OK, I'm no expert on locks, and my link was poorly chosen. But we're not talking real valuables that have to be protected from determined thieves. We're talking IT records that you need to protect from snooping. For that, a filing cabinet, maybe retrofitted with a steel bar and a padlock, is perfectly adequate. Yes, a serious burgler can just ignore the lock and tear off the sides. But that's not who we're guarding against.
Exactly. Perfect example. A decent quality file cabinet with a locking bar added is perfectly adequate against casual theft.
But previous to this, if you modified it at all, copyright law kicks in and you must abide by the GPL, by modifying it, you stepped outside allowed use under "all rights reserved" and are thus you can only operate under the terms of the GPL.
I thought GPL only came into effect when you wanted to distribute the modified code. As I understand it, you can (for example) run a kernel you've modified to work on your toaster and keep the code modification secret forever, so long as you don't try to distribute similarly modded "Linux toasters".
Not to mention that if your noise cancelling headset slips into phase with the LRAD sound it will blow out your eardrums.
How would it "slip into phase"? It's not a pair of belt-driven 3 phase generators, it's an electronic device. It's about as likely to "slip" into phase as a mirror is likely to "slip" into showing your reflection upside down.
"You are NOT entitled to privacy in the workplace."
There are laws protecting my privacy in the workplace, so I certainly am entitled to privacy in the workplace.
Now, what were you saying, again?
You're entitled by law to personal privacy at work. We, however, are not talking about the boss requiring everyone to tell all about their sex life. We're talking about wanting to work in a private office. There is no such entitlement. Did you really need it spelled out?
I am a locksmith. I work with file cabinets and cube drawers all the time. Those locks you link to are specifically for one particular brand of medium-security, fire-rated, burglary-safe type file cabinets, not cubicle furniture. The crap-ass locks on cubicle drawers and cabinets, even the more expensive Steelcase stuff, simply cannot be improved. They're cheap chinese junk of one-off designs that don't lend themselves to retrofitting anything decent. Furthermore, a better lock doesn't do squat for security when your drawers and cabinets are made of cheap sheetmetal and particle board. If someone were stupid enough to install (say) an expensive MAS Hamilton electronic safe lock on a standard steelcase desk drawer, I would almost pay money for the chance to show him how his costly upgrade could be bypassed with a flat blade screwdriver.
Cube furniture isn't secure. Expensive locks ain't the answer.
So, how long would the Opteron have to run at full blast to make up the difference in cost of $87?... 3.05871582 years.
OK, so at the end of three years the cost of ownership of the two processors (counting retail price and price of power only) evens out. Thing is, the choice is then between the faster AMD CPU or the slower Intel one. Huh. Tough choice.
Nothing new here. Just/. fanning the flames of nationalism once again to drive page hits. One thing this particular iteration presents us with, though, is examples of all the possible ways to misspell "bureaucracy". I've counted four different "creative" spellings in the comments already!
Or how about microchip smart cards? You know, exactly like RFID, but you need to physically connect the contacts to read it?
Smart card contacts need to be aligned with the reader contacts somehow. This is easy with a stiff, thin card, but it's a lot to ask of what amounts to a cardstock booklet. RFID has the advantage of being idiot proof in that the customs goon need only wave the book near a reader. No destined to be ignored warnings of "Do not crease or rumple passport", "insert this way only, this side up", or "CAUTION: do not fold, stamp, or lick smartcard contacts". Just a hard epoxied glob in one corner.
Every advantage of RFID is a liability in this application. Almost any kind of contact or optically readable format would be preferable.
Nonsense. "Optically read" formats can be forged with a printer. Contact-based things like smart cards or mag stripes are subject to mechanical wear and operator error. The RFID option has the advantage of 1) being fairly tamper-proof and difficult to duplicate, and 2) mostly idiot proof in that the customs goon need only wave the open passport under a magic wand.
We have radio telescopes that can see objects billions of light years away. Folks can build antennas that let them boost the range of their wi-fi reception to a mile on the cheap. I'm sure a motivated wrongdoer can put together a device that can talk to passport RFID chips from a greater distance than intended.
