I think it has to be the flavor. That stuff makes the most incredible sandwiches. Of course it's always been a bit too salty (which I loved as a kid), but they have the less salt variety available now for my more mature tastes.
The article seems pretty clear when it says, "In the past two months, the number of active Internet users declined 1.6 percent and the number of people with Net connections stayed flat..." That reads like 'shrinking' to me.
The article states that a few sectors are still growing, but never says that the overall number of users is still growing. The positive figures quoted were from the previous two years.
If the system described in the article fit with either the comments or the title then this would be a big scary deal. Seeing a kid's grades or lunch menu is not the same as tracking or controlling.
I know that my kids eat junk at school - big surprise. I tell them to eat better, and hope that they'll live long enough to learn why. If they get detention I know, because I have to wake them up early to get there.
On the other hand, there are times when it would be great to see their detailed grade records. They don't remember all the grades they've gotten in their classes. Sometimes they don't even know which work got graded and which didn't. If we could log in and see where they're really at then I could help them learn to apply some strategy to their grade averages. That's a good life lesson.
Now if we could just get software that prevents morons from becoming newswriters...
No, clueball, you're trying (as many do) to compare apples to oranges. Fair use (or whatever statute permits backups, I don't know, nor particularly care.) applies to copyrighted works (data), not media. The media is irrelevant, it's the data that's ON the media that I paid for.
No, clueballess, you missed the point. I don't care anything about the media my dollars are delivered on. If they get stolen they're gone in any form. Nobody would seriously consider making copies of cash, driver's license, or credit cards. In fact we would all expect to get thrown in jail for making copies, but for some reason lots of people don't apply the same standard to art and data.
I think the copyright (and patent) laws are a load of crap. That doesn't give me the right to ignore them.
Archival copies of data are a fine idea. Unfortunately that's not really what a lot of people are using the copies for.
Not really ignoring - there is some stuff there, but it's not Fair Use. Also, it is specifically addressing the devices and media and use thereof. It just keeps them from suing you for having the tools to infringe.
Now what I'm going to have to do is to burn copies of all my CDs that I purchase in the future, so I can take the copies with me and still have the originals at home, so that they can be re-burned in case my CDs are stolen again.
Sounds like a good plan. You should also do the same with all of your cash, credit cards, driver's license, etc. Same logic applies, right?
Or, if they are so valuable to you, maybe you should insure them in case they are lost.
Okay folks, if you're going to spout off about Fair Use at least read the clause. It's not very long, and it's not what you think it is:
107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use38
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include-
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
There it is. If you're teaching, editorializing, reporting, or researching the work you can reproduce limited parts. No, you don't get to make all the copies you want regardless of the media used. Technically, if you want a copy for the house and one for the car then you are supposed to buy two. If you want a CD for the house and a tape for the car then you are supposed to buy one of each. Maybe it sucks, but that's the way they wrote the law.
When I got a set of copyright registration papers several years ago there was also mention that, generally, if the owner does not offer the work in a particular medium then it wasn't considered infringement to make a copy for your own use in that medium. So if you buy a CD and the owner doesn't offer tape, mp3, vinyl, etc. then you are probably OK to make yourself a copy on one of those. DMCA may have changed that view though.
The common thread I keep seeing lately is that the Web economy was built on nutty ideas. Consider that traditional print advertising was sold on the basis of $X for Y inches of ad space. The X was largely dependent on the volume and demographic of the circulation. Broadcast ads were on basically the same system.
Along came the Internet, and a bunch of people (geeks like us) who weren't familiar with the adverstising world started trying to sell ads. Since they didn't know the ropes they accepted crazy deals that were based on the number of responses to the ads. The economics of that scheme are almost equivalent to taking a piece of the net profit on a movie (never do that). This was a terrific deal for the advertisers. Really sucked for the ad space providers.
Now, wonder of wonders, the people who sold ads based on impressions or click-throughs are getting zero bucks while the advertisers get exactly the same value they always got from print or broadcast ads. Every time the banners come up they are putting their brand in front of a consumer although they almost never have to pay.
Next time we geeks decide to create a new business world we should probably hire some marketdroids up front to protect us from ourselves.
