$500/year for cheesy-but-essential journal X. They acquire the copyright to articles published therein. They require submitters to also serve as unpaid peer review. Every page of an article submitted costs the author $100. Every reprint (minimum 50) costs $10. No, you can't print the PDF you submitted to the journal - that infringes THEIR copyright.
I was pointing out the need for fair exchange, at least so I thought. But it is Monday, and so I may have been less coherent or something.
It is no surprise to me that abuse exists. Everyone has to work towards the idea of Fair exchange, where it is something that everyone can live with, instead of acting out the idea of unfair, or criminal exchange (ie,we'll just legally steal this from you).
Sometimes Fair Exchange is not purely monetary. In a friendship, for example. But the monetray aspect is not a bad place to inspect for abuse.
The current business model for the journals is not likely the same that it would be for Slime Magazine. Again, this is the same kind of thinking that causes a hoarding mentality, which puts a slow down on the research.
Then again, there is the flip side of the coin, of how do you turn a profit when you give away your valued goods?
This is the problem of the music industry, who has turned it into the question "how do you turn an obscene profit while giving away your goods"
And then you have the people who always want a free lunch, and say that you a criminally negligent if you do not give them the shirt of your back.
The problem is that there is no agreement on what would be "Fair Exchange". Many people on various sides of the issue think that the best ratio is "One for you, 100 for me" This is a problem because the argument is also made that "and if you don't agree, you are a moral moron"
Given the situation, I would probably suggest that the content be made availble for free online after one year. Anyone who is in the business should be subscribing. But this is still timely enough for students, etc without totally giving up the cutting edge material.
Some paranoid routers Hotmail was using thought ECN was some kind of security exploit and screwed up all communications _trying_ to use it, i.e. those attempting from ECN-enabled Linux 2.4 hosts.
Hey, since MS owns Hotmail, I am sure that someone there thinks that they are not under any obligation to help out by acceptin ECN.
;-)
"Bill, do you think we should use this ECN stuff?" "I don't know, do we own it?" "Nope" "Does NOT accepting this Screw up Linux?" "Yep" "Can you read my Mind?" "Yep!"
Of course, I would never accuse anyone of being negligent, or of being underhanded. Me? never!
After all, in a rack mount set up, well it doesn't have to be 200 m away. It could be in a rack on the wall with all of the rest of your electronics gear. Audio, video, etc.
Where can i special order *BSD with 32 processor special hardware? Oh oops i can't.
No special hardware required, apparently, with NetBsd, aside from the usual, like a computer. If you want proprietary hardware, you'll have to go to Microsoft, I guess
Okay, it's late, I'm bored. so here we go. As you said:
My Reply It's about time someone posted a pro-MS article on this site - the only thing I'm dissapointed with is the number of troll statements posted in the comments.
And then yo did an extensve analysis of the article.
The problem is that the start of your comments were *cut off* well before the start of your commetary by the infamous line "Read the rest of this comment... ". In other words, what was visible was the most troll intensive portion of your article. This was very bad positioning for your comments, since some of them were mildly interesting. Probably such a post should be reorganized, and should have been saved for posting in reply to an appropriate article. Here it is best seen as a troll.
Now there is the matter of this bit:
Why would individuals encrypt their emails and other correspondence to each other? What is the rational explanation? The only reason I can see for day-to-day use of encryption is personal emails is that you have something to hide or you have a bad case of paranoia. No offence
people - but what makes what you say so interesting that you are so concerned about other people reading it? If you are doing something illegal, or you are concerned about maintaining secrecy because other people may steal your original (and so far unpatented) ideas then maybe there is a point - but I have met some people who refuse to exchange email unless it is PGP encrypted - what's up with that?
Simply, PGP offers a way to ensure that the person sending you the email is the person they say they are. Not some one faking it.
The other issue is one of Privacy.
If you do not belive in privacy, then I can recommned a glass house for you.
After all, you are not doing anything illegal? And if all houses were made of glass we would be able to catch criminals alot easier. We could just watch them all of the time with TV cameras.
What are you doing that is so important that it would require secrecy and privacy 24 hours a day? You must have a criminal frame of mind, not wanting to live in a glass house.
This obsession with privacy is merely paranoia, y'know, and is easily fixed with one of several medications. Let us recommend a nice doctor who would be very willing to help you with medications.
My long term position on spam is that there has to be a way to get spammers registered so that we can bill them, and to make it profitable for *us* to track them down and collect the our fees, etc. This is commercial speech, remember, and is fully regulatible.(sp?)[need morning coffee] There has to be some way for people to be able to make a living hunting down and collecting bucks from the spammers. The registration or license numbers should be part of the mail headers.
Of course, faking registration would be a violation of federal law, subject to investigation and arrest by the appropriate agencies.
The basic Idea is to make it highly Un-profitable to be sending spam. And a real hassle with internet bounty hunters tracking you down all of the time.
