What, me? your original post seemed weird already so maybe you replied to the wrong message?
I was replying to lennier who brought up the paranormal stuff. My intent was to discredit his notion that the stuff he mentioned is science. So my problem was being offtopic, not misunderstanding the phantom limb phenomena.
I'll stop after this, I promise -- we're obviously not getting anywhere.
I was repeating because you want to play ball but won't play by the rules: If you want to call what you do science, then you need to apply the scientific method. Inversely, if you don't want to do what the scientific method requires, you shouldn't call your stuff science.
Requiring a scientist 'to believe' before trying to reproduce your results is a violation of the scientific method.
I think you are mistaken, as far as I know world wide map data is available from two sources at the moment.
Notes on the companies you mentioned: Navteq is the Nokia company. USGS is (as the name implies) about geological survey which is very different from producing road maps. Digital Globe is an image producer, again very different from producing road maps. Mapdata sciences seems to be a 13-in-a-dozen regional mapping company -- they will no doubt sell you world wide map data but it will be from Navteq or Tele Atlas (the TomTom company)
The vast majority of corporations and libraries (with the exception of fairly large ones) normally don't implement any sort of security, and you have admin rights anyways.
Thanks for the statistic, my own studies say 87.2% of said organizations do lock desktops down.
Seriosly though, you are probably wrong about "vast majority" -- that's not even nearly true in my experience (as an example I've never seen a public use machine that wasn't tightly locked down).
Saying 'you have to believe to be able to reproduce this experiment' is not science, ok? It may be the way to see god or otherwise important, but it's not science (in fact it's the exact opposite).
As a sidenote to anyone else not familiar with american evolution discussion: that site is definitely not impartial. It presents only weaknesses (go ahead and see the 404 at http://www.strengthsandweaknesses.org/Strengths) and includes choice quotes like these:
Survey shows Darwinists completely out of touch with nearly everyone!
...the pro-abortion, pro-homos_xual, extreme leftist everything group founded by a former chief of staff of Nancy Pelosi...
Darwinists attempt to censor science education! They sounded like "broken records" at the Texas State Board of Education hearings. They cannot tolerate diversity of opinions regarding evolution theories, and cry the "sky will fall down" if "strengths and weaknesses" language is used. Most were so ignorant of the issues that they did not even realize that "strengths and weaknesses" have ALREADY BEEN in Texas schools for TWENTY YEARS!!!
Impartial my ass. Lifyre, do you have any justification for saying that these "want to play both sides"?
the last thing I seem to find as a common theme for issues with evolution is their supposition that mutations are almost never if ever beneficial.
I've never understood this. First, why should evolution mean that most mutations are beneficial? Second, isn't it common sense that purely random choices are going to end up in bad results 99.999% of the time?
Are you just trolling me? Either that or you need to do some reading... There are various ways to copy programs without ending in the same exact binary:
use a hex editor to modify the binary in insignificant ways
change the source code slightly
rewrite the same code in another language (not just imitate, but copy the code function by function)
All of those end up in a different binary (the last one even ends up with totally different source), yet they are still under the same copyright.
In short, if you want to know, go look; nobody is going to go to the trouble of providing anything for you if you can't be bothered to invest the energy to put in the requisite work through exploring. If you don't want to know, then carry on as you are. It's really that simple. --The only real difficulty is that those who do not want to know also feel the need to diminish and prevent those who DO want to know. If you don't want something to be there, then you have to deal somehow with those who are not satisfied to consume the same lies you are satisfied with.
Listen, feel free to believe in anything you like. I'm not stopping you in any way. I'm not even demanding you to prove your beliefs true. The original poster started talking about science, however, and that's when I do start asking for results reproduced by independent parties.
Really, if you do have a major discovery, it's not difficult to get published.
I don't believe in that stuff either, but... money isn't everything and someone who could do something like that probably feels enough like a freak already and perhaps isn't interested in the kind of attention they would get from claiming such a prize.
Common and valid argument -- I'd definitely just use my powers of flight for fun. This time, however, the poster talked about science... That claim requires reproducibility.
In the long run legality is a matter of opinion: the point of copyright is (in most places) to promote the advance of arts and science. How to accomplish that is purely a matter of opinion.
This is precisely the absurdity of it all. Any song, video or program on a computer is simply a number (albeit in binary). What they have effectively done is copyright a number
Not true at all. Copyright covers the original work (in this case the song). This means that the actual sequence of data is irrelevant: The song can be transformed to almost infinite number of other sequences that also sound somewhat like the original song: all those are under the same copyright -- in other words the number does not matter at all.
If I'm "twisting it around" as well, please let me know...
