Yeah, and you know, seconds after I submitted this, I actually checked the links, and saw that too. I thought "damn, I'm going to get seriously flamed for not checking the links before posting if this gets posted"...:-)
Anyway, it has probably something to do with they both being Star Alliance members.
Just in case anybody is still reading this story, I just found an article by her, which is very amusing. And she says it was OK that he got it. I must admit that I tend to think that she's wrong on that one, I think she should have had it....:-)
There is nothing
stopping you from burning it on CDs and giving it away at the local homeless
shelter.
Soon, there will, that's the whole point! All CD burners and players that are not approved and properly fitted with whatever content protection they see fit, will be driven out of market, or better: be outlawed. I mean, there is no legitimate use for CD players that are not approved by the RIAA or some equivalent body, is there? They are just tools for piracy, right? After all, if you make music, do you have any reason for not going to RIAA to have it approved?
Without the capitalist incentive these
reams of independants don't seem to be bothering.
I must respectfully disagree. Many great composer went through their life without making big money. Some were even quite poor. Some great composers even told their patrons to go fsck themselves when they told them to do things they didn't like.
Money doesn't seem like an significant incentive at all if you ask me.
Just look at the big moeny being poured into dotcoms, did those loads of money result in significant innovation? In my opinion, the development stopped around 1995 when hackers lost control of the internet.
Somehow this would be
resolved by raping the media companies and depriving the only ones who are
creating viable entertainment of the right to control their creations?
Like what? Britney Spears? Look, this is not a one-sided issue: Nothing is created in vacuo, and everything becomes a part of our cultural heritage. Which means that other composers learn and get inspired by works. Their creations are not just theirs, it's their contribution to the cultural heritage of mankind, and they should not be allowed to control every aspect of it. Copyright protection has been carefully tuned so that both creators and the rest of the population benefits from it. Now, the focus is shifted, the population is screwed, while the industry gains, with a net loss for mankind.
Creators should be allowed to control their works only to the extent that they can be rewarded by society in such a way they can continue contributing to our common cultural heritage. If society fails to reward them, it is a problem, and indeed, these days, it may be a problem. Content protection is however very far from the answer. The definitive answer is yet to be worked out, but given brainpower on the task, I think it will be found.
I should point out the there have been hundreds of O-rings to survive such
conditions, if not thousands after the rigorous performance testing that is involved
Sure, I might add the O-rings of my stove have survived much lower temperatures than this.
However, you seem to imply that there will almost always be someone with a greater plan with everything, but I can tell you, and I bet you agree, that when shit happens, it is far more common that somebody screwed up rather than somebody sabotaged it.
And I bet you'll find many indications, motivations and whatever that KGB or CIA or whoever would like this to happen. If you wanna do real research, however, you'll have to settle with what you can positively prove. This point is one of the very precious things we learned from the transition of middle-ages to modern science.
Now, if you think it is interesting enough to start researching to find that evidence, go ahead, but in this case, it is very well documented that you had an unhealthy culture, you had unfavourable conditions, you had a piece of hardware that didn't work very well. That accounts for all the facts, it had a very high probability of blowing up sooner or later. So, if you want to argue that the common case of somebody screwing up wasn't the case here, go ahead, but I think you'll seriously waste your time (and the time of anybody you'll be talking to).
I'm glad to see this sorted out. I signed up with nupedia a few weeks ago, and while I'm usually following RMS a long way in his ideas, it looked as if he was grabbing the idea.
Now, the Nupedia folks seem to have given the encyclopedia idea far more thought than RMS. What RMS seemed to be announcing was little more than the web as we know it now plus a bit of resource description on top, but far from the Semantic Web of TimBL.
The Nupedia folks have really thought carefully about formal peer review, which is a very important feature of a real encyclopedia, and with the FDL, it's very promising.
Nope, Occams Razor, really. The O-ring couldn't take the cold, it's been shown over and over again, you don't need no russians to explain it, so don't use it.
