Uhm...there's no difference between analog and digital media here, except that digital media is way easier to copy.
No, incorrect. There IS a difference between the way digital media and analog media is treated in copyright law - hard to believe, but true. When you buy a book, you have total control over the physical content of that book, and can use the full pantheon of fair use rights with that book. When you buy software, or a DVD, you do not have control over the media in question - see the DMCA. That's what's so shocking about the DMCA and digital IP laws being bandied about - and what's so terrifying about this MS patent.
Check out Jessica Litman's book "Digital Copyright" for a much better, more in-depth discussion about how we (assuming "we == USA") treat copyright law differently when applied to digital and analog media. It's really compelling, and somewhat disturbing. Good luck!
Holy crap - I wasn't thinking about torches until I read this little snippet from the patent:
The unusual property of digital content is that the publisher (or reseller) gives or sells the content to a client, but continues to restrict rights to use the content even after the content is under the sole physical control of the client.
...and later still...
The user that possesses the digital bits often does not have full rights to their use; instead, the provider retains at least some of the rights.
This "peculiar arrangement" (verbatim from the patent app) is everything that is wrong with the application of copyright law to digital media as opposed to analog media. Microsoft got it exactly right - it's a damn peculiar arrangement. Unfortunately for us, instead of realizing the crappiness of this situation, they've integrated the peculiar arrrangement part and parcel into a computer operating system, to the maximization of profit both for Microsoft and for "digital content providers." Here we have something as fundamental as a computer operating system designed around an idea that destroys rights we've otherwise enjoyed for literally hundreds of years - for nothing more than to line the pockets of people who are already famously rich. Time for torches, indeed.
You know, I agree with this person, and I'm not trying to flame him/her, but there's a statement in there that just kind of irks me:
Sure, you could pop in a tape or CD, but that can be a pain.
Why is it that paying $10/month for radio, advertising and all, is less of a pain than "move hand to CD rack, pick up CD, put CD in slot, push play?" I find it amazing that the Western World will go to great lengths to avoid any inconvenience, especially tortuous ones like inserting CDs into slots.:) Besides, with the "granularity" everybody's talking about, what you'll end up with is a radio that plays fourteen different kinds of bluegrass on fourteen different stations - continually hitting the "next station" button to find your favorite flavor has to be at least as much work as putting in a CD, right?:)
Heh...been out of town awhile. Caught up on the thread, and decided to catch up on a few issues. First off, I will apologize for the excessive flamage - I was posting in Having A Bad Day mode, and after reading n arguments where posters took the lack of evidence for CO2 warming as evidence of a lack of warming, I was somewhat fussy. Therefore, I apologize for treating you like a moron.
With that said, I will address the issues you bring up. First off, the data page. I felt you would be web-savvy enough to click on the "climate data" link and look at the "archived data" link contained therein. But you didn't look, so here's the full URL:
Notice that this page does not provide hints as to what causes warming, it only shows there exists warming. This is in context to your original statement:
The earth is warmer now than it was 100 years ago. --original poster
You can say this all you want, but until I see all the data to draw my own conclusion, it's just words. -- you
If it's hard evidence supporting x causes global warming, then join the club.:) But be warned - the physics behind greenhouse effects are pretty solid, and while current research might not be absolutely convincing, it's pretty damn solid. That being said, I personally am not convinced either way - there's too much natural climate change to look at as well - but I am not willing to let my political beliefs make my arguments for me, as you are so willing to do (why do you try to sound like a reasonable critic in one paragraph, and then spout "LEFTIST" ad-hominems in the next?:)
Next:
Please indicate where I stated that the global mean temperature has not risen in the last 150 years.
See above quote. That's the statement that set me off (and BTW, got me into "post flame" mode:)
I have seen no research come from you yet, so perhaps you'd like to cut down on the "hot air."
Well, gimme a break, I just started this gig.:) But, unlike most of the flamers on this topic, I have a vested interest in getting this topic studied correctly. What really pissed me off the most, I'll say, is the willingness of people to either blindly condemn (or blindly agree) with political and economic positions (or skepticism, however you define it) on what is fundamentally a scientific issue. We need those opinions, of course, but when they start to influence the research being done, we destroy our ability to objectively figure out what the hell is happening, and that's a Bad Thing in my book. When the Rush-Dittos and the Greenies start defining what the whole of humanity gets to research, and what is verboten, then we're heading for trouble.
Finally:
Do you really think that treating me like a moron is going to help me believe in your point of view?
