Taking the first bit as error correction (even parity), and filtering as extended ASCII (using whichever I found first on google) I get
0x97 26 49 D3 or ù&I
and then one of those funky old ascii lineart codes; in particular, the bottom left corner with a double line at the top and a single line to the right, which I'm not sure how to write here, or if it's even possible.
U&I (two lines becoming one)...
You and I become one?
If it is that, though, it sounds like it's written by a kid who's just picking crap out of an ascii table without actually caring, in much the same way as the people down the page are talking about bad translations of chinese, japanese, and english tattoos.
Taking the last bit as error correction, by the way, gives a load of nonsense--two lines horizontally, AE, upside-down-questionmark, uppercase theta
Debugging something that doesn't have debugging information is beyond painful. And that's just tracking down the SOURCE of the problem, not fixing it.
In other words, exactly because the political machine was never meant for debugging, politics is a nasty nasty thing, and the one won't change until the other does.
I suspect it's simply impossible to create a non-corrupt government that manages a country that big and is so far removed from its citizens.
As a programmer, the problem is that AFAIK no government:
1) Was really engineered, except in a rudimentary fashion 2) Was organized to be debuggable 3) Was actually debugged by anyone who had the authority to reorganize or fix it 4) Is in any other way, is the beneficiary of all we now know about engineering processes, or what we're going to learn as the years go on.
Which is mostly to say, "We haven't seen dick when it comes to governments." Until people are free to experiment with them, we won't be able to test theses. Right now, in lots of places, you can't even theorize about what good government looks like or you'll be hated, let one actually trying anything.
But computers, and the ability to experiment, with all the practice that gives us in finding faults in ongoing processes, gives me hope that all of our bullshit can be worked through. Eventually.
Do you know what it means to be, "before your time"?
It means that the technology or social conditions needed for your idea to be successful didn't exist at the time.
However, to the GP's point, it also means that either you didn't scale your idea to the existing technology, or you didn't invent the technology needed, or you didn't time its release correctly, or you didn't do the social engineering necessary to make it a hit. All of those are things you could do, and which various inventors at various times HAVE done to be successful.
When people say "you were before your time" they usually mean, "you did everything right and still failed." That does happen too, but it's not necessarily the case, is all.
When faced with a fundamentally unjust society people will increasingly turn to alternate means to redress legitimate grievances. This is why civil liberties matter and why due process, equal justice, proportionate punishment, and presumption of innocence rather than presumption of guilt are essential, and yet all of these core principles are under open attack in the United States today.
Oh come on, you can't serious. You sound like you're implying when you get rid of the only alternative to vigilanteism, people become vigilantes.
Clearly, the court system is only a remnant of ages past meant to stand in the way of those with power, and it's fine for people with power to abuse it if they have the ability. It's amazing you haven't realized this. Are you poor or something?
If Apple refused to include DRM-ed songs in iTunes what would the record companies do?
My understanding, both at the time and now, is that they didn't have to do anything--they could simply not permit iTunes to sell their music. Because copyright law is already in place, iTunes could not, and cannot, sell anything that they don't have rights to.
In other words, Apple had to come to the record companies; the record companies don't have to go out of their way to do anything. All they had to do was say "no".
Not that I agree that's the right course of action. Would you really want to work for anyone with that mindset anyway?
The answer is always "I wouldn't really want it, but I'd want even less to not be able to eat and pay rent".
The logical fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy
I mean, I get it. But it's hard for anyone who's actually worried about this--being screened through social media--to really say they are worried about not eating.
If you can't get a job in your chosen field, get a crappy job to pay the bills, and cut down expenses.
If you can't get a crappy job where you live, move somewhere you CAN get AT LEAST a crappy job.
If you can't get any job no matter where you go, take in unemployment--and use that social network that got you into trouble to mooch off of friends or family.
We live in the first world. You don't see whole cities starving to death in the first world. The people around you are getting by, and if you can't, there's probably (not definitely, but probably; a lot of unfair situations exist) something you're doing wrong. Explore your options.
At that point the only rational choice is to not participate online at all, or allow pictures to be taken, comments to be made, anything that relates to you. What a sad life that seems.
