They then can't turn around and try to enact draconian restrictions to their own information.
The reality is that they only believe in freedom of information when it suits their financial and political motivations.
My apologies. I guess my analogy wasn't sufficiently clear.
Information (e.g., government documents, Baseball box scores, etc.) is not the same thing as creative expression (e.g., news articles, books, etc.). Wikileaks posts information. Newspapers engage in creative expression (you can argue about the value of that expression if you want, but it's still creative expression).
After their fervent Wikileaks support, and their history of publishing classified documents, now they're on the other side of the coin with people publishing information that they want to have control over.
Seems like poetic justice to me.
Perhaps I'm being trolled here but...Uhh..no. This is quite different. The Wikileaks disclosures and the Pentagon Papers, etc. is journalism.
Getting "documents" from NYT in violation of the license they grant to users for their *copyrighted* (whether or not you or anyone else think it has value) content is helping folks to steal.
As was pointed out in the comments to the other "NYT Paywall" post today, reporters, editors, web server admins, etc. rely on the NYT revenue to eat and pay rent and all those good things that some of us (if you go by some of the comments) don't need to do.
That's like saying 'It doesn't matter that Laura HIllenbrand expended effort to create "Unbroken" I should be able to read her book for free because its available as an ebook.'
N.B.: I picked that author/book off the NYT's bestseller list only because it is available as an ebook not as an endorsement of the book.
Some of you may say, "Why should I pay for the crap they post on the NYT website? The NYT are a bunch of hacks and losers who wouldn't know jpurnalism if it came up and bit them on the ass." Fair enough. If you feel that way, don't read their content. But don't justify stealing their content by saying they suck.
If the NYT or other news media want to go the 'pay' route, then they have to follow the other successful pay video media - no advertisements if you pay. Best of all, if you don't do ads, then you can give your clients their privacy....They could even offer a double route - ads if you don't pay, no ads if you do pay.
I personally would be more than willing to pay $15 a month to get the New York Times without advertisements, and with any searching I do from their web site going untracked.
I have two words for you: Adblock Plus.
The ability to block advertisements changes the whole game.
The kind folks here at/. have given me the opportunity to disable advertising on the site because of my "positive contributions." I haven't taken advantage of this because I have yet to see even one ad.
As for the NYT, the only time I even know that advertising even exists is when I open an article and see a blank page. Then I know that they're trying to get me to look at an ad. A quick page reload makes that go away.
Given the ease with which ads are blocked, it's no wonder the NYT and others are looking for other revenue streams.
Unless I'm mistaken, most web-based ad payments are based on "click-through" numbers. If I never see an ad, I can't click on it.
I thought that was a really good question so I researched it a bit. I would have speculated that it could have been pure chance. For both L and R to exist the processes that created the more advanced molecules would have had to have been duplicated for both sets. In a way it almost makes sense that one simply randomly won out.
Thanks, Xacid! Your comment and the article you linked give me some food for thought.
I accept your first hypothesis, and in the absence of any evidence, it makes sense.
However, if I'm correct (any organic chemists want to chime in here?) and there are no structural or functional differences other than "handedness" between left and right handed organic molecules, it seems (at least to me) more logical that life on Earth would have incorporated both types, either within all organisms, or within two types of organisms -- one with left handed and one with right handed molecules.
That is, it seems more logical unless I'm missing something important or my assumptions are incorrect.
The hypothesis proposed by the French team (in the linked article) actually has some experimental evidence to support it.
As such, If additional evidence that circularly polarized light of left or right handedness preferentially destroys amino acids of the opposite handedness is collected, it could explain things quite neatly.
I do have to say that I still find the idea of evil, goatee-wearing, right-handed molecules from an alternate universe rather appealing.:)
TFA states that equal amounts of right handed and left handed organic molecules were found, ruling out contamination as a source of the amino acids.
I've often (well, okay not often but a bunch of times) wondered why it is that life on Earth is only composed of "left handed" organic molecules.
My understanding (I am not a biologist or a chemist) is that there's no real difference in the properties of molecules that differ only in "handedness."
