Right. The universe isn't expanding in a radial 3 dimensional pattern.. like an explosion.... everything is just moving away from everything else. So the balloon is a good analogy... of a positively curved universe. A flat universe would be like...a giant rubber sheet, being stretched in both directions at once, so that every point on the sheet is moving away from every other point. It would look just like the balloon.. until you looked at things extremely far away...
Is the problem not that it still appears as a straight line to us? I mean, unless we view something on a large enough scale so we can see relativistic effects.. (which is what the cosmic background radiation is just great for? It's easily identifiable, and the largest 'thing' we can observe?)
Given that, in my lifetime, I won't even get to the nearest star... I don't really care;)
In all seriousness though... On both a cosmological scale (relativity, black holes.. background radiation.. all that stuff) and a subatomic level (quantum physics) things start to not make sense. I think that kicks ass. It means there is more to be discovered.
Well.... DNS hosting is not part of registration, it's an added service. With normal registration, you must run your own dns server, as it has always been.
What do you mean... won't let you point aliases to IP addresses? There is no such thing as an 'alias' in DNS. There is CNAME, where one record points to another.. by name, not IP.
If you mean point IP addresses to names.. that's reverse DNS, and is completely not under thier control.. it's under the control of the ISP who provides the IP space..
You are paying for the registrar to insert your name into the ROOT DNS servers.
The root DNS servers *ARE* the service that they are selling. They are saying, pay us, and we'll put an entry in the root servers under these terms. In other words, dns space in.com,.org, and.net, these are the only people who have authority to add/remove things. Hey.. I think it should still be run by a benevolent company.. with rules like it had in the old days.. but those days are gone and forgotten by now. Netsol fucked it up royally.
I mean, doesn't ICANN set out the rules by which someone can have a name?
I mean, technicall, you don't 'buy' the name. it's not a tangible thing. You don't 'lease' it for the same reason. What you do is pay for a service that says name.com will be listed in the root nameservers wiht appropriate records for a period of time set forth in the contract. nothing more.
Just because the song is listed doesn't mean the user actually has it or is actually allowing it to be shared. How many downloads don't work? And if they download it themselves, aren't they breaking the law too?
Funny. the digital home recording act expressly says that you cannot be proesecuted for copyright infringement for noncommercial copying. Therefore, it's not copyright infringement, as you have the right to do so.
Prove I never bought the CD. If you can't prove that, there is no case. The onus is not on me to prove that I did. The onus is on you to prove I didn't. I am not required to keep around receipts. What if My mp3's are my 'backup copies', and my originals were destroyed or stolen?
I am certainly not a lawyer, nor an expert. But if we forget for a moment about the common assumptions of what is illegal and not, it would appear that the home recording act EXPRESSLY ALLOWS for individuals to make as many copies as they want, and do whatever they want with, music, so long as it's in a non-commercial fashion.
Let's make it so that from now on, *ANY* and *ALL* software licensing must include non-obfuscatd source. It doesn't have to be GPL, or 'free software'. You don't have to give people the right to give it away, you can even keep them under tight nondisclosure, but the fact is, they should have the source. Why? Simple.
That way, everyone gets what they want. Companies can develop their own internal toos that meet their needs, bugs can be fixed faster, and people will base their product on the skills of their programmers, and the quality of the end product. What if someone steals your code? shouldn't be hard to prove.. as every software sale must have source.
is thinking that the neural network equates what happens in a video game with real life. They are TOTALLY DIFFERNET stimuli, at least, for ME they are.
None of the sensations of actual violent behavior are present when playing a video game. Yes, it can be exciting, and even get your heart going.. but more due to anticipation of winning the contest than of committing acts of violence.
In half-life, when I shoot soldiers, do I equate this to holding a gun and killing someone? No.. not in the slightest. It's a GAME, and my brain makes a very clear distinction.
The brain learns based on all it's stimuli at a given time, and the result. (yes, bad english, I know). It's not simply 'oh, my score went up because I shot someone'. That's logic. What the brain learns is that a particular twitch of your hands and visual on the screen caused you a pleasant feeling (winning). This is extremely different than the sensations you would get actually killing somone. '
Think, for a minute. If you took the main, introductory page of most porn sites, or even the stupid pop-up banners, printed it as a poster, and put it up in your store windowd on Main St. USA, you would most likely be charged and found guilty of some obscenity laws. You are making this material visible to minors. On the other hand, if the posters are up inside your store that does not allow minors inside, you are perfectly safe.
Why should the Internet be any different? Remember, nobody is saying you can't put porn on the internet, just that you have to take steps to not display it to those who are minors.