I think the point of the report was that while to a statistician the probabilities are
good, in reality we have to take into account that whatever caused the first wire
to deteriorate would probably cause the second one to deteriorate too.
Yeah, but I don't agree with CNN that statistics isn't of use. The point is that one always has to be on the lookout for assumptions that are faulty, and that's what they do. Statistics is no less useful, it does put things in perspective, and it may sharpen your sense for where to look for probable violations of important assumptions. And indeed, yours is a good example, if one wire goes, the others may go for the same reason. It is a violation of the assumption of independence, which is a very important subject in statistics.
First, please do not even consider spamming. I have become fiercly anti-spam after experiencing that the non-profit organizations I work nearly lost our net connection because the ISP that gave us free connectivity couldn't afford to keep us.
There are some very exciting ideas in Jakon Nielsen's Request Marketing-piece. If you can get this stuff working, it is truly different.
There are e-mail addresses on the press release mentioned in the story. Just wait one minute to let me tell them to get those flame-proof underpants on....:-)
OK, so they want to play an intellectual property game... How about me going over there and demand that they remove my intellectual property from their index? I mean, I got a bit of content out there, I bet they have copied it wholesale and added it to the index, without my permission, and that surely has to infringe on my copyright or something like that. Hell, I'll sue!;-) If everybody had been playing the same games, the net wouldn't be useful for anybody.
I just wanna ask the question: Would this been so bad if the money went back to free software projects that needs a push or software that has an audience so small it could never be developed for sale?
Really, that's nothing, shooting at a comet is quite easy, compared to what ESA is going to be doing, there is the Rosetta mission (warning, ESA pages often suck, this one is no exception).
Rosetta will send probes to land softly on the surface of a comet. I've got a few friends on that project.
In Norway, they are planning to do the same thing.
It was this law professor who has a long history of dealing with IT who responded to protests with something like "if we don't do this, you'll see content protection schemes instead, they are a lot more evil, and you don't want that, so shut up and let this pass!"
He is of course right in that corps will be pushing content protection very hard, and I'd rather throw them a bone than have them do it.
My main problem with this is that it is going to put research on different ways of paying artists to sleep, and therefore slow down progress. This professor isn't really very visionary, he can only see two options, and seems unwilling to realize that there may be more options ahead.
Clearly, the model is to refund those who produce content. However everyone produce content these days, and consequently everyone should get a refund. My vote is against this scheme if I can't get my tax money back when I burn my thesis to a CD.
I've got some LaTeX sources, it's a mess though, that's why I haven't put it on the web. Anyway, why don't you install GSview on that windoze box?
Re:Another alternative to Gore-Tex?
on
Nano-pants
·
· Score: 2
if it'll give me a garment that weighs less than three pounds that'll keep me warm when it's 0 degrees F out,
It sounds to me like you're dressing wrong. No single garment is supposed to do that, at least not current garments. If you think Gore-Tex is too hot, then you're wearing it up. If it's warm, you're not supposed to keep it closed up everywhere, you're supposed to open it up, or take it off entirely. And yes, even down to the temperatures you're mentioning.
Now this needs more emphasis than it gets in mountaineering textbooks: The secret to staying warm is to vary the clothing you wear all the time. Especially, you can vary body temperature very easily by wearing different clothing on the parts of the body were heat is easily lost, like the head, neck, wrist and indeed armpits.
Also, it is important not to wear too hot underwear. That's a very common mistake people make, they have very hot underwear, they get overheated and there's a lot of sweat on their skin, so when they stop, they get cold. The underwear you were should not be very insulating, only get the damn sweat away from the skin.
While walking, I seldom wear more than a Gore-Tex jacket and this thin underwear down to -20 degrees celsius (yeah, and pants of course). That's about -4 F, isn't it? Below that, I some times wear a thin fleece jacket. And when stopping to have lunch, get a very thick hat on, and a down jacket, and you should be okay.
Re:Another alternative to Gore-Tex?
on
Nano-pants
·
· Score: 1
Actually, it is....
