Before everyone bashes MS, let me be the
first to say that this actually looks like
a good and genuine innovation
First of all, I agree to some degree, I'll
accept advancement however we can get it.
However, don't mistake the "looks good"
argument for "better than what we already
have".
The parent post specifically compared to
XviD/DivX. However, as someone who makes
my *own* XviD backups, I can assure you
that, at the quoted 8-10mbps, you cannot
tell MPEG-4 from the original. Just
replacing the DVD standard MPEG-2 with
MPEG-4 would represent a VAST improvement
in quality, and quite possibly eliminate
the (present) need for not only HD-DVD
but even dual sided and/or dual layer discs.
Finally, this has NOTHING to do with HD-DVD.
HD-DVD will come about simply because we
need increasingly large data storage forms,
not because we need better quality movies
(though that will certainly represent the
initial dominant use of them). With 200GB
drives common, even DVD-Rs have grown rather
impractical as a backup solution. 45 DVDs
for a single full backup? Yeah, right. Forget
the cost, it would take a week just to burn all
the discs.
How about actually taking the time to
do your homework? It would probably be
less work in the long-run, and you wouldn't
ever have to worry about your parents
figuring you out.
Heh... I wondered if anyone would mention
that.
Actually I agree with you on this, although
I've certainly done my share of "quick
programs that took far longer than doing
the original task manually".;-)
However, in this case, I see it as more
the spirit of the thing... The
school assigns little less than "busy work",
and when too many kids recognize it for
exactly that, they find new ways to
more-or-less force them into doing it.
Hey, some people need homework. Fine. Me,
and I suspect many folks with an actual
desire to learn, would have done better if
"school" meant "send me to the public library
for six hours each day".
I don't know if the original poster's parents
would fall for it, but personally, I'd just
run an identical looking site on my LAN, and
add sbmc.org to the hosts file on their machine
to point to your local web server (this could
even work on a single machine, if necessary).
Obviously, you'd have to tell the truth
within a reasonable degree (or they'll
certainly hit the roof when your daily
status says straight-A's and you get
all C's at the end of the quarter), but
the "small stuff" like homework and class
conduct, they never need to see.
Hell, I never did homework myself,
and for my "class conduct", I considered
class a good time to sleep (why else
would they possibly schedule them before
noon, if they didn't mean for me to sleep
there?). Complete waste of time, and the
*only* classes it hurt my grade in consisted
of those that actually graded the
homework. What BS. I remember more
than once getting into a classic
circular argument about this... "Why
do I need to do homework?" "Because
you can't do well in this class without
doing the homework" "But I've scored
over 100% on every test you've
given, and haven't done any of
the homework so far" "Yes, but since the
homework counts toward your grade, you
only have a B average as a result". Repeat
from step 1.
To my knowledge there is no way in
heck they can detect another computer
behind a Nat.
Well then, you need a knowledge
infusion.
You can detect multiple machines behind
a NAT several ways, including IP header
parsing, TCP sequencing, and others.
A loophole in our favor still exists here,
though. They can tell that you run multiple
OSs, but not multiple distinct machines. So
when you get the letter of death, just patiently
explain your rather convoluted use of Win2k
and Linux under VM, with Basilisk for Win2k
allowing you to run Macintosh apps (mention
other emulators as needed to account
for all machines they may think they
know you have). Then wait for the silence at
the other end, and make sure they agree to
remove whatever absurd charges they apply to
your account before they hang up in shame and
confusion.
I can best describe my view on the entire
ethics issue as follows:
If you need to invoke religion or a deity
to make your argument, shut up and go home.
Seriously.
I have no problem with people practicing
their own religions and believing what they
want. I fervently support the US constitutional
right to freedom of religion, and find the current
trend of a more "Christian-friendly" government
far scarier than their idea of Hell. But invoking
"god" as a reason for ANY act outside a
religious context has two major shortcomings.
First of all, IMO it goes WAY beyond
"mere" blasphemy. In order to say
"We should not do this because god doesn't
want us to" assumes both that the person
speaking does so on behalf of their deity, and
that they understand the nature of the universe
to such a high degree that they can claim
to know what a god would think of any
particular situation. If anyone uses
"we can't play god" as an excuse, you
should promptly ask them for the rules
of the "god" game. If the answer involves
the Bible, or the Koran, or the Mahabarata,
or the Principia (Newtonian or Discordian,
doesn't matter which), or any other
sect-specific text, just smile, excuse
yourself, and walk away.
Second, invoking religion as the answer
to a non-religious question does not
address the question. It counts as a
non-answer. It means no more than the
Zen response of "mu", the un-asking of the
question. "Should we clone humans?" "Mu."
Overall, I see the problem here as asking
the wrong questions. "Should we do X"
has no definite meaning. It can mean "Would
god approve of us doing X", or "can we
physically do X", or "Will doing X cause
more harm or benefit in the long run", or
a host of other variations on the idea,
all with subtly (or even drastically)
different meanings.
Even worse, the inflection used in asking
such a question can VERY easily make it a
loaded question. Just using the word "should"
automatically carries the assumption that
some uncertainty exists. "Should I accelerate
toward the center of the Earth at 9.8m/s/s?"
sounds a tad silly, doesn't it? Yet it
carries just as much "meaning" as "Should
I clone myself for spare parts"... Nothing
but total gibberish disguised as a
gramatically-correct sentence. "Should
colorless green ideas sleep furiously?"
Mu.
If we hope to find any real answers, we
need to learn to ask the right questions.
Vagueries in the question lead to the
same in the answer, ala GIGO.
Every IP packet I pass through my
ISP contains a source and destination
IP address.
More importantly, define "source" and
"destination".
This just means that, from now on, I
"intend" every packet going through my
NAT box to actually go to or come
from that box. The fact that my NAT
box has to talk to the outside world to
serve that data doesn't matter, since the
ISP can fully well see that part of
the transaction.
Or, to put it another way...
I consider my ISP as nothing more than
the "communication service provider" to
my NAT box. I provide the
service from my NAT box to my real
PCs (did my ISP come in and lay CAT5
between them, or provide the power or
the signal flowing over that CAT5?),
and I can see the source and destination
of everything on the internal LAN just
fine. So no problem exists.
