Why couldn't you get a mass large enough that we can measure its gravity, and move it, in a prescribed pattern back and forth in front of the measuring device?
I'll try to ASCII-diagram, where [X] is the thing with mass and D is the measuring Device. The numbers at the side are the time. The dashes are because/. doesn't seem to care about the pre tag.
t0: D ---- [X] t1: D ---------- [X] t2: D --------------------- [X] t3: D ---------- [X] t4: D ---- [X]
So, if you begin at rest, you should be able to measure the time between the moving of the mass, and the recording of the change in gravity, right?
The only problem with this approach that I can see is a lack of ability to measure time this closely. Are there others?
But see, all our replies are "I imagine" and "I think" and "I would guess that". Clearly from these kind of qualifiers, nobody's sure what they mean, hence it could be used in a lot of inappropriate ways.
If this is an extension of the "passing off", where you deep-link to their website and claim its your own work, then it seems fine.
Or does it mean that every time I have to link to them, I have to show the full URL? This could be tedious, as seen in/.'s own style, which mimics the original purpose of links. Clicking on related words (not URLs in parenthesis) takes you to the content.
It's not clear which is prohibited, which is the problem.
Will it have enough processing power to crack the XBox key?:P
-Zipwow
(OT) Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal
on
Lab-Grown Steak
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
quakeslut wrote:
as a man of science (I assume) you can't argue that eating meat is more efficient than eating the plants yourself.
Ahh, but you can. In fact, I feel that there are two immediate counterpoints to this notion.
The first is that not all land is plantable. Very large parts of of Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, and New Mexico are unsuited to crop growing either because they're too arid, or too rocky, or too low in other nutrients. You may notice that these areas have a reputation for cattle ranching.
Second, cattle (and other animals) can be a natural part of the crop cycle on land that is arable. Its well known that you ought to leave your fields fallow every few years, even better is to graze some sort of fertilizer-producing animal on it. You'll feed some of your grain to these animals as well, but you're paid back both in meat and fertilizer for this use.
Now, to be fair, I'll admit that there are other parts of our meat producing system that cause problems. Feedlots are probably the best example. The amount of manure created by their dense populations pollutes the groundwater and causes other problems before it can be removed for use as a fertilizer. Some slaughterhouses are inhumane (and some are not).
I think if you're going to argue for something in terms of efficiency and global impact, organic farming makes the most sense.
Perhaps the lab approach will pollute less than the feedlots, and provide a cheaper alternative. That's going to be my hope, at least.
So is Java. JNI existed from the beginning, though it was one of the things that the MSJVM broke. RMI-IIOP exists. SOAP and XML-RPC are a very nice part of Java. Heck, you can use CORBA with Java as well, if you really want to.
Furthermore, Java is *platform* neutral. Java's track record with supporting alternate implementations is nearly flawless. Application servers are a fine example, with the admitted issue of JBoss' certification.
On the flipside, Microsoft fights alternate implementations of every part of their existing hierarchy tooth and nail. Furthermore, they subvert industry standards like IMAP and Kerberos to force lock-in with their own systems. And now you're telling me they're promoting free interoperation?
".Net will supposedly perform better"
This is based on old perceptions of Java. If you read some of the benchmark reviews, I think you'll see that there's enough controversy to assure you that that performance is comparable. If that isn't enough, J2EE's acceptance ought to also comfort your worries.
"Nothing in Java or.Net that was new to "language research comunity", and C# supposedly has more features and 5 years of 'extra experience'"
The former is true, Java's (and later, C#'s) language constructs were well researched. The comment about "5 years extra experience" is pure spin for "came five years later". A language that claims it is so similar to Java that it is advertised as easy to convert, but still "packs in a bunch more features" contradicts itself on its face.
I think it can be shown that what is driving.Net is a combination of fear and illegal actions. If the threat of the latter can be removed, then the former will disappear, and we'll have a fair competition.
Did you read the judge's decision? He/she lays it all out very well.
Client-side java was one of the most obvious harms of Microsoft's activities. In the judge's opinion, he/she repeatedly quotes Microsoft's own communications about its strengths, and its possibilities. Even now, ActiveX is not as fully featured (or anywhere near as secure) as a Java applet. And still, you can't be sure your java applet is going to run properly, because of Microsoft's earlier pollution. And, the judge concludes, that pollution also reduces the near-ubiquitousness that Java was achieving by being a part of all Nescape installations.