Re:I don't think that's what this stuff is for...
on
Nano-pants
·
· Score: 2
Hm, it seems like you're right. I'm a mountaineer myself, with a particular love for the arctic and a fan of Gore-Tex. Not because it is the best under all conditions, but because it is the most generally usable thing.
However, in very cold environments, many people experience that moisture freezes on the inside of the jacket, making an impenetratable shield. I haven't experienced this myself, I tend to think that it is due to that these people are wearing to much clothing, practically getting overheated (hey, yeah, it's cold, but not that cold!:-) ).
I could be wrong though, and in that case, this is something that would certainly make their life easier.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyway, it has probably something to do with they both being Star Alliance members.
Just in case anybody is still reading this story, I just found an article by her, which is very amusing. And she says it was OK that he got it. I must admit that I tend to think that she's wrong on that one, I think she should have had it.... :-)
So, yeah, they might well be using laser beams, but if they were we would hardly see anything.
This seems so obvious I bet it's answered in somebody's FAQ, so if someone cares to dig, I'd like to be corrected.... :-)
YOu can't. Patent it instead. That'll work. ;-)
Soon, there will, that's the whole point! All CD burners and players that are not approved and properly fitted with whatever content protection they see fit, will be driven out of market, or better: be outlawed. I mean, there is no legitimate use for CD players that are not approved by the RIAA or some equivalent body, is there? They are just tools for piracy, right? After all, if you make music, do you have any reason for not going to RIAA to have it approved?
I must respectfully disagree. Many great composer went through their life without making big money. Some were even quite poor. Some great composers even told their patrons to go fsck themselves when they told them to do things they didn't like. Money doesn't seem like an significant incentive at all if you ask me.
Just look at the big moeny being poured into dotcoms, did those loads of money result in significant innovation? In my opinion, the development stopped around 1995 when hackers lost control of the internet.
Like what? Britney Spears? Look, this is not a one-sided issue: Nothing is created in vacuo, and everything becomes a part of our cultural heritage. Which means that other composers learn and get inspired by works. Their creations are not just theirs, it's their contribution to the cultural heritage of mankind, and they should not be allowed to control every aspect of it. Copyright protection has been carefully tuned so that both creators and the rest of the population benefits from it. Now, the focus is shifted, the population is screwed, while the industry gains, with a net loss for mankind.
Creators should be allowed to control their works only to the extent that they can be rewarded by society in such a way they can continue contributing to our common cultural heritage. If society fails to reward them, it is a problem, and indeed, these days, it may be a problem. Content protection is however very far from the answer. The definitive answer is yet to be worked out, but given brainpower on the task, I think it will be found.
Sure, I might add the O-rings of my stove have survived much lower temperatures than this.
However, you seem to imply that there will almost always be someone with a greater plan with everything, but I can tell you, and I bet you agree, that when shit happens, it is far more common that somebody screwed up rather than somebody sabotaged it.
And I bet you'll find many indications, motivations and whatever that KGB or CIA or whoever would like this to happen. If you wanna do real research, however, you'll have to settle with what you can positively prove. This point is one of the very precious things we learned from the transition of middle-ages to modern science.
Now, if you think it is interesting enough to start researching to find that evidence, go ahead, but in this case, it is very well documented that you had an unhealthy culture, you had unfavourable conditions, you had a piece of hardware that didn't work very well. That accounts for all the facts, it had a very high probability of blowing up sooner or later. So, if you want to argue that the common case of somebody screwing up wasn't the case here, go ahead, but I think you'll seriously waste your time (and the time of anybody you'll be talking to).
Now, the Nupedia folks seem to have given the encyclopedia idea far more thought than RMS. What RMS seemed to be announcing was little more than the web as we know it now plus a bit of resource description on top, but far from the Semantic Web of TimBL.
The Nupedia folks have really thought carefully about formal peer review, which is a very important feature of a real encyclopedia, and with the FDL, it's very promising.
Nope, Occams Razor, really. The O-ring couldn't take the cold, it's been shown over and over again, you don't need no russians to explain it, so don't use it.
