I imagine every single viewer of this movie is going to want their two hours back, let alone their $7.50. You think it would be better if it were longer??? --
However, if you tax it, then you are punishing someone for a crime (pollution) without due process.
Make it a crime to polute a certain amount, and then take them to court. Do it right. I realize that the greens may have come up with some way to make these bizarre vice-taxes legal, but I still think it's morally reprehensible. --
Everyone keeps suggesting different ideas for UI, but they seem to be laying too much on the OS. The systems for organizing program use in the GNU tools and Windows are relatively uniform. All Windows apps are easy to use as long as they follow the GUI guidlines. Similarly, most GNU tools are easy to learn because they use similar arguments & input as other GNU tools.
Gnome has no way of enforcing conformity. The gnome team isn't going to be able to make it so that Emacs fits with their interface guidelines. KDE can't make Netscape use QT widgets. Since these two environments came along *so* *late* in the lifecycle of Unix, there is no way that they can create a uniform & easy to learn environment. At least not one of any fantastic use to Unix geeks, because it will only work with their new tools.
Mac OS X is in a weird predicament as well, because Apple keeps violating their own HI guidelines left and right. Quicktime is foul. The new finder has unexpected features and clutter. It takes too long to visually find your balance.
Anyway. I guess my point is just that usability is directly related to the uniformity of appearance between applications. Which is why I think that Windows 2000 is the most easy to use desktop environment ever created. After being a Mac user since I could read, and a Linux user since I could code, I picked up Win2k for the first time three months ago. It doesn't feel good because of anything particularly intelligent on MS's part. It feels good because everything works alike. --
Just like going after P2P, this is a useless peice of legislation. There would be no effective way to enforce this law if it ever came under the slightest bit of organized attack. Has anyone ever effectively illegalized internet content? --
I didn't like the ending, but I don't see another way it could have been done. The main reason that the ending bothered me was that it broke the paradigm that Shyamalan had worked so hard to create with the rest of the movie. That is, the freezeframes didn't fit the film style. Yes, it was comicbook-like, but it didn't work.
Actually, I do know how it could have been done so that the viewing public would have liked it better. If there was a bigger emotional payoff for the audience revealed at the ending (a la Sixth Sense or Usual Suspects) everyone would have been happier. The flashbacks should have reached back farther and shown Mr. Glass' first evil act, and it should have ended there. Maybe a shot or two of realizations, but no freezeframes, no afterstory. Leave that to the sequels.
I think it's interesting that now we've got three comic book trilogies starting up. (Discussed recently on www.suck.com) The Matrix, Unbreakable, and X-Men. Superman may even be coming back... --
I heard somewhere that the Wachowski brothers did the Matrix because they wanted to do a movie about superheroes that the viewing public would not consider silly. Real superheroes. Shyamalan succeeded fantastically at this objective, and he didn't even need to use technology as magic. His reasoning is not perfect, but I wanted to believe. --
By "the box" I meant the man+book+room combination. The man doesn't know Chinese, and (I guess I misspoke) the box doesn't know Chinese, but the man in a box knows Chinese just fine. I don't think that your interpretation of Searle's counterpoint applies in this case.
An artificial intelligence binary program written to a hard drive is not intelligent, and the computer running it is not intelligent, but the artificial intelligence program+computer combination is artificially intelligent.
I read Searle's article a while ago and got annoyed and stopped before finishing. So I guess I know the first thing about artificial intelligence, just not the last thing. --
There are like twenty good reasons why this is a bad idea. What you are talking about has nothing to do with IP or HTTP. You could certainly come up with some other type of URL (Freenet did this) that does not need domain names, but the strength of http and TCP/IP is in their massive flexibility.
Either your idea would have to be strictly enforced, or it would be useless. And there would be no good arbitrary way to determine enforcement. Imagine if someone disagreed with the governing body's designated content type.
DNS was not designed with the web in mind. Thank god. Would your DNS system make any *more* sense when sending emails? Not at all. How about telnet? What if I want to change the content & protocols that my server is using, and I want to do that frequently? DNS speaks about network topography, not content. This is for a lot of good reasons.
Of course, if you wanted to create a new protocol with a new URL scheme, that's your business. If you wanted to integrate with existing systems, it could look like this:
inquis://xml/rants/aimless
But then you have to deal with the real problems with your idea. For example, the overhead involved would be exponentially greater than current systems. Every server would have to be indexed so many different ways, and current systems do not allow frequent lookups of leaves: That is, it is mildly computationally intensive to look up *.slashdot.org, so this is done infrequently. --
If I am not mistaken, Gore dropped out of college to join the military.