Personally, I think people are too offended by porn, and as long as poeple are offended, other people will be fascinated.
One article said that 2 nights before the raid, the father said 'Look. I'll go and get him myself if I have to. I don't understand the problem. I have custody. I have the highest ranking law enforcement officer in the US on my side, I have president Clinton on my side, and I have the courts on my side. All are saying that my boy is supposed to be with me. What more does the US government need to act on this? I want my boy back.
Well.. if you put it that way, it makes sense. What were the feds supposed to do.. go in unarmed? with a mob of irrational protesters outside, who could very easily turn very violent? (heck.. they DID turn violent). Not a shot was fired and nobody got hurt, not until the protesters started RIOTING.
In my country, when you have someone elses child against's the court's permission, we call it KIDNAPPING, and people go to PRISON for it.
because, that would introduce a weak point in the mail system. Someone could 'accidentally' get your email address into a blacklist, and you would never be able to send email, anywhere.
A better system would be one whereby the ISP's mail server keeps a white-list of acceptable mail addresses> Any mail coming from a previously unknown address would be both indicated to you in a daily digest type messages (all messages from one day), or simply on a web page, for your later approval, and a copy would also be sent back to the originator, explaining that by sending a certain message back, they can add themeselves to your list. Also explaining how spam is not permitted, etc... This way, communications are not overly interrupted, and spam is completely cut out, as spammers would be consciously and blatantly violating you.
This was tried. Congress wanted this, with regards to direct-marketing phone calls. What they got in the end was a system whereby companies themselves had to maintain their own opt-out lists. Hardly the same thing at all.
THis is a good idea. Make a list publicly available, on the intenret, of those who's phone numbers and email addresses (and heck! snail mail addresses) do not wish to receive junk mail. Makeit available freely to anyone who wants it, and make it a high crime to violate it.
You know.. everybody hates junkmail. Everybody hates spam. Even the CEO of IBM probably hates it, but why do they do it? One reason only! BECAUSE IT WORKS. It must work. If it doesn't lead to increased revenue, then companies wouldn't spam. So.. perhaps marketing companies/divisions are distorting their facts to show that spam works. Or perhaps a lot of people silently respond to spam.
You know.. I have a policy. If the advertising of a company offends me, I don't buy from it, ever.
Network Associates is one such company. They spam me. When I got a phone call (more spam, the lady was just reading off a card) I told her I would never buy anything from them, because they spammed me.
Vote with your money people. IGNORE companies that spam. Pretend they don't exist.
As several have posted, and I'll repeat in the hopes that someone remembers this, this is not IBM's patent. IBM runs a patent server, that stores ALL patents. The patent itself has absolutely nothing to do with IBM.
Not exactly true. Take the double-slit-photon-interference test thingy.
Basically, a set of two slits is arranged such that when a beam is shone through them, an interference pattern is created behind them. (as each slit distorts the waveform). Even if the rate of transmission is slowed down so single photons are being emmited, there is STILL an interference pattern. However, if we observe a photon, there is no interference pattern.
In other words, until we 'observe' it, it's a wave, and can split and interfere with itself. When we quantize it and observe it, we collapse the wave function, and get a particle.
What it means that, provided the box the cat is in is perfectly sealed, and there is no way for information to travel from inside the box to outside the box, or vice versa, that whether the cat is alive or dead makes no difference to the universe, and hence, is in both states. (as obviously, it can't be neither).
To an observer inside the box, it's already decided. Then again, to someone ouside the box, the views of the observer inside the box are still a probability as well.
This suggests that, to different observers, the particle/wave can be different things.
As for the machine that stored information about the cat.. yes, it means that, if the data on the disk is our *ONLY* way to observe the state of the cat, that the cat IS still a wave function until we observe it, at least, from our point of view, as, until we observe, it, it makes no difference to our reality one way or the other.
What you say about a particle changing state is untrue. The only thing that will change when you view a particle by bouncing a photon off of it (which isonly one way of viewing it) will be it's direction and speed. What you are describing is heisenberg's uncertainty principle. You cannot observe both location and speed with accuracy, making one more accurate makes the other less accurate.
What is described in the article is a totally different thing. They describe the probability wave and collapse of particles into known states upon being observed. Go read a book on quantum physics. One might be 'atoms, leptons, and quarks'.
Slashdot Mirror
Right. The universe isn't expanding in a radial 3 dimensional pattern.. like an explosion.... everything is just moving away from everything else. So the balloon is a good analogy... of a positively curved universe.