Yeah, but I don't agree with CNN that statistics isn't of use. The point is that one always has to be on the lookout for assumptions that are faulty, and that's what they do. Statistics is no less useful, it does put things in perspective, and it may sharpen your sense for where to look for probable violations of important assumptions. And indeed, yours is a good example, if one wire goes, the others may go for the same reason. It is a violation of the assumption of independence, which is a very important subject in statistics.
There are some very exciting ideas in Jakon Nielsen's Request Marketing-piece. If you can get this stuff working, it is truly different.
It is vapor, but they've promised it for the nordic market some time during the spring, so we'll know in not too long how vapor it is.
My 3210 phone survived two hours in the washing machine. I've been liking Nokia hardware since... :-)
Note the date. It seems like Nokia just waited for 2.4 to condense.
OK, so the system has to change.
There are e-mail addresses on the press release mentioned in the story. Just wait one minute to let me tell them to get those flame-proof underpants on.... :-)
OK, so they want to play an intellectual property game... How about me going over there and demand that they remove my intellectual property from their index? I mean, I got a bit of content out there, I bet they have copied it wholesale and added it to the index, without my permission, and that surely has to infringe on my copyright or something like that. Hell, I'll sue! ;-) If everybody had been playing the same games, the net wouldn't be useful for anybody.
I just wanna ask the question: Would this been so bad if the money went back to free software projects that needs a push or software that has an audience so small it could never be developed for sale?
Rosetta will send probes to land softly on the surface of a comet. I've got a few friends on that project.
Hm, yeah, I just e-mailed with the Nupedia folks, and they said they had just contacted RMS to discuss licensing issues and stuff like that.
It was this law professor who has a long history of dealing with IT who responded to protests with something like "if we don't do this, you'll see content protection schemes instead, they are a lot more evil, and you don't want that, so shut up and let this pass!"
He is of course right in that corps will be pushing content protection very hard, and I'd rather throw them a bone than have them do it.
My main problem with this is that it is going to put research on different ways of paying artists to sleep, and therefore slow down progress. This professor isn't really very visionary, he can only see two options, and seems unwilling to realize that there may be more options ahead.
Clearly, the model is to refund those who produce content. However everyone produce content these days, and consequently everyone should get a refund. My vote is against this scheme if I can't get my tax money back when I burn my thesis to a CD.
I've got some LaTeX sources, it's a mess though, that's why I haven't put it on the web. Anyway, why don't you install GSview on that windoze box?
It sounds to me like you're dressing wrong. No single garment is supposed to do that, at least not current garments. If you think Gore-Tex is too hot, then you're wearing it up. If it's warm, you're not supposed to keep it closed up everywhere, you're supposed to open it up, or take it off entirely. And yes, even down to the temperatures you're mentioning.
Now this needs more emphasis than it gets in mountaineering textbooks: The secret to staying warm is to vary the clothing you wear all the time. Especially, you can vary body temperature very easily by wearing different clothing on the parts of the body were heat is easily lost, like the head, neck, wrist and indeed armpits.
Also, it is important not to wear too hot underwear. That's a very common mistake people make, they have very hot underwear, they get overheated and there's a lot of sweat on their skin, so when they stop, they get cold. The underwear you were should not be very insulating, only get the damn sweat away from the skin.
While walking, I seldom wear more than a Gore-Tex jacket and this thin underwear down to -20 degrees celsius (yeah, and pants of course). That's about -4 F, isn't it? Below that, I some times wear a thin fleece jacket. And when stopping to have lunch, get a very thick hat on, and a down jacket, and you should be okay.
Actually, it is....
However, in very cold environments, many people experience that moisture freezes on the inside of the jacket, making an impenetratable shield. I haven't experienced this myself, I tend to think that it is due to that these people are wearing to much clothing, practically getting overheated (hey, yeah, it's cold, but not that cold! :-) ).
I could be wrong though, and in that case, this is something that would certainly make their life easier.
While we're at it, the LGM grad student's name was Jocelyn Bell, now added Burnell, and here's her homepage.