Somehow "vaporware" doesn't seem quite thin enough to describe how far-out some of these ideas are. I mean, they can't even get more than 2 out of 4 Mars probes to go, or even keep the website up, are we really supposed to take it seriously when they talk about going to Proxima Centauri?
first of all Tritium (T or H-3) is not a good fuel source. Tritium is a hydrogen isotope that in addition to a proton and an electron also contains two neutrons. It's radioactive, very toxic, and most importantly EXTREMELY expensive.
Not to mention, it can only be created in relatively dangerous fission reactors.
Just a clarification: Neither the Z machine nor any other human made fusion reaction duplicates the power of the Sun. The Sun derives most of its power (at least in this part of its life) from the proton cycle, which is a multi-step reaction that ultimately turns two protons into neutrons and fuses them with two more protons to create one helium-4 nucleus. No stray neutrons are generated.
Unfortunately, the temperatures necessary to drive the proton cycle are not attainable by any foreseeable human technology, either controlled or uncontrolled.
All of the reactions considered for fusion power require isotopic hydrogen as at least one component (not a big problem, since deuterium is pretty common in ordinary water) and generate copious neutrons (a much bigger problem, as they degrade the structure of the apparatus and induce secondary radioactivity).
This is poetic misinformation, similar to the early line about H-bombs being "clean" because they were driven by fusion. It took Howard Morland to make it public that so-called H-bombs actually derive 80% of their energy output from the dirty fissioning of U238 in a fast neutron flux created by the fusion reaction. Take away this final step, by using a secondary tamper that won't fission, and the neutrons go out into the atmosphere -- making what is called a "neutron bomb." (Remember those?)
Fusion may indeed be an important power source one day, but not if we gloss over the real drawbacks and hazards as the early champions of fission did. No technology that requires high energy densities can ever be entirely safe, and if we promise people that it is then we are only setting it up to be massively rejected in the bitter disillusionment that will follow the first big accident.
For example, in 1950 you could buy an encyclopedia set -- typically this was very expensive. Now you get an entire set of encyclopedias on a CD-ROM costing almost nothing.
Except, have you looked at one of those expensive '50's thru '70's-era encyclopaedias? They are much better than the crap that is now served up online. I regularly consult the Britannica my girlfriend bought in 1982, despite its obsolence -- if I wanted one, and I could afford it now, I couldn't get it updated. They are out of business. Encarta is a sad joke by comparison.
What the author of the linked article is complaining about is familiar to everyone involved even peripherally in the physics community (and to a lessser extent in other sciences), the absence of fundamentally new "modalities."
A modality is lever or handle for affecting the world. The light bulb, the steam and IC engines, the atom bomb (of course), penicillin and related antibiotics, and X-rays were all new modalities.
Computers, interstate highways, broadband internet access, and waterproof paint are not new modalities, they are merely better expressions of things that existed before. Even a very broad expansion -- as from the dirt roads of 1900 to the road system of 2000 -- does not a new modality make, because it constitutes an obvious and natural progression.
Look at the sea change (literally) between 1900 and 1930 due to the invention of radio. In the matter of a couple of decades sea travel went from being a thing of great mystery to an ordinary affair, simply because ships could maintain contact with land; the Titanic debacle was so profound partly because it occurred on the cusp of this revolution, and it had a lot to do with the draconian radio laws we've lived with ever since.
For a great thought experiment in what the next great modality might look like I recommend David Brin's novel Earth which was originally intended as a 50-year forward look but was published almost 20 years ago. It's still a great read and gives one a very good sense of perspective on both future predictions and past performance, especially now that we can see where Brin's predictions have started to fail (and, in all fairness, how he in his afterward predicted this failure).
My experience is that it is a bit more difficult than this to actually destroy data on a HD with an external magnetic field. Thought the suggestion is an awful lot of fun to contemplate:-)
So thought I a couple of months ago. But I've been quite selective and somehow managed to acquire 4GB+ in a short time without trying too hard. When you have broadband internet access it is quite easy. When you run across someone who has a fast connection and has something you might want, the temptation becomes to grab it while it's available. With DSL and an appropriately fast source I have downloaded entire albums in less than 5 minutes. Cable can be even faster under optimum conditions, much less the connections some university students enjoy.
If you look under gem and mineral rough, you will see quite a few auctions by full-blown rock shops -- they even put fancy HTML with their logo, etc. in their item descriptions. I have also heard of craft shops, like knitting supply shops, doing this. For some small businesses eBay is their major sales venue.
It seems that the lynchpin of this lunatic idea is the "megabyte or so of key" located in a hidden, presumably read-only, area of your drive. Software will use this key to encrypt or watermark your data so that if you send copies to all your friends, they can be traced back to you, O unique individual HD purchaser.
It is obvious that this won't work without cooperation between the HD, controller, and r/w software, presumably including the OS if this is to prevent simple copying.
