I don't know why I'm replying to an AC, but this really bothered me.
My plus points with Vista include:
- Playing MP3s and DVDs without breaking the law (fair law or not, still a law) - Being able to play the latest games without needing a degree in Computer Science - Being able to perform 99% of my system tasks without referring to the CLI
OK, first, DRM is not the law. It is a scheme that copyright holders have been trying to force on consumers because they imagine that everyone they do business with is a criminal. It is perfectly legal to play an MP3 on any platform you choose, as long as you purchased that MP3 in a legal manner. DVD's are a different matter, but only because the MPAA is a shortsighted organization that thinks they can only make money by locking out their customers.
Second, you shouldn't need a degree in computer science to play the latest games. That is the fault of Microsoft that has felt that games such as Halo3 are the perfect test bed for their DRM technology that they are trying to sell to other content providers. There is absolutely no other reason for them to enforce the use of Vista for this game.
With the right environment (such as KDE) you have the same ability to perform the most common tasks without a CLI. I prefer the power and flexibility that is available on the command line, but I realize that it is not for everyone.
How about you follow the link mentioned earlier in the thread (included here in case looking that up is too much effort: http://www.hardylaw.net/Bowlingtranscript.html) that takes you to a side by side comparison of the original speech, and the "sound bites" that Moore chose to include in his documentary. Mr. Heston spoke during the speech that it seemed that some people believed he and other gun owners did not feel sympathy for the victims of Columbine, and how that wasn't true. He spoke of how NRA members are part of the community of Denver and of the state of Colorado, and that NRA members had come "To help shoulder the grief and share our sorrow and to offer our respectful, reassured voice to the national discourse that has erupted around this tragedy." None of that entered the Moore documentary. Moore's selections painted a more defiant and confrontational picture of that speech. He used parts of 3-4 sentences from Heston's speech, and some film from a speech that Heston gave a year later in North Carolina that had nothing to do with the Columbine massacre. That is what I mean by changing the tone of Heston's speech.
I loved this paragraph at the end of Mr. Heston's speech.
One more thing. Our words and our behavior will be scrutinized more than ever this morning. Those who are hostile towards us will lie in wait to seize on a soundbite out of context, ever searching for an embarrassing moment to ridicule us. So, let us be mindful. The eyes of the nation are upon us today.
Positively prophetic. (what else would you expect from Moses...)
But I totally agree. Moore completely changed the tone of Mr. Heston's speech given that day.
Nice statistic (would have liked to see a citation, but this is/.), but a totally fallacy. Let's break down this statistic. What it says is that sex offenders are less likely to be arrested for any offense (emphasis mine). This means that a person arrested as a sex offender is less likely to be picked up on grand theft auto, drug related offense, armed robbery, etc, than someone arrested for a non-sex related crime. I can totally believe that. However, the wikipedia article you got this from (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender since you didn't bother to cite your source) also says in the next sentence: "Sex offenders were about four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for another sex crime after their discharge from prison -- 5.3 percent of sex offenders versus 1.3 percent of non-sex offenders." (which is equally misleading and just as useless a statistic as the one you quoted). What the studies quoted in the article don't do, and I haven't found one that does, is show how much more likely a person convicted of a sex crime is to commit another sex crime, compared to a person convicted of a non-sex crime committing a similar non-sex crime (i.e. armed robbery and assault, or drugs and burglary). That would give a better feel for the recidivism rate of sex offenders vs non-sex offenders. Additionally, the 1994 study that wikipedia quotes only covers the 3 years following the release of the sex offenders in the study. A longer term study would be more desirable as well.
Believe what you will, but your "statistic" proved absolutely nothing.
It's not the guys in Germany you need to worry about, it's the US customs agent you need to pass by upon returning to the US. Legislation has already been passed to require a passport for entry into the US from any port of entry (including from Canada and Mexico). Sure, all the required information is on the paper portion of the passport, but now, you'll have to sit and wait while they verify that you are who your passport says you are, or even worse, the burden of proof is on you to prove you are who your passport says you are.
Perhaps you've forgotten the fact that all US Passports will eventually (within the next few years) contain an RFID chip, so you'll already be tracked wherever you go with that.