But that's not even the main point.
Why is it that as *soon* as.NET was announced, hordes of developers began talking about how to switch over and support it? The answer, the judge thinks (and I agree), is ubiquitous deployment and support. This ubiquitous deployment is due to a monopoly. This usage of a monopoly to break into other markets is illegal. Its at this point in the reasoning that we really don't have to go any further. Harm has been done, and it needs a remedy. Harm was done to Microsoft's competitor Sun in a previous but related market, and that harm is continuing to hinder Sun's ability to compete in this market. Since Microsoft's guilt was upheld on appeal, and since Sun was named *specifically* in the judgement, its pretty clear that Sun's chances of winning the case are good. Its also clear that in the years it takes to decide this, that the harm to Sun will continue, and will be unable to be undone after the trial. Hence the injunction.
Apart from that, I think you discount the difference it makes for something to be part of the default installation. Honestly, with the outcome of IE vs Netscape, I don't see how you can miss how important that is.
The judge's position describes how having Java with the OS changes developers' approaches very well. And even were that not the case, the granting of this injunction certainly gives Sun the perception in the developers' minds that Sun is going to win this challenge, and win the right for Java to compete unfettered with.NET.
That's the only effect worth talking about. To further answer my earlier question about the rapid adoption (or at least interest) in.NET relates to the perception that.NET is going to win hands down not because of better technology, but because of the advantages MS has from its OS monopolies.
Lastly, if I had a dollar for every time I heard "They will survive for a year or so" about Sun, I'd have all my money back from the stock market. Lets talk about the law and the technologies, rather than ad hominem attacks on executives.
Two interesting details, the first being that I think the payment to Sun from MS was $20M, and the second that at that time, MS offered to exactly what Sun just got the injunction for: shipping Sun's JVM.
Sun didn't take it then because it had lots of nasty strings (I think it would've allowed MS to break it 'for security' or some other odiously broad clause).
However, that offer is one thing that the judge cites to refute one of MS' defenses against this injuction: that the Sun JVM would introduce security problems. The judge basically said that if MS really believed that, they wouldn't have made the offer in the other case.
I don't think the claim that sun are harmed holds water. It was their previous action that caused Microsoft to stop shipping the Java VM.
A lot of people have missed why Sun was harmed in the first place. You mention the shipping of the defunct and broken MS JVM, but miss the real past harm: MS' illegal actions against Netscape.
Netscape, the then-dominant browser, also installed a Java VM with every installation. Its this inclusion that led to the MSJV in the first place. When MS illegally forced Netscape out of the market, they also harmed Java. Evidence that this is more than just a side effect is that Sun Microsystems is specifically mentioned in the DoJ findings.
I don't have much sympathy for Sun here. It may be the US way for failing companies to go to the government or courts to try to win there what they failled to win in the market but it didn;t do Netscape any good.
Several points can be made here. Sun "lost Java" (not really, but close) in the open market because Microsoft violated the rules of that market. The idea that monopolies are legal, but using them to extend to other markets is a pretty basic tenet of free market economics. That Java still exists despite this 'foul play' from MS is a testimony to its strength.
Next, you say that suing about this "didn't do Netscape any good". There's two important things that Sun has that Netscape didn't. First, an injunction that remedies the problem during litigation, and more importantly: a new product, based on the harmed one, that is also a strong competitor.
J2EE is competing with.NET. Sun is saying (and I think its justified) that.NET has a good chance of beating J2EE not because of technical merits, but because of MS's past illegal usage of its monopoly to fragment the Java user base, and because the promise of ubiquitous installation that the Microsoft monopoly makes. This injunction avoids the continuance of that harm while Sun seeks a permanent remedy.
All in all, I think its pretty reasonable. This is a new market, and we as consumers deserve a product created by competition free of monopolistic influences.
Sun is suing MS in a civil case, saying that Microsoft used their monopoly(1) on desktop operating systems to illegally compete with Sun's Java, in the form of a browser plugin. MS used their OS to hinder Sun by including an out-of-date and broken JVM version for many years, despite better software available (for free) from Sun.
