Perhaps you mean the uproar caused by a man violently removing the clothing of an unwilling woman?
Re:For everything MS does wrong....
on
Real Problems
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
True. And in Nazi Germany, the trains ran on time. There's a silver lining in every cloud, I guess.
If Real had $45 billion in cash reserves and could bundle their player on almost every PC sold in the world, do you think they'd work so hard to be annoyware? Or do they do it because Microsoft has taken away almost every other opportunity for Real to make money from their products?
The smart response to this is "Real should make a sleek clean player and make money on the server software." Right. Look where that got Netscape when Microsoft began bundling an HTML viewer with Windows. I suspect the folks at Real are embarassed about the annoyances they built into their product but feel they don't have any other choice if they want to make a profit. And profit's what it's all about, unless you want to pay the bills by enriching some other enrepeneur instead of yourself.
If the government decides that all publically funded research must be publically available, then it better develop a publishing system for doing just that
Idiot. They already have. You're reading this response on it.
These journals that restrict access to information - do they have their own staff of researchers? Do they publish research done by people they control? In other words, are the creating the content they are selling?
Or is their anti-science behavior enabled by the scientists who submit articles to them?
If you want people to have access to what you create, then do so, and withhold content from those who would restrict access to it.
If the research is funded in whole or in part by the taxpayers, then ALL research results must be published and made freely available to ALL taxpayers. I can see no room for argument there.
If you don't want everyone to read your article, don't accept government funds. If you don't want to give your journal away for free, don't publish publicly-funded research.
Now, let's imagine a world in which corporate tax breaks were considered public funding...
Not so much Marxism as Russian Communism. For the non-historical types out there, Kruschev once said at the UN "History is on our side. We will bury you."
A thousand times no! You're talking about eliminating the secrecy of voting. Once other people can see who you voted for, democracy comes to an end. Vote buying and voter intimidation are possible if others can see who you voted for. This is not a hypothetical flaw; it is a very real one that has been exploited in many countries, including the United States. Why do you think Saddam Hussein received 99% of the votes in his last election?
It does no good to say that the voter can keep his vote receipt secret; if I visit your house and say I'll beat you and your spouse unless you show me a voting receipt with my boss's name on it, you don't have a choice. Again, this is NOT hypothetical. It is an already-known and already-exploited flaw in voting systems.
I favor an anonymous hard copy of each ballot, kept by the precinct (or whatever authority is conducting the vote). This gives you the ability to do a recount, provides a backup in case the computer fouls up your data, and protects against voter intimidation.
Reason, as you use the term, is a mode of thought formalized by the ancient Greeks. It has proven to be wildly successful at certain limited areas of human endeavour. Perhaps you've observed the utter failure of reason in changing the behavior of human beings?
Common sense, according to you, is denying the existence of a category of entities that EVERY HUMAN CULTURE has believed in. If everyone says the sky is blue and you maintain that the sky is actually a maroon paisley, then I'd suggest that common sense goes against you. I don't say that common sense is always right, but you can hardly maintain that the believe of an overwhelming minority is common sense.
Now, to take issue with the substance of your claim, that Einstein didn't believe in any divine entity, I'd have to disagree. Note that Einstein (in 1951) is different from Einstein (in 1895). Are you saying that Einstein, at no point in his life, held a belief in the divine? Do you have a source for this?
I don't think there are any laws saying a 'private citizen' has to aid any agency with their eavesdropping....
Guess you haven't heard of Martha Stewart. She was investigated for stock fraud or insider trading. Those charges were dropped because she'd done nothing illegal. I won't debate the ethics or morality of her behavior, I merely want to point out that she violated NO LAW.
The charges that stuck to Stewart involved non-cooperation with Federal Agents. Doing anything that makes a Federal Agent think that you're impeding his investigation will get you thrown in the slammer. There may not be a law saying you must aid them, but you can't impede them. Non-cooperation is an impediment. It's catch-22; if they want you to shut your server down, you have no choice.
I'm not sure you realize it, but you are seriously considering getting the FBI to bother you. If you provide a centralized service that makes it impossible for them to wiretap people, they will focus their efforts on your service. Centralizing people's encryption gives them a single point of failure.
