In a lot of countries, it's not illegal for you to record shows -- if I was at a rock-concert that I paid for, I can record it, make mp3s and do anything that I may want -- for my own personal purposes.
I find it quite disturbing when I learnt the first time after coming to the US that this wasn't the case. I had taken my videocam to an REM concert, and my friend was quite shocked -- if she hadn't told me beforehand, am sure I would have a hard time getting in or explaining to the folks at the door.
Garage rocket scientists, perhaps? I'm not saying that their design is scaleable or good - just that sometimes, ordinary people tinkering around such stuff may lead to greater revolutions in science than a high-profile well known project.
Why? Because they are willing to take the risk. Their loss isn't as much as that of someone whose invested significantly more.
Their design may not be good or scaleable, but it might open up avenues in other areas we would not know about unless we tried it. That's the best part about engineering these things - you do not really know what's going to happen.
Hmm, technically yes. However, you would need three unique positions of vision to be able to do this, i.e. three eyes, so to speak - because what you have said happens only for images that are static for a given time, which would not be true in the case of things like fog and the like (movement of particles). Moreoever, their scales are so small that your brain would just not be able to process them as something separate.
Besides, none of the three images are ever static, and so the particle cloud in front is created dynamically, based on differential motion capture of sorts.
Unfortunately, I'm not all that familiar with the math myself, so I cannot give you an absolute answer.
Hmm, Keith Nugent is fairly well known in some niche areas of optics. If I remember right, his initial work on the use of x-rays and the like to compensate for normal visible hindrances were met with some opposition, but he is quite famous otherwise.
That was because, ironically, this was developed as a method to visualize biological stuff, and some felt that his methods would not quite be suitable for such a task. His ideas were to use various parameters such as phase, intensity and angle of vision to extract information which could be correlated and converge to recreate images with minimal amount of information, which later gained acceptance.
I guess he developed on that technique, and later on evolved to have the military to take notice. Interesting neverthless.
I guess we've more or less lost programming of that kind, even things like mobile and thin-client devices these days run higher-end language platforms like Java. I do understand that higher levels of abstractions bring more capability, and we probably would not have been able to handle the complexities of today's code all in assembly -- but a lot of people seem to be using that as an excuse to come up with bloated, non-optimized and useless code swell with features nobody uses.
By Britain, I _obviously_ meant the British government -- when you mean America attacked Iraq, you do not really think I meant that every man here supported that, do you? Ofcourse, should have known that misinterpretations, where applicable, will happen. Especially since this is Slashdot.
>Democracy
Hmm, maybe I should rephrase.
The people's "mandate" in both these countries elected the current administrations into place, and if the people's mandate cannot throw them out for such decisions, it's quite sad.
Unless ofcourse, the people either do not care, or think that their governments are good.
>...the voters only get to change a government, >under all but the most exceptional circumstances, >every four years.
I guess deaths of innocent Iraqi civilians and untold western hostage crises do not mean much of a thing or constitute much of a circumstance.
I always thought the British public needed a, "Nice peas, dear" kinda Prime Minister - turns out am right.
>>Just as how despite a lot of people say that >>Bush is not worthy of being in office and that >>the war was a sham, the majority of Americans >>have no problems believing his stories. What >>more, he will most definitely be re-elected once >>more, too.
>I think you're reading to many left wing papers. >Try watching FOX. You might notice an equally >vocal group supporting Bush. The election is >still undecided, and will be until close of the >polls, saying otherwise is foolish.
That's exactly what I meant? There IS a majority supporting Bush, despite what may appear to be the contrary -- which is kinda sad.
>Vietnam took >7 years to stop
Agreed. But the point is that it was stopped, and those were different times. One would imagine that it would be easier today, given the fact that there is a greater degree of freedom of speech through other media.
So basically, either the governments support the war against the will of the people, or the people of do not care. Eitherway, my point stands validated, don't you think?
>The government doesn't always listen to its >mandate, nor should it.
Indeed. Not even when the first amendment needs to be upheld. The way things are going, it won't, either.
>Why are you employing people if you don't think >they're useful?
Unfortunately, not all decisions are vested with one person. But thanks for the input anyway.
When I referred to either the US or Britain, I referred to the British government - and not the people. But the fact remains that people cannot isolate themselves from the policies of the government, no matter what, especially in a democracy.