*sigh* No, I don't. But neither will treating you like an intelligent, informed citizen, I think. Furthermore, I don't care if you believe in my "point of view" or not - you, as a free citizen of a free country (Mr. Ashcroft's railings notwithstanding) are free to believe whatever the hell you choose to believe. Fortunately, you seem to care about facts. I look for that in people, and if it appears that they want to believe in hard evidence, but occasionally take a detour in political errantry, I flame 'em. Sometimes too hard.:) I just wanted to point out that using endless "ad whatever" statements and political rhetoric are as unconvincing as the "leftist" hot air you so evidently despise. I really try to be objective in my line of work - I will, BTW, check out the site you mentioned - and from one who professes the same desire for Truth, I expect nothing less.
And if you feel the need to reply, or if you feel like I still haven't addressed issues you bring up, go ahead and reply (/. or email, your preference.) Warning: I deliberately ignored some of your points (like the "ad vericundum" argument) because frankly, they're offtopic. But I will reply to intelligent debate sans political windage. Call me a "leftist" and you'll be ignored. Looking for anti-partisan, evidence-based debate, and I'm game. The ball is in your court now - I await your reply.
But do you really mean to suggest that the temperature on Earth somehow affects solar output?!
What the hell are you talking about? My post was in reply to a guy who was attempting to use a flawed, "correlation == cause" argument. All I said was that his logic was specious. To support my argument, I noted other systems that are correlated with global temperature increase - none of which have been definitively shown to be the "cause" of global warming. But nowhere did I mention solar output - the original poster did that, BTW - and I certainly didn't say anything as boneheaded as you implied. I'd wonder if you meant to reply to the post I was replying to, except you quoted me, so I can only assume you are very, very confused. Try reading the posts next time.
As somebody might have mentioned a few thousand times, correlation does not equal causation. There's also a great correlation between CO2 concentrations, thermohaline current variations, and a metric buttload of other parameters with global temperature increase. The question is - which one is causal, which ones are reactionary?
Vast majority of whom? Experts? You are trying to roll an ad numeram argument into your ad verecundiam argument, while ignoring the simple fact that destroys the validity of what you claim.
Ooh, look, somebody took a logic class, and is attempting to snowball intelligent discussion with a show of latin verbosity! I'm impressed!
(sarcasm mode off) Actually, the "vast majority" he was speaking of was meteorologists. Read the post. And yes, he's right. Atmospheric scientists do agree that the planet has warmed (and I am one and work with more.) There is data. STFW. Start with the NCDC website http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov The disagreement you hear about is about the cause of the warming, like he said. If you know of any sources of information that suggest otherwise, that suggest that the global mean temperature has not risen in the last 150 years, then post it. Try using research to support your arguments, not hot air. Political ranting crap like the stuff you spout fails all tests of logic, regardless of how "educated" you think you are.
You can say this all you want, but until I see all the data to draw my own conclusion, it's just words.
Fine. Go look at data. Familiarize yourself with the ClueStick of Fact. And remember, when you post rants on/. about science, you had damn well better know the facts, because scientists are sick and tired of ignorant politically motivated cretins (of of all flavors) misinterpreting data and twisting research to fit their own pathetic agendas. Re-read the post, look at some data, and get a life.
Here's what gets me - how is playing five hours of any worse than watching five hours of television a day? Around my household, I game, and my roommate watches TV. We'll both spend an hour or so per day doing our respective activities, and on a "bad" day, maybe we'll hit that five hour mark (say, an X-Files marathon on FX or really getting into Mechwarrior: Vengeance.)
What I'm saying is this: it seems like gaming is more a replacement for television around here - but instead of merely watching something happen on TV, you're _making_ something happen in the game. There's people out there that easily watch five hours of TV per day, and nobody's calling them "addicts" (okay, I would, but...) Both activities are somewhat anti-social, and as with all things, moderation is king, but I really don't see that gaming is worse than television, an "addiction" that is probably more of a problem to the populace in general. I mean, what's worse, renting "Tomb Raider" or playing Tomb Raider?:)
Think about it... either way, there will be some sort of grand scale authentication scheme arching across the net.
This point can't be made strongly enough. Sure, the net will still be accessible to all - think anybody's gonna write a.NET/Passport or "Liberty" Alliance frontend for linux? - but how long until the useful things become inaccessible to the user who refuses to sell their soul to the company store? And can online organizations that don't toe the line and require "authorization" continue to exist in the onslaught of corporate sites that do?
We thought the regulation of the airwaves by the government was bad - now we give "authorization" power to the people who stand to profit most from our submission. Why are we so ready to piss away our freedom?
...or Freud, either. *duck* C'mon, if you're gonna flame/. for consisting of "troglodytes", at least make sure you're immune from the dreading "spelling flame.":)
My big question right now is, why do you feel its a "right" to be able to screw Apple when they made a mistake.