How this would bind you is, content would be released in a form which could only be read by a fully compliant system. It would not matter just what your key is, but you would have to have one in order to install what you had legitimately purchased. (Obviously, there ain't squat they can do about media formats that don't support their scheme, except make them illegal. News at 10.)
I see the hack for this as being a software hook to intercept the commands which retrieve the key block. Hey, I'll have a key, it will just consist of a megabyte of zeroes. At worst, such a hack might have to be a hardware dongle on the IDE cable. People will do this if they feel it will benefit them. Just look at the flap over DVD encryption, or even the third-grade half-assed XOR scheme used by Digital:Convergence.
The bait for getting you into this new straitjacket will be some new improved quality (doubtful in music, but what got DVD's off the ground for video), improved content (DVD's again), or simple failure to release content in uncontrolled format (software industry). I sincerely doubt that this scheme would prevent you from backing up or making n copies of uncontrolled content of your own origin, including.mp3's and legacy content released outside of the standard. It would only be this controlled content, which you voluntarily bought (right?), which could not be copied from one drive to another and expected to work. Unless, of course, you arranged through a hack for the new drive to have the same ID as the old one.
Of course it's fine to voluntarily boycott such controlled content, but what do you do when it's the only content available? I've been told repeatedly that VHS is on its way out in favor of DVD, and there does seem to be a gradual trend in this direction at the local Blockbuster. (After all, excepting the copy protection scam^H^H^H^Hscheme, DVD's are clearly superior to analog videotape.) So as soon as you want to use anything at all that relies on this dubious technology you will fold up, buy the software and the compliant hardware and grumble while it does its thing. And you will lose that content when you buy a new PC or hard drive -- unless you get the hack for it.
Very nice, I believe you have just skewered them. This is exactly what is needed, not just the use of thumbnails in general but their use in this specific way to sell stuff.
I really must stop PWI. I blame Commodore Cruise Lines for cancelling my #*$(@!$ vacation for me.
There is a distinction, but it's hidden in the fine print and my copy of Patent It Yourself is out of date anyway and the main point is, Ebay probably can get away with this, if they've made their claims properly.
Starting with 4.0, VB isn't interpreted any more. It is compiled, and while it isn't as well optimized as C it is pretty durn fast.
Secondly:
The situation with Pliant is a little more complex. It is a lot closer to Forth than a P-coded language like VB 3.0 and back, QBasic, or old-style Pascal. It has two kinds of module, both of which it seems you can compile yourself; the low level modules are compiled with an optimizing compiler that will, when it is finished, make them every bit as wicked fast as C. These modules actually become part of the language for future use purposes. (Forth? Anybody else reminded of Forth here? Except you couldn't compile new low-level functions for Forth, and you apparently can for Pliant.) Things at high levels of abstraction are built with these low-level modules, which doesn't cost much in performance because such code usually isn't very optimized anyway. The version 44 site isn't/.ed and has plenty of info on the language's design philosophy.
As I posted elsewhere I find this very interesting, and will be waiting with bated breath for the server to clear. Oh, and FYI it hasn't crashed, though it's very slow. Another monument to the solid design of the Linux kernel, I'd guess.
Of course the main link is/.ed but you can get into the release 44 site and see what the ideas are behind the language. Does this remind anyone else of Forth?
This may be exactly what I need for some embedded applications work I will be doing in the future. I am sick to death of dealing with M$ crapware but simply too overworked to tackle the near-vertical learning curve necessary to get into *nix. This could be the short path to a reliable embedded environment.
The thing I wonder about is, will the Linux drivers for various devices work with the Pliant shell OS? This is what would make this small environment practical, since a major obstacle lately has been future product support when hardware compatible with the software becomes unavailable. I have several apps running Windoze 3.11 that won't work in 9x or NT unless they are partially rewritten, and as long as at least some hardware of all relevant types is supported under Linux it has appeared to be a very interesting alternative. But the learning curve! And I all my fscking projects are due last week! I am really looking forward to the server coming back up so I can take a closer look at this thing.
(Thanks to the person above who quoted the patent abstract, which makes this clear, and to the NOLO press and author David Pressman for publishing Patent It Yourself which also makes this clear.)
Ebay is not patenting thumbnails nor claiming to have invented them. They are trying to patent the use of thumbnails in a new context, as a sales tool for online auctions. There is some precedent for this.
For example, Post-It (tm) notes are protected by a utility patent. Neither the note nor the adhesive was invented (by 3M IIRC), but the use of the adhesive for the temporary sticking of notes to odd surfaces was a new use for existing technology. And that can be patented.
This is really no less stupid than Amazon's one-click patent, which of course still doesn't mean it isn't stupid. But don't assume just because every pr0n site in existence has been using thumbnails since the days of Turing and von Neumann that Ebay can't get this through or enforce it.
(For the curious, the other type of patent is called a design patent and is the kind you would apply for if you had actually developed a new and previously unknown technology.)
