It's been a while since I took Physics, but I would like to know what the momentum of this device. A bullet has a small mass so the momentum generated by the explosion can cause fast speeds. But trying to move a heavy object fast nearly instantly is more of a challenge. Hence cars that can accelerate from 0 to 60 in however many seconds makes some people water in their mouths.
If the hammer weights at least 100 times that of a bullet with a velocity of 3 meters per second, the momentum exceeds that of a bullet. If I am doing the math correctly in my head.;)
But I seem to remember stories pop up every couple of months with a new land mine detection/removal system. And I haven't seen anything about the 50 to 100 million land mines around the world being removed. (I got that number from Scientific America Frontier on PBS last night. I couldn't believe it. But if you can't trust PBS, who can you trust?)
I am just waiting for a Linux version of PVR's where we could write a quick scripts to filter out of the commercials:
watch Friends | rm_ads
The functionality to do these "nasty" things would not be "built" into the unit. They'll have to make my computer illegel now! And probably my brain. That'll be messy...
So what? I don't see it as a big loss to lose free television. New technology is allowing innovations which are threatening the old way of doing business. This has been a popular theme in recent years.
The networks will just have to evolve. Commercials will be fit into the shows. The actors will do the commercials themselves, the content and commercials will be blending into a seemless 30/60 minute slot. It'll be strange.
Or we could just read more. I'm looking forward to the fall of TV when ads will start appearing in my books...
Stephen King's characters will drink delicious Coca-Cola while wearing their fashionable Gap jeans in their comfortable Nike shoes.;)
Sweet! That is one of the best posts I have read on Slashdot in a while. It is a game of balance, and people must decide what is the best for each situation. =)
Most people argue it is one way or another without discussing the strengths and weaknesses of both sides.
Holy shit! (Something I reserve for only special occasions.;) )
That is probably one of the best statements I have read: Isn't that the same reason history is forced upon us?
I just never related the two. We learn history to try not to make the same mistake twice. But I think there will come a time where this is just too much history to learn from! Just as there is too much code to learn mistakes from.
Maybe we are just destined to repeat some part of history. And code.
Or even, the code has to play nicely with other programs, newer kernel versions or even newer hardware. But as these things change, it seems possible that some combination of kernel, other programs and hardware will introduce a new bug. Something the original coders didn't predict. You can't predict everything. =)
Maybe most of the hackers you know are just hacker wannabes calling themselves that just sound cool. Like someone calling themselves a vegetarian because they only eat fish but that doesn't count, right?
A hacker to me embodies more idealistic qualities: someone who writes good code, knows what they are doing, and is not afraid to shower. And might even be a girl! =P
Actually, it would be like buying a couch and putting it in a public park, then getting upset when others use it without your permission. Your house and your lawn are private property and different then a webserver connected in public space.
You don't let people just walk into your house, regardless if it is connected by a sidewalk to a public road. Your house is different, it doesn't have an open invitation for people to walk in and touch things. The webserver may be in a private place, but it is connected to a public protocol that allows people access to the information on it, which doesn't damage your furniture.
The best way to make a site private is to require membership; password protect the content. At least the owner has made an effort to protect his or her work.
Just throwing it up on the web is not good enough, since it is a public network. And especially since in digital form it is easier to make perfect copies of the original. This is a known fact and a risk taken by placing information on the Internet which some people are not accepting.
You obviously can't take a picture or painting from a public art gallery. The owner would have lost their work or the work would not be there for others to enjoy. But again, this is the differences between Reality and the Internet. A digital image can be copied easily and by nearly anyone with a browser. (Unless, you have taken measures against it.) In an art gallery, a picture cannot easily be duplicated and that is a benefit of having your work displayed there.
Maybe the answer is to not place copyrighting material on the web, or at least keep it behind password locked doors. Create a private network, and only allow those in which are willing to accept your terms.