Motivation can't change the laws of physics. Inverse square law pretty much ensures that if someone is trying to read your passport from across the street, they'll need to point a 6 foot dish at you. Besides, as the blurb says, they can't be read unless the passport is open. So long as you keep it shut they can't read it at all.
Actually, no it is not. From the FA, it is a technique for "fermenting" coffee. It is not just a drink in which coffee and beer are combined, as implied by the article title.
The fermentation technique they're using is nothing new. The so-called "fine-tuned temperature control" is typical of the pickling fermentation process that has been used by mankind for thousands of years. You keep the stuff between 68 and 72 degrees F. Standard pickle-fermentation procedure. If you read the patent, you find that the real novelty of the process is the particular mix of yeasts and bacteria they've concoted, which gives the coffee extract a pleasant taste after fermentation. They didn't invent these microorganisms, though, they just figured out an interesting combination and proportions of these naturally occurring and commonly used little critters. In other words, it's a god damned recipe. As such, this patent is a load of crap.
Bwah? The original sucked balls in comparison! Which part is better in the original? The cornball tacked-on narration with such winning non-sequitur lines like "Sushi, that's what my ex-wife called me. Cold fish."? The complete removal of Deckard's unicorn dream sequences, totally erasing the final and most overt implication that Deckard is perhaps himself a replicant when Ed J Olmos leaves that unicorn origami outside his door? That craptastic Polyanna ending where not only is there no hint of Deckard being a replicant, but the voiceover informs us that Rachael is inexplicably without an "expiration date", so they can live happily ever fucking after?
Tesla belongs in the first group. His harnessing of alternating current was not only revolutionary, it was counter to the approved scientific "Fact" that it was impossible to do.
You're absolutely right. I should've gone with someone more like Edison, the "genius" with the sweatshop/patent mill who thought the way was to put a low voltage DC generating station on every city block!
If the latter is true, then the seller is committing fraud, and should be vulnerable to a civil suit by the buyer for trying to pass his edited version as the original.
And what damages are going to be claimed in this civil suit? Is there some sort of way you've come up with of calculating the monetary value of damage to our cultural heritage? Now, if it's actual criminal fraud, they could be convicted and jailed and/or fined. Isn't that a great idea! As much as I'd like to see some people sent to jail for bad editing, it's just not the appropriate way to deal with it. What would constitute "not original" anyway? Can the original author make revisions? Or only fix spelling errors? For works in the public domain there's nothing anyone can say about a version of something with (say) all the slaves turned into faeries, and the plantation owners cast as leprechauns. It's public domain! You're free to make derivative works however you like. This is where informed buyers comes into play. Just as soon as one publisher decides to cut the "shamefull" bits out of Huckleberry Finn, you'll have another publisher put out a "true to the author's original manuscript" version and proudly display that on the cover.
To some degree you see a variation of this with translations of foreign language works, as often the original is public domain, but translations are copyrighted. I recall searching for a translation of Crime and Punishment back in college, and basically all but two were utter crap. The one I settled on was more expensive than any of the others and had a fifty-odd foreword detailing the translator's credentials and giving examples of poor translations vs good ones.
I know for a fact that for some sites it is not practical to use a generator. Let's say you have a "highway site" sitting near an offramp somewhere, okay that's one thing. But let's say you have a "rooftop site" where your only access is up the elevator to the top floor and then several sets of stairs, maybe walking across catwalks and what have you once you get outside. It's just not practical to 'copter in a generator so I can see why a battery with a six hour life might be much more affordable/practical.
Don't lump "practicality" and "affordability" together. There's nothing at all impractical about craning or 'coptering generator on to a roof. Hell, A/C guys hire helicopters to install compressor and chiller units all the time. It's the money. They don't want to spend the money. As an electrician I've witnessed the installation of at least a dozen cell sites. Three apes haul a box up to the roof, hook it up to the antennas and power, then walk away. Most cell sites are cheap, self contained "turnkey" affairs designed for quick, inexpensive deployment.