The judge agreed that this was likely an illegal use of their monopoly(2). MS already attempted to say that browsers (and their plugins, which Java is in this case) are part of the operating system, but that was already rejected in the DOJ case. Because of this precedent, the case looks very strong for Sun, so...
As a preliminary injunction, the judge ruled that Microsoft has to include the latest version of the JVM from Sun, so that as the case is argued in court (no doubt over a period of years), further damage is avoided.
I don't read it that Microsoft can 'opt out' of carrying any sort of JVM, especially since that's already their tactic with WinXP.
-Zipwow
1: Monopoly, not illegal in itself. MS has argued that no monopoly exists. The DoJ case's findings of fact specifically described MS' hold on Desktop OS's as a monopoly.
2: Using a monopoly in one area to hinder competition in another is illegal, and is what Sun is complaining about. Using your desktop power to break into the web-plugin market (and hence the related server market) is what's illegal.
11: Thou shalt not skywatch in the WA state winter
on
Geminid Meteor Shower
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Do not be tempted, young skywatcher, by the fact that your northern location provides almost twelve hours of darkness. This is foolishness, and a chasing after the wind.
Heed my warning! Else you too will spend two-and-a-half hours each way driving out past the mountain range in hopes of the 'continental divide' effect providing clearer skies than the rest of the west coast. This too is foolishness, and a chasing after the wind.
Seattlites, do not be fooled by such tools of deception like "sky reports", "radar images", "high pressure areas", and "friends calling who are near there"!
Sky reports are a fabrication of your enemy. Radar images and high pressure areas are fiction created by those who sell gasoline and coffee. Your friends are already in on the deception along with NASA. And they are at home in bed.
Stay home, young Washingtonian, and get some sleep. Lord knows it's dark enough.
The thing the document is talking about is the use of monopoly power to squash competition in other markets.
Your linked document doesn't spin it that way, but that's what it means.
To clarify, here's a quote from the FTC that spells things out more directly:
While it is not illegal to have a monopoly position in a market, the antitrust laws make it unlawful to maintain or attempt to create a monopoly through tactics that either unreasonably exclude firms from the market or significantly impair their ability to compete.
You make a good point. Hopefully, if other countries follow this example, we'll amend our legislature to include their domains.
And equally as hopefully, our libraries will have access to more than just the.kids.us domain. They do have more than a children's and young-adult section now.
PurpleBob said: Hydrogen: Have any significant pockets of atomic hydrogen been discovered yet? Do we know how to "drill" for hydrogen without the risk of a huge explosion?
Is Hydrogen yet viable for all our energy? No. Should we stop researching it? Again, no.
Also, the usage of 'hydrogen' as a power source is somewhat ambiguous. "Drilling for hydrogen" isn't probably the approach we'd want to take. Using the tides to extract it from saltwater or some other similar approach is probably a better one.
Tides: The amount of energy tends to be insignificant unless the tides are really huge, like at the Bay of Fundy, in which case the power generators are already there.
Are you arguing that we can't make any advancements in tidal energy sources, and that all the places that can generate the energy are already tapped? I've read many articles about producing cheaper generators that, if deployed en masse, would generate a fair amount of power in lower tide areas. And even those types that are installed at the Bay of Fundy can be improved for efficiency.
The process of creating the solar panels tends to be harmful to the environment.
Processes can be (and will be) improved, and even with their harms, they're far less dangerous than nuclear waste with a half-life of hundreds of millenia.
... you could never build enough to replace fossil fuels.
Who said we were relying on one power source?
Wind: you need lots of windmills
See above statement.
We pretty much are going with these cleaner options where they are available, but they don't replace fossil fuels.
Except for nuclear power, which doesn't deserve to be considered a 'cleaner option'. Keep in mind that uranium doesn't grow on trees. It, too, has to be mined and processed. Even that fact, though, pales when you consider:
Oh, and nuclear waste isn't usable as a weapon [...] So we bury it in the ground instead.
I'm not talking about a bomb. I'm talking about burying the stuff in *your* backyard. I'm talking about malicously polluting your water supply and/or farmland for the next 150,000 years.
In conclusion, I feel that the probability that the fission power waste will either be used as a weapon or will be mismanaged and cause great amounts of contamination sometime over the next 150,000 years is pretty close to 100%. We're just not responsible enough to use this power source.