Agreed, he might have had an easier term of service than many, but I don't think that dropping out of college at that point could hardly be held against him. He later returned, and completed school with excellent grades.
Some people are suggesting that Sony is only doing this to avoid tariffs. Supposedly the UK has a lower tax on computers, so Sony wants the PS2 to be considered a computer. Including a programming language will furthur this goal.
I have *no* idea if this is true, but if they include 2d & 3d engines (maybe textures & shiznit too) then I don't really care. That's tight. --
The CS game is exemplary of multiplayer FPS games because of the large punishment for dying. The point of CS is to prove that you are better than other people. Because of this, on the rare occasion that I see a cheater, he is immediately hated by his own team. Cheaters are hard to find on games with friendly fire enabled...
The only time I've seen someone cheat on CS (wireframe hack) he had to use flashbangs to get away from his own team so they'd stop knifing him. --
How come, in discussions of networked communication with hostile processes (cheaters, gnutella spammers) NO ONE MENTIONS TRUST SYSTEMS?
Am I out of my mind, or is that clearly the way to go for *all* communication with potentially hostile servers/clients, etc.? Is the overhead required too high? I have never seen a good trust system implemented *once*, and I really really want to.
Actually, PGP public key distribution has good trust systems built in, what with signing other people's keys. But that's the only one I can think of. And MojoNation's trust system isn't implemented yet.
OS X's display engine is PDF based, but their widgets are still bitmaps. PDF can display bitmaps too.
I think the only resolution independent WM out there would be 3dwm:)
Not that we exactly have the 3d horsepower to drive this kind of display. Maybe if it were driven as four separate displays with four separate GeforceGTSs:) --
Alright. If there are an infinite number of alternate universes that we cannot possibly detect, then what the hell is this astronomer talking about it for? Philosophers have plenty of interesting ideas. I thought astronomers were interested in actual observable facts.
The reason that there are no multi-AMD-CPU machines is because their inter-processor communication is fully point to point, which would offer huge performance benefits. Unfortunately, it requires many more leads than other CPUs, and motherboard manufacturers would need several extra layers. This is why there's been no chipset produced yet.
In the brief time that I've been using *nix...
I have downloaded & installed 2 rpms successfully.
I have *never* had a problem with a gnu-style./configure;make;make install. Not once. I don't really understand why package managers are usefull to anyone at all. --
The first peice of subversive software that must be distributed is a better distribution channel for subversive software.
I think gnutella is *really* close. FreeNet is nice. Zero Knowledge Systems' Freedom is pretty excellent (from what I read, that is).
We need a free software combination of the three. A system where every node acts as a fileserver, file cache, and an encrypting/decrypting packet relay.
The only way that lawyers could catch people would be to compromise a majority of the nodes.
So, the last layer that we would have to add would be a trust system. That way lawyers would have to compromise trusted nodes. We'd be invincible.
Of course it would suck down bandwidth like the end of the world... Every firewall in the world would disallow it.
The Gnutella protocol is elegant and broken.
It can be corrupted by very few corrupt nodes.
In order to defeat legal & corruptive attacks, we need a distributed *trust-based* file transfer system. Otherwise, we will fail.
Now if only I could write readable code...
--
Q: How do you tell if the stage is level? A: The drummer is drooling out of both sides of his mouth. Q: How many bassists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? A: Only one, but the lead guitar has to show him how to do it first. --
You know for certain that they will be able to crack your security. If the government picks a specific target, they will succeed. This is why we *all* have to use strong encryption. So that they can only selectively decrypt.
And I don't mean that everyone needs to use PGP email. We need gnuFreeZone, or a relative. Every packet. --
Apple got rid of disk drives, among other reasons, because it cut costs a tiny amount, and gave retailers another way to make money. Confusing IBM and Apple disks, btw, doesn't do anyone any harm. Macs will read either one. In fact, whenever someone has a corrupted PC floppy, I can usually get at least some of the documents off of it using an old quadra in my dormitory lab. --
Are you out of your mind? Yes, if someone uses the Fraunhofer codec, they need a license. Most encoders don't use the Fraunhofer codec, and most aren't licensed from Fraunhofer. Please, correct me if I'm wrong. --
Slashdot Mirror
Are you *out* *of* *your* *mind*??!?!?!?
I imagine every single viewer of this movie is going to want their two hours back, let alone their $7.50. You think it would be better if it were longer???
--
However, if you tax it, then you are punishing someone for a crime (pollution) without due process.
