A press conference is not a peer reviewed journal. A woman walking in from of a camera does not mean a single stem cell helped her. Wait for journal publication, review, and commentary from experts before going around talking about how great this is.
This really is stretching the definition of a photograph. It would be trivial (in the sense the process is already know) to top this by using a camcorder(s) to capture the data, moving the images to 3-d space then projecting the image to 2-D. It would take a bit of CPU time, but it would be just as much of a photo as this is.
I remember seeing a test of what happens to a car during a gas leak and during a hydrogen leak, both at the bottom of the car. The gas powered car went up in flames and was consumed entirely in a matter of minutes. The hydrogen car had a nice torch shooting out the bottom which charred the ground, but left the car intact.
Hydrogen is only going to burn when there is plenty of oxygen around. Of course there is oxygen in the air, but you'll need good dispersion of the hydrogen to get anything other than a torch, it's a question of how much oxygen is close to the hydrogen being consumed.
That does mean though, if there is a leak at a station AND that leak catches fire, the neighbors are going to have a really pretty light show till fire goes out (putting that out will be one hell of a task, it will probably just run out of fuel), but the houses and the station will still be in tact.
There's nothing to worry about as long as the hydrogen isn't premixed with oxygen, which only a moron would do.
'The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.'
This is and example of one thing the Bush administration understands, how to kill discussions. The trick is to say something so outlandish and WRONG that everyone who pays attention will know as wrong and the discussion dies there, while at the the same time, the less observant get the desired impression. The fun part is, if you have a valid argument that is even remotely related (rational or emotional level) against the individual, a lot of people will dismiss you without hearing you thinking 1. you are on the same level as them (that's just how politicians are) or 2. you're a conspiracy nut. (he's just reading too much into this political nonsense).
Really impressive use of the media if you ask me. If you say enough factually wrong soundbites, people will dismis you AND the people who are after you. Those who don't dismis you will think you are amazing.
"If we censor Stern (who is strongly anti-Bush, if that's a coincidence I'll eat my shoe)"
If memory serves correct, Stern was one of the post 9/11/04 converts to Bush (along with the likes Dennis Miller) and did a 180 after the fines started going out.
Stern is right though, his show is no more racey than Ophra's. What we see happening is a case where laws are being selectively enforced. It's okay to talk about very overt sexual subjects in the feel good context of womens liberation, but in the "dirty context" of sex is fun. It's all about framing.
I'm one of those people who think if the music isn't portable, then it's useless. The only exception to this is my old war time jazz vinyl collection and that's cause I'm lazy and haven't encoded it yet. Anyhow, it's one of the fatal flaws in satellite radio along with the fact that the user still get's little input into what's being played.
Personally, I think there's a LOT of money to be made with satellite based on demand music. The playlist/selection revolves during the day, you queue it up or put it on random.
For those of you who don't understand this kind of marketing:
Two kinds of people will talk about it. First kind being those who "played" the game, with the second kind being everyone else going "wtf". In all cases, they will mention the game it advertises. Case in point, Slashdot just advertised Halo 2 for free, while pretending to be talking about something most people don't care about called "ILoveBees".
Best kind of advertising gets people talking about the product. It's easy to go from a conversation about "it's just a (dumb) market campaign" to "Halo 2, that's coming out?!". Same thing with the subservient chicken website.
"but 1 case where we don't know any facts isn't a reason to panic."
After how man cases should people start to get worried? Rights aren't a matter of scale. Even if I think these guys are some mis-guided anarcho-freaks, they every right to be edgy and unpopular. Goverenments have no rights to ask someone who doesn't even own the servers to hand them over, someone like an ISP who doesn't want to bite the hand that feeds it, since that costs money and takes up valuable resources that could be used to make money.
I signed no contract to use google's print service. No registration. They send pages of a book to ME that they have the right to distribute. Sounds like I own that file.
This isn't about permission or even copyright, it's about someone telling you that you can't do something with a work they distributed to you.
I could understand if you didn't own the file they sent to you computer. Sounds like a good way to invent law and rights without any legislation passing.
You no longer own something you distributed to someone else over the internet. You don't, they don't. Don't let them trick you into thinking that they still own that file.
You are adding to the fire by allowing them to change the definition of copyright. Copyright gives holder no right to determine how one USES content, it merely gives them a monolopy right over copying the content for distributation. There are some copyright limitations on use, such as public displaying and the like, but fair use clearly says once you give ME a copy of your work, I can do anything I damn well chose to it.