-Zipwow
The problem is that while we know where the waste is, we also have to keep track of it for the next 150,000 years.
Considering that we haven't had a government stable for a quarter of that time, I don't think its a good risk. Sooner or later we'll either forget about it, screw up the maintenence, or someone will just plain use it as a weapon.
If the argument was Coal vs Fission, with no other alternatives, I'd go with Fission. However, since Hydrogen, tides, solar, wind, and others may be alternatives, I think we should go with them first.
Paraphrasing: "why not deliver the phonetics themselves"
I'd guess that a text-based reprsentation of phonemes isn't as intuitive as one would like. At the very least, its another skill one would have to learn to use the phone, whereas the user presumably already can do some amount of lip reading.
In general, though, I've often wondered if sending the phonemes over 'the wire' and reconstructing them as sound on the other side wouldn't work well.
Granted, the phonemes would probably have to have a lot more detail than they do now to sound right, but it seems one could send a lot of that kind of detail and still take up less space than even a compressed sound wave.
One application of this approach would be chat programs, and game communication. Because the phonemes are being reconstructed, you could reconstruct them with different characteristics than they were recorded, making them more feminine, or with a scottish brogue, etc.
-Zipwow
The reasons this is better than speech-to-text
on
Cell Phones for the Deaf
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Partly, because speech to text isn't very good.
Speech to text isn't very good because its very hard to turn phonetics into words. Our ability to understand people is very reliant on context. Knowing what's been said helps you understand what's being said.
Some will say that speech to text is getting fairly good in English, which is somewhat true. Obviously, though, there are bigger markets in other languages.
So how does this thing work, if it doesn't do speech to text? It does speech to phonetics, and phonetics to lips.
For example, its relatively easy to understand when someone has said "h -ee- r", but knowing if that's supposed to be "here" or "hear" is quite difficult.
This is why the same software works across languages. "Th" is "Th" in any language, and your single algorithm doesn't have to care.
I'm missing something... How is it more efficient to use a bike trailer and your own power to tote around 100lbs of gear than to use the segway?
Is there some weight limit on the segway I'm not aware of, or are you unaware of the trailer option for the segway?
I live in Seattle, and the bike-couriers here are SOLID from runs in and around the hilly downtown. I'm in reasonable shape, but I couldn't haul anything up six blocks of hills.
Did you look at the site? You use the tablet at your meeting, you return to your desk and dock it (sideways) and use it as your monitor as you go about your business with keyboard and mouse.
Its like carrying your computer with you to your meetings. Better than a laptop, because you don't have to have table space to set it on, and you don't appear to be hiding behind it. And, hopefully, it weighs less.
It seems like the most natural interface. While you're out, you write on it like a notepad. You get back, and you type with your keyboard. How's that better than a yellow legal pad? I can pull up the design document on the arcane subject we wandered into on my tablet. Everyone else is stuck with what they printed out to bring along.
I think it would be a good thing, even if the handwriting recognition is lousy. Which, of course, they claim it isn't. Who knows, on that account?
Well, I agree that I type much faster than I write, but I frequently wish for more functionality than a PDA.
I'm in a meeting, and I want to look at the design document (in Word, invariably, or a PDF if I'm lucky). Right now, I have to kill a tree.
The idea of carrying all the data in my computer with me to the meeting is pretty exciting. The interface of being able to write on the whole screen looks pretty good.
And it looks like when I get back to my desk, I can lay it down, and use a regular keyboard and mouse.
The above statement assumes that the digital watermark is intended to be used as some identifier that is different for otherwise identical songs. Something like adding your name to the song you downloaded, and sending in the jackbooted thugs when the file with your name on it shows up on Eddie's warez server.
If, however, you're using a watermark for some kind of authentication of the source of a file (like a PGP signature that this really is the latest song from artist X), then that's certainly possible. But I'd say that you're not making a watermark in that case, you're just embedding data.
The answer to this lies in the difference between "embedding data" and "watermarking".
That is, "embedding data" is simply adding data that doesn't noticeably corrupt, and watermarking is adding data that CANNOT be removed.
I submit that this is very nearly (if not completely) impossible. The reason is that each user of the sound data may manipulate everything about that data.
To be clearer, think about real-world watermarks. The reason they world is that we're limited in the extent to which we can manipulate the substance. Attempts to remove a real-world watermark destroys the original because we can't be "careful enough".
