Hey, this looks pretty cool... If you have $1400
to waste on effectively nothing more than
a case-mod (and not even a cool-looking one at
that).
You want similar results for almost no cost? Take
out your desk drawers, cut off just the faces,
stick the PC in the hole, and replace the faces.
Optionally, put a 120+mm fan in the back of your
desk ("optional" meaning "if you want your computer
to survive the day"). Voila, your PC no longer
sounds like a 747 taking off (if it still does,
you most likely can blame this on your desk
itself vibrating - Try pads on the bottom of
the case, or lay the PC on half an inch of sand
(seriously!), or both... those will kill most
vibrations).
Of course, for the less cosmetically-inclined
(or if you want your desk to still have drawers),
you could get the same effect with a large wooden
(or even thick cardboard) box over the PC - Just
make sure to put a large fan (the key to low noise
and good air-flow) facing away from you in
this box, and you can easily and cheaply ($10 vs
$1400) drop your PC by 20-30db.
I suspect that SCO will be mocked and
laughed at by the Europeans just the same
as we Americans do. Finally! A humor that
transcends boundaries!
Ah, humor... Everyone appreciates a good
joke.
Perhaps SCO will try to go after the Middle
East next, and we can finally achieve world
peace by all having a great laugh at SCO's
dying attempts to boost the value of Darl's
stock options.
I would guess (totally without justification
I admit), at least equal to sending a ship with
a return capability.
With current propulsion technology, the fuel alone
accounts for over 90% of the initial mass of a
vehicle designed to go to even low Earth orbit.
Applying that to the idea of a round-trip flight
that actually includes landing on the planet,
the initial launch needs to include sufficient
fuel for the way back. Now, that alone doesn't
seem too bad, it would less than double the
starting mass (since Mars has significantly
lower gravational pull than the Earth, it would
take somewhat less than the same amount of
fuel). BUT, the problem comes when you
consider that getting the fuel for the return
trip off of the Earth takes the same fuel-to-mass
ratio as just the original one-way flight - So
you effectively increase the starting fuel not
by a factor of two, but more like ten times as
much.
And, on top of that basic unavoidable increase in
mass just from fuel, the craft that will land on
Mars becomes considerably more complex as well
(and also far more fuel-requiring for the
outbound trip, for a powered landing),
as it needs to land gently and keep a complete
launch vehicle (notoriously fragile things,
relatively speaking, and in this case loaded
with quite a large quantity of highly explosive
fuel) in proper working order. With a one-way
trip, a sort of "controlled crash" would do just
fine, similar to what the Rover used recently.
All that adds up to making one manned and a dozen
or so unmanned one-way supply runs (of which, at
least a few would occur before the humans
went, to give them a few years' worth of a buffer
in case something went wrong) to Mars look downright
conservative when compared with even a
single round-trip manned mission.
So, to compare, how much would it take to maintain
a colony on Mars? Well, assuming one supply
ship per year, we could, with current tech,
literally supply the colony for a decade,
comfortably before the break-even price of a
single return trip. For some hard numbers,
consider that the Rover cost just under USD$1
billion, while the Apollo landing cost (in
scaled dollars) over $75 billion. Most of
that second number went toward making sure
we could bring them home safely.
In that time, although I wouldn't expect any
truly radical advances in our ability to move
about our solar system, a small Mars colony
could easily reach the point of self-sustenance
(except for an insufficiently large gene pool,
but I don't think anyone has an arkship-type
project in mind at this point, more of a
permanent research colony that goes a tad
further than what we have already in
Antarctica).
Personally, the biggest limitation I see to
this involves a supply of cheap, safe, portable
power. And, conveniently enough, Toshiba
recently designed
a perfect solution to this particular problem.
The thing about Mars is, given the launch
window, if something goes wrong (hey these air
filters are made of CHEESE!), you're screwed.
True... But currently, we don't have a lot
more safety even in exploring very, very
near our own home planet. I've seen more than
one reasonable source say that the biggest reason
the Columbia breakup occurred didn't so much
come from lack of awareness of the problem (GC
knew that at least some damage had occurred at
launch, though arguably not how much), but more
because they had no way to fix the problem even
if they wanted to.
Not only could the resulting fish have an
advantage in nature
Sorry, but that won't happen.
A glowing fish (or more accurately, a fluorescent
fish, a distinction apparently lost on most Slashdotters) would look like a giant "Eat at
Joe's" sign if it got out into the wild. It would
have the same life expectancy in a natural body
of water as it would in the Sahara desert.
And, even that assumes someone takes the effort
to buy a sufficiently large number of breeding
triplets and carefully release them in an
environment suitable for these fish - Even
going from one temperature-and-PH-controlled
aquarium to another, about half of your new
store-bought fish will die of shock if you
just dump the bag into your tank. A few
accidentally making it to a random body of
water would almost certainly die before
anything even managed to eat them.
the worst-case scenario I can think of would
probably be successfully putting them down and
then listening as the impact of the fact that
they are going to spend the rest of their
probably short lives in a bubble in the middle
of a barren waste sets in.
Agreed... Making geeks the best possible choice.
Rather than the standard psychological testing
to make sure people seem relatively "normal" and
stable and won't freak once they get into a
tough situation, we need to find people so
totally antisocial that they wouldn't care in
the least about never seeing another human.
Of course, I think you understate the potential
purpose of such a mission - The intial settlers
wouldn't just hide in a bubble all day. More
likely, they'd begin constructing underground
habitats and surface greenhouses (okay, big
bubbles, but not as bad as you describe it).
So if these people felt cramped, they would have
more motivation to expand the colony. Additionally,
they could look forward to eventually returning
to Earth - "One way" today would happen only for
the purpose of establishing a permanant settlement
on Mars. Once that grows large enough, bidirectional
transportation becomes more reasonable. And, don't
forget that the need to send raw materials to the
colony would drive research into propulsion tech,
possibly making a "commuter" vehicle more practical
over the next 20 years than at present...
