Banning TCP/IP can help, in some circumstances. There are circumstances where shifting the resend mechanism out of the low-level protocol is actually the best option. This basically emulates TCP capabilities over UDP. (This has other advantages. You can multicast UDP, you can't multicast TCP, which helps sending the same data to multiple machines.) NACKing unreceived packets vs. ACKing the received ones also cuts bandwidth usage -- but you've got to be careful. Either the NACKs have to be sent via a reliable mechanism OR you have to send a NACK that is not attached to a packet number, otherwise there would be no way for the originating machine to distinguish between a dropped NACK and the recipient receiving all packets OK.
Never mind the magnets, who wouldn't produce less if there were dozens of cell phones blasting at point-blank every few minutes? My guess is that if you did a repeat study, using the Crazy Frog ringtone, you'd not only get a colony collapse but an all-out riot as well.
My point is less to do with the practicalities (which you are entirely correct on) and more to do with the fact that they're obviously aiming to borrow some of the attention. If they weren't, they wouldn't have brought this up when attention was going to be paid. But in so doing, they generate a link in people's minds. The average Joe won't consider the factory aspect of things, but they WILL consider whether they're being given what they thought they were being offered. The book industry knows this. Now, whether they will act on that knowledge is open to debate, but there can't really be much question that they've deliberately created the impression that they are talking about a non-DRM system. Of course, they will still want to protect themselves against being robbed blind, but some of the ideas mooted in just this debate (per-customer digital watermarking, for example) would seem to suggest there are possible answers.
Usually, in such circumstances, there's a charcoal source that is connected to the art. But there are many forms of dating and I wouldn't trust the article to have been written with an exceptionally technical audience in mind. Creswell Crags' cave art was dated via the limestone deposited over the figures. Clay, under specific circumstances as I've listed elsewhere in the replies, can be dated. Anything exposed to cosmic rays can (in theory) be dated by the ratio of the isotopes. (Cosmic rays alter the nuclei at a deterministic rate.)
Clay can be dated, but it depends on specific circumstances. Baked clay will absorb radiation at a fixed rate, which is then released on re-heating. (Thermoluminescence dating.) It also absorbs water at a deterministic rate but this relies on it being dry to start with. Sun-dried is fine.
Uhhh, no. And most character sets don't render into 127-character standard ASCII anyway. You couldn't even do English correctly, owing to the special-cases where overlapping characters are used.
Why would they mean DRM when the fashion industry has only just ridiculed the notion as protecting anything? The timing suggests they're trying to leverage the fashion world's very public statement, which can only mean that they're wanting to look at solving the problem some other way. Not necessarily a better way or a workable way, but different.
For Boones and Mill-type books, it not only doesn't matter what it renders like, it doesn't matter if the pages are in order either. Nobody reads them for the plot. I'd argue LaTeX/DVI or Postscript, as then all devices (from speech synthesizers to graphical displays) will work.
If it isn't reliable, they're skimping on error-correction in order to inflate the best-possible speeds. More fools them. All a competitor has to do is include error-correction into their calculation of data rates (so their marketing doesn't look any worse) and then use the improved reliability and improved actual speed to steal customers away.
It is a terrible quiz, yes. Most such questionnaires are supposed to (a) be non-obvious, and (b) ask - in a totally random other location - a question that is the opposite but not obviously so. In the case of (b), analysis is supposed to use these answer pairs to detect inaccurate or deceptive answers. (a) is supposed to prevent the person answering knowing what a deceptive answer would be.
Further proof it is bad (if needed) - I have Asperger's. That automatically means I have much lower empathy than most. Yet despite answering totally honestly, I scored above average. Neurologically-speaking, the ranking the quiz gave is simply not possible.
The page linked to states that although facts cannot be copyrighted, ordering can. Since a specific recipe is a well-ordered list of facts, that specific recipe should fall under copyright. It does mean, though, that you cannot claim protection against a person who produced a different well-ordered list that merely happened to have the same facts within it. Besides, Slashdot has dealt with GPLed beers and meads in the past - anyone who has been here that long and didn't complain then might want to consider what it is they are complaining about.
As for recipes being "public domain", not all States even recognize "public domain" as existing. Personally, I think those States are packed with idiots, but they are entitled to run their lives the way they want to. That's what State autonomy is about. So, if the recipe can't be public domain there AND can't be owned because of limits on copyright, that leaves Schrodinger's cat with a monopoly on food.
But modern I/O is merely setting the value(s) of a region of memory that is memory-mapped onto an output device in some manner. A Turing Machine can certainly set memory values, even if a classic TM doesn't directly have any concept of memory mapping.
I would dispute the "capable of doing more" part. TeX can do anything the latest version of Word can do. Ventura Publisher from 20 years back could probably do just about everything. Word IS faster and easier to use, yes, but unless you compare Word to WordStar or Wordcraft 80, it is generally a mistake to look at what something can do. If a program supports Turing-Complete macros, then it can do absolutely anything a Turing Machine can do (given sufficient memory) and a Turing Machine can do anything that is computationally possible. No computer, past, present or future, will ever do more. They can, however, make it practical. They can also make it simple. And that, really, is where all development in computing goes.
Slashdot Mirror
Banning TCP/IP can help, in some circumstances. There are circumstances where shifting the resend mechanism out of the low-level protocol is actually the best option. This basically emulates TCP capabilities over UDP. (This has other advantages. You can multicast UDP, you can't multicast TCP, which helps sending the same data to multiple machines.) NACKing unreceived packets vs. ACKing the received ones also cuts bandwidth usage -- but you've got to be careful. Either the NACKs have to be sent via a reliable mechanism OR you have to send a NACK that is not attached to a packet number, otherwise there would be no way for the originating machine to distinguish between a dropped NACK and the recipient receiving all packets OK.
