That's right, and the USA Patriot Act will help stop terrorism. It's really worth it. Trust me. -- kindbud
Uh, yeah, valid sarcasm. But the only chance of beating down the direct marketing lobbyists, and possibly getting a system like they have in Norway (if it can be made constitutional), is if folks like the FTC perceive this as having massive public support. There are lots of things that I wish would happen that get too little public support, like permitting nude beaches and repealing various taxes. But I don't think many people will stand up and say "Spam, spam, spam, give me spam, spam spam! I love it!"
The FTC article cited above included this nice invitation:
"The FTC invites consumers to forward any deceptive e-mail they receive to: uce@ftc.gov
OK, folks, start barraging them. The more crap that fills their server, the more seriously they'll take the situation. They act in response to a high level of public complaints. So complain.
BTW, many of the comments here say "I don't get why spam works, nobody would ever buy in response to UCE would they?" The bad news is that there are a bazillion morons out there who do precisely this. Well, maybe not a bazillion, but all it takes is 1 receptive cluck out of 100K spam haters to pay for the spammer's time. And they're out there. If nobody ever clicked through, spam would dry up.
In particular, as I recall, Smalltalk-80: The Interactive Programming Environment, Adele Goldberg has many details of how the original S80 GUI class hierarchy was architected. Smalltalk has historically been a good laboratory for designing and experimenting with user interfaces, and would be an idea source if nothing else. I'm not up to speed on current Smalltalk literature, though I'd expect it is now more from a usage standpoint than about the implementation of the environment (which the earlier books covered in detail). I thought the four Addison-Wesley volumes (including this book) were really quite good.
...uhhh, when I said "badly misjudged and misrepresented" I of course did not mean by Thos. Powers, but by the world in general. I think Powers makes a very interesting case in support of Heisenberg.
Heisenberg's War: The Secret History of the German Bomb,
Thomas Powers provides lots of interesting detail, citations, background. From reading various sources, I see Heisenberg as badly misjudged and misrepresented. I think he was basically a good guy in a very bad situation and, integrating all the available material, it feels like he basically did the Right Thing, and played a key role in keeping the German nuclear program working in directions other than building a bomb.
You may not think it was appropriate to post it, but I find it one of the funniest threads ever to appear here. I enjoyed it immensely. I agree that anybody who gave him so-called death threat phone calls or otherwise responded inappropriately is an equal moron (or if not equal then at least an honorable-mention moron). But to say this doesn't belong on slashdot? No, I think is is exactly the kind of nerd-trailer-trash slugfest that slashdot participants relish.
Lots of interesting comments below. As far as option (1) is concerned: Although being in business for yourself is a Good Thing (I've had my own business since 1980), this is not a step to take for tax reasons or billing rate reasons or because of any similar short-term economic calculation. The reason to have your own business is to be an entrepreneur -- to be your own boss, and to accept all the plusses and minuses that go with that. In general, few newcomers to business should take this route; it's better to spend some time in the trenches, and learn firsthand whether a) you hate the bureaucratic bullshit and would rather take responsibility for everything, or b) you are willing to trade some bureaucracy for the security of not having to sell every billable hour, having a regular paycheck, getting health insurance, getting some coverage for periods of weak business, etc. For me, it's a no-brainer, but for most people, this independence is terrifying. And you simply won't know how you'll feel about it until you've been over the ground on both sides. IOW: It doesn't hurt to be a wage slave for a while.
Consider a parallel (actually orthogonal) argument: It's never a good idea to make a business decision or an investment decision purely for tax reasons. Why? Because, though tax issues might affect your tactics, they should not dictate your long-term strategy. Taxes should never be more than a detail. So, in the same way: Going into business for yourself is a huge decision, and it should not be done for a few apparent percentage points in billing rate. Those tradeoffs will all disappear. Instead, there's a much more fundamental choice involved that will affect you for many years, and so this choice should not be taken lightly, either way.
If you don't immediately understand what I'm saying, then you probably should spend a little more time in the trenches getting a sense for how business works. Eventually, you'll see a stark contrast between those who do-for-others and those who do-for-themselves, with advantages on both sides.
Here's another way to view the contrast. Picture an experienced chef who works for a Marriott hotel, and contrast that career with that of a chef who owns a bistro in a small town. They both do similar technical things; but their lives are very different. They each face real risks -- each job can be lost due to bad sales, because of bad employees, each can get sick, etc. -- but the chef/owner accepts a much broader range of challenges and makes a longer personal investment.