I didn't say that, and I don't think that. To recap - my concern is the blanket use of the DMCA to smack down any kind of action that would be bad for an organization, especially considering the fact that the definition of "copy control mechanism" is so incredibly vague. If Apple wants to recover damages it caused by being stupid, then it should find better ways to do it than using what I consider to be a bad law that seriously undermines the intent of what copyright law was intended to be by the Framers of the Constitution. That's all I'm saying.
Secondly, reading a book is not 'unauthorized copying'.. the INTENT of the book is to be read.
Precisely my point...reading a book is not copying at all. But watching a DVD or using computer software is considered copying (IIRC, there's some heuristic hand-waving arguments about digital media requiring RAM copies to be made to view, therefore any use of digital media requires "copying") What I'm saying is this - how can we justify use of one form of media and condemn similar use of other media based on the method by which that media is ingested?
I think a valid question here is "what exactly is a copy control mechanism?" The current definition seems to be something like "anything that prevents unauthorized use of blank" which of course, necessitates the definition that merely using said blank is in its origin making a copy. Otherwise it's access control, not copy control, right?
A logical extension of the above definition would apply to analog books (you know, ink on paper, that kind of thing:) If mere use constitutes "copying", then simply reading a book could be viewed as unauthorized copying. This of course is patent nonsense, and explains why the DMCA is the Digital Millenium Crap Act, and not applicable to other media. The question I see is, why the hell is digital use any different from analog use? I can see where Apple doesn't want to give away its operating systems for free, but why use specious copyright laws to cover for their screw-ups? Aren't there better ways to CYA?:)
Right. Tell it someone that hasn't watched the slashdot daytime soap opera unfold countless hundreds of times over and over again. Fucking trash like you are the reason this site started sucking in the first place. K5 died because some fuckwad in a worthless hosting facility couldn't pull his peter out of his hand long enough to remember to inform the K5 crew that they were moving the servers.
Damn, you're right. I forgot that being funny, or having the same opinion as someone else makes me "fucking trash." Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. And forgive me for having a higher slashdot UID than you, your eminence. And maybe you could try looking up "sarcasm" in the dictionary some time, you clueless wonk - if you'd tried that with the original post, you'd have saved yourself a lot of effort pounding on the keys.:) But I'll let your profane, troll-like actions speak for themselves - and they do, you know. Personally, I could care about karma. Look at my posts if you don't believe me - a sea of regular old "score 1" posts with nothing but my opinion and willingness to participate in an active 'net community contained therein. I don't bitch about moderators, 'cause I could care less. You on the other hand...well, like I said, actions speak louder than words, although it's hard to believe from a blowhard like you. TTFN, lamer.
Of course, since you're a karma whoring piece of shit just out for a quick "+5 funny" rating I suppose I shouldn't have gotten so worked up. But heh, what else am I gonna do this afternoon?
Yeah, I'm just a karma-whore...except for the first part of my post, where I expressed my very real dismay at the commercialization and subsequent destruction of everything that is bias-free and useful on the Web. I tack on one funny bit to keep my mood light, and some lamer kuro5hin monkey with an axe to grind with/. moderators decides I'm a "piece of shit."
You know what - whatever. Maybe the reason k5 died is because of clueless wonks like you poisoned it with your inane, OT drivel. Don't like the moderation scheme? Go play in traffic, kid, it's not your site. Leave us "karma whores" with opinions to our "bullshit"/. and we'll be happy to see you go. Don't let the door smack you on the ass on the way out.:)
People who specialize in pushing sites into the top rankings--a technique known as search engine optimization--say the company's success has made Google a new frontier to conquer. And they assert that its system, like any other, can be outsmarted.
This is particularly repugnant, especially given the goals set in the article (Google wants to make the search engine process more of a democracy, etc.) Is anybody else tired of soulless marketdroids essentially destroying all the good things that are the Net(C)(TM)(R)?
On the bright side, maybe there's room to add Slashdot-styled moderation and meta-moderation to Google rankings - imagine a "+1 Funny" rank for the Onion or a "-1, Offtopic" page rank for every time you go surfing for something honest and end up at Yet Another pr0n Site.:)
*ouch* Problems taking criticism? No problems with the formatting on my end...maybe you just suck.
