Check out what Dallas Semiconductor has for products. Check out there 1-wire items.
I've worked with 1-wire technology (and have also used their TINI controller board). Overall, it is relatively useful when dealing with a highly scaleable and robust design but not for something as simply as a collection of pushbuttons.
1-wire is a mess because to do anything useful, it takes more than 1-wire to deliver power and amplify the singals. The components are more advanced then simply switchs and therefore, are considerably more expensive.
As far as superfast page rendering, how much faster than instant can you get??? Maybe it's just the sites that I goto, but I never have a noticable page loading lag...
If it wasn't for the anthrax scare, I'd say fill the envelop with sand to make the charges higher... I guess paper clips or something would work just as well now..
Where the two Aliens come down and wear a Bob Dole and Bill Clinton outfit and run for presidency.
As I'm sure everyone remembers, the aliens are found out but then say something to the effect of "What are you going to do about it with a two party system." And so they elect one of the aliens...
Moral of the story: If you don't like copy protection, don't buy the damn cds! It's that simply.
The founding fathers also had no intentions of protecting the rights of African-Americans? That's certainly what Chief Justice Taney asserted in the Dred Scott decision.
They simply didn't. It's not misreading history, they were slave owners themselves. How can one be for the rights of African-Americans as citizens and yet, hold slaves at the very same time?
but I'm at a loss to explain why you, a modern-day observer, would agree with Taney and disagree with Lincoln.
First of all, I have no problem disagreeing with Lincoln. Lincoln was a politican just like anyone else and is far from infallable (a lot of his history is make-believe, he was actually quite disgusted with his family and history and tended to make a lot up about it).
But I think you misinterpret what I meant. The constitution obviously did not intend for women or citizens to have the right to vote, but that doesn't change what is said in the constitution. Interpretation of the law doesn't involve considering what the intentions of the law were, but rather what the law actually says.
If we followed laws via intentions, corporations would have absolutely no rights under the 14th ammendment which they currently do.
Just because these individuals started the country, doesn't make them infallable or holy even in the least sense. They were human and made their fare share of mistakes.
You could make the same argument (public vs private sector) about telephones, yet those are regulated.
Hold on there though. Telephone _companies_ are regulated. What is discussed and exchanged on the telephone is not regulated. I can say whatever I wish over the phone.
Companies are not people, and do not have rights (yeah 14th ammendment...). I am free to install a small telephone system within my neighborhood without being regulated in any way by the government.
On the other hand, I am not free to install a small LAN within my neighborhood and be free of COPA or any other of that nonsense.
No-one knows why they do it, but this is something that happens, whether you deny it or not.
Ok, so I assume you mean that children search for "free games" and arrive at porn sites? Or they search for "free movies" and arrive at porn sites?
Well, I just searched google for "free games" and there are absolutely no porn pages on the front page.
Likewise, nothing on Yahoo either. Now, free movies is another issue. I searched on both sites for free movies and there were about 2 adult pages as results.
Now, these pages offered free adult movies so in the very least, I am sure that this was not meant to be deceptive.
On the other hand, the free movies search bothered me because most of these sites offered movies that would at least be rated PG-13. Is the next step limiting access to _any_ material deemed offensive from children??? Am I no longer able to curse unless I verify the ID of each person within hearing range to make sure no minors are present??
The fact is, I have just shown that this is not something that happens commonly. If your only defense is "whether you deny it or not" your defense is based only on ignorance.
So, where are all of these sites that children will arrive at mistakenly by entering in common child search terms (that are unrelated to the content of pornography sites)?
I don't believe protecting porn is anything even remotely close to what the founding fathers intended.
The founding fathers also had no intentions of protecting the rights of African-Americans so does that justify retorting to slavery?
The beauty of the constitution is that it recognized that most of man's "beliefs" were merely "preferences" and that as such, no man is entitled to force his preferences on another because they are subjective.
Whether you think porn is good or bad, it is still your preference. The only time government can regulate individual preferences is when it can be objectively proven that a preference is harmful to another individual.