I hope these comments are useful. Obviously, there's a certain fungibility in contemporary consulting contracts that makes an independent tech contractor less like a chef-owner. Yet there's no intrinsic reason this contracting/employment situation must persist. After five years as a quasi-independent, you might find that you've either a) falsely convinced yourself that you're really running a small business, without a good enough understanding of the business side to make it on your own for the long term; or you've b) cut yourself out of a legit corporate job, if you're really a PHB at heart; those years as a corporate gofer are important training if you want to play those games. And there's nothing intrinsically wrong with aspiring to be a PHB. We joke about it, but most of us wind up seeking that path.
To (probably mis-) quote a great Xerox PARC denizen, in the days of Pilot and the Alto: "An operating system consists of the things you forgot to put into your compiler. There shouldn't be one." Sorry, can't track down the source at the moment but I'm sure somebody will supply it.
If you know one accounting app you know them all -- MeNeXT
You may feel this way but many financial types do not, and have very strong preferences between packages. The original post is consistent with my experience. Another factor is training and support of accounting staff. A bunch of clerks familiar with (say) MAS-90 will have a learning hurdle going to any new package. With some packages the transition is sharper than others.
So apart from your argument in support of this "meta-project" simply making no sense in light of the facts, give all us whiners another good reaon why duplication of document submission and maintenance efforts will somehow be "useful and appropriate." -- pongo000
Uh..see what Guylhem said (the parent comment) for the good reasons.:) There are indeed many bits of guidance and samples, if one takes the time to look...but as so often the case in open source communities, there is quite an incompatible abundance from which to choose. Moreover, many of these seem dated. I thought the idea of a consolidated free doc source outside (i.e. transcending) the LDP was reasonable (obviously avoiding duplication by maintaining current links to primary sources); and if one is doing this, some 'philosophy of documentation' seemed helpful.
Currently I do not plan to consolidate metadocuments or dictate a consistent style. -- Guylhem
I didn't mean to say you should dictate a style, and naturally your concept is to accept whatever is submitted. I'm suggesting that the SUBMITTERS might consider metadocumentation issues, particulary those submitters who are very experienced at documentation and technical writing, and might be able to serve as 'force multipliers' for less experienced writers.
Just to beat this to death: In my ideal vision of this resource, it would have (in addition to lots of technical dox in their open source glory) links to things like grammar principles, copyright law, ACM Computing Reviews, and copies of or references to documentation standards from various contexts. But useful compilations don't happen by accident; they're the result of editorial effort. So I was suggesting that experienced document specialists might be able to upgrade the expectations of the community through example.
Despite some whiny comments below, this meta-project sounds useful and appropriate to me. I'd encourage serious contributors to give some attention to the issue of documentation standards, or (to make it less dictatorial) style guides. There are plenty of FAQ's, for example, that would have been better if the authors had samples and guidance -- so many times I've seen postings saying "I'm working on a new FAQ; here's a draft, any suggestions?" and finding that a simple template would have saved lots of time and effort.
So to you and your contributors: If you're going to support a metadocumentation effort, try to start by consolidating metadocuments, and (perhaps) providing a linkable source of common dox and linx that folks would probably like to reference.
So many posts here seem to think it's weird that a geek would want a hardware room. Of course you want a place for all your extraneous electronic crap. And although one tries to buy heat-efficient gear, sometimes you run across something that's too interesting to pass up -- maybe an old rackmount server, maybe a bunch of video editing gear, maybe a pinball machine. And of course, there will be the various routers, modems, etc. that stack up over time. I have in front of me three different DSL routers, for example, plus two analog dialout routers and various modems, that have accumulated from different ISP packages -- when they give you the router for free, you take it. (If you throw it out, inevitably you wind up needing it.) And of course I have several printers, scanners, a plotter, Raritan switchboxes, midi hardware, hubs, an 8-track recorder, and plenty of old 'servers' that are only servers because I don't use them as desktops.
The comments about window air conditioners sound right, though modern hardware is environmentally very rugged, so if you are using a glorified closet, it's still probably OK. You might consider a little circulation fan to blow hot air into the rafters (I did this in my phone/cable closet).
Bottom line: you may not truly need a server room, but you need a workshop, and it's often easier from the standpoint of spousal harmony to call it a server room: "Honey, we need this for technical reasons.":) Get it?
...I meant that the problem in question, originally believed to be NP-complete, would turn out NOT to have been NP-complete, and that therefore any conclusions about NP=P in this case were wrong/irrelevant. This result would therefore not have significant theoretical repercussions, but it might have practical implications, if that problem's putative NP-completeness had led people to believe that a linear-time solution to the problem was unlikely. Suddenly a computational barrier is removed. I'd agree it seems more unlikely that we have a systematic misunderstanding about NP-complete problems and that NP=P. (But of course that's the kind of thinking that was rocked in 1931 by Kurt Godel.)