Um, yes. And so have you, I, and everyone else. You see, NASA is a government agency and a lot of what they do is public domain. They don't compete with anyone so they have mountains of freely available research (check out their websites). According to their past statements they kind of like it that way.
This really ends up being pretty boring as conspiracies go.
It's a good bet that with legacy support gone we wouldn't see any x86 or most of the existing OS's. The really good stuff that always dies off because of the legacy issues could finally rise to the top.
Sure, we would have to go through many of the same technological steps as before, but we would be doing it with hindsight - which they say is always 20/20.
Well, you go digging for bones. If you find pigeon bones in Cambrian strata, then evolutionary theory is in trouble.:)
Nah, I used to be a geologist. We find wierd stuff in rocks all the time. The typical response would be something like, "Hey, look. A species of pigeon had already evolved by the Cambrian!" It would just cause a funny new branch on the tree.
Or, you check the DNA of humans versus chimpanzees. If they were vastly different (actually, they are something like 97% the same), then again, evolutionary theory would be in trouble.
Not really. Nothing about evolution specifically requires genetic similarity. That connection is often assumed, but consider that most of the evolutionary tree is deduced from fossil record. We don't have genomes for all of those dinosaurs, trilobites, etc.
With Catholicism, it's possible. With Christianity, it's not.
Huh? News flash: Catholics are Christians! What are you smoking?
Catholics have a slightly more progressive view of the bible than Christians
See above, and many non-Catholic Christian denominations are a lot less conservative than the Catholic church.
A very few (but vocal) Christians believe that every word of the bible is true in a literal sense. Most believe that the bible is more of a handbook that doesn't cover every topic in exhaustive detail. After all, it's really not a very big book. There are even some Christians who have noticed that the bible doesn't say God created everything in six CONSECUTIVE days.
I'll start by pointing out that I'm trained in paleontology, and think the theories of evolution are more or less right although Darwin's part is just a fair attempt at a small piece of the whole process. I don't 'believe' in evolution because that's not what you do with scientific theories.
Having said that - this article is a bunch of crap. While the human genome data strongly supports evolution it doesn't prove anything.
This is a lot of new data that is probably a map of human DNA. (Keep in mind that lots of experiments have turned out to be measuring something other than was intended.) A lot more work needs to be done before anyone can make serious claims about what the data says.
The statement that anyone seeing the data would come away with the same conclusion is nonsense as well. It just shows that the author is grasping at a new straw to try and convince people about his favorite theory. A creationist could just as easily conclude that God chose to build the same basic code in all DNA, and claim that it proves creationism.
This is the kind of reporting that pushes real science back rather than advancing it.
At the risk of massive flames:
The so-called freedom you are claiming sounds a lot more like rebellion; which is not the same thing. You have imprisoned yourself in the solitary confinement of your unnamed OS.
Unless your reason for not liking Windows has to do with functional problems then your hatred is misplaced. It seems that you've picked a fight, but lacking any enemy you've resorted to beating yourself.
If you want a non-Windows solution then you'll probably have find a way to come up with one yourself. I understand that's how open-source got started in the first place.
I think autonomy requires a bit more than the ability to travel in a straight line until manipulated by a pair of tweezers! A BB on a sloped surface can do that.
I'm not saying that what they've accomplished isn't tremendous - just that the title being applied is a bit generous. Small, Self-Propelled, Highly Mobile are all true of this device and very cool.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it has to be the flavor. That stuff makes the most incredible sandwiches. Of course it's always been a bit too salty (which I loved as a kid), but they have the less salt variety available now for my more mature tastes.
The article seems pretty clear when it says, "In the past two months, the number of active Internet users declined 1.6 percent and the number of people with Net connections stayed flat..." That reads like 'shrinking' to me.
The article states that a few sectors are still growing, but never says that the overall number of users is still growing. The positive figures quoted were from the previous two years.
...do you REALLY think that noone at /. has ever commented on a story with a different alias?
That's a preposterous idea.
What do you think AC is for?
It's close enough to perpetual that it makes no difference.
Oddly, this sounds just like what they said about trees, coal, oil, storage capacity of the first 20mb harddrives...