-- T.E. Bearden, "Possible Whittaker Unification of Electromagnetics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics," (Association of Distinguished American Scientists 2311 Big Cove Road, Huntsville, Alabama, 35801)
And here is the quote that I was able to dig up. But of course, since it rests on something that is over 100 years old, we can forget about it. You could have at least said the the Maxwell theory of em fields was contradicted by the observation of particle phenomena (quanta). But you didn't, and even so that misses the point completely. Apparent paradoxes are used as an argument to justify an irrational, dualistic interpretation of the theory. However, at a closer look one can find that any paradox arises only from an inconsistent physical concept or other errors in logic. Goedel proved that from a logical system which contains a contradiction, absolutely any proposition may be proven. With a consistent theoretical interpretation (in any branch of science) no paradox should occur at all.
That being said here is the material I dug up
"... In discarding the scalar component of the quaternion, Heaviside and Gibbs unwittingly discarded the unified EM/G [electromagnetic/ gravitational] portion of Maxwell's theory that arises when the translation/directional components of two interacting quaternions reduce to zero, but the scalar resultant remains and infolds a deterministic, dynamic structure that is a function of oppositive directional/translational components. In the infolding of EM energy inside a scalar potential, a structured scalar potential results, almost precisely as later shown by Whittaker but unnoticed by the scientific community. The simple vector equations produced by Heaviside and Gibbs captured only that subset of Maxwell's theory where EM and gravitation are mutually exclusive. In that subset, electromagnetic circuits and equipment will not ever, and cannot ever, produce gravitational or inertial effects in materials and equipment.
"Brutally, not a single one of those Heaviside/ Gibbs equations ever appeared in a paper or book by James Clerk Maxwell, even though the severely restricted Heaviside/Gibbs interpretation is universally and erroneously taught in all Western universities as Maxwell's theory.
"As a result of this artificial restriction of Maxwell's theory, Einstein also inadvertently restricted his theory of general relativity, forever preventing the unification of electromagnetics and relativity. He also essentially prevented the present restricted general relativity from ever becoming an experimental, engineerable science on the laboratory bench, since a hidden internalized electromagnetics causing a deterministically structured local spacetime curvature was excluded.
"Quantum mechanics used only the Heaviside/ Gibbs externalized electromagnetics and completely missed Maxwell's internalized and ordered electromagnetics enfolded inside a structured scalar potential. Accordingly, QM [quantum mechanics] maintained its Gibbs statistics of quantum change, which is nonchaotic a priori. Quantum physicists by and large excluded Bohm's hidden variable theory, which conceivably could have offered the potential of engineering quantum change -- engineering physical reality itself.
"Each of these major scientific disciplines missed and excluded a subset of their disciplinary area, because they did not have the scalar component of the quaternion to incorporate. Further, they completely missed the significance of the Whittaker approach, which already shows how to apply and engineer the very subsets they had excluded.
"What now exists in these areas are three separate, inconsistent disciplines. Each of them unwittingly excluded a vital part of its discipline, which was the unified field part. Ironically, then, present physicists continue to exert great effort to find the missing key to unification of the three disciplines, but find it hopeless, because these special subsets are already contradictory to one another, as is quite well-known to foundations physicists.
"Obviously, if one wishes to unify physics, one must add back the unintentionally excluded, unifying subsets to each discipline. Interestingly, all three needed subsets turn out to be one and the same..."
In other words, you may be tossing the baby out with the bath water. But then, it's your baby. And theorectical physics is not my primary area of expertise.
Before the advent of Relativity, Maxwell and others were very interested in the investigation of multiple dimensions. Math Geeks should search for quaternions, etc.
In 1873, Maxwell succeeded in uniting a couple hundred years of electrical and magnetic scientific observations into a comprehensive, overarching electromagnetic theory of light vibrations... carried across space by this "incompressible and highly stressed universal aetheric fluid..." Maxwell's mathematical basis for his triumphant unification of these two great mystery forces of 19th Century physics were "quaternions" -- a term invented (adopted would be a more precise description) in the 1840s by mathematician Sir William Rowan Hamilton, for "an ordered pair of complex numbers" (quaternion = four).
Complex numbers themselves, according to Hamilton's clarifications of long-mysterious terms such as "imaginary" and "real" numbers utilized in earlier definitions, were nothing more than "pairs of real numbers which are added or multiplied according to certain formal rules." In 1897, A.S. Hathaway formally extended Hamilton's ideas regarding quaternions as "sets of four real numbers" to the idea of four spatial dimensions, in a paper entitled "Quaternions as numbers of four-dimensional space," published in the Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society [4 (1887), 54-7]. It is obvious from Maxwell's own writings that, even before Hathaway's formalization, his choice of quaternions as mathematical operators for his electromagnetic theory was based on his belief that three-dimensional physical phenomena are dependent upon higher dimensional realities.
In a tragedy for science, after Maxwell's death, two other 19th Century "mathematical physicists" -- Oliver Heaviside and William Gibbs -- "streamlined" Maxwell's original equations down to four simple (if woefully incomplete!) expressions. Because Heaviside openly felt the quaternions were "an abomination" -- never fully understanding the linkage between the critical scalar and vector components in Maxwell's use of them to describe the potentials of empty space ("apples and oranges," he termed them) -- he eliminated over 200 quaternions from Maxwell's original theory in his attempted "simplification."
This means, of course, that the four surviving "classic" Maxwell's Equations -- which appear in every electrical and physics text the world over, as the underpinnings of all 20th Century electrical and electromagnetic engineering, from radio to radar, from television to computer science, if not inclusive of every "hard" science from physics to chemistry to astrophysics that deals with electromagnetic radiative processes -- never
appeared in any original Maxwell' paper or treatise! They are, in fact--
"Heaviside's equations!"
