Well, yeah, but there is obviously *some* dependency between government, national economy, and business. Note how the UK government got involved in the collapse of Rover, for example.
But then again, do we need the government to say "you'll be in charge of a company whose turnover is a significant proportion of the GDP, you must be screened"? Isn't that what having a board of directors is for?
Quite. I think if you go for that over a proper book, it straight away shows that you're not taking the course seriously. If you need Maths 1A to proceed to the next year's Physics, you need it.
> This is not about giving businesses more power; it is about allowing businesses and workers to make any agreements they want, and they can tell the government to MYOB.
That would be "giving them more power", in my book.
Do you think all laws concerning employment should be scrapped?
> And if the business does not like it, they don't have to hire the worker.
Indeed. Not that this is materially different from bullying, anyway. Companies have far more clout than individuals. That's why a civilised nation protects employees.
> reason that is lawsuit is going forward is because...
Let's not forget it was a crappy film, too - as a rip-off of _Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon_, with its colours over-saturated to point of luridity and missing a 'cello accompaniment, it should never have been spawned. So a lawsuit is *one* way to attempt to raise publicity. (Appearing on/. would be another.;)
I spent 15mins writing a quick perl script - I forget what for, now - a few years ago, to facilitate some big-bucks deal. Transpires that deal was worth about $4million between the two companies. Did anyone remember my work? Did I see any of it? Like heck.
Now I spend my time doing a bit of development and sysadmin work. I find the latter more fun - currently converting a bunch of boxes to Debian for ease of ongoing updates - and yes, I can safely say that I'd like to see the marketing muppets try to live without DNS or mail or firewalls...
> Except where the charge is one of inciting terrorism, criticising someone else's religion or any other of the UKs "thought crime" laws due to be passed in October. All of these, the perpetrator can do quite happily from inside a Mosque, Church or Synagogue.
Interesting point. I wonder how much of the refuge system relied on churches being more or less neutral such that when someone runs into one, they're unlikely to spread their "desire for crime" to the natives.
> Any school teacher can tell you that once you start shouting, you've had it. And the 'thought crime' laws are just a mindless panic.
Absolutely, well said. Good likeness (my mum's a teacher...).
From somewhere on the NYT news site:
"What appeared to be straightforward linear thinking last week doesn't appear to be so today"
This is why we should really have a minimum delay before passing new laws after such critical events.
> Again, seems perfectly reasonable. Taking off shoes doesn't impede their raid in any way, yet it respects their religion instead of giving them more reason to resent the authorities. Trampling all over their religion is something the yanks would do [google.com]; let's not follow in their misguided footsteps and become as hated as they are.
Yes it does. Removing shoes prior to storming a mosque does not scale to instances when someone runs from house to bus to tube station to mosque and out the back door, with police in tow.
Now, for those who don't know the UK, there used to be an idea that folks could hole-up in a *church* to claim sanctity, or whatever the phrase was. Strikes me that, if I'm thinking of the idea aright, it could be quite useful to *extend* that to mosques - "you can stay in there as long as you like, unable to do an awful lot, but we'll be waiting for you outside". Makes the process a lot *calmer* on average. More time to think is good, both for police and criminal.
This is the trouble with the UK at present: not just that privacy is being eroded, but that the justice system we had was actually quite good. There is nothing you can solve by instantly locking someone up that you could not have got by observing with more detail earlier and lying in wait. Then when you come to arrest them, you *have* the evidence on which to make charges. Never mind holding people for 3 months without charging; never mind even detaining them for a fortnight; you're just there, ready. That's what I really object to.
Ideally I should like a constitutional block on instituting new legislation within a suitable time-interval after a major event, too.
I've gone at least a page down in the comments here and not seen any reference to the really obvious weakness here: that by responding to a spam either impersonating a sender domain, or advertising a URL, that you'd not hit on an innocent third-party by DDoSing either 25 or 80/tcp. This is why it must die, as well as any number of other arguments about the moral high-ground.