Re:My experience hasn't been that good.
on
Ma Bell is Back
·
· Score: 1
We have one customer who loses connectivity every couple of weeks. We call SBC, they do something, tell us to power cycle the equipment, and the problem is solved. When we ask what they did, they say they didn't do anything.... (Except of course when the customer calls us, they have already power cycled the equipment - no connectivity.) We've taken all new equipment to them (known good gear, twice) - no dice. Only after SBC does their magic, does it work - and SBC continues to claim the problem is our gear.
I'd almost lay money that an SBC tech is just power cycling something on their end without bothering to find out why it needs power cycling.
Someday, maybe a physicist will create a portable way of sharing text and graphical information on computers via a network. Hmm.[link to Tim Berners-Lee]
TBL is a smart dude, but having the idea to make hypertext available over a TCP/IP network doesn't really compare to evolution or relativity. For every Copernicus, Newton, or Einstein there are scores of Ben Franklins, James Watts, and Nikola Teslas. TBL is more appropriately a member of the latter group.
When I was a kid encyclopedias were on paper and I usually wound up with half a dozen volumes open on the floor around me to track cross-references.
Indeed, but at the "bottom" you had chunks of linearly presented language which conveyed the information you were looking for. Everything else is just the path that led you there. Mr. Nelson seems to be fixated on the path to the detriment of the information at the end.
*cough* "it has evolved to interpret" please. carry on...;)
Heh. Indeed. Surely I only meant "designed" in the sense of "self-optimized via natural selection over millions of years". It comes from being a "Tekkie" who thinks of humans as just machines...
I know you're trying to get me to concede that at some level I need to read word by word, which I have no problem doing, but you're missing the context of this entire discussion...
This sub-thread is rooted in the original poster reading the interview and observing the following:
"What if we could write in midair, without enclosing rectangles? What new ways can thoughts be connected and presented?"
I have one more question: How would we know where to look next, while reading such a mess?
The point is that somewhere along the line you have to present the information in a human-readable format. That format is inevitably human language, and human language is sequential in nature. We can argle-bargle about hyperlinks and such adding to context and ease of indexing, but at the end of it all we need to have a coherent linear presentation of information in order to process it. Beyond a certain point all this referencing, linking, and cross-cuing actually starts to get in the way. One very good reason for not abandoning the discrete document format is that it is (or should be, anyway) a concise presentation of relevant information in a humn-digestable format. Vast arrays of unbounded, interlinked "factoids" waiting for us to apply some order to them are not really an improvement. The human mind is a vast array of interlinked information, but abstract information is mostly fed into it via language. Sequential symbology is what we're optimized for. Everything else is just the mechanics if getting our eyes onto that symbology. Mr Nelson seems to be fixated on the expansion of the process to the neglect of the result. even the one example he keeps coming back to-- retaining continuous links to quotations and their contexts-- would require immense indexing and storage overhead, while delivering little in the way of value over a standard footnote or bibliography. The whole concept assumes continuous access to a vast, non-transient, universal information base. We ain't got that, and it ain't coming any time soon either. Frankly, he sounds a bit like some nut running around shouting "all information is one!"
Then I skip to a section that seems to discuss the specifics that I'm interested in.
Everything up to the above point is searching behavior. Once you have found what you are looking for, you consume it in a linear, serial fashion until you have acquired the information to your satisfaction. You don't read one sentence out of the middle then skip to a random one three lines down, then read every fourth word, then go to the top and read only the capitalized words. The point that's being missed here is that no matter how many searching and indexing aids (such as hyperlinks) you use, our human language is premised upon the linear consumption of information. All this stuff about "a new kind of document" is about expanding and simplifying searching, indexing, and linking. It does nothing to change the way the simplest form of information is composed, it only makes it easier to find.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. Perfect example. A decent quality file cabinet with a locking bar added is perfectly adequate against casual theft.
I thought GPL only came into effect when you wanted to distribute the modified code. As I understand it, you can (for example) run a kernel you've modified to work on your toaster and keep the code modification secret forever, so long as you don't try to distribute similarly modded "Linux toasters".
How would it "slip into phase"? It's not a pair of belt-driven 3 phase generators, it's an electronic device. It's about as likely to "slip" into phase as a mirror is likely to "slip" into showing your reflection upside down.
There are laws protecting my privacy in the workplace, so I certainly am entitled to privacy in the workplace.