Somehow, though, I doubt the law will
see it that clearly, and this crap will
end up effectively yet another
random-and-ubiquitously-enforceable-at-will
weapon in the government's arsenal of ways
to screw otherwise law-abiding citizens.
Damn, and I can't even blame Bush
or Ashcroft for this one.;-)
I don't mean to argue with Carnot,
but simple thought-experiment will
demonstrate that you *can* do better,
asymptotically aproaching 100%...
Take a "perfect" Carnot-cycle engine.
submerge it in a vat of water. The
waste heat will warm the water, which
you can then use to generate electrical
energy clearly in excess of the Carnot
limit.
Additionally, the laws of thermodynamics
have a serious flaw, which most folks who
like to wag their finger and screech
"The second! The second!" like so
many autistic howler-monkeys, fail
to recognize...
It describes high-level statistical
phenomena within a closed system, not
the behavior of individual smaller
"open" systems within a larger one.
So no, we cannot "create" energy,
or attain a "proper" perpetual motion
machine... But despite the cries of
"you can't do that!", from the
pseudo-scientific skeptics trying to
look cool, nothing stops us from
exploiting "unusual" sources of energy
(such as vacuum pressure ala the Casimir
effect, or the massive neutrino flux
through our local region of space).
Despite the assertion of the Priests of
Science, we do *NOT* fully grasp the
entirety of how our universe works, nor
IMO do we even understand the *majority*
of it. Every day I hear about some new
phenomena or astronomical object that
we can't explain, or for which the "old"
explanation has proven false, or
the like.
It always bothers me when "scientists"
don't even stop to consider some of
the "really out there" sources of energy,
writing them off as perpetual motion and
thus in violation of thermodynamics. Most
of the current (quite legitimate) research
in that area doesn't *claim* to have no
energy source, they just can't say where
it comes from. These do not mean the
same thing.
but there's so many (thousands last I heard)
that it's not even worth their while to sort
out the mess.
Well then, it sounds to me like their own
carelessness all but assures that free
software can safely ignore them.
In order to sucessfully sue a supposedly
infringing group, MPEG-LA would need to
figure out EXACTLY which patents the
free software violated. Now, they take
a big risk right there, since quite possibly,
the answer would end up "none".
After that, they would need to prove
that the software in question actually
did violate their patent (probably the
easiest part of this process when dealing
with open source).
And all that for NOTHING, since a "free"
software group has no income to take away,
no assets to forfeit, no proprietary code
base to confiscate, nothing. At best, the
patent holders could get an injunction
against the software, which would still
have absolutely no effect due to the
very nature of open source software (look
how successful the banning of DeCSS turned
out... Hell, I have a T-shirt with
the DeCSS code on it).
So, trying to thwart open source implementations
of a patented nightmare just wastes the
patent holder's time and money for no gain
whatsoever. Looks like, for a change,
the "good" guys win no matter what.
And for those who would call this "anarchy"
and a "knife in the back" of due process
and/or the rule of law in general - Go whine
to your corporate lawyers. We'll build the
new empire either with your help, or on your
crushed remains, doesn't matter which.;-)
Good side: it is not to track your kids, but to
allow them to alert if something goes wrong
Depending on how detailed the parents
can make the "expected" route, the distinction
you make does not exist.
Downside: The kid can't make a phone
call without notifying his parent of
where he is...
Ever heard of a land-line? How about
a friend's phone?
All the paranoid-parent BS aside, this
strikes me as just one more scam to give
parents a false sense of security in
technology watching their kids, rather
than the parents doing the FIRST job,
acting as parents.
I do, however, agree with those who point
out that acting like a jailor to your kids
WILL make them hate you. Remember the
commercials last year about "Mom and
Dad, I used to hate you when you, blah,
blah, blah. Thank you"? Well, end
before the "thank you", and don't make
any of it past-tense, and you have the
right idea.
No, you don't need to act as your kids'
"friend". That doesn't excuse you
from basic respect and human decency.
And, the kids who MOST need something like
this to keep track of them will end up
the first to find a way around it. If
my own parents had pulled some crap like
this, they'd end up getting daily reports
about my trips to China, or Australia, or
even off-planet if I could trick the
thing out that much (possibly with a
phone bill to prove it, if I felt particularly
vindictive on a given day). Smart kids
won't bother keeping it off - They'll make
it seem so unreliable that their parents
don't even read the reports, nevermind
question their child about them.
I know it's hard to see with your
head up your ass
Wow, tad bit defensive there? Chill.
the reports of oil wells burning came
hours before we had even crossed the
De-Militarized Zone into Iraq
Here we have a report from somewhere
around 01:00GMT on the 20th discussing
*active* fighting in and around Basra,
with specific mention of occupying the
oilfields.
On the other hand,
this seems like the earliest report
of burning oil wells, from 05:30 GMT on
the 21st, over a full day later.
since the Iraqies and Iranians are mortal enemies
Of course. I know I constantly lie
to make my "mortal enemies" look better,
with no gain to myself.
Tell me, really, how did Iraqi troops
supposedly sabotage already secured
oil wells in an area occupied by 50,000 to
150,000 US troops (and a few from other
countries)? And that while pinned down
by US airstrikes?
And why would Iran, which has officially
declared itself neutral in this conflict
but has a distinct reason to dislike Saddam,
lie about US airstrikes against
those very oil fields?
Something here doesn't add up. Seriously,
if after the "war" we hear that Turkey
actually let us in right from the start
(rather than from today), and the entire
bit about occupying Southern Iraq only
counted as a ruse to throw off Iraqi
intelligence, it would make me very
happy. Somehow I don't expect to hear
that, however.
Tell me, where do we have the densest
buildup of troops?
What did we FIRST move in to occupy as
the very first (some would say "premature")
action in this so-called war?
Answers: "Southern Iraq" (ie, the Kuwait border),
and "the oilfields" (*on* the Kuwait border).
RTFA. One quote stands out in particular...
"Iranian media have reported U.S. jets
bombing these oil fields".