FYI - MY reaction, had I not seen the AC's post, would likely be to chuckle to myself, say "silly RTFA geek", and move on, and NOT to post a triumphant "no YOU are wrong and I am RIGHT" comment, thereby limiting my exposure to "slashcode fuckups" which cause me to "look like a pompous ass." Just so you know.:)
Heh...and all those Tomb Raider addicts would get to see what it really takes to jump twice your body height while carrying a shotgun, two Uzis, a priceless and magic gold artifact, and two cantaloupes in your shirt. Does the word "oof" come to mind?:)
You're partly right...I suppose you can get ozone from a water reaction - except the highest concentrations of ozone occur in the mid-to-lower stratosphere, where there is very, very little water. The natural creation and destruction of ozone is a result of photodissociation of plain ol' diatomic oxygen - IIRC, the free-radical oxygen that occurs likes to bond preferentially with O2 molecules, thereby creating ozone. UV energy plays a role in this creation process (but I forgot the details:) Of course, UV radiation (of another wavelength) photodissociates ozone into O2 and free-radical O, leading to a fortuitous balance of ozone creation and dissociation. This changes, however, when you add a chemical reagent that acts as a catalyst to dissociate ozone.
Your theory about the ozone hole occurring over cold places is partially correct as well, except for the role that CFCs play in additional ozone depletion. With less sunlight (or no sunlight, as you'd see over a polar region in winter) you have less ozone creation. You also have less photodissociation of ozone, so the balance remains steady - until you introduce an aerosol agent that chemically dissociates ozone, such as a CFC. CFCs in polar stratospheric clouds act as catalysts in a heterogenous chemical reaction that also dissociates ozone - so you have one source, and two sinks. Hence, net ozone loss, and the ozone hole.
So you see, pollution (of CFCs at least) does deplete ozone - the reason we don't see ozone depletion over highly polluted areas (like LA) is because most of those pollutants are scavenged out by cloud systems before reaching the mid-stratosphere. Bad news for acid-rain, good news for local ozone. However, CFCs, which are notably tough, can survive the trip to the stratosphere, and will be advected a long ways away by the jet stream. What happens then? In the northern hemisphere, the jet stream meanders about pretty frequently - those CFCs stay pretty mixed and tend not to get too concentrated, and consequently do little damage to ozone. In the southern hemisphere, however, the polar front is defined by the Roaring 40's, and there exists a tight polar vortex, much tighter than in the northern hemisphere. Consequently, CFCs caught in the southern polar vortex are unable to escape, and will continue to concentrate and do more and more damage to the ozone population in the southern polar stratosphere.
That's the idea behind restricting CFC use - sure, CFCs will live in the atmosphere for 60 years or more, but by keeping further CFCs out of the atmosphere, we prevent further accumulation in the polar vortex, and allow natural mixing to reduce CFC content, however slowly that process occurs.
So if slack is going to stay fairly used, I'd say it has to have better hardware detection at least.
Why? So users with bleeding-edge/unsupported/just plain wonky hardware get to look at "new hardware detected - please supply driver module" messages halfway through boot? Isn't that what Windows is for?:)
I've been running Slackware since version 3.4, and one of the many blessings is that if I don't desire to waste system resources on supporting a device that doesn't work yet (say, a hardware DVD decoder or a seriously wonky TV card) I can just _ignore_ the damn thing until it's fixed, or a driver source is available. Or install a moderate solution (say, the "nv" driver for my TNT card) until a better solution comes along (NVidia's 3D driver "nvidia" - bless them, bless them, bless them for that:)
Some of us like setting up our hardware the way we want it to be set up. And that's why Slackware isn't "fading out" - as long as a few people still like having control over their systems, it will always be around. By all means, be happy with your auto-installing software - I'm happy with my "roll-your-own" system. Isn't that freedom what the whole Linux/OSS movement is about?
As somebody previously mentioned, flights above
85,000 ft. tend to be somewhat oxygen-starved...
not the best for "conventionally-fueled" engines
unless you bring your own oxygen supply for your
conventional fuel.
Some quick calculations...85,000 feet works out
to be about 30 mb, or roughly 3% of surface pressure. Given the well-mixed status of atmospheric oxygen (although this high above the ozone layer, this may not be the case) you may reasonably assume that at 85,000 feet, you have only a fraction of the oxygen you would at normal flight levels (say three to ten percent)- too little to fire up your Continentals or your Pratt & Whitneys.:^)
Slashdot Mirror
Uhm...there's no difference between analog and digital media here, except that digital media is way easier to copy.
No, incorrect. There IS a difference between the way digital media and analog media is treated in copyright law - hard to believe, but true. When you buy a book, you have total control over the physical content of that book, and can use the full pantheon of fair use rights with that book. When you buy software, or a DVD, you do not have control over the media in question - see the DMCA. That's what's so shocking about the DMCA and digital IP laws being bandied about - and what's so terrifying about this MS patent.