You can check this out by read a highly revealing paper on the subject by another renowned British mathematical physicist of this century, Sir Edmund Whittaker, titled simply "Oliver Heaviside" (Bulletin of the Calcutta Mathematical Society, Vol. 20, 1928-29, p.202); or, another overview of Heaviside by Paul J. Nahin, "Oliver Heaviside: Sage in Solitude" (IEEE Press, New York, 1988, p.9, note 3.).
The end result was that physics lost its promising theoretical beginnings to becoming truly "hyperdimensional" physics... over a century ago... and all that that implies.
Lt. Col Thomas E. Bearden, retired army officer and physicist, has been perhaps the most vocal recent proponent for restoring integrity to the scientific and historical record regarding James Clerk Maxwell -- by widely promulgating his original equations; in a series of meticulously documented papers on the subject, going back at least 20 years, Bearden has carried on a relentless one-man research effort regarding what
Maxwell really claimed. His painstaking, literally thousands of man-hours of original source documentation has led directly to the following, startling conclusion:
Maxwell's original theory is, in fact, the true, so-called "Holy Grail" of physics... the first successful unified field theory in the history of Science... a fact apparently completely unknown to the current proponents of "Kaluza-Klein," "Supergravity," and "Superstring" ideas....
To investigate this further you should take a look at --
"Possible Whittaker Unification of
Electromagnetics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics," by T.E. Bearden
(Association of Distinguished American Scientists 2311 Big Cove Road, Huntsville, Alabama, 35801)
The analogies of the PDA to the PCs (and laptops) of 10 to 15 years continues, both in terms of clock speed and ram. The only major differance is the apparent lack of storage space (maybe I didn't look hard enough) conpared to the old PCs.
This is likely a plus, because you still have to coded semi-efficiently, instead of letting things bloat on your mass storage.
And would it matter? Why go to all the trouble. Encrypt the mp3, publish the key, put the file up.... two weeks from now change the key. finger printing might make it more difficult for some folks but those who want to persist will create a few tools then others will pick them up and off they go again...
Well it this case, this is probably more problematic in terms of classical music, where you can argue how well the performance is. But you could also see this with a cover band, where they play the tune well enough, but just a little off speed.
and heck, if you take a piece and more it just one or two percent faster, so that the feel is a little bit punchier, and obviously doesn't match the original version. the signature might not pick up on this
In the classical example, you would literally have a performance that never took place. It is more acceptable in classical because there are discussions about what are the correct performance values. And they would have to track down the original recording, which doesn't exist in the form they are expecting.
First, there is this Milky Way simulation in VRML format from Nasa, part of the Virtual Universe project; web page here, complete with vrmls of the local galaxy area with a couple thousand galaxies.
Then there is this Freeware Dos program Virtual Galaxy which let's you navigate among the local stars. This one is okay, but needs to be updated to allow for a better grade of graphics. Worth checking out, though. Actually has the most stuff as far as science data goes. Maybe an open source project can be made from it.
There is also this little page, a nice collection of vrmls for the local area of the Milky way
You realize, of course, that the RIAA is not interested in keeping Napster legal. They are interested in Driving Napster out of existance so that *they* have absolute control. The fact of somebody else having power drivers them crazy. It is probably borderline psychotic. (certainly nuerotic)
That said, I wonder how much of a audio signature is retained when you play with or edit the file.
For example, in classical music you sometimes have performances that are excellent, but which are basically at the wrong tempo as far as you are concerned. One instance of this is the first section of the Eroica Symphony (by Beethoven) which is marked to be at a speed that is stunningly fast. You can tweak the speed easily enough in a midi file, and find something close enough that it sounds convincing. But live performances are not usually done at that speed, they are usually somewhat slower. With appropriate audio software, you can take a very high fidelity copy wav file of the music, and change the speed of the music without screwing up the pitch.
[just for the info, the average speed of perfomance is this exact piece is usually 100 to 130 beats per minute, when the spec is 180. 170 or so sounds best to me.]
You now have a performance by an orchestra that never actually took place. Would the audio signature be different? Would it even be a different copyright, especially if you invested alot of work fine tuning the tempi of the individual sections?
Also, the following interesting discussion was posted here:
I opened a piece of Spam mail this morning and got
this:
Under Bill s.1618 Title III passed by
the 105th U.S. Congress this mail cannot be considered Spam as
long as we include contact information and removal instructions
for removing you from our mailing list. To be removed from
our mailing list, reply with REMOVE in the subject heading and
your email address in the body, and include complete address
and/or domain to be removed. <<
Have you received an email with one of these
statements yet?
Let me see if I can translate it for you.
We are going to send you a ton of email
whether you like it or not. Get off our backs. If you don't like it, get
yourself off our lists.<<
Does that sound about right?
Well then! I guess I'd better read it. The
information contained herein must be of some importance since the
information has the A-OK under federal law.
Wait. Federal law?
If I remember my Saturday morning School House Rock
episode correctly, for something to become a law, it has to be passed by
both the House AND the Senate plus a really important person has to sign
it.