Scary. Not only will we conduct a mockery
of a war, but we'll set up a whole assortment
of mock war crimes to try people in mock
tribunals after our very real bloodbath of
Iraqis.
Of course, this won't result in the
1/5 duration ad
Actually, it surprises me we haven't seen
slow-motion ads, designed to appear normal
to someone fast forwarding through them. The
first few to do this at normal speed will
have folks without a TiVo scratching their
heads (and thus, watching the ad), and those
with a TiVo will do the same at seeing an ad
look "normal" at 5x regular speed.
The real breakthrough, though, will come when
someone realizes that you can have ads that
look correct at normal and fast
speed. Not the same ad (subjectively), but
two equally valid ads (one obviously lasting
only a fifth as long as the other).
Fortunately, ad agencies still haven't realized
that "annoying me will not get me to buy your
product", so the science of taking advantage
of human perception to make a dual-speed-dual-ad
should never occur to them.
Damn, now I hope no one in advertising
reads this. Okay, I hereby copyright the
idea (timestamped and witnessed by more
people than most 30-second spots reach
anyway), and anyone wanting to use it
can send me 3.5% of the CPM for each and
every ad using my "doubletime" technology.;-)
But anyway, Slashdot could simply ask
permission to mirror it before posting
the link. How many sites will say "No,
I think we'd rather go down for a few
days under extremely hevay volume, and
get a huge bill for unexpected bandwidth
use at the end of the month"? And if they
do, they can either handle it, or deserve
the Slashdotting.
1995 is when Outland, Breathed's followup
to Bloom County, ended. I'm not much interested
in this strip, so who wants to do the math with
just 1980-1989?:)
Er... I'll agree Outland started pretty slow,
but within 6 months, it had become exactly the
same as Bloom County with a few new characters.
So out of curiousity, why do you like one but
not the other?
Whenever your code has occasion to store
a boolean value (for later test/comparison),
store multiple copies of it at predictable
but "geographically" disparate locations in
RAM.
No need to do so much extra work. Just use
0 as true and -1 as false, then actually
check for the desired value rather than
the negation of a value (ie, "a==FALSE"
rather than "a!=TRUE").
Though not (necessarily) separated by a large
physical distance on the chip, simply setting
all bits of a word on or off gives (on a
32-bit machine) a Hamming distance of 32,
with up to 15 bits correctable.
When dealing with an attack dependant on
exploiting random errors, you might see
single-bit and the rare double-bit error,
but depending on the occurance of a 17-bit
error? Not very likely to happen.
Of course, this doesn't apply to non-boolean
values, but then, this strikes me as a
generally "silly" exploit anyway. I may
as well start my program and then just
wait for it to "randomly" become UID 0.
Somehow I suspect the machine will far
more likely lock up than give me root.
I would be interested in reading something
of the level of Scientific American on this elsewhere on the web.
Do you read the same SciAm that I do?
Their coverage of it, following their
recent trend, would run something like
a sociological study of how the validation
of some long-dead Central American indian
tribe's doughnut-based cosmology impacts
the plight of modern clear-cut-rainforest-land
cattle ranchers in Peru.
They might find a way to throw something
about how a toroidal universe demonstrates
the need to increase funding to fight AIDS
in S.Africa.
Heh... Sorry for the rant. Actually the
previous few issues haven't sucked *nearly*
so bad as last year's run. But it just really
annoys me the BS they pawn off on readers
lately. If I could afford it, I'd dump
SciAm and subscribe to "Science", but,
alas, $125/year for a magazine (actually a
"journal", but a pretty soft one as research
journals go) seems kinda steep.;-)
When an established business relationship
between the consumer and the entity making
the call currently exists.
"Hi, I represent X-Corp, a member of the
Company-A-through-Z conglomerate, of which you
currently have a lawn service contract with
L-Corp. As a loyal customer-6-times-removed,
we'd like to offer you a great new product..."
I don't see that as working so well.
More importantly, though, I see the
exemption for phone companies and banks as the
biggest problem. I get *maybe* one call a
month from someone ther than a bank (CC offers)
or teleco (AT&T, Verizon DSL). So even if
this law has balls, it won't significantly
reduce the number of telemarketers I have
to find new and creative ways to offend.
the best way to deal with coworkers,
particularly in reference to a technical
problem, is email
I agree completely. Most respondants to
this article take the approach that email
seems too distracting or impersonal. I
can only assume most respondant do not
have people asking them tech-oriented
questions.
For the first point - Don't leave your
email program open and checking the
server every 5 minutes;-)
For the second, not all questions need
a "personal" touch. Many, in fact, need
just a purely factual response (and for
that matter, most emails I get that
don't need "just the facts, ma'am",
I will discard without replying). When
someone asks me a question, they want an
answer, not mindless banter about the
weather and the wife & kids and whether
or not I've heard the latest gossip.
It even gives you an audit trail
Yes! I couldn't agree more. I can't even
count the number of times someone
cornered me with a question after a meeting,
only to have the same question come down
from my manager (and presumeably up some
number of layers in managemen) two weeks
later in an annoyed tone of voice as though
I hadn't already given the needed information.
I've learned that someone asking "how do I do
this" means "do this for me", and "where do
I find this" means "get this for me". Screw
that! The best response? "I'll have to
think about it, and I'll email you the
answer by the end of the day.
That, and they flicker and give off a totally unnatural colored light.
Buy a "high-frequency", "bright-white"
fluorescent bulb.
I find normal long-tube fluorescents
*extremely* annoying, but the compact
fluorescents I use in my house (which
described themselves as above) do not
bother me.
I presume they use some sort of
frequency-doubling-like technique to
go from 60hz line to 120hz (or more)
effective frequency, but whatever they
use, they finally "got it right". I
highly reccommend them.
As the *only* remaining down side,
they take a second to come on (literally
around one second). If you expect
the instant-on behavior of an incandescent,
this will take some time to get used to.
But considering that I've cut my electric
bill by almost a third, I can deal with the
difference.;-)
It looks to me like you're just trying
to suck up to the free-everything crowd
with your bullshit, but it came around
and bit you in the ass.
Oh, give it a rest, yappy little
chihuaha.