Interoperability, I think. There's nothing saying you have to choose a particular licence if you want to write a mod_my_closed_crap.so to link into it.
The point I was making with claustrophobic city streets is that the signal bounces off the buildings like nobody's business - I've driven down roads following directions only to find it thinking I'm running parallel half a mile away. And as for even finding the right road... it's all-too easy to confuse an access road with a trunk, if there's a row of houses in the way or something (cf some of the A3 around London).
> WPS...bah. GPS...bah. A jedi needs not these things.
> Where I live, the "normal" speed that people drive seems to be about 5-10mph over the posted limit. If everyone actually drove at the limit or below, I suspect rush hour would last at least an hour longer.
Sure. This is a good reason to consider reviewing both the setting of speed-limits and the "error-margins" allowed around them.
Another thing to consider is that it's probably best to have a variety of speeds when crossing structures prone to resonance. (That's my excuse, and I'm sticking to it - hey, I'm helping preserve the Forth Road Bridge!;)
Yes, but the people have it coming, anyway. Humans these days are lacking pretty vital cognitive abilities, I find: ability to analyse what's right under their noses, and a cynical response to new legislation rather than mere gullibility, are *essential*, and would save half this crap!
The real problem is having to share the planet with Bush fans and actually giving them the vote...
>...if someone made an instant.pdf of/. with no banners and all?
I think the powers-that-be at/. should be aware of people's ad-filtering capabilities by now. If nothing else, they run enough stories on IT...
> Not cool for you to even question a guy getting paid for his work.
So if/. were truly completely shite, those who run it would still deserve an 800k home? You think there are no shades of graduation of how good/bad a film may be, or that quality doesn't apply just because it's from Lucas?
> So you raise the question "discussing why Lucas does or does not deserve to make the proceeds".
Seems a very good question to me, for exactly the above reasons. Lucas will make as much money as he deserves, both for whether the film is any good or not (I haven't yet seen it, although my expectations are `possibly moderately impressive'), and for how ingenious he is in marketing - and that includes making a value-added version available on the 'Net or not.
Not to mention, you have to solve the whole question of whether presence of low-quality near-0-cost versions on p2p networks detracts in any way from those who would go see it at the flicks. The only way to be sure of that is to incorporate the 'Net *into* the marketing scheme for the film in the first place!
An identity is a (person,role) pair, such as "daedala that posts on/.", or "daedala who runs a particular website", etc. The real world is no less prone to the same problem: "Fred who pays his taxes" and "Fred with a particular driving licence" normally tally - but they don't, otherwise we wouldn't have a bunch of problems with forged ID documents of various kinds.
I'd go so far as to say that getting to know someone is the same as piecing-together a sizeable number of these facets about them, but at the end of the day, all I know is (friend, [phone#,locations,style,appearance,[handle..],..]) etc.
> If you came up with a way to compress any data to 1% of its original size say, would you be happy to just give it away and get nothing for your efforts?
I would, yes.
Note that wavelet and fractal image-compression have so many patents on them already that you simply cannot get any remotely useful free implementations anywhere - and I want to play with both for photographic amusement in the comfort of my own lounge, dammit!
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
HTH
Well, yeah, but there is obviously *some* dependency between government, national economy, and business. Note how the UK government got involved in the collapse of Rover, for example.
But then again, do we need the government to say "you'll be in charge of a company whose turnover is a significant proportion of the GDP, you must be screened"? Isn't that what having a board of directors is for?
> Why do all the questions refer to the potential psychopath in the male gender?
;)
a) male is a sex, `masculine' would be a gender;
b) because `he' is English's sex-neutral inclusive pronoun
Would that suffice?
Now. Pass the illiterate feminists...
Quite. I think if you go for that over a proper book, it straight away shows that you're not taking the course seriously. If you need Maths 1A to proceed to the next year's Physics, you need it.