So why is it that the "left handed" molecules are the only ones that make up life on Earth?
Or is this some sort of alternate universe thing where the right handed molecules have goatees?
Moore's original statement that transistor counts had doubled every year can be found in his publication "Cramming more components onto integrated circuits", Electronics Magazine 19 April 1965:...
Moore slightly altered the formulation of the law over time, in retrospect bolstering the perceived accuracy of his law.[16] Most notably, in 1975, Moore altered his projection to a doubling every two years.[Original source: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=1478174 subscription required] Despite popular misconception, he is adamant that he did not predict a doubling "every 18 months". However, David House, an Intel colleague,[18] had factored in the increasing performance of transistors to conclude that integrated circuits would double in performance every 18 months.[19]
I got it partially wrong. I admit it and I embarrassed myself in front of thousands (hundreds?) of slashdotters.
I *should* have said that Moore predicted that transistor density on ICs would double every two years. That's absolutely not performance. I incorrectly combined the predictions of Mr. Moore and Mr. House.
However, the poster I responded to (based on their comment) couldn't find their ass with both hands and a mirror.
BTW, thanks for being wrong too. please drop your badge next to mine and I'll save you a rock, bud!
I'm of a generation that used drugs, especially entheogens, in the most irresponsible ways. The damage done really hurt the possibility for some possibly interesting tings that might have been learned.
I'm not sure if we're of the same generation but we did the same, and quite irresponsibly I might add..
Lucky for me, I decided I'd "expanded" my mind with those substances while I was still pretty young (early 20s). As for the damage, I think that the scientific establishment has been cowed by a vocal minority that real scientific experimentation with those substance is a bad idea.
It's sad, especially if you're (like me) a lover of expanding human knowledge.
Perhaps theoretical physicists (at least the ones you know) need to get a little crazier.
Niels Bohr wasn't sure about Wolfgang Pauli: We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct. My own feeling is that it is not crazy enough.
So perhaps the next major breakthrough in theoretical physics will have Psilocybin to thank?
If not, it might make for some interesting faculty meetings.:)
Polyandry is a subset of polygamy. Polygamy is having multiple spouses, not multiple wives. You're mistaking polygamy for polygyny (having multiple wives).
So take your uneducated PCness and shove it.:)
You are, as you well know, quite correct. Thank you for pointing out my error. I appreciate it.
Since you have such a patient and gentle tone, you should be a teacher. Perhaps you are.
Let me know when you're bent over and I'll start shoving, friend.
What I'm seeing is folks (manager types ) using their iPhone as their business computer - eliminating the laptop and even their desktop. They're on the move and what they need is a portable communications device that also has some other apps.
A better model would be the above plus the storage capacity on their mobile device to store their data, preferences, personal information, etc. in an encrypted format.
This would allow us to use the device autonomously and then "dock" it with a more powerful/capable (faster CPU, real keyboard, big monitor, etc) device with a standard interface.
In fact, I'm surprised no one is trying to do that already.
Moore's Law ensures that every year people will find that their computer is too slow , and they will buy a new one , which in turn provides revenue for the manufacturers.
Until even the most complex task imaginable can be computed in less time than it takes you to click a button, there will be a need for more processing power.
As an administrator who has been implementing and managing Windows and unix/linux systems since 1991 I have disagree with drsmithy on this.
"No, the CLI appeals primarily to people who like to focus on memorising semantic minutiae and believe that doing so is, in and of itself, a productive endeavour."
I don't memorize (yes I'm an American) semantic minutae for the CLI.
I use the commands they way they were designed -- with built in help (gee, they have that with GUIs too don't they?) and the program documentation.
The same goes for GUIs. I'm not concerned with knowing everything -- I'm concerned with knowing how to find out what I need to know in a timely fashion. That goes for CLI and GUI.
In the Windows environment
Using the GUI Active Directory tools is much simpler for one-off tasks.
Scripting with ADSI or Perl/Net::LDAP or command line tools are much simpler for automating repetitive tasks
In the Unix/Linux environment GUI tools are available, but are used less (at least by experienced admins) because they generally hide the more sophisticated functionality of the CLI.