You just created some information: your post. What "protection" does that post enjoy?
As you point out, it is protected, but no, I don't expect to be compensated. This is mostly because creating the post is very easy for me and I do it for entertainment. There are, however, a lot of useful things I do which I certainly wouldn't if I wasn't paid. While it is true that some content would still be created, much that is useful and desirable would not.
There are software applications, novels, works of music, and movies which would not get created without copyright protection, yet which honest recipients are willing to pay for so that they will be created. This is why copyright protection exists.
Information wants to be free in the same sense in which a compressed spring wants to extend and water seeks its own level. The statement is not a value judgement, but an observation of a constant force.
This is simply balderdash. You could make the same case that Honda Civics "want to be free" because they remain the most-stolen car year after year. This doesn't mean we should make it legal to steal Honda Civics because they're going to get stolen anyway. It means your "constant force" is really created by certain people who are willing to circumvent morality and the law when it suits them -- a force which the law was erected to oppose, whether or not it always manages to succeed.
did these guys ACTUALLY do calculations of the forces and everything? some of this sounds really off. have any of you guys done the calculations?
No, but any physicist worth his tenure could have done them without looking up a single formula, with only a calculator or (if old enough) a slide rule. The figures don't seem off to me, but part of the charm of the story is how far off they seem to be w/r/t everyday experience.
I'm not going to double-check them, though, because I would have to look up the formulae, and as you said,
Visual pornography and depictions of violence shall not be copyrightable.
I don't think this would fly under the Constitution. Copyright is not supposed to be content-aware -- for example, you can publish a book full of hoaxes and outright lies and receive copyright protection because the marketplace of ideas is what distinguishes a good idea from a bad idea, not some censor who creates an artificial category.
The use of technological measures or contractual terms to prevent the copying of noncopyrightable material shall be illegal.
A better step might be to move to the German model, where you have the right to make personal-use backup copies of anything and it is in fact illegal to use copy-protection to prevent this. There is a tax on blank recording media which is used to compensate copyright holders for their losses due to such use.
This provides a way to regulate images of pornography and violence without raising First Amendment objections. You can make it and sell it, but you can't prevent it from being copied, even in bulk. This makes it far less profitable.
Since copyright is seen as a form of protection meant to encourage the production of new content, this differential treatment certainly would raise 1st Amendment objections. At least, with a real Supreme Court it would -- not sure about these guys any more.
Remember, Bush doesn't owe Hollywood, let alone Simi Valley, home of the porno industry, any favors.
This is the most hopelessly naive thing I have ever seen anybody write about the pr0n industry. That it is either limited to Simi or that nobody would object to this is ridiculous. Last I looked, the print and internet pr0n industries were scattered all over, with a high concentration in New York. I know of one editor who lives in Florida. Had Dubya been elected legitimately he might be able to push something like your proposeal through (to all our detriments, since such wedges never stop with clear-cut examples like pr0n), after the election fiasco he would be a fool to try it.
Oh, wait, he is a fool. Well, trust me, it won't succeed.
These people believe they can put together a case that Katherine Harris has been playing hide-the-salami with both Jeb and Dubya for years. Do you think Dubya would want to encourage Larry Flynt to put his resources behind this effort? There are many reasons not to open this can of worms.
But the best reason, of course, is that things like this never stop with dat evil ol pr0n. If you think this is such a great idea I respectfully submit that you might find the legal climate in other places more congenial. Canada, for example, has been seizing books left and right for years. Unsurprisingly, not all of them are the gay pr0n being "targeted" by the censors.
Bulk metallic magnesium will burn, but not easily because of its small surface area-to-volume ratio. By the time you got the case ignited the contents would be toast from the heat.
With the decline in corporate control of information and content, musicians, writers and programmers will have direct access to a worldwide audiance, but no more of the exclusive access that the media empires of the past enjoyed. It means that more artists than ever will be able to quit their day jobs and make a moderate living doing what they love, but hardly any will become the kind of intergalactic superstars that can afford to buy private islands and professional football teams.
How, exactly, will they quit their day jobs and make a moderate living if nobody pays them? The examples of Napster and Warez in general make it pretty clear how often people will pay when it is simple, safe, and anonymous to steal instead.
While I would be the first to admit that copyright, patent, and libel laws are regularly abused by corporations, the free-information crowd are wanting to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Without some protection for the creators of information there will be no incentive to create any information. This is a point which is regularly glossed over with happy-feelgood words in anticopyright tirades.
Information does not want to be free; information is not conscious and is not capable of wanting anything. Some people want it to be free, just as others want absolute control over all of it. Neither extreme makes much sense. While patent laws may be in need of reform, you will not get change for the better by shouting for their complete abolition. Nobody with any sense wants that.
Rather than point out how the narrative of the film became significantly disjointed due to the extended flashback...