Just to set the facts straight, the bill this was attached to was an immigration reform bill, not a War On Terror (WOT) bill.
I'm of two minds on the RealID act. On the one hand, there are some serious privacy concerns that need to be addressed. IIRC, RFID is also mandated for the cards, which I really don't like. However, unlike many of the supposed security measures that have been implemented lately, there are actually some tangible benefits to this system. Better information sharing between states, harder to forge drivers licenses, better tracking for sex offenders, and those are just the things I could think of in 2 minutes.
I think this is going to go the way of many unfunded mandates. The states will refuse, and the feds will bluster a bit, then eventually back down. Though it would really suck in those states that refuse if the feds don't. Federal money for road maintenance is tied to the implementation of the RealID act.
So, I think the point of this is, Slashdot is "News for nerds, stuff that matters [to CmdrTaco and friends]." If you don't like it, you're welcome to go and start your own news aggregation site. CmdrTaco and company have also conveniently provided the code you could use to run your site. Have at it. But, as long as you're coming here and reading the articles on this site, realize that maybe not everything discussed here is right up your alley.
I personally haven't watched a single episode of the Soprano's. But, I came in here to read the comments because enough people have talked about the show over the years, and the build up to the final episode, that I was interested in hearing how it ended (especially in light of CmdrTaco's description of it).
Well, I'm going to be converting my music to MP3 anyway, as I don't have an AAC compatible device. I'm just excited that I will be able to convert at least some of the music I have spent money on over the years into a format that my player will recognize.
That was my thought too. They allow you to respond within 48 hours for the first one, and if you do, you don't get disconnected, but on the second notice, it's an immediate disconnection. Seems rather draconian. And, given the RIAA's track record of mis-identifying "offenders," I would say that there would be a fair chance that a user on the Stanford network could be incorrectly named.
"Standards is the first thing you go to in the competitive strategy playbook. Of course, IBM and Sun won't say that on the record. You create a problem that didn't exist and use standards to force a problem," he said.
I have short stories and essays I created using Microsoft Word 10-15 years ago that I can't open with Word today. None of these used any fancier formatting than double spacing and varying font sizes. That is why standards are important. We can't apparently expect Microsoft to keep the formats backwards compatible, so it is up to us as consumers to seek standards that will ensure that the information we create today will be just as accessible tomorrow.
Ever wondered why the collection classes require you to pass in an array to the toArray(T[]) method? Because Java generics throw away the class information after compile time (although there's no reason they need to do this, they could have kept it and maintained backwards compatibility), so you have to pass in an array to give the type information Java removed.
I think you may be getting your facts wrong on this one. The toArray() methods precede Java Generics by at least a version. Those methods existed in Java 1.4.
As for the argument that compile time directives make it possible to ignore Generics, they're useless, I disagree with that sentiment. It would take probably exactly the same number of lines of code to not use Generics at all. Does that make them useless? No. Why would you use generics if you're going to then use directives to ignore them? This is a specious argument, because you make the assumption that because people can opt out generics, they will.
I probably should have answered your comment earlier, but if you're like me, you check your comments periodically, so I thought I'd set the record straight.
There is a random element to skip lists, but it is done purely for convenience. The initial concept of the skip list was basically that you subdivided the list as if you were doing a binary search. So, the top level pointer happened at the head, the middle of the list, and the tail of the list. The second level pointer happened at the head, 1/4th of the way down the list, the midpoint of the list, 3/4th of the way down the list, and the tail of the list. So, the formula for determining which pointers existed in any particular node was based on a power function. However, this made insertions and deletions extremely expensive, as you then had to rebuild your entire pointer list for each node in the list. It was determined then, that you could still gain many of the benefits of the skip list but simplify these operations by randomizing the levels a node contained based on the number of items in the list. That way, a complete rebuild of the pointers in the list would not be required. But, the initial concept of the skip list is sufficient to be considered prior art for this patent.
All you who state there is ample prior art for this, you are absolutely correct. This arrangement exists in several data structures text books. In fact this is a prime example. I'm stunned that this ever got through, though I shouldn't be so surprised anymore.
Yes, I agree. I would certainly like to know the perfectly rational reason for driving 900 miles in diapers, and then tracking down and pepper-spraying someone you have never met, in an airport parking lot.