"An eBook is not just for Christmas.. oh, it is"
> This is not about giving businesses more power; it is about allowing businesses and workers to make any agreements they want, and they can tell the government to MYOB.
That would be "giving them more power", in my book.
Do you think all laws concerning employment should be scrapped?
> And if the business does not like it, they don't have to hire the worker.
Indeed. Not that this is materially different from bullying, anyway. Companies have far more clout than individuals. That's why a civilised nation protects employees.
> reason that is lawsuit is going forward is because...
/. would be another. ;)
Let's not forget it was a crappy film, too - as a rip-off of _Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon_, with its colours over-saturated to point of luridity and missing a 'cello accompaniment, it should never have been spawned. So a lawsuit is *one* way to attempt to raise publicity. (Appearing on
Yes, quite.
I spent 15mins writing a quick perl script - I forget what for, now - a few years ago, to facilitate some big-bucks deal. Transpires that deal was worth about $4million between the two companies. Did anyone remember my work? Did I see any of it? Like heck.
Now I spend my time doing a bit of development and sysadmin work. I find the latter more fun - currently converting a bunch of boxes to Debian for ease of ongoing updates - and yes, I can safely say that I'd like to see the marketing muppets try to live without DNS or mail or firewalls...
> Except where the charge is one of inciting terrorism, criticising someone else's religion or any other of the UKs "thought crime" laws due to be passed in October. All of these, the perpetrator can do quite happily from inside a Mosque, Church or Synagogue.
Interesting point. I wonder how much of the refuge system relied on churches being more or less neutral such that when someone runs into one, they're unlikely to spread their "desire for crime" to the natives.
> Any school teacher can tell you that once you start shouting, you've had it. And the 'thought crime' laws are just a mindless panic.
Absolutely, well said. Good likeness (my mum's a teacher...).
From somewhere on the NYT news site:
"What appeared to be straightforward linear thinking last week doesn't appear to be so today"
This is why we should really have a minimum delay before passing new laws after such critical events.
> Again, seems perfectly reasonable. Taking off shoes doesn't impede their raid in any way, yet it respects their religion instead of giving them more reason to resent the authorities. Trampling all over their religion is something the yanks would do [google.com]; let's not follow in their misguided footsteps and become as hated as they are.
Yes it does. Removing shoes prior to storming a mosque does not scale to instances when someone runs from house to bus to tube station to mosque and out the back door, with police in tow.
Now, for those who don't know the UK, there used to be an idea that folks could hole-up in a *church* to claim sanctity, or whatever the phrase was. Strikes me that, if I'm thinking of the idea aright, it could be quite useful to *extend* that to mosques - "you can stay in there as long as you like, unable to do an awful lot, but we'll be waiting for you outside". Makes the process a lot *calmer* on average. More time to think is good, both for police and criminal.
This is the trouble with the UK at present: not just that privacy is being eroded, but that the justice system we had was actually quite good. There is nothing you can solve by instantly locking someone up that you could not have got by observing with more detail earlier and lying in wait. Then when you come to arrest them, you *have* the evidence on which to make charges. Never mind holding people for 3 months without charging; never mind even detaining them for a fortnight; you're just there, ready. That's what I really object to.
Ideally I should like a constitutional block on instituting new legislation within a suitable time-interval after a major event, too.
I've gone at least a page down in the comments here and not seen any reference to the really obvious weakness here: that by responding to a spam either impersonating a sender domain, or advertising a URL, that you'd not hit on an innocent third-party by DDoSing either 25 or 80/tcp. This is why it must die, as well as any number of other arguments about the moral high-ground.
Think about the gravitational field shapes required to get stellar dust to coalesce into planets.
:)
With 3 bodies, you have no guarantee that there'll ever be a stable node in the field, let alone that enough matter will land there to bunch together.
Pretty neat fluke if it did, mind.
> lays
Oops. Try again.
I prefer lucid content-loaded sentences over length.
Interoperability, I think. There's nothing saying you have to choose a particular licence if you want to write a mod_my_closed_crap.so to link into it.