Did not have a chance to become confused by the flashback, as the movie has not come to New Orleans. I am basing my reaction on the statements of others who have seen the movie.
However, there comes a point where you have to live as human and as though reality can be taken for granted... or simply concede your life to an unfullfilled dysfunction.
Yes, one can choose to bask in happy ignorance or to press the frontiers. I made that decision when I was very young and have never looked back. I laud anything that encourages others to press the frontiers too -- and I'll admit that is a deliberately cultivated prejudice of mine.
For those 3133t h4kk3r d00dz, I would far and away wish that they were weighing the issues of honor than not. Because in that day-to-day I mentioned before, the more people acting with honor in the world, the better the world will likely be to live in for me.
Well, as Aleister Crowley suggested, if more people took up the deep questions they would end up understanding honor and integrity by association. It's like the calculus and non-calculus-based physics courses; yes, the non-calculus courses sound easier because you don't need the math, but when you have the math you can understand the concepts instead of merely accepting them by rote. Similarly, no morality is true if it is externally imposed; but if you derive it yourself from experience and inspiration it will be stronger than steel.
I also need to challenge your assumption about challenging long held beliefs. Challenging beliefs long-held or not is fine, but I think you go a step farther and not only challenge, but simply reject them without understanding them.
As Robert Anton Wilson likes to write, "convictions create convicts." Beliefs imprison you. I like to be exposed to new ideas precisely because I want my beliefs challenged, and I think more people should think this way (hmmmm, sounds suspiciously like a belief, doesn't it?). I really think people fall too easily into reality-tunnels carved by their expectations and, more often lately, mass media influences they don't understand. If you don't question everything you end up believing in things without having the slightest idea why you believe them.
I have a coworker who spent a week in Iceland some time back. He came back raving about how wonderful the place was, how clean and educated and orderly and blah blah blah and at some point I pointed out to him (you must remember this guy thinks Ronald Reagan is a genius) "It's a socialist country, that's why everyone gets an education and has a place to stay." His jaw dropped and he said, "no, it's a democracy." I said "Not only is it a socialist state it's a hereditary kingdom." And he had no idea, because he had been taught to hate socialism but when he saw its effects he liked them, without knowing why, without knowing where they came from, without even knowing what he was seeing.
David Lynch movies, The Matrix, PKD novels, and other sources I admire all strive (to some extent in vain) to put people where they can see these obvious things they are missing. That is a lofty and difficult goal, especially when you strive to hide your message so it will create inspiration rather than making a deadpan explanation. Is there anything like that in Tiger?
I think you are taking the last scene a tpuch harshly. If you remember Cypher and the steak, knowing it's an illusion does not mean that you can't enjoy it.
Cypher isn't the second coming of Jesus; Neo is. Neo is supposed to know better.
You ignored the question. Did you even see "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon"?
I didn't notice the question, probably because I answered it already. No, I haven't had the chance.
I also haven't visited the Moon. But I've read the accounts of people who have, just as I've read the accounts here of people who've seen the movie, and I've visited the movie's website and read the interviews, and while I can't be certain that I'm right, I believe there is very little chance that Crouching Tiger has the depth of The Matrix.
I will also point out that I didn't start out comparing these two movies, Katz did. In a sense the comparison isn't fair, because Matrix was meant to be a lightshow disguising a puzzle box -- a trick I happen to greatly admire. Tiger is apparently much more straightforward. The thing is, hiding a puzzle box inside a light show is a much better trick than making your audience misty-eyed over things that are pretty much instinctive for humans anyway.
Where as in the matrix it's quite hard to imagin why the machine would keep any humans alive. For power? No shit that's what nuclear plants are for.
Of course. As I pointed out above, The Matrix is not about machines at all. It is about the Gnostic solution to the Problem of Evil, and most of the things which don't make sense (cutting out the sun, you can't be told but must experience it, we created the "evil god figure(s)" ourselves, humans somehow supporting our oppressors) are exact allegories of the Gnostic heresy.
I can't get over how few people see this, it's better than Madonna's song Like a Prayer which most certainly wasn't about either religion or statues of black saints that come to life grin.
Oddly, under Internet Exploiter, http://slashdotsucks.org resolves to this site. I doubt this means it is registered (www.slashdotsucks.org doesn't do this), probably just another bug^H^H^Hfeature of the browser.
Just because The Matrix liberally, but stylishly, rips off of a multitude of previously established ideas doesn't make it the best movie ever. Sure, it is an homage to some of the most thought provoking work in sci-fi (cyberpunk, blade runner, etc), but the philosophical portions of the film are so hokey that I have trouble saying it "challenged my long-held beliefs."
The philosophical portions of The Matrix are based on Gnostic Christianity, and while there are a lot of references to other things what made the film great is that it exposed these ideas -- ideas which would have got you burnt at the stake for a period of over 1,000 years between the Council of Nicea and the Enlightenment -- to people who would never have thought about such things.