So let's come up with better technology that lets them run cooler. Hmm... Smaller geometry? Good! Lower voltage? Good! Better logic design? Good!And how about... better cooling technology? Good!
Look back through the history of circuit design and you'll see lots of new innovations that either reduced power or improved thermal transfer. Now I'll admit that little feathers seems kinda wacky, but on the other hand as electronic components start to mimic natural systems (cf. hairs, cilia, feathers) they are probably taking an efficient path.
...that the original classification as NP-complete was wrong. "We thought we had a hard problem, but we were wrong." This would typically mean that the original paper had a bad proof -- not an unknown event. Another possibility is that a hard general case has a much easier special case, and the special case maps usefully to real-world problem sets. Again, not an unknown event (perhaps a good description of fluid dynamics -- impossible theory but useful praxis).
So while you're absolutely right at the mathematical end (and there were too many pseudo-conclusions posted here, no surprise), from a practical standpoint the question is valid: what if it turns out that there is an easy solution to a hard problem, a problem whose hardness we had viewed as a practical limit? (And this isn't a mathematical or CS problem, but a political issue.) I suppose this interesting question was just phrased in "look how smart I am" terms.
I love the idea that, with the right spin, and sufficient charm, you can get particles to sing. I just hope they're not segregated based on color -- otherwise there'd be charges pending, a matter of real gravity. But fortunately there are strong forces in our society that would prevent such waves of abuse (although sometimes we fear that they seem like particularly weak forces). Anyway, I'm sure you get my point, which although not singular at least should come out on top -- or near the horizon at any event.
A few more cat5 suggestions
on
Wiring A New House?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Lots of good comments here. I have nothing to add about the fiber/UTP question, other than it might be a little premature to drop fiber everywhere; but here are some other UTP notes from my experience:
Consider using a modular connector system like this one. I saved a lot of time and hassle using them and the result looks great. You can also intermix CATV, voice, data etc. however you like.
Use a star from a cable closet (could be a cabinet in your garage or next to the water heater, doesn't matter). Consider running everything to a patch panel. If you don't want to spring for the connectors etc. of a patch panel, at least create a 'virtual patch panel' where every circuit is tagged and accessible. Leave good documentation in the cabinet 'cause you'll forget what goes where.
Follow the Cat5 specs: minimal bends, minimal tension when pulling cable, loose cable ties, no regular tie intervals, cross AC power perpendicularly and rarely. Pick the cabling spec you'll use and stick to it. Avoid doing what I had to do: running voice on the unused two pairs of my 100Mbs data circuits (even though I've had zero problems).
Be sure you have power near your drops and plenty of power and some shelf space in your closet. You'll be terminating your outside internet connectivity here as well (DSL, cable modem, etc.) so be sure to plan space accordingly for routers, console connections, hubs, UPS, etc.
See the remarks elsewhere here about using plenum cable if you're not installing conduit. But conduit would let you use fiber or other more advanced media in the future.
Invest in some cheap test equipment so you can verify continuity, correct pinouts, etc. in all your cables.
This is very wonderful. I guess I'm not really surprised. Relatively small close-knit communities often have good strategies for dealing with this kind of social problem. (Spam is best viewed as a social problem rather than a commercial or civil rights problem.) I'll bet there's not a lot of spam originating in Orkney either. Again, I'm afraid I don't see this system being replicated in the US. Too bad.
Sorry, I should have said "not possible in the US." Sorry for being US-centric in my thinking. I think the Norwegian system as described sounds ideal; but I'm dubious such a system could get implemented here.
However, I am surprised that foreign harvesters don't use this opt-out list to blanket you with spam. I get tons of spam from offshore sources who wouldn't give a hoot about antispam laws. And of course as long as we can send forged headers etc. it's not always trivial to track down the source of a violator.
If you want freedom, you have to support everyone's freedom... -- dawgfacedboy
Your right to free speech doesn't extend to my living room. I assert that it shouldn't extend to my inbox or my telephone either, unless I've explicitly published my desire to receive such contact.
A working opt-out would be great, of course, as you say. But such a thing is not possible, or at least there's been no proposal yet that doesn't just make the spam problem worse by disseminating my email address to the very folks I want to shut up.
That's why the only route is draconian: ban ALL UCE entirely, until and unless somebody comes up with a safe, non-spamming mechanism for blocking UCE.