The founding fathers also believed strongly in the inherent strength of good. If a man is exposed to good and bad, he will choose the good. The key is that he must be free to be exposed to both. The Victorian Age destroyed society in this way by reverting to the old Christian believe that men are inherently evil and will be drawn to evil by their nature.
If you truely want to know what the founding fathers intended, try reading some of the philosopy of John Locke or Rosseau. John Stuart Mill is another good person to read on (On Liberty especially). American democracy is often referred to as the great Lockean experiment because it draws heavily on the works of Locke (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness actually come from Locke's life, liberty, and protection of possession).
The founding fathers were in no way unique in their beliefs. Unfortunately, the checks and balances in the constitution were not strong enough to protect these philosophies from the test of time...
The First Amendment does not guarantee you a forum.
The internet is not a government-proved forum though. What the First ammendment does provide is protection of my right to speak with my neighbor freely, be it vocally, or through a computer network.
The government cannot regulate the internet because it is part of the private sector, not the public sector. At least, if our democracy didn't allow for arbitrary laws to be created...
Pornographers explicitly design their pages to be found by children - they include keywords like "free games" and "free movies" which have absolutely nothing to do with the content they display.
Now, let's assume for a moment that this is true. Why in the world would a "pornographer" design a site to be accessed by children? Pornographer's have to pay for bandwidth, and children do not possess credit cards and therefore, cannot make any online purchases. Therefore, you are stating that a pornographer would go out of his or her way and actually pay to have children see pornography even though they stand to gain nothing finically from the transaction.
Let me address the obvious, "Hook them while their young argument too." To attract children who are we'll say, 13-15, a pornographer would have to hope to instill a desire to see porn in the child for the next 3-5 years! Even then, chances are an 18 is not going to have much as far as credit cards are concerned.
Did you ever think that pornographers who use keywords like "free games" and "free movies" are going after adults who are searching for those items? I fail to see why a pornographer would explicitly try and attract children to their site. In fact, most pornographers try to dissuade children from accessing their sites or at least, give that appearance in order to appease the masses.
At any rate, I would also like to ask you to quote 1 peer-reviewed study that shows harm caused to children by exposure to pornographic material.
Regardless of whether you agree with the material (or if you think it is moral), the only time the government has the ability to regulate expressions of speech is when they are proven to directly cause harm to the community. The fact is that their does not exist a single scientific study to show this.
That is why "community-standards" are such a dangerous thing since this amounts to "majority-standard." The only standard that should be regarded by the government is objective-standard.
Oh yeah, but then we would actually live in a free country...
Why not use freely available voice synthesis software (just search freshmeat.net and there's a couple different packages).
I've downloaded lyrics before and fed it into these things. Brittany Spears sung by a computer with an English accent is very funny after a couple beers...
I wouldn't be surprised that if a company can demonstrate to a court that it has a rigourous QA program in place then liability might be reduced
To prove liability there has to be neglect. If cars are produced in a plant where all the safety standards are met, then if something happens to the car, it is considered an act of God.
There would need to be an industry-standard QA process in order to prove that a particular company was neglectful and therefore responsible for damages caused by product failure. If a company followed the standard process, then no hard could be done if a bug made it into the released version.
It's not necessarily RR "customers," but those who use the RR SMTP services.
If you send an email via sendmail or a different STMP server then nothing will be changed. I imagine that the RR SMTP doesn't allow for forged headers as it is so spammers are not likely using their SMTP server to spam.
A spammer could still use the RR internet service and just use an open relay somewhere to deliver their spam (which is what the majority does).
See, when I think of game design, I think of two seperate things:
1) Graphics and concept design This is totally out of my realm. I imagine there are all sorts of software packages to learn and various gaming "styles" out there to learn.
2) Gaming engine design This is what I would consider the actual programming. For this, I have to imagine that the biggest requirement is a strong physics background. Granted, there are many APIs out there for game design, but to my knowledge, they don't offer much world physics which is the key in gaming design.
I would recommend developing a physics for game designers lecture (I actually saw a book on this at B&N recently). Another area would be artifical intellegence. The only thing I really worked with here was QuakeC but that was a long time ago. I would imagine that a good lecture here on the limitations of gaming AI would be of great use.
