You must have had some kind of strange battery fault. My Newton runs for 24 hours continuously with the backlight on. That's what makes it my favourite book reader - I can read all night without waking up my girlfriend, because the backlight means I don't need a light to read. The LCD screen is very stable and doesn't make my eyes hurt, either.
You're right that this is somewhat possible; in practice, it doesn't happen. I'm a member of my city's cooperative auto network and the cars are just fine, thanks. They're clean, well-maintained, and the tank is always at least half-full.
Often I guess people feel a responsibility to take care of shared property, as long as they don't take it for granted.
Yes, thank you for preventing a potential disaster! You see, I just got The Ringworld Throne out of the library, and I was actually going to read it. Apparently you have saved my vision and most of my ability to reason and produce sentences other than "...That's part of my life I will never get back...".
I'm on board with your explanation, and the wikipedia article includes proofs which is refreshing. However, I feel that I should point out that it may not be the most compelling of sources to cite when saying "You don't have to believe me, see for yourself".
You're completely correct, I did make that assumption. That's a decent-sized hole in my argument! However, if you agree that the law represents a moral requirement (ie, it's a good law), then surely you must also feel that your actions are immoral. It seems to me that most people who think about that sort of thing don't want to be immoral.
I think that it is a reasonable simplification to claim that most of the people who speed claim that speed limits are too low, at least as a form of rationalization of their otherwise immoral behaviour. Far more than 50% of the population near me seems to speed; it appears likely to me that at least 50%+1 of the population believes speed limits to be "bad law".
You and I may not, but millions will, especially if it means less expensive (free?) games.
No they won't. They'll simply download a version which has been cracked to remove the ad misfeatures. You can be certain that such features will be removed along with copy protection, because any feature which downloads ads from the vendor would also be "phoning home", and what cracker would want that? Once they're merely copying the game already, there is a lot less incentive for consumers to purchase the game.
This probably will not mean less expensive games, and it certainly will not mean free games (giving it away for free makes it less valuable as an advertising medium; free things don't always get used). The game companies will want to maintain the perceived value of their games by not positioning it as a cheap, second-rate game. Of course, we know that it'd just be cheap spyware, so you can count me out too. That's my internet connection, thanks, and just like spam I don't want them using it for their benefit and not mine.
On the one hand, you're right of course. This should be a huge motivation for political change! When the people don't approve of a law, shouldn't that law be considered for the scrap heap?
On the other hand, you're assuming that the USA is a democracy, which it isn't; decisions are not made to please the majority of the population. To see this, consider speed limits (which far more than 50% of the US population that I have observed do not follow). When the way in which your country is being governed does not represent the wishes of the goverened people (or as an approximation, the majority of said people), your country is not a democracy. I'm not sure, but it looks to me like in the USA each dollar gets a vote rather than each person.
You're absolutely right that sexuality is a delicate thing and has long-term, real-world consequences if gone about in a unwise fashion. I commend you for taking a stand for what is clearly a considered moral decision on your part with respect to how you would like to raise your children.
However, I do not believe that this is the motivation of the FCC, or indeed of most people who would like to censor words or images. It has not been raised as an issue of sex education, or childrearing; it has been raised as an issue of simple prudery, of blanket and unthinking aversion that cannot be based on a considered moral stance for the simple reason that it is inflexible. The word "shit" has never hurt anyone. I will not speculate as to what bias you may hold, or the background that leads to it; I will however entreat you to consider that we none of us have grown up without social pressure, and it is important to be aware of the effect that that pressure has on our thinking. I mean no offense, it is entirely possible that this medium interferes with your message.