Check out Jessica Litman's book "Digital Copyright" for a much better, more in-depth discussion about how we (assuming "we == USA") treat copyright law differently when applied to digital and analog media. It's really compelling, and somewhat disturbing. Good luck!
Holy crap - I wasn't thinking about torches until I read this little snippet from the patent:
The unusual property of digital content is that the publisher (or reseller) gives or sells the content to a client, but continues to restrict rights to use the content even after the content is under the sole physical control of the client.
...and later still...
The user that possesses the digital bits often does not have full rights to their use; instead, the provider retains at least some of the rights.
This "peculiar arrangement" (verbatim from the patent app) is everything that is wrong with the application of copyright law to digital media as opposed to analog media. Microsoft got it exactly right - it's a damn peculiar arrangement. Unfortunately for us, instead of realizing the crappiness of this situation, they've integrated the peculiar arrrangement part and parcel into a computer operating system, to the maximization of profit both for Microsoft and for "digital content providers." Here we have something as fundamental as a computer operating system designed around an idea that destroys rights we've otherwise enjoyed for literally hundreds of years - for nothing more than to line the pockets of people who are already famously rich. Time for torches, indeed.
You know, I agree with this person, and I'm not trying to flame him/her, but there's a statement in there that just kind of irks me:
:) Besides, with the "granularity" everybody's talking about, what you'll end up with is a radio that plays fourteen different kinds of bluegrass on fourteen different stations - continually hitting the "next station" button to find your favorite flavor has to be at least as much work as putting in a CD, right? :)
Sure, you could pop in a tape or CD, but that can be a pain.
Why is it that paying $10/month for radio, advertising and all, is less of a pain than "move hand to CD rack, pick up CD, put CD in slot, push play?" I find it amazing that the Western World will go to great lengths to avoid any inconvenience, especially tortuous ones like inserting CDs into slots.
Heh...been out of town awhile. Caught up on the thread, and decided to catch up on a few issues. First off, I will apologize for the excessive flamage - I was posting in Having A Bad Day mode, and after reading n arguments where posters took the lack of evidence for CO2 warming as evidence of a lack of warming, I was somewhat fussy. Therefore, I apologize for treating you like a moron.
/ cag3.html
:) But be warned - the physics behind greenhouse effects are pretty solid, and while current research might not be absolutely convincing, it's pretty damn solid. That being said, I personally am not convinced either way - there's too much natural climate change to look at as well - but I am not willing to let my political beliefs make my arguments for me, as you are so willing to do (why do you try to sound like a reasonable critic in one paragraph, and then spout "LEFTIST" ad-hominems in the next? :)
:)
:) But, unlike most of the flamers on this topic, I have a vested interest in getting this topic studied correctly. What really pissed me off the most, I'll say, is the willingness of people to either blindly condemn (or blindly agree) with political and economic positions (or skepticism, however you define it) on what is fundamentally a scientific issue. We need those opinions, of course, but when they start to influence the research being done, we destroy our ability to objectively figure out what the hell is happening, and that's a Bad Thing in my book. When the Rush-Dittos and the Greenies start defining what the whole of humanity gets to research, and what is verboten, then we're heading for trouble.
:) I just wanted to point out that using endless "ad whatever" statements and political rhetoric are as unconvincing as the "leftist" hot air you so evidently despise. I really try to be objective in my line of work - I will, BTW, check out the site you mentioned - and from one who professes the same desire for Truth, I expect nothing less.
With that said, I will address the issues you bring up. First off, the data page. I felt you would be web-savvy enough to click on the "climate data" link and look at the "archived data" link contained therein. But you didn't look, so here's the full URL:
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3
Starts with the US, links to elsewhere.
Notice that this page does not provide hints as to what causes warming, it only shows there exists warming. This is in context to your original statement:
The earth is warmer now than it was 100 years ago. --original poster
You can say this all you want, but until I see all the data to draw my own conclusion, it's just words. -- you
If it's hard evidence supporting x causes global warming, then join the club.
Next:
Please indicate where I stated that the global mean temperature has not risen in the last 150 years.
See above quote. That's the statement that set me off (and BTW, got me into "post flame" mode
I have seen no research come from you yet, so perhaps you'd like to cut down on the "hot air."
Well, gimme a break, I just started this gig.
Finally:
Do you really think that treating me like a moron is going to help me believe in your point of view?