This is the problem with geeks, everything needs to be formally and absolutely defined... The nice thing about law is that many parts are actually quite well written -- written in ways that allow new inventions to be handled within the the same legislation. Some specific areas of copyright have some problems at the moment, but your questions aren't really problematic.
Something that might help understand copyright, is realizing that it really is about "right to copy": It's not about bits, bytes or codecs, it's about whether you copied another work or not.
There are grey areas of course -- this is sort of intentional to keep the law books from overflowing -- but usually common sense gives you a fairly good approximation of the situation.
I have to wonder, if there is a large body of science behind paranormal events, why don't the scientists cash in on the Randi Million Dollar challenge (or any of the several dozen smaller ones that are out there, if Randis requirements are too hard)? I can't believe that research grants in the field of paranormal studies are so easily available that the researchers just can't be bothered...
Maybe your comment was just going for funny, but just in case you were serious: As far as I know all radio car keys use cryptography with a challenge response scheme. The strength of the crypto can be questionable (the power requirements are probably pretty difficult), but it will prevent anything like you described.
Well, (mostly) ignoring the tone, I will say that I have to wholeheartedly agree that this is a usability nightmare.
I owned a Corvette a decade ago, which had this feature. A friend came to visit. He said that as he was driving up and knocking on the door, he watched my car flash its lights several times as I walked in and out of range, inside my house!
Sorry, but you missed my point even though you quoted the relevant part. Here it is: It's always possible to fuck up new user interfaces -- your Corvette is obviously a good example -- but the idea may still be good. The GP just flat out called the whole idea a nightmare, when there are implementations out there that work really well. You're right though I shouldn't have used the word 'idiot'.
If you're interested, I actually tested the same issue with the Lexus and the range seemed to be pretty good: The doors wouldn't open if the key was more than ~1.5 meters away
Oh the smugness... Did you honestly think none of the engineers thought of that? That you were the first to spend three seconds thinking about this UX problem?
To answer the question you should have asked instead: Lexus solves this by having a mechanical key as well (hidden inside the fob).
It seems her mistake was getting help from a Korean die hard gamer. As I had to browse Korean Sony site (don't ask how), I can understand the "XP Downgrade" is still a big deal for them so Sony was forced to pack XP "if it compiles, ship it" type drivers and offer them.
It's not just Korea. Vista has a very bad reputation with a lot of people -- maybe it is an unfounded reputation but it's there. My laptop support page is a rather good example. Lenovo has a short list of "Important info" items on the front support page including Downgrading from Windows Vista to Windows XP and Windows Vista Performance. Think about it: Two out of eight most important news are about Vista problems...
Don't be an idiot. There are always ways to blunder a usability invention but saying that this idea is a usability nightmare is ignorance.
Lexus has been doing pretty much the same thing for quite a while now, and the current system works really nicely (I don't know the radio technology they use though). You just walk up to the car and pull the handle -- if you have the fob in a pocket it will open, otherwise it won't. When you sit down you push a button to start the engine (naturally the car checks your personal fob and adjusts mirrors, the seat and radio channels to your settings).
Not having to dig for keys really does improve usability.
Slashdot Mirror
Chrome supports NPAPI so your wish is hereby granted.
Comparing top end models, the Mini has: a slower CPU, slower graphics card, less memory, slower and smaller hard drive.
Almost an exact match, huh :)
What, me? your original post seemed weird already so maybe you replied to the wrong message?
I was replying to lennier who brought up the paranormal stuff. My intent was to discredit his notion that the stuff he mentioned is science. So my problem was being offtopic, not misunderstanding the phantom limb phenomena.
I'll stop after this, I promise -- we're obviously not getting anywhere.
I was repeating because you want to play ball but won't play by the rules: If you want to call what you do science, then you need to apply the scientific method. Inversely, if you don't want to do what the scientific method requires, you shouldn't call your stuff science.
Requiring a scientist 'to believe' before trying to reproduce your results is a violation of the scientific method.
I think you are mistaken, as far as I know world wide map data is available from two sources at the moment.
Notes on the companies you mentioned:
Navteq is the Nokia company. USGS is (as the name implies) about geological survey which is very different from producing road maps. Digital Globe is an image producer, again very different from producing road maps. Mapdata sciences seems to be a 13-in-a-dozen regional mapping company -- they will no doubt sell you world wide map data but it will be from Navteq or Tele Atlas (the TomTom company)
Thanks for the statistic, my own studies say 87.2% of said organizations do lock desktops down.
Seriosly though, you are probably wrong about "vast majority" -- that's not even nearly true in my experience (as an example I've never seen a public use machine that wasn't tightly locked down).