And, of course, those regular shipments of raw materials
would bring a bit of excitement, and perhaps even
new settlers as the colony expanded enough to support
them. They could probably even watch TV in their
down time (hell, most people would rather do that
than socialize anyway), with proper arrangements
for a dedicated high-density data link (perhaps a
pair of satellites, one for each planet?).
And relating to the last idea, this would of course
provide the mars colony with the required nice fast
porn feed. Though, the colony would initially need
at least four people (since ping times back to Earth
would really suck for gaming), but I think it
could work.
Do you realize how many episodes of Doctor
Who were made? You'd need a police box to store
them all!
Old, low-quality B&W TV footage wouldn't take
up anywhere near the same space as a
modern show shot in color and on (reasonably)
high-quality film.
For an idea of this, check out the size you can
fit most VCDs into - Somehing like the old Dr.
Who episodes would realistically count as
"perfect" quality at VCD bitrates (and I say
that as someone who finds even modern Hollywood
blockbusters distractingly artifact-ridden on
most DVD releases). Stick that on DVD-sized
media (rather than CD, as with most VCDs), and
you could probably fit an entire season on a
single DSDL disc.
However, I do have to point out a small problem
with the original question, as asked:
They should take all the "lost" ones and put
them on a dvd collection.
Forgive me for noting the obvious (which I
suspect the author might have intended as
a joke), but you can't release the lost
episodes, by definition. Only the unlost
ones.
So -- is this a trivial, obvious extension
of the prior art?
Yes and no...
If you consider as "prior art" the very fact
that these idiots had a pre-existing defendant
in their infringement suit, it looks like a
no-brainer. If you consider as prior art
the fact that every major hosting company
on earth has allowed a similar naming
convention, it seems a no-brainer.
If you consider the single most obvious
use of the.name domain (fred@my.name and
fred.my.name)... Yup a no-brainer.
However, the USPTO has a long history of
having no brains, so they evidently don't
see the relation between the patent and
all these painfully obvious (and largely
preexisting) "violations" of it.
or (b) to minimize potential damages to
George should another copyright holder discover
that George had subconsciously misappropriated
his copyrighted song?
Simple - George just has to "limit" himself
to using short sequences of notes already found
in works prior to the modern copyright hell.
I use "limit" in quotes because I strongly
suspect that, if George looks hard enough, he
can phrase just about anything he composes into
some combination of notes from public domain
works. BoyBand2004 might still choose to sue
George if George's new song sounds like
BoyBand2004's new song... But, if George
can prove that every sufficiently-long (8 notes
should do, based on what I've read of cases such
as these, though I do not claim to have a degree
in law) section of his song comes from known PD
works, BoyBand2004 wouldn't really have much
of a case (since, by the same precedent you cite,
they arguably copied the earlier works
subconsciously).
I've actually considered setting up a web site
to catalog exactly such sequences for aspiring
indie musicians to protect themselves with.
Perhaps this makes a good chance to see if anyone
wants such a website... Anyone? Good idea, bad
idea, useless? Suggestions for defining
"sameness" (ie, does a note sequence need to
follow the exact original, or would a series
of halfstep-intervals suffice? And how to best
deal with chords?).
I think it would be quite funny to start
trying to put the magic watermark as many
places as possible, making Photoshop break
as often as possible.
I would consider it even funnier to find out
just how many image capturing devices
contain similar filters...
I tried having a T-Shirt made with their
stupid little five-dot pattern, but sadly,
the printing software at the shop I went
to wouldn't process it (heh, I wonder if
they use PS? That would be just too cute).
Not surprising, since high-end printing
equipment has contained such countermeasures
for quite a few years, but still, a shirt?
What, like I intend to pass myself as a
fake $20? Gimme a frickin' break here!
I suppose I could have someone airbrush it
on, and hope the artist gets it accurate to
within whatever tolerances the detection
algorithm uses, but I feel less confident in
that solution.
Personally, I just like the idea of making
security cameras unable to track me. I
don't know if it would work, but imagine
the response of your typical store security
staff. Priceless.
We shouldn't celebrate just because
indemnification is available and say it
solves the problem.
I don't think we need to look at this
situation in that particular light...
SCO tried going off on yet another FUD tangent
(presumeably since as of today, their legal case
should cease to exist) by pointing the finger at
various Linux-related companies, asking why, if
so confident in SCO's lack of a case, they didn't
offer to indemnify their clients.
Novel has yet again spiked the ball back, and
taken up SCO's challenge.
IMO, the entire situation has gone from legal
harassment to playground pissing-contests. "You
sound sooooo sure your dog can beat up my dog,
why won't you bet on it, you little pussy?".
Nothing more, nothing less. In this case, Novel
responded by tossing in a quarter and letting
its rottweiler off the leash to play with SCO's
toy poodle.
The issue in this story is false
advertising. Period.
No. Period.
Unless ATI specifically has a product
called the "Mobile Radeon 9200", which
includes the 9200 chip, this has nothing
to do with false advertising, and
everything to do with people failing
to make sure their assumptions hold true.
Now, if such a product does exist
with a 9200 chip, someone has engaged in
false advertising. Whether ATI or
HP/Dell/etc get the prize for that one
depends one contracts between them, but
still has nothing to do with the externally
visible public model number.
"2200" != "2200MHz" == "2.2GHz"
True, and most geeks understand that. Keep
in mind that people became rather agitated
over the difference between GB and GiB as
applied to HDDs, however... While not outright
deceptive (you could even argue that AMD's
model numbers actually gave a better
picture of performance than clock speed),
it clearly leaves room for confusion among
those who don't even understand the difference
between MB and MHz...