*sigh* No, I don't. But neither will treating you like an intelligent, informed citizen, I think. Furthermore, I don't care if you believe in my "point of view" or not - you, as a free citizen of a free country (Mr. Ashcroft's railings notwithstanding) are free to believe whatever the hell you choose to believe. Fortunately, you seem to care about facts. I look for that in people, and if it appears that they want to believe in hard evidence, but occasionally take a detour in political errantry, I flame 'em. Sometimes too hard.
And if you feel the need to reply, or if you feel like I still haven't addressed issues you bring up, go ahead and reply (/. or email, your preference.) Warning: I deliberately ignored some of your points (like the "ad vericundum" argument) because frankly, they're offtopic. But I will reply to intelligent debate sans political windage. Call me a "leftist" and you'll be ignored. Looking for anti-partisan, evidence-based debate, and I'm game. The ball is in your court now - I await your reply.
cheers,
But do you really mean to suggest that the temperature on Earth somehow affects solar output?!
What the hell are you talking about? My post was in reply to a guy who was attempting to use a flawed, "correlation == cause" argument. All I said was that his logic was specious. To support my argument, I noted other systems that are correlated with global temperature increase - none of which have been definitively shown to be the "cause" of global warming. But nowhere did I mention solar output - the original poster did that, BTW - and I certainly didn't say anything as boneheaded as you implied. I'd wonder if you meant to reply to the post I was replying to, except you quoted me, so I can only assume you are very, very confused. Try reading the posts next time.
As somebody might have mentioned a few thousand times, correlation does not equal causation. There's also a great correlation between CO2 concentrations, thermohaline current variations, and a metric buttload of other parameters with global temperature increase. The question is - which one is causal, which ones are reactionary?
Vast majority of whom? Experts? You are trying to roll an ad numeram argument into your ad verecundiam argument, while ignoring the simple fact that destroys the validity of what you claim.
/. about science, you had damn well better know the facts, because scientists are sick and tired of ignorant politically motivated cretins (of of all flavors) misinterpreting data and twisting research to fit their own pathetic agendas. Re-read the post, look at some data, and get a life.
Ooh, look, somebody took a logic class, and is attempting to snowball intelligent discussion with a show of latin verbosity! I'm impressed!
(sarcasm mode off) Actually, the "vast majority" he was speaking of was meteorologists. Read the post. And yes, he's right. Atmospheric scientists do agree that the planet has warmed (and I am one and work with more.) There is data. STFW. Start with the NCDC website http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov The disagreement you hear about is about the cause of the warming, like he said. If you know of any sources of information that suggest otherwise, that suggest that the global mean temperature has not risen in the last 150 years, then post it. Try using research to support your arguments, not hot air. Political ranting crap like the stuff you spout fails all tests of logic, regardless of how "educated" you think you are.
You can say this all you want, but until I see all the data to draw my own conclusion, it's just words.
Fine. Go look at data. Familiarize yourself with the ClueStick of Fact. And remember, when you post rants on
This site has become a bunch of first-post, bash-everything, small-minded jerkoffs.
/bin/tcsh myself. :D *duck*
"bash" everything? Nonsense, my good man...I use
Here's what gets me - how is playing five hours of any worse than watching five hours of television a day? Around my household, I game, and my roommate watches TV. We'll both spend an hour or so per day doing our respective activities, and on a "bad" day, maybe we'll hit that five hour mark (say, an X-Files marathon on FX or really getting into Mechwarrior: Vengeance.)
:)
What I'm saying is this: it seems like gaming is more a replacement for television around here - but instead of merely watching something happen on TV, you're _making_ something happen in the game. There's people out there that easily watch five hours of TV per day, and nobody's calling them "addicts" (okay, I would, but...) Both activities are somewhat anti-social, and as with all things, moderation is king, but I really don't see that gaming is worse than television, an "addiction" that is probably more of a problem to the populace in general. I mean, what's worse, renting "Tomb Raider" or playing Tomb Raider?
Think about it ... either way, there will be some sort of grand scale authentication scheme arching across the net.
.NET/Passport or "Liberty" Alliance frontend for linux? - but how long until the useful things become inaccessible to the user who refuses to sell their soul to the company store? And can online organizations that don't toe the line and require "authorization" continue to exist in the onslaught of corporate sites that do?
This point can't be made strongly enough. Sure, the net will still be accessible to all - think anybody's gonna write a
We thought the regulation of the airwaves by the government was bad - now we give "authorization" power to the people who stand to profit most from our submission. Why are we so ready to piss away our freedom?
Hey, if you don't like being bitch-slapped, howzabout posting intelligently, and stop crapflooding, eh?
Mod parent down...permanently.
...or Freud, either. *duck* C'mon, if you're gonna flame
My big question right now is, why do you feel its a "right" to be able to screw Apple when they made a mistake.