Your point, while well taken, is nearly moot; censorship is never entirely successful. The only result of censorship is to engender a stigma in (sometimes large) portions of the society in question with regard to the concepts being censored. When the now-marginalised people who care about those concepts need information, it is now difficult to both access the information and remain a fully-participating member of the society. We've seen this time and time again, in different settings:
Sex, at least since the beginning of the Christian Era, but possibly since men realized they had anything to do with procreation
Drugs, since the War on same, and to a lesser degree before that
In the former USSR and affiliate states during the Soviet Era, the lifestyle of the unopressed
In many middle eastern countries, Liberties provided in the West to women - such as education and self-reliance
copywritten materials of all kinds
I hope you will note that information about all of these concepts has been available throughout the period of censorship. People do continue having sex, making and using drugs (often of dangerously poor quality), etc.
Therefore, while I agree with you that it is important to become wise with regard to life before creating any life one's self, I disagree that it is possible, let alone preferable to do so by attempting to delay sexual activity. Instead, since we cannot stop the flow of information it is by far preferable to ensure that correct information is the first to reach our children - not just information about how to avoid predatory adults, or how to use contraception, although both are important - but also about the nature of a loving, nurturing environment that I believe we all believe a child should be raised in. Do not first teach them to fear, and to hide. I believe that most evil in the world is accomplished out of fear, and the poor treatment of mates made in the back seats of cars is but a small but salient example.
After all, if we simply wanted to promote reproductive responsibility, it would be trivial to promote homosexuality as an introductory practice. The Greeks did...
Since I now work in NLP rather than biology, I don't read many of the articles. I agree with your assessment of the salience of PLOS and the extortionate costs of journals. I don't agree that you should give out passwords willy-nilly... not only is it illegal, but also you remove demand for replacements. Just like so many people pirate Microsoft software - thus handing them more market share which is even more important than the sales they lose - if enough people can "get it from a friend" then there won't be enough push to get it from a noncommercial source. If the system is bad, replace the system - don't just make it bearable but still bad.
This is already happening. Behold PLOS Biology, the Biology journal of the Public Library of Science. This has been around for some years and was started up by Michael Eisen of the Eisen lab at Lawrence Berkeley. As Slashdot history will attest, I found the original introduction of the PLOS to be insipiring and in fact it led me to take up my current career in natural language processing (because someone has to search through all that science!). I had the pleasure of talking with Dr. Eisen at a presentation he made at VANBUG recently, and he was very enthusiastic about hearing that NLP people are interested in working on searching and managing open science information, so I again urge you to help out projects like the PLOS (not just Biology, although that's the only current journal).
As rediculous as some corperations would be, there would always be someone that will sign their life away.
It's not clear if we agree or not, but I am certain that it is the case that some limits to contract law are reasonable for reasons other than just to protect the stupid. I'm not sure what you mean, so I'll just go on and hope we agree by the end. Reading some of the replies to your comment, it is clear that some people aren't thinking carefully enough about what they are writing.
It is not the case that individuals can always negotiate a fair contract with corporations, and it is disingenious to cast the transaction as one between equals. The power differential is severe, and does not favour the individual. To observe this in action, try to negotiate your own cell phone package, or a la carte channel access from your cable company, or to buy half-life licenses without buying the game CD. The only decision is to take what is already offered, or leave it if what is offered is not exactly what you want. There is no chance to say "Do you have this in green?" or "Could I just pay you $10/mo for this instead of being spammed?" or "Please, not in the face!" - you are not dealing with a person and cannot negotiate.
Furthermore, it is common practice to ratchet offerings across an entire industry so that the consumer is not offered any choices. This is why you cannot get a credit card without signing away your financial privacy, and even why it is very hard to get some kinds of work without signing away your rights to spurious ideas you have while coincidentally at the office.
It is of note that some very popular laws in Canada and the USA agree with the viewpoint I am expressing. It is impossible to contractually sign away your human rights, for example. Further, it is impossible under our law to contractually agree to work under conditions that are prohibited by the labour laws (ie, you cannot agree to work for less than a minimum wage, hand-pack asbestos, etc).