It already gave me a copy of the work for free, if I chose to burn it, make a hat out of it, or print it out, it's my business.
"I've gotten infected by some browser hijackers and no amount of cleaning and resetting things will delete the %$#@$$#%ers."
What's a browser hijacker? Sometimes I get really concerned about Microsoft users and the things they learn to accept as a normal computing experience.
"Both viewpoints seem to adhere to the idea of separation of church and state."
If you actually believe a person can't make a moral call based of his/her religion when in office, then when can they? Seperation of church and state does NOT mean members of the church can't participate in the state, it merely means the state can't have an official religion. People beleive for religious reasons all sorts of things should be illegal (murder, stealing, assult, etc), yet it does not mean that the law is a bad law.
Learn to argue pro government sponsored abortion from the point of view of the female's health and perhaps you might have a point.
You need to replace "Republican" with "neoconservative". Though, I really do wish there were a better term, since neoconservative are not conservative or liberal.
Myself, I'm a Libertarian Social Democrat. Pro-Life, Pro-States rights with a federal goverenment that doesn't make criminal laws outside it's limited scope of guaranteing a republican form goverenment, Universal Health Care/Education, Pro-Gay right to marry, and for the immediate release of all non-violent drug offenders (along with getting of the laws that put them there). I'm not even Christian (or any random religious label).
If technology workers unionized, they could use collective bargining to get overtime via contract. Funny, one mentions unions to tech people and the techs cringe. My how workers view of themselves has changed.
"a 14 year old has to explain to his parents why they are going to double their debt because he wanted to listen to Eminem for free."
You misspelled "...because he wants OTHERS to listen to Eminem for free". I may take a minority opinion when I say distributing copyrighted files you don't have the copyright for or a license to distribute should be against the law.
I honestly don't understand the reasoning behind these products. These are marketed and designed for use from the point of view people WANT to carry movies and photos around with them. Sucessful portable devices don't get in the way when they are not being AND are so simple to intereact with that one doesn't think about using them.
These look like little more than toys for people who buy things because they are new. Novelty, nothing less, especially at that price, useability, and size.
He said, "I was surprised, too, but guess what? They actually found 8 other guys like me, too. People who have been in the music side of the music biz for at least 10 years. People running folk radio shows, and jazz magazine editors and such. Real MUSIC people. And they told us to make the online music store of our dreams."
It's people like that who get people like you to sign deals. This really reminds me of that write up on how the big labels use ex-members of indie bands to get new bands to sign contracts. "How bad could they be, they are just like us?".
Just imagine a day when MS has a 100% control over online music and they want to "renegotiate" their contract to "better suit" the "consumer". Any label that hands MS the rights to distribute their music is putting themselves in a position where the network effect will force them to have a lower position when doing business with MS.
"I, personally, do not believe that Nazi propaganda deserves this protection."
I think taking a very scary group of humans, who at current time, appear to be "law abiding citizens" and forcing them to go underground is a mistake. Quite frankly, those bastards need a false sense security to say their trite when they want so we know who to keep an eye on.
The funny thing about this, I think MOST americans can't think in fluid ounces (since it's not cups, pints or quarts) and would probabally find mL a more useful measurement.
I just skimmed over Gueorguieva's references (read abstracts of recent citations) and didn't find anything that suggest that after accounting for factors outside of age (income, education, pre-natal), there may be a benifit to having children young. I think the closest to what you are talking about is this.
"No, there was never such a time. I have been running windows since 3.11 and I can't think of any time I reinstalled the same version on the same machine. People got used to doing that, sure, because they had the same crapware junk as we do now but none of the knowledge/tools to clear it off. Those of us who know better, do better."
Fascinating point of view. In my mind, it means you have accepted a fundamental flaw of Windows as normal: installing "junkware" makes the machine unbootable. No application install should ever bind itself to the bootup of an OS.
"We're not talking about a store bought machine. A store bought machine will be patched already (with at least SP1, which blocks a lot of worms, and likely now SP2 which blocks almost all).
At any given time, any store bought machine will NOT be up-to-date with security patches. Remember they sit on the shelf a little while. The fact that viruses appear on Windows fast enough that a machine brought home from the store can get infected in a matter of minutes is quite sad.
Personally I wouldn't run any machine, Windows, Linux, Solaris or even BSD without a seperate firewall."
I would with OS X since no servers are running by default. I would update before turning on those servers, that's about it.
"People ask that a lot. And the answer used to be "because they are needed for the features that the user wants". The answer recently changed to "you know, there are too many open, lets include a free firewall" and still people complain..."