Back in the day, before you could join a BBS they had rules you had to agree with. The one I remember the most goes something like this "If you are a police officer, or have a police officer in your family, you must tell us." It was the grandfather of the EULA's and they laid down the law before you could enter their site.
But why can't charing a per-use-hour fee to customers be consider malevolent to some? Not every business is malevolent, but I think with this issue people don't agree with the motives behind the MPEG-4 licensing fees.
Since they made it, they want to profit from it. That is perfectable exceptable seeing how they did all the work.
I doubt many people will be seriously harmed because of the fees they are levying. What effects will it have other than causing people to whine, I don't know.
And if people are upset with the licensing fee, support an open source effort. Give your time or money along with complaining. Someone needs to do the work cause you are not getting something for free here.
What do the people who are doing the work want in the end? I know what the MPEG-4 people want.
The figures were taking from the E! Online article that was linked with the Slashdot post.
New Line is banking on the film's success. The first installment Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery grossed $88 million worldwide and its sequel, The Spy Who Shagged Me (a play on the name of 1977 Bond saga The Spy Who Loved Me), more than tripled that sum, earning $310 million, making it the highest-grossing film in New Line's history
The $310 million might include international sales as well, which could explain the difference. But it is a huge difference. Perhaps he truly is the International Man of Mystery!
I understand the miscommunication. People would be expecting it to do better only if the assumption is the sequel does better than the original in the series. However this is not the normal, and sequels normally does worst then the originally, if I am not mistaken. When a sequel does better, it is unexpected.
But I don't know anything about nocking over the box offices or if it did sneak up on people. But it was unexcepted with the assumption sequels generally do worse than the original.
Maybe this book could create a trend in scientific fields, where the focus of books become merging Perl and the discipline. Of course, it isn't as broad as many of the other Perl books out there, but I enjoy this sort of deviation.
And holy crap! A Pixie's reference, and an obscure one at that. You get snaps from me.
In the words of Eric Cartmen "what's the big fucking deal." Star Ballz just won against Lucas in court and I don't see how Goldfinger and Goldmember are much different. Unless it is because Goldmember isn't a porn, but with a title like this it's only a few scenes shy...
So they are both spy movies. They both use Gold in the name. So what? One has 007 and the other doesn't. One is serious and the other is a comedy.
If this were the first Austin Power's and it was being challenged, it would seem reasonable that people might get Goldmember and Goldfinger confused and MGM might lose some money. But this is the third installment of a very popular series, and most people are well familiar with Austin Powers and it's spoof. But other than making fun of a certain spy movie what's the big fucking deal?
What?! He wasn't talking about "Austin Powers, International Man of Mystery". Read the quote you took. He is talking about "The Spy Who Shagged Me" the second Austin Power's film which earned $310 million. The first one made about $88 million, a sharp contract to the first movie and hence unexpected.
I am glad they care about me and whether I am following their copyright laws, but the Internet is(was) more about the exchange of information and knowledge than a vechile for companies to sell their wares upon us. Which are hidden across webpages, betweeen and around the content and substance of the Internet, because most people don't care about them.
Maybe we should be looking at a way to create a "free" Internet, like a public Internet, that is not bound by the expensive cost of high speed Internet access.
Create pockets of wireless computers and connect them. Something. I would love to hear some brainstorms.
You know, in this day and age I am surprised more people with digital cameras and camcorders aren't recording some of the crazy stuff people are doing and throwing it up on a website. That smells like a sure fire website right there that would be bound to get lots of traffic and continue on with the idea of Sousveillance.
Maybe a site like that exists, but I have never heard of it. A weak argument I know...
No it doesn't. Each essay should be considered on its own value and not compared to anything else he might have written. My critical reasoning teacher would always make the point, just because your dad tells you something doesn't mean it is right. Meaning, most people respect their father, but that has no baring on the validity of what he is saying.
Likewise, just because Wilson might have written some real doozies, doesn't mean he couldn't get on right. Hell, quantum mechanics is even on his side on this one.;)
I agree. Why can't things just be released into the fucking Public Domain? End of story. Put it out there and quit all this belly aching.