Yes, I enjoy a small number of "big name"
artists. I never claimed otherwise (go
back and check, and feel free to quote
anything contradicting this statement if
you find it otherwise).
As I mentioned, 99% of labelled music
sucks. That leaves at least a few
groups to like (Personally, I enjoy
Tori Amos, and over half of my
labelled-music purchases this year
(last year? "In the past year") have
gone toward Scarlett's Walk
and its singles).
However, of my perhaps $1000/year that
goes toward music, in the past half
decade or so, less than 10% of that
has gone toward any label represented
by the RIAA. This has nothing to do
with "free", and everything to do with
enjoying good music rather than
mass-produced drivel.
What an odd idea, anyway... "Suck up" to
a crowd that doesn't believe in paying
for anything. Hey, I'll admit I like
"cheap" just as much as anyone, but
explain to me the advantage of "sucking
up" to a group that won't give me anything
for it in return? Before attacking my
own apparent logic errors, you might
want to A) Make sure they exist, and
B) Avoid making any of your own.
I don't suggest anything even remotely
resembling "stealing" the music (if one
can even do such a thing, I still haven't
decided that myself) - I don't mean
downloading MP3s, or swapping with friends,
or anything of the sort.
Turn on a radio. What do you hear? Music!
Coming to you FOR FREE. Your radio doesn't
give the station spare CPU cycles, it doesn't
"force" you to listen to commercials, it
doesn't even collect demographic info.
My point centers around that. So many
companies seem to have this idea that the
internet counts as this amazing new medium
that needs totally different laws and
pricing schemes. That simply does not
hold true. Internet radio doesn't need to
differ AT ALL from broadcast radio. But
folks keep saying some difference has to
exist, and we keep swallowing it up.
Until the RIAA gets its act in gear, I'll
keep listening to Canadian and European
internet stations; buying indie music that
doesn't pay for lawyers to fight against
what I believe in; and giving a great big
finger to corporate America that believes
it knows what I want and how I'll pay for
it more than I do.
Just in the really unlikely chance someone
in the afforementioned group reads this...
You know what I want? Choice. I would
pay perhaps $10/CD (twice what I spend per
indie CD) to choose the exact contents of
such a CD, shipped physically to my door (not
some sub-quality DRM'd format that expires
when I miss my monthly music-library-extortion).
I want real music to choose from, not a canned
boy-band or slut-soloist of the week to
repackage the same drum-machine-with-bad-lyrics
songs over and over. I want variety. I want
artists who get paid for their work, not
artists who need to sue their labels to get
what their contract promises them. I want the
right to rip music to my computer in the format
of my choice (which I theoretically have,
except for increasing technical difficulties
thanks to "broken" CDs, which I keep returning
but the companies keep making anyway).
peronally i have no ethics and shouldnt
be talkin, but maybe some may think it is
the right thing to do.
I do have ethics. I don't want
to screw anyone out of their work. However,
those ethics include the idea that the
people actually doing the work should
get my money, not lawyers, suits, and PR folks
so far behind the times they think people will
pay more for less just because they redefine
the words "better", "cheaper", and "choice".
Perhaps you really do have no qualms about
downloading music with no compensation for
their work. I can't tell you that. I do,
however, believe that most people who
"illegally" download MP3s don't do so out of
lack of ethics, but out of lack of choice.
If music cost a realistic price (of which
more than a pittance went to the artist); if
99% of it didn't completely suck; if music stores
actually offered choices rather than prepackaged
sets of one or two listenable songs and fourteen
tracks that make dogs howl; then I think
we'd see a lot more "honest" people buying
music rather than "stealing" it.
In the mean time, the RIAA has reached
the end of its life. I fully expect it
to collapse worse than the video game
insdustry 25 years ago, or the comic
industry did a decade ago, in the next
few years. And you can bet I won't mourn
its passing as I did either of those
previous two. I see its pathetic attempts
to squash any form of music on the internet
as no better than SCO's attempts to report
one last quarter's profit for a dying product.
it begs the question how much free
music for how much cpu power
Not really
Has the entirety of Slashdot fallen for
yet another "redefinition scam"? Lots
of people talking about how great this
compromise sounds, and failing to consider
something which seems, IMO, very obvious...
We already have COMPLETELY FREE music
distribution. ClearChannel has currently
cornered the market on it, but a few
college stations still exist with a
"real" playlist.
The entire issue of internet radio
just serves to blur some lines thanks
to the magical argument of "but this
uses DIGITAL transmission". I thought
the Slashdot crowd had enough of a clue
to see through that argument, and
usually take companies to task for even
daring to suggest using it.
And now some company has very "generously"
found a way to save all us poor little
geeklings from having to pay for something
we don't presently pay for anyway?
ThankYou 2?
FuckYou too.
Go take your sad little attept to find yet
another way to screw the consumers by
"giving" them something they already have
(in this case "services rendered" rather
than actual cash payments), and leave
us the hell alone.
When the RIAA et al come to their senses
and get a clue, I'll consider go back to
paying their pleasure tax. In the mean time,
my music collection has grown roughly 3x
faster for the same money by buying $5/CD
indie music directly from the artists (of
which, the artist gets far more than they
would for major-label discs), instead of
$15/CD for canned formula-pop-hit trash.
Bitter? Hell yeah! I've grown *SO* sick
of hearing about various attempts to
repackage something we already have
for free (or cheap) and charge us more
for it...
this will weigh extremely favorably on
the side of the effectiveness of the open
source model.
As much as I would like to agree with your
sentiment, unfortunately, it doesn't hold
true. As the result of defeating a
strawman, you get... A pile of straw.
I personally find it amazing that SCO would
even suggest this as a reason to sue
for IP violations. The speed of Linux
development has NO connection whatsoever
with SCO, aside from what code they
VOLUNTARILY added to the open source
community. And, even if their claim did
have even a hint of validity (which it
does not), UCB, AT&T, and DEC (aka
Compaq) would all have just as much, if
not more, right to sue by that logic.
Sad.