Of course people want Windows Messenger Service, how silly of me to think otherwise. A firewall is a hack to overcome a fundamental Windows problem. If Windows had zero ports listening to incoming traffic, there would be no need for a firewall. If IE wasn't the same interface used to browse local files , browse network files and to browse the web, it could be put in a sandbox with greater ease.
"Oh for the love of all that is good - stop with the FUD! Windows has all of those things, sure plenty of people disable them, but they still exist. I know plenty of people who run linux installs as root. That's their problem not Linux's."
No it doesn't. Lets take a few examples. Lets say for example, your Windows machine goes belly up. You've installed "crapware" and your OS refused to boot. The system OS and the installed applications are now in a garbled mess. You got two choices 1. install from a disk image of a good known state (assuming you had the foresight to do so) and 2. install the OS following by reinstalling the applications. This of course assumes you had the foresight to back up your user files, other wise you need to remove the drive, put it in another computer, back them up first, THEN do one of the above.
Lets look at what happens with Mac OS X. You reinstall the OS. Takes about 30 minutes, most of the time you are outside playing with your dog. You come back, your applications are still installed, your files are still there, every thing works as expected. No application should EVER intergrate itself with the OS. In Windows, it's what you expect.
Lets say you get a virus in Windows. The virus self installs without asking for a password or permission (which should happen even when logged in as a administrator), opens a port without permission, and sends out copies of itself without permission. Windows is so fundamentally flawed that Microsoft found it necissary to include a firewall/virus checker combo with SP2 that looks for worm like activitity and throttles down the network for a specific application (which, btw is quite clever of an idea, I must admit).
It's amazing how complacent people have become. There was a time when Windows essentially REQUIRED the owner to format and reinstall on a regular basis and daily reboots just to keep it from eating your data before you had a chance to fix it. It was considered normal.
Today, you are REQUIRED to go buy a router merely to prevent a store bought machine from getting a virus. Why doesn't anyone ask why Windows has any open ports on first install in the first place?
When you have a core OS that doesn't even have proper privledge seperation, proper System/OS/User files seperation, and no true concept of admin, I guess you get used to "little inconviences".
Slashdot Mirror
A press conference is not a peer reviewed journal. A woman walking in from of a camera does not mean a single stem cell helped her. Wait for journal publication, review, and commentary from experts before going around talking about how great this is.
This really is stretching the definition of a photograph. It would be trivial (in the sense the process is already know) to top this by using a camcorder(s) to capture the data, moving the images to 3-d space then projecting the image to 2-D. It would take a bit of CPU time, but it would be just as much of a photo as this is.
I remember seeing a test of what happens to a car during a gas leak and during a hydrogen leak, both at the bottom of the car. The gas powered car went up in flames and was consumed entirely in a matter of minutes. The hydrogen car had a nice torch shooting out the bottom which charred the ground, but left the car intact.
Hydrogen is only going to burn when there is plenty of oxygen around. Of course there is oxygen in the air, but you'll need good dispersion of the hydrogen to get anything other than a torch, it's a question of how much oxygen is close to the hydrogen being consumed.
That does mean though, if there is a leak at a station AND that leak catches fire, the neighbors are going to have a really pretty light show till fire goes out (putting that out will be one hell of a task, it will probably just run out of fuel), but the houses and the station will still be in tact.
There's nothing to worry about as long as the hydrogen isn't premixed with oxygen, which only a moron would do.
'The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.'
This is and example of one thing the Bush administration understands, how to kill discussions. The trick is to say something so outlandish and WRONG that everyone who pays attention will know as wrong and the discussion dies there, while at the the same time, the less observant get the desired impression. The fun part is, if you have a valid argument that is even remotely related (rational or emotional level) against the individual, a lot of people will dismiss you without hearing you thinking 1. you are on the same level as them (that's just how politicians are) or 2. you're a conspiracy nut. (he's just reading too much into this political nonsense).
Really impressive use of the media if you ask me. If you say enough factually wrong soundbites, people will dismis you AND the people who are after you. Those who don't dismis you will think you are amazing.
"If we censor Stern (who is strongly anti-Bush, if that's a coincidence I'll eat my shoe)"
If memory serves correct, Stern was one of the post 9/11/04 converts to Bush (along with the likes Dennis Miller) and did a 180 after the fines started going out.
Stern is right though, his show is no more racey than Ophra's. What we see happening is a case where laws are being selectively enforced. It's okay to talk about very overt sexual subjects in the feel good context of womens liberation, but in the "dirty context" of sex is fun. It's all about framing.