We could be spending research time finding a way to get 500 miles to a gallon instead of worrying about showers.
And remind us now. Exactly which of the world's great problems have you been working on lately?
All you people working on infinite lifespan projects might as well hang it up now. Just 3bil years is hardly worth it now is it?
Press ctrl+alt+delete to login. I also click on Start to shut down.
Is is just me, or is there something really really wrong with this (aside from the obvious references to the manufacturer)?
If the system described in the article fit with either the comments or the title then this would be a big scary deal. Seeing a kid's grades or lunch menu is not the same as tracking or controlling.
I know that my kids eat junk at school - big surprise. I tell them to eat better, and hope that they'll live long enough to learn why. If they get detention I know, because I have to wake them up early to get there.
On the other hand, there are times when it would be great to see their detailed grade records. They don't remember all the grades they've gotten in their classes. Sometimes they don't even know which work got graded and which didn't. If we could log in and see where they're really at then I could help them learn to apply some strategy to their grade averages. That's a good life lesson.
Now if we could just get software that prevents morons from becoming newswriters...
They say employees waste an hour a day managing e-mail
/.
And seven hours a day posting on
But, later in the post, "...the new OS runs on top of many operating systems, including linux". So, which is it? Over or Under?
Oh, great. Now we'll have programmers who get laid off at 45 and have to collect unemployment for 75 years because everyone just hires the new kids.
No, clueball, you're trying (as many do) to compare apples to oranges. Fair use (or whatever statute permits backups, I don't know, nor particularly care.) applies to copyrighted works (data), not media. The media is irrelevant, it's the data that's ON the media that I paid for.
No, clueballess, you missed the point. I don't care anything about the media my dollars are delivered on. If they get stolen they're gone in any form. Nobody would seriously consider making copies of cash, driver's license, or credit cards. In fact we would all expect to get thrown in jail for making copies, but for some reason lots of people don't apply the same standard to art and data.
I think the copyright (and patent) laws are a load of crap. That doesn't give me the right to ignore them.
Archival copies of data are a fine idea. Unfortunately that's not really what a lot of people are using the copies for.
Not really ignoring - there is some stuff there, but it's not Fair Use. Also, it is specifically addressing the devices and media and use thereof. It just keeps them from suing you for having the tools to infringe.
Now what I'm going to have to do is to burn copies of all my CDs that I purchase in the future, so I can take the copies with me and still have the originals at home, so that they can be re-burned in case my CDs are stolen again.
Sounds like a good plan. You should also do the same with all of your cash, credit cards, driver's license, etc. Same logic applies, right?
Or, if they are so valuable to you, maybe you should insure them in case they are lost.
Okay folks, if you're going to spout off about Fair Use at least read the clause. It's not very long, and it's not what you think it is:
107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use38
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include-
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
There it is. If you're teaching, editorializing, reporting, or researching the work you can reproduce limited parts. No, you don't get to make all the copies you want regardless of the media used. Technically, if you want a copy for the house and one for the car then you are supposed to buy two. If you want a CD for the house and a tape for the car then you are supposed to buy one of each. Maybe it sucks, but that's the way they wrote the law.
When I got a set of copyright registration papers several years ago there was also mention that, generally, if the owner does not offer the work in a particular medium then it wasn't considered infringement to make a copy for your own use in that medium. So if you buy a CD and the owner doesn't offer tape, mp3, vinyl, etc. then you are probably OK to make yourself a copy on one of those. DMCA may have changed that view though.
You can read the whole thing at http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/.
The common thread I keep seeing lately is that the Web economy was built on nutty ideas. Consider that traditional print advertising was sold on the basis of $X for Y inches of ad space. The X was largely dependent on the volume and demographic of the circulation. Broadcast ads were on basically the same system.
Along came the Internet, and a bunch of people (geeks like us) who weren't familiar with the adverstising world started trying to sell ads. Since they didn't know the ropes they accepted crazy deals that were based on the number of responses to the ads. The economics of that scheme are almost equivalent to taking a piece of the net profit on a movie (never do that). This was a terrific deal for the advertisers. Really sucked for the ad space providers.