That said, both GUI and CLI are useful and can be worthwhile. This whole GUI vs CLI thing is just dumb.
I'll stop now. Real admins have *real* work to do.
I still don't understand why people keep posting Paul Venezia's crappy aritcles.
Amen to that. I've seen so many Windows servers corrupt themselves so badly as to make them unbootable.
Then again, there was a time when Sun boxes would crash if '/' was full too.
That said, it seems that Paul Venezia (the author of the waste of time known as TFA) is writing for middle schoolers (or managers). Either way he (and his pedantic rantings for the uninformed) shouldn't be posted here. Just read the comments from this thread and you'll get more useful information than this guy has ever written. Perhaps we should get Jackass--err--Mr. Venezia to just steal from/. posts. At least that way he might write something worthwhile.
Slashdot Mirror
They then can't turn around and try to enact draconian restrictions to their own information.
The reality is that they only believe in freedom of information when it suits their financial and political motivations.
My apologies. I guess my analogy wasn't sufficiently clear.
Information (e.g., government documents, Baseball box scores, etc.) is not the same thing as creative expression (e.g., news articles, books, etc.). Wikileaks posts information. Newspapers engage in creative expression (you can argue about the value of that expression if you want, but it's still creative expression).
Do you get the point now?
Zill writes
...all of which can also be found on the Times' website...
I just checked and that page is no longer available on the NYT website -- no surprise there given their request to Twitter.
After their fervent Wikileaks support, and their history of publishing classified documents, now they're on the other side of the coin with people publishing information that they want to have control over.
Seems like poetic justice to me.
Perhaps I'm being trolled here but...Uhh..no. This is quite different. The Wikileaks disclosures and the Pentagon Papers, etc. is journalism.
Getting "documents" from NYT in violation of the license they grant to users for their *copyrighted* (whether or not you or anyone else think it has value) content is helping folks to steal.
As was pointed out in the comments to the other "NYT Paywall" post today, reporters, editors, web server admins, etc. rely on the NYT revenue to eat and pay rent and all those good things that some of us (if you go by some of the comments) don't need to do.
That's like saying 'It doesn't matter that Laura HIllenbrand expended effort to create "Unbroken" I should be able to read her book for free because its available as an ebook.'
N.B.: I picked that author/book off the NYT's bestseller list only because it is available as an ebook not as an endorsement of the book.
Some of you may say, "Why should I pay for the crap they post on the NYT website? The NYT are a bunch of hacks and losers who wouldn't know jpurnalism if it came up and bit them on the ass." Fair enough. If you feel that way, don't read their content. But don't justify stealing their content by saying they suck.
If the NYT or other news media want to go the 'pay' route, then they have to follow the other successful pay video media - no advertisements if you pay. Best of all, if you don't do ads, then you can give your clients their privacy. ...They could even offer a double route - ads if you don't pay, no ads if you do pay.
I personally would be more than willing to pay $15 a month to get the New York Times without advertisements, and with any searching I do from their web site going untracked.
I have two words for you: Adblock Plus.
The ability to block advertisements changes the whole game.
The kind folks here at /. have given me the opportunity to disable advertising on the site because of my "positive contributions." I haven't taken advantage of this because I have yet to see even one ad.
As for the NYT, the only time I even know that advertising even exists is when I open an article and see a blank page. Then I know that they're trying to get me to look at an ad. A quick page reload makes that go away.
Given the ease with which ads are blocked, it's no wonder the NYT and others are looking for other revenue streams.
Unless I'm mistaken, most web-based ad payments are based on "click-through" numbers. If I never see an ad, I can't click on it.
I thought that was a really good question so I researched it a bit. I would have speculated that it could have been pure chance. For both L and R to exist the processes that created the more advanced molecules would have had to have been duplicated for both sets. In a way it almost makes sense that one simply randomly won out.
Here's an article that goes into some more detail but is an equally sound hypothesis, IMHO: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7895-space-radiation-may-select-amino-acids-for-life.html
Thanks, Xacid! Your comment and the article you linked give me some food for thought.