I still find people whose eyes go wide when I explain to them what The Matrix really is. Many of the hokey lines in The Matrix sound hokey because the movie isn't about computers at all.
"There is no spoon" because there is no universe. It's significant that Neo doesn't seem to grok this at the end of the movie -- while he has received the Gnosis (in this stylized form) he has not understood it yet, a fact which will probably turn tragic for him in the sequel. The pleasure he displays at being able to fly out of the last scene is misplaced, because there is no flight. He has seen the walls of the Black Iron Prison, but has yet to climb them.
I promise you there is no "gnostic genre" (unless you peripherally include Last Temptation of Christ, the only other movie I am aware of to explore Gnostic heresies). The other aspects of the movie are misdirections. And Matrix beautifully obfuscated its real message, just as most mystical teachings do. (Why? You cannot be told an inspiration, you must receive it on your own. This is the reason for the hokey line about needing to "experience the Matrix.")
Meanwhile, where are the comparable layers of meaning in Tiger? So it is about "coming of age." BFD. How does one "come of age?" By learning that kung fu can make you able to fly?? As I titled this, puh-leeze. The Gnostic explanation of reality may make little more sense to you, but it has persisted for more than two thousand years -- many of its aspects predate Christ. I doubt you will find a similar line of people who have risked martyrdom to teach their children that kung fu can make them fly.
Slashdot Mirror
Somehow "vaporware" doesn't seem quite thin enough to describe how far-out some of these ideas are. I mean, they can't even get more than 2 out of 4 Mars probes to go, or even keep the website up, are we really supposed to take it seriously when they talk about going to Proxima Centauri?
Not to mention, it can only be created in relatively dangerous fission reactors.
Unfortunately, the temperatures necessary to drive the proton cycle are not attainable by any foreseeable human technology, either controlled or uncontrolled.
All of the reactions considered for fusion power require isotopic hydrogen as at least one component (not a big problem, since deuterium is pretty common in ordinary water) and generate copious neutrons (a much bigger problem, as they degrade the structure of the apparatus and induce secondary radioactivity).
This is poetic misinformation, similar to the early line about H-bombs being "clean" because they were driven by fusion. It took Howard Morland to make it public that so-called H-bombs actually derive 80% of their energy output from the dirty fissioning of U238 in a fast neutron flux created by the fusion reaction. Take away this final step, by using a secondary tamper that won't fission, and the neutrons go out into the atmosphere -- making what is called a "neutron bomb." (Remember those?)
Fusion may indeed be an important power source one day, but not if we gloss over the real drawbacks and hazards as the early champions of fission did. No technology that requires high energy densities can ever be entirely safe, and if we promise people that it is then we are only setting it up to be massively rejected in the bitter disillusionment that will follow the first big accident.
Except, have you looked at one of those expensive '50's thru '70's-era encyclopaedias? They are much better than the crap that is now served up online. I regularly consult the Britannica my girlfriend bought in 1982, despite its obsolence -- if I wanted one, and I could afford it now, I couldn't get it updated. They are out of business. Encarta is a sad joke by comparison.
A modality is lever or handle for affecting the world. The light bulb, the steam and IC engines, the atom bomb (of course), penicillin and related antibiotics, and X-rays were all new modalities.
Computers, interstate highways, broadband internet access, and waterproof paint are not new modalities, they are merely better expressions of things that existed before. Even a very broad expansion -- as from the dirt roads of 1900 to the road system of 2000 -- does not a new modality make, because it constitutes an obvious and natural progression.
Look at the sea change (literally) between 1900 and 1930 due to the invention of radio. In the matter of a couple of decades sea travel went from being a thing of great mystery to an ordinary affair, simply because ships could maintain contact with land; the Titanic debacle was so profound partly because it occurred on the cusp of this revolution, and it had a lot to do with the draconian radio laws we've lived with ever since.
For a great thought experiment in what the next great modality might look like I recommend David Brin's novel Earth which was originally intended as a 50-year forward look but was published almost 20 years ago. It's still a great read and gives one a very good sense of perspective on both future predictions and past performance, especially now that we can see where Brin's predictions have started to fail (and, in all fairness, how he in his afterward predicted this failure).
My experience is that it is a bit more difficult than this to actually destroy data on a HD with an external magnetic field. Thought the suggestion is an awful lot of fun to contemplate :-)
So thought I a couple of months ago. But I've been quite selective and somehow managed to acquire 4GB+ in a short time without trying too hard. When you have broadband internet access it is quite easy. When you run across someone who has a fast connection and has something you might want, the temptation becomes to grab it while it's available. With DSL and an appropriately fast source I have downloaded entire albums in less than 5 minutes. Cable can be even faster under optimum conditions, much less the connections some university students enjoy.