But, just to save people the trouble of
rumblings of a boycott... What exactly
would folks boycott? This suit comes
as an end-of-life move by a defunct
company, apparently looking to utterly
destroy their once-good reputation to
toss a few bucks to their stockholders.
They just don't have anything (of
relevance in the past decade) to
boycott About the only thing that
might get the message to them consists
of those same stockholders waking up,
realizing that, regardless of the
outcome of this frivolous suit SCO
will no longer exist, and dumping
their shares as fast as physically
possible. Perhaps killing SCO
before this all goes through would
remedy the situation, but nothing
else will.
Slashdot Mirror
Before everyone bashes MS, let me be the first to say that this actually looks like a good and genuine innovation
First of all, I agree to some degree, I'll accept advancement however we can get it.
However, don't mistake the "looks good" argument for "better than what we already have".
The parent post specifically compared to XviD/DivX. However, as someone who makes my *own* XviD backups, I can assure you that, at the quoted 8-10mbps, you cannot tell MPEG-4 from the original. Just replacing the DVD standard MPEG-2 with MPEG-4 would represent a VAST improvement in quality, and quite possibly eliminate the (present) need for not only HD-DVD but even dual sided and/or dual layer discs.
Finally, this has NOTHING to do with HD-DVD. HD-DVD will come about simply because we need increasingly large data storage forms, not because we need better quality movies (though that will certainly represent the initial dominant use of them). With 200GB drives common, even DVD-Rs have grown rather impractical as a backup solution. 45 DVDs for a single full backup? Yeah, right. Forget the cost, it would take a week just to burn all the discs.
How about actually taking the time to do your homework? It would probably be less work in the long-run, and you wouldn't ever have to worry about your parents figuring you out.
;-)
Heh... I wondered if anyone would mention that.
Actually I agree with you on this, although I've certainly done my share of "quick programs that took far longer than doing the original task manually".
However, in this case, I see it as more the spirit of the thing... The school assigns little less than "busy work", and when too many kids recognize it for exactly that, they find new ways to more-or-less force them into doing it.
Hey, some people need homework. Fine. Me, and I suspect many folks with an actual desire to learn, would have done better if "school" meant "send me to the public library for six hours each day".
I don't know if the original poster's parents would fall for it, but personally, I'd just run an identical looking site on my LAN, and add sbmc.org to the hosts file on their machine to point to your local web server (this could even work on a single machine, if necessary).
Obviously, you'd have to tell the truth within a reasonable degree (or they'll certainly hit the roof when your daily status says straight-A's and you get all C's at the end of the quarter), but the "small stuff" like homework and class conduct, they never need to see.
Hell, I never did homework myself, and for my "class conduct", I considered class a good time to sleep (why else would they possibly schedule them before noon, if they didn't mean for me to sleep there?). Complete waste of time, and the *only* classes it hurt my grade in consisted of those that actually graded the homework. What BS. I remember more than once getting into a classic circular argument about this... "Why do I need to do homework?" "Because you can't do well in this class without doing the homework" "But I've scored over 100% on every test you've given, and haven't done any of the homework so far" "Yes, but since the homework counts toward your grade, you only have a B average as a result". Repeat from step 1.
To my knowledge there is no way in heck they can detect another computer behind a Nat.
Well then, you need a knowledge infusion.
You can detect multiple machines behind a NAT several ways, including IP header parsing, TCP sequencing, and others.
A loophole in our favor still exists here, though. They can tell that you run multiple OSs, but not multiple distinct machines. So when you get the letter of death, just patiently explain your rather convoluted use of Win2k and Linux under VM, with Basilisk for Win2k allowing you to run Macintosh apps (mention other emulators as needed to account for all machines they may think they know you have). Then wait for the silence at the other end, and make sure they agree to remove whatever absurd charges they apply to your account before they hang up in shame and confusion.
is it ethical to try to be "God"?
I can best describe my view on the entire ethics issue as follows:
If you need to invoke religion or a deity to make your argument, shut up and go home.
Seriously.
I have no problem with people practicing their own religions and believing what they want. I fervently support the US constitutional right to freedom of religion, and find the current trend of a more "Christian-friendly" government far scarier than their idea of Hell. But invoking "god" as a reason for ANY act outside a religious context has two major shortcomings.
First of all, IMO it goes WAY beyond "mere" blasphemy. In order to say "We should not do this because god doesn't want us to" assumes both that the person speaking does so on behalf of their deity, and that they understand the nature of the universe to such a high degree that they can claim to know what a god would think of any particular situation. If anyone uses "we can't play god" as an excuse, you should promptly ask them for the rules of the "god" game. If the answer involves the Bible, or the Koran, or the Mahabarata, or the Principia (Newtonian or Discordian, doesn't matter which), or any other sect-specific text, just smile, excuse yourself, and walk away.
Second, invoking religion as the answer to a non-religious question does not address the question. It counts as a non-answer. It means no more than the Zen response of "mu", the un-asking of the question. "Should we clone humans?" "Mu."
Overall, I see the problem here as asking the wrong questions. "Should we do X" has no definite meaning. It can mean "Would god approve of us doing X", or "can we physically do X", or "Will doing X cause more harm or benefit in the long run", or a host of other variations on the idea, all with subtly (or even drastically) different meanings.
Even worse, the inflection used in asking such a question can VERY easily make it a loaded question. Just using the word "should" automatically carries the assumption that some uncertainty exists. "Should I accelerate toward the center of the Earth at 9.8m/s/s?" sounds a tad silly, doesn't it? Yet it carries just as much "meaning" as "Should I clone myself for spare parts"... Nothing but total gibberish disguised as a gramatically-correct sentence. "Should colorless green ideas sleep furiously?"
Mu.
If we hope to find any real answers, we need to learn to ask the right questions. Vagueries in the question lead to the same in the answer, ala GIGO.
Every IP packet I pass through my ISP contains a source and destination IP address.
;-)
More importantly, define "source" and "destination".
This just means that, from now on, I "intend" every packet going through my NAT box to actually go to or come from that box. The fact that my NAT box has to talk to the outside world to serve that data doesn't matter, since the ISP can fully well see that part of the transaction.
Or, to put it another way...