Too much has been made of the diaper thing. To us non-astronaut types, wearing the diapers is kind of crazy, but it is a trick astronauts use when they go on space walks and such when needing to use the bathroom is inconvenient if not impossible. That part isn't crazy IMHO. The rest of it? Yah, totally wacko. I was under the impression she knew the other person though. I could have been misinformed though.
Come on, let's not dig on the parents parenting skills here, we really don't have enough info to do that. Besides, they're just trying to live the american dream. That is, have something tragic happen to you or someone you love, and then sue some company with deep pockets for millions. I mean, if a parent can't somehow capitalize on their children's pain, what good is having children?
Well, I guess we know your politics. Seriously though, statements like these are simply non-starters that close off the dialogue before it can even start. So, you are telling me that you are gleefully giving away your rights to privacy of your person and documents, happy to waive your rights to travel without being identified or tracked, and more?
If so, you sir, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
I hereby award you the "Yes, they're out to get you" Paranoia award. Here's your tinfoil hat.
There is absolutely nothing in the act about tracking purchases, travel, or anything else. If you think your banking and purchases are anonymous now, you're seriously deluded. Stores are tracking what you buy already, banks have to report certain types of transactions to the government.
Further, your insinuation that the rich and famous who won't need to use this card when they purchase a car with cash is also off base. Even with a cash purchase, they would have to pay taxes, so you can bet the card could be used there. I have been doing some research into this act, and so far I have turned up nothing about federal access to the card database either.
The cards themselves will be more difficult to counterfeit than the current social security card. Additionally, a large portion of the mandate is dedicated to the physical security of the blank cards themselves, how they are stored, and who has access to them.
Done right, this system could be very beneficial. A number of European nations have a national ID card system, and the things you fear don't seem to have happened there. I'm personally more afraid of the loss of rights that has already occurred with the DMCA, the **AA suing the pants of anything that moves, the perpetual extension of the "limited" copyright, and corporate america's love affair with the RFID tag. Why? Because all the information tied in with it is currently being tracked, either by corporations or the government. Further, the REAL ID act is less of a "papers please" ID card because it is up to the states to implement it within the technical guidelines presented by the federal government. It will likely have a more state centric viewpoint, and the states will control the databases which result from it. Maybe I just don't have as vivid of an imagination as you, but I don't see the things you've mentioned happening with this.
It hasn't caused blown ram, but I have experienced a shock at least once per day for several weeks now. I just assumed that somehow I had built up enough static electricity that it made the jump from me to the metal tray for my laptop keyboard. I haven't experienced the hardware failures listed in the article, but for some reason, my power supplies have been failing. I've had 2 go out in the last 5 months.
Is a must if you want to use linux in a corporate environment that uses Outlook/Exchange. We have a number of windows terminal servers, and using remote desktop, I can use them to perform email/calendering. I think that is the appropriate way to go anyway. Most people in a company don't really need all the power that exist in today's computers. Give them thin clients and have them connect to a beefier terminal server. Less mess to support, IMHO.
THe article says that people pay $1500 fo their energy needs but I suspect that might be per person not per home, since the figure is too low.
Actually, for my 2500 sq ft home, I pay roughly 1200-1400 per year in total energy costs for my family of 5. That includes an electric water heater, and an electric heat pump for heating and cooling. I have some CFL's in the home, but haven't converted all my lighting over yet.
The article mentions that after the initial R&D is done, the cost of conversion would be $100000, but I gotta wonder if that also includes the price of purchasing vehicles that run on fuel cells, cause those sucka's don't come cheap. If they were to get the initial investment down to $50000, I'd consider doing this. I've wanted to take myself off the grid ever since I heard of people making it work. Unfortunately, I'm not independently wealthy. Now, when it's time to replace my roof (in 5-6 years) I'll consider putting some solar shingles on to augment my electrical supply. I don't see me being able to go completely off the grid, but I may be able to reduce my external energy needs a bit.
IF they could come up with a DRM scheme that only blocked illegal usage, but still granted me my fair use rights, I would support it. My dis-like of DRM is only because all the current schemes step all over my rights as a consumer and purchaser, or they lock me into a single proprietary vendor for devices to access the copyrighted material. Well, that and the fact that some vendors (*cough* Sony) have decided that their rights as a copyright holder far outweigh my rights as a consumer, and that has led them to believe that it's alright for them to damage my property to protect their material.