I never used the word people anywhere - I had meant the government in both the contexts.
But I will tell you this - while the people in a dictatorship cannot have much of a choice in what the rulers do, the people in a democracy have no such liberty and cannot claim that they are somehow independent of the actions of their governments. Out of the ten million who voted, just two million protested -- that still means that the majority of the people either did not care, or supported the war.
If you were to say that you personally did not support the war, well and good. But the people of Britain seem to support the war. Just as how despite a lot of people say that Bush is not worthy of being in office and that the war was a sham, the majority of Americans have no problems believing his stories. What more, he will most definitely be re-elected once more, too.
The government is the mandate of the people, and the actions of the governments are the mandate of the people -- whether you like it or not. If the Vietnam war could be stopped, the War on Iraq could also have been stopped, if enough people had protested.
And oh, thanks for the feedback on the website - despite your condescending comment, it was valuable feedback (just so you know - it *was* a PHB who designed it).
The attitude of the US is sickening, with utter disregard to sovereignity of other nations, and the attitude of the rest of the world in letting the US puppet the UN into submission is sad to see.
And those that shamelessly ass-lick everything that the US does (Britain, for one) no matter how inconsiderate it is to international laws makes it something to think about.
Their motto has always been, "Don't be stupid, unless you have to".
They're a company, and they have no obligation to the people of China to fight for their freedom of speech.
When world nations don't care a damn, you expect a corporation that makes search engines to?
Their playing it safe, which is exactly anyone would do in their position. If anyone should be helping the people of China, it is the people themselves and the rest of the democractic world governments.
Judging by the current UN meetings, we seem more interested in waging wars against nations for our own vested interests - how can you expect a corporation to not protect it's interests when the bastions of democracy act thus?
I know this is supposed to be funny, but I really had a domain registered as Anonymous Coward for a while. I had given an actual address and was stupid enough to provide my school e-mail address (this domain was registered when spam wasn't *that* big a thing, yet).
So, when spammers got into the business bandwagon, I must have been one of the oldest in their records, because I started getting spammed really bad -- both physical and virtual. I got so fed up of receiving spam (physical and junk-mail) that I just changed the name to Anonymous Coward, and provided some J Random Address.
I changed it a while ago, when Slashdot had a discussion warning people with false registration information to set their information right.
Just out of curiosity, how scaleable and popular is DB2, anyway? I remember IBM sending our LUG a bunch of free DB2 CDs for Linux, a long long time ago. I tried getting it up and running, but didn't have the patience to work on it or do anything useful.
I was just wondering how it compares to other existing commercial DBs out there.
Well, you've always been able to read/write the final states of Qubits -- just that you cannot do so in the middle of a quantum computation without losing the state, and some amount of information. You still cannot copy the exact state of the Qubit, which is quite well and safely protected by the No Cloning Theorem.
"Organizations that participate in such behavior should be held accountable and forced to put at least some effort into researching the validity of their keyword searches."
That does it! My next projects are going to be called Lord of the Rings and Matrix Revolutions.
Wonder if RIAA uses similar techniques. Hmm, maybe I could start a pr0n search tool called Britney. On second thoughts...
Slashdot Mirror
Eh. Saw this in the subscriber's preview and even mailed the editor about it -- but seems like it doesn't matter.
Wonder why they bother saying, "see any problems with this story? mail our on-duty editor.."
Duh.
Hmm, this is something that sucks.
In a lot of countries, it's not illegal for you to record shows -- if I was at a rock-concert that I paid for, I can record it, make mp3s and do anything that I may want -- for my own personal purposes.
I find it quite disturbing when I learnt the first time after coming to the US that this wasn't the case. I had taken my videocam to an REM concert, and my friend was quite shocked -- if she hadn't told me beforehand, am sure I would have a hard time getting in or explaining to the folks at the door.
However, our current programsto track asteroids that might hit the earth is extremely limited.
;-)
Hey! Someone tell Bush quick that there are weapons of mass destruction out there!
That would help
Aptly named SPIT, I see! ;-)
Way to go.
But using a balloon and a cylinder? Hm.