What, to give him $20k? If you figure it out, can you send me the same?
What's left:
There's probably a few others I've forgotten.
Never mind the magnets, who wouldn't produce less if there were dozens of cell phones blasting at point-blank every few minutes? My guess is that if you did a repeat study, using the Crazy Frog ringtone, you'd not only get a colony collapse but an all-out riot as well.
My point is less to do with the practicalities (which you are entirely correct on) and more to do with the fact that they're obviously aiming to borrow some of the attention. If they weren't, they wouldn't have brought this up when attention was going to be paid. But in so doing, they generate a link in people's minds. The average Joe won't consider the factory aspect of things, but they WILL consider whether they're being given what they thought they were being offered. The book industry knows this. Now, whether they will act on that knowledge is open to debate, but there can't really be much question that they've deliberately created the impression that they are talking about a non-DRM system. Of course, they will still want to protect themselves against being robbed blind, but some of the ideas mooted in just this debate (per-customer digital watermarking, for example) would seem to suggest there are possible answers.
Perhaps they were planning on attaching a hyperlink to Slashdot to provide all the comments.
Using a chain-gun on fish in a barrel qualifies as merely shooting them?
Usually, in such circumstances, there's a charcoal source that is connected to the art. But there are many forms of dating and I wouldn't trust the article to have been written with an exceptionally technical audience in mind. Creswell Crags' cave art was dated via the limestone deposited over the figures. Clay, under specific circumstances as I've listed elsewhere in the replies, can be dated. Anything exposed to cosmic rays can (in theory) be dated by the ratio of the isotopes. (Cosmic rays alter the nuclei at a deterministic rate.)
Clay can be dated, but it depends on specific circumstances. Baked clay will absorb radiation at a fixed rate, which is then released on re-heating. (Thermoluminescence dating.) It also absorbs water at a deterministic rate but this relies on it being dry to start with. Sun-dried is fine.
So are you saying Slashdot readers are object-oriented? Otherwise, how would they be new rather than malloc()ed?
Uhhh, no. And most character sets don't render into 127-character standard ASCII anyway. You couldn't even do English correctly, owing to the special-cases where overlapping characters are used.
Why would they mean DRM when the fashion industry has only just ridiculed the notion as protecting anything? The timing suggests they're trying to leverage the fashion world's very public statement, which can only mean that they're wanting to look at solving the problem some other way. Not necessarily a better way or a workable way, but different.
After the fashion industry laughed at the music industry, it seemed impossible the music industry could fall any lower in the eyes of the world.
For Boones and Mill-type books, it not only doesn't matter what it renders like, it doesn't matter if the pages are in order either. Nobody reads them for the plot. I'd argue LaTeX/DVI or Postscript, as then all devices (from speech synthesizers to graphical displays) will work.
In that case, use DVI for binaries and LaTeX2e for raw ASCII.
No, the competitor will advertise the same speed, because the error correction bits are included. Do try and read.
If it isn't reliable, they're skimping on error-correction in order to inflate the best-possible speeds. More fools them. All a competitor has to do is include error-correction into their calculation of data rates (so their marketing doesn't look any worse) and then use the improved reliability and improved actual speed to steal customers away.
It is a terrible quiz, yes. Most such questionnaires are supposed to (a) be non-obvious, and (b) ask - in a totally random other location - a question that is the opposite but not obviously so. In the case of (b), analysis is supposed to use these answer pairs to detect inaccurate or deceptive answers. (a) is supposed to prevent the person answering knowing what a deceptive answer would be.
Further proof it is bad (if needed) - I have Asperger's. That automatically means I have much lower empathy than most. Yet despite answering totally honestly, I scored above average. Neurologically-speaking, the ranking the quiz gave is simply not possible.
The page linked to states that although facts cannot be copyrighted, ordering can. Since a specific recipe is a well-ordered list of facts, that specific recipe should fall under copyright. It does mean, though, that you cannot claim protection against a person who produced a different well-ordered list that merely happened to have the same facts within it. Besides, Slashdot has dealt with GPLed beers and meads in the past - anyone who has been here that long and didn't complain then might want to consider what it is they are complaining about.
As for recipes being "public domain", not all States even recognize "public domain" as existing. Personally, I think those States are packed with idiots, but they are entitled to run their lives the way they want to. That's what State autonomy is about. So, if the recipe can't be public domain there AND can't be owned because of limits on copyright, that leaves Schrodinger's cat with a monopoly on food.
But modern I/O is merely setting the value(s) of a region of memory that is memory-mapped onto an output device in some manner. A Turing Machine can certainly set memory values, even if a classic TM doesn't directly have any concept of memory mapping.
That's why some languages use ComeFrom rather than GoTo.
1 hardware error every year is probably acceptable for casual computing use, but not for nuclear reactor control
Someone should have told British Nuclear Fuel. I think Windscale/Selafield was up to 20 accidental nuclear waste discharges a year at one point.
Geeks also don't use BBS markup on an HTML markup website.
I would dispute the "capable of doing more" part. TeX can do anything the latest version of Word can do. Ventura Publisher from 20 years back could probably do just about everything. Word IS faster and easier to use, yes, but unless you compare Word to WordStar or Wordcraft 80, it is generally a mistake to look at what something can do. If a program supports Turing-Complete macros, then it can do absolutely anything a Turing Machine can do (given sufficient memory) and a Turing Machine can do anything that is computationally possible. No computer, past, present or future, will ever do more. They can, however, make it practical. They can also make it simple. And that, really, is where all development in computing goes.