Got a reference on this? It sounds urbanlegendish. -- Chris Johnson
It's not a legend; it's a well-known problem. It generally is only a problem for jazz musicians, because quoting melodies and playing standards are such important parts of the idiom. (There were a lot of famous related issues related to sampling of copyrighted works in rap music, of course, which is one factor that helped make things nasty.) And of course this issue doesn't practically kick in when you're playing at Bob's Tavern; but it gets heavy when you're in a recording studio. It's a key reason that contempo recordings usually have very few standards -- artists are encouraged to use all original material. Also, the problem is most pronounced with standards that have been around long enough that the performance and other rights are in the hands of stodgy publishing companies, estates, or family trusts. In other words, once lawyers get involved the thing gets ugly.
I personally know many people who have been caught in exactly the situation I described, though I can't think of any published accounts. But any working jazz studio guy will be quite familiar with the issue and the problem.
A good friend, for example, was recording a double-CD with the music of Livingston and Evans, a tremendously prolific and successful songwriting team who wrote such tunes as Buttons and Bows, Que Sera Sera, Mona Lisa, and also lots of TV themes such as Bonanza and Mr. Ed:). The date was being supervised by a relative of one of the writers, who represented the production company. He was playing his ass off, as usual. She kept interrupting and saying "You need to stop playing these medleys of other peoples' tunes." The recording engineer was ready to walk off the job in disgust; he explained "These aren't medleys; they're quotes. That's how jazz is played." But my friend was able to limit his quotes to music that was either written by Livingston and Evans, or in the public domain. (He is such an awesome player that he could do this. That's why he gets concert gigs in Australia, South America, and Europe, I guess, and isn't stuck playing at a cheesy gin mill.)
I'll poke around to see if I can find any published descriptions of this problem, but again it's really well-known in the business.
Obviously, the extent of the problem and the enforcement varies. Plenty of recordings are made that are full of lengthy quotes. Generally, the deal is then worked out afterward: the estate or BMI or ASCAP contacts the publishers, and some licensing deal is arranged, depending on how much material was quoted, how famous the performer was, etc.
But here's a parallel situation. Suppose you wrote a mystery novel about a singer, and you wanted to quote a few bars, lines, or stanzas from various songs in each chapter. To do this, you'd need to arrange licenses with whoever holds the rights to each of those songs. You can use the title for free, because that is not protected by the copyright; but even a short phrase is often viewed as an infringement. Very short excerpts have been judged as infringements. I'll bet you couldn't get away with "that voodoo that you do so well" or "that old black magic called love."
See this, this, this, and especially this (which includes this useful statement: "The distinction between "fair use" and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission. The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: "quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported"; you'll note that this list does NOT include the type of reverential quoting that is done in jazz improvisation).
I have seen some better documented discussions and examples of this issue from time to time, but can't remember where I found 'em. I did a bunch of research about this issue not only because of the recording studio pain in the butt (I was trying to provide my Livingston & Evans friend with some legal ammunition to use, but found he was screwed), but also because I was investigating the use of quoted song phrases in a novel (I found I was screwed). The whole thing is a mess. HTH
Similarly, a musician creates jazz, let's say, and has certain rights over that jazz (it belongs to him/her, etc.) and expects to be able to be compensated for expending the effort necessary to create that jazz. -- toughguy
You picked an interesting example. Consider this. The essense of jazz is improvisation, of course. A cornerstone improvisation technique is quoting material from other music. Listen to any solo by a great contemporary or past improviser -- Charlie Parker, Art Tatum, Louis Armstrong, or one of today's young lions. You'll hear snatches of familiar tunes here and there, intermixed with new ideas. Great improvisors nearly always use a mix of both techniques. This type of borrowing is as old as music. "Theme and variations" is a similar cornerstone of mainstream composed music through the centuries.
Under current copyright law, as implemented through the courts, such borrowing of themes is now ILLEGAL without permission of the composer (which is frequently not available, or prohibitively expensive). Therefore, today's jazz musicians are frequently stopped during recording sessions and told to stop quoting material from other sources. "Stop playing it the way you want to and play it the way the lawyers tell you to." The Estate of Cole Porter is particularly notorious for litigation in this regard. (Note that parody is specifically permitted under the law, so although a beautiful apropos quote from "Night and Day" is illegal, a silly parody of the same song is not.)
So this is an example of how unending copyright protection over works written early in the last century has stifled a vital and beautiful art form of today. Does the composer deserve some kind of protection over the composed works? Clearly. But should this extend to what, for me, is an essential type of fair use? I don't think so.
I'm sure others will provide more substantive examples; but this is one that really pisses me off.