I'm one of those people who think if the music isn't portable, then it's useless. The only exception to this is my old war time jazz vinyl collection and that's cause I'm lazy and haven't encoded it yet. Anyhow, it's one of the fatal flaws in satellite radio along with the fact that the user still get's little input into what's being played.
Personally, I think there's a LOT of money to be made with satellite based on demand music. The playlist/selection revolves during the day, you queue it up or put it on random.
For those of you who don't understand this kind of marketing:
Two kinds of people will talk about it. First kind being those who "played" the game, with the second kind being everyone else going "wtf". In all cases, they will mention the game it advertises. Case in point, Slashdot just advertised Halo 2 for free, while pretending to be talking about something most people don't care about called "ILoveBees".
Best kind of advertising gets people talking about the product. It's easy to go from a conversation about "it's just a (dumb) market campaign" to "Halo 2, that's coming out?!". Same thing with the subservient chicken website.
Move on, nothing to see here.
"but 1 case where we don't know any facts isn't a reason to panic."
After how man cases should people start to get worried? Rights aren't a matter of scale. Even if I think these guys are some mis-guided anarcho-freaks, they every right to be edgy and unpopular. Goverenments have no rights to ask someone who doesn't even own the servers to hand them over, someone like an ISP who doesn't want to bite the hand that feeds it, since that costs money and takes up valuable resources that could be used to make money.
I signed no contract to use google's print service. No registration. They send pages of a book to ME that they have the right to distribute. Sounds like I own that file.
You're 100% wrong.
This isn't about permission or even copyright, it's about someone telling you that you can't do something with a work they distributed to you.
I could understand if you didn't own the file they sent to you computer. Sounds like a good way to invent law and rights without any legislation passing.
You no longer own something you distributed to someone else over the internet. You don't, they don't. Don't let them trick you into thinking that they still own that file.
You are adding to the fire by allowing them to change the definition of copyright. Copyright gives holder no right to determine how one USES content, it merely gives them a monolopy right over copying the content for distributation. There are some copyright limitations on use, such as public displaying and the like, but fair use clearly says once you give ME a copy of your work, I can do anything I damn well chose to it.
It already gave me a copy of the work for free, if I chose to burn it, make a hat out of it, or print it out, it's my business.
"I've gotten infected by some browser hijackers and no amount of cleaning and resetting things will delete the %$#@$$#%ers."
What's a browser hijacker? Sometimes I get really concerned about Microsoft users and the things they learn to accept as a normal computing experience.
"Both viewpoints seem to adhere to the idea of separation of church and state."
If you actually believe a person can't make a moral call based of his/her religion when in office, then when can they? Seperation of church and state does NOT mean members of the church can't participate in the state, it merely means the state can't have an official religion. People beleive for religious reasons all sorts of things should be illegal (murder, stealing, assult, etc), yet it does not mean that the law is a bad law.
Learn to argue pro government sponsored abortion from the point of view of the female's health and perhaps you might have a point.
You need to replace "Republican" with "neoconservative". Though, I really do wish there were a better term, since neoconservative are not conservative or liberal.
Myself, I'm a Libertarian Social Democrat. Pro-Life, Pro-States rights with a federal goverenment that doesn't make criminal laws outside it's limited scope of guaranteing a republican form goverenment, Universal Health Care/Education, Pro-Gay right to marry, and for the immediate release of all non-violent drug offenders (along with getting of the laws that put them there). I'm not even Christian (or any random religious label).
The world isn't black and white. Wake up
"Shit what do you do all day at work then?"
Duh, Enter Fark PS contests! What else is there to do?!
If technology workers unionized, they could use collective bargining to get overtime via contract. Funny, one mentions unions to tech people and the techs cringe. My how workers view of themselves has changed.
"a 14 year old has to explain to his parents why they are going to double their debt because he wanted to listen to Eminem for free."
You misspelled "...because he wants OTHERS to listen to Eminem for free". I may take a minority opinion when I say distributing copyrighted files you don't have the copyright for or a license to distribute should be against the law.
I honestly don't understand the reasoning behind these products. These are marketed and designed for use from the point of view people WANT to carry movies and photos around with them. Sucessful portable devices don't get in the way when they are not being AND are so simple to intereact with that one doesn't think about using them.
These look like little more than toys for people who buy things because they are new. Novelty, nothing less, especially at that price, useability, and size.
He said, "I was surprised, too, but guess what? They actually found 8 other guys like me, too. People who have been in the music side of the music biz for at least 10 years. People running folk radio shows, and jazz magazine editors and such. Real MUSIC people. And they told us to make the online music store of our dreams."