If the writer has altrusitc goals, what does it matter? The purpose is to help others. The point of all these different licenses is either for ego purposes or fear of misuse.
What are you talking about? Is there no one interested in a challenge anymore? Has all the fun been sucked away? Some people like climbing rocks. Some people want to slap together their own scope. So be it. I will not judge. More power to anyone that wants to do it themselves. (And more power to the person that explains it to others.;))
"You can give a person a 'scope and they can probe for the lifetime of the 'scope. But if you teach a person to build a 'scope they can probe for the rest of their lifetime."
And a favorite just for the hell of it:
"You know, you can get a good look at a butcher's ass by shoving your head up it but wouldn't you rather take his word for it?"
(After all, the entire GNU philosophy is based on the single tennent of: "You have the freedom to do anything, bar restricting the freedom of others". If you would claim that that is what you actually live up to, then what's you're problem?)
I think you hit an important point with this. True freedom comes with limitations, no, it comes with the responsiblity that the same freedom given to you should not encroach on another person's freedom.
I could argue that my freedoms are limited because I am not allowed to do something that would restrict the freedom of someone else. And as such, I am not completely free.
While this argument is flawed, it is not necessarily apparent to people and needs to be stated now and again.
(Yes, I more or less said the same thing as you. I'm quite aware of that. I just like hearing myself type.)
Slashdot Mirror
It's been a while since I took Physics, but I would like to know what the momentum of this device. A bullet has a small mass so the momentum generated by the explosion can cause fast speeds. But trying to move a heavy object fast nearly instantly is more of a challenge. Hence cars that can accelerate from 0 to 60 in however many seconds makes some people water in their mouths.
;)
If the hammer weights at least 100 times that of a bullet with a velocity of 3 meters per second, the momentum exceeds that of a bullet. If I am doing the math correctly in my head.
But I seem to remember stories pop up every couple of months with a new land mine detection/removal system. And I haven't seen anything about the 50 to 100 million land mines around the world being removed. (I got that number from Scientific America Frontier on PBS last night. I couldn't believe it. But if you can't trust PBS, who can you trust?)
I am just waiting for a Linux version of PVR's where we could write a quick scripts to filter out of the commercials:
watch Friends | rm_ads
The functionality to do these "nasty" things would not be "built" into the unit. They'll have to make my computer illegel now! And probably my brain. That'll be messy...
So what? I don't see it as a big loss to lose free television. New technology is allowing innovations which are threatening the old way of doing business. This has been a popular theme in recent years.
;)
The networks will just have to evolve. Commercials will be fit into the shows. The actors will do the commercials themselves, the content and commercials will be blending into a seemless 30/60 minute slot. It'll be strange.
Or we could just read more. I'm looking forward to the fall of TV when ads will start appearing in my books...
Stephen King's characters will drink delicious Coca-Cola while wearing their fashionable Gap jeans in their comfortable Nike shoes.
Sweet! That is one of the best posts I have read on Slashdot in a while. It is a game of balance, and people must decide what is the best for each situation. =)
Most people argue it is one way or another without discussing the strengths and weaknesses of both sides.
Holy shit! (Something I reserve for only special occasions. ;) )
That is probably one of the best statements I have read: Isn't that the same reason history is forced upon us?
I just never related the two. We learn history to try not to make the same mistake twice. But I think there will come a time where this is just too much history to learn from! Just as there is too much code to learn mistakes from.
Maybe we are just destined to repeat some part of history. And code.
Or even, the code has to play nicely with other programs, newer kernel versions or even newer hardware. But as these things change, it seems possible that some combination of kernel, other programs and hardware will introduce a new bug. Something the original coders didn't predict. You can't predict everything. =)
Maybe most of the hackers you know are just hacker wannabes calling themselves that just sound cool. Like someone calling themselves a vegetarian because they only eat fish but that doesn't count, right?