Yeah. It would be just like life before 1995.
Except that before 1995, you didn't have to freak out every time someone pulled a phone on the odds they would take a photo, you didn't have to explain to friends why you won't talk to them online, you didn't have to explain to everyone who might have been interested why you have no web presence... in other words, you didn't have to put on a digital tinfoil hat that nobody around you is going to understand.
This isn't regressing yourself, and only yourself, back through time, it's becoming a paranoid nutcase with a persecution complex--merely because you might actually be right and unreasonable people might actually use random things against you.
Not that I agree that's the right course of action. Would you really want to work for anyone with that mindset anyway?
And five gallons of beer fermenting will release somewhere around 200 liters of CO2 (number pulled from the depths of my memory, could be wrong) which is obviously not something you want an excess of in space.
It isn't the fact that it's exuding CO2, although that's probably a big thing; it's the fact that it has to consume a corresponding amount of oxygen to get there. Spaceships are VERY sensitive to weight and power consumption. If you have to bring extra supplies of oxygen for your brewing process, or one or more CO2 scrubbers per batch, you are going to seriously screw with that. I mean, okay, it's not a mission to mars, but every gram you send up--solid, liquid, or gas--has to be paid for in rocket fuel, and rocket fuel's expensive. Anyway, once the CO2 was there, if you captured it, you could probably use it as a reaction gas for maneuvering (assuming it was pure enough); the excess isn't a problem, it's what gets consumed.
Not to mention this is all so that people can get drunk in one of the most dangerous places mankind has gone, where if you break a window or a wall, everyone dies.
The one good thing (in a backhanded way) about this article is that it offers the hope that someday, this stupid bullshit they're putting us through will just be a ridiculous and unsuccessful attempt by companies to overthrow reason.
A day when all these people have shouted themselves hoarse and have moved on to pick on someone else, or maybe have just died out of natural causes. A day when the people in charge of legislating the internet aren't in the dark about what it is anymore.
Not that there won't still be idiots, but it's just another bump in the road caused by some idiot trying to throw us all under the bus.
Off-topic, but it makes me wonder how badly a super-slimmed consumer product would act in space. I'm sure they've done a test or two, what with crew bringing up personal electronics, but I'd be curious to know.
I mean, like, take any of the halfway recent products from Apple; they're using modern, dense processors and storage, and they not only have nothing shielding them, they have virtually nothing TO them, except the screen and battery. If radiation was going to flip bits in the processor, or in the memory, it'd do it on a product like that.
I suppose it would probably only manifest with crashes and lost data. It'd be more interesting if, for example, the video ram was a big ol' target for it to hit, and every solar storm made your device's screen start spewing pretty colors. That'd probably be far too dangerous for the astronauts, though.
offhand answer to my own question: making a bunch of uneducated guesses about the radii of the discs and the amount that's unusable at the center, I get about 25x the usable area on a 12" disk as opposed to a DVD-sized disk, or for a dual-layer BD (50GB), 1250GB--just over a terrabyte.
This is of course completely useless, but I find it amusing nonetheless.
Of course it is. That's why everyone with half a brain who's heard of these three-strikes rules in the US and abroad wants to rip people like this a new one--because they enable perjurers to be successful at abusing the law without court review.
Of course, if you were to send three bogus DMCA takedown notices to the ISP CEO's home--or to their home office--they would notice the fact that it's a crime and cry foul (or simply break policy and ignore them), but they are more than willing to enable criminals as long as they don't see the blowback themselves.
yes, indeed, will let you get more capacity only when you fit the probe in the same space. For the time being, an STM is about this big.
I'd dearly love to know how they plan on locating any particular atom, let alone redirect the read/write head to it and only it.
Even if the atoms are arranged in an array, flat, how does an atom-scale read head know where it is pointing with sufficiently minuscule granularity? Do they intend to put markers on the surface nearby--oh no wait atoms. Well, they can probably have wires leading--oh no wait atoms. Well, maybe if they color--oh.
Well I guess they'll just have to have one atom surrounded by its own read-write logic, flash-style, and completely negate the whole point of having the actual storage on the atomic size. Oh no wait, that's not even what this research is about.
