in early cryptography of deliberately throwing in spelling mistakes to foil letter frequency analasys (Eng->x->Eng NEVER works... Eng->x sometimes... You have to be able to speak it at some level to work it out;-)
Having the stories in other languages is fun, draws attention to internationalism, lends an element of challenge to finding out what the stories are about, thus heightening the eventual laugh, and enables those of us who can speak other languages than English to feel a bit flattered and superior. Oh wait --- that's why most of you are complaining --- you're just jealous!;-)
Oh, and to the guy who wrote the comment about Babelfish & Latin, 1) I refer you to my own comment on the previous story (poor latin), 2) Have I annoyed you yet (In either possible way)?;-)
Homines qui possunt latinem mal scripsere vos salubant! Salvete ad hunc situm intergentem. Vos invito colloquium latine facere, qui, re vera, est lingua intergens. (Illuc fuit "kludge"...;-)
Toronto data Kalendis Aprilibus.
___________
Re:IE 5 for Mac looks like Aqua...
on
Netscape 6
·
· Score: 1
This may yet make MS look really *stupid* (or perhaps just stupider, to some;-) when Aqua really does come out as a consumer product. Aqua uses a version of display postscript, and so MS will either a) look second best or b) have bloated their product with, in effect, their own implementation. And imagine how aqua will look on top of an old desktop... (Which will be what most run it on.) Definite conflict, IMHO.
Still, I suppose it does free them from the horrible "Classic" compatability module in OSX... But really, they should have just left well enough alone, done it in the abstract, so they can quickly move over to the new OS level system, Charcoal. (Or Graphite, or Carbon... Can't remember which). After all, OSX won't be consumer for some time.
_____________
Re:You can't comment. Screw my karma.
on
Protesting DMCA
·
· Score: 1
Actually, the point you make about a soldier's loyalty to a country not a cause, should moderate you up, if there's any justice... I think the antecedant of your comment was just expressing dismay at the highflown rhetoric tossed about -- sometimes practically open rank-pulling, to the point of crassness. However, I think I agree with you in replying. I do have 3c. CDN (thats 2c. American;-) on the subject of flags, however.
I'm afraid I'm not an American, and so perhaps I might seem a little bit, ahh, out of place or underinformed, but as a proud Canadian, I would be certainly be worried about such a law about the Maple Leaf.
Basically, the argument for it is that it is the expression of the society of its respect for itself, for its own symbol -- something that, in turn, has been bought and maintained at a high cost in lives. However circular it seems, I must say I agree with this argument. (If you reject it, you're also probably rejecting the idea of human spirit and freewill -- think about the same metaphor for a person).
But I'm afraid I can't really see the government as that responsive and good an expression of the people. Certainly it's our gov't, expresses our will, but the idea of the government having to call in the "troops" to defend the flag strikes me as dangerous. I think there's something more fundamentally -- and worrisomely -- wrong when we have to legislate to defend the ideals of the state. Surely basic respect will do enough
Of course, maybe some people still will burn flags, or accidentally trip on them, whatever (Flag desecration a larger set of actions than flag burning... I would of thought that most flag burning should be "caught" by the anti-hate legislation...). But they will do this for one of two reasons: a) Either (they had better) they have one heck of a point to make, in which case we should listen, or b) they're hooligans with no decent cause, and will get the obscurity, contempt and exclusion they deserve. (Or perhaps they're just loons, in which case, pity). Most of the really offensive flag burners will be foreign anyways -- and perhaps they, too, have a point to make to the civilian president.
I was quite surprised at the fact the box would not allow two shows to be taped simultaneously. Am I to take it that this is a hardware limitation? I could see why it might pose problems. But I would have thought that it would be an incredibly useful feature to be able to tape multiple shows, regardless of schedule. Such a specific dependance on schedule would be sure to annoy. (Just enough freedom to sortof make schedules a thing of the past, exceept for this really awkward conflicting schedule thing) Especially since large segments of the various networks' programming and marketing departments carefully pit their best shows against one another... (Though, comne to think of it, in terms of total hours they might do well to split up shows of similar genre: if, say, ST Voyager followed DS9, instead of conflicting, they'd likely get nearly 2x as many hours out of the trekkies. And poissibly avert a number of flame wars.;-) I think there's an interesting application of game theory to be made here... Fight for your competitors slice of pie, or widen the pie... (Both is my answer))
On another note, is there not already a less sophisticated system for analog VCRs, where numbers printed in the listings are entered and the machine will then track down 'x' episodes... My recollection is that its pretty useless, as you have to register each new No., which takes time, but the principle's there. It's called VCR plus, or something of that nature...
People who (originally) say "virii", are, in fact, of the blessed of this world, for they have studied Latin! Now, I'm an 11th. grade student, and take Latin. The average student's reaction to Latin is one of wretching, but seriously, it makes nearly every other language a walk in the park, and isn't bad in and of itself. It's great for learning languages. I really reccomend it.
"Virus" is in fact a latinate and latin-derived word, and if we decline it appropriately, we do indeed get "virii". So these people are not like those who say "boxen", as "virii" has some real foundation.