It's people like that who get people like you to sign deals. This really reminds me of that write up on how the big labels use ex-members of indie bands to get new bands to sign contracts. "How bad could they be, they are just like us?".
Just imagine a day when MS has a 100% control over online music and they want to "renegotiate" their contract to "better suit" the "consumer". Any label that hands MS the rights to distribute their music is putting themselves in a position where the network effect will force them to have a lower position when doing business with MS.
"I, personally, do not believe that Nazi propaganda deserves this protection."
I think taking a very scary group of humans, who at current time, appear to be "law abiding citizens" and forcing them to go underground is a mistake. Quite frankly, those bastards need a false sense security to say their trite when they want so we know who to keep an eye on.
The funny thing about this, I think MOST americans can't think in fluid ounces (since it's not cups, pints or quarts) and would probabally find mL a more useful measurement.
I just skimmed over Gueorguieva's references (read abstracts of recent citations) and didn't find anything that suggest that after accounting for factors outside of age (income, education, pre-natal), there may be a benifit to having children young. I think the closest to what you are talking about is this.
This appears to be the PubMed reference.
"No, there was never such a time. I have been running windows since 3.11 and I can't think of any time I reinstalled the same version on the same machine. People got used to doing that, sure, because they had the same crapware junk as we do now but none of the knowledge/tools to clear it off. Those of us who know better, do better."
Fascinating point of view. In my mind, it means you have accepted a fundamental flaw of Windows as normal: installing "junkware" makes the machine unbootable. No application install should ever bind itself to the bootup of an OS.
"We're not talking about a store bought machine. A store bought machine will be patched already (with at least SP1, which blocks a lot of worms, and likely now SP2 which blocks almost all).
At any given time, any store bought machine will NOT be up-to-date with security patches. Remember they sit on the shelf a little while. The fact that viruses appear on Windows fast enough that a machine brought home from the store can get infected in a matter of minutes is quite sad.
Personally I wouldn't run any machine, Windows, Linux, Solaris or even BSD without a seperate firewall."
I would with OS X since no servers are running by default. I would update before turning on those servers, that's about it.
"People ask that a lot. And the answer used to be "because they are needed for the features that the user wants". The answer recently changed to "you know, there are too many open, lets include a free firewall" and still people complain..."
Of course people want Windows Messenger Service, how silly of me to think otherwise. A firewall is a hack to overcome a fundamental Windows problem. If Windows had zero ports listening to incoming traffic, there would be no need for a firewall. If IE wasn't the same interface used to browse local files , browse network files and to browse the web, it could be put in a sandbox with greater ease.
"Oh for the love of all that is good - stop with the FUD! Windows has all of those things, sure plenty of people disable them, but they still exist. I know plenty of people who run linux installs as root. That's their problem not Linux's."
No it doesn't. Lets take a few examples. Lets say for example, your Windows machine goes belly up. You've installed "crapware" and your OS refused to boot. The system OS and the installed applications are now in a garbled mess. You got two choices 1. install from a disk image of a good known state (assuming you had the foresight to do so) and 2. install the OS following by reinstalling the applications. This of course assumes you had the foresight to back up your user files, other wise you need to remove the drive, put it in another computer, back them up first, THEN do one of the above.
Lets look at what happens with Mac OS X. You reinstall the OS. Takes about 30 minutes, most of the time you are outside playing with your dog. You come back, your applications are still installed, your files are still there, every thing works as expected. No application should EVER intergrate itself with the OS. In Windows, it's what you expect.
Lets say you get a virus in Windows. The virus self installs without asking for a password or permission (which should happen even when logged in as a administrator), opens a port without permission, and sends out copies of itself without permission. Windows is so fundamentally flawed that Microsoft found it necissary to include a firewall/virus checker combo with SP2 that looks for worm like activitity and throttles down the network for a specific application (which, btw is quite clever of an idea, I must admit).
It's amazing how complacent people have become. There was a time when Windows essentially REQUIRED the owner to format and reinstall on a regular basis and daily reboots just to keep it from eating your data before you had a chance to fix it. It was considered normal.
Today, you are REQUIRED to go buy a router merely to prevent a store bought machine from getting a virus. Why doesn't anyone ask why Windows has any open ports on first install in the first place?
When you have a core OS that doesn't even have proper privledge seperation, proper System/OS/User files seperation, and no true concept of admin, I guess you get used to "little inconviences".
There are alternatives.