Digitally, we can "move" each bit (think atom) individually to produce the result we want. Hence, I think "digital watermarking" is almost a laughable idea.
Slashdot Mirror
Why couldn't you get a mass large enough that we can measure its gravity, and move it, in a prescribed pattern back and forth in front of the measuring device?
/. doesn't seem to care about the pre tag.
I'll try to ASCII-diagram, where [X] is the thing with mass and D is the measuring Device. The numbers at the side are the time. The dashes are because
t0: D ---- [X]
t1: D ---------- [X]
t2: D --------------------- [X]
t3: D ---------- [X]
t4: D ---- [X]
So, if you begin at rest, you should be able to measure the time between the moving of the mass, and the recording of the change in gravity, right?
The only problem with this approach that I can see is a lack of ability to measure time this closely. Are there others?
-Zipwow
Wow, mythTV looks really good!
How well does it all go together? This looks like quite the product.
-Zipwow
But see, all our replies are "I imagine" and "I think" and "I would guess that". Clearly from these kind of qualifiers, nobody's sure what they mean, hence it could be used in a lot of inappropriate ways.
-Zip
Well, what do they mean by "disguises the URL"?
/.'s own style, which mimics the original purpose of links. Clicking on related words (not URLs in parenthesis) takes you to the content.
If this is an extension of the "passing off", where you deep-link to their website and claim its your own work, then it seems fine.
Or does it mean that every time I have to link to them, I have to show the full URL? This could be tedious, as seen in
It's not clear which is prohibited, which is the problem.
-Zipwow
Will it have enough processing power to crack the XBox key? :P
-Zipwow
Ahh, but you can. In fact, I feel that there are two immediate counterpoints to this notion.
The first is that not all land is plantable. Very large parts of of Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, and New Mexico are unsuited to crop growing either because they're too arid, or too rocky, or too low in other nutrients. You may notice that these areas have a reputation for cattle ranching.
Second, cattle (and other animals) can be a natural part of the crop cycle on land that is arable. Its well known that you ought to leave your fields fallow every few years, even better is to graze some sort of fertilizer-producing animal on it. You'll feed some of your grain to these animals as well, but you're paid back both in meat and fertilizer for this use.
Now, to be fair, I'll admit that there are other parts of our meat producing system that cause problems. Feedlots are probably the best example. The amount of manure created by their dense populations pollutes the groundwater and causes other problems before it can be removed for use as a fertilizer. Some slaughterhouses are inhumane (and some are not).
I think if you're going to argue for something in terms of efficiency and global impact, organic farming makes the most sense.
Perhaps the lab approach will pollute less than the feedlots, and provide a cheaper alternative. That's going to be my hope, at least.
-Zipwow
".Net is supposedly language neutral"
.Net that was new to "language research comunity", and C# supposedly has more features and 5 years of 'extra experience'"
.Net is a combination of fear and illegal actions. If the threat of the latter can be removed, then the former will disappear, and we'll have a fair competition.
So is Java. JNI existed from the beginning, though it was one of the things that the MSJVM broke. RMI-IIOP exists. SOAP and XML-RPC are a very nice part of Java. Heck, you can use CORBA with Java as well, if you really want to.
Furthermore, Java is *platform* neutral. Java's track record with supporting alternate implementations is nearly flawless. Application servers are a fine example, with the admitted issue of JBoss' certification.
On the flipside, Microsoft fights alternate implementations of every part of their existing hierarchy tooth and nail. Furthermore, they subvert industry standards like IMAP and Kerberos to force lock-in with their own systems. And now you're telling me they're promoting free interoperation?
".Net will supposedly perform better"
This is based on old perceptions of Java. If you read some of the benchmark reviews, I think you'll see that there's enough controversy to assure you that that performance is comparable. If that isn't enough, J2EE's acceptance ought to also comfort your worries.
"Nothing in Java or
The former is true, Java's (and later, C#'s) language constructs were well researched. The comment about "5 years extra experience" is pure spin for "came five years later". A language that claims it is so similar to Java that it is advertised as easy to convert, but still "packs in a bunch more features" contradicts itself on its face.
I think it can be shown that what is driving
-Zipwow
Did you read the judge's decision? He/she lays it all out very well.