Seriously, I don't think this has much potential for engineering, as much as it may be clever science.
Ever notice how governments actively seek to forbid citizens from actually -using- their rights?
In spite of the name, "rights" is a game of subtraction, not addition. A person not under the domain of any government or any other higher power has no restrictions on their actions at all. Government and law add new restrictions (do not kill, do not steal).
The Bill of Rights and all related articles are there as a desperate attempt to stop this from getting out of hand, explicitly for those times when it seems like going down that slippery slope seems appropriate. It was never adding anything, because it was never capable of adding anything. People knew it was necessary to include it because they knew times like these would happen.
It's up to us as a country to make sure we don't disappoint the wonderfully insightful gentlemen who included those provisions as part of the nation's Constitution by allowing them to fade on our watch.
Would it kill you to organize your recycling? You don't even have to alphabetize it, just separate the vowels and consonants from the garbage, to make our lives easier. And we don't recycle y's, either, you can just throw those away.
Captive audience, probably. GOG, at the very least, didn't advertise that well, as the comments here show extremely clearly. IF you have a Wii, and use it a lot, you'll at least SEE the Shop Channel, and probably browse it more than a little.
GOG was legitimately awesome, for the nostalgia factor if nothing else, and I'm not saying old games aren't good enough. However, games are discretionary spending, always will be. If you want to make a niche market in video games, it has to be a VERY public niche market so anyone in the niche can find it.
Slashdot Mirror
Taking the first bit as error correction (even parity), and filtering as extended ASCII (using whichever I found first on google) I get
0x97 26 49 D3
or
ù&I
and then one of those funky old ascii lineart codes; in particular, the bottom left corner with a double line at the top and a single line to the right, which I'm not sure how to write here, or if it's even possible.
U&I (two lines becoming one)...
You and I become one?
If it is that, though, it sounds like it's written by a kid who's just picking crap out of an ascii table without actually caring, in much the same way as the people down the page are talking about bad translations of chinese, japanese, and english tattoos.
Taking the last bit as error correction, by the way, gives a load of nonsense--two lines horizontally, AE, upside-down-questionmark, uppercase theta
Well, that's the thing, isn't it?
Debugging something that doesn't have debugging information is beyond painful. And that's just tracking down the SOURCE of the problem, not fixing it.
In other words, exactly because the political machine was never meant for debugging, politics is a nasty nasty thing, and the one won't change until the other does.
I suspect it's simply impossible to create a non-corrupt government that manages a country that big and is so far removed from its citizens.
As a programmer, the problem is that AFAIK no government:
1) Was really engineered, except in a rudimentary fashion
2) Was organized to be debuggable
3) Was actually debugged by anyone who had the authority to reorganize or fix it
4) Is in any other way, is the beneficiary of all we now know about engineering processes, or what we're going to learn as the years go on.
Which is mostly to say, "We haven't seen dick when it comes to governments." Until people are free to experiment with them, we won't be able to test theses. Right now, in lots of places, you can't even theorize about what good government looks like or you'll be hated, let one actually trying anything.
But computers, and the ability to experiment, with all the practice that gives us in finding faults in ongoing processes, gives me hope that all of our bullshit can be worked through. Eventually.
Do you know what it means to be, "before your time"?
It means that the technology or social conditions needed for your idea to be successful didn't exist at the time.
However, to the GP's point, it also means that either you didn't scale your idea to the existing technology, or you didn't invent the technology needed, or you didn't time its release correctly, or you didn't do the social engineering necessary to make it a hit. All of those are things you could do, and which various inventors at various times HAVE done to be successful.
When people say "you were before your time" they usually mean, "you did everything right and still failed." That does happen too, but it's not necessarily the case, is all.
When faced with a fundamentally unjust society people will increasingly turn to alternate means to redress legitimate grievances. This is why civil liberties matter and why due process, equal justice, proportionate punishment, and presumption of innocence rather than presumption of guilt are essential, and yet all of these core principles are under open attack in the United States today.
Oh come on, you can't serious. You sound like you're implying when you get rid of the only alternative to vigilanteism, people become vigilantes.