Garage rocket scientists, perhaps? I'm not saying that their design is scaleable or good - just that sometimes, ordinary people tinkering around such stuff may lead to greater revolutions in science than a high-profile well known project.
Why? Because they are willing to take the risk. Their loss isn't as much as that of someone whose invested significantly more.
Their design may not be good or scaleable, but it might open up avenues in other areas we would not know about unless we tried it. That's the best part about engineering these things - you do not really know what's going to happen.
But that's just me.
Hahaha, I was agreeing with you until I read -
You wonder if linux can run on your girlfreind.
Girlfriend? Now I know you were kidding. Liar.
Hmm, technically yes. However, you would need three unique positions of vision to be able to do this, i.e. three eyes, so to speak - because what you have said happens only for images that are static for a given time, which would not be true in the case of things like fog and the like (movement of particles). Moreoever, their scales are so small that your brain would just not be able to process them as something separate.
Besides, none of the three images are ever static, and so the particle cloud in front is created dynamically, based on differential motion capture of sorts.
Unfortunately, I'm not all that familiar with the math myself, so I cannot give you an absolute answer.
Hmm, Keith Nugent is fairly well known in some niche areas of optics. If I remember right, his initial work on the use of x-rays and the like to compensate for normal visible hindrances were met with some opposition, but he is quite famous otherwise.
That was because, ironically, this was developed as a method to visualize biological stuff, and some felt that his methods would not quite be suitable for such a task. His ideas were to use various parameters such as phase, intensity and angle of vision to extract information which could be correlated and converge to recreate images with minimal amount of information, which later gained acceptance.
I guess he developed on that technique, and later on evolved to have the military to take notice. Interesting neverthless.
The world of business makes for odd enemies and bedfellows.
Absolutely! No Windows, no Sun... we geeks don't need this when we have Slashdot to bathe us in it's nice warm green light.
Yummm. Usss likessses ittt.
Yet, I've never anything fitting the description in the sacred halls of CoC?
:-p
*raised eyebrows*
Who're you, Thad Starner?
Not to troll, but in some ways this makes me a little sad. Those were the days of 400+k of assembly code, and largely very well optimized.
And then you look at most programmers today, and the way bloated operating systems are written, not to mention the bloated applications that go with it.
I guess we've more or less lost programming of that kind, even things like mobile and thin-client devices these days run higher-end language platforms like Java. I do understand that higher levels of abstractions bring more capability, and we probably would not have been able to handle the complexities of today's code all in assembly -- but a lot of people seem to be using that as an excuse to come up with bloated, non-optimized and useless code swell with features nobody uses.
Reminds me of The Story of Mel, and what we've lost.
By Britain, I _obviously_ meant the British government -- when you mean America attacked Iraq, you do not really think I meant that every man here supported that, do you? Ofcourse, should have known that misinterpretations, where applicable, will happen. Especially since this is Slashdot.
>Democracy
Hmm, maybe I should rephrase.
The people's "mandate" in both these countries elected the current administrations into place, and if the people's mandate cannot throw them out for such decisions, it's quite sad.
Unless ofcourse, the people either do not care, or think that their governments are good.
>...the voters only get to change a government,
>under all but the most exceptional circumstances,
>every four years.
I guess deaths of innocent Iraqi civilians and untold western hostage crises do not mean much of a thing or constitute much of a circumstance.
I always thought the British public needed a, "Nice peas, dear" kinda Prime Minister - turns out am right.
>>Just as how despite a lot of people say that
>>Bush is not worthy of being in office and that
>>the war was a sham, the majority of Americans
>>have no problems believing his stories. What >>more, he will most definitely be re-elected once
>>more, too.
>I think you're reading to many left wing papers.
>Try watching FOX. You might notice an equally
>vocal group supporting Bush. The election is
>still undecided, and will be until close of the
>polls, saying otherwise is foolish.
That's exactly what I meant? There IS a majority supporting Bush, despite what may appear to be the contrary -- which is kinda sad.
>Vietnam took >7 years to stop
Agreed. But the point is that it was stopped, and those were different times. One would imagine that it would be easier today, given the fact that there is a greater degree of freedom of speech through other media.
So basically, either the governments support the war against the will of the people, or the people of do not care. Eitherway, my point stands validated, don't you think?
>The government doesn't always listen to its
>mandate, nor should it.