It must be a law then, right? The Spammers are using
it. They wouldn't lie, would they?
It would seem that enough time has passed for the
president to sign the bill into law. It's been two years. We're in the
107th Congress now. I've never heard of a law allowing people to Spam me.
Hey - wait a minute. Maybe there never was a Bill
S1618. I mean, it's not a law.
Darn.
There was a bill S1618 back in 1998. It passed by a
99-0 voice vote. It's called the "Anti-Slamming Amendments Act".
There was even a House of Representatives equal to it, HR3888. It also
passed.
The Senate version of the bill stated that S1618
was, "To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to improve the
protection of consumers against `slamming' by telecommunications carriers,
and for other purposes."
Hey! Wait a minute.
"Slamming"?
Is the Congress a bunch of really poor
spellers...like me?
I thought this was a bill about Spamming.
Well, it is. It's just not the main push of the
bill. You don't get to "Spamming" until title three. It's right
in there between "Switchless Resellers" and "Miscellaneous
Provisions". The Spamming section is an amendment to the amendment.
There were actually four versions of bill S1618. The Spamming section
didn't show up until the third incarnation. (Source: http://thomas.loc.gov
)
But still, it was passed. It was passed containing
the Spamming amendment so it's on the books so we all have to receive the
Spam emails sent to us by people we don't even know as long as the
Spammers follow S1618 Title III outlined below:
TITLE III-SPAMMING
SEC. 301. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO TRANSMISSIONS OF
UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC MAIL.
(a) INFORMATION TO BE INCLUDED IN TRANSMISSIONS- (1)
IN GENERAL- A person who transmits an unsolicited commercial electronic
mail message shall cause to appear in each such electronic mail message
the information specified in paragraph (2). (2) COVERED INFORMATION- The
following information shall appear at the beginning of the body of an
unsolicited commercial electronic mail message under paragraph (1): (A)
The name, physical address, electronic mail address, and telephone number
of the person who initiates transmission of the message. (B) The name,
physical address, electronic mail address, and telephone number of the
person who created the content of the message, if different from the
information under subparagraph (A). (C) A statement that further
transmissions of unsolicited commercial electronic mail to the recipient
by the person who initiates transmission of the message may be stopped at
no cost to the recipient by sending a reply to the originating electronic
mail address with the word `remove' in the subject line. (b) ROUTING
INFORMATION- All Internet routing information contained within or
accompanying an electronic mail message described in subsection (a) must
be accurate, valid according to the prevailing standards for Internet
protocols, and accurately reflect message routing. (c) EFFECTIVE DATE- The
requirements in this section shall take effect 30 days after the date of
enactment of this Act.
In other words, include the paragraph that started
off this newsletter and offer a viable method to getting your name off of
the Spammer's list. Do that, and you can Spam away because technically
what you're sending cannot be considered Spam.
This sounds too bad to be true.
Great! Just great! Now I have to allow a ton of Spam
to come flying through my front door and I have to read it all because the
Spammers have the power of the U.S. Government behind them. It just
cheeses me off. I mean...it...
Wait. What's this?
S1618 died in committee?
That means that it's null and void? It's dead? It
doesn't have any power?
Oh. The Spammer never bothered to tell me that.
Never mind.
I'll just go delete that piece of mail.
(The death of S1618 in committee: Source: http://techlawjournal.com/telecom/81022.htm )
There is this spam filter list that some guy put together for Outlook. [Warning, the webpage is pretty hideous]
All said, the file is in text file format and is a simple list of spammer addresses, which I am sure someone could convert/import to the format needed.
The nice thing is that people send him the names of spammers. And so it is constantly updated.
I'd love to be able to play my driving
games on all 3, with the left monitor being a left view, and the right being a right view. Or a view of my nearest competitor. Or even just a big rear view mirror. The possibilities are endless.
If I recall right, Panasonic used to sell (maybe still does) a three panel wrap-around display that was completely wild. It was even written up here in Slash one or two times.
I can't find that one right now, but there is this 42" plasma display for a mere 10,000 usa dollars. Maybe when I hit the lottery.
The speed issue is fairly straight ahead, but the interrupts issue is not so obvious. Part of it is that we are still married to archaic features of the early PCs in some regards.
An old story I heard once said that the original Intel spec of the 8088 (?) processor included a spec for 1024 hardware interrupts. IBM, of course, in their wisdom, said that the chip was not for a main frame (or something similar), and instead changed to spec to 8 interrupts. Someplace down the road, in the 286 I think(?), they realised the needed more, and expanded to 16 via a second chip. Which is what we have had to deal with ever since.
Of course 20/20 hindsight tells us they should have stuck with the original spec. But I can't say that we would have arrived at a better situation if we had all of those interrupts in the first place. People would have figured out wierd and woderful ways to use them up well before now as it is.
I still think it would be great if they somehow did a re-design so that their would be, say, 64 hardware interrupts. Even with PCI interrupt sharing, things are getting tight, it seems.
I have seen so many machines over the past few years where every interrupt was being used, and is you wanted to add something, you had to take something out. This has upset more than a few people. Which is why alot of folks stay away from the all in one non-upgradle pizza boxen systems
What do they need long range missiles for? Pakistan's not THAT far away!