I'd also point out that if you are a lone individual and not a corporation with a pack of lawyers, the FBI can lean on you hard. Real hard. It doesn't matter if their actions are illegal if you can't prove it. Lots of luck.
Project Gutenberg's goal is to create books in electronic format. Marking up in XML takes time and effort; not a lot, perhaps, but it adds up over 10,000 texts. That time and effort has been used to make more texts available.
If someone else wants to mark the text up, no one will object. Unless you're willing to do so, though, there's no point in complaining that something done for you for free isn't done the way you like.
1. RTFA: I quote the relevant portion: "The scheme, the authors claimed, could double data throughput for a given transmitting power or, alternatively, achieve a specified communications data rate with half the transmitting energy"
2. THEORETICAL vs PRACTICAL: Shannon's formula gives the theoretical max. Turbo codes double the practical max.
3. HUMOR: Note the tongue planted firmly in the cheek..."Will this work?" "Sure, if you do a stupid $14 billion upgrade."
The stamp collectors are nice people, but the physicists do the heavy lifting in the field. Quite frankly, I don't care WHAT you call Pluto. It is more accurately described by measurements of its physical characteristics.
The last acquisition Gateway made was also based in Irvine, CA: server manufacturer ALR. Does the Gateway acquisitions guy ever leave Irvine? And will Gateway ruin eMachines the way they ruined ALR?
No. But if you assume that 56K is the maximum amount of information that can be carried on a phone line at current power levels, then if all the phone companies change all their equipment and everyone buys a new modem, then turbo codes would let us nearly 112K without changing the power level. Or we could do the same thing without turbo codes by doubling power level.
Or we could reach close to 1,000K by calling it DSL.
"we Americans have been laughing at the French since looooooong before 9/11."
We have been laughing at the French since 1918, when we landed in their country, walked across it, and saw a war that had dragged on for years end within months of our entry into it.
We laughed at the French when we told them (and the rest of Europe) to stuff it and didn't join the League of nations.
We laughed at the French in the '20s and '30s, as the Germans rearmed and the French disarmed. We laughed when the League of Nations censured the Germans for violating the treaty of Versailles but took no action to enforce it.
We laughed at the French in 1939 when they failed to live up to their treaty obligations when Poland was invaded. We laughed when they said the Poles lost because of their stupidity and that a REAL fighting force couldn't be beaten so easily. We laughed when the Germans invaded France (again) through the low countries (again) and France evacuated Paris (again). We laughed when they rolled over and let the Germans occupy them. We laughed when we had to sink their warships to prevent their use against us.
We quit laughing when the France's utter failure to prevent the spread of Nazi Germany put Britain on the verge of invasion. Rather than rolling over, the Brits fought the Nazis to a standstill.
We were distracted temporarily by a war in the Pacific with Japan and in African territories near Fascist Italy. Since France had rolled over, we had no beachhead in France; we'd have to make our own. It took several years.
And then we laughed at the French again as we invaded their country and leveled their towns and kissed their wives and daughters. We laughed as, for the second time in 25 years, we defeated France's enemies less than a year after entering France. Having learned our lesson, we have occupied France's enemies ever since.
In a few decades, when the US will have been long gone from Germany, I expect to laugh myself sick at the news that the Germans have overrun Holland and Belgium and are moving to occupy Paris. With any luck, we'll be driving in from Normandy again, racing the Germans for the prize of getting there first.
I don't mind so much if consumers are offered consumer-grade access. It does bug me, though, that EVERYONE was once offered geek-level access for $9.95/month and now you get port 80 inbound for $21.95/month. If you cut your service, you should cut your pricing.
Slashdot Mirror
Fine with us if you want to put your criminals in a "Gay All."
In practice we do the same thing, but we call it "jail" for some reason.
You forgot Missouri, where they call it a "Use Tax." In MO you're supposed to file it if your out-of-state purchases total more than $2,000.
Perhaps you mean the uproar caused by a man violently removing the clothing of an unwilling woman?
True. And in Nazi Germany, the trains ran on time. There's a silver lining in every cloud, I guess.
If Real had $45 billion in cash reserves and could bundle their player on almost every PC sold in the world, do you think they'd work so hard to be annoyware? Or do they do it because Microsoft has taken away almost every other opportunity for Real to make money from their products?