"XP" == "untested and not guaranteed for
multiproc" != "MP" == "tested and guaranteed
for multiproc"
Or to put that same idea on an unrelated
product, a "used condom" has undergone testing
and we can post-hoc guarantee it didn't break,
while "unused condom" has not undergone any
actual testing for its intended use. Cleaned up
and repackaged, though, it represents the same
product.
Yeah, for companies who will pay 10x the price
for a guarantee (rather than deal with the 1%
fallout of the unguaranteed version), a difference
exists, but only on paper. For the rest of us,
the two refer to the same product, with one
deliberately (and reverseably) crippled.
More interestingly, you appear to defeat your
own point here - A paper-only difference between
the XP and MP line of Athlons counts as valid in
your opinion, yet the paper-only name of
an ATI product makes your fur bristle? Pick one,
physical reality or paper, and stick with it.
Can I get an overrated for the
parent here?
Overrated? Hey, perhaps you believe so.
I merely pointed out that the crux of the
argument involves semantics, not physical
reality. Does product "Spiffy-X"
need to have "Chip X" in it, or do they
refer to completely separate ideas? The
IBM XT didn't have an "Intel XT" chip in
it, it had an 8088. I believe you could
interpret this either way, you apparently
do not. You have the right to think that, but
really, asking for a mod-down just because
I see something you don't... Open your
head a tad.
The other alternative is IPv6. VoIP might
just be the driving force needed to see IPv6
deployed in the real world.
I don't see that as a solution, for one
basic reason... Why do most of us NAT/MASQ
our connections in the first place?
Yeah, some do it for the sake of firewalling,
but most of us do it because our ISPs will only
give us a single address, and at best will
let us pay more for an extra two or three
addresses.
Using IPv6 won't change that. It would
technically mean we have an abundance of
addresses, but our ISPs would still pull
the same BS, expecting us to pay more
for the same level of service.
And even then, most broadband ISPs have
rules against running "servers", a concept
so vague that an out-of-the-box Windows box
technically violates it (although ironically
enough, while they piss and moan over having
an open telnet port, they'll overlook a wide
open SMB share). So what use would we have
for an abundance of IP addresses? If my ISP
limits me to acting as a pure client, I can
do that just as well behind a masquerading
gateway as I can with each machine directly
on the net.
As has been pointed out, what we really
need are easier solutions such as port
forwarding
I kinda missed his point with that one...
Port forwarding works pretty well,
assuming your ISP doesn't spank you for
having an open port. I tell my masq box
to send port X to an internal machine,
and it works. No hassle beyond a
single firewall rule. So why doesn't
port forwarding provide a sufficient
means of getting around the NAT-to-NAT
connection problem?
so if it's the same physical product why does the
MP identify as a different processor, and why doesn't
the XP work in multiprocessor applications? Try sticking
2 XP chips in a 2cpu motherboard.
(turns on his dual-XP box)
(Loads up Slashdot)
(Resumes this post)
Okay, done. The point you meant to make?
I realize that AMD has a slightly different
jumper setting between the XP and MP, but I
don't really consider that sufficient to make
them "different" products. Back in the days
when we needed to set the IRQ on sound cards,
would you have complained about getting a
different sound card if instead of the default
IRQ5, yours came with the jumper at IRQ3,
or would you have just changed it?
The only difference between the MP and the
XP involves AMD certifying that the MPs will
work in a dual CPU environment. Same core,
same cache, same everything except the XP
has the L5 bridge cut (ie, deliberately
disabled, rather than something "extra"
added to the MP line) - Oh, and twice the
price, let's not forget the single biggest
difference.
The problem here is that you can't look
up the technical specs because they aren't
available.
Alright, I'll agree that counts as
a problem, if potential buyers can't verify
what they actually get.
I don't know that I'd say that problem lies
in the model numbers, or complain about them
(Personally, in that situation, I would just
speak with my wallet and buy a competing
product that does provide a reasonably
detailed hardware description), but yes,
definitely not quite kosher.
Incidentally, I couldn't find this from a
quick check of the linked material - Does a
product called a "Mobile Radeon 9200"
exist that actually does have a 9200 chip
in it? In that case, I'd agree with you
that Dell et al should take the heat
for this one for false advertising. If not
(which I currently suspect as true), then I
would still just consider it a matter of
marketing. And even going so
far as to defend these companies (quite
unusual for me, considering my strong
anti-corporate beliefs), if it literally
has the same level of performance (again,
under the assumption that no such product
actually has a 9200 in it), what difference
does it make in a hardwired environment
lacking AGP-8x? The end user can't remove
it and stick it in a machine with a faster
bus, so they haven't "lost" anything. In
the given environment, it performs the
same, so why would anyone use or even
want the more expensive chip?
Can anybody share insights of whether this
is right or wrong? Should I complain about my
9000 chip that delivers what the 9200 brand
promises, knowing it has not been
overclocked?"
That depends... Do you consider it "misleading"
to label an Athlon running at 1.8GHz as a 2200?
And do you consider it misleading to label a chip
"MP" vs "XP" simply based on a level of testing,
rather than a different physical product?
Model numbers often reflect the underlying
hardware, but we've never had that to
count on. If you want to know the technical
specs, look them up, don't extrapolate from
the marketing BS.
In case it's escaped your attention, a good
way to determine whether he's a criminal is to
ask yourself: "Hmm, arrested? Check. Charged
with a crime? Check. Facing fines and prison?
Check."
Even if you add "convicted and sent to prison"
to that list, you still don't have anything
more rigid than "probably" a criminal - You
hear about new evidence proving the innocence
of people after serving X years all the time.
More to the point, your list doesn't even
include "conviction". So by your reasoning,
anyone even charged with a crime much
have done it? I certainly do hope you don't
choose to become a cop, lawyer, judge, or
politician.