A flat universe would be like...a giant rubber sheet, being stretched in both directions at once, so that every point on the sheet is moving away from every other point. It would look just like the balloon.. until you looked at things extremely far away...
Is the problem not that it still appears as a straight line to us? I mean, unless we view something on a large enough scale so we can see relativistic effects.. (which is what the cosmic background radiation is just great for? It's easily identifiable, and the largest 'thing' we can observe?)
Given that, in my lifetime, I won't even get to the nearest star... I don't really care ;)
In all seriousness though...
On both a cosmological scale (relativity, black holes.. background radiation.. all that stuff) and a subatomic level (quantum physics) things start to not make sense. I think that kicks ass. It means there is more to be discovered.
You don't. Period. Third level domains are added by whoever controls DNS for the second level domains. Go read up on DNS.
Well.... DNS hosting is not part of registration, it's an added service. With normal registration, you must run your own dns server, as it has always been.
What do you mean... won't let you point aliases to IP addresses? There is no such thing as an 'alias' in DNS. There is CNAME, where one record points to another.. by name, not IP.
If you mean point IP addresses to names.. that's reverse DNS, and is completely not under thier control.. it's under the control of the ISP who provides the IP space..
You are paying for the registrar to insert your name into the ROOT DNS servers.
.com, .org, and .net, these are the only people who have authority to add/remove things.
The root DNS servers *ARE* the service that they are selling. They are saying, pay us, and we'll put an entry in the root servers under these terms. In other words, dns space in
Hey.. I think it should still be run by a benevolent company.. with rules like it had in the old days.. but those days are gone and forgotten by now. Netsol fucked it up royally.
I mean, doesn't ICANN set out the rules by which someone can have a name?
I mean, technicall, you don't 'buy' the name. it's not a tangible thing. You don't 'lease' it for the same reason.
What you do is pay for a service that says name.com will be listed in the root nameservers wiht appropriate records for a period of time set forth in the contract. nothing more.
Just because the song is listed doesn't mean the user actually has it or is actually allowing it to be shared. How many downloads don't work?
And if they download it themselves, aren't they breaking the law too?
Funny. the digital home recording act expressly says that you cannot be proesecuted for copyright infringement for noncommercial copying. Therefore, it's not copyright infringement, as you have the right to do so.
Prove I never bought the CD. If you can't prove that, there is no case. The onus is not on me to prove that I did. The onus is on you to prove I didn't. I am not required to keep around receipts. What if My mp3's are my 'backup copies', and my originals were destroyed or stolen?
I am certainly not a lawyer, nor an expert. But if we forget for a moment about the common assumptions of what is illegal and not, it would appear that the home recording act EXPRESSLY ALLOWS for individuals to make as many copies as they want, and do whatever they want with, music, so long as it's in a non-commercial fashion.
How much you want for the rolodex? I'm serious..
You mean.. actually expecting parents to think for themselves and raise their children properly? Like that's gonna happen.
Let's make it so that from now on, *ANY* and *ALL* software licensing must include non-obfuscatd source. It doesn't have to be GPL, or 'free software'. You don't have to give people the right to give it away, you can even keep them under tight nondisclosure, but the fact is, they should have the source. Why? Simple.
That way, everyone gets what they want. Companies can develop their own internal toos that meet their needs, bugs can be fixed faster, and people will base their product on the skills of their programmers, and the quality of the end product. What if someone steals your code? shouldn't be hard to prove.. as every software sale must have source.
is thinking that the neural network equates what happens in a video game with real life. They are TOTALLY DIFFERNET stimuli, at least, for ME they are.
None of the sensations of actual violent behavior are present when playing a video game. Yes, it can be exciting, and even get your heart going.. but more due to anticipation of winning the contest than of committing acts of violence.
In half-life, when I shoot soldiers, do I equate this to holding a gun and killing someone? No.. not in the slightest. It's a GAME, and my brain makes a very clear distinction.
The brain learns based on all it's stimuli at a given time, and the result. (yes, bad english, I know). It's not simply 'oh, my score went up because I shot someone'. That's logic. What the brain learns is that a particular twitch of your hands and visual on the screen caused you a pleasant feeling (winning). This is extremely different than the sensations you would get actually killing somone. '
Think, for a minute.
If you took the main, introductory page of most porn sites, or even the stupid pop-up banners, printed it as a poster, and put it up in your store windowd on Main St. USA, you would most likely be charged and found guilty of some obscenity laws. You are making this material visible to minors. On the other hand, if the posters are up inside your store that does not allow minors inside, you are perfectly safe.