.NET was announced, hordes of developers began talking about how to switch over and support it? The answer, the judge thinks (and I agree), is ubiquitous deployment and support. This ubiquitous deployment is due to a monopoly. This usage of a monopoly to break into other markets is illegal. Its at this point in the reasoning that we really don't have to go any further. Harm has been done, and it needs a remedy. Harm was done to Microsoft's competitor Sun in a previous but related market, and that harm is continuing to hinder Sun's ability to compete in this market. Since Microsoft's guilt was upheld on appeal, and since Sun was named *specifically* in the judgement, its pretty clear that Sun's chances of winning the case are good. Its also clear that in the years it takes to decide this, that the harm to Sun will continue, and will be unable to be undone after the trial. Hence the injunction.
.NET.
.NET relates to the perception that .NET is going to win hands down not because of better technology, but because of the advantages MS has from its OS monopolies.
Client-side java was one of the most obvious harms of Microsoft's activities. In the judge's opinion, he/she repeatedly quotes Microsoft's own communications about its strengths, and its possibilities. Even now, ActiveX is not as fully featured (or anywhere near as secure) as a Java applet. And still, you can't be sure your java applet is going to run properly, because of Microsoft's earlier pollution. And, the judge concludes, that pollution also reduces the near-ubiquitousness that Java was achieving by being a part of all Nescape installations.
But that's not even the main point.
Why is it that as *soon* as
Apart from that, I think you discount the difference it makes for something to be part of the default installation. Honestly, with the outcome of IE vs Netscape, I don't see how you can miss how important that is.
The judge's position describes how having Java with the OS changes developers' approaches very well. And even were that not the case, the granting of this injunction certainly gives Sun the perception in the developers' minds that Sun is going to win this challenge, and win the right for Java to compete unfettered with
That's the only effect worth talking about. To further answer my earlier question about the rapid adoption (or at least interest) in
Lastly, if I had a dollar for every time I heard "They will survive for a year or so" about Sun, I'd have all my money back from the stock market. Lets talk about the law and the technologies, rather than ad hominem attacks on executives.
-Zipwow
This is the single most important piece of data posted here today.
Does someone know where the wording of this is? I remember it as well, but getting the details of it would also be enlightening.
-Zipwow
Two interesting details, the first being that I think the payment to Sun from MS was $20M, and the second that at that time, MS offered to exactly what Sun just got the injunction for: shipping Sun's JVM.
Sun didn't take it then because it had lots of nasty strings (I think it would've allowed MS to break it 'for security' or some other odiously broad clause).
However, that offer is one thing that the judge cites to refute one of MS' defenses against this injuction: that the Sun JVM would introduce security problems. The judge basically said that if MS really believed that, they wouldn't have made the offer in the other case.
-Zipwow
A lot of people have missed why Sun was harmed in the first place. You mention the shipping of the defunct and broken MS JVM, but miss the real past harm: MS' illegal actions against Netscape.
Netscape, the then-dominant browser, also installed a Java VM with every installation. Its this inclusion that led to the MSJV in the first place. When MS illegally forced Netscape out of the market, they also harmed Java. Evidence that this is more than just a side effect is that Sun Microsystems is specifically mentioned in the DoJ findings.
Several points can be made here. Sun "lost Java" (not really, but close) in the open market because Microsoft violated the rules of that market. The idea that monopolies are legal, but using them to extend to other markets is a pretty basic tenet of free market economics. That Java still exists despite this 'foul play' from MS is a testimony to its strength.
Next, you say that suing about this "didn't do Netscape any good". There's two important things that Sun has that Netscape didn't. First, an injunction that remedies the problem during litigation, and more importantly: a new product, based on the harmed one, that is also a strong competitor.
J2EE is competing with
All in all, I think its pretty reasonable. This is a new market, and we as consumers deserve a product created by competition free of monopolistic influences.
-Zipwow
Here's how I understand it:
Sun is suing MS in a civil case, saying that Microsoft used their monopoly(1) on desktop operating systems to illegally compete with Sun's Java, in the form of a browser plugin. MS used their OS to hinder Sun by including an out-of-date and broken JVM version for many years, despite better software available (for free) from Sun.