Now, in this particular situation, I tend to
agree Lamo has gone well beyond finding an
unlocked door and alerting the owner. However,
do his actions warrant five years in prison?
I've always found it amusing that when an
individual sues a company, the law almost
always limits them to actual damages. But
when a company goes after an individual,
$15 worth of actual damages becomes prison
time and a quarter of a million dollar fine.
Pathetic. Our legal system doesn't just
need an overhaul, it need everyone with any
role in it spanked, sent to bed without
supper, and put before a firing squad in
the morning, and their tanned hides used
as the vellum for a complete rewrite.
Bullshit, boy. In most states, you will get
jailed for having over 25, say 35, GRAMS of pot
on you. It is presumed that if you have so much
marijuana, you are a dealer.
You've described an ounce, basically - 28.3 or
31.1g, depending on which system you use (and
how much of a short the dealer thinks he can
get away with).
For an idea of how much that really means, I've
known heavy smolkers who would go through that
in a week. For a moderate smoker (a joint rather
than a beer at night after a hard day's work),
it would last a month, two at most.
Not exactly proof of dealing, eh?
With the exception of the really primo weed,
dealers generally buy by the kilo, not
by the gram or ounce. The only "dealers"
buying by the ounce basically just act as
point-men for themselves and a small group
of friends - More of a weed co-op than
actual dealing.
So yes, I would indeed say that five years for
an ounce sounds absurd, even if you do
believe the WO(s)D has any validity
whatsoever.
Relating to that last sentence, however, it
really disturbs me that many people consider
a joint every now and again just fine, but
dealing small amounts some horrible crime.
Logic time - Without low-level dealers, people
can't get that occasional joint. Yeah, once
you get to the level of organized crime, you
have more of a problem (though more for their
peripheral activities than the dealing itself),
although that would vanish overnight if we
ended the WO(s)D, much like the whiskey
bootleggers vanished overnight when the 21st
amendment repealed the 18th.
I find it surprising that it would be a
frequent occurrence, though, given that you
don't steal
I find it rather surprising as well, though
I can appreciate your incredulity.
For some reason though, I simply cannot buy
anything from, for example, Walmart's
electronics section (even the stupid $5.00
bargain DVDs) without having one of those
tags set off the door. I'd say at least
once a week I set one of those stupid things
off, and for the most part, I treat cashiers
well (ie, don't give them a reason to "forget"
to disable the tags to get back at me).
At least at Walmart, based on the typical
response to the door alarm (ie, none),
I suspect that happens all too frequently
to even consider it a valid theft
prevention system. At other stores,
however, I've seen some rather
overzealous responses (a small army of
"associates" immediately rushes to the
door and all but surrounds the suspect).
In my comments, I refer to the latter
type of response as unacceptible,
especially considering the former.
Oh, gods! Did I actually just praise
Wallyworld for something (even if something
they probably wouldn't want well-known)? Gack.
Gotta go wash my mouth out with bleach.
Why are you giving people advice on how
to get away with shoplifting?
I didn't take it so much as "how to get away
with shoplifting", as "Avoiding harassment by
store rent-a-cops". And I agree with him
completely - People need to realize that they
can and SHOULD ignore things like random bag
check requests (though at "private" clubs
like Sams or BJs, your membership agreement
arguably gives them a right to do so), or the
ever-annoying "DING! We're sorry, you've
activated..." because some minimum-wage
cashier doesn't have a lot of motivation to
excel in their job and finds it amusing to
poorly deactivate the tags of annoying
customers.
Personally, I respond to such things with
"Either leave me the hell alone, show me
a picture of me stuffing something in my
shorts, or hand me a phone to call my lawyer".
If they either timidly repeat the request or
stand there looking confused for more than a
few seconds, I simply walk away. I have yet
to have someone attempt to physically restrain
me, but look forward to it - I'll resist just
enough to sustain some minor injury, then
sue, sue, sue. (And for reference, no, they
would not have any actual proof of
me stealing, because I don't do so).
However, actively leveraging a misdemeanour
by another company to gain a competitive
advantage in a way such as that just wasn't
on.
You just described the US political system
in one nice, neat sentence.
Anyway, I think you view this somewhat more
harshly than the situation warrants...
MSFreePC.com did nothing more than tell
people "Hey, Microsoft owes you money for
screwing you. Do you really want to hand
it right back to them, or would you like
to use it to get the hell away from their
crappy products?". This ruling suggests
that they went too far, but conceptually,
I see it as far more in keeping with
the spirit of the original settlement than
any possible result of filing directly with
Microsoft.
Think that these RFID tags could help
bust the next group of people who try to
outsmart Vegas?
No. More likely, they'll provide the next
big way to outsmart Vegas.
Technology like this makes people lazy.
As a trivial (though unsustainable) example,
once the casinos migrate to equipment that
trusts chip values based on RFID,
nickle-and-diming the casinos to death
becomes no more complicated than reprogramming
a batch of $5 chips to read as $10. No human
would take them, but plop 'em in the slots,
win back 90% of the fake value, and move on.
By the time they notice the problem, a small
group of people has left town a few million
richer.
And although they would quickly fix flaws like
this, a million others will certainly pop up.
wouldn't that leave the RIAA open up to
liability for potential violation of civil
rights and false arrest if the "cops" actually
put anyone in handcuffs as they are threatening
to?
Too bad I don't live in LA...
Anyone who does, want to make a few bucks,
courtesy of the RIAA?
Find one of these "teams". Follow them
around, stepping in to explain to anyone
they attempt to bust that they lack any
legal power and the vendor can safely
ignore them.
Have a friend, staying out of sight, follow
you around during all this with a video
camera.