They also have long term tensions with their neighbor to the far north, China. Thus it pays to have both satellites as wel as long range missles. And then they can get their own telemetry without having to depend on the USA, etc.
"The concept is pretty simple, it's just that no one can seem to make it work," said Howard McCurdy, a professor of public affairs at American University.
Sounds like Nasa.
Seriously, the idea is based on the observation that alot of the time you spend going into orbit you are simply coasting. And you are also bringing along alot of oxygen for the fuel. So if you could get your oxygen for the ascent from the atmosphere, and then coast to orbit, you could save a lot of weight. You would still have enough on board for manuevering jets, etc. But this requires something that can operate in the middle range of speeds of Mach 2 to Mach 10 (and higher)
the first impression sounds like the typical stereo-typical short term short sighted planning for the VCs in trying to maximize the money return back to their wallets, regardless of the long term prospects. This is a first impression, of course, YMMV.
But this is probably the same kind of thinking that led VCs, in San Francisco to treat the remaining employees at one company so badly that they basically walked out, screwing the VCs.
Without more info it is hard to know where to point the finger, but I know where I'm placing my bets.
Slashdot Mirror
I was pointing out the need for fair exchange, at least so I thought. But it is Monday, and so I may have been less coherent or something.
It is no surprise to me that abuse exists. Everyone has to work towards the idea of Fair exchange, where it is something that everyone can live with, instead of acting out the idea of unfair, or criminal exchange (ie,we'll just legally steal this from you).
Sometimes Fair Exchange is not purely monetary. In a friendship, for example. But the monetray aspect is not a bad place to inspect for abuse.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
Then again, there is the flip side of the coin, of how do you turn a profit when you give away your valued goods?
This is the problem of the music industry, who has turned it into the question "how do you turn an obscene profit while giving away your goods"
And then you have the people who always want a free lunch, and say that you a criminally negligent if you do not give them the shirt of your back.
The problem is that there is no agreement on what would be "Fair Exchange". Many people on various sides of the issue think that the best ratio is "One for you, 100 for me" This is a problem because the argument is also made that "and if you don't agree, you are a moral moron"
Given the situation, I would probably suggest that the content be made availble for free online after one year. Anyone who is in the business should be subscribing. But this is still timely enough for students, etc without totally giving up the cutting edge material.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
Hey, since MS owns Hotmail, I am sure that someone there thinks that they are not under any obligation to help out by acceptin ECN.
;-)
"Bill, do you think we should use this ECN stuff?"
"I don't know, do we own it?"
"Nope"
"Does NOT accepting this Screw up Linux?"
"Yep"
"Can you read my Mind?"
"Yep!"
Of course, I would never accuse anyone of being negligent, or of being underhanded. Me? never!
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
So the only way to make this work is to make Gaming mandatory. You will put in 4 hours per day gaming. Maybe we could do it as doctors orders.
Doctor: "Here's your prescription for 4 hours of Doom per day. Later on, we'll move you up to Quake"
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
No special hardware required, apparently, with NetBsd, aside from the usual, like a computer. If you want proprietary hardware, you'll have to go to Microsoft, I guess
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
My Reply
It's about time someone posted a pro-MS article on this site - the only thing I'm dissapointed with is the number of troll statements posted in the comments.
And then yo did an extensve analysis of the article.
The problem is that the start of your comments were *cut off* well before the start of your commetary by the infamous line "Read the rest of this comment... ". In other words, what was visible was the most troll intensive portion of your article. This was very bad positioning for your comments, since some of them were mildly interesting. Probably such a post should be reorganized, and should have been saved for posting in reply to an appropriate article. Here it is best seen as a troll.
Now there is the matter of this bit:
Why would individuals encrypt their emails and other correspondence to each other? What is the rational explanation? The only reason I can see for day-to-day use of encryption is personal emails is that you have something to hide or you have a bad case of paranoia. No offence people - but what makes what you say so interesting that you are so concerned about other people reading it? If you are doing something illegal, or you are concerned about maintaining secrecy because other people may steal your original (and so far unpatented) ideas then maybe there is a point - but I have met some people who refuse to exchange email unless it is PGP encrypted - what's up with that?
Simply, PGP offers a way to ensure that the person sending you the email is the person they say they are. Not some one faking it.
The other issue is one of Privacy.
If you do not belive in privacy, then I can recommned a glass house for you.
After all, you are not doing anything illegal? And if all houses were made of glass we would be able to catch criminals alot easier. We could just watch them all of the time with TV cameras.
What are you doing that is so important that it would require secrecy and privacy 24 hours a day? You must have a criminal frame of mind, not wanting to live in a glass house.
This obsession with privacy is merely paranoia, y'know, and is easily fixed with one of several medications. Let us recommend a nice doctor who would be very willing to help you with medications.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
Of course, faking registration would be a violation of federal law, subject to investigation and arrest by the appropriate agencies.