I didn't say that, and I don't think that. To recap - my concern is the blanket use of the DMCA to smack down any kind of action that would be bad for an organization, especially considering the fact that the definition of "copy control mechanism" is so incredibly vague. If Apple wants to recover damages it caused by being stupid, then it should find better ways to do it than using what I consider to be a bad law that seriously undermines the intent of what copyright law was intended to be by the Framers of the Constitution. That's all I'm saying.
Secondly, reading a book is not 'unauthorized copying'.. the INTENT of the book is to be read.
Precisely my point...reading a book is not copying at all. But watching a DVD or using computer software is considered copying (IIRC, there's some heuristic hand-waving arguments about digital media requiring RAM copies to be made to view, therefore any use of digital media requires "copying") What I'm saying is this - how can we justify use of one form of media and condemn similar use of other media based on the method by which that media is ingested?
I think a valid question here is "what exactly is a copy control mechanism?" The current definition seems to be something like "anything that prevents unauthorized use of blank" which of course, necessitates the definition that merely using said blank is in its origin making a copy. Otherwise it's access control, not copy control, right?
:) If mere use constitutes "copying", then simply reading a book could be viewed as unauthorized copying. This of course is patent nonsense, and explains why the DMCA is the Digital Millenium Crap Act, and not applicable to other media. The question I see is, why the hell is digital use any different from analog use? I can see where Apple doesn't want to give away its operating systems for free, but why use specious copyright laws to cover for their screw-ups? Aren't there better ways to CYA? :)
A logical extension of the above definition would apply to analog books (you know, ink on paper, that kind of thing
K5 died because, well, one of CPUs like fell out of the socket or somethen when some morons were moving the server.
:)
:)
Yeah, you're right, I forgot that. I just needed ammo for my silly flame-war. D'oh. My bad.
/me hears "Repeat after me: I will not feed trolls"
apologies all around
Right. Tell it someone that hasn't watched the slashdot daytime soap opera unfold countless hundreds of times over and over again. Fucking trash like you are the reason this site started sucking in the first place. K5 died because some fuckwad in a worthless hosting facility couldn't pull his peter out of his hand long enough to remember to inform the K5 crew that they were moving the servers.
:) But I'll let your profane, troll-like actions speak for themselves - and they do, you know. Personally, I could care about karma. Look at my posts if you don't believe me - a sea of regular old "score 1" posts with nothing but my opinion and willingness to participate in an active 'net community contained therein. I don't bitch about moderators, 'cause I could care less. You on the other hand...well, like I said, actions speak louder than words, although it's hard to believe from a blowhard like you. TTFN, lamer.
Damn, you're right. I forgot that being funny, or having the same opinion as someone else makes me "fucking trash." Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. And forgive me for having a higher slashdot UID than you, your eminence. And maybe you could try looking up "sarcasm" in the dictionary some time, you clueless wonk - if you'd tried that with the original post, you'd have saved yourself a lot of effort pounding on the keys.
Of course, since you're a karma whoring piece of shit just out for a quick "+5 funny" rating I suppose I shouldn't have gotten so worked up. But heh, what else am I gonna do this afternoon?
/. moderators decides I'm a "piece of shit."
/. and we'll be happy to see you go. Don't let the door smack you on the ass on the way out. :)
Yeah, I'm just a karma-whore...except for the first part of my post, where I expressed my very real dismay at the commercialization and subsequent destruction of everything that is bias-free and useful on the Web. I tack on one funny bit to keep my mood light, and some lamer kuro5hin monkey with an axe to grind with
You know what - whatever. Maybe the reason k5 died is because of clueless wonks like you poisoned it with your inane, OT drivel. Don't like the moderation scheme? Go play in traffic, kid, it's not your site. Leave us "karma whores" with opinions to our "bullshit"
People who specialize in pushing sites into the top rankings--a technique known as search engine optimization--say the company's success has made Google a new frontier to conquer. And they assert that its system, like any other, can be outsmarted.
:)
This is particularly repugnant, especially given the goals set in the article (Google wants to make the search engine process more of a democracy, etc.) Is anybody else tired of soulless marketdroids essentially destroying all the good things that are the Net(C)(TM)(R)?
On the bright side, maybe there's room to add Slashdot-styled moderation and meta-moderation to Google rankings - imagine a "+1 Funny" rank for the Onion or a "-1, Offtopic" page rank for every time you go surfing for something honest and end up at Yet Another pr0n Site.
(3) Go fuck yourself, "Watson."
:)
*ouch* Problems taking criticism? No problems with the formatting on my end...maybe you just suck.