If you look under gem and mineral rough, you will see quite a few auctions by full-blown rock shops -- they even put fancy HTML with their logo, etc. in their item descriptions. I have also heard of craft shops, like knitting supply shops, doing this. For some small businesses eBay is their major sales venue.
It is obvious that this won't work without cooperation between the HD, controller, and r/w software, presumably including the OS if this is to prevent simple copying.
How this would bind you is, content would be released in a form which could only be read by a fully compliant system. It would not matter just what your key is, but you would have to have one in order to install what you had legitimately purchased. (Obviously, there ain't squat they can do about media formats that don't support their scheme, except make them illegal. News at 10.)
I see the hack for this as being a software hook to intercept the commands which retrieve the key block. Hey, I'll have a key, it will just consist of a megabyte of zeroes. At worst, such a hack might have to be a hardware dongle on the IDE cable. People will do this if they feel it will benefit them. Just look at the flap over DVD encryption, or even the third-grade half-assed XOR scheme used by Digital:Convergence.
The bait for getting you into this new straitjacket will be some new improved quality (doubtful in music, but what got DVD's off the ground for video), improved content (DVD's again), or simple failure to release content in uncontrolled format (software industry). I sincerely doubt that this scheme would prevent you from backing up or making n copies of uncontrolled content of your own origin, including .mp3's and legacy content released outside of the standard. It would only be this controlled content, which you voluntarily bought (right?), which could not be copied from one drive to another and expected to work. Unless, of course, you arranged through a hack for the new drive to have the same ID as the old one.
Of course it's fine to voluntarily boycott such controlled content, but what do you do when it's the only content available? I've been told repeatedly that VHS is on its way out in favor of DVD, and there does seem to be a gradual trend in this direction at the local Blockbuster. (After all, excepting the copy protection scam^H^H^H^Hscheme, DVD's are clearly superior to analog videotape.) So as soon as you want to use anything at all that relies on this dubious technology you will fold up, buy the software and the compliant hardware and grumble while it does its thing. And you will lose that content when you buy a new PC or hard drive -- unless you get the hack for it.
Very nice, I believe you have just skewered them. This is exactly what is needed, not just the use of thumbnails in general but their use in this specific way to sell stuff.
There is a distinction, but it's hidden in the fine print and my copy of Patent It Yourself is out of date anyway and the main point is, Ebay probably can get away with this, if they've made their claims properly.
Starting with 4.0, VB isn't interpreted any more. It is compiled, and while it isn't as well optimized as C it is pretty durn fast.
Secondly:
The situation with Pliant is a little more complex. It is a lot closer to Forth than a P-coded language like VB 3.0 and back, QBasic, or old-style Pascal. It has two kinds of module, both of which it seems you can compile yourself; the low level modules are compiled with an optimizing compiler that will, when it is finished, make them every bit as wicked fast as C. These modules actually become part of the language for future use purposes. (Forth? Anybody else reminded of Forth here? Except you couldn't compile new low-level functions for Forth, and you apparently can for Pliant.) Things at high levels of abstraction are built with these low-level modules, which doesn't cost much in performance because such code usually isn't very optimized anyway. The version 44 site isn't /.ed and has plenty of info on the language's design philosophy.
As I posted elsewhere I find this very interesting, and will be waiting with bated breath for the server to clear. Oh, and FYI it hasn't crashed, though it's very slow. Another monument to the solid design of the Linux kernel, I'd guess.
This may be exactly what I need for some embedded applications work I will be doing in the future. I am sick to death of dealing with M$ crapware but simply too overworked to tackle the near-vertical learning curve necessary to get into *nix. This could be the short path to a reliable embedded environment.
The thing I wonder about is, will the Linux drivers for various devices work with the Pliant shell OS? This is what would make this small environment practical, since a major obstacle lately has been future product support when hardware compatible with the software becomes unavailable. I have several apps running Windoze 3.11 that won't work in 9x or NT unless they are partially rewritten, and as long as at least some hardware of all relevant types is supported under Linux it has appeared to be a very interesting alternative. But the learning curve! And I all my fscking projects are due last week! I am really looking forward to the server coming back up so I can take a closer look at this thing.
Ebay is not patenting thumbnails nor claiming to have invented them. They are trying to patent the use of thumbnails in a new context, as a sales tool for online auctions. There is some precedent for this.
For example, Post-It (tm) notes are protected by a utility patent. Neither the note nor the adhesive was invented (by 3M IIRC), but the use of the adhesive for the temporary sticking of notes to odd surfaces was a new use for existing technology. And that can be patented.
This is really no less stupid than Amazon's one-click patent, which of course still doesn't mean it isn't stupid. But don't assume just because every pr0n site in existence has been using thumbnails since the days of Turing and von Neumann that Ebay can't get this through or enforce it.
(For the curious, the other type of patent is called a design patent and is the kind you would apply for if you had actually developed a new and previously unknown technology.)