The basic Idea is to make it highly Un-profitable to be sending spam. And a real hassle with internet bounty hunters tracking you down all of the time.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
-- T.E. Bearden, "Possible Whittaker Unification of Electromagnetics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics," (Association of Distinguished American Scientists 2311 Big Cove Road, Huntsville, Alabama, 35801)
And here is the quote that I was able to dig up. But of course, since it rests on something that is over 100 years old, we can forget about it. You could have at least said the the Maxwell theory of em fields was contradicted by the observation of particle phenomena (quanta). But you didn't, and even so that misses the point completely. Apparent paradoxes are used as an argument to justify an irrational, dualistic interpretation of the theory. However, at a closer look one can find that any paradox arises only from an inconsistent physical concept or other errors in logic. Goedel proved that from a logical system which contains a contradiction, absolutely any proposition may be proven. With a consistent theoretical interpretation (in any branch of science) no paradox should occur at all.
That being said here is the material I dug up
" ... In discarding the scalar component of the quaternion, Heaviside and Gibbs unwittingly discarded the unified EM/G [electromagnetic/ gravitational] portion of Maxwell's theory that arises when the translation/directional components of two interacting quaternions reduce to zero, but the scalar resultant remains and infolds a deterministic, dynamic structure that is a function of oppositive directional/translational components. In the infolding of EM energy inside a scalar potential, a structured scalar potential results, almost precisely as later shown by Whittaker but unnoticed by the scientific community. The simple vector equations produced by Heaviside and Gibbs captured only that subset of Maxwell's theory where EM and gravitation are mutually exclusive. In that subset, electromagnetic circuits and equipment will not ever, and cannot ever, produce gravitational or inertial effects in materials and equipment.
"Brutally, not a single one of those Heaviside/ Gibbs equations ever appeared in a paper or book by James Clerk Maxwell, even though the severely restricted Heaviside/Gibbs interpretation is universally and erroneously taught in all Western universities as Maxwell's theory.
"As a result of this artificial restriction of Maxwell's theory, Einstein also inadvertently restricted his theory of general relativity, forever preventing the unification of electromagnetics and relativity. He also essentially prevented the present restricted general relativity from ever becoming an experimental, engineerable science on the laboratory bench, since a hidden internalized electromagnetics causing a deterministically structured local spacetime curvature was excluded.
"Quantum mechanics used only the Heaviside/ Gibbs externalized electromagnetics and completely missed Maxwell's internalized and ordered electromagnetics enfolded inside a structured scalar potential. Accordingly, QM [quantum mechanics] maintained its Gibbs statistics of quantum change, which is nonchaotic a priori. Quantum physicists by and large excluded Bohm's hidden variable theory, which conceivably could have offered the potential of engineering quantum change -- engineering physical reality itself.
"Each of these major scientific disciplines missed and excluded a subset of their disciplinary area, because they did not have the scalar component of the quaternion to incorporate. Further, they completely missed the significance of the Whittaker approach, which already shows how to apply and engineer the very subsets they had excluded.
"What now exists in these areas are three separate, inconsistent disciplines. Each of them unwittingly excluded a vital part of its discipline, which was the unified field part. Ironically, then, present physicists continue to exert great effort to find the missing key to unification of the three disciplines, but find it hopeless, because these special subsets are already contradictory to one another, as is quite well-known to foundations physicists.
"Obviously, if one wishes to unify physics, one must add back the unintentionally excluded, unifying subsets to each discipline. Interestingly, all three needed subsets turn out to be one and the same ..."
In other words, you may be tossing the baby out with the bath water. But then, it's your baby. And theorectical physics is not my primary area of expertise.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
http://hypercomplex.com/research/emgrav/hypcx-p200 01015.html
for a detailed introduction to Quaternions
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
In 1873, Maxwell succeeded in uniting a couple hundred years of electrical and magnetic scientific observations into a comprehensive, overarching electromagnetic theory of light vibrations ... carried across space by this "incompressible and highly stressed universal aetheric fluid ..." Maxwell's mathematical basis for his triumphant unification of these two great mystery forces of 19th Century physics were "quaternions" -- a term invented (adopted would be a more precise description) in the 1840s by mathematician Sir William Rowan Hamilton, for "an ordered pair of complex numbers" (quaternion = four).
Complex numbers themselves, according to Hamilton's clarifications of long-mysterious terms such as "imaginary" and "real" numbers utilized in earlier definitions, were nothing more than "pairs of real numbers which are added or multiplied according to certain formal rules." In 1897, A.S. Hathaway formally extended Hamilton's ideas regarding quaternions as "sets of four real numbers" to the idea of four spatial dimensions, in a paper entitled "Quaternions as numbers of four-dimensional space," published in the Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society [4 (1887), 54-7]. It is obvious from Maxwell's own writings that, even before Hathaway's formalization, his choice of quaternions as mathematical operators for his electromagnetic theory was based on his belief that three-dimensional physical phenomena are dependent upon higher dimensional realities.
In a tragedy for science, after Maxwell's death, two other 19th Century "mathematical physicists" -- Oliver Heaviside and William Gibbs -- "streamlined" Maxwell's original equations down to four simple (if woefully incomplete!) expressions. Because Heaviside openly felt the quaternions were "an abomination" -- never fully understanding the linkage between the critical scalar and vector components in Maxwell's use of them to describe the potentials of empty space ("apples and oranges," he termed them) -- he eliminated over 200 quaternions from Maxwell's original theory in his attempted "simplification."