Slashdot Mirror
That's right, and the USA Patriot Act will help stop terrorism. It's really worth it. Trust me. -- kindbud
Uh, yeah, valid sarcasm. But the only chance of beating down the direct marketing lobbyists, and possibly getting a system like they have in Norway (if it can be made constitutional), is if folks like the FTC perceive this as having massive public support. There are lots of things that I wish would happen that get too little public support, like permitting nude beaches and repealing various taxes. But I don't think many people will stand up and say "Spam, spam, spam, give me spam, spam spam! I love it!"
The FTC article cited above included this nice invitation:
"The FTC invites consumers to forward any deceptive e-mail they receive to: uce@ftc.gov
OK, folks, start barraging them. The more crap that fills their server, the more seriously they'll take the situation. They act in response to a high level of public complaints. So complain.
BTW, many of the comments here say "I don't get why spam works, nobody would ever buy in response to UCE would they?" The bad news is that there are a bazillion morons out there who do precisely this. Well, maybe not a bazillion, but all it takes is 1 receptive cluck out of 100K spam haters to pay for the spammer's time. And they're out there. If nobody ever clicked through, spam would dry up.
In particular, as I recall, Smalltalk-80: The Interactive Programming Environment, Adele Goldberg has many details of how the original S80 GUI class hierarchy was architected. Smalltalk has historically been a good laboratory for designing and experimenting with user interfaces, and would be an idea source if nothing else. I'm not up to speed on current Smalltalk literature, though I'd expect it is now more from a usage standpoint than about the implementation of the environment (which the earlier books covered in detail). I thought the four Addison-Wesley volumes (including this book) were really quite good.
Note of course that, with the exception of your desire for LISP, you've also described Smalltalk.
...uhhh, when I said "badly misjudged and misrepresented" I of course did not mean by Thos. Powers, but by the world in general. I think Powers makes a very interesting case in support of Heisenberg.
Heisenberg's War: The Secret History of the German Bomb,
Thomas Powers provides lots of interesting detail, citations, background. From reading various sources, I see Heisenberg as badly misjudged and misrepresented. I think he was basically a good guy in a very bad situation and, integrating all the available material, it feels like he basically did the Right Thing, and played a key role in keeping the German nuclear program working in directions other than building a bomb.
You may not think it was appropriate to post it, but I find it one of the funniest threads ever to appear here. I enjoyed it immensely. I agree that anybody who gave him so-called death threat phone calls or otherwise responded inappropriately is an equal moron (or if not equal then at least an honorable-mention moron). But to say this doesn't belong on slashdot? No, I think is is exactly the kind of nerd-trailer-trash slugfest that slashdot participants relish.
...as opposed to the old Canadian attitude control technology, viz. the excellent products made by Molson, Labatts, etc.
:)
I never objected to the previous generation, but one must salute progress I suppose.
Lots of interesting comments below. As far as option (1) is concerned: Although being in business for yourself is a Good Thing (I've had my own business since 1980), this is not a step to take for tax reasons or billing rate reasons or because of any similar short-term economic calculation. The reason to have your own business is to be an entrepreneur -- to be your own boss, and to accept all the plusses and minuses that go with that. In general, few newcomers to business should take this route; it's better to spend some time in the trenches, and learn firsthand whether a) you hate the bureaucratic bullshit and would rather take responsibility for everything, or b) you are willing to trade some bureaucracy for the security of not having to sell every billable hour, having a regular paycheck, getting health insurance, getting some coverage for periods of weak business, etc. For me, it's a no-brainer, but for most people, this independence is terrifying. And you simply won't know how you'll feel about it until you've been over the ground on both sides. IOW: It doesn't hurt to be a wage slave for a while.
Consider a parallel (actually orthogonal) argument: It's never a good idea to make a business decision or an investment decision purely for tax reasons. Why? Because, though tax issues might affect your tactics, they should not dictate your long-term strategy. Taxes should never be more than a detail. So, in the same way: Going into business for yourself is a huge decision, and it should not be done for a few apparent percentage points in billing rate. Those tradeoffs will all disappear. Instead, there's a much more fundamental choice involved that will affect you for many years, and so this choice should not be taken lightly, either way.
If you don't immediately understand what I'm saying, then you probably should spend a little more time in the trenches getting a sense for how business works. Eventually, you'll see a stark contrast between those who do-for-others and those who do-for-themselves, with advantages on both sides.
Here's another way to view the contrast. Picture an experienced chef who works for a Marriott hotel, and contrast that career with that of a chef who owns a bistro in a small town. They both do similar technical things; but their lives are very different. They each face real risks -- each job can be lost due to bad sales, because of bad employees, each can get sick, etc. -- but the chef/owner accepts a much broader range of challenges and makes a longer personal investment.