I accept your first hypothesis, and in the absence of any evidence, it makes sense.
However, if I'm correct (any organic chemists want to chime in here?) and there are no structural or functional differences other than "handedness" between left and right handed organic molecules, it seems (at least to me) more logical that life on Earth would have incorporated both types, either within all organisms, or within two types of organisms -- one with left handed and one with right handed molecules.
That is, it seems more logical unless I'm missing something important or my assumptions are incorrect.
The hypothesis proposed by the French team (in the linked article) actually has some experimental evidence to support it.
As such, If additional evidence that circularly polarized light of left or right handedness preferentially destroys amino acids of the opposite handedness is collected, it could explain things quite neatly.
I do have to say that I still find the idea of evil, goatee-wearing, right-handed molecules from an alternate universe rather appealing. :)
TFA states that equal amounts of right handed and left handed organic molecules were found, ruling out contamination as a source of the amino acids.
I've often (well, okay not often but a bunch of times) wondered why it is that life on Earth is only composed of "left handed" organic molecules.
My understanding (I am not a biologist or a chemist) is that there's no real difference in the properties of molecules that differ only in "handedness."
So why is it that the "left handed" molecules are the only ones that make up life on Earth?
Or is this some sort of alternate universe thing where the right handed molecules have goatees?
"Look at it as an opportunity, not a burden." Remember where I told you this comes from.
"Your duty is to follow orders and respect the chain of command."
This means shut up and learn to hold the phone the way Steve Jobs wants you to. :)
Before you go pokin other people's eye's out with your 'knowledge stick', you may want to make sure it's properly sharpened.
And don't shove it in your own eye.
Moore NEVER said ANYTHING about PERFORMANCE NOR did he EVER say ANYTHING about TWO YEARS.
tyvm, turn in your badge at the door. And pick up a rock of meth on the way out.
-AI
[emphasis added]
Al,
From Wikipedia:
Moore's original statement that transistor counts had doubled every year can be found in his publication "Cramming more components onto integrated circuits", Electronics Magazine 19 April 1965: ...
Moore slightly altered the formulation of the law over time, in retrospect bolstering the perceived accuracy of his law.[16] Most notably, in 1975, Moore altered his projection to a doubling every two years.[Original source: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=1478174 subscription required] Despite popular misconception, he is adamant that he did not predict a doubling "every 18 months". However, David House, an Intel colleague,[18] had factored in the increasing performance of transistors to conclude that integrated circuits would double in performance every 18 months.[19]
I got it partially wrong. I admit it and I embarrassed myself in front of thousands (hundreds?) of slashdotters.
I *should* have said that Moore predicted that transistor density on ICs would double every two years. That's absolutely not performance. I incorrectly combined the predictions of Mr. Moore and Mr. House.
However, the poster I responded to (based on their comment) couldn't find their ass with both hands and a mirror.
BTW, thanks for being wrong too. please drop your badge next to mine and I'll save you a rock, bud!
I'm of a generation that used drugs, especially entheogens, in the most irresponsible ways. The damage done really hurt the possibility for some possibly interesting tings that might have been learned.
I'm not sure if we're of the same generation but we did the same, and quite irresponsibly I might add..
Lucky for me, I decided I'd "expanded" my mind with those substances while I was still pretty young (early 20s). As for the damage, I think that the scientific establishment has been cowed by a vocal minority that real scientific experimentation with those substance is a bad idea.
It's sad, especially if you're (like me) a lover of expanding human knowledge.
guido punched first. I've seen it clearly documented in the historical documents.
Actually it was "Greedo." Contrary to popular belief, Tatooine is *not* near Bensonhurst.
The Fifth Dimension is here!
Niels Bohr wasn't sure about Wolfgang Pauli:
We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct. My own feeling is that it is not crazy enough.
So perhaps the next major breakthrough in theoretical physics will have Psilocybin to thank?
If not, it might make for some interesting faculty meetings. :)
Ho-hum. I could go on a rant here. Let me just state that gay marriage is a farce. So, no one who is gay is "married" to a person of the same sex.