I'm not against DRM, I'm against having my rights made obsolete by technology, something a copyright holder might also say about their rights.
I think a large portion of the reason for this is the movie industry. For many years now, we have been inundated with movies about space exploration, and film makers visions of how that would take place. With the recent push for more realism in movies, it's almost like we've already been there. In movies, we've established bases on Mars, traveled the known galaxy, and saved the universe from certain destruction. What's left?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know why I'm replying to an AC, but this really bothered me.
OK, first, DRM is not the law. It is a scheme that copyright holders have been trying to force on consumers because they imagine that everyone they do business with is a criminal. It is perfectly legal to play an MP3 on any platform you choose, as long as you purchased that MP3 in a legal manner. DVD's are a different matter, but only because the MPAA is a shortsighted organization that thinks they can only make money by locking out their customers.
Second, you shouldn't need a degree in computer science to play the latest games. That is the fault of Microsoft that has felt that games such as Halo3 are the perfect test bed for their DRM technology that they are trying to sell to other content providers. There is absolutely no other reason for them to enforce the use of Vista for this game.
With the right environment (such as KDE) you have the same ability to perform the most common tasks without a CLI. I prefer the power and flexibility that is available on the command line, but I realize that it is not for everyone.
So there you have it. Vista plus points rebutted.
It's been tried in games before... http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2002/20021118h. gif
How about you follow the link mentioned earlier in the thread (included here in case looking that up is too much effort: http://www.hardylaw.net/Bowlingtranscript.html) that takes you to a side by side comparison of the original speech, and the "sound bites" that Moore chose to include in his documentary. Mr. Heston spoke during the speech that it seemed that some people believed he and other gun owners did not feel sympathy for the victims of Columbine, and how that wasn't true. He spoke of how NRA members are part of the community of Denver and of the state of Colorado, and that NRA members had come "To help shoulder the grief and share our sorrow and to offer our respectful, reassured voice to the national discourse that has erupted around this tragedy." None of that entered the Moore documentary. Moore's selections painted a more defiant and confrontational picture of that speech. He used parts of 3-4 sentences from Heston's speech, and some film from a speech that Heston gave a year later in North Carolina that had nothing to do with the Columbine massacre. That is what I mean by changing the tone of Heston's speech.
I loved this paragraph at the end of Mr. Heston's speech.
Positively prophetic. (what else would you expect from Moses...)
But I totally agree. Moore completely changed the tone of Mr. Heston's speech given that day.
Nice statistic (would have liked to see a citation, but this is /.), but a totally fallacy. Let's break down this statistic. What it says is that sex offenders are less likely to be arrested for any offense (emphasis mine). This means that a person arrested as a sex offender is less likely to be picked up on grand theft auto, drug related offense, armed robbery, etc, than someone arrested for a non-sex related crime. I can totally believe that. However, the wikipedia article you got this from (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender since you didn't bother to cite your source) also says in the next sentence: "Sex offenders were about four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for another sex crime after their discharge from prison -- 5.3 percent of sex offenders versus 1.3 percent of non-sex offenders." (which is equally misleading and just as useless a statistic as the one you quoted). What the studies quoted in the article don't do, and I haven't found one that does, is show how much more likely a person convicted of a sex crime is to commit another sex crime, compared to a person convicted of a non-sex crime committing a similar non-sex crime (i.e. armed robbery and assault, or drugs and burglary). That would give a better feel for the recidivism rate of sex offenders vs non-sex offenders. Additionally, the 1994 study that wikipedia quotes only covers the 3 years following the release of the sex offenders in the study. A longer term study would be more desirable as well.
Believe what you will, but your "statistic" proved absolutely nothing.
I hope that you're being sarcastic. Sex offenders have a rate of recidivism that is among the highest of any crime.
It's not the guys in Germany you need to worry about, it's the US customs agent you need to pass by upon returning to the US. Legislation has already been passed to require a passport for entry into the US from any port of entry (including from Canada and Mexico). Sure, all the required information is on the paper portion of the passport, but now, you'll have to sit and wait while they verify that you are who your passport says you are, or even worse, the burden of proof is on you to prove you are who your passport says you are.