A hacker to me embodies more idealistic qualities: someone who writes good code, knows what they are doing, and is not afraid to shower. And might even be a girl! =P
Actually, it would be like buying a couch and putting it in a public park, then getting upset when others use it without your permission. Your house and your lawn are private property and different then a webserver connected in public space.
You don't let people just walk into your house, regardless if it is connected by a sidewalk to a public road. Your house is different, it doesn't have an open invitation for people to walk in and touch things. The webserver may be in a private place, but it is connected to a public protocol that allows people access to the information on it, which doesn't damage your furniture.
The best way to make a site private is to require membership; password protect the content. At least the owner has made an effort to protect his or her work.
Just throwing it up on the web is not good enough, since it is a public network. And especially since in digital form it is easier to make perfect copies of the original. This is a known fact and a risk taken by placing information on the Internet which some people are not accepting.
You obviously can't take a picture or painting from a public art gallery. The owner would have lost their work or the work would not be there for others to enjoy. But again, this is the differences between Reality and the Internet. A digital image can be copied easily and by nearly anyone with a browser. (Unless, you have taken measures against it.) In an art gallery, a picture cannot easily be duplicated and that is a benefit of having your work displayed there.
Maybe the answer is to not place copyrighting material on the web, or at least keep it behind password locked doors. Create a private network, and only allow those in which are willing to accept your terms.
Back in the day, before you could join a BBS they had rules you had to agree with. The one I remember the most goes something like this "If you are a police officer, or have a police officer in your family, you must tell us." It was the grandfather of the EULA's and they laid down the law before you could enter their site.
But why can't charing a per-use-hour fee to customers be consider malevolent to some? Not every business is malevolent, but I think with this issue people don't agree with the motives behind the MPEG-4 licensing fees.
Since they made it, they want to profit from it. That is perfectable exceptable seeing how they did all the work.
I doubt many people will be seriously harmed because of the fees they are levying. What effects will it have other than causing people to whine, I don't know.
And if people are upset with the licensing fee, support an open source effort. Give your time or money along with complaining. Someone needs to do the work cause you are not getting something for free here.
What do the people who are doing the work want in the end? I know what the MPEG-4 people want.
The figures were taking from the E! Online article that was linked with the Slashdot post.
New Line is banking on the film's success. The first installment Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery grossed $88 million worldwide and its sequel, The Spy Who Shagged Me (a play on the name of 1977 Bond saga The Spy Who Loved Me), more than tripled that sum, earning $310 million, making it the highest-grossing film in New Line's history
The $310 million might include international sales as well, which could explain the difference. But it is a huge difference. Perhaps he truly is the International Man of Mystery!
I understand the miscommunication. People would be expecting it to do better only if the assumption is the sequel does better than the original in the series. However this is not the normal, and sequels normally does worst then the originally, if I am not mistaken. When a sequel does better, it is unexpected.
But I don't know anything about nocking over the box offices or if it did sneak up on people. But it was unexcepted with the assumption sequels generally do worse than the original.
Maybe this book could create a trend in scientific fields, where the focus of books become merging Perl and the discipline. Of course, it isn't as broad as many of the other Perl books out there, but I enjoy this sort of deviation.
And holy crap! A Pixie's reference, and an obscure one at that. You get snaps from me.
In the words of Eric Cartmen "what's the big fucking deal." Star Ballz just won against Lucas in court and I don't see how Goldfinger and Goldmember are much different. Unless it is because Goldmember isn't a porn, but with a title like this it's only a few scenes shy...
So they are both spy movies. They both use Gold in the name. So what? One has 007 and the other doesn't. One is serious and the other is a comedy.
If this were the first Austin Power's and it was being challenged, it would seem reasonable that people might get Goldmember and Goldfinger confused and MGM might lose some money. But this is the third installment of a very popular series, and most people are well familiar with Austin Powers and it's spoof. But other than making fun of a certain spy movie what's the big fucking deal?