I hope these comments are useful. Obviously, there's a certain fungibility in contemporary consulting contracts that makes an independent tech contractor less like a chef-owner. Yet there's no intrinsic reason this contracting/employment situation must persist. After five years as a quasi-independent, you might find that you've either a) falsely convinced yourself that you're really running a small business, without a good enough understanding of the business side to make it on your own for the long term; or you've b) cut yourself out of a legit corporate job, if you're really a PHB at heart; those years as a corporate gofer are important training if you want to play those games. And there's nothing intrinsically wrong with aspiring to be a PHB. We joke about it, but most of us wind up seeking that path.
HTH
To (probably mis-) quote a great Xerox PARC denizen, in the days of Pilot and the Alto: "An operating system consists of the things you forgot to put into your compiler. There shouldn't be one." Sorry, can't track down the source at the moment but I'm sure somebody will supply it.
If you know one accounting app you know them all -- MeNeXT
You may feel this way but many financial types do not, and have very strong preferences between packages. The original post is consistent with my experience. Another factor is training and support of accounting staff. A bunch of clerks familiar with (say) MAS-90 will have a learning hurdle going to any new package. With some packages the transition is sharper than others.
So apart from your argument in support of this "meta-project" simply making no sense in light of the facts, give all us whiners another good reaon why duplication of document submission and maintenance efforts will somehow be "useful and appropriate." -- pongo000
:) There are indeed many bits of guidance and samples, if one takes the time to look...but as so often the case in open source communities, there is quite an incompatible abundance from which to choose. Moreover, many of these seem dated. I thought the idea of a consolidated free doc source outside (i.e. transcending) the LDP was reasonable (obviously avoiding duplication by maintaining current links to primary sources); and if one is doing this, some 'philosophy of documentation' seemed helpful.
Uh..see what Guylhem said (the parent comment) for the good reasons.
Currently I do not plan to consolidate metadocuments or dictate a consistent style. -- Guylhem
I didn't mean to say you should dictate a style, and naturally your concept is to accept whatever is submitted. I'm suggesting that the SUBMITTERS might consider metadocumentation issues, particulary those submitters who are very experienced at documentation and technical writing, and might be able to serve as 'force multipliers' for less experienced writers.
Just to beat this to death: In my ideal vision of this resource, it would have (in addition to lots of technical dox in their open source glory) links to things like grammar principles, copyright law, ACM Computing Reviews, and copies of or references to documentation standards from various contexts. But useful compilations don't happen by accident; they're the result of editorial effort. So I was suggesting that experienced document specialists might be able to upgrade the expectations of the community through example.
Perhaps I'm all wet on this.
Despite some whiny comments below, this meta-project sounds useful and appropriate to me. I'd encourage serious contributors to give some attention to the issue of documentation standards, or (to make it less dictatorial) style guides. There are plenty of FAQ's, for example, that would have been better if the authors had samples and guidance -- so many times I've seen postings saying "I'm working on a new FAQ; here's a draft, any suggestions?" and finding that a simple template would have saved lots of time and effort.
So to you and your contributors: If you're going to support a metadocumentation effort, try to start by consolidating metadocuments, and (perhaps) providing a linkable source of common dox and linx that folks would probably like to reference.
So many posts here seem to think it's weird that a geek would want a hardware room. Of course you want a place for all your extraneous electronic crap. And although one tries to buy heat-efficient gear, sometimes you run across something that's too interesting to pass up -- maybe an old rackmount server, maybe a bunch of video editing gear, maybe a pinball machine. And of course, there will be the various routers, modems, etc. that stack up over time. I have in front of me three different DSL routers, for example, plus two analog dialout routers and various modems, that have accumulated from different ISP packages -- when they give you the router for free, you take it. (If you throw it out, inevitably you wind up needing it.) And of course I have several printers, scanners, a plotter, Raritan switchboxes, midi hardware, hubs, an 8-track recorder, and plenty of old 'servers' that are only servers because I don't use them as desktops.
:) Get it?
The comments about window air conditioners sound right, though modern hardware is environmentally very rugged, so if you are using a glorified closet, it's still probably OK. You might consider a little circulation fan to blow hot air into the rafters (I did this in my phone/cable closet).
Bottom line: you may not truly need a server room, but you need a workshop, and it's often easier from the standpoint of spousal harmony to call it a server room: "Honey, we need this for technical reasons."