The smart response to this is "Real should make a sleek clean player and make money on the server software." Right. Look where that got Netscape when Microsoft began bundling an HTML viewer with Windows. I suspect the folks at Real are embarassed about the annoyances they built into their product but feel they don't have any other choice if they want to make a profit. And profit's what it's all about, unless you want to pay the bills by enriching some other enrepeneur instead of yourself.
If the government decides that all publically funded research must be publically available, then it better develop a publishing system for doing just that
Idiot. They already have. You're reading this response on it.
Good point. Material objects are identical to information, after all.
So if give you money to buy me a coke, you might come back and tell me "John gave me money for a coke, too, so I gave both cokes to him."
I can't imagine why you'd transfer your copyright to a journal unless they paid you for it, so can see why you might want to maintain the status quo.
These journals that restrict access to information - do they have their own staff of researchers? Do they publish research done by people they control? In other words, are the creating the content they are selling?
Or is their anti-science behavior enabled by the scientists who submit articles to them?
If you want people to have access to what you create, then do so, and withhold content from those who would restrict access to it.
If the research is funded in whole or in part by the taxpayers, then ALL research results must be published and made freely available to ALL taxpayers. I can see no room for argument there.
If you don't want everyone to read your article, don't accept government funds. If you don't want to give your journal away for free, don't publish publicly-funded research.
Now, let's imagine a world in which corporate tax breaks were considered public funding...
Cognitive dissonance.
"My job is to clean up crap. Why am I doing this? I must love my job!"
Not so much Marxism as Russian Communism. For the non-historical types out there, Kruschev once said at the UN "History is on our side. We will bury you."
"giving a receipt to the voter"
A thousand times no! You're talking about eliminating the secrecy of voting. Once other people can see who you voted for, democracy comes to an end. Vote buying and voter intimidation are possible if others can see who you voted for. This is not a hypothetical flaw; it is a very real one that has been exploited in many countries, including the United States. Why do you think Saddam Hussein received 99% of the votes in his last election?
It does no good to say that the voter can keep his vote receipt secret; if I visit your house and say I'll beat you and your spouse unless you show me a voting receipt with my boss's name on it, you don't have a choice. Again, this is NOT hypothetical. It is an already-known and already-exploited flaw in voting systems.
I favor an anonymous hard copy of each ballot, kept by the precinct (or whatever authority is conducting the vote). This gives you the ability to do a recount, provides a backup in case the computer fouls up your data, and protects against voter intimidation.
Reason, as you use the term, is a mode of thought formalized by the ancient Greeks. It has proven to be wildly successful at certain limited areas of human endeavour. Perhaps you've observed the utter failure of reason in changing the behavior of human beings?
Common sense, according to you, is denying the existence of a category of entities that EVERY HUMAN CULTURE has believed in. If everyone says the sky is blue and you maintain that the sky is actually a maroon paisley, then I'd suggest that common sense goes against you. I don't say that common sense is always right, but you can hardly maintain that the believe of an overwhelming minority is common sense.
Now, to take issue with the substance of your claim, that Einstein didn't believe in any divine entity, I'd have to disagree. Note that Einstein (in 1951) is different from Einstein (in 1895). Are you saying that Einstein, at no point in his life, held a belief in the divine? Do you have a source for this?
I don't think there are any laws saying a 'private citizen' has to aid any agency with their eavesdropping....
Guess you haven't heard of Martha Stewart. She was investigated for stock fraud or insider trading. Those charges were dropped because she'd done nothing illegal. I won't debate the ethics or morality of her behavior, I merely want to point out that she violated NO LAW.
The charges that stuck to Stewart involved non-cooperation with Federal Agents. Doing anything that makes a Federal Agent think that you're impeding his investigation will get you thrown in the slammer. There may not be a law saying you must aid them, but you can't impede them. Non-cooperation is an impediment. It's catch-22; if they want you to shut your server down, you have no choice.
I'm not sure you realize it, but you are seriously considering getting the FBI to bother you. If you provide a centralized service that makes it impossible for them to wiretap people, they will focus their efforts on your service. Centralizing people's encryption gives them a single point of failure.