I consider my ISP as nothing more than the "communication service provider" to my NAT box. I provide the service from my NAT box to my real PCs (did my ISP come in and lay CAT5 between them, or provide the power or the signal flowing over that CAT5?), and I can see the source and destination of everything on the internal LAN just fine. So no problem exists.
Somehow, though, I doubt the law will see it that clearly, and this crap will end up effectively yet another random-and-ubiquitously-enforceable-at-will weapon in the government's arsenal of ways to screw otherwise law-abiding citizens.
Damn, and I can't even blame Bush or Ashcroft for this one.
I don't mean to argue with Carnot, but simple thought-experiment will demonstrate that you *can* do better, asymptotically aproaching 100%...
Take a "perfect" Carnot-cycle engine. submerge it in a vat of water. The waste heat will warm the water, which you can then use to generate electrical energy clearly in excess of the Carnot limit.
Additionally, the laws of thermodynamics have a serious flaw, which most folks who like to wag their finger and screech "The second! The second!" like so many autistic howler-monkeys, fail to recognize...
It describes high-level statistical phenomena within a closed system, not the behavior of individual smaller "open" systems within a larger one. So no, we cannot "create" energy, or attain a "proper" perpetual motion machine... But despite the cries of "you can't do that!", from the pseudo-scientific skeptics trying to look cool, nothing stops us from exploiting "unusual" sources of energy (such as vacuum pressure ala the Casimir effect, or the massive neutrino flux through our local region of space). Despite the assertion of the Priests of Science, we do *NOT* fully grasp the entirety of how our universe works, nor IMO do we even understand the *majority* of it. Every day I hear about some new phenomena or astronomical object that we can't explain, or for which the "old" explanation has proven false, or the like.
It always bothers me when "scientists" don't even stop to consider some of the "really out there" sources of energy, writing them off as perpetual motion and thus in violation of thermodynamics. Most of the current (quite legitimate) research in that area doesn't *claim* to have no energy source, they just can't say where it comes from. These do not mean the same thing.
but there's so many (thousands last I heard) that it's not even worth their while to sort out the mess.
;-)
Well then, it sounds to me like their own carelessness all but assures that free software can safely ignore them.
In order to sucessfully sue a supposedly infringing group, MPEG-LA would need to figure out EXACTLY which patents the free software violated. Now, they take a big risk right there, since quite possibly, the answer would end up "none".
After that, they would need to prove that the software in question actually did violate their patent (probably the easiest part of this process when dealing with open source).
And all that for NOTHING, since a "free" software group has no income to take away, no assets to forfeit, no proprietary code base to confiscate, nothing. At best, the patent holders could get an injunction against the software, which would still have absolutely no effect due to the very nature of open source software (look how successful the banning of DeCSS turned out... Hell, I have a T-shirt with the DeCSS code on it).
So, trying to thwart open source implementations of a patented nightmare just wastes the patent holder's time and money for no gain whatsoever. Looks like, for a change, the "good" guys win no matter what.
And for those who would call this "anarchy" and a "knife in the back" of due process and/or the rule of law in general - Go whine to your corporate lawyers. We'll build the new empire either with your help, or on your crushed remains, doesn't matter which.
Good side: it is not to track your kids, but to allow them to alert if something goes wrong
Depending on how detailed the parents can make the "expected" route, the distinction you make does not exist.
Downside: The kid can't make a phone call without notifying his parent of where he is...
Ever heard of a land-line? How about a friend's phone?
All the paranoid-parent BS aside, this strikes me as just one more scam to give parents a false sense of security in technology watching their kids, rather than the parents doing the FIRST job, acting as parents.
I do, however, agree with those who point out that acting like a jailor to your kids WILL make them hate you. Remember the commercials last year about "Mom and Dad, I used to hate you when you, blah, blah, blah. Thank you"? Well, end before the "thank you", and don't make any of it past-tense, and you have the right idea.
No, you don't need to act as your kids' "friend". That doesn't excuse you from basic respect and human decency.
And, the kids who MOST need something like this to keep track of them will end up the first to find a way around it. If my own parents had pulled some crap like this, they'd end up getting daily reports about my trips to China, or Australia, or even off-planet if I could trick the thing out that much (possibly with a phone bill to prove it, if I felt particularly vindictive on a given day). Smart kids won't bother keeping it off - They'll make it seem so unreliable that their parents don't even read the reports, nevermind question their child about them.
I know it's hard to see with your head up your ass
Wow, tad bit defensive there? Chill.
the reports of oil wells burning came hours before we had even crossed the De-Militarized Zone into Iraq
Here we have a report from somewhere around 01:00GMT on the 20th discussing *active* fighting in and around Basra, with specific mention of occupying the oilfields.
On the other hand, this seems like the earliest report of burning oil wells, from 05:30 GMT on the 21st, over a full day later.
since the Iraqies and Iranians are mortal enemies
Of course. I know I constantly lie to make my "mortal enemies" look better, with no gain to myself.
Please stop trolling
No troll intended.
Tell me, really, how did Iraqi troops supposedly sabotage already secured oil wells in an area occupied by 50,000 to 150,000 US troops (and a few from other countries)? And that while pinned down by US airstrikes?
And why would Iran, which has officially declared itself neutral in this conflict but has a distinct reason to dislike Saddam, lie about US airstrikes against those very oil fields?
Something here doesn't add up. Seriously, if after the "war" we hear that Turkey actually let us in right from the start (rather than from today), and the entire bit about occupying Southern Iraq only counted as a ruse to throw off Iraqi intelligence, it would make me very happy. Somehow I don't expect to hear that, however.
Oilfields in Southern Iraq.
Tell me, where do we have the densest buildup of troops?
What did we FIRST move in to occupy as the very first (some would say "premature") action in this so-called war?
Answers: "Southern Iraq" (ie, the Kuwait border), and "the oilfields" (*on* the Kuwait border).
RTFA. One quote stands out in particular... "Iranian media have reported U.S. jets bombing these oil fields".
Scary. Not only will we conduct a mockery of a war, but we'll set up a whole assortment of mock war crimes to try people in mock tribunals after our very real bloodbath of Iraqis.
Sad.