Clearly, the court system is only a remnant of ages past meant to stand in the way of those with power, and it's fine for people with power to abuse it if they have the ability. It's amazing you haven't realized this. Are you poor or something?
/Sarcasm
If Apple refused to include DRM-ed songs in iTunes what would the record companies do?
My understanding, both at the time and now, is that they didn't have to do anything--they could simply not permit iTunes to sell their music. Because copyright law is already in place, iTunes could not, and cannot, sell anything that they don't have rights to.
In other words, Apple had to come to the record companies; the record companies don't have to go out of their way to do anything. All they had to do was say "no".
Now, now, size isn't everything.
This is probably going to be a karma hit, but...
The answer is always "I wouldn't really want it, but I'd want even less to not be able to eat and pay rent".
The logical fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy
I mean, I get it. But it's hard for anyone who's actually worried about this--being screened through social media--to really say they are worried about not eating.
If you can't get a job in your chosen field, get a crappy job to pay the bills, and cut down expenses.
If you can't get a crappy job where you live, move somewhere you CAN get AT LEAST a crappy job.
If you can't get any job no matter where you go, take in unemployment--and use that social network that got you into trouble to mooch off of friends or family.
We live in the first world. You don't see whole cities starving to death in the first world. The people around you are getting by, and if you can't, there's probably (not definitely, but probably; a lot of unfair situations exist) something you're doing wrong. Explore your options.
Yeah. It would be just like life before 1995.
Except that before 1995, you didn't have to freak out every time someone pulled a phone on the odds they would take a photo, you didn't have to explain to friends why you won't talk to them online, you didn't have to explain to everyone who might have been interested why you have no web presence... in other words, you didn't have to put on a digital tinfoil hat that nobody around you is going to understand.
This isn't regressing yourself, and only yourself, back through time, it's becoming a paranoid nutcase with a persecution complex--merely because you might actually be right and unreasonable people might actually use random things against you.
Not that I agree that's the right course of action. Would you really want to work for anyone with that mindset anyway?
And five gallons of beer fermenting will release somewhere around 200 liters of CO2 (number pulled from the depths of my memory, could be wrong) which is obviously not something you want an excess of in space.
It isn't the fact that it's exuding CO2, although that's probably a big thing; it's the fact that it has to consume a corresponding amount of oxygen to get there. Spaceships are VERY sensitive to weight and power consumption. If you have to bring extra supplies of oxygen for your brewing process, or one or more CO2 scrubbers per batch, you are going to seriously screw with that. I mean, okay, it's not a mission to mars, but every gram you send up--solid, liquid, or gas--has to be paid for in rocket fuel, and rocket fuel's expensive. Anyway, once the CO2 was there, if you captured it, you could probably use it as a reaction gas for maneuvering (assuming it was pure enough); the excess isn't a problem, it's what gets consumed.
Not to mention this is all so that people can get drunk in one of the most dangerous places mankind has gone, where if you break a window or a wall, everyone dies.
The one good thing (in a backhanded way) about this article is that it offers the hope that someday, this stupid bullshit they're putting us through will just be a ridiculous and unsuccessful attempt by companies to overthrow reason.
A day when all these people have shouted themselves hoarse and have moved on to pick on someone else, or maybe have just died out of natural causes. A day when the people in charge of legislating the internet aren't in the dark about what it is anymore.
Not that there won't still be idiots, but it's just another bump in the road caused by some idiot trying to throw us all under the bus.
Off-topic, but it makes me wonder how badly a super-slimmed consumer product would act in space. I'm sure they've done a test or two, what with crew bringing up personal electronics, but I'd be curious to know.
I mean, like, take any of the halfway recent products from Apple; they're using modern, dense processors and storage, and they not only have nothing shielding them, they have virtually nothing TO them, except the screen and battery. If radiation was going to flip bits in the processor, or in the memory, it'd do it on a product like that.
I suppose it would probably only manifest with crashes and lost data. It'd be more interesting if, for example, the video ram was a big ol' target for it to hit, and every solar storm made your device's screen start spewing pretty colors. That'd probably be far too dangerous for the astronauts, though.
Oh, well, then that answers that, doesn't it?
I'm not sure how the other poster got over a terabyte
I was working off of 12" discs, not 5" (30cm vs 15cm). By your numbers:
pi*(298^2-25^2)=277022 mm^2 = 2770 cm^2 is 32x the data area; 32 x 50GB is 1600GB
Which is about a quarter more than my previous estimate
offhand answer to my own question: making a bunch of uneducated guesses about the radii of the discs and the amount that's unusable at the center, I get about 25x the usable area on a 12" disk as opposed to a DVD-sized disk, or for a dual-layer BD (50GB), 1250GB--just over a terrabyte.
This is of course completely useless, but I find it amusing nonetheless.
I wonder how much data you could store on a LaserDisk sized Blu-ray?
Not that anyone in their right mind would make that into a consumer product...
Isn't that technically committing perjury?
Of course it is. That's why everyone with half a brain who's heard of these three-strikes rules in the US and abroad wants to rip people like this a new one--because they enable perjurers to be successful at abusing the law without court review.
Of course, if you were to send three bogus DMCA takedown notices to the ISP CEO's home--or to their home office--they would notice the fact that it's a crime and cry foul (or simply break policy and ignore them), but they are more than willing to enable criminals as long as they don't see the blowback themselves.
yes, indeed, will let you get more capacity only when you fit the probe in the same space. For the time being, an STM is about this big.
I'd dearly love to know how they plan on locating any particular atom, let alone redirect the read/write head to it and only it.
Even if the atoms are arranged in an array, flat, how does an atom-scale read head know where it is pointing with sufficiently minuscule granularity? Do they intend to put markers on the surface nearby--oh no wait atoms. Well, they can probably have wires leading--oh no wait atoms. Well, maybe if they color--oh.
Well I guess they'll just have to have one atom surrounded by its own read-write logic, flash-style, and completely negate the whole point of having the actual storage on the atomic size. Oh no wait, that's not even what this research is about.
Seriously, I don't think this has much potential for engineering, as much as it may be clever science.
One little gateway to the great, unwashed Internet, and the whole walled garden is compromised.
It's okay, they can just create their own, malware-free porn sites on the government network and nobody'll ever be tempted.
I think I'll skip the Killapoodle chips and wait for the Megapoodle ones.
<3 Dresden Codak
Ever notice how governments actively seek to forbid citizens from actually -using- their rights?
In spite of the name, "rights" is a game of subtraction, not addition. A person not under the domain of any government or any other higher power has no restrictions on their actions at all. Government and law add new restrictions (do not kill, do not steal).
The Bill of Rights and all related articles are there as a desperate attempt to stop this from getting out of hand, explicitly for those times when it seems like going down that slippery slope seems appropriate. It was never adding anything, because it was never capable of adding anything. People knew it was necessary to include it because they knew times like these would happen.
It's up to us as a country to make sure we don't disappoint the wonderfully insightful gentlemen who included those provisions as part of the nation's Constitution by allowing them to fade on our watch.
I heard you like [CENSORED] so I [CENSORED] your [CENSORED]...
[CENSORED] that for you.
OiouooeeeoeaioIaieioeoeaaieueeioaeoe ktsrjbtrcclthcnvrstnllstrtwththfrstcmmntfrmthlstrtclbtrccldntnwcmmnt yy ,'.'():
aeeIaiiuale CllmwhncnpcktptLws '.
Would it kill you to organize your recycling? You don't even have to alphabetize it, just separate the vowels and consonants from the garbage, to make our lives easier. And we don't recycle y's, either, you can just throw those away.
If Nintendo can do it, why couldn't GOG?
Captive audience, probably. GOG, at the very least, didn't advertise that well, as the comments here show extremely clearly. IF you have a Wii, and use it a lot, you'll at least SEE the Shop Channel, and probably browse it more than a little.
GOG was legitimately awesome, for the nostalgia factor if nothing else, and I'm not saying old games aren't good enough. However, games are discretionary spending, always will be. If you want to make a niche market in video games, it has to be a VERY public niche market so anyone in the niche can find it.