I think there is just as much beauty in code as in many works of art.
Mozart is famous for his table top pieces. These are pieces where two muscians sat on opposite ends of a table with a piece of sheet music in the middle. The first piece played the piece right side up, and the second played the piece upside down. His genius was being able to create with such incredible restrictions.
Solving a problem in multiple languages represents a similiar ability. Of course, it wasn't a terribly complicated problem, but the basic idea is the same.
Now this is exactly why I am proud to be a programmer. Screw Picaso and DaVinci, this is what real art is all about.
This presents an interesting dilemma though. What Emacs mode do I use to look at the code??? perl-mode, c-mode, I dunno. Fontifying just complicates it even more.
At any rate, this shit is going up in my cube. If they should this in a frame, I would buy it and hang it in my house.
Well, if the DoD QA process is anything like the NASA QA process, I can guarentee that these processors wouldn't be certified for live-space use unless they were obtained from a reputable manufactorer.
On the other hand, only one piece of hardware gets sent into space, but I'm sure they go through a ton of prototypes and test units. For these units, it makes a lot of sense to use second-hand or bulk components from regular distributors.
I hope you understand the community of developers and users that started in 1984 has more to say than just "don't believe everything Microsoft tells you".
I would recommend to entirely avoid the whole Microsoft vs. Linux issue entirely. Instead, I would recommend focusing on some of the huge benefits that Open Source software has made to the world. The Peruvian letter is an excellent place to start, but I would also recommend checking out some of the various Linux for schools projects.
Instead of treating the Open Source movement as an anti-establishment movement, think of it as a philanthropical movement. Considering the audience of NPR and the fact that NPR itself is a philanthropical organization, I think this would be the best way to explain it to the masses.
No one else has seemed to pick up on it but I guarentee the reaction would have been totally different had the word "Geek" been replaced with "Nerd" in the title.
To programmers (and most computer people), geek is a term of endearment whereas nerd is an insult. Understand that many now self-proclaimed "geeks" were insulted quite a bit in the past with terms like "nerd" but the community has come back and taken back the word "geek" in a similiar manner to how African Americans have adopted the word "Nigga."
While I admit this would be a much more controversal title, its similiar to having a show called "The Politics of Colored People" verses "The Politics of Niggas." One could maybe get away with the later but could never get away with the former.
If you made such a slip, then perhaps you should investigate the geek culture a bit more before having an guest on your show. Geek's aren't exactly the most socialable or well-spoken individuals and you might have quite a few problems if you insult one of the more sensitive geeks. Remember, we are very passionate about this stuff even though the masses are almost indifferent to it all.
I saw a couple copies at my friendly neighborhood Borders, and read about a chapter of it. I was really turned off with the negativity towards Linus Trovalds and various other FS pioneers. The author really went for the throat in the whole GNU/Linux and Open Source vs Free Software issues. I've always found those issues to be the darker side of the Stallman story and would have actually bought the book if it focused more on his work on Emacs, GCC, and the Hurd (I absolute am facinated with the Hurd...).
As it is, it is sitting on a display rack for 20% off without a single copy gone. I'm usually a big defender of Stallman but that book was in really poor taste.
Goto your user page -> Home Page and then check the Microsoft checkbox under Exclude Stories from Homepage and you'll never see another Microsoft story again.
Gee, it's almost like you should check things out before bitching, nah, nevermind, that makes to much sense.
Slashdot Mirror
Check out what Dallas Semiconductor has for products. Check out there 1-wire items.
I've worked with 1-wire technology (and have also used their TINI controller board). Overall, it is relatively useful when dealing with a highly scaleable and robust design but not for something as simply as a collection of pushbuttons.
1-wire is a mess because to do anything useful, it takes more than 1-wire to deliver power and amplify the singals. The components are more advanced then simply switchs and therefore, are considerably more expensive.
But once you get used to the mousegestures and the superfast page rendering it's hard to getaway.
Mozilla _has_ mousegestures.