The point I was making with claustrophobic city streets is that the signal bounces off the buildings like nobody's business - I've driven down roads following directions only to find it thinking I'm running parallel half a mile away. And as for even finding the right road ... it's all-too easy to confuse an access road with a trunk, if there's a row of houses in the way or something (cf some of the A3 around London).
;)
> WPS...bah. GPS...bah. A jedi needs not these things.
Well there is this, true
> Where I live, the "normal" speed that people drive seems to be about 5-10mph over the posted limit. If everyone actually drove at the limit or below, I suspect rush hour would last at least an hour longer.
;)
Sure. This is a good reason to consider reviewing both the setting of speed-limits and the "error-margins" allowed around them.
Another thing to consider is that it's probably best to have a variety of speeds when crossing structures prone to resonance. (That's my excuse, and I'm sticking to it - hey, I'm helping preserve the Forth Road Bridge!
> Am I the only one who find the term "blogosphere" almost as annoying as "cyberspace" and "e-{insert whatever word you want here}"?
No.
(Next someone will come up with the idea of filtering communications by the ratio of quoted to original text, no doubt...)
Do you have GPS in claustrophobic city streets?
Do you have GPS in-building?
I'm wondering if they're going to include sources under the terms of the GPL.
That's not so much a case of being still broken as having the right to its own expectations, in the absence of a defining standard.
More to the point, go double-check for patents: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=microsoft+patent+ XML
Yes, but the people have it coming, anyway. Humans these days are lacking pretty vital cognitive abilities, I find: ability to analyse what's right under their noses, and a cynical response to new legislation rather than mere gullibility, are *essential*, and would save half this crap!
The real problem is having to share the planet with Bush fans and actually giving them the vote...
> ...if someone made an instant .pdf of /. with no banners and all?
/. should be aware of people's ad-filtering capabilities by now. If nothing else, they run enough stories on IT...
/. were truly completely shite, those who run it would still deserve an 800k home? You think there are no shades of graduation of how good/bad a film may be, or that quality doesn't apply just because it's from Lucas?
I think the powers-that-be at
> Not cool for you to even question a guy getting paid for his work.
So if
> So you raise the question "discussing why Lucas does or does not deserve to make the proceeds".
Seems a very good question to me, for exactly the above reasons. Lucas will make as much money as he deserves, both for whether the film is any good or not (I haven't yet seen it, although my expectations are `possibly moderately impressive'), and for how ingenious he is in marketing - and that includes making a value-added version available on the 'Net or not.
Not to mention, you have to solve the whole question of whether presence of low-quality near-0-cost versions on p2p networks detracts in any way from those who would go see it at the flicks. The only way to be sure of that is to incorporate the 'Net *into* the marketing scheme for the film in the first place!
An identity is a (person,role) pair, such as "daedala that posts on /.", or "daedala who runs a particular website", etc. The real world is no less prone to the same problem: "Fred who pays his taxes" and "Fred with a particular driving licence" normally tally - but they don't, otherwise we wouldn't have a bunch of problems with forged ID documents of various kinds.
) etc.
I'd go so far as to say that getting to know someone is the same as piecing-together a sizeable number of these facets about them, but at the end of the day, all I know is (friend, [phone#,locations,style,appearance,[handle..],..]
> If you came up with a way to compress any data to 1% of its original size say, would you be happy to just give it away and get nothing for your efforts?
I would, yes.
Note that wavelet and fractal image-compression have so many patents on them already that you simply cannot get any remotely useful free implementations anywhere - and I want to play with both for photographic amusement in the comfort of my own lounge, dammit!
> It's basically a modified whitelist system. Imagine this: Your inbox is set to block all mail which is not on the whitelist.
Very clever. Now go read http://www.paulgraham.com/stopspam.html and search for `fence'.
All challenge-response or auto-blacklisting systems are unscaleable and therefore defective. Period.