Make it a crime to polute a certain amount, and then take them to court. Do it right. I realize that the greens may have come up with some way to make these bizarre vice-taxes legal, but I still think it's morally reprehensible.
--
Everyone keeps suggesting different ideas for UI, but they seem to be laying too much on the OS. The systems for organizing program use in the GNU tools and Windows are relatively uniform. All Windows apps are easy to use as long as they follow the GUI guidlines. Similarly, most GNU tools are easy to learn because they use similar arguments & input as other GNU tools.
Gnome has no way of enforcing conformity. The gnome team isn't going to be able to make it so that Emacs fits with their interface guidelines. KDE can't make Netscape use QT widgets. Since these two environments came along *so* *late* in the lifecycle of Unix, there is no way that they can create a uniform & easy to learn environment. At least not one of any fantastic use to Unix geeks, because it will only work with their new tools.
Mac OS X is in a weird predicament as well, because Apple keeps violating their own HI guidelines left and right. Quicktime is foul. The new finder has unexpected features and clutter. It takes too long to visually find your balance.
Anyway. I guess my point is just that usability is directly related to the uniformity of appearance between applications. Which is why I think that Windows 2000 is the most easy to use desktop environment ever created. After being a Mac user since I could read, and a Linux user since I could code, I picked up Win2k for the first time three months ago. It doesn't feel good because of anything particularly intelligent on MS's part. It feels good because everything works alike.
--
Just like going after P2P, this is a useless peice of legislation. There would be no effective way to enforce this law if it ever came under the slightest bit of organized attack. Has anyone ever effectively illegalized internet content?
--
More spoilers.
I didn't like the ending, but I don't see another way it could have been done. The main reason that the ending bothered me was that it broke the paradigm that Shyamalan had worked so hard to create with the rest of the movie. That is, the freezeframes didn't fit the film style. Yes, it was comicbook-like, but it didn't work.
Actually, I do know how it could have been done so that the viewing public would have liked it better. If there was a bigger emotional payoff for the audience revealed at the ending (a la Sixth Sense or Usual Suspects) everyone would have been happier. The flashbacks should have reached back farther and shown Mr. Glass' first evil act, and it should have ended there. Maybe a shot or two of realizations, but no freezeframes, no afterstory. Leave that to the sequels.
I think it's interesting that now we've got three comic book trilogies starting up. (Discussed recently on www.suck.com) The Matrix, Unbreakable, and X-Men. Superman may even be coming back...
--
I heard somewhere that the Wachowski brothers did the Matrix because they wanted to do a movie about superheroes that the viewing public would not consider silly. Real superheroes. Shyamalan succeeded fantastically at this objective, and he didn't even need to use technology as magic. His reasoning is not perfect, but I wanted to believe.
--
By "the box" I meant the man+book+room combination. The man doesn't know Chinese, and (I guess I misspoke) the box doesn't know Chinese, but the man in a box knows Chinese just fine. I don't think that your interpretation of Searle's counterpoint applies in this case.
An artificial intelligence binary program written to a hard drive is not intelligent, and the computer running it is not intelligent, but the artificial intelligence program+computer combination is artificially intelligent.
I read Searle's article a while ago and got annoyed and stopped before finishing. So I guess I know the first thing about artificial intelligence, just not the last thing.
--
But if you convinced a Chinese interrogator that you were chinese, then perhaps you might as well be Chinese.
Sort of like the man in the Chinese box. Of course the man doesn't know Chinese. The box knows Chinese.
--
There are like twenty good reasons why this is a bad idea. What you are talking about has nothing to do with IP or HTTP. You could certainly come up with some other type of URL (Freenet did this) that does not need domain names, but the strength of http and TCP/IP is in their massive flexibility.
Either your idea would have to be strictly enforced, or it would be useless. And there would be no good arbitrary way to determine enforcement. Imagine if someone disagreed with the governing body's designated content type.
DNS was not designed with the web in mind. Thank god. Would your DNS system make any *more* sense when sending emails? Not at all. How about telnet? What if I want to change the content & protocols that my server is using, and I want to do that frequently? DNS speaks about network topography, not content. This is for a lot of good reasons.
Of course, if you wanted to create a new protocol with a new URL scheme, that's your business. If you wanted to integrate with existing systems, it could look like this:
inquis://xml/rants/aimless
But then you have to deal with the real problems with your idea. For example, the overhead involved would be exponentially greater than current systems. Every server would have to be indexed so many different ways, and current systems do not allow frequent lookups of leaves: That is, it is mildly computationally intensive to look up *.slashdot.org, so this is done infrequently.
--
If I am not mistaken, Gore dropped out of college to join the military.
Agreed, he might have had an easier term of service than many, but I don't think that dropping out of college at that point could hardly be held against him. He later returned, and completed school with excellent grades.
Of course, correct me if I'm wrong.
--
Some people are suggesting that Sony is only doing this to avoid tariffs. Supposedly the UK has a lower tax on computers, so Sony wants the PS2 to be considered a computer. Including a programming language will furthur this goal.
I have *no* idea if this is true, but if they include 2d & 3d engines (maybe textures & shiznit too) then I don't really care. That's tight.
--
The CS game is exemplary of multiplayer FPS games because of the large punishment for dying. The point of CS is to prove that you are better than other people. Because of this, on the rare occasion that I see a cheater, he is immediately hated by his own team. Cheaters are hard to find on games with friendly fire enabled...
The only time I've seen someone cheat on CS (wireframe hack) he had to use flashbangs to get away from his own team so they'd stop knifing him.
--
How come, in discussions of networked communication with hostile processes (cheaters, gnutella spammers) NO ONE MENTIONS TRUST SYSTEMS?
Am I out of my mind, or is that clearly the way to go for *all* communication with potentially hostile servers/clients, etc.? Is the overhead required too high? I have never seen a good trust system implemented *once*, and I really really want to.
Actually, PGP public key distribution has good trust systems built in, what with signing other people's keys. But that's the only one I can think of. And MojoNation's trust system isn't implemented yet.
Ugh. Anyway.
--
OS X's display engine is PDF based, but their widgets are still bitmaps. PDF can display bitmaps too.
:)
:)
I think the only resolution independent WM out there would be 3dwm
Not that we exactly have the 3d horsepower to drive this kind of display. Maybe if it were driven as four separate displays with four separate GeforceGTSs
--
Alright. If there are an infinite number of alternate universes that we cannot possibly detect, then what the hell is this astronomer talking about it for? Philosophers have plenty of interesting ideas. I thought astronomers were interested in actual observable facts.
Nevermind.
--
A friend of mine who seems intelligent told me:
The reason that there are no multi-AMD-CPU machines is because their inter-processor communication is fully point to point, which would offer huge performance benefits. Unfortunately, it requires many more leads than other CPUs, and motherboard manufacturers would need several extra layers. This is why there's been no chipset produced yet.
Tell me if I'm talking out of my ass...
--
In the brief time that I've been using *nix... I have downloaded & installed 2 rpms successfully. I have *never* had a problem with a gnu-style ./configure;make;make install. Not once. I don't really understand why package managers are usefull to anyone at all.
--
The first peice of subversive software that must be distributed is a better distribution channel for subversive software.
I think gnutella is *really* close. FreeNet is nice. Zero Knowledge Systems' Freedom is pretty excellent (from what I read, that is).
We need a free software combination of the three. A system where every node acts as a fileserver, file cache, and an encrypting/decrypting packet relay.
The only way that lawyers could catch people would be to compromise a majority of the nodes.
So, the last layer that we would have to add would be a trust system. That way lawyers would have to compromise trusted nodes. We'd be invincible.
Of course it would suck down bandwidth like the end of the world... Every firewall in the world would disallow it.
Later,
Elwood
--
The Gnutella protocol is elegant and broken. It can be corrupted by very few corrupt nodes. In order to defeat legal & corruptive attacks, we need a distributed *trust-based* file transfer system. Otherwise, we will fail. Now if only I could write readable code...
--
Q: How do you tell if the stage is level? A: The drummer is drooling out of both sides of his mouth. Q: How many bassists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? A: Only one, but the lead guitar has to show him how to do it first.
--
You do know what sort of hardware they have.
You know for certain that they will be able to crack your security. If the government picks a specific target, they will succeed. This is why we *all* have to use strong encryption. So that they can only selectively decrypt.
And I don't mean that everyone needs to use PGP email. We need gnuFreeZone, or a relative. Every packet.
--
Hey, this is funny.
--
Apple got rid of disk drives, among other reasons, because it cut costs a tiny amount, and gave retailers another way to make money. Confusing IBM and Apple disks, btw, doesn't do anyone any harm. Macs will read either one. In fact, whenever someone has a corrupted PC floppy, I can usually get at least some of the documents off of it using an old quadra in my dormitory lab.
--
Yup. I'm wrong.
--
Are you out of your mind? Yes, if someone uses the Fraunhofer codec, they need a license. Most encoders don't use the Fraunhofer codec, and most aren't licensed from Fraunhofer. Please, correct me if I'm wrong.
--