Perhaps you've forgotten the fact that all US Passports will eventually (within the next few years) contain an RFID chip, so you'll already be tracked wherever you go with that.
Just to set the facts straight, the bill this was attached to was an immigration reform bill, not a War On Terror (WOT) bill.
I'm of two minds on the RealID act. On the one hand, there are some serious privacy concerns that need to be addressed. IIRC, RFID is also mandated for the cards, which I really don't like. However, unlike many of the supposed security measures that have been implemented lately, there are actually some tangible benefits to this system. Better information sharing between states, harder to forge drivers licenses, better tracking for sex offenders, and those are just the things I could think of in 2 minutes.
I think this is going to go the way of many unfunded mandates. The states will refuse, and the feds will bluster a bit, then eventually back down. Though it would really suck in those states that refuse if the feds don't. Federal money for road maintenance is tied to the implementation of the RealID act.
So, I think the point of this is, Slashdot is "News for nerds, stuff that matters [to CmdrTaco and friends]." If you don't like it, you're welcome to go and start your own news aggregation site. CmdrTaco and company have also conveniently provided the code you could use to run your site. Have at it. But, as long as you're coming here and reading the articles on this site, realize that maybe not everything discussed here is right up your alley.
I personally haven't watched a single episode of the Soprano's. But, I came in here to read the comments because enough people have talked about the show over the years, and the build up to the final episode, that I was interested in hearing how it ended (especially in light of CmdrTaco's description of it).
Well, I'm going to be converting my music to MP3 anyway, as I don't have an AAC compatible device. I'm just excited that I will be able to convert at least some of the music I have spent money on over the years into a format that my player will recognize.
That was my thought too. They allow you to respond within 48 hours for the first one, and if you do, you don't get disconnected, but on the second notice, it's an immediate disconnection. Seems rather draconian. And, given the RIAA's track record of mis-identifying "offenders," I would say that there would be a fair chance that a user on the Stanford network could be incorrectly named.
I have short stories and essays I created using Microsoft Word 10-15 years ago that I can't open with Word today. None of these used any fancier formatting than double spacing and varying font sizes. That is why standards are important. We can't apparently expect Microsoft to keep the formats backwards compatible, so it is up to us as consumers to seek standards that will ensure that the information we create today will be just as accessible tomorrow.
I think you may be getting your facts wrong on this one. The toArray() methods precede Java Generics by at least a version. Those methods existed in Java 1.4.
As for the argument that compile time directives make it possible to ignore Generics, they're useless, I disagree with that sentiment. It would take probably exactly the same number of lines of code to not use Generics at all. Does that make them useless? No. Why would you use generics if you're going to then use directives to ignore them? This is a specious argument, because you make the assumption that because people can opt out generics, they will.
I probably should have answered your comment earlier, but if you're like me, you check your comments periodically, so I thought I'd set the record straight.
There is a random element to skip lists, but it is done purely for convenience. The initial concept of the skip list was basically that you subdivided the list as if you were doing a binary search. So, the top level pointer happened at the head, the middle of the list, and the tail of the list. The second level pointer happened at the head, 1/4th of the way down the list, the midpoint of the list, 3/4th of the way down the list, and the tail of the list. So, the formula for determining which pointers existed in any particular node was based on a power function. However, this made insertions and deletions extremely expensive, as you then had to rebuild your entire pointer list for each node in the list. It was determined then, that you could still gain many of the benefits of the skip list but simplify these operations by randomizing the levels a node contained based on the number of items in the list. That way, a complete rebuild of the pointers in the list would not be required. But, the initial concept of the skip list is sufficient to be considered prior art for this patent.
All you who state there is ample prior art for this, you are absolutely correct. This arrangement exists in several data structures text books. In fact this is a prime example. I'm stunned that this ever got through, though I shouldn't be so surprised anymore.
Too much has been made of the diaper thing. To us non-astronaut types, wearing the diapers is kind of crazy, but it is a trick astronauts use when they go on space walks and such when needing to use the bathroom is inconvenient if not impossible. That part isn't crazy IMHO. The rest of it? Yah, totally wacko. I was under the impression she knew the other person though. I could have been misinformed though.