The judge agreed that this was likely an illegal use of their monopoly(2). MS already attempted to say that browsers (and their plugins, which Java is in this case) are part of the operating system, but that was already rejected in the DOJ case. Because of this precedent, the case looks very strong for Sun, so...
As a preliminary injunction, the judge ruled that Microsoft has to include the latest version of the JVM from Sun, so that as the case is argued in court (no doubt over a period of years), further damage is avoided.
I don't read it that Microsoft can 'opt out' of carrying any sort of JVM, especially since that's already their tactic with WinXP.
-Zipwow
1: Monopoly, not illegal in itself. MS has argued that no monopoly exists. The DoJ case's findings of fact specifically described MS' hold on Desktop OS's as a monopoly.
2: Using a monopoly in one area to hinder competition in another is illegal, and is what Sun is complaining about. Using your desktop power to break into the web-plugin market (and hence the related server market) is what's illegal.
Do not be tempted, young skywatcher, by the fact that your northern location provides almost twelve hours of darkness. This is foolishness, and a chasing after the wind.
Heed my warning! Else you too will spend two-and-a-half hours each way driving out past the mountain range in hopes of the 'continental divide' effect providing clearer skies than the rest of the west coast. This too is foolishness, and a chasing after the wind.
Seattlites, do not be fooled by such tools of deception like "sky reports", "radar images", "high pressure areas", and "friends calling who are near there"!
Sky reports are a fabrication of your enemy. Radar images and high pressure areas are fiction created by those who sell gasoline and coffee. Your friends are already in on the deception along with NASA. And they are at home in bed.
Stay home, young Washingtonian, and get some sleep. Lord knows it's dark enough.
-Zipwow
If its in a subclass, shouldn't its constructor have already completed by the time your superclass's constructor is executing?
-Zipwow
Your linked document doesn't spin it that way, but that's what it means.
To clarify, here's a quote from the FTC that spells things out more directly:
-ZipwowYou make a good point. Hopefully, if other countries follow this example, we'll amend our legislature to include their domains.
.kids.us domain. They do have more than a children's and young-adult section now.
And equally as hopefully, our libraries will have access to more than just the
-Zipwow
Hydrogen: Have any significant pockets of atomic hydrogen been discovered yet? Do we know how to "drill" for hydrogen without the risk of a huge explosion?
Is Hydrogen yet viable for all our energy? No. Should we stop researching it? Again, no.
Also, the usage of 'hydrogen' as a power source is somewhat ambiguous. "Drilling for hydrogen" isn't probably the approach we'd want to take. Using the tides to extract it from saltwater or some other similar approach is probably a better one.
Tides: The amount of energy tends to be insignificant unless the tides are really huge, like at the Bay of Fundy, in which case the power generators are already there.
Are you arguing that we can't make any advancements in tidal energy sources, and that all the places that can generate the energy are already tapped? I've read many articles about producing cheaper generators that, if deployed en masse, would generate a fair amount of power in lower tide areas. And even those types that are installed at the Bay of Fundy can be improved for efficiency. The process of creating the solar panels tends to be harmful to the environment.
Processes can be (and will be) improved, and even with their harms, they're far less dangerous than nuclear waste with a half-life of hundreds of millenia.
Who said we were relying on one power source?
Wind: you need lots of windmillsSee above statement.
We pretty much are going with these cleaner options where they are available, but they don't replace fossil fuels.
Except for nuclear power, which doesn't deserve to be considered a 'cleaner option'. Keep in mind that uranium doesn't grow on trees. It, too, has to be mined and processed. Even that fact, though, pales when you consider:
Oh, and nuclear waste isn't usable as a weapon [...] So we bury it in the ground instead.
I'm not talking about a bomb. I'm talking about burying the stuff in *your* backyard. I'm talking about malicously polluting your water supply and/or farmland for the next 150,000 years.
In conclusion, I feel that the probability that the fission power waste will either be used as a weapon or will be mismanaged and cause great amounts of contamination sometime over the next 150,000 years is pretty close to 100%. We're just not responsible enough to use this power source. -Zipwow
The problem is that while we know where the waste is, we also have to keep track of it for the next 150,000 years.
Considering that we haven't had a government stable for a quarter of that time, I don't think its a good risk. Sooner or later we'll either forget about it, screw up the maintenence, or someone will just plain use it as a weapon.
If the argument was Coal vs Fission, with no other alternatives, I'd go with Fission. However, since Hydrogen, tides, solar, wind, and others may be alternatives, I think we should go with them first.
$.02
-Zipwow
Paraphrasing: "why not deliver the phonetics themselves"
I'd guess that a text-based reprsentation of phonemes isn't as intuitive as one would like. At the very least, its another skill one would have to learn to use the phone, whereas the user presumably already can do some amount of lip reading.
In general, though, I've often wondered if sending the phonemes over 'the wire' and reconstructing them as sound on the other side wouldn't work well.
Granted, the phonemes would probably have to have a lot more detail than they do now to sound right, but it seems one could send a lot of that kind of detail and still take up less space than even a compressed sound wave.
One application of this approach would be chat programs, and game communication. Because the phonemes are being reconstructed, you could reconstruct them with different characteristics than they were recorded, making them more feminine, or with a scottish brogue, etc.
-Zipwow
Partly, because speech to text isn't very good.
Speech to text isn't very good because its very hard to turn phonetics into words. Our ability to understand people is very reliant on context. Knowing what's been said helps you understand what's being said.
Some will say that speech to text is getting fairly good in English, which is somewhat true. Obviously, though, there are bigger markets in other languages.
So how does this thing work, if it doesn't do speech to text? It does speech to phonetics, and phonetics to lips.
For example, its relatively easy to understand when someone has said "h -ee- r", but knowing if that's supposed to be "here" or "hear" is quite difficult.
This is why the same software works across languages. "Th" is "Th" in any language, and your single algorithm doesn't have to care.
-Zipwow
I'm missing something... How is it more efficient to use a bike trailer and your own power to tote around 100lbs of gear than to use the segway?
Is there some weight limit on the segway I'm not aware of, or are you unaware of the trailer option for the segway?
I live in Seattle, and the bike-couriers here are SOLID from runs in and around the hilly downtown. I'm in reasonable shape, but I couldn't haul anything up six blocks of hills.
-Zipwow
Did you look at the site? You use the tablet at your meeting, you return to your desk and dock it (sideways) and use it as your monitor as you go about your business with keyboard and mouse.
Its like carrying your computer with you to your meetings. Better than a laptop, because you don't have to have table space to set it on, and you don't appear to be hiding behind it. And, hopefully, it weighs less.
It seems like the most natural interface. While you're out, you write on it like a notepad. You get back, and you type with your keyboard. How's that better than a yellow legal pad? I can pull up the design document on the arcane subject we wandered into on my tablet. Everyone else is stuck with what they printed out to bring along.
I think it would be a good thing, even if the handwriting recognition is lousy. Which, of course, they claim it isn't. Who knows, on that account?
-Zipwow
I disagree.
Well, I agree that I type much faster than I write, but I frequently wish for more functionality than a PDA.
I'm in a meeting, and I want to look at the design document (in Word, invariably, or a PDF if I'm lucky). Right now, I have to kill a tree.
The idea of carrying all the data in my computer with me to the meeting is pretty exciting. The interface of being able to write on the whole screen looks pretty good.
And it looks like when I get back to my desk, I can lay it down, and use a regular keyboard and mouse.
What's not to like?
-Zipwow
The above statement assumes that the digital watermark is intended to be used as some identifier that is different for otherwise identical songs. Something like adding your name to the song you downloaded, and sending in the jackbooted thugs when the file with your name on it shows up on Eddie's warez server.
If, however, you're using a watermark for some kind of authentication of the source of a file (like a PGP signature that this really is the latest song from artist X), then that's certainly possible. But I'd say that you're not making a watermark in that case, you're just embedding data.
-Zipwow
The answer to this lies in the difference between "embedding data" and "watermarking".
That is, "embedding data" is simply adding data that doesn't noticeably corrupt, and watermarking is adding data that CANNOT be removed.
I submit that this is very nearly (if not completely) impossible. The reason is that each user of the sound data may manipulate everything about that data.
To be clearer, think about real-world watermarks. The reason they world is that we're limited in the extent to which we can manipulate the substance. Attempts to remove a real-world watermark destroys the original because we can't be "careful enough".
Digitally, we can "move" each bit (think atom) individually to produce the result we want. Hence, I think "digital watermarking" is almost a laughable idea.
-Zipwow