Now, what were you saying, again?
You're entitled by law to personal privacy at work. We, however, are not talking about the boss requiring everyone to tell all about their sex life. We're talking about wanting to work in a private office. There is no such entitlement. Did you really need it spelled out?
I am a locksmith. I work with file cabinets and cube drawers all the time. Those locks you link to are specifically for one particular brand of medium-security, fire-rated, burglary-safe type file cabinets, not cubicle furniture. The crap-ass locks on cubicle drawers and cabinets, even the more expensive Steelcase stuff, simply cannot be improved. They're cheap chinese junk of one-off designs that don't lend themselves to retrofitting anything decent. Furthermore, a better lock doesn't do squat for security when your drawers and cabinets are made of cheap sheetmetal and particle board. If someone were stupid enough to install (say) an expensive MAS Hamilton electronic safe lock on a standard steelcase desk drawer, I would almost pay money for the chance to show him how his costly upgrade could be bypassed with a flat blade screwdriver.
Cube furniture isn't secure. Expensive locks ain't the answer.
OK, so at the end of three years the cost of ownership of the two processors (counting retail price and price of power only) evens out. Thing is, the choice is then between the faster AMD CPU or the slower Intel one. Huh. Tough choice.
Nothing new here. Just /. fanning the flames of nationalism once again to drive page hits. One thing this particular iteration presents us with, though, is examples of all the possible ways to misspell "bureaucracy". I've counted four different "creative" spellings in the comments already!
Smart card contacts need to be aligned with the reader contacts somehow. This is easy with a stiff, thin card, but it's a lot to ask of what amounts to a cardstock booklet. RFID has the advantage of being idiot proof in that the customs goon need only wave the book near a reader. No destined to be ignored warnings of "Do not crease or rumple passport", "insert this way only, this side up", or "CAUTION: do not fold, stamp, or lick smartcard contacts". Just a hard epoxied glob in one corner.
Nonsense. "Optically read" formats can be forged with a printer. Contact-based things like smart cards or mag stripes are subject to mechanical wear and operator error. The RFID option has the advantage of 1) being fairly tamper-proof and difficult to duplicate, and 2) mostly idiot proof in that the customs goon need only wave the open passport under a magic wand.
I've yet to hear anyone adequately appease this concern.
Don't walk around with your passport open?
Motivation can't change the laws of physics. Inverse square law pretty much ensures that if someone is trying to read your passport from across the street, they'll need to point a 6 foot dish at you. Besides, as the blurb says, they can't be read unless the passport is open. So long as you keep it shut they can't read it at all.
The fermentation technique they're using is nothing new. The so-called "fine-tuned temperature control" is typical of the pickling fermentation process that has been used by mankind for thousands of years. You keep the stuff between 68 and 72 degrees F. Standard pickle-fermentation procedure. If you read the patent, you find that the real novelty of the process is the particular mix of yeasts and bacteria they've concoted, which gives the coffee extract a pleasant taste after fermentation. They didn't invent these microorganisms, though, they just figured out an interesting combination and proportions of these naturally occurring and commonly used little critters. In other words, it's a god damned recipe. As such, this patent is a load of crap.
My god, that "switched loop" is the Worst Code Ever. It definitely would make the Baby Savior of your choice cry.
He also doesn't qualify under the initial caveat of "If you write a good story"...
Bwah? The original sucked balls in comparison! Which part is better in the original? The cornball tacked-on narration with such winning non-sequitur lines like "Sushi, that's what my ex-wife called me. Cold fish."? The complete removal of Deckard's unicorn dream sequences, totally erasing the final and most overt implication that Deckard is perhaps himself a replicant when Ed J Olmos leaves that unicorn origami outside his door? That craptastic Polyanna ending where not only is there no hint of Deckard being a replicant, but the voiceover informs us that Rachael is inexplicably without an "expiration date", so they can live happily ever fucking after?
You're absolutely right. I should've gone with someone more like Edison, the "genius" with the sweatshop/patent mill who thought the way was to put a low voltage DC generating station on every city block!