...I meant that the problem in question, originally believed to be NP-complete, would turn out NOT to have been NP-complete, and that therefore any conclusions about NP=P in this case were wrong/irrelevant. This result would therefore not have significant theoretical repercussions, but it might have practical implications, if that problem's putative NP-completeness had led people to believe that a linear-time solution to the problem was unlikely. Suddenly a computational barrier is removed. I'd agree it seems more unlikely that we have a systematic misunderstanding about NP-complete problems and that NP=P. (But of course that's the kind of thinking that was rocked in 1931 by Kurt Godel.)
You say make cooler running chips? Good idea.
So let's come up with better technology that lets them run cooler. Hmm... Smaller geometry? Good! Lower voltage? Good! Better logic design? Good! And how about... better cooling technology? Good!
Look back through the history of circuit design and you'll see lots of new innovations that either reduced power or improved thermal transfer. Now I'll admit that little feathers seems kinda wacky, but on the other hand as electronic components start to mimic natural systems (cf. hairs, cilia, feathers) they are probably taking an efficient path.
...that the original classification as NP-complete was wrong. "We thought we had a hard problem, but we were wrong." This would typically mean that the original paper had a bad proof -- not an unknown event. Another possibility is that a hard general case has a much easier special case, and the special case maps usefully to real-world problem sets. Again, not an unknown event (perhaps a good description of fluid dynamics -- impossible theory but useful praxis).
So while you're absolutely right at the mathematical end (and there were too many pseudo-conclusions posted here, no surprise), from a practical standpoint the question is valid: what if it turns out that there is an easy solution to a hard problem, a problem whose hardness we had viewed as a practical limit? (And this isn't a mathematical or CS problem, but a political issue.) I suppose this interesting question was just phrased in "look how smart I am" terms.
And singing, what's up with that? Johnny Vector
I love the idea that, with the right spin, and sufficient charm, you can get particles to sing. I just hope they're not segregated based on color -- otherwise there'd be charges pending, a matter of real gravity. But fortunately there are strong forces in our society that would prevent such waves of abuse (although sometimes we fear that they seem like particularly weak forces). Anyway, I'm sure you get my point, which although not singular at least should come out on top -- or near the horizon at any event.
Consider using a modular connector system like this one. I saved a lot of time and hassle using them and the result looks great. You can also intermix CATV, voice, data etc. however you like.
Use a star from a cable closet (could be a cabinet in your garage or next to the water heater, doesn't matter). Consider running everything to a patch panel. If you don't want to spring for the connectors etc. of a patch panel, at least create a 'virtual patch panel' where every circuit is tagged and accessible. Leave good documentation in the cabinet 'cause you'll forget what goes where.
Follow the Cat5 specs: minimal bends, minimal tension when pulling cable, loose cable ties, no regular tie intervals, cross AC power perpendicularly and rarely. Pick the cabling spec you'll use and stick to it. Avoid doing what I had to do: running voice on the unused two pairs of my 100Mbs data circuits (even though I've had zero problems).
Be sure you have power near your drops and plenty of power and some shelf space in your closet. You'll be terminating your outside internet connectivity here as well (DSL, cable modem, etc.) so be sure to plan space accordingly for routers, console connections, hubs, UPS, etc.
See the remarks elsewhere here about using plenum cable if you're not installing conduit. But conduit would let you use fiber or other more advanced media in the future.
Invest in some cheap test equipment so you can verify continuity, correct pinouts, etc. in all your cables.
HTH -- Spiny
This is very wonderful. I guess I'm not really surprised. Relatively small close-knit communities often have good strategies for dealing with this kind of social problem. (Spam is best viewed as a social problem rather than a commercial or civil rights problem.) I'll bet there's not a lot of spam originating in Orkney either. Again, I'm afraid I don't see this system being replicated in the US. Too bad.
Sorry, I should have said "not possible in the US." Sorry for being US-centric in my thinking. I think the Norwegian system as described sounds ideal; but I'm dubious such a system could get implemented here.
However, I am surprised that foreign harvesters don't use this opt-out list to blanket you with spam. I get tons of spam from offshore sources who wouldn't give a hoot about antispam laws. And of course as long as we can send forged headers etc. it's not always trivial to track down the source of a violator.
If you want freedom, you have to support everyone's freedom... -- dawgfacedboy
Your right to free speech doesn't extend to my living room. I assert that it shouldn't extend to my inbox or my telephone either, unless I've explicitly published my desire to receive such contact.
A working opt-out would be great, of course, as you say. But such a thing is not possible, or at least there's been no proposal yet that doesn't just make the spam problem worse by disseminating my email address to the very folks I want to shut up.
That's why the only route is draconian: ban ALL UCE entirely, until and unless somebody comes up with a safe, non-spamming mechanism for blocking UCE.