[Emphasis added] Please provide some kind of rationale for the above statement. Otherwise you just come off as a bigoted jerk.
And no, I'm not a member of the "younger generation" as you put it. I just believe in individual liberties and equal protection under the law.
Polyandry is a subset of polygamy. Polygamy is having multiple spouses, not multiple wives. You're mistaking polygamy for polygyny (having multiple wives).
So take your uneducated PCness and shove it. :)
You are, as you well know, quite correct. Thank you for pointing out my error. I appreciate it.
Since you have such a patient and gentle tone, you should be a teacher. Perhaps you are.
Let me know when you're bent over and I'll start shoving, friend.
What I'm seeing is folks (manager types ) using their iPhone as their business computer - eliminating the laptop and even their desktop. They're on the move and what they need is a portable communications device that also has some other apps.
A better model would be the above plus the storage capacity on their mobile device to store their data, preferences, personal information, etc. in an encrypted format. This would allow us to use the device autonomously and then "dock" it with a more powerful/capable (faster CPU, real keyboard, big monitor, etc) device with a standard interface.
In fact, I'm surprised no one is trying to do that already.
Moore's Law ensures that every year people will find that their computer is too slow , and they will buy a new one , which in turn provides revenue for the manufacturers.
That's not what Moore's law says at all http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=1478174 [subscription required].
Moore predicted that IC *performance* would double every two years. Are you that uninformed or just addled by crystal meth?
Until even the most complex task imaginable can be computed in less time than it takes you to click a button, there will be a need for more processing power.
That's what MPP is for.
Unless, of course, you "need" a thimble-sized device to model particle interactions.
Even if IC capacity doesn't keep doubling every 18 months, there's no reason to expect that industries and economies will fall.
Besides, Michio Kaku is a cheap huckster who thrives on generating "controversy" where none exists and has zero credibility as far as I'm concerned.
On several occasions (citations needed, but not available right now) I heard him making incorrect statements about basic physics.
He did this, given the context (TV "science" show), to dumb down concepts for TV.
However, dumbing something down doesn't (or at least shouldn't) mean deliberately propagating incorrect information.
With the garbage this guy spouts, it's no wonder the anti-science crowd thinks they can successfully push their claptrap too.
...but it is not a reason to allow polygamy and Polyandry.
FTFY
What is this? Us Weekly? If this type of thing counts as news to you, spend your time on The Smoking Gun instead.
I don't memorize (yes I'm an American) semantic minutae for the CLI.
I use the commands they way they were designed -- with built in help (gee, they have that with GUIs too don't they?) and the program documentation.
The same goes for GUIs. I'm not concerned with knowing everything -- I'm concerned with knowing how to find out what I need to know in a timely fashion. That goes for CLI and GUI.
In the Windows environment
Using the GUI Active Directory tools is much simpler for one-off tasks.
Scripting with ADSI or Perl/Net::LDAP or command line tools are much simpler for automating repetitive tasks
In the Unix/Linux environment GUI tools are available, but are used less (at least by experienced admins) because they generally hide the more sophisticated functionality of the CLI.
That said, both GUI and CLI are useful and can be worthwhile. This whole GUI vs CLI thing is just dumb.
I'll stop now. Real admins have *real* work to do.
I still don't understand why people keep posting Paul Venezia's crappy aritcles.
Obviously, but no matter its source, it is not urine until it goes through the kidneys.
It's those cheeky, cheeky nephrons causing trouble again!
How about an O'Neill Cylinder at a La Grange point or even a Dyson Sphere variant at approximately 1AU?
Then again, there was a time when Sun boxes would crash if '/' was full too.
That said, it seems that Paul Venezia (the author of the waste of time known as TFA) is writing for middle schoolers (or managers). Either way he (and his pedantic rantings for the uninformed) shouldn't be posted here. Just read the comments from this thread and you'll get more useful information than this guy has ever written. Perhaps we should get Jackass--err--Mr. Venezia to just steal from /. posts. At least that way he might write something worthwhile.
sigh!
Not sanguine about this.