When the RIAA rent-a-fake-cops get pissed and
beat the crap out of you (since they hire real
ex-cops, that shouldn't take too long), congrats,
consider yourself set for life from your civil
suit.
Best of all, since these guys don't
actually count as cops, they can't charge
you with interfering in a police investigation
(which would almost certainly happen if you
tried this on real cops).
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, this looks pretty cool... If you have $1400 to waste on effectively nothing more than a case-mod (and not even a cool-looking one at that).
You want similar results for almost no cost? Take out your desk drawers, cut off just the faces, stick the PC in the hole, and replace the faces. Optionally, put a 120+mm fan in the back of your desk ("optional" meaning "if you want your computer to survive the day"). Voila, your PC no longer sounds like a 747 taking off (if it still does, you most likely can blame this on your desk itself vibrating - Try pads on the bottom of the case, or lay the PC on half an inch of sand (seriously!), or both... those will kill most vibrations).
Of course, for the less cosmetically-inclined (or if you want your desk to still have drawers), you could get the same effect with a large wooden (or even thick cardboard) box over the PC - Just make sure to put a large fan (the key to low noise and good air-flow) facing away from you in this box, and you can easily and cheaply ($10 vs $1400) drop your PC by 20-30db.
I suspect that SCO will be mocked and laughed at by the Europeans just the same as we Americans do. Finally! A humor that transcends boundaries!
Ah, humor... Everyone appreciates a good joke.
Perhaps SCO will try to go after the Middle East next, and we can finally achieve world peace by all having a great laugh at SCO's dying attempts to boost the value of Darl's stock options.
I would guess (totally without justification I admit), at least equal to sending a ship with a return capability.
With current propulsion technology, the fuel alone accounts for over 90% of the initial mass of a vehicle designed to go to even low Earth orbit. Applying that to the idea of a round-trip flight that actually includes landing on the planet, the initial launch needs to include sufficient fuel for the way back. Now, that alone doesn't seem too bad, it would less than double the starting mass (since Mars has significantly lower gravational pull than the Earth, it would take somewhat less than the same amount of fuel). BUT, the problem comes when you consider that getting the fuel for the return trip off of the Earth takes the same fuel-to-mass ratio as just the original one-way flight - So you effectively increase the starting fuel not by a factor of two, but more like ten times as much.
And, on top of that basic unavoidable increase in mass just from fuel, the craft that will land on Mars becomes considerably more complex as well (and also far more fuel-requiring for the outbound trip, for a powered landing), as it needs to land gently and keep a complete launch vehicle (notoriously fragile things, relatively speaking, and in this case loaded with quite a large quantity of highly explosive fuel) in proper working order. With a one-way trip, a sort of "controlled crash" would do just fine, similar to what the Rover used recently. All that adds up to making one manned and a dozen or so unmanned one-way supply runs (of which, at least a few would occur before the humans went, to give them a few years' worth of a buffer in case something went wrong) to Mars look downright conservative when compared with even a single round-trip manned mission.
So, to compare, how much would it take to maintain a colony on Mars? Well, assuming one supply ship per year, we could, with current tech, literally supply the colony for a decade, comfortably before the break-even price of a single return trip. For some hard numbers, consider that the Rover cost just under USD$1 billion, while the Apollo landing cost (in scaled dollars) over $75 billion. Most of that second number went toward making sure we could bring them home safely.
In that time, although I wouldn't expect any truly radical advances in our ability to move about our solar system, a small Mars colony could easily reach the point of self-sustenance (except for an insufficiently large gene pool, but I don't think anyone has an arkship-type project in mind at this point, more of a permanent research colony that goes a tad further than what we have already in Antarctica).
Personally, the biggest limitation I see to this involves a supply of cheap, safe, portable power. And, conveniently enough, Toshiba recently designed a perfect solution to this particular problem.
The thing about Mars is, given the launch window, if something goes wrong (hey these air filters are made of CHEESE!), you're screwed.
True... But currently, we don't have a lot more safety even in exploring very, very near our own home planet. I've seen more than one reasonable source say that the biggest reason the Columbia breakup occurred didn't so much come from lack of awareness of the problem (GC knew that at least some damage had occurred at launch, though arguably not how much), but more because they had no way to fix the problem even if they wanted to.
Not only could the resulting fish have an advantage in nature
Sorry, but that won't happen.
A glowing fish (or more accurately, a fluorescent fish, a distinction apparently lost on most Slashdotters) would look like a giant "Eat at Joe's" sign if it got out into the wild. It would have the same life expectancy in a natural body of water as it would in the Sahara desert.
And, even that assumes someone takes the effort to buy a sufficiently large number of breeding triplets and carefully release them in an environment suitable for these fish - Even going from one temperature-and-PH-controlled aquarium to another, about half of your new store-bought fish will die of shock if you just dump the bag into your tank. A few accidentally making it to a random body of water would almost certainly die before anything even managed to eat them.
the worst-case scenario I can think of would probably be successfully putting them down and then listening as the impact of the fact that they are going to spend the rest of their probably short lives in a bubble in the middle of a barren waste sets in.
Agreed... Making geeks the best possible choice. Rather than the standard psychological testing to make sure people seem relatively "normal" and stable and won't freak once they get into a tough situation, we need to find people so totally antisocial that they wouldn't care in the least about never seeing another human.
Of course, I think you understate the potential purpose of such a mission - The intial settlers wouldn't just hide in a bubble all day. More likely, they'd begin constructing underground habitats and surface greenhouses (okay, big bubbles, but not as bad as you describe it).
So if these people felt cramped, they would have more motivation to expand the colony. Additionally, they could look forward to eventually returning to Earth - "One way" today would happen only for the purpose of establishing a permanant settlement on Mars. Once that grows large enough, bidirectional transportation becomes more reasonable. And, don't forget that the need to send raw materials to the colony would drive research into propulsion tech, possibly making a "commuter" vehicle more practical over the next 20 years than at present...