As far as superfast page rendering, how much faster than instant can you get??? Maybe it's just the sites that I goto, but I never have a noticable page loading lag...
If it wasn't for the anthrax scare, I'd say fill the envelop with sand to make the charges higher... I guess paper clips or something would work just as well now..
Where the two Aliens come down and wear a Bob Dole and Bill Clinton outfit and run for presidency.
As I'm sure everyone remembers, the aliens are found out but then say something to the effect of "What are you going to do about it with a two party system." And so they elect one of the aliens...
Moral of the story: If you don't like copy protection, don't buy the damn cds! It's that simply.
The founding fathers also had no intentions of protecting the rights of African-Americans? That's certainly what Chief Justice Taney asserted in the Dred Scott decision.
They simply didn't. It's not misreading history, they were slave owners themselves. How can one be for the rights of African-Americans as citizens and yet, hold slaves at the very same time?
but I'm at a loss to explain why you, a modern-day observer, would agree with Taney and disagree with Lincoln.
First of all, I have no problem disagreeing with Lincoln. Lincoln was a politican just like anyone else and is far from infallable (a lot of his history is make-believe, he was actually quite disgusted with his family and history and tended to make a lot up about it).
But I think you misinterpret what I meant. The constitution obviously did not intend for women or citizens to have the right to vote, but that doesn't change what is said in the constitution. Interpretation of the law doesn't involve considering what the intentions of the law were, but rather what the law actually says.
If we followed laws via intentions, corporations would have absolutely no rights under the 14th ammendment which they currently do.
Just because these individuals started the country, doesn't make them infallable or holy even in the least sense. They were human and made their fare share of mistakes.
You could make the same argument (public vs private sector) about telephones, yet those are regulated.
Hold on there though. Telephone _companies_ are regulated. What is discussed and exchanged on the telephone is not regulated. I can say whatever I wish over the phone.
Companies are not people, and do not have rights (yeah 14th ammendment...). I am free to install a small telephone system within my neighborhood without being regulated in any way by the government.
On the other hand, I am not free to install a small LAN within my neighborhood and be free of COPA or any other of that nonsense.
No-one knows why they do it, but this is something that happens, whether you deny it or not.
Ok, so I assume you mean that children search for "free games" and arrive at porn sites? Or they search for "free movies" and arrive at porn sites?
Well, I just searched google for "free games" and there are absolutely no porn pages on the front page.
Likewise, nothing on Yahoo either. Now, free movies is another issue. I searched on both sites for free movies and there were about 2 adult pages as results.
Now, these pages offered free adult movies so in the very least, I am sure that this was not meant to be deceptive.
On the other hand, the free movies search bothered me because most of these sites offered movies that would at least be rated PG-13. Is the next step limiting access to _any_ material deemed offensive from children??? Am I no longer able to curse unless I verify the ID of each person within hearing range to make sure no minors are present??
The fact is, I have just shown that this is not something that happens commonly. If your only defense is "whether you deny it or not" your defense is based only on ignorance.
So, where are all of these sites that children will arrive at mistakenly by entering in common child search terms (that are unrelated to the content of pornography sites)?
I don't believe protecting porn is anything even remotely close to what the founding fathers intended.
The founding fathers also had no intentions of protecting the rights of African-Americans so does that justify retorting to slavery?
The beauty of the constitution is that it recognized that most of man's "beliefs" were merely "preferences" and that as such, no man is entitled to force his preferences on another because they are subjective.
Whether you think porn is good or bad, it is still your preference. The only time government can regulate individual preferences is when it can be objectively proven that a preference is harmful to another individual.
The founding fathers also believed strongly in the inherent strength of good. If a man is exposed to good and bad, he will choose the good. The key is that he must be free to be exposed to both. The Victorian Age destroyed society in this way by reverting to the old Christian believe that men are inherently evil and will be drawn to evil by their nature.
If you truely want to know what the founding fathers intended, try reading some of the philosopy of John Locke or Rosseau. John Stuart Mill is another good person to read on (On Liberty especially). American democracy is often referred to as the great Lockean experiment because it draws heavily on the works of Locke (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness actually come from Locke's life, liberty, and protection of possession).