As for sounding more sophisticated than they really are, well, using "virii", truth be told, probably is at some level intellectual chest-beating. (But it is correct!) However, it is justified because a) it's easy to remember (unlike, say, practicum -> practica) b) the alternative is FAR worse. Viruses? Viruseses? I rest my case.;-)
I think that alot of people are getting caught up about stopping spam... Which of course makes other people scream the 1st Amendment. But this law was not about stopping spam, it was about regulating spam, a very different thing, and a very necessary thing. Let's say, for the sake of argument, some group of which I approve needed to make an unsolicited mailing, for whatever reason. Would they do it via E-Mail? No. Why? Because E-Mail lacks credibility and accountablilty, and hence most people would niot give any such bunsolicited item the attention it may (or may not) deserve.
This law was simply bent on ensuring that this email was not misleading (ie. abided by the standard decorum of non-virtual advertising) and showed who sent it. Without these two things, the right to arrange 1 and 0s anyway you choose means little, because no-one will read it.
I think the argument is not so much that they are conservatives so much as they are still looking to make their money in an old pattern, one which does not fit with the modern one. They are trying to strengthen this system, but through modern means.
I actually don't beleive that total freedom (i.e. non-protection) of expression is a good idea, but Jon Katz does have a point that the current system is unfeasible. I agree very strongly that the law has gone downhill in favour of the industry, and I feel that this is because it is the only way the industry can find to defend their current distrobution system (one which bears daily-increasing semblance to a cartel -- look at what real record prices have done with respect to the intro. of CDs)
Quite simply put, the idea of physically replicating hundreds of thousands of plastic-aluminium sandwich discs at high levels of fidelity begins to lose its attraction when there is not only a highly viable (high volume, fidelity, efficiency) electronic distrubution medium available (the Internet), but the ability in thousands of households to reconstitute this data into the original format as needed (burners). (The same issues were perhaps encountered on a smaller scale when radio came to be -- history buffs, anyone?) All right, so maybe that wasn't a simply put senteance, but you get the idea.
A new system of transferring value to performers in return for their work will have to evolve. Culture will not survive without it. If it's any comfort to the hordes of broke 16 year-olds (among whom I count myself) it very much appears that this new system will be the death of (the current) cartels, and will be vastly more efficient -- and the cds (or whatever) will hence be cheaper.
Quite how this new system will work I cannot tell. The simplest system, and the one most like past history, would be a similar tax applied to the relevant materials as was once introduced on top of cassettes, whose proceeds are distributed to artists. This system has a number of drawbacks, however, not least that it relies on the wisdom of beureaucrats to distribute the funds. My only other idea would be some kind of (RSA, learning the lessons of CSS!) encryption scheme to protect songs -- but some clown could still just press the ol' record/upload button. I suspect what will be a more lasting solution is either some control of the necessary high-bandwidth infrastructuer by gov't/authority (something already being studied in reaction to DoS attacks) coupled with a practice of making the legal channels attractive to teh point of making the illegal ones a) paltry and b) easily controlled with a minimum of enforecement. An ecomic solution always works best.
Interesting Times ahead. (I don't suppose I have to attribute that...;-)
Sorry about previous empty post. It was an accident. (I feel stupid...);)
As part of the new "OpenLegal" initiative, I thought I'd try my hand at writing a privacy statement. I think this meets TRUSTe's requirements, doesn't it? (Of course, most privacy statements aren't written even in the proper quasi-legally binding form I've poorly imitated in this!;-)
PREAMBLE
Right, the laywers made us say this, we're sorry,, don''t worry your pretty little heads about this, pleas don't read this, it doesn't say what you think it says anyways. (hypnotic message: PRESS "BACK" NOW!)
I. Introduction and Purview
1. This document governs the privacy policies of the Internet System 197.234.74.257 (the SITE) with regard to its access by one person (the VISITOR) by electronic means and the data about the VISITOR (the INFORMATION) collected hereby, but none of its mirrors, load sharing sites or routers, neither other viewers.
2. By entering within sight of this site you have indicated your agreement to these terms.
II. General Rights
1. It is our pleasure to inform you that you have no privacy rights whatsoever. As you read, personal data is being collected.
III. Information Collected
1. The SITE will endeavour to collect as much INFORMATION as may be determined profitable by the SITE.
2. These INFORMATIONs will include but not be limited to: (where "your" refers to the VISITOR) your home and work contact info, your favourite colour (or Favorite Color, in some jurisdictions) your family history, all such INFORMATION about your relatives including their schools or nursaries, principle caregivers, nannies and ages; your prom date, your IRS return form, any foreign tax return form (or lack thereof), your sexual orientation and favourite kind of coffee, your secret service file with each of the nations on the Security council and your past and future company, and the results of all of all IQ tests.
IV. Collection Means
1. The SITE will use whatever means neccessary, included but not restricted to cookies, IP fingerprinting, port mapping, indiscriminate hacking and paramilitary raids; In fact, as the VISITOR reads this a highly trained team of former SEALS and S.A.S. members is ransacking the VISITOR's (that's you) personal files and residences.
V. Use of Information
1. This site will under no circumstances refrain from selling this information to the highest bidder, including but not limited to security forces of any country or group.
VI. SECURITY
1. Due security measures will of course be taken. If they weren't, we couldn't sell the info because anyone could steal it.
VII. Accessing & Updating Information
1. The SITE sees no need to give access to the INFORMATION, as it is 100% accurate, comprehensive and personal, and the VISITOR therefore already knows it.
2. Every time the VISITOR moves his mouse, the information will be automatically updated. Therefore, the VISITOR will not need to manually modify the INFORMATION
VIII. Limitation of Liability
1. No-one's written any laws yet, so we're untouchable. We have no assets in Europe. The VISITOR is hereby sol.
As part of the new "OpenLegal" initiative, I thought I'd try my hand at writing a privacy statement. I think this meets TRUSTe's requirements, doesn't it? (Of course, most privacy statements aren't written even in the proper quasi-legally binding form I've poorly imitated in this!;-)
I. Intro and Perview
1. This document governs the privacy policies of the Internet System 197.234.74.257 (the SITE) with regard to its access by one person (the VISITOR) by electronic means and the data about the VISITOR (the INFORMATION) collected hereby, but none of its mirrors, load sharing sites or routers, neither other viewers.
2. By entering within sight of this site you have indicated your agreement to these terms.
II. General Rights
1. It is our pleasure to inform you that you have no privacy rights whatsoever. As you read, personal data is being collected.
III. Information Collected
1. The SITE will endeavour to collect as much INFORMATION as may be determined profitable by the SITE.
2. These INFORMATIONs will include but not be limited to: your home and work contact info, your family history, all such INFORMATION about your relatives including their schools or nursaries, principle caregivers, nannies and ages, your prom date, your IRS return form, any foreign tax return form (or lack thereof), your secret service file with each of the nations on the Security council and your IQ.
IV. Collection Means
1. The SITE will use whatever means neccessary, included but not restricted to cookies, IP fingerprinting, port mapping, indiscriminate hacking and paramilitary raids; In fact, as the VISITOR reads this a highly trained team of former SEALS and S.A.S. members is ransacking the VISITOR's (that's you) personal files and residences.
V. Use of Information
1. This site will under no circumstances refrain from selling this information to the highest bidder, including but not limited to security forces of any country or group.
VI. SECURITY
1. Due security measures will of course be taken. If they weren't, we couldn't sell the info because anyone could steal it.
VII. Accessing & Updating Information
1. The SITE sees no need to give access to the INFORMATION, as it is 100% accurate, comprehensive and personal, and the VISITOR therefore already knows it.
2. Every time the VISITOR moves his mouse, the information will be automatically updated. Therefore, the VISITOR will not need to manually modify the INFORMATION
VIII. Limitation of Liability
1. No-one's written any laws yet, so we're untouchable. We have no assets in Europe. The VISITOR is hereby sol.
Yes, VR will be cool. Quite apart from coding (Can you imagine a nice wraparound wall of your program stuff instantaniouly generated) and CAD/CAM, the meetings could take place there too. And even if facial expressions were still primitive, well, when the meeting got old, and entropy grew, and the memory leaks started filling the air with lost data and lag, and things got nasty, well, there's always the good ol' Quake model to fall back on. Just imagine! Instead of messy political struggles, opponents could simply duke it out, avatar against avatar, and may the least laggy win! Jus' like the good ol' days, when your opponents were next door.;-)
Firstly, thanks for your reply. In my reply, I was a good deal less civil than I had intended to be. (I'm in the EST timezone, too!;-), and so it was a lot harsher than intended. I should definenatly apologise for my 3rd para.)
Your reply is quite interesting, especially about the source (I've also since had a chance to read the other postings about Woolseley and the journalist).
For me, what still gets to me is that the US. was spying on allies. I live in Canada (and have some European backround), whose government is marginally more friendly to the U.S. federal governments, than, ummm, the individual States, maybe?;-), and so its a bit worrisome/irritating to hear about the U.S. government, who already dominate our gevernment in trade and even politics (grace a NAFTA), doing something to further its economic supremecy, even if they claim/are doing it just to maintain parity. (Of course, maybe you recall that CSIS, the Canadian intelligence service, got into hot water for spying on allies a while ago, so Canada's not so wonderful either.) The U.S. accidentally or on purpose throws its weight around a lot of the time already; Sometimes it really doesn't seem fair for the mice (Canada) trying to sleep with this Elephant (America). (Simile from Trudeau, a fromer PM, don;t know if you've heard of him?)
This observation of American domination forms a nice seguay into my next thought: I really wouldn't have thought that this was such a big deal for the U.S. For me, it seems largely like a matter of principle, not a matter of life and death for the world's strongest economy. The (contradicting) argument you advance about the Russians is therefore very interesting to me; I shall definately try to hunt down that book.
Still, I must say I do still think that nations in general should check their spy agencies in doing things like this; it really does seem to me to be, above all else, an innapropriate crossover between government and bussiness. Maybe this puts it in the purview of the WTO?;-) Thus, what has really irritated me in this story has been the (large but minority) group of people saying "I'm proud that my tax dollars are going towards an effort to aid American bussiness over foreigners; keep up the good work";-)
In anycase, thankyou for your reply, and my apologies for the viciousness of my attack. I'm being quite interested/fascinated/honoured (given my original message) to hear your supporting case.
" Since the world's economy is on the skids, and the only quasi-stable economy is that of the US, isn't it in the enlightened self interest of the rest of the world that the US do what is _plainly_ b"
Please. Could we have a bit of enlightened impartiality here? You seem to beleive that the world's economies should jump on the 'skids' (whatever those are) to *protect* the U.S.'s one. I think I speak for the world when I say that they are most honoured to be your suicide guards.