I'd also point out that if you are a lone individual and not a corporation with a pack of lawyers, the FBI can lean on you hard. Real hard. It doesn't matter if their actions are illegal if you can't prove it. Lots of luck.
Project Gutenberg's goal is to create books in electronic format. Marking up in XML takes time and effort; not a lot, perhaps, but it adds up over 10,000 texts. That time and effort has been used to make more texts available.
If someone else wants to mark the text up, no one will object. Unless you're willing to do so, though, there's no point in complaining that something done for you for free isn't done the way you like.
TANSTAAFL.
...well before the 100th decimal place.
That was "hundredths place." As in "0.03 is equivalent to three hundredths." That's the second decimal place.
AM = Ante Meridian
FM = Field Manual
GIS = Google Image Search
Demotivators says it best:
"None of us is as stupid as all of us."
Note the log (1+SNR) in Shannon's theorem...
1. RTFA: I quote the relevant portion: "The scheme, the authors claimed, could double data throughput for a given transmitting power or, alternatively, achieve a specified communications data rate with half the transmitting energy"
2. THEORETICAL vs PRACTICAL: Shannon's formula gives the theoretical max. Turbo codes double the practical max.
3. HUMOR: Note the tongue planted firmly in the cheek..."Will this work?" "Sure, if you do a stupid $14 billion upgrade."
Astronomical science can be neatly divided into two categories:
1. Physics (developing mathematical models of physical phenomena)
2. Stamp collecting (categorizing physical objects)
The stamp collectors are nice people, but the physicists do the heavy lifting in the field. Quite frankly, I don't care WHAT you call Pluto. It is more accurately described by measurements of its physical characteristics.
The last acquisition Gateway made was also based in Irvine, CA: server manufacturer ALR. Does the Gateway acquisitions guy ever leave Irvine? And will Gateway ruin eMachines the way they ruined ALR?
No. But if you assume that 56K is the maximum amount of information that can be carried on a phone line at current power levels, then if all the phone companies change all their equipment and everyone buys a new modem, then turbo codes would let us nearly 112K without changing the power level. Or we could do the same thing without turbo codes by doubling power level.
Or we could reach close to 1,000K by calling it DSL.
"we Americans have been laughing at the French since looooooong before 9/11."
We have been laughing at the French since 1918, when we landed in their country, walked across it, and saw a war that had dragged on for years end within months of our entry into it.
We laughed at the French when we told them (and the rest of Europe) to stuff it and didn't join the League of nations.
We laughed at the French in the '20s and '30s, as the Germans rearmed and the French disarmed. We laughed when the League of Nations censured the Germans for violating the treaty of Versailles but took no action to enforce it.
We laughed at the French in 1939 when they failed to live up to their treaty obligations when Poland was invaded. We laughed when they said the Poles lost because of their stupidity and that a REAL fighting force couldn't be beaten so easily. We laughed when the Germans invaded France (again) through the low countries (again) and France evacuated Paris (again). We laughed when they rolled over and let the Germans occupy them. We laughed when we had to sink their warships to prevent their use against us.
We quit laughing when the France's utter failure to prevent the spread of Nazi Germany put Britain on the verge of invasion. Rather than rolling over, the Brits fought the Nazis to a standstill.
We were distracted temporarily by a war in the Pacific with Japan and in African territories near Fascist Italy. Since France had rolled over, we had no beachhead in France; we'd have to make our own. It took several years.
And then we laughed at the French again as we invaded their country and leveled their towns and kissed their wives and daughters. We laughed as, for the second time in 25 years, we defeated France's enemies less than a year after entering France. Having learned our lesson, we have occupied France's enemies ever since.
In a few decades, when the US will have been long gone from Germany, I expect to laugh myself sick at the news that the Germans have overrun Holland and Belgium and are moving to occupy Paris. With any luck, we'll be driving in from Normandy again, racing the Germans for the prize of getting there first.
Would you be willing to pay more for ICMP?
I don't mind so much if consumers are offered consumer-grade access. It does bug me, though, that EVERYONE was once offered geek-level access for $9.95/month and now you get port 80 inbound for $21.95/month. If you cut your service, you should cut your pricing.