FYI - MY reaction, had I not seen the AC's post, would likely be to chuckle to myself, say "silly RTFA geek", and move on, and NOT to post a triumphant "no YOU are wrong and I am RIGHT" comment, thereby limiting my exposure to "slashcode fuckups" which cause me to "look like a pompous ass." Just so you know.
No shit, Sherlock, that's exactly what he just said:
:)
The code must not rely on the onboard DSP-chip that some modems hade, rather do all the signal-processing in software.
Sheesh - some people learn a TLA and all of a sudden they're geniuses.
Heh...and all those Tomb Raider addicts would get to see what it really takes to jump twice your body height while carrying a shotgun, two Uzis, a priceless and magic gold artifact, and two cantaloupes in your shirt. Does the word "oof" come to mind? :)
You're partly right...I suppose you can get ozone from a water reaction - except the highest concentrations of ozone occur in the mid-to-lower stratosphere, where there is very, very little water. The natural creation and destruction of ozone is a result of photodissociation of plain ol' diatomic oxygen - IIRC, the free-radical oxygen that occurs likes to bond preferentially with O2 molecules, thereby creating ozone. UV energy plays a role in this creation process (but I forgot the details :) Of course, UV radiation (of another wavelength) photodissociates ozone into O2 and free-radical O, leading to a fortuitous balance of ozone creation and dissociation. This changes, however, when you add a chemical reagent that acts as a catalyst to dissociate ozone.
Your theory about the ozone hole occurring over cold places is partially correct as well, except for the role that CFCs play in additional ozone depletion. With less sunlight (or no sunlight, as you'd see over a polar region in winter) you have less ozone creation. You also have less photodissociation of ozone, so the balance remains steady - until you introduce an aerosol agent that chemically dissociates ozone, such as a CFC. CFCs in polar stratospheric clouds act as catalysts in a heterogenous chemical reaction that also dissociates ozone - so you have one source, and two sinks. Hence, net ozone loss, and the ozone hole.
So you see, pollution (of CFCs at least) does deplete ozone - the reason we don't see ozone depletion over highly polluted areas (like LA) is because most of those pollutants are scavenged out by cloud systems before reaching the mid-stratosphere. Bad news for acid-rain, good news for local ozone. However, CFCs, which are notably tough, can survive the trip to the stratosphere, and will be advected a long ways away by the jet stream. What happens then? In the northern hemisphere, the jet stream meanders about pretty frequently - those CFCs stay pretty mixed and tend not to get too concentrated, and consequently do little damage to ozone. In the southern hemisphere, however, the polar front is defined by the Roaring 40's, and there exists a tight polar vortex, much tighter than in the northern hemisphere. Consequently, CFCs caught in the southern polar vortex are unable to escape, and will continue to concentrate and do more and more damage to the ozone population in the southern polar stratosphere.
That's the idea behind restricting CFC use - sure, CFCs will live in the atmosphere for 60 years or more, but by keeping further CFCs out of the atmosphere, we prevent further accumulation in the polar vortex, and allow natural mixing to reduce CFC content, however slowly that process occurs.
So if slack is going to stay fairly used, I'd say it has to have better hardware detection at least.
Why? So users with bleeding-edge/unsupported/just plain wonky hardware get to look at "new hardware detected - please supply driver module" messages halfway through boot? Isn't that what Windows is for?
I've been running Slackware since version 3.4, and one of the many blessings is that if I don't desire to waste system resources on supporting a device that doesn't work yet (say, a hardware DVD decoder or a seriously wonky TV card) I can just _ignore_ the damn thing until it's fixed, or a driver source is available. Or install a moderate solution (say, the "nv" driver for my TNT card) until a better solution comes along (NVidia's 3D driver "nvidia" - bless them, bless them, bless them for that
Some of us like setting up our hardware the way we want it to be set up. And that's why Slackware isn't "fading out" - as long as a few people still like having control over their systems, it will always be around. By all means, be happy with your auto-installing software - I'm happy with my "roll-your-own" system. Isn't that freedom what the whole Linux/OSS movement is about?
cheers!
As somebody previously mentioned, flights above 85,000 ft. tend to be somewhat oxygen-starved... not the best for "conventionally-fueled" engines unless you bring your own oxygen supply for your conventional fuel.
Some quick calculations...85,000 feet works out to be about 30 mb, or roughly 3% of surface pressure. Given the well-mixed status of atmospheric oxygen (although this high above the ozone layer, this may not be the case) you may reasonably assume that at 85,000 feet, you have only a fraction of the oxygen you would at normal flight levels (say three to ten percent)- too little to fire up your Continentals or your Pratt & Whitneys. :^)