Got a reference on this? It sounds urbanlegendish. -- Chris Johnson
:). The date was being supervised by a relative of one of the writers, who represented the production company. He was playing his ass off, as usual. She kept interrupting and saying "You need to stop playing these medleys of other peoples' tunes." The recording engineer was ready to walk off the job in disgust; he explained "These aren't medleys; they're quotes. That's how jazz is played." But my friend was able to limit his quotes to music that was either written by Livingston and Evans, or in the public domain. (He is such an awesome player that he could do this. That's why he gets concert gigs in Australia, South America, and Europe, I guess, and isn't stuck playing at a cheesy gin mill.)
It's not a legend; it's a well-known problem. It generally is only a problem for jazz musicians, because quoting melodies and playing standards are such important parts of the idiom. (There were a lot of famous related issues related to sampling of copyrighted works in rap music, of course, which is one factor that helped make things nasty.) And of course this issue doesn't practically kick in when you're playing at Bob's Tavern; but it gets heavy when you're in a recording studio. It's a key reason that contempo recordings usually have very few standards -- artists are encouraged to use all original material. Also, the problem is most pronounced with standards that have been around long enough that the performance and other rights are in the hands of stodgy publishing companies, estates, or family trusts. In other words, once lawyers get involved the thing gets ugly.
I personally know many people who have been caught in exactly the situation I described, though I can't think of any published accounts. But any working jazz studio guy will be quite familiar with the issue and the problem.
A good friend, for example, was recording a double-CD with the music of Livingston and Evans, a tremendously prolific and successful songwriting team who wrote such tunes as Buttons and Bows, Que Sera Sera, Mona Lisa, and also lots of TV themes such as Bonanza and Mr. Ed
I'll poke around to see if I can find any published descriptions of this problem, but again it's really well-known in the business.
Obviously, the extent of the problem and the enforcement varies. Plenty of recordings are made that are full of lengthy quotes. Generally, the deal is then worked out afterward: the estate or BMI or ASCAP contacts the publishers, and some licensing deal is arranged, depending on how much material was quoted, how famous the performer was, etc.
But here's a parallel situation. Suppose you wrote a mystery novel about a singer, and you wanted to quote a few bars, lines, or stanzas from various songs in each chapter. To do this, you'd need to arrange licenses with whoever holds the rights to each of those songs. You can use the title for free, because that is not protected by the copyright; but even a short phrase is often viewed as an infringement. Very short excerpts have been judged as infringements. I'll bet you couldn't get away with "that voodoo that you do so well" or "that old black magic called love."
See this, this, this, and especially this (which includes this useful statement: "The distinction between "fair use" and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission. The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: "quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported"; you'll note that this list does NOT include the type of reverential quoting that is done in jazz improvisation).
I have seen some better documented discussions and examples of this issue from time to time, but can't remember where I found 'em. I did a bunch of research about this issue not only because of the recording studio pain in the butt (I was trying to provide my Livingston & Evans friend with some legal ammunition to use, but found he was screwed), but also because I was investigating the use of quoted song phrases in a novel (I found I was screwed). The whole thing is a mess. HTH
Similarly, a musician creates jazz, let's say, and has certain rights over that jazz (it belongs to him/her, etc.) and expects to be able to be compensated for expending the effort necessary to create that jazz. -- toughguy
You picked an interesting example. Consider this. The essense of jazz is improvisation, of course. A cornerstone improvisation technique is quoting material from other music. Listen to any solo by a great contemporary or past improviser -- Charlie Parker, Art Tatum, Louis Armstrong, or one of today's young lions. You'll hear snatches of familiar tunes here and there, intermixed with new ideas. Great improvisors nearly always use a mix of both techniques. This type of borrowing is as old as music. "Theme and variations" is a similar cornerstone of mainstream composed music through the centuries.
Under current copyright law, as implemented through the courts, such borrowing of themes is now ILLEGAL without permission of the composer (which is frequently not available, or prohibitively expensive). Therefore, today's jazz musicians are frequently stopped during recording sessions and told to stop quoting material from other sources. "Stop playing it the way you want to and play it the way the lawyers tell you to." The Estate of Cole Porter is particularly notorious for litigation in this regard. (Note that parody is specifically permitted under the law, so although a beautiful apropos quote from "Night and Day" is illegal, a silly parody of the same song is not.)
So this is an example of how unending copyright protection over works written early in the last century has stifled a vital and beautiful art form of today. Does the composer deserve some kind of protection over the composed works? Clearly. But should this extend to what, for me, is an essential type of fair use? I don't think so.
I'm sure others will provide more substantive examples; but this is one that really pisses me off.
Hence the standard physics joke:
Q: What's new?
A: c over lambda
[rim shot]