This means, of course, that the four surviving "classic" Maxwell's Equations -- which appear in every electrical and physics text the world over, as the underpinnings of all 20th Century electrical and electromagnetic engineering, from radio to radar, from television to computer science, if not inclusive of every "hard" science from physics to chemistry to astrophysics that deals with electromagnetic radiative processes -- never appeared in any original Maxwell' paper or treatise! They are, in fact--
"Heaviside's equations!"
You can check this out by read a highly revealing paper on the subject by another renowned British mathematical physicist of this century, Sir Edmund Whittaker, titled simply "Oliver Heaviside" (Bulletin of the Calcutta Mathematical Society, Vol. 20, 1928-29, p.202); or, another overview of Heaviside by Paul J. Nahin, "Oliver Heaviside: Sage in Solitude" (IEEE Press, New York, 1988, p.9, note 3.).
The end result was that physics lost its promising theoretical beginnings to becoming truly "hyperdimensional" physics ... over a century ago ... and all that that implies.
Lt. Col Thomas E. Bearden, retired army officer and physicist, has been perhaps the most vocal recent proponent for restoring integrity to the scientific and historical record regarding James Clerk Maxwell -- by widely promulgating his original equations; in a series of meticulously documented papers on the subject, going back at least 20 years, Bearden has carried on a relentless one-man research effort regarding what Maxwell really claimed. His painstaking, literally thousands of man-hours of original source documentation has led directly to the following, startling conclusion:
Maxwell's original theory is, in fact, the true, so-called "Holy Grail" of physics ... the first successful unified field theory in the history of Science ... a fact apparently completely unknown to the current proponents of "Kaluza-Klein," "Supergravity," and "Superstring" ideas ....
To investigate this further you should take a look at --
"Possible Whittaker Unification of Electromagnetics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics,"
by T.E. Bearden
(Association of Distinguished American Scientists
2311 Big Cove Road, Huntsville, Alabama, 35801)
Note, NOT available at Amazon
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
I wonder how this could be used in a First Amendment challenge to the DCMA?
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
This is likely a plus, because you still have to coded semi-efficiently, instead of letting things bloat on your mass storage.
I wonder how hard this is for the MS crew.
:-)
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
Well it this case, this is probably more problematic in terms of classical music, where you can argue how well the performance is. But you could also see this with a cover band, where they play the tune well enough, but just a little off speed.
and heck, if you take a piece and more it just one or two percent faster, so that the feel is a little bit punchier, and obviously doesn't match the original version. the signature might not pick up on this
In the classical example, you would literally have a performance that never took place. It is more acceptable in classical because there are discussions about what are the correct performance values. And they would have to track down the original recording, which doesn't exist in the form they are expecting.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
Then there is this Freeware Dos program Virtual Galaxy which let's you navigate among the local stars. This one is okay, but needs to be updated to allow for a better grade of graphics. Worth checking out, though. Actually has the most stuff as far as science data goes. Maybe an open source project can be made from it.
There is also this little page, a nice collection of vrmls for the local area of the Milky way
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
"Never apply a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem."
(found on a bulletin board at Fermi Lab)
I think that about sums it up.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
That said, I wonder how much of a audio signature is retained when you play with or edit the file.
For example, in classical music you sometimes have performances that are excellent, but which are basically at the wrong tempo as far as you are concerned. One instance of this is the first section of the Eroica Symphony (by Beethoven) which is marked to be at a speed that is stunningly fast. You can tweak the speed easily enough in a midi file, and find something close enough that it sounds convincing. But live performances are not usually done at that speed, they are usually somewhat slower. With appropriate audio software, you can take a very high fidelity copy wav file of the music, and change the speed of the music without screwing up the pitch.
[just for the info, the average speed of perfomance is this exact piece is usually 100 to 130 beats per minute, when the spec is 180. 170 or so sounds best to me.]
You now have a performance by an orchestra that never actually took place. Would the audio signature be different? Would it even be a different copyright, especially if you invested alot of work fine tuning the tempi of the individual sections?
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
This one was never signed into law. You can read more about it at http://techlawjournal.com/telecom/81022.htm.
Also, the following interesting discussion was posted here:
I opened a piece of Spam mail this morning and got this:
Under Bill s.1618 Title III passed by the 105th U.S. Congress this mail cannot be considered Spam as long as we include contact information and removal instructions for removing you from our mailing list. To be removed from our mailing list, reply with REMOVE in the subject heading and your email address in the body, and include complete address and/or domain to be removed. <<
Have you received an email with one of these statements yet?
Let me see if I can translate it for you.
We are going to send you a ton of email whether you like it or not. Get off our backs. If you don't like it, get yourself off our lists.<<
Does that sound about right?
Well then! I guess I'd better read it. The information contained herein must be of some importance since the information has the A-OK under federal law.
Wait. Federal law?
If I remember my Saturday morning School House Rock episode correctly, for something to become a law, it has to be passed by both the House AND the Senate plus a really important person has to sign it.
It must be a law then, right? The Spammers are using it. They wouldn't lie, would they?
It would seem that enough time has passed for the president to sign the bill into law. It's been two years. We're in the 107th Congress now. I've never heard of a law allowing people to Spam me.
Hey - wait a minute. Maybe there never was a Bill S1618. I mean, it's not a law.
Darn.