Now, wonder of wonders, the people who sold ads based on impressions or click-throughs are getting zero bucks while the advertisers get exactly the same value they always got from print or broadcast ads. Every time the banners come up they are putting their brand in front of a consumer although they almost never have to pay.
Next time we geeks decide to create a new business world we should probably hire some marketdroids up front to protect us from ourselves.
Um, yes. And so have you, I, and everyone else. You see, NASA is a government agency and a lot of what they do is public domain. They don't compete with anyone so they have mountains of freely available research (check out their websites). According to their past statements they kind of like it that way.
This really ends up being pretty boring as conspiracies go.
It's a good bet that with legacy support gone we wouldn't see any x86 or most of the existing OS's. The really good stuff that always dies off because of the legacy issues could finally rise to the top.
Sure, we would have to go through many of the same technological steps as before, but we would be doing it with hindsight - which they say is always 20/20.
Well, you go digging for bones. If you find pigeon bones in Cambrian strata, then evolutionary theory is in trouble. :)
Nah, I used to be a geologist. We find wierd stuff in rocks all the time. The typical response would be something like, "Hey, look. A species of pigeon had already evolved by the Cambrian!" It would just cause a funny new branch on the tree.
Or, you check the DNA of humans versus chimpanzees. If they were vastly different (actually, they are something like 97% the same), then again, evolutionary theory would be in trouble.
Not really. Nothing about evolution specifically requires genetic similarity. That connection is often assumed, but consider that most of the evolutionary tree is deduced from fossil record. We don't have genomes for all of those dinosaurs, trilobites, etc.
And, oddly enough, I never hear about any experiments designed to disprove the theory of evolution. Any clues on how that would look?
With Catholicism, it's possible. With Christianity, it's not.
Huh? News flash: Catholics are Christians! What are you smoking?
Catholics have a slightly more progressive view of the bible than Christians
See above, and many non-Catholic Christian denominations are a lot less conservative than the Catholic church.
A very few (but vocal) Christians believe that every word of the bible is true in a literal sense. Most believe that the bible is more of a handbook that doesn't cover every topic in exhaustive detail. After all, it's really not a very big book. There are even some Christians who have noticed that the bible doesn't say God created everything in six CONSECUTIVE days.
I'll start by pointing out that I'm trained in paleontology, and think the theories of evolution are more or less right although Darwin's part is just a fair attempt at a small piece of the whole process. I don't 'believe' in evolution because that's not what you do with scientific theories.
Having said that - this article is a bunch of crap. While the human genome data strongly supports evolution it doesn't prove anything.
This is a lot of new data that is probably a map of human DNA. (Keep in mind that lots of experiments have turned out to be measuring something other than was intended.) A lot more work needs to be done before anyone can make serious claims about what the data says.
The statement that anyone seeing the data would come away with the same conclusion is nonsense as well. It just shows that the author is grasping at a new straw to try and convince people about his favorite theory. A creationist could just as easily conclude that God chose to build the same basic code in all DNA, and claim that it proves creationism.
This is the kind of reporting that pushes real science back rather than advancing it.
"Give a man a fish he eats for a day, Teach a man to fish he eats for a lifetime,"
1) This only works if he happens to live near water.
2) I like the version I saw the other day: "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach him to fish and he'll sit in a boat all day drinking beer."
At the risk of massive flames:
The so-called freedom you are claiming sounds a lot more like rebellion; which is not the same thing. You have imprisoned yourself in the solitary confinement of your unnamed OS.
Unless your reason for not liking Windows has to do with functional problems then your hatred is misplaced. It seems that you've picked a fight, but lacking any enemy you've resorted to beating yourself.
If you want a non-Windows solution then you'll probably have find a way to come up with one yourself. I understand that's how open-source got started in the first place.
Having seen the vid I'm a bit disappointed.
I think autonomy requires a bit more than the ability to travel in a straight line until manipulated by a pair of tweezers! A BB on a sloped surface can do that.
I'm not saying that what they've accomplished isn't tremendous - just that the title being applied is a bit generous. Small, Self-Propelled, Highly Mobile are all true of this device and very cool.