And, of course, those regular shipments of raw materials would bring a bit of excitement, and perhaps even new settlers as the colony expanded enough to support them. They could probably even watch TV in their down time (hell, most people would rather do that than socialize anyway), with proper arrangements for a dedicated high-density data link (perhaps a pair of satellites, one for each planet?).
And relating to the last idea, this would of course provide the mars colony with the required nice fast porn feed. Though, the colony would initially need at least four people (since ping times back to Earth would really suck for gaming), but I think it could work.
Do you realize how many episodes of Doctor Who were made? You'd need a police box to store them all!
Old, low-quality B&W TV footage wouldn't take up anywhere near the same space as a modern show shot in color and on (reasonably) high-quality film.
For an idea of this, check out the size you can fit most VCDs into - Somehing like the old Dr. Who episodes would realistically count as "perfect" quality at VCD bitrates (and I say that as someone who finds even modern Hollywood blockbusters distractingly artifact-ridden on most DVD releases). Stick that on DVD-sized media (rather than CD, as with most VCDs), and you could probably fit an entire season on a single DSDL disc.
However, I do have to point out a small problem with the original question, as asked:
They should take all the "lost" ones and put them on a dvd collection.
Forgive me for noting the obvious (which I suspect the author might have intended as a joke), but you can't release the lost episodes, by definition. Only the unlost ones.
So -- is this a trivial, obvious extension of the prior art?
.name domain (fred@my.name and
fred.my.name)... Yup a no-brainer.
Yes and no...
If you consider as "prior art" the very fact that these idiots had a pre-existing defendant in their infringement suit, it looks like a no-brainer. If you consider as prior art the fact that every major hosting company on earth has allowed a similar naming convention, it seems a no-brainer. If you consider the single most obvious use of the
However, the USPTO has a long history of having no brains, so they evidently don't see the relation between the patent and all these painfully obvious (and largely preexisting) "violations" of it.
or (b) to minimize potential damages to George should another copyright holder discover that George had subconsciously misappropriated his copyrighted song?
Simple - George just has to "limit" himself to using short sequences of notes already found in works prior to the modern copyright hell.
I use "limit" in quotes because I strongly suspect that, if George looks hard enough, he can phrase just about anything he composes into some combination of notes from public domain works. BoyBand2004 might still choose to sue George if George's new song sounds like BoyBand2004's new song... But, if George can prove that every sufficiently-long (8 notes should do, based on what I've read of cases such as these, though I do not claim to have a degree in law) section of his song comes from known PD works, BoyBand2004 wouldn't really have much of a case (since, by the same precedent you cite, they arguably copied the earlier works subconsciously).
I've actually considered setting up a web site to catalog exactly such sequences for aspiring indie musicians to protect themselves with. Perhaps this makes a good chance to see if anyone wants such a website... Anyone? Good idea, bad idea, useless? Suggestions for defining "sameness" (ie, does a note sequence need to follow the exact original, or would a series of halfstep-intervals suffice? And how to best deal with chords?).
I'm not familiar with this five dot pattern. Could you tell me where I could find an example of it? Either on the web or on the currency itself.
Sure... Check out this image (warning, a PDF)...
On the 10 Euro note pictured, you can see the pattern VERY well, as the author connected the relevant 5-dot groupings with green lines.
It looks vaguely like the Cingular logo, IMO, or perhaps a little headless stick-figure.
On the US $20, the pattern appears using the zeros from the repeated background "20"s, or so I've read (I haven't personally verified it).
I think it would be quite funny to start trying to put the magic watermark as many places as possible, making Photoshop break as often as possible.
I would consider it even funnier to find out just how many image capturing devices contain similar filters...
I tried having a T-Shirt made with their stupid little five-dot pattern, but sadly, the printing software at the shop I went to wouldn't process it (heh, I wonder if they use PS? That would be just too cute). Not surprising, since high-end printing equipment has contained such countermeasures for quite a few years, but still, a shirt? What, like I intend to pass myself as a fake $20? Gimme a frickin' break here!
I suppose I could have someone airbrush it on, and hope the artist gets it accurate to within whatever tolerances the detection algorithm uses, but I feel less confident in that solution.
Personally, I just like the idea of making security cameras unable to track me. I don't know if it would work, but imagine the response of your typical store security staff. Priceless.
Do you know what microprinting is? Do you know how hard it is to duplicate on a standard litho press?
Do you know how many cashiers examine every bill they get with a strong magnifying glass?
We shouldn't celebrate just because indemnification is available and say it solves the problem.
I don't think we need to look at this situation in that particular light...
SCO tried going off on yet another FUD tangent (presumeably since as of today, their legal case should cease to exist) by pointing the finger at various Linux-related companies, asking why, if so confident in SCO's lack of a case, they didn't offer to indemnify their clients.
Novel has yet again spiked the ball back, and taken up SCO's challenge.
IMO, the entire situation has gone from legal harassment to playground pissing-contests. "You sound sooooo sure your dog can beat up my dog, why won't you bet on it, you little pussy?". Nothing more, nothing less. In this case, Novel responded by tossing in a quarter and letting its rottweiler off the leash to play with SCO's toy poodle.
The issue in this story is false advertising. Period.
No. Period.
Unless ATI specifically has a product called the "Mobile Radeon 9200", which includes the 9200 chip, this has nothing to do with false advertising, and everything to do with people failing to make sure their assumptions hold true.
Now, if such a product does exist with a 9200 chip, someone has engaged in false advertising. Whether ATI or HP/Dell/etc get the prize for that one depends one contracts between them, but still has nothing to do with the externally visible public model number.