Of course, this won't result in the 1/5 duration ad
;-)
Actually, it surprises me we haven't seen slow-motion ads, designed to appear normal to someone fast forwarding through them. The first few to do this at normal speed will have folks without a TiVo scratching their heads (and thus, watching the ad), and those with a TiVo will do the same at seeing an ad look "normal" at 5x regular speed.
The real breakthrough, though, will come when someone realizes that you can have ads that look correct at normal and fast speed. Not the same ad (subjectively), but two equally valid ads (one obviously lasting only a fifth as long as the other).
Fortunately, ad agencies still haven't realized that "annoying me will not get me to buy your product", so the science of taking advantage of human perception to make a dual-speed-dual-ad should never occur to them.
Damn, now I hope no one in advertising reads this. Okay, I hereby copyright the idea (timestamped and witnessed by more people than most 30-second spots reach anyway), and anyone wanting to use it can send me 3.5% of the CPM for each and every ad using my "doubletime" technology.
I'm afraid that would go against the DMCA.
Actually, just plain copyright, no DMCA involved.
But anyway, Slashdot could simply ask permission to mirror it before posting the link. How many sites will say "No, I think we'd rather go down for a few days under extremely hevay volume, and get a huge bill for unexpected bandwidth use at the end of the month"? And if they do, they can either handle it, or deserve the Slashdotting.
1995 is when Outland, Breathed's followup to Bloom County, ended. I'm not much interested in this strip, so who wants to do the math with just 1980-1989? :)
Er... I'll agree Outland started pretty slow, but within 6 months, it had become exactly the same as Bloom County with a few new characters. So out of curiousity, why do you like one but not the other?
Meanwhile, the music industry was found guilty of price fixing CDs for a DECADE
;-)
Make that "twice in a decade"...
Check out An older Slashdot article about priors for the RIAA.
So, if they do it again, can we put the whole lot of 'em away for life under California's three-strikes law?
Whenever your code has occasion to store a boolean value (for later test/comparison), store multiple copies of it at predictable but "geographically" disparate locations in RAM.
No need to do so much extra work. Just use 0 as true and -1 as false, then actually check for the desired value rather than the negation of a value (ie, "a==FALSE" rather than "a!=TRUE").
Though not (necessarily) separated by a large physical distance on the chip, simply setting all bits of a word on or off gives (on a 32-bit machine) a Hamming distance of 32, with up to 15 bits correctable.
When dealing with an attack dependant on exploiting random errors, you might see single-bit and the rare double-bit error, but depending on the occurance of a 17-bit error? Not very likely to happen.
Of course, this doesn't apply to non-boolean values, but then, this strikes me as a generally "silly" exploit anyway. I may as well start my program and then just wait for it to "randomly" become UID 0. Somehow I suspect the machine will far more likely lock up than give me root.
I would be interested in reading something of the level of Scientific American on this elsewhere on the web.
;-)
Do you read the same SciAm that I do?
Their coverage of it, following their recent trend, would run something like a sociological study of how the validation of some long-dead Central American indian tribe's doughnut-based cosmology impacts the plight of modern clear-cut-rainforest-land cattle ranchers in Peru.
They might find a way to throw something about how a toroidal universe demonstrates the need to increase funding to fight AIDS in S.Africa.
Heh... Sorry for the rant. Actually the previous few issues haven't sucked *nearly* so bad as last year's run. But it just really annoys me the BS they pawn off on readers lately. If I could afford it, I'd dump SciAm and subscribe to "Science", but, alas, $125/year for a magazine (actually a "journal", but a pretty soft one as research journals go) seems kinda steep.
When an established business relationship between the consumer and the entity making the call currently exists.
"Hi, I represent X-Corp, a member of the Company-A-through-Z conglomerate, of which you currently have a lawn service contract with L-Corp. As a loyal customer-6-times-removed, we'd like to offer you a great new product..."
I don't see that as working so well.
More importantly, though, I see the exemption for phone companies and banks as the biggest problem. I get *maybe* one call a month from someone ther than a bank (CC offers) or teleco (AT&T, Verizon DSL). So even if this law has balls, it won't significantly reduce the number of telemarketers I have to find new and creative ways to offend.
the best way to deal with coworkers, particularly in reference to a technical problem, is email
;-)
I agree completely. Most respondants to this article take the approach that email seems too distracting or impersonal. I can only assume most respondant do not have people asking them tech-oriented questions.
For the first point - Don't leave your email program open and checking the server every 5 minutes
For the second, not all questions need a "personal" touch. Many, in fact, need just a purely factual response (and for that matter, most emails I get that don't need "just the facts, ma'am", I will discard without replying). When someone asks me a question, they want an answer, not mindless banter about the weather and the wife & kids and whether or not I've heard the latest gossip.
It even gives you an audit trail
Yes! I couldn't agree more. I can't even count the number of times someone cornered me with a question after a meeting, only to have the same question come down from my manager (and presumeably up some number of layers in managemen) two weeks later in an annoyed tone of voice as though I hadn't already given the needed information. I've learned that someone asking "how do I do this" means "do this for me", and "where do I find this" means "get this for me". Screw that! The best response? "I'll have to think about it, and I'll email you the answer by the end of the day.
That, and they flicker and give off a totally unnatural colored light.
;-)
Buy a "high-frequency", "bright-white" fluorescent bulb.
I find normal long-tube fluorescents *extremely* annoying, but the compact fluorescents I use in my house (which described themselves as above) do not bother me.
I presume they use some sort of frequency-doubling-like technique to go from 60hz line to 120hz (or more) effective frequency, but whatever they use, they finally "got it right". I highly reccommend them.
As the *only* remaining down side, they take a second to come on (literally around one second). If you expect the instant-on behavior of an incandescent, this will take some time to get used to. But considering that I've cut my electric bill by almost a third, I can deal with the difference.
It looks to me like you're just trying to suck up to the free-everything crowd with your bullshit, but it came around and bit you in the ass.
Oh, give it a rest, yappy little chihuaha.