Indeed. Not even when the first amendment needs to be upheld. The way things are going, it won't, either.
>Why are you employing people if you don't think
>they're useful?
Unfortunately, not all decisions are vested with one person. But thanks for the input anyway.
The people of the US are different from the present government of the US. Is there anything wrong in liking one and disliking the other?
Where did I mention people?
When I referred to either the US or Britain, I referred to the British government - and not the people. But the fact remains that people cannot isolate themselves from the policies of the government, no matter what, especially in a democracy.
I never used the word people anywhere - I had meant the government in both the contexts.
But I will tell you this - while the people in a dictatorship cannot have much of a choice in what the rulers do, the people in a democracy have no such liberty and cannot claim that they are somehow independent of the actions of their governments. Out of the ten million who voted, just two million protested -- that still means that the majority of the people either did not care, or supported the war.
If you were to say that you personally did not support the war, well and good. But the people of Britain seem to support the war. Just as how despite a lot of people say that Bush is not worthy of being in office and that the war was a sham, the majority of Americans have no problems believing his stories. What more, he will most definitely be re-elected once more, too.
The government is the mandate of the people, and the actions of the governments are the mandate of the people -- whether you like it or not. If the Vietnam war could be stopped, the War on Iraq could also have been stopped, if enough people had protested.
And oh, thanks for the feedback on the website - despite your condescending comment, it was valuable feedback (just so you know - it *was* a PHB who designed it).
Ah, my bad, sorry! :)
It's just that I've been flamed a lot for that post that I got a little edgy.
My apologies!
Hmmm, where did I suggest that I was anti-west?
The original poster referred to lessons taught by Europe - I was merely pointing out that even the greatest European civilizations fell.
If you do not understand the import of my words, ask. Please do not add your own bloody interpretations.
Even Rome fell.
Both.
The attitude of the US is sickening, with utter disregard to sovereignity of other nations, and the attitude of the rest of the world in letting the US puppet the UN into submission is sad to see.
And those that shamelessly ass-lick everything that the US does (Britain, for one) no matter how inconsiderate it is to international laws makes it something to think about.
No.
Their motto has always been, "Don't be stupid, unless you have to".
They're a company, and they have no obligation to the people of China to fight for their freedom of speech.
When world nations don't care a damn, you expect a corporation that makes search engines to?
Their playing it safe, which is exactly anyone would do in their position. If anyone should be helping the people of China, it is the people themselves and the rest of the democractic world governments.
Judging by the current UN meetings, we seem more interested in waging wars against nations for our own vested interests - how can you expect a corporation to not protect it's interests when the bastions of democracy act thus?
Actually, in some countries it's a rule that brake-lights ought to be red and turning-lights should be amber/orange.
I know this is supposed to be funny, but I really had a domain registered as Anonymous Coward for a while. I had given an actual address and was stupid enough to provide my school e-mail address (this domain was registered when spam wasn't *that* big a thing, yet).
So, when spammers got into the business bandwagon, I must have been one of the oldest in their records, because I started getting spammed really bad -- both physical and virtual. I got so fed up of receiving spam (physical and junk-mail) that I just changed the name to Anonymous Coward, and provided some J Random Address.
I changed it a while ago, when Slashdot had a discussion warning people with false registration information to set their information right.
Heh. Those were the days.
Just out of curiosity, how scaleable and popular is DB2, anyway? I remember IBM sending our LUG a bunch of free DB2 CDs for Linux, a long long time ago. I tried getting it up and running, but didn't have the patience to work on it or do anything useful.
I was just wondering how it compares to other existing commercial DBs out there.
Well, you've always been able to read/write the final states of Qubits -- just that you cannot do so in the middle of a quantum computation without losing the state, and some amount of information. You still cannot copy the exact state of the Qubit, which is quite well and safely protected by the No Cloning Theorem.
That's a huge difference.
Who? George Lucas?
Oh you mean that fire. Sorry.
"Organizations that participate in such behavior should be held accountable and forced to put at least some effort into researching the validity of their keyword searches."
That does it! My next projects are going to be called Lord of the Rings and Matrix Revolutions.
Wonder if RIAA uses similar techniques. Hmm, maybe I could start a pr0n search tool called Britney. On second thoughts...