...and a wizard hat. Do not forget the wizard hat.
Saying 'you have to believe to be able to reproduce this experiment' is not science, ok? It may be the way to see god or otherwise important, but it's not science (in fact it's the exact opposite).
As a sidenote to anyone else not familiar with american evolution discussion: that site is definitely not impartial. It presents only weaknesses (go ahead and see the 404 at http://www.strengthsandweaknesses.org/Strengths) and includes choice quotes like these:
Impartial my ass. Lifyre, do you have any justification for saying that these "want to play both sides"?
I've never understood this. First, why should evolution mean that most mutations are beneficial? Second, isn't it common sense that purely random choices are going to end up in bad results 99.999% of the time?
Are you just trolling me? Either that or you need to do some reading... There are various ways to copy programs without ending in the same exact binary:
All of those end up in a different binary (the last one even ends up with totally different source), yet they are still under the same copyright.
Listen, feel free to believe in anything you like. I'm not stopping you in any way. I'm not even demanding you to prove your beliefs true. The original poster started talking about science, however, and that's when I do start asking for results reproduced by independent parties.
Really, if you do have a major discovery, it's not difficult to get published.
Common and valid argument -- I'd definitely just use my powers of flight for fun. This time, however, the poster talked about science... That claim requires reproducibility.
It seems we have reached your definition of 'scientific'.
In the long run legality is a matter of opinion: the point of copyright is (in most places) to promote the advance of arts and science. How to accomplish that is purely a matter of opinion.
Not true at all. Copyright covers the original work (in this case the song). This means that the actual sequence of data is irrelevant: The song can be transformed to almost infinite number of other sequences that also sound somewhat like the original song: all those are under the same copyright -- in other words the number does not matter at all.
If I'm "twisting it around" as well, please let me know...
This is the problem with geeks, everything needs to be formally and absolutely defined... The nice thing about law is that many parts are actually quite well written -- written in ways that allow new inventions to be handled within the the same legislation. Some specific areas of copyright have some problems at the moment, but your questions aren't really problematic.
Something that might help understand copyright, is realizing that it really is about "right to copy": It's not about bits, bytes or codecs, it's about whether you copied another work or not.
There are grey areas of course -- this is sort of intentional to keep the law books from overflowing -- but usually common sense gives you a fairly good approximation of the situation.
I have to wonder, if there is a large body of science behind paranormal events, why don't the scientists cash in on the Randi Million Dollar challenge (or any of the several dozen smaller ones that are out there, if Randis requirements are too hard)? I can't believe that research grants in the field of paranormal studies are so easily available that the researchers just can't be bothered...
Maybe your comment was just going for funny, but just in case you were serious: As far as I know all radio car keys use cryptography with a challenge response scheme. The strength of the crypto can be questionable (the power requirements are probably pretty difficult), but it will prevent anything like you described.
Hey, no need to check the actual implementation, just continue complaining ;)
There are three images that need to matched, with 18 choices for each one: 0.017% chance to guess a correct combination.
Sorry, but you missed my point even though you quoted the relevant part. Here it is: It's always possible to fuck up new user interfaces -- your Corvette is obviously a good example -- but the idea may still be good. The GP just flat out called the whole idea a nightmare, when there are implementations out there that work really well. You're right though I shouldn't have used the word 'idiot'.
If you're interested, I actually tested the same issue with the Lexus and the range seemed to be pretty good: The doors wouldn't open if the key was more than ~1.5 meters away
Oh the smugness... Did you honestly think none of the engineers thought of that? That you were the first to spend three seconds thinking about this UX problem?
To answer the question you should have asked instead: Lexus solves this by having a mechanical key as well (hidden inside the fob).
No no, he's not dead, he's... he's resting! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, ay?
It's not just Korea. Vista has a very bad reputation with a lot of people -- maybe it is an unfounded reputation but it's there. My laptop support page is a rather good example. Lenovo has a short list of "Important info" items on the front support page including Downgrading from Windows Vista to Windows XP and Windows Vista Performance. Think about it: Two out of eight most important news are about Vista problems...
Don't be an idiot. There are always ways to blunder a usability invention but saying that this idea is a usability nightmare is ignorance.
Lexus has been doing pretty much the same thing for quite a while now, and the current system works really nicely (I don't know the radio technology they use though). You just walk up to the car and pull the handle -- if you have the fob in a pocket it will open, otherwise it won't. When you sit down you push a button to start the engine (naturally the car checks your personal fob and adjusts mirrors, the seat and radio channels to your settings).
Not having to dig for keys really does improve usability.