There was a bill S1618 back in 1998. It passed by a 99-0 voice vote. It's called the "Anti-Slamming Amendments Act". There was even a House of Representatives equal to it, HR3888. It also passed.
The Senate version of the bill stated that S1618 was, "To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to improve the protection of consumers against `slamming' by telecommunications carriers, and for other purposes."
Hey! Wait a minute.
"Slamming"?
Is the Congress a bunch of really poor spellers...like me?
I thought this was a bill about Spamming.
Well, it is. It's just not the main push of the bill. You don't get to "Spamming" until title three. It's right in there between "Switchless Resellers" and "Miscellaneous Provisions". The Spamming section is an amendment to the amendment. There were actually four versions of bill S1618. The Spamming section didn't show up until the third incarnation. (Source: http://thomas.loc.gov )
But still, it was passed. It was passed containing the Spamming amendment so it's on the books so we all have to receive the Spam emails sent to us by people we don't even know as long as the Spammers follow S1618 Title III outlined below:
TITLE III-SPAMMING
SEC. 301. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO TRANSMISSIONS OF UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC MAIL.
(a) INFORMATION TO BE INCLUDED IN TRANSMISSIONS- (1) IN GENERAL- A person who transmits an unsolicited commercial electronic mail message shall cause to appear in each such electronic mail message the information specified in paragraph (2). (2) COVERED INFORMATION- The following information shall appear at the beginning of the body of an unsolicited commercial electronic mail message under paragraph (1): (A) The name, physical address, electronic mail address, and telephone number of the person who initiates transmission of the message. (B) The name, physical address, electronic mail address, and telephone number of the person who created the content of the message, if different from the information under subparagraph (A). (C) A statement that further transmissions of unsolicited commercial electronic mail to the recipient by the person who initiates transmission of the message may be stopped at no cost to the recipient by sending a reply to the originating electronic mail address with the word `remove' in the subject line. (b) ROUTING INFORMATION- All Internet routing information contained within or accompanying an electronic mail message described in subsection (a) must be accurate, valid according to the prevailing standards for Internet protocols, and accurately reflect message routing. (c) EFFECTIVE DATE- The requirements in this section shall take effect 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
In other words, include the paragraph that started off this newsletter and offer a viable method to getting your name off of the Spammer's list. Do that, and you can Spam away because technically what you're sending cannot be considered Spam.
This sounds too bad to be true.
Great! Just great! Now I have to allow a ton of Spam to come flying through my front door and I have to read it all because the Spammers have the power of the U.S. Government behind them. It just cheeses me off. I mean...it...
Wait. What's this?
S1618 died in committee?
That means that it's null and void? It's dead? It doesn't have any power?
Oh. The Spammer never bothered to tell me that.
Never mind.
I'll just go delete that piece of mail.
(The death of S1618 in committee: Source: http://techlawjournal.com/telecom/81022.htm )
That's that. Thanks for reading.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
All said, the file is in text file format and is a simple list of spammer addresses, which I am sure someone could convert/import to the format needed.
The nice thing is that people send him the names of spammers. And so it is constantly updated.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
If I recall right, Panasonic used to sell (maybe still does) a three panel wrap-around display that was completely wild. It was even written up here in Slash one or two times.
I can't find that one right now, but there is this 42" plasma display for a mere 10,000 usa dollars. Maybe when I hit the lottery.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
Bus Speed, and Interrupts (or their equivalent)
The speed issue is fairly straight ahead, but the interrupts issue is not so obvious. Part of it is that we are still married to archaic features of the early PCs in some regards.
An old story I heard once said that the original Intel spec of the 8088 (?) processor included a spec for 1024 hardware interrupts. IBM, of course, in their wisdom, said that the chip was not for a main frame (or something similar), and instead changed to spec to 8 interrupts. Someplace down the road, in the 286 I think(?), they realised the needed more, and expanded to 16 via a second chip. Which is what we have had to deal with ever since.
Of course 20/20 hindsight tells us they should have stuck with the original spec. But I can't say that we would have arrived at a better situation if we had all of those interrupts in the first place. People would have figured out wierd and woderful ways to use them up well before now as it is.
I still think it would be great if they somehow did a re-design so that their would be, say, 64 hardware interrupts. Even with PCI interrupt sharing, things are getting tight, it seems.
I have seen so many machines over the past few years where every interrupt was being used, and is you wanted to add something, you had to take something out. This has upset more than a few people. Which is why alot of folks stay away from the all in one non-upgradle pizza boxen systems
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
They also have long term tensions with their neighbor to the far north, China. Thus it pays to have both satellites as wel as long range missles. And then they can get their own telemetry without having to depend on the USA, etc.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
Sounds like Nasa.
Seriously, the idea is based on the observation that alot of the time you spend going into orbit you are simply coasting. And you are also bringing along alot of oxygen for the fuel. So if you could get your oxygen for the ascent from the atmosphere, and then coast to orbit, you could save a lot of weight. You would still have enough on board for manuevering jets, etc. But this requires something that can operate in the middle range of speeds of Mach 2 to Mach 10 (and higher)
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
But this is probably the same kind of thinking that led VCs, in San Francisco to treat the remaining employees at one company so badly that they basically walked out, screwing the VCs.
Without more info it is hard to know where to point the finger, but I know where I'm placing my bets.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip