How interesting that so many have chosen to lash out at their COMMUNITY (/.) with dissenting opinions. Rather than merely dismissing the article as crap, perhaps we should read it and see it for it's merits rather than blast it for its inaccuracies and viewpoint.
Don't get me wrong, I love that the military finally did something right (and VERY cost-effectively too... $40M over 3 years? Is that a typo?) in developing non-lethal weapons.
Among some questions... How big is this thing? The article implies that it could be mounted on a tank or aircraft. Could it be adapted to hand-held size? If there's a tank or aircraft for "crowd control", isn't it a little late to think about the non-lethalness of the weapons used? And would it be able to target individuals, or would it just burn en masse, the entire crowd?
Is overexposure a potential problem? The article says "130 degrees F in 2 seconds, but what happens in the first second? The third? I have a mental picture of a Marine saying, "Stay right there so I can non-lethally deter you from... STOP THAT!!" followed by a similar picture of a hideously burned face because he left the weapon on "crispy pork rinds".
Kudos to the Marines for developing this technology, but until it gets faster than 2 seconds, I somehow can't see it being very effective.
One thing to remember though: When you find the guy you want to be your mentor,
MAKE SURE HE STICKS AROUND!!!
It does you no good that this guy loves you and will write you the best damn recommendation you've ever seen if he leaves the company by the end of the year!
But other than that, Co-ops and internships are just glorified grunt work. Just make sure you either get a job offer or a good recommendation when you leave.
,04 teacher I've ever had was one outside of the classroom, outside the school system entirely. One summer break, I worked with him, and over the course of the summer, he taught me how to use common sense.
He believed it axiomatical that all college students, by definition, had no common sense. So he took it upon himself to challenge me every single time I screwed something up. Everything I needlessly did, everything I did the hard way, he called me on, and made me feel bad that I disappointed him. By the end of the summer, I could do the work with half the effort, just because of what he taught me.
The best teacher I had in school though, was Coach Mac. He was one of those teachers who everyone in the school knew, and was afraid to disappoint. He taught me a new level of accountability. When everyone turned in their homework, if you didn't do it, and didn't turn it in, the next day, you could expect a reviling on how disappointed he was that you... lied to him. That's right. By not calling attention to the fact that you didn't do your homework, by not telling him to his face that you had that little respect for him, THAT was the crime.
For him, when you screwed up, he not only called you on it, but made sure you never did it again. He taught me that a man's word is his bond, and gave me the tools to see that I could apply it in real life.
I fail to see how it COULD be Nader's fault. It's not because of Nader that Bush won Tennessee. It's because Gore is an idiot (even though I voted for him) for losing his home state (which would have given him 11, and the election). Nader had NOTHING to do with that, that was all Gore's fault.
The only reason people are blaming Nader is because he's a convenient scapegoat who got some votes in swing states. Had Gore done his job campaigning, those wouldn't have been swing states, and he would have won already. Don't blame Nader for Gore's loss. He has no one to blame but himself.
Agreed, there's no secret that High School is a horrible place to be. What Hellmouth does is look at the OTHER side.
Most books that address high schools do so from the jock perspective, or the perspective of someone who has already done something (i.e. the people who broke down and talked to the guidance counselor, or quit school, or some such) This is the first time I've ever seen the problems of real geek children addressed. At least the first one that addresses it at a time BEFORE they do something awful. Maybe I'm sheltered, but I haven't seen it anywhere but fiction.
I'm voting for Gore. Not because of any "strategic voting", not because of the media's brainwashing, but because of the Supreme Court.
Of the candidates, however much it seems the/. community wants to believe there are more than two serious contenders, there aren't. Bush or Gore. Yes, it's because people are sheep, yes it's because people don't take time to look past the media brainwashing, but the plain fact remains that there are only two people who have a serious chance at being elected.
Of the two, Gore has been VP for 8 years, and Senator before that. Bush has served in one of the, if not the single weakest gubernatorial position in the country. Before that, what? Big oil? Part owner of a baseball team? How does that qualify him to be President? I can see where he's qualified to run a company, but a country is a different animal.
Now, of the two that have a chance to win, I somehow can't see Bush doing much to protect the Internet when it's being attacked by corporations. (yes, I know the corporations give to both campaigns, but I'd make better odds that Gore would push better solutions) Consequently, I'd sooner trust Gore and the Democrats to appoint Supreme Court Justices that would find in our favor. Especially with the treaty to magically stop hackers being presented in Europe. I'm not saying the system works, I'm not saying that it doesn't need to be changed, but given the harsh realities of our 2-party system, Gore is the best vote for the Internet Community.
Re:The Problem with American Voters & Candidates
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 1
Quoth the Poster, "I'm actually thinking the populous is smart. I'm actually thinking someone qualified who actually cares and shows it will step forward with a giant silver sword and destroy the old codgers currently getting off on being popular and constantly winning the popularity contest, boosting their egos."
You actually think a populous that watches TV SEVEN hours a day (and "Who Wants to Be a Millionare" and "Survivor" were the *TOP* rated shows, so not even GOOD TV at that), half of whom DON'T vote, in a country where the WWF exists to provide entertainment to people who actually think it's REAL is *SMART*?!?!?!?
The qualified person who actually cares is not likely to want his private life exposed during the election (among other annoyances, inconveniences, and unpleasentries), and consequently is not likely to run. He will be more likely to make an educated vote than swing "a giant silver sword". The other qualified people who DO care are already RUNNING for office. They may not be the smartest, the most technically inclined, or the most beautiful person, but lots of people who voted for them thought they were the most qualified for the dubious title of "politician".
This doesn't matter much. IF human beings haven't already killed themselves off in WW XII by then, I for one, would hope we were capable of interplanetary travel. Meanwhile, we can take heart in the fact that this won't happen for another 5 billion years (the arguable current length of time the universe has existed)
And really, when we all start looking at the universe and stars, let's all remember the Monty Python Universe song. We're just a planet in the solar system in a galaxy in the local cluster, in the universe. And for all our earth-centric thinking, we don't matter for all that much in the Universe. If a billion people in china don't care what you do at the dinner table (and they're only half a planet away), why should a googleplex of stars care?
Don't we need both? It's great to theorize that we can travel at the speed of light, given enough energy and a small enough mass, but what will come of it until someone does research applicable to Corporate worlds? Coming up with the combustible engine was wonderful, yes. But coming up with a car is what revolutionized travel. It's all well and good to do pure research, but until Joe Q. Public has it on his kitchen counter, it doesn't touch his life.
I was reading an article the other day about something like this. While the other revolutions had something they MADE, the Digital Revolution makes things easier.
In economics, there are two things that can increase value. One, you can make more of something. Two, you can make something better. So computer companies can either make more machines, or simply make RAM cheaper, put more in, and increase the quality.
The combustion engine, indoor plumbing, and electricity (indeed, most of the Industrial Revolution) made more of something. You could get there faster, you could make new things, you could get an indoor light. The digital revolution makes things easier. It allows us to (relatively easily) IMPROVE things. CAD programs used to design better cars. Ubiquitous cellular phones. Bigger, Stronger, Faster. It's not really MAKING anything new, but it's IMPROVING already existing products.
And for those of you who doubt the omnipresence of the Digital Revolution, watch a little TV, read a newspaper, and see how many ads DON'T have a URL attatched to them somewhere along the bottom of the screen/ad.
OK. Given that Napster has an undenible, perfect, unbroken account of each and every transaction done on all of it's servers since it began (and that's one heck of a given), I'd like to see it try. How are they supposed to know if an MP3 that's being traded is legal or not? Last I checked, there's no way to tell, especially if the person isn't connected at the time.
Great, so now they're blocking legit Metallica MP3 trials. (must be deleted after 24 hours) Given that now everyone is going to sign up again with a dynamic IP address and an assumed name (assuming they didn't do that the first time around), now Napster is in even deeper than before. Now people are virtually untraceable.
Personally, I want to know how they compiled that list of 335,000. Did they keep a record of everything and get it from there? Did they track IP addresses and stalk the users from afar? Did they just put tracking software on for a weekend tracking any searches for, trades, and screen names of people who traded Metallica MP3s? None of them are accurate (except maybe the first one, which I doubt they have room for anyway). Perhaps they just rattled off some screen names and attatched the "real names" and submitted that as a list.
The way I see it, it's win-win. Either Napster grows in size and anonymity while people start boycotting Metallica (which I prefer), or Napster grows in size, but doesn't allow trading of Metallica songs (which I don't like anyway).
Just a little review of some semantics (stop me when I'm wrong...) MP3.com - an online company that distributes MP3s (without a liscense to do so which is why they got sued) myMP3.com - the distribution agent (which was declared illegal since its owners had no liscense) MP3 - a digital format which can be declared illegal no more than a.doc or.txt file (also compresses music at somewhat less quality but 1/12 of the size of the file) Napster/GNUtella/etc. - distribution agents with a blatent disclaimer, no music owned in their name, disavowing all relations with illegal activity. Also, one of the most effective ways to download music.
MP3.com was sued for illegal distribution. Not posession of an illegal music format. Even though they made sure everyone who downloaded their music owned it previously (which is good), they made copies of that music (debatable legality), and DISTRIBUTED IT (illegal). Napster's suit is a LOT easier. They have disclaimers, they don't share any of it, the company doesn't even distribute it. It leaves distribution to the people downloading. It provides a forum for illegal trading, sure, but so does a local park provide a forum for illegal trading (if you burn the CDs for it). It makes less sense for Metallica to sue the local park, 'cause the park doesn't have a disclaimer saying it's not responsible. (but you knew that already) For the record, I'd agree that music wants to be free (else God wouldn't have let us create the radio), but I'd be willing to pay a REASONABLE amount for some songs. I'm not going into the ethics of copyright, nor the evils of the RIAA, because it's not that easy. But as it is, the format is legal, the ownership is legal (as long as you paid for it), but the distribution is not. Please, like I said at the beginning, stop me if I'm wrong, I'd really like to know.
Part of what makes Chess such a great game is that it can't be solved. Who's to say a Sicilian defense is better than a 4-knights defense? Especially with the various openings, Chess is a game dependant on style. Some people prefer an open board and choose to push queen's pawn. Others prefer a closed board and push king's pawn. Neither is better or worse, just different. One person makes a move (for better or worse) based on their style, and the other person responds based on their style and the percieved mistakes. Even if you remove the perception of mistakes, style still plays a key role. With 16 billion possible moves if you only give each side 4 turns each, with computers running at speeds we can't concieve of, plotting every single game would be possible, and optimizing their chance of success, at least a small element of style would vary from game to game.
Much of this game has been debated and argued throughout the making of it. Among other features debated were "friendly fire", "conversion" and an arena specifically for PKing. That Blizzard even had a response to the question of portability means that a port was one of those topics of debate. One of the reasons I've been looking forward to this game is because of Blizzard's notoriously high standards. From the screenshots and gameplay screens available at http://www.blizzard.com, this looks to be a better version by far. If Blizzard sent it to loki to port to Linux, I can understand where they might worry about that standard of quality being lowered. Blizzard is not in the business of making games for each and every platform. Their bottom line is profit, just like any other business. If enough of the linux community makes noise and writes to Blizzard convincing them there is profit in it, I would expect them to follow the money. Otherwise, they'll just write it for the 85% of people (like it or not) who use Windows on a daily basis. If you want more information about the game, http://www.diabloii.net does a SUPERB job outlining characters, items, and has a fairly good review of the closed beta. I think it even has more information than Blizzard's page.
As far as price goes, after some time connecting with a 56K modem at 33.6K on a large provider (such as AOL or Compuserve) for $20 (US) per month, I'd GLADLY trade in for 10 times the speed with more stability for 3 times the price! And the price itself may be a little steep, but I've seen similar prices from some companies that are also just starting up.
Slashdot Mirror
What'll it be sir/madam/it? The batteries or the pizza and Dew? :)
How interesting that so many have chosen to lash out at their COMMUNITY (/.) with dissenting opinions. Rather than merely dismissing the article as crap, perhaps we should read it and see it for it's merits rather than blast it for its inaccuracies and viewpoint.
just a thought.
Don't get me wrong, I love that the military finally did something right (and VERY cost-effectively too... $40M over 3 years? Is that a typo?) in developing non-lethal weapons.
Among some questions... How big is this thing? The article implies that it could be mounted on a tank or aircraft. Could it be adapted to hand-held size? If there's a tank or aircraft for "crowd control", isn't it a little late to think about the non-lethalness of the weapons used? And would it be able to target individuals, or would it just burn en masse, the entire crowd?
Is overexposure a potential problem? The article says "130 degrees F in 2 seconds, but what happens in the first second? The third? I have a mental picture of a Marine saying, "Stay right there so I can non-lethally deter you from... STOP THAT!!" followed by a similar picture of a hideously burned face because he left the weapon on "crispy pork rinds".
Kudos to the Marines for developing this technology, but until it gets faster than 2 seconds, I somehow can't see it being very effective.
After Y2K Go Nitrozac!
One thing to remember though: When you find the guy you want to be your mentor,
MAKE SURE HE STICKS AROUND!!!
It does you no good that this guy loves you and will write you the best damn recommendation you've ever seen if he leaves the company by the end of the year!
But other than that, Co-ops and internships are just glorified grunt work. Just make sure you either get a job offer or a good recommendation when you leave.
He believed it axiomatical that all college students, by definition, had no common sense. So he took it upon himself to challenge me every single time I screwed something up. Everything I needlessly did, everything I did the hard way, he called me on, and made me feel bad that I disappointed him. By the end of the summer, I could do the work with half the effort, just because of what he taught me.
The best teacher I had in school though, was Coach Mac. He was one of those teachers who everyone in the school knew, and was afraid to disappoint. He taught me a new level of accountability. When everyone turned in their homework, if you didn't do it, and didn't turn it in, the next day, you could expect a reviling on how disappointed he was that you... lied to him. That's right. By not calling attention to the fact that you didn't do your homework, by not telling him to his face that you had that little respect for him, THAT was the crime.
For him, when you screwed up, he not only called you on it, but made sure you never did it again. He taught me that a man's word is his bond, and gave me the tools to see that I could apply it in real life.
I fail to see how it COULD be Nader's fault. It's not because of Nader that Bush won Tennessee. It's because Gore is an idiot (even though I voted for him) for losing his home state (which would have given him 11, and the election). Nader had NOTHING to do with that, that was all Gore's fault.
The only reason people are blaming Nader is because he's a convenient scapegoat who got some votes in swing states. Had Gore done his job campaigning, those wouldn't have been swing states, and he would have won already. Don't blame Nader for Gore's loss. He has no one to blame but himself.
Agreed, there's no secret that High School is a horrible place to be. What Hellmouth does is look at the OTHER side.
Most books that address high schools do so from the jock perspective, or the perspective of someone who has already done something (i.e. the people who broke down and talked to the guidance counselor, or quit school, or some such) This is the first time I've ever seen the problems of real geek children addressed. At least the first one that addresses it at a time BEFORE they do something awful. Maybe I'm sheltered, but I haven't seen it anywhere but fiction.
just my two cents.
I'm voting for Gore. Not because of any "strategic voting", not because of the media's brainwashing, but because of the Supreme Court.
/. community wants to believe there are more than two serious contenders, there aren't. Bush or Gore. Yes, it's because people are sheep, yes it's because people don't take time to look past the media brainwashing, but the plain fact remains that there are only two people who have a serious chance at being elected.
Of the candidates, however much it seems the
Of the two, Gore has been VP for 8 years, and Senator before that. Bush has served in one of the, if not the single weakest gubernatorial position in the country. Before that, what? Big oil? Part owner of a baseball team? How does that qualify him to be President? I can see where he's qualified to run a company, but a country is a different animal.
Now, of the two that have a chance to win, I somehow can't see Bush doing much to protect the Internet when it's being attacked by corporations. (yes, I know the corporations give to both campaigns, but I'd make better odds that Gore would push better solutions) Consequently, I'd sooner trust Gore and the Democrats to appoint Supreme Court Justices that would find in our favor. Especially with the treaty to magically stop hackers being presented in Europe.
I'm not saying the system works, I'm not saying that it doesn't need to be changed, but given the harsh realities of our 2-party system, Gore is the best vote for the Internet Community.
Quoth the Poster, "I'm actually thinking the populous is smart. I'm actually thinking someone qualified who actually cares and shows it will step forward with a giant silver sword and destroy the old codgers currently getting off on being popular and constantly winning the popularity contest, boosting their egos."
You actually think a populous that watches TV SEVEN hours a day (and "Who Wants to Be a Millionare" and "Survivor" were the *TOP* rated shows, so not even GOOD TV at that), half of whom DON'T vote, in a country where the WWF exists to provide entertainment to people who actually think it's REAL is *SMART*?!?!?!?
The qualified person who actually cares is not likely to want his private life exposed during the election (among other annoyances, inconveniences, and unpleasentries), and consequently is not likely to run. He will be more likely to make an educated vote than swing "a giant silver sword". The other qualified people who DO care are already RUNNING for office. They may not be the smartest, the most technically inclined, or the most beautiful person, but lots of people who voted for them thought they were the most qualified for the dubious title of "politician".
This doesn't matter much. IF human beings haven't already killed themselves off in WW XII by then, I for one, would hope we were capable of interplanetary travel. Meanwhile, we can take heart in the fact that this won't happen for another 5 billion years (the arguable current length of time the universe has existed)
And really, when we all start looking at the universe and stars, let's all remember the Monty Python Universe song. We're just a planet in the solar system in a galaxy in the local cluster, in the universe. And for all our earth-centric thinking, we don't matter for all that much in the Universe. If a billion people in china don't care what you do at the dinner table (and they're only half a planet away), why should a googleplex of stars care?
Don't we need both? It's great to theorize that we can travel at the speed of light, given enough energy and a small enough mass, but what will come of it until someone does research applicable to Corporate worlds? Coming up with the combustible engine was wonderful, yes. But coming up with a car is what revolutionized travel.
It's all well and good to do pure research, but until Joe Q. Public has it on his kitchen counter, it doesn't touch his life.
I was reading an article the other day about something like this. While the other revolutions had something they MADE, the Digital Revolution makes things easier.
In economics, there are two things that can increase value. One, you can make more of something. Two, you can make something better. So computer companies can either make more machines, or simply make RAM cheaper, put more in, and increase the quality.
The combustion engine, indoor plumbing, and electricity (indeed, most of the Industrial Revolution) made more of something. You could get there faster, you could make new things, you could get an indoor light. The digital revolution makes things easier. It allows us to (relatively easily) IMPROVE things. CAD programs used to design better cars. Ubiquitous cellular phones. Bigger, Stronger, Faster. It's not really MAKING anything new, but it's IMPROVING already existing products.
And for those of you who doubt the omnipresence of the Digital Revolution, watch a little TV, read a newspaper, and see how many ads DON'T have a URL attatched to them somewhere along the bottom of the screen/ad.
----
OK. Given that Napster has an undenible, perfect, unbroken account of each and every transaction done on all of it's servers since it began (and that's one heck of a given), I'd like to see it try. How are they supposed to know if an MP3 that's being traded is legal or not? Last I checked, there's no way to tell, especially if the person isn't connected at the time.
Great, so now they're blocking legit Metallica MP3 trials. (must be deleted after 24 hours) Given that now everyone is going to sign up again with a dynamic IP address and an assumed name (assuming they didn't do that the first time around), now Napster is in even deeper than before. Now people are virtually untraceable.
Personally, I want to know how they compiled that list of 335,000. Did they keep a record of everything and get it from there? Did they track IP addresses and stalk the users from afar? Did they just put tracking software on for a weekend tracking any searches for, trades, and screen names of people who traded Metallica MP3s? None of them are accurate (except maybe the first one, which I doubt they have room for anyway). Perhaps they just rattled off some screen names and attatched the "real names" and submitted that as a list.
The way I see it, it's win-win. Either Napster grows in size and anonymity while people start boycotting Metallica (which I prefer), or Napster grows in size, but doesn't allow trading of Metallica songs (which I don't like anyway).
Just a little review of some semantics (stop me when I'm wrong...) .doc or .txt file (also compresses music at somewhat less quality but 1/12 of the size of the file)
MP3.com - an online company that distributes MP3s (without a liscense to do so which is why they got sued)
myMP3.com - the distribution agent (which was declared illegal since its owners had no liscense)
MP3 - a digital format which can be declared illegal no more than a
Napster/GNUtella/etc. - distribution agents with a blatent disclaimer, no music owned in their name, disavowing all relations with illegal activity. Also, one of the most effective ways to download music.
MP3.com was sued for illegal distribution. Not posession of an illegal music format. Even though they made sure everyone who downloaded their music owned it previously (which is good), they made copies of that music (debatable legality), and DISTRIBUTED IT (illegal).
Napster's suit is a LOT easier. They have disclaimers, they don't share any of it, the company doesn't even distribute it. It leaves distribution to the people downloading. It provides a forum for illegal trading, sure, but so does a local park provide a forum for illegal trading (if you burn the CDs for it). It makes less sense for Metallica to sue the local park, 'cause the park doesn't have a disclaimer saying it's not responsible. (but you knew that already)
For the record, I'd agree that music wants to be free (else God wouldn't have let us create the radio), but I'd be willing to pay a REASONABLE amount for some songs. I'm not going into the ethics of copyright, nor the evils of the RIAA, because it's not that easy. But as it is, the format is legal, the ownership is legal (as long as you paid for it), but the distribution is not.
Please, like I said at the beginning, stop me if I'm wrong, I'd really like to know.
Part of what makes Chess such a great game is that it can't be solved. Who's to say a Sicilian defense is better than a 4-knights defense? Especially with the various openings, Chess is a game dependant on style. Some people prefer an open board and choose to push queen's pawn. Others prefer a closed board and push king's pawn. Neither is better or worse, just different. One person makes a move (for better or worse) based on their style, and the other person responds based on their style and the percieved mistakes.
Even if you remove the perception of mistakes, style still plays a key role. With 16 billion possible moves if you only give each side 4 turns each, with computers running at speeds we can't concieve of, plotting every single game would be possible, and optimizing their chance of success, at least a small element of style would vary from game to game.
Much of this game has been debated and argued throughout the making of it. Among other features debated were "friendly fire", "conversion" and an arena specifically for PKing. That Blizzard even had a response to the question of portability means that a port was one of those topics of debate.
One of the reasons I've been looking forward to this game is because of Blizzard's notoriously high standards. From the screenshots and gameplay screens available at http://www.blizzard.com, this looks to be a better version by far. If Blizzard sent it to loki to port to Linux, I can understand where they might worry about that standard of quality being lowered.
Blizzard is not in the business of making games for each and every platform. Their bottom line is profit, just like any other business. If enough of the linux community makes noise and writes to Blizzard convincing them there is profit in it, I would expect them to follow the money. Otherwise, they'll just write it for the 85% of people (like it or not) who use Windows on a daily basis.
If you want more information about the game, http://www.diabloii.net does a SUPERB job outlining characters, items, and has a fairly good review of the closed beta. I think it even has more information than Blizzard's page.
As far as price goes, after some time connecting with a 56K modem at 33.6K on a large provider (such as AOL or Compuserve) for $20 (US) per month, I'd GLADLY trade in for 10 times the speed with more stability for 3 times the price! And the price itself may be a little steep, but I've seen similar prices from some companies that are also just starting up.