Why should the Internet be any different? Remember, nobody is saying you can't put porn on the internet, just that you have to take steps to not display it to those who are minors.
Personally, I think people are too offended by porn, and as long as poeple are offended, other people will be fascinated.
One article said that 2 nights before the raid, the father said 'Look. I'll go and get him myself if I have to. I don't understand the problem. I have custody. I have the highest ranking law enforcement officer in the US on my side, I have president Clinton on my side, and I have the courts on my side. All are saying that my boy is supposed to be with me. What more does the US government need to act on this? I want my boy back.
Well.. if you put it that way, it makes sense.
What were the feds supposed to do.. go in unarmed? with a mob of irrational protesters outside, who could very easily turn very violent? (heck.. they DID turn violent).
Not a shot was fired and nobody got hurt, not until the protesters started RIOTING.
In my country, when you have someone elses child against's the court's permission, we call it KIDNAPPING, and people go to PRISON for it.
because, that would introduce a weak point in the mail system. Someone could 'accidentally' get your email address into a blacklist, and you would never be able to send email, anywhere.
A better system would be one whereby the ISP's mail server keeps a white-list of acceptable mail addresses> Any mail coming from a previously unknown address would be both indicated to you in a daily digest type messages (all messages from one day), or simply on a web page, for your later approval, and a copy would also be sent back to the originator, explaining that by sending a certain message back, they can add themeselves to your list. Also explaining how spam is not permitted, etc...
This way, communications are not overly interrupted, and spam is completely cut out, as spammers would be consciously and blatantly violating you.
This was tried. Congress wanted this, with regards to direct-marketing phone calls. What they got in the end was a system whereby companies themselves had to maintain their own opt-out lists. Hardly the same thing at all.
THis is a good idea. Make a list publicly available, on the intenret, of those who's phone numbers and email addresses (and heck! snail mail addresses) do not wish to receive junk mail. Makeit available freely to anyone who wants it, and make it a high crime to violate it.
YES!
You know.. everybody hates junkmail. Everybody hates spam. Even the CEO of IBM probably hates it, but why do they do it? One reason only!
BECAUSE IT WORKS. It must work. If it doesn't lead to increased revenue, then companies wouldn't spam. So.. perhaps marketing companies/divisions are distorting their facts to show that spam works. Or perhaps a lot of people silently respond to spam.
You know.. I have a policy. If the advertising of a company offends me, I don't buy from it, ever.
Network Associates is one such company. They spam me. When I got a phone call (more spam, the lady was just reading off a card) I told her I would never buy anything from them, because they spammed me.
Vote with your money people. IGNORE companies that spam. Pretend they don't exist.
As several have posted, and I'll repeat in the hopes that someone remembers this, this is not IBM's patent. IBM runs a patent server, that stores ALL patents. The patent itself has absolutely nothing to do with IBM.
Not exactly true. Take the double-slit-photon-interference test thingy.
Basically, a set of two slits is arranged such that when a beam is shone through them, an interference pattern is created behind them. (as each slit distorts the waveform). Even if the rate of transmission is slowed down so single photons are being emmited, there is STILL an interference pattern. However, if we observe a photon, there is no interference pattern.
In other words, until we 'observe' it, it's a wave, and can split and interfere with itself. When we quantize it and observe it, we collapse the wave function, and get a particle.
Yes it's wierd, but that's how the universe is.
What it means that, provided the box the cat is in is perfectly sealed, and there is no way for information to travel from inside the box to outside the box, or vice versa, that whether the cat is alive or dead makes no difference to the universe, and hence, is in both states. (as obviously, it can't be neither).
To an observer inside the box, it's already decided. Then again, to someone ouside the box, the views of the observer inside the box are still a probability as well.
This suggests that, to different observers, the particle/wave can be different things.
As for the machine that stored information about the cat.. yes, it means that, if the data on the disk is our *ONLY* way to observe the state of the cat, that the cat IS still a wave function until we observe it, at least, from our point of view, as, until we observe, it, it makes no difference to our reality one way or the other.
Not quite, but you can decide it's time for the cat to either live or die.
What you say about a particle changing state is untrue.
The only thing that will change when you view a particle by bouncing a photon off of it (which isonly one way of viewing it) will be it's direction and speed. What you are describing is heisenberg's uncertainty principle. You cannot observe both location and speed with accuracy, making one more accurate makes the other less accurate.
What is described in the article is a totally different thing. They describe the probability wave and collapse of particles into known states upon being observed. Go read a book on quantum physics. One might be 'atoms, leptons, and quarks'.