What?! He wasn't talking about "Austin Powers, International Man of Mystery". Read the quote you took. He is talking about "The Spy Who Shagged Me" the second Austin Power's film which earned $310 million. The first one made about $88 million, a sharp contract to the first movie and hence unexpected.
It is all in the story.
With one of the expansion slots, I believe you can plug in a keyboard.
As if listening to cell phone conversations wasn't annoying enough, now we'll be listening to AIM conversations as well.
"...I love you. Smiley face. Ok, I've got to go. I'll see you tonight. Wink smiley face."
"No, you log off first. No, you first..."
Blah!
I am glad they care about me and whether I am following their copyright laws, but the Internet is(was) more about the exchange of information and knowledge than a vechile for companies to sell their wares upon us. Which are hidden across webpages, betweeen and around the content and substance of the Internet, because most people don't care about them.
Maybe we should be looking at a way to create a "free" Internet, like a public Internet, that is not bound by the expensive cost of high speed Internet access.
Create pockets of wireless computers and connect them. Something. I would love to hear some brainstorms.
You know, in this day and age I am surprised more people with digital cameras and camcorders aren't recording some of the crazy stuff people are doing and throwing it up on a website. That smells like a sure fire website right there that would be bound to get lots of traffic and continue on with the idea of Sousveillance.
Maybe a site like that exists, but I have never heard of it. A weak argument I know...
A typo does not mean that person is an uneducated moron... judgmental asshole.
No it doesn't. Each essay should be considered on its own value and not compared to anything else he might have written. My critical reasoning teacher would always make the point, just because your dad tells you something doesn't mean it is right. Meaning, most people respect their father, but that has no baring on the validity of what he is saying.
;)
Likewise, just because Wilson might have written some real doozies, doesn't mean he couldn't get on right. Hell, quantum mechanics is even on his side on this one.
I agree. Why can't things just be released into the fucking Public Domain? End of story. Put it out there and quit all this belly aching.
If the writer has altrusitc goals, what does it matter? The purpose is to help others. The point of all these different licenses is either for ego purposes or fear of misuse.
Maybe I've been listening to too much Carlin...
What are you talking about? Is there no one interested in a challenge anymore? Has all the fun been sucked away? Some people like climbing rocks. Some people want to slap together their own scope. So be it. I will not judge. More power to anyone that wants to do it themselves. (And more power to the person that explains it to others. ;))
"You can give a person a 'scope and they can probe for the lifetime of the 'scope. But if you teach a person to build a 'scope they can probe for the rest of their lifetime."
And a favorite just for the hell of it:
"You know, you can get a good look at a butcher's ass by shoving your head up it but wouldn't you rather take his word for it?"
Can't be as bad as Insurrection.
I remember reading the plot on DarkHorizons and they said it was horrible and I would have to argee.
But here's to hoping!
(After all, the entire GNU philosophy is based on the single tennent of: "You have the freedom to do anything, bar restricting the freedom of others". If you would claim that that is what you actually live up to, then what's you're problem?)
I think you hit an important point with this. True freedom comes with limitations, no, it comes with the responsiblity that the same freedom given to you should not encroach on another person's freedom.
I could argue that my freedoms are limited because I am not allowed to do something that would restrict the freedom of someone else. And as such, I am not completely free.
While this argument is flawed, it is not necessarily apparent to people and needs to be stated now and again.
(Yes, I more or less said the same thing as you. I'm quite aware of that. I just like hearing myself type.)
I agree. These two posts are the funniest things I have read on Slashdot in a while. (They brought tears to me eyes!)
This goes to prove, less is more. Using that logic, I probably should have shut up a couple of sentences ago...
From your analogy, the programming languages have been evolving, with names changes here and there. As well as other improvements to the language.
His statement was the same, Linux will evolve into something else as the year progress. And the technology will change with it.
Each one is building off the next. What it will be in fifty years is anyone's guess.