The founding fathers were in no way unique in their beliefs. Unfortunately, the checks and balances in the constitution were not strong enough to protect these philosophies from the test of time...
The First Amendment does not guarantee you a forum.
The internet is not a government-proved forum though. What the First ammendment does provide is protection of my right to speak with my neighbor freely, be it vocally, or through a computer network.
The government cannot regulate the internet because it is part of the private sector, not the public sector. At least, if our democracy didn't allow for arbitrary laws to be created...
Pornographers explicitly design their pages to be found by children - they include keywords like "free games" and "free movies" which have absolutely nothing to do with the content they display.
Now, let's assume for a moment that this is true. Why in the world would a "pornographer" design a site to be accessed by children? Pornographer's have to pay for bandwidth, and children do not possess credit cards and therefore, cannot make any online purchases. Therefore, you are stating that a pornographer would go out of his or her way and actually pay to have children see pornography even though they stand to gain nothing finically from the transaction.
Let me address the obvious, "Hook them while their young argument too." To attract children who are we'll say, 13-15, a pornographer would have to hope to instill a desire to see porn in the child for the next 3-5 years! Even then, chances are an 18 is not going to have much as far as credit cards are concerned.
Did you ever think that pornographers who use keywords like "free games" and "free movies" are going after adults who are searching for those items? I fail to see why a pornographer would explicitly try and attract children to their site. In fact, most pornographers try to dissuade children from accessing their sites or at least, give that appearance in order to appease the masses.
At any rate, I would also like to ask you to quote 1 peer-reviewed study that shows harm caused to children by exposure to pornographic material.
Regardless of whether you agree with the material (or if you think it is moral), the only time the government has the ability to regulate expressions of speech is when they are proven to directly cause harm to the community. The fact is that their does not exist a single scientific study to show this.
That is why "community-standards" are such a dangerous thing since this amounts to "majority-standard." The only standard that should be regarded by the government is objective-standard.
Oh yeah, but then we would actually live in a free country...
Why not use freely available voice synthesis software (just search freshmeat.net and there's a couple different packages).
I've downloaded lyrics before and fed it into these things. Brittany Spears sung by a computer with an English accent is very funny after a couple beers...
You're from South Jersey if .... you know what a WaWa is, and can name the locations of about 10 of them
The sad thing is I actually sat and thought about it and I can name the locations of 10 wawas... The newer ones have gas stations and all too.
I wouldn't be surprised that if a company can demonstrate to a court that it has a rigourous QA program in place then liability might be reduced
To prove liability there has to be neglect. If cars are produced in a plant where all the safety standards are met, then if something happens to the car, it is considered an act of God.
There would need to be an industry-standard QA process in order to prove that a particular company was neglectful and therefore responsible for damages caused by product failure. If a company followed the standard process, then no hard could be done if a bug made it into the released version.
It's not necessarily RR "customers," but those who use the RR SMTP services.
If you send an email via sendmail or a different STMP server then nothing will be changed. I imagine that the RR SMTP doesn't allow for forged headers as it is so spammers are not likely using their SMTP server to spam.
A spammer could still use the RR internet service and just use an open relay somewhere to deliver their spam (which is what the majority does).
See, when I think of game design, I think of two seperate things:
1) Graphics and concept design
This is totally out of my realm. I imagine there are all sorts of software packages to learn and various gaming "styles" out there to learn.
2) Gaming engine design
This is what I would consider the actual programming. For this, I have to imagine that the biggest requirement is a strong physics background. Granted, there are many APIs out there for game design, but to my knowledge, they don't offer much world physics which is the key in gaming design.
I would recommend developing a physics for game designers lecture (I actually saw a book on this at B&N recently). Another area would be artifical intellegence. The only thing I really worked with here was QuakeC but that was a long time ago. I would imagine that a good lecture here on the limitations of gaming AI would be of great use.
No, it was partly a joke and partly serious.
I think there is just as much beauty in code as in many works of art.