Yes, I enjoy a small number of "big name" artists. I never claimed otherwise (go back and check, and feel free to quote anything contradicting this statement if you find it otherwise). As I mentioned, 99% of labelled music sucks. That leaves at least a few groups to like (Personally, I enjoy Tori Amos, and over half of my labelled-music purchases this year (last year? "In the past year") have gone toward Scarlett's Walk and its singles).
However, of my perhaps $1000/year that goes toward music, in the past half decade or so, less than 10% of that has gone toward any label represented by the RIAA. This has nothing to do with "free", and everything to do with enjoying good music rather than mass-produced drivel.
What an odd idea, anyway... "Suck up" to a crowd that doesn't believe in paying for anything. Hey, I'll admit I like "cheap" just as much as anyone, but explain to me the advantage of "sucking up" to a group that won't give me anything for it in return? Before attacking my own apparent logic errors, you might want to A) Make sure they exist, and B) Avoid making any of your own.
Consider this your beat-down proper. Next.
did u consider the ethical part of the thing
I don't suggest anything even remotely resembling "stealing" the music (if one can even do such a thing, I still haven't decided that myself) - I don't mean downloading MP3s, or swapping with friends, or anything of the sort.
Turn on a radio. What do you hear? Music! Coming to you FOR FREE. Your radio doesn't give the station spare CPU cycles, it doesn't "force" you to listen to commercials, it doesn't even collect demographic info.
My point centers around that. So many companies seem to have this idea that the internet counts as this amazing new medium that needs totally different laws and pricing schemes. That simply does not hold true. Internet radio doesn't need to differ AT ALL from broadcast radio. But folks keep saying some difference has to exist, and we keep swallowing it up.
Until the RIAA gets its act in gear, I'll keep listening to Canadian and European internet stations; buying indie music that doesn't pay for lawyers to fight against what I believe in; and giving a great big finger to corporate America that believes it knows what I want and how I'll pay for it more than I do.
Just in the really unlikely chance someone in the afforementioned group reads this... You know what I want? Choice. I would pay perhaps $10/CD (twice what I spend per indie CD) to choose the exact contents of such a CD, shipped physically to my door (not some sub-quality DRM'd format that expires when I miss my monthly music-library-extortion). I want real music to choose from, not a canned boy-band or slut-soloist of the week to repackage the same drum-machine-with-bad-lyrics songs over and over. I want variety. I want artists who get paid for their work, not artists who need to sue their labels to get what their contract promises them. I want the right to rip music to my computer in the format of my choice (which I theoretically have, except for increasing technical difficulties thanks to "broken" CDs, which I keep returning but the companies keep making anyway).
peronally i have no ethics and shouldnt be talkin, but maybe some may think it is the right thing to do.
I do have ethics. I don't want to screw anyone out of their work. However, those ethics include the idea that the people actually doing the work should get my money, not lawyers, suits, and PR folks so far behind the times they think people will pay more for less just because they redefine the words "better", "cheaper", and "choice".
Perhaps you really do have no qualms about downloading music with no compensation for their work. I can't tell you that. I do, however, believe that most people who "illegally" download MP3s don't do so out of lack of ethics, but out of lack of choice. If music cost a realistic price (of which more than a pittance went to the artist); if 99% of it didn't completely suck; if music stores actually offered choices rather than prepackaged sets of one or two listenable songs and fourteen tracks that make dogs howl; then I think we'd see a lot more "honest" people buying music rather than "stealing" it.
In the mean time, the RIAA has reached the end of its life. I fully expect it to collapse worse than the video game insdustry 25 years ago, or the comic industry did a decade ago, in the next few years. And you can bet I won't mourn its passing as I did either of those previous two. I see its pathetic attempts to squash any form of music on the internet as no better than SCO's attempts to report one last quarter's profit for a dying product.
Good riddance.
it begs the question how much free music for how much cpu power
Not really
Has the entirety of Slashdot fallen for yet another "redefinition scam"? Lots of people talking about how great this compromise sounds, and failing to consider something which seems, IMO, very obvious...
We already have COMPLETELY FREE music distribution. ClearChannel has currently cornered the market on it, but a few college stations still exist with a "real" playlist.
The entire issue of internet radio just serves to blur some lines thanks to the magical argument of "but this uses DIGITAL transmission". I thought the Slashdot crowd had enough of a clue to see through that argument, and usually take companies to task for even daring to suggest using it.
And now some company has very "generously" found a way to save all us poor little geeklings from having to pay for something we don't presently pay for anyway?
ThankYou 2?
FuckYou too.
Go take your sad little attept to find yet another way to screw the consumers by "giving" them something they already have (in this case "services rendered" rather than actual cash payments), and leave us the hell alone.
When the RIAA et al come to their senses and get a clue, I'll consider go back to paying their pleasure tax. In the mean time, my music collection has grown roughly 3x faster for the same money by buying $5/CD indie music directly from the artists (of which, the artist gets far more than they would for major-label discs), instead of $15/CD for canned formula-pop-hit trash.
Bitter? Hell yeah! I've grown *SO* sick of hearing about various attempts to repackage something we already have for free (or cheap) and charge us more for it...
this will weigh extremely favorably on the side of the effectiveness of the open source model.
As much as I would like to agree with your sentiment, unfortunately, it doesn't hold true. As the result of defeating a strawman, you get... A pile of straw.
I personally find it amazing that SCO would even suggest this as a reason to sue for IP violations. The speed of Linux development has NO connection whatsoever with SCO, aside from what code they VOLUNTARILY added to the open source community. And, even if their claim did have even a hint of validity (which it does not), UCB, AT&T, and DEC (aka Compaq) would all have just as much, if not more, right to sue by that logic.
Sad.
But, just to save people the trouble of rumblings of a boycott... What exactly would folks boycott? This suit comes as an end-of-life move by a defunct company, apparently looking to utterly destroy their once-good reputation to toss a few bucks to their stockholders. They just don't have anything (of relevance in the past decade) to boycott About the only thing that might get the message to them consists of those same stockholders waking up, realizing that, regardless of the outcome of this frivolous suit SCO will no longer exist, and dumping their shares as fast as physically possible. Perhaps killing SCO before this all goes through would remedy the situation, but nothing else will.