Never mind that your view of world politics is clearly that expounded by people who beleive the U.S. won the war of 1812 (no-one did really, but US was clearly going to lose), never mind the fact that MI5 probably wouldn't be caught DEAD in the same room as MI6, let alone the fact that when morning came MI5 would be found dead if they tried to operate in Germany (they are quite strictly domestic, MI6 is foreign stuff) never mind the rather blatently supremecist comments you make with regard to an unnamed nation which is impoverished but is certainly not third world, and never was, (I would have hoped the west would have been able to quash a third world country a third our size in less than 45 years!), has the idea of morality never crossed your mind?
Just because you have been led to beleive that other countries spy on you, you beleive you should also spy on foreign companies owned by friendly allies who would probably give you directions and suggest a bar if you were a tourist? What about they're S. services? This is NOT a game of M.A.D., stopping spying will not, (I hope) actually cause the American economy to collapse into the rubble we all fear, so why should you betray?
I really am beginning to suspect I am feeding flamebait, which is a shame, as I was trying to keep this post civil. Can you give links, examples in real life that bear you out? Anyway you slice this espiionage, this is an insanely distasteful act, an intrusion, in effect, of our state in our lives (since it is/will receive retaliation), and a cowardly crossover between politics and bussiness, and a manifestation of "might makes right" (if a company can't do it, why can a government?). Not to mention unpleasantly nationalistic. So, how do you justify this morally? In short, give us links in HTML, and give us your links in reasoning!
In my understanding, yes, but not dramatically/catastophrically. The biggest problem would be shearing from side to side due to winds. They appear to be using winglets to kee the plane aligned, but these would probably be insufficient, so guides of some sort would be neccessary. As for the actual lift from WIG, the effects would be pretty nominal, I would think. Not only does being that close to the ground mean easy vortex control and WIG, it means you get to fly in the ground's slipstream, i.e. in the (relatively) still air slowed by ground drag. There would have to be one *heck* of a tailwind & a straight track to actually cause the wing to stop lifting. If I understand the diagram, they're also building side walls (for the winglets to "push" on), and these will help break the wind. So, in short, winds will probably cause yaw problems, but not lift ones, this could be mitigated. However, only at a cost of efficiency. Most winds will be sufficiently slight, I would think. As for the rest of weather, I don't really know, but I'd imagine it'd roll off it. If I was feeling energetic, I would do the figures for WIG and ground slipstram, but I'm not.;-)
What this comes down to is the clear opinion in the American espionage establishment that might makes right, and if they're not American owned they can roast, friendly or no.
This is naturally a stance I and many others find offensive. What does it matter open info. vs. espionage, you've still got a bunch of unpleasant gov't intelligence types running around considering ways to aid American companies over British|French|Canadian|Japanese|S'African|Austral ian|Venezualan|etc. ones.
The idea of this being largely about "bribery" strikes me as the thinnest zenophobic screen, an attempt to post-rationalize cowardly behaviour in the eyes of the public by making unprovable and unfair assertions about the relative merits of other cultures. Even if its true, if bribery went, tomorrow, would they stop spying tomorrow?
The ultimate intent of the community, as evidenced by the question about a tech. breakthrough, is to aid Americans over the scary "Europeans". This disugusts me. Such a myopic, zenophobic, shallow, argument should disgust everyone.
BTW, I can't defend France, but can anyone completely defend the actions of the U.S. (or anywhere 100% of the time) in its foreign policy? America is *good*, but not perfect, and probably not that much better than most other democracies. The same goes for bribery, I suppose we're going to ignore the American Tobacco Lobby for the time being, and quite how one of its members got itself involved in Tobacco racketeering in Canada? Or, perhaps our blind eye would be better used on the campaign trail? Or in the officer schools? Or in the plethora of QUANGOs associated w/ defence? Or with the fact that defence bidding, despite being open to at least Cdn companies, was (when Cdn. co.s were big enough to matter) cleverly tilted towards american bussiness, etc etc.
I could enumerate an even greater number of good things the U.S. has done, but I'm not going too. (This post is too long and too politically dodgy already.;-)
I really don't see your point in your.sig "Hiroshima '45 Chernobyl '86 Windows '95". Surely any true blooded American redneck should be proud of these glorious defeats of, in order, the Japanese Importers (danged $#@$ car, no trucks), the Bears in the Woods (for not being Beers in the Woods)(*) and the Computer Hackers. Are you insulting our flag?
;-);-)
Please, no one take offense, not even (or perhaps especially, given the size of that gun) the American Far Right.;-)
Please note that in the Real World (Patent Pending), both Chernobyl and, I suppose, (some of) Hiroshima/Nagasaki have my sympathy.
Pretty interesting. After a cursory skim of the article, the one thought which occurs to me is noise. They're talking about powering it with fans of some sort, which is all very well and quite energy efficient, but causes noise problems. Just look at one of its ground-cushion kin: the hovercraft. Anyone who has taken the hovercraft ferry from Dover->Calais (or, I presume, anywhere else), or even watched one whiz by from a ferry, will know that they arre notoriously loud. Turboprop Regional Aircraft face similar problems; It seems largely to be caused by propellor tips' vorices (selon a Bombardier); so perhaps turning them into ducted fans would help; Bombarider (I leave it to you to judge the technical merits of this blurb) use anti-noise/phase shift technology; The Beech(?) Starship simply placed the propellors well aft of the passanger compartment. In anycase, some serious engineeriing will probably have to go into this issue to make the service attractive to passangers. (A main competetive issue between regional jets vs turboprops is noise. Many travellers explicitly avoid TPs for this reason alone.)
The comments about self powered tracks seem to suggest they might be looking into a hybrid maglev solution where some form of magnet propulsion could be used (or at least some form of track mounted propulsion) with ta wing providing lift to avoid friction.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry to seem pedantic, but so far as I could ever tell, the RedHat X-Windows/GNOME package update tool, "Update Agent" does Just This [patent pending]. It only downloads a truncated list. (Don't know quite how, however, so maybe there's some innovation by MS here.) It's actually a pretty good tool, although, inevitably, a pain over a slow wire. Give thanks to your particular divine/nondivine entity/entities/nonentity/ies (for athiests ;-), cosmic being(s) or random chaos effects, as is your personal preference, for DSL lines! ;-)
___________________
PS. Used to run W'95 on a 486 sx 25 w/8mb RAM, 200HD, and then run CivII -- which technically required a DX/66... God bless wemu387.sys ;-) (Or at least circumstantial evidence suggests that this file acted as an emulator: name, CivII not working w/o it, etc.)
Seriously, I can agree. If configured properly, even the oldest computer can be highly functional in some roles, even as a gaming machine -- if you play strategy.
But even here, there is a constant shift toward the high tech. It's hard to say what drives it -- novelty must certainly be an issue, bigger (neater, cooler, faster) is always easier than better -- but it should be noted that the monopoly leader of the main consumer market (at the moment) has a vested interest in upping hardware req.s -- remember that they get the MS tax on (nearly) all new machines sold? And since they supply the de facto system libraries, notably DirectX, in the Games market, well, I hardly need to finish this sentence. (Hardly can, given how convoluted it got ;-) This is, if you'll forgive me for harping on, why Linux/GNU (type) OSs in general are so good: they want to be correct, not commercial. This is why the benefits of 98SE are debateable (and its req.s higher) while Linux is better on less hardware.
______________
Excuse me for answering questions posed to others, but... ;-) Most of the actual content is already HTML, on the web. What the book is is a reformatting. So really, those people who are interested can see the raw stuff here. And most of the people who would use an e-format are the kind of people who won't mind Slashdot formatting. Still, at least at the margin, you do have a valid question, although an interesting counterargument often advanced on /. is that new media require new messeges (formats, sorry, gratuitous and O.T. McLuhan referance... ;-)______________
____________
Continuing on the communications security/theory theme of the evening, and leaving behind the flame "crisis" (not quite a war, but ultimatums issued) over (OT) Cultural Property, how precisely are they going to accomplish this? Anyone know?
At the end of World War II, their were probably a few thousand of these devices about. (The brits actually sold them to some of the new colonial gov'ts!). Quite apart from the hundreds of experimental replicas built by the Poles and British, the entire German Navy, Army, and Luftwaffe and some of the lower civil service were equiped with them. The value of this lies not in the fact it is a "nazi encryption machine" (to paraphrase), but in the fact that someone -- in this case, Bletchley Park -- preserved it.
The idea that since it was once a German device (property of a gov't which legitimately and uncoditionally surrendered to Allied forces), it is somehow eternally German property, is, while sympathetic, silly. Why should someone in Britain be called a theif for buying one when they were common and taking the trouble to preserve it? Perhaps, in the interests of Germany's memory of the war, one should be given outright (as opposed to the usual touring arrangements), but what claim to WWII memorabilia (and trivial ones at that: this is really very sensationalistic) does Germany have above UK or US, or even the countries overrun: France or, for that matter, Poland. Would it not be equally theft if Germany had the Enigma machine, thus depriving countries who struggled hard to defeat Hitler, among other ways through codebreaking, of it. For example, the Poles, who perhaps equally should remember WWII, of a great part of their nat'l heritage (they broke into it first, realised it could be done), as well as the Brits and the French, and even, sortof, maybe the Americans. (They really had a small role... Just a contingent, started after it was worked out & set up).
What this really is is culture theft from the world, since it is unlikely to ever again resurface in public display, and one less is oneless. (Germany's quite close to the UK, too). While it is unfortunate that it can't be everywhere, arrangements for touring, sharing, etc. can/should be reached -- when legal owners are involved. (and people refrain from wild allegations of "theivery".)
If you ask me, the Brits, the French and (especially) the Poles have the greatest claim on the Enigmas, if it is that desperate that they have a "nazi-used" one (what a fascination with that we have...), since they are the countries which did the greatest and most daring part of the most interesting aspect of the whole affair: the codebreaking.
But a far more interesting monument by far would be a) one of the first Bombes, designed by Rejewski, Rozycki and Zygalski (Polish), or b) Collosus, the first programmable, interactive, w/ memory, "real" computer. (British, not used for Enigma but Geheimschrieber [ironically, what Enigma was once called] a digital based diplomatic security level cipher system). Even a reproduction of either of these...
__________
Having the stories in other languages is fun, draws attention to internationalism, lends an element of challenge to finding out what the stories are about, thus heightening the eventual laugh, and enables those of us who can speak other languages than English to feel a bit flattered and superior. Oh wait --- that's why most of you are complaining --- you're just jealous! ;-)
Oh, and to the guy who wrote the comment about Babelfish & Latin, 1) I refer you to my own comment on the previous story (poor latin), 2) Have I annoyed you yet (In either possible way)? ;-)
________________
Toronto data Kalendis Aprilibus.
___________
Still, I suppose it does free them from the horrible "Classic" compatability module in OSX... But really, they should have just left well enough alone, done it in the abstract, so they can quickly move over to the new OS level system, Charcoal. (Or Graphite, or Carbon... Can't remember which). After all, OSX won't be consumer for some time.
_____________
I'm afraid I'm not an American, and so perhaps I might seem a little bit, ahh, out of place or underinformed, but as a proud Canadian, I would be certainly be worried about such a law about the Maple Leaf.
Basically, the argument for it is that it is the expression of the society of its respect for itself, for its own symbol -- something that, in turn, has been bought and maintained at a high cost in lives. However circular it seems, I must say I agree with this argument. (If you reject it, you're also probably rejecting the idea of human spirit and freewill -- think about the same metaphor for a person).
But I'm afraid I can't really see the government as that responsive and good an expression of the people. Certainly it's our gov't, expresses our will, but the idea of the government having to call in the "troops" to defend the flag strikes me as dangerous. I think there's something more fundamentally -- and worrisomely -- wrong when we have to legislate to defend the ideals of the state. Surely basic respect will do enough
Of course, maybe some people still will burn flags, or accidentally trip on them, whatever (Flag desecration a larger set of actions than flag burning... I would of thought that most flag burning should be "caught" by the anti-hate legislation...). But they will do this for one of two reasons: a) Either (they had better) they have one heck of a point to make, in which case we should listen, or b) they're hooligans with no decent cause, and will get the obscurity, contempt and exclusion they deserve. (Or perhaps they're just loons, in which case, pity). Most of the really offensive flag burners will be foreign anyways -- and perhaps they, too, have a point to make to the civilian president.
Anyway, just my USD 2c.
______________
On another note, is there not already a less sophisticated system for analog VCRs, where numbers printed in the listings are entered and the machine will then track down 'x' episodes... My recollection is that its pretty useless, as you have to register each new No., which takes time, but the principle's there. It's called VCR plus, or something of that nature...
________________________
"Virus" is in fact a latinate and latin-derived word, and if we decline it appropriately, we do indeed get "virii". So these people are not like those who say "boxen", as "virii" has some real foundation.
As for sounding more sophisticated than they really are, well, using "virii", truth be told, probably is at some level intellectual chest-beating. (But it is correct!) However, it is justified because a) it's easy to remember (unlike, say, practicum -> practica) b) the alternative is FAR worse. Viruses? Viruseses? I rest my case. ;-)
______________________
This law was simply bent on ensuring that this email was not misleading (ie. abided by the standard decorum of non-virtual advertising) and showed who sent it. Without these two things, the right to arrange 1 and 0s anyway you choose means little, because no-one will read it.
__________
I actually don't beleive that total freedom (i.e. non-protection) of expression is a good idea, but Jon Katz does have a point that the current system is unfeasible. I agree very strongly that the law has gone downhill in favour of the industry, and I feel that this is because it is the only way the industry can find to defend their current distrobution system (one which bears daily-increasing semblance to a cartel -- look at what real record prices have done with respect to the intro. of CDs)
Quite simply put, the idea of physically replicating hundreds of thousands of plastic-aluminium sandwich discs at high levels of fidelity begins to lose its attraction when there is not only a highly viable (high volume, fidelity, efficiency) electronic distrubution medium available (the Internet), but the ability in thousands of households to reconstitute this data into the original format as needed (burners). (The same issues were perhaps encountered on a smaller scale when radio came to be -- history buffs, anyone?) All right, so maybe that wasn't a simply put senteance, but you get the idea.
A new system of transferring value to performers in return for their work will have to evolve. Culture will not survive without it. If it's any comfort to the hordes of broke 16 year-olds (among whom I count myself) it very much appears that this new system will be the death of (the current) cartels, and will be vastly more efficient -- and the cds (or whatever) will hence be cheaper.
Quite how this new system will work I cannot tell. The simplest system, and the one most like past history, would be a similar tax applied to the relevant materials as was once introduced on top of cassettes, whose proceeds are distributed to artists. This system has a number of drawbacks, however, not least that it relies on the wisdom of beureaucrats to distribute the funds. My only other idea would be some kind of (RSA, learning the lessons of CSS!) encryption scheme to protect songs -- but some clown could still just press the ol' record/upload button. I suspect what will be a more lasting solution is either some control of the necessary high-bandwidth infrastructuer by gov't/authority (something already being studied in reaction to DoS attacks) coupled with a practice of making the legal channels attractive to teh point of making the illegal ones a) paltry and b) easily controlled with a minimum of enforecement. An ecomic solution always works best.
Interesting Times ahead. (I don't suppose I have to attribute that... ;-)
________________
As part of the new "OpenLegal" initiative, I thought I'd try my hand at writing a privacy statement. I think this meets TRUSTe's requirements, doesn't it? (Of course, most privacy statements aren't written even in the proper quasi-legally binding form I've poorly imitated in this! ;-)
PREAMBLE
Right, the laywers made us say this, we're sorry,, don''t worry your pretty little heads about this, pleas don't read this, it doesn't say what you think it says anyways. (hypnotic message: PRESS "BACK" NOW!)
I. Introduction and Purview
1. This document governs the privacy policies of the Internet System 197.234.74.257 (the SITE) with regard to its access by one person (the VISITOR) by electronic means and the data about the VISITOR (the INFORMATION) collected hereby, but none of its mirrors, load sharing sites or routers, neither other viewers.
2. By entering within sight of this site you have indicated your agreement to these terms.
II. General Rights
1. It is our pleasure to inform you that you have no privacy rights whatsoever. As you read, personal data is being collected.
III. Information Collected
1. The SITE will endeavour to collect as much INFORMATION as may be determined profitable by the SITE.
2. These INFORMATIONs will include but not be limited to: (where "your" refers to the VISITOR) your home and work contact info, your favourite colour (or Favorite Color, in some jurisdictions) your family history, all such INFORMATION about your relatives including their schools or nursaries, principle caregivers, nannies and ages; your prom date, your IRS return form, any foreign tax return form (or lack thereof), your sexual orientation and favourite kind of coffee, your secret service file with each of the nations on the Security council and your past and future company, and the results of all of all IQ tests.
IV. Collection Means
1. The SITE will use whatever means neccessary, included but not restricted to cookies, IP fingerprinting, port mapping, indiscriminate hacking and paramilitary raids; In fact, as the VISITOR reads this a highly trained team of former SEALS and S.A.S. members is ransacking the VISITOR's (that's you) personal files and residences.
V. Use of Information
1. This site will under no circumstances refrain from selling this information to the highest bidder, including but not limited to security forces of any country or group.
VI. SECURITY
1. Due security measures will of course be taken. If they weren't, we couldn't sell the info because anyone could steal it.
VII. Accessing & Updating Information
1. The SITE sees no need to give access to the INFORMATION, as it is 100% accurate, comprehensive and personal, and the VISITOR therefore already knows it.
2. Every time the VISITOR moves his mouse, the information will be automatically updated. Therefore, the VISITOR will not need to manually modify the INFORMATION
VIII. Limitation of Liability
1. No-one's written any laws yet, so we're untouchable. We have no assets in Europe. The VISITOR is hereby sol.
_______________________
I. Intro and Perview
1. This document governs the privacy policies of the Internet System 197.234.74.257 (the SITE) with regard to its access by one person (the VISITOR) by electronic means and the data about the VISITOR (the INFORMATION) collected hereby, but none of its mirrors, load sharing sites or routers, neither other viewers.
2. By entering within sight of this site you have indicated your agreement to these terms.
II. General Rights
1. It is our pleasure to inform you that you have no privacy rights whatsoever. As you read, personal data is being collected.
III. Information Collected
1. The SITE will endeavour to collect as much INFORMATION as may be determined profitable by the SITE.
2. These INFORMATIONs will include but not be limited to: your home and work contact info, your family history, all such INFORMATION about your relatives including their schools or nursaries, principle caregivers, nannies and ages, your prom date, your IRS return form, any foreign tax return form (or lack thereof), your secret service file with each of the nations on the Security council and your IQ.
IV. Collection Means
1. The SITE will use whatever means neccessary, included but not restricted to cookies, IP fingerprinting, port mapping, indiscriminate hacking and paramilitary raids; In fact, as the VISITOR reads this a highly trained team of former SEALS and S.A.S. members is ransacking the VISITOR's (that's you) personal files and residences.
V. Use of Information
1. This site will under no circumstances refrain from selling this information to the highest bidder, including but not limited to security forces of any country or group.
VI. SECURITY
1. Due security measures will of course be taken. If they weren't, we couldn't sell the info because anyone could steal it.
VII. Accessing & Updating Information
1. The SITE sees no need to give access to the INFORMATION, as it is 100% accurate, comprehensive and personal, and the VISITOR therefore already knows it.
2. Every time the VISITOR moves his mouse, the information will be automatically updated. Therefore, the VISITOR will not need to manually modify the INFORMATION
VIII. Limitation of Liability
1. No-one's written any laws yet, so we're untouchable. We have no assets in Europe. The VISITOR is hereby sol.
_________________________
Your reply is quite interesting, especially about the source (I've also since had a chance to read the other postings about Woolseley and the journalist).
For me, what still gets to me is that the US. was spying on allies. I live in Canada (and have some European backround), whose government is marginally more friendly to the U.S. federal governments, than, ummm, the individual States, maybe? ;-), and so its a bit worrisome/irritating to hear about the U.S. government, who already dominate our gevernment in trade and even politics (grace a NAFTA), doing something to further its economic supremecy, even if they claim/are doing it just to maintain parity. (Of course, maybe you recall that CSIS, the Canadian intelligence service, got into hot water for spying on allies a while ago, so Canada's not so wonderful either.) The U.S. accidentally or on purpose throws its weight around a lot of the time already; Sometimes it really doesn't seem fair for the mice (Canada) trying to sleep with this Elephant (America). (Simile from Trudeau, a fromer PM, don;t know if you've heard of him?)
This observation of American domination forms a nice seguay into my next thought: I really wouldn't have thought that this was such a big deal for the U.S. For me, it seems largely like a matter of principle, not a matter of life and death for the world's strongest economy. The (contradicting) argument you advance about the Russians is therefore very interesting to me; I shall definately try to hunt down that book.
Still, I must say I do still think that nations in general should check their spy agencies in doing things like this; it really does seem to me to be, above all else, an innapropriate crossover between government and bussiness. Maybe this puts it in the purview of the WTO? ;-) Thus, what has really irritated me in this story has been the (large but minority) group of people saying "I'm proud that my tax dollars are going towards an effort to aid American bussiness over foreigners; keep up the good work" ;-)
In anycase, thankyou for your reply, and my apologies for the viciousness of my attack. I'm being quite interested/fascinated/honoured (given my original message) to hear your supporting case.
______________________
Please. Could we have a bit of enlightened impartiality here? You seem to beleive that the world's economies should jump on the 'skids' (whatever those are) to *protect* the U.S.'s one. I think I speak for the world when I say that they are most honoured to be your suicide guards.
Never mind that your view of world politics is clearly that expounded by people who beleive the U.S. won the war of 1812 (no-one did really, but US was clearly going to lose), never mind the fact that MI5 probably wouldn't be caught DEAD in the same room as MI6, let alone the fact that when morning came MI5 would be found dead if they tried to operate in Germany (they are quite strictly domestic, MI6 is foreign stuff) never mind the rather blatently supremecist comments you make with regard to an unnamed nation which is impoverished but is certainly not third world, and never was, (I would have hoped the west would have been able to quash a third world country a third our size in less than 45 years!), has the idea of morality never crossed your mind?
Just because you have been led to beleive that other countries spy on you, you beleive you should also spy on foreign companies owned by friendly allies who would probably give you directions and suggest a bar if you were a tourist? What about they're S. services? This is NOT a game of M.A.D., stopping spying will not, (I hope) actually cause the American economy to collapse into the rubble we all fear, so why should you betray?
I really am beginning to suspect I am feeding flamebait, which is a shame, as I was trying to keep this post civil. Can you give links, examples in real life that bear you out? Anyway you slice this espiionage, this is an insanely distasteful act, an intrusion, in effect, of our state in our lives (since it is/will receive retaliation), and a cowardly crossover between politics and bussiness, and a manifestation of "might makes right" (if a company can't do it, why can a government?). Not to mention unpleasantly nationalistic. So, how do you justify this morally? In short, give us links in HTML, and give us your links in reasoning!
_______________________________
In my understanding, yes, but not dramatically/catastophrically. The biggest problem would be shearing from side to side due to winds. They appear to be using winglets to kee the plane aligned, but these would probably be insufficient, so guides of some sort would be neccessary. As for the actual lift from WIG, the effects would be pretty nominal, I would think. Not only does being that close to the ground mean easy vortex control and WIG, it means you get to fly in the ground's slipstream, i.e. in the (relatively) still air slowed by ground drag. There would have to be one *heck* of a tailwind & a straight track to actually cause the wing to stop lifting. If I understand the diagram, they're also building side walls (for the winglets to "push" on), and these will help break the wind. So, in short, winds will probably cause yaw problems, but not lift ones, this could be mitigated. However, only at a cost of efficiency. Most winds will be sufficiently slight, I would think. As for the rest of weather, I don't really know, but I'd imagine it'd roll off it. If I was feeling energetic, I would do the figures for WIG and ground slipstram, but I'm not. ;-)
This is naturally a stance I and many others find offensive. What does it matter open info. vs. espionage, you've still got a bunch of unpleasant gov't intelligence types running around considering ways to aid American companies over British|French|Canadian|Japanese|S'African|Austral ian|Venezualan|etc. ones.
The idea of this being largely about "bribery" strikes me as the thinnest zenophobic screen, an attempt to post-rationalize cowardly behaviour in the eyes of the public by making unprovable and unfair assertions about the relative merits of other cultures. Even if its true, if bribery went, tomorrow, would they stop spying tomorrow?
The ultimate intent of the community, as evidenced by the question about a tech. breakthrough, is to aid Americans over the scary "Europeans". This disugusts me. Such a myopic, zenophobic, shallow, argument should disgust everyone.
BTW, I can't defend France, but can anyone completely defend the actions of the U.S. (or anywhere 100% of the time) in its foreign policy? America is *good*, but not perfect, and probably not that much better than most other democracies. The same goes for bribery, I suppose we're going to ignore the American Tobacco Lobby for the time being, and quite how one of its members got itself involved in Tobacco racketeering in Canada? Or, perhaps our blind eye would be better used on the campaign trail? Or in the officer schools? Or in the plethora of QUANGOs associated w/ defence? Or with the fact that defence bidding, despite being open to at least Cdn companies, was (when Cdn. co.s were big enough to matter) cleverly tilted towards american bussiness, etc etc.
I could enumerate an even greater number of good things the U.S. has done, but I'm not going too. (This post is too long and too politically dodgy already. ;-)
____________________________
Please, no one take offense, not even (or perhaps especially, given the size of that gun) the American Far Right. ;-)
Please note that in the Real World (Patent Pending), both Chernobyl and, I suppose, (some of) Hiroshima/Nagasaki have my sympathy.
Who owns the patent to the Matrix, anyway?
The comments about self powered tracks seem to suggest they might be looking into a hybrid maglev solution where some form of magnet propulsion could be used (or at least some form of track mounted propulsion) with ta wing providing lift to avoid friction.
____________________