"2200" != "2200MHz" == "2.2GHz"
True, and most geeks understand that. Keep in mind that people became rather agitated over the difference between GB and GiB as applied to HDDs, however... While not outright deceptive (you could even argue that AMD's model numbers actually gave a better picture of performance than clock speed), it clearly leaves room for confusion among those who don't even understand the difference between MB and MHz...
"XP" == "untested and not guaranteed for multiproc" != "MP" == "tested and guaranteed for multiproc"
Or to put that same idea on an unrelated product, a "used condom" has undergone testing and we can post-hoc guarantee it didn't break, while "unused condom" has not undergone any actual testing for its intended use. Cleaned up and repackaged, though, it represents the same product.
Yeah, for companies who will pay 10x the price for a guarantee (rather than deal with the 1% fallout of the unguaranteed version), a difference exists, but only on paper. For the rest of us, the two refer to the same product, with one deliberately (and reverseably) crippled.
More interestingly, you appear to defeat your own point here - A paper-only difference between the XP and MP line of Athlons counts as valid in your opinion, yet the paper-only name of an ATI product makes your fur bristle? Pick one, physical reality or paper, and stick with it.
Can I get an overrated for the parent here?
Overrated? Hey, perhaps you believe so. I merely pointed out that the crux of the argument involves semantics, not physical reality. Does product "Spiffy-X" need to have "Chip X" in it, or do they refer to completely separate ideas? The IBM XT didn't have an "Intel XT" chip in it, it had an 8088. I believe you could interpret this either way, you apparently do not. You have the right to think that, but really, asking for a mod-down just because I see something you don't... Open your head a tad.
The other alternative is IPv6. VoIP might just be the driving force needed to see IPv6 deployed in the real world.
I don't see that as a solution, for one basic reason... Why do most of us NAT/MASQ our connections in the first place?
Yeah, some do it for the sake of firewalling, but most of us do it because our ISPs will only give us a single address, and at best will let us pay more for an extra two or three addresses.
Using IPv6 won't change that. It would technically mean we have an abundance of addresses, but our ISPs would still pull the same BS, expecting us to pay more for the same level of service.
And even then, most broadband ISPs have rules against running "servers", a concept so vague that an out-of-the-box Windows box technically violates it (although ironically enough, while they piss and moan over having an open telnet port, they'll overlook a wide open SMB share). So what use would we have for an abundance of IP addresses? If my ISP limits me to acting as a pure client, I can do that just as well behind a masquerading gateway as I can with each machine directly on the net.
As has been pointed out, what we really need are easier solutions such as port forwarding
I kinda missed his point with that one... Port forwarding works pretty well, assuming your ISP doesn't spank you for having an open port. I tell my masq box to send port X to an internal machine, and it works. No hassle beyond a single firewall rule. So why doesn't port forwarding provide a sufficient means of getting around the NAT-to-NAT connection problem?
so if it's the same physical product why does the MP identify as a different processor, and why doesn't the XP work in multiprocessor applications? Try sticking 2 XP chips in a 2cpu motherboard.
(turns on his dual-XP box)
(Loads up Slashdot)
(Resumes this post)
Okay, done. The point you meant to make?
I realize that AMD has a slightly different jumper setting between the XP and MP, but I don't really consider that sufficient to make them "different" products. Back in the days when we needed to set the IRQ on sound cards, would you have complained about getting a different sound card if instead of the default IRQ5, yours came with the jumper at IRQ3, or would you have just changed it?
The only difference between the MP and the XP involves AMD certifying that the MPs will work in a dual CPU environment. Same core, same cache, same everything except the XP has the L5 bridge cut (ie, deliberately disabled, rather than something "extra" added to the MP line) - Oh, and twice the price, let's not forget the single biggest difference.
The problem here is that you can't look up the technical specs because they aren't available.
Alright, I'll agree that counts as a problem, if potential buyers can't verify what they actually get. I don't know that I'd say that problem lies in the model numbers, or complain about them (Personally, in that situation, I would just speak with my wallet and buy a competing product that does provide a reasonably detailed hardware description), but yes, definitely not quite kosher.
Incidentally, I couldn't find this from a quick check of the linked material - Does a product called a "Mobile Radeon 9200" exist that actually does have a 9200 chip in it? In that case, I'd agree with you that Dell et al should take the heat for this one for false advertising. If not (which I currently suspect as true), then I would still just consider it a matter of marketing. And even going so far as to defend these companies (quite unusual for me, considering my strong anti-corporate beliefs), if it literally has the same level of performance (again, under the assumption that no such product actually has a 9200 in it), what difference does it make in a hardwired environment lacking AGP-8x? The end user can't remove it and stick it in a machine with a faster bus, so they haven't "lost" anything. In the given environment, it performs the same, so why would anyone use or even want the more expensive chip?
Can anybody share insights of whether this is right or wrong? Should I complain about my 9000 chip that delivers what the 9200 brand promises, knowing it has not been overclocked?"
That depends... Do you consider it "misleading" to label an Athlon running at 1.8GHz as a 2200?
And do you consider it misleading to label a chip "MP" vs "XP" simply based on a level of testing, rather than a different physical product?
Model numbers often reflect the underlying hardware, but we've never had that to count on. If you want to know the technical specs, look them up, don't extrapolate from the marketing BS.
In case it's escaped your attention, a good way to determine whether he's a criminal is to ask yourself: "Hmm, arrested? Check. Charged with a crime? Check. Facing fines and prison? Check."
Even if you add "convicted and sent to prison" to that list, you still don't have anything more rigid than "probably" a criminal - You hear about new evidence proving the innocence of people after serving X years all the time.
More to the point, your list doesn't even include "conviction". So by your reasoning, anyone even charged with a crime much have done it? I certainly do hope you don't choose to become a cop, lawyer, judge, or politician.