Mozart is famous for his table top pieces. These are pieces where two muscians sat on opposite ends of a table with a piece of sheet music in the middle. The first piece played the piece right side up, and the second played the piece upside down. His genius was being able to create with such incredible restrictions.
Solving a problem in multiple languages represents a similiar ability. Of course, it wasn't a terribly complicated problem, but the basic idea is the same.
Don't mind him, he's just a troll...
/. ... I'm starting to recognize the trolls by username.
Gees, maybe I need to stop reading
Now this is exactly why I am proud to be a programmer. Screw Picaso and DaVinci, this is what real art is all about.
This presents an interesting dilemma though. What Emacs mode do I use to look at the code??? perl-mode, c-mode, I dunno. Fontifying just complicates it even more.
At any rate, this shit is going up in my cube. If they should this in a frame, I would buy it and hang it in my house.
Well, if the DoD QA process is anything like the NASA QA process, I can guarentee that these processors wouldn't be certified for live-space use unless they were obtained from a reputable manufactorer.
On the other hand, only one piece of hardware gets sent into space, but I'm sure they go through a ton of prototypes and test units. For these units, it makes a lot of sense to use second-hand or bulk components from regular distributors.
Makes a lot of sense actually.
As I begun to read it:
"Oh great, another JonKatz rant..."
After the first paragraph or two though, I began to think:
"Hm, maybe Jon gets a bad rap too much, this actually makes a bit of sense."
Then he started tying in the net and how script kiddies are today's version of comic book readers:
"Well, he started off well, this is kind of a little out-there, but I'll cut him some slack."
Then he starts talking about the post-9/11 meaning of sci-fi:
"Forget it, this guys a twit. I shouldn't have even started reading it."
Moral of the story: Jon can write pretty well if he wants to. Not everything has to deal with 9/11 though or about the alienation of nerds and geeks.
I hope you understand the community of developers and users that started in 1984 has more to say than just "don't believe everything Microsoft tells you".
I would recommend to entirely avoid the whole Microsoft vs. Linux issue entirely. Instead, I would recommend focusing on some of the huge benefits that Open Source software has made to the world. The Peruvian letter is an excellent place to start, but I would also recommend checking out some of the various Linux for schools projects.
Instead of treating the Open Source movement as an anti-establishment movement, think of it as a philanthropical movement. Considering the audience of NPR and the fact that NPR itself is a philanthropical organization, I think this would be the best way to explain it to the masses.
No one else has seemed to pick up on it but I guarentee the reaction would have been totally different had the word "Geek" been replaced with "Nerd" in the title.
To programmers (and most computer people), geek is a term of endearment whereas nerd is an insult. Understand that many now self-proclaimed "geeks" were insulted quite a bit in the past with terms like "nerd" but the community has come back and taken back the word "geek" in a similiar manner to how African Americans have adopted the word "Nigga."
While I admit this would be a much more controversal title, its similiar to having a show called "The Politics of Colored People" verses "The Politics of Niggas." One could maybe get away with the later but could never get away with the former.
If you made such a slip, then perhaps you should investigate the geek culture a bit more before having an guest on your show. Geek's aren't exactly the most socialable or well-spoken individuals and you might have quite a few problems if you insult one of the more sensitive geeks. Remember, we are very passionate about this stuff even though the masses are almost indifferent to it all.
I saw a couple copies at my friendly neighborhood Borders, and read about a chapter of it. I was really turned off with the negativity towards Linus Trovalds and various other FS pioneers. The author really went for the throat in the whole GNU/Linux and Open Source vs Free Software issues. I've always found those issues to be the darker side of the Stallman story and would have actually bought the book if it focused more on his work on Emacs, GCC, and the Hurd (I absolute am facinated with the Hurd...).
As it is, it is sitting on a display rack for 20% off without a single copy gone. I'm usually a big defender of Stallman but that book was in really poor taste.
Goto your user page -> Home Page and then check the Microsoft checkbox under Exclude Stories from Homepage and you'll never see another Microsoft story again.
Gee, it's almost like you should check things out before bitching, nah, nevermind, that makes to much sense.
But the BSDL license cannot co-exist with the GPL. The GPL only works with IP impairing licenses.