As you point out, it is protected, but no, I don't expect to be compensated. This is mostly because creating the post is very easy for me and I do it for entertainment. There are, however, a lot of useful things I do which I certainly wouldn't if I wasn't paid. While it is true that some content would still be created, much that is useful and desirable would not.
There are software applications, novels, works of music, and movies which would not get created without copyright protection, yet which honest recipients are willing to pay for so that they will be created. This is why copyright protection exists.
Information wants to be free in the same sense in which a compressed spring wants to extend and water seeks its own level. The statement is not a value judgement, but an observation of a constant force.
This is simply balderdash. You could make the same case that Honda Civics "want to be free" because they remain the most-stolen car year after year. This doesn't mean we should make it legal to steal Honda Civics because they're going to get stolen anyway. It means your "constant force" is really created by certain people who are willing to circumvent morality and the law when it suits them -- a force which the law was erected to oppose, whether or not it always manages to succeed.
No, but any physicist worth his tenure could have done them without looking up a single formula, with only a calculator or (if old enough) a slide rule. The figures don't seem off to me, but part of the charm of the story is how far off they seem to be w/r/t everyday experience.
I'm not going to double-check them, though, because I would have to look up the formulae, and as you said,
not that it really matters...
Happy Yule.
I don't think this would fly under the Constitution. Copyright is not supposed to be content-aware -- for example, you can publish a book full of hoaxes and outright lies and receive copyright protection because the marketplace of ideas is what distinguishes a good idea from a bad idea, not some censor who creates an artificial category.
The use of technological measures or contractual terms to prevent the copying of noncopyrightable material shall be illegal.
A better step might be to move to the German model, where you have the right to make personal-use backup copies of anything and it is in fact illegal to use copy-protection to prevent this. There is a tax on blank recording media which is used to compensate copyright holders for their losses due to such use.
This provides a way to regulate images of pornography and violence without raising First Amendment objections. You can make it and sell it, but you can't prevent it from being copied, even in bulk. This makes it far less profitable.
Since copyright is seen as a form of protection meant to encourage the production of new content, this differential treatment certainly would raise 1st Amendment objections. At least, with a real Supreme Court it would -- not sure about these guys any more.
Remember, Bush doesn't owe Hollywood, let alone Simi Valley, home of the porno industry, any favors.
This is the most hopelessly naive thing I have ever seen anybody write about the pr0n industry. That it is either limited to Simi or that nobody would object to this is ridiculous. Last I looked, the print and internet pr0n industries were scattered all over, with a high concentration in New York. I know of one editor who lives in Florida. Had Dubya been elected legitimately he might be able to push something like your proposeal through (to all our detriments, since such wedges never stop with clear-cut examples like pr0n), after the election fiasco he would be a fool to try it.
Oh, wait, he is a fool. Well, trust me, it won't succeed.
These people believe they can put together a case that Katherine Harris has been playing hide-the-salami with both Jeb and Dubya for years. Do you think Dubya would want to encourage Larry Flynt to put his resources behind this effort? There are many reasons not to open this can of worms.
But the best reason, of course, is that things like this never stop with dat evil ol pr0n. If you think this is such a great idea I respectfully submit that you might find the legal climate in other places more congenial. Canada, for example, has been seizing books left and right for years. Unsurprisingly, not all of them are the gay pr0n being "targeted" by the censors.
Bulk metallic magnesium will burn, but not easily because of its small surface area-to-volume ratio. By the time you got the case ignited the contents would be toast from the heat.
How, exactly, will they quit their day jobs and make a moderate living if nobody pays them? The examples of Napster and Warez in general make it pretty clear how often people will pay when it is simple, safe, and anonymous to steal instead.
While I would be the first to admit that copyright, patent, and libel laws are regularly abused by corporations, the free-information crowd are wanting to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Without some protection for the creators of information there will be no incentive to create any information. This is a point which is regularly glossed over with happy-feelgood words in anticopyright tirades.
Information does not want to be free; information is not conscious and is not capable of wanting anything. Some people want it to be free, just as others want absolute control over all of it. Neither extreme makes much sense. While patent laws may be in need of reform, you will not get change for the better by shouting for their complete abolition. Nobody with any sense wants that.
Did not have a chance to become confused by the flashback, as the movie has not come to New Orleans. I am basing my reaction on the statements of others who have seen the movie.
However, there comes a point where you have to live as human and as though reality can be taken for granted... or simply concede your life to an unfullfilled dysfunction.
Yes, one can choose to bask in happy ignorance or to press the frontiers. I made that decision when I was very young and have never looked back. I laud anything that encourages others to press the frontiers too -- and I'll admit that is a deliberately cultivated prejudice of mine.
For those 3133t h4kk3r d00dz, I would far and away wish that they were weighing the issues of honor than not. Because in that day-to-day I mentioned before, the more people acting with honor in the world, the better the world will likely be to live in for me.