Now, in this particular situation, I tend to agree Lamo has gone well beyond finding an unlocked door and alerting the owner. However, do his actions warrant five years in prison?
I've always found it amusing that when an individual sues a company, the law almost always limits them to actual damages. But when a company goes after an individual, $15 worth of actual damages becomes prison time and a quarter of a million dollar fine.
Pathetic. Our legal system doesn't just need an overhaul, it need everyone with any role in it spanked, sent to bed without supper, and put before a firing squad in the morning, and their tanned hides used as the vellum for a complete rewrite.
Bullshit, boy. In most states, you will get jailed for having over 25, say 35, GRAMS of pot on you. It is presumed that if you have so much marijuana, you are a dealer.
You've described an ounce, basically - 28.3 or 31.1g, depending on which system you use (and how much of a short the dealer thinks he can get away with).
For an idea of how much that really means, I've known heavy smolkers who would go through that in a week. For a moderate smoker (a joint rather than a beer at night after a hard day's work), it would last a month, two at most.
Not exactly proof of dealing, eh?
With the exception of the really primo weed, dealers generally buy by the kilo, not by the gram or ounce. The only "dealers" buying by the ounce basically just act as point-men for themselves and a small group of friends - More of a weed co-op than actual dealing.
So yes, I would indeed say that five years for an ounce sounds absurd, even if you do believe the WO(s)D has any validity whatsoever.
Relating to that last sentence, however, it really disturbs me that many people consider a joint every now and again just fine, but dealing small amounts some horrible crime. Logic time - Without low-level dealers, people can't get that occasional joint. Yeah, once you get to the level of organized crime, you have more of a problem (though more for their peripheral activities than the dealing itself), although that would vanish overnight if we ended the WO(s)D, much like the whiskey bootleggers vanished overnight when the 21st amendment repealed the 18th.
I find it surprising that it would be a frequent occurrence, though, given that you don't steal
I find it rather surprising as well, though I can appreciate your incredulity.
For some reason though, I simply cannot buy anything from, for example, Walmart's electronics section (even the stupid $5.00 bargain DVDs) without having one of those tags set off the door. I'd say at least once a week I set one of those stupid things off, and for the most part, I treat cashiers well (ie, don't give them a reason to "forget" to disable the tags to get back at me).
At least at Walmart, based on the typical response to the door alarm (ie, none), I suspect that happens all too frequently to even consider it a valid theft prevention system. At other stores, however, I've seen some rather overzealous responses (a small army of "associates" immediately rushes to the door and all but surrounds the suspect). In my comments, I refer to the latter type of response as unacceptible, especially considering the former.
Oh, gods! Did I actually just praise Wallyworld for something (even if something they probably wouldn't want well-known)? Gack. Gotta go wash my mouth out with bleach.
For instance, at the rate we're going, I fully expect to see laws against two people conversing face-to-face and in private in my lifetime.
We already have them. Look up some of the provisions of the RICO act, it might surprise you.
Why are you giving people advice on how to get away with shoplifting?
I didn't take it so much as "how to get away with shoplifting", as "Avoiding harassment by store rent-a-cops". And I agree with him completely - People need to realize that they can and SHOULD ignore things like random bag check requests (though at "private" clubs like Sams or BJs, your membership agreement arguably gives them a right to do so), or the ever-annoying "DING! We're sorry, you've activated..." because some minimum-wage cashier doesn't have a lot of motivation to excel in their job and finds it amusing to poorly deactivate the tags of annoying customers.
Personally, I respond to such things with "Either leave me the hell alone, show me a picture of me stuffing something in my shorts, or hand me a phone to call my lawyer". If they either timidly repeat the request or stand there looking confused for more than a few seconds, I simply walk away. I have yet to have someone attempt to physically restrain me, but look forward to it - I'll resist just enough to sustain some minor injury, then sue, sue, sue. (And for reference, no, they would not have any actual proof of me stealing, because I don't do so).
However, actively leveraging a misdemeanour by another company to gain a competitive advantage in a way such as that just wasn't on.
You just described the US political system in one nice, neat sentence.
Anyway, I think you view this somewhat more harshly than the situation warrants... MSFreePC.com did nothing more than tell people "Hey, Microsoft owes you money for screwing you. Do you really want to hand it right back to them, or would you like to use it to get the hell away from their crappy products?". This ruling suggests that they went too far, but conceptually, I see it as far more in keeping with the spirit of the original settlement than any possible result of filing directly with Microsoft.
Think that these RFID tags could help bust the next group of people who try to outsmart Vegas?
No. More likely, they'll provide the next big way to outsmart Vegas.
Technology like this makes people lazy. As a trivial (though unsustainable) example, once the casinos migrate to equipment that trusts chip values based on RFID, nickle-and-diming the casinos to death becomes no more complicated than reprogramming a batch of $5 chips to read as $10. No human would take them, but plop 'em in the slots, win back 90% of the fake value, and move on. By the time they notice the problem, a small group of people has left town a few million richer.
And although they would quickly fix flaws like this, a million others will certainly pop up.
wouldn't that leave the RIAA open up to liability for potential violation of civil rights and false arrest if the "cops" actually put anyone in handcuffs as they are threatening to?
Too bad I don't live in LA...
Anyone who does, want to make a few bucks, courtesy of the RIAA?
Find one of these "teams". Follow them around, stepping in to explain to anyone they attempt to bust that they lack any legal power and the vendor can safely ignore them.
Have a friend, staying out of sight, follow you around during all this with a video camera.
When the RIAA rent-a-fake-cops get pissed and beat the crap out of you (since they hire real ex-cops, that shouldn't take too long), congrats, consider yourself set for life from your civil suit.
Best of all, since these guys don't actually count as cops, they can't charge you with interfering in a police investigation (which would almost certainly happen if you tried this on real cops).