And what damages are going to be claimed in this civil suit? Is there some sort of way you've come up with of calculating the monetary value of damage to our cultural heritage? Now, if it's actual criminal fraud, they could be convicted and jailed and/or fined. Isn't that a great idea! As much as I'd like to see some people sent to jail for bad editing, it's just not the appropriate way to deal with it. What would constitute "not original" anyway? Can the original author make revisions? Or only fix spelling errors? For works in the public domain there's nothing anyone can say about a version of something with (say) all the slaves turned into faeries, and the plantation owners cast as leprechauns. It's public domain! You're free to make derivative works however you like. This is where informed buyers comes into play. Just as soon as one publisher decides to cut the "shamefull" bits out of Huckleberry Finn, you'll have another publisher put out a "true to the author's original manuscript" version and proudly display that on the cover.
To some degree you see a variation of this with translations of foreign language works, as often the original is public domain, but translations are copyrighted. I recall searching for a translation of Crime and Punishment back in college, and basically all but two were utter crap. The one I settled on was more expensive than any of the others and had a fifty-odd foreword detailing the translator's credentials and giving examples of poor translations vs good ones.
Don't lump "practicality" and "affordability" together. There's nothing at all impractical about craning or 'coptering generator on to a roof. Hell, A/C guys hire helicopters to install compressor and chiller units all the time. It's the money. They don't want to spend the money. As an electrician I've witnessed the installation of at least a dozen cell sites. Three apes haul a box up to the roof, hook it up to the antennas and power, then walk away. Most cell sites are cheap, self contained "turnkey" affairs designed for quick, inexpensive deployment.
I'd almost lay money that an SBC tech is just power cycling something on their end without bothering to find out why it needs power cycling.
Bjarne is an Aggie now? Did he say WHY?
TBL is a smart dude, but having the idea to make hypertext available over a TCP/IP network doesn't really compare to evolution or relativity. For every Copernicus, Newton, or Einstein there are scores of Ben Franklins, James Watts, and Nikola Teslas. TBL is more appropriately a member of the latter group.
Indeed, but at the "bottom" you had chunks of linearly presented language which conveyed the information you were looking for. Everything else is just the path that led you there. Mr. Nelson seems to be fixated on the path to the detriment of the information at the end.
Heh. Indeed. Surely I only meant "designed" in the sense of "self-optimized via natural selection over millions of years". It comes from being a "Tekkie" who thinks of humans as just machines...
This sub-thread is rooted in the original poster reading the interview and observing the following:
The point is that somewhere along the line you have to present the information in a human-readable format. That format is inevitably human language, and human language is sequential in nature. We can argle-bargle about hyperlinks and such adding to context and ease of indexing, but at the end of it all we need to have a coherent linear presentation of information in order to process it. Beyond a certain point all this referencing, linking, and cross-cuing actually starts to get in the way. One very good reason for not abandoning the discrete document format is that it is (or should be, anyway) a concise presentation of relevant information in a humn-digestable format. Vast arrays of unbounded, interlinked "factoids" waiting for us to apply some order to them are not really an improvement. The human mind is a vast array of interlinked information, but abstract information is mostly fed into it via language. Sequential symbology is what we're optimized for. Everything else is just the mechanics if getting our eyes onto that symbology. Mr Nelson seems to be fixated on the expansion of the process to the neglect of the result. even the one example he keeps coming back to-- retaining continuous links to quotations and their contexts-- would require immense indexing and storage overhead, while delivering little in the way of value over a standard footnote or bibliography. The whole concept assumes continuous access to a vast, non-transient, universal information base. We ain't got that, and it ain't coming any time soon either. Frankly, he sounds a bit like some nut running around shouting "all information is one!"Everything up to the above point is searching behavior. Once you have found what you are looking for, you consume it in a linear, serial fashion until you have acquired the information to your satisfaction. You don't read one sentence out of the middle then skip to a random one three lines down, then read every fourth word, then go to the top and read only the capitalized words. The point that's being missed here is that no matter how many searching and indexing aids (such as hyperlinks) you use, our human language is premised upon the linear consumption of information. All this stuff about "a new kind of document" is about expanding and simplifying searching, indexing, and linking. It does nothing to change the way the simplest form of information is composed, it only makes it easier to find.