Come on, let's not dig on the parents parenting skills here, we really don't have enough info to do that. Besides, they're just trying to live the american dream. That is, have something tragic happen to you or someone you love, and then sue some company with deep pockets for millions. I mean, if a parent can't somehow capitalize on their children's pain, what good is having children?
I hereby award you the "Yes, they're out to get you" Paranoia award. Here's your tinfoil hat.
There is absolutely nothing in the act about tracking purchases, travel, or anything else. If you think your banking and purchases are anonymous now, you're seriously deluded. Stores are tracking what you buy already, banks have to report certain types of transactions to the government.
Further, your insinuation that the rich and famous who won't need to use this card when they purchase a car with cash is also off base. Even with a cash purchase, they would have to pay taxes, so you can bet the card could be used there. I have been doing some research into this act, and so far I have turned up nothing about federal access to the card database either.
The cards themselves will be more difficult to counterfeit than the current social security card. Additionally, a large portion of the mandate is dedicated to the physical security of the blank cards themselves, how they are stored, and who has access to them.
Done right, this system could be very beneficial. A number of European nations have a national ID card system, and the things you fear don't seem to have happened there. I'm personally more afraid of the loss of rights that has already occurred with the DMCA, the **AA suing the pants of anything that moves, the perpetual extension of the "limited" copyright, and corporate america's love affair with the RFID tag. Why? Because all the information tied in with it is currently being tracked, either by corporations or the government. Further, the REAL ID act is less of a "papers please" ID card because it is up to the states to implement it within the technical guidelines presented by the federal government. It will likely have a more state centric viewpoint, and the states will control the databases which result from it. Maybe I just don't have as vivid of an imagination as you, but I don't see the things you've mentioned happening with this.
It hasn't caused blown ram, but I have experienced a shock at least once per day for several weeks now. I just assumed that somehow I had built up enough static electricity that it made the jump from me to the metal tray for my laptop keyboard. I haven't experienced the hardware failures listed in the article, but for some reason, my power supplies have been failing. I've had 2 go out in the last 5 months.
Is a must if you want to use linux in a corporate environment that uses Outlook/Exchange. We have a number of windows terminal servers, and using remote desktop, I can use them to perform email/calendering. I think that is the appropriate way to go anyway. Most people in a company don't really need all the power that exist in today's computers. Give them thin clients and have them connect to a beefier terminal server. Less mess to support, IMHO.
Actually, for my 2500 sq ft home, I pay roughly 1200-1400 per year in total energy costs for my family of 5. That includes an electric water heater, and an electric heat pump for heating and cooling. I have some CFL's in the home, but haven't converted all my lighting over yet.
The article mentions that after the initial R&D is done, the cost of conversion would be $100000, but I gotta wonder if that also includes the price of purchasing vehicles that run on fuel cells, cause those sucka's don't come cheap. If they were to get the initial investment down to $50000, I'd consider doing this. I've wanted to take myself off the grid ever since I heard of people making it work. Unfortunately, I'm not independently wealthy. Now, when it's time to replace my roof (in 5-6 years) I'll consider putting some solar shingles on to augment my electrical supply. I don't see me being able to go completely off the grid, but I may be able to reduce my external energy needs a bit.
IF they could come up with a DRM scheme that only blocked illegal usage, but still granted me my fair use rights, I would support it. My dis-like of DRM is only because all the current schemes step all over my rights as a consumer and purchaser, or they lock me into a single proprietary vendor for devices to access the copyrighted material. Well, that and the fact that some vendors (*cough* Sony) have decided that their rights as a copyright holder far outweigh my rights as a consumer, and that has led them to believe that it's alright for them to damage my property to protect their material.
I'm not against DRM, I'm against having my rights made obsolete by technology, something a copyright holder might also say about their rights.
Install Cygwin on your windows boxes. Shred is available through Cygwin.
I think a large portion of the reason for this is the movie industry. For many years now, we have been inundated with movies about space exploration, and film makers visions of how that would take place. With the recent push for more realism in movies, it's almost like we've already been there. In movies, we've established bases on Mars, traveled the known galaxy, and saved the universe from certain destruction. What's left?