Well, as Aleister Crowley suggested, if more people took up the deep questions they would end up understanding honor and integrity by association. It's like the calculus and non-calculus-based physics courses; yes, the non-calculus courses sound easier because you don't need the math, but when you have the math you can understand the concepts instead of merely accepting them by rote. Similarly, no morality is true if it is externally imposed; but if you derive it yourself from experience and inspiration it will be stronger than steel.
I also need to challenge your assumption about challenging long held beliefs. Challenging beliefs long-held or not is fine, but I think you go a step farther and not only challenge, but simply reject them without understanding them.
As Robert Anton Wilson likes to write, "convictions create convicts." Beliefs imprison you. I like to be exposed to new ideas precisely because I want my beliefs challenged, and I think more people should think this way (hmmmm, sounds suspiciously like a belief, doesn't it?). I really think people fall too easily into reality-tunnels carved by their expectations and, more often lately, mass media influences they don't understand. If you don't question everything you end up believing in things without having the slightest idea why you believe them.
I have a coworker who spent a week in Iceland some time back. He came back raving about how wonderful the place was, how clean and educated and orderly and blah blah blah and at some point I pointed out to him (you must remember this guy thinks Ronald Reagan is a genius) "It's a socialist country, that's why everyone gets an education and has a place to stay." His jaw dropped and he said, "no, it's a democracy." I said "Not only is it a socialist state it's a hereditary kingdom." And he had no idea, because he had been taught to hate socialism but when he saw its effects he liked them, without knowing why, without knowing where they came from, without even knowing what he was seeing.
David Lynch movies, The Matrix, PKD novels, and other sources I admire all strive (to some extent in vain) to put people where they can see these obvious things they are missing. That is a lofty and difficult goal, especially when you strive to hide your message so it will create inspiration rather than making a deadpan explanation. Is there anything like that in Tiger?
Cypher isn't the second coming of Jesus; Neo is. Neo is supposed to know better.
I didn't notice the question, probably because I answered it already. No, I haven't had the chance.
I also haven't visited the Moon. But I've read the accounts of people who have, just as I've read the accounts here of people who've seen the movie, and I've visited the movie's website and read the interviews, and while I can't be certain that I'm right, I believe there is very little chance that Crouching Tiger has the depth of The Matrix.
I will also point out that I didn't start out comparing these two movies, Katz did. In a sense the comparison isn't fair, because Matrix was meant to be a lightshow disguising a puzzle box -- a trick I happen to greatly admire. Tiger is apparently much more straightforward. The thing is, hiding a puzzle box inside a light show is a much better trick than making your audience misty-eyed over things that are pretty much instinctive for humans anyway.
Of course. As I pointed out above, The Matrix is not about machines at all. It is about the Gnostic solution to the Problem of Evil, and most of the things which don't make sense (cutting out the sun, you can't be told but must experience it, we created the "evil god figure(s)" ourselves, humans somehow supporting our oppressors) are exact allegories of the Gnostic heresy.
I can't get over how few people see this, it's better than Madonna's song Like a Prayer which most certainly wasn't about either religion or statues of black saints that come to life grin.
Oddly, under Internet Exploiter, http://slashdotsucks.org resolves to this site. I doubt this means it is registered (www.slashdotsucks.org doesn't do this), probably just another bug^H^H^Hfeature of the browser.
The philosophical portions of The Matrix are based on Gnostic Christianity, and while there are a lot of references to other things what made the film great is that it exposed these ideas -- ideas which would have got you burnt at the stake for a period of over 1,000 years between the Council of Nicea and the Enlightenment -- to people who would never have thought about such things.
I still find people whose eyes go wide when I explain to them what The Matrix really is. Many of the hokey lines in The Matrix sound hokey because the movie isn't about computers at all.
"There is no spoon" because there is no universe. It's significant that Neo doesn't seem to grok this at the end of the movie -- while he has received the Gnosis (in this stylized form) he has not understood it yet, a fact which will probably turn tragic for him in the sequel. The pleasure he displays at being able to fly out of the last scene is misplaced, because there is no flight. He has seen the walls of the Black Iron Prison, but has yet to climb them.
I promise you there is no "gnostic genre" (unless you peripherally include Last Temptation of Christ, the only other movie I am aware of to explore Gnostic heresies). The other aspects of the movie are misdirections. And Matrix beautifully obfuscated its real message, just as most mystical teachings do. (Why? You cannot be told an inspiration, you must receive it on your own. This is the reason for the hokey line about needing to "experience the Matrix.")
Meanwhile, where are the comparable layers of meaning in Tiger? So it is about "coming of age." BFD. How does one "come of age?" By learning that kung fu can make you able to fly?? As I titled this, puh-leeze. The Gnostic explanation of reality may make little more sense to you, but it has persisted for more than two thousand years -- many of its aspects predate Christ. I doubt you will find a similar line of people who have risked martyrdom to teach their children that kung fu can make them fly.