The bottom line is that what we consider "rights" are in fact things that can be taken away, and it is simply the overwhelming will of the people that nobody should allow them to be taken away. If we permit people to contractually agree not to be protected by this will, then these "rights" are meaningless as we can be forced by circumstances (that can be created by others, note) to sign away our rights. Consider for example the case of the minimum wage: The majority of the populations of Canada and the USA seem to agree that there are wages that provide a standard of living below which nobody should be forced to work. If the law allows me to sign away my right to do so, then I may choose to work for that wage rather than go hungry - however by my stated assumption, nobody should have to make that choice (the astute will notice that this does not imply a solution; discussion of solutions to this problem are beyond the scope of this post). History backs this up; consider the living situation of the industrial world prior to the labour movement, with killing duty cycles, punishing labour conditions, child labour, etc. The 40-hour work week, the minimum working age, and the weekend are all products of that movement, and both are essentially constraints on contract law.
One of the central problems with capitalism is that it only works if we assume perfect or near-perfect competition. This does not happen in reality. As a caveat, the problem with many forms of socialism is that they only work if we assume perfect or near-perfect cooperation, which also does not happen in reality. I'm sorry, but it turns out there are no simple answers and it is likely that neither extreme socialism nor libertarianism are the answer in the real world.
Is it just me - or does it look like this woman has two left arms? If I'm right, her thumb in the reflection should be on the/other/ side.
Naw, her hand is just turned so the palm is facing towards the mirror (away from her face). Otherwise, you'd see the rest of her fingers where in this photo you only see one finger. Also note the other finger just visible above the thumb.
Since I live near Vancouver and am writing a paper on privacy right now, I decided to look into this a little bit. Here's what I've found:
The organization in question, Barwatch, donated $5000 to the incredibly right-wing Liberal party (go figure) that currently runs the province. The same organization was behind a fight with the worker's compensation board of BC regarding the rights of workers not to have to work in a cloud of second-hand smoke. The Liberals changed the law to remove the WCB ventilation requirements.
The same liberals have passed (I think) some privacy legislation that allows disclosure of personal information collected by observation at a performance, sports meet, or a similar event that is open to the public (Think Tampa superbowl), and allows organisations not to tell individuals what information they have, "if the disclosure of the personal information would reveal confidential commercial information that if disclosed, could, in the opinion of a reasonable person, harm the competitive position of the organization". In other words, it's pretty wide open.
This isn't the first time Barwatch has cranked up surveillance of its patrons: This article mentions that video taping has been going on in Barwatch bars for three years before the article was written, in 1999. It also demonstrates that while these programs are justified by safety concerns, they are also used for marketing data.
These guys have some power: Apart from the smoking legislation, Barwatch also lobbied to implement bus service later, and allow bars open later. Recently, the BC Liberal party allowed bars to be open until 4 AM on Fridays, and Translink began offering night bus service to at least SFU.
On his geocities resume web site, Bradley Shende claims to be the Barwatch founder. According to his site, "Barwatch is an original concept. It's purpose was to establish communication between licensed establishments and the various branches of municipal law enforcement and regulation to create a forum of co-operation rather than adversity, and to set standards by which we would all operate our licensed premises. The organization has been a success over the years and is now branched out into the US and all over Canada." Apparently he is also "a quick study on systems and software". Nice win2k experience, Bradley.
Barwatch has changed their phone number, and no longer has a web presence (www.barwatch.org as posted on Shende's web site). I was unable to contact them before posting this. The often cited name of the chair and spokesman of Barwatch is Vance Campbell.
I'm usually a proponent of strong authentication; I sign all my mail with gpg. However, I know that this makes me uncomfortable and I probably won't be going to these establishments.
See J.M. Kleinberg, "Authoritative Sources in a Hyperlinked Environment", Proceedings of the 9th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, ACM Press, New York and SIAM Press, Philadelphia, 1998, pp.668-677
That discusses the HITS algorithm, which is the core of PageRank (which is a simplified version of HITS). Sergey Brin and Lawrence Page in fact developed [1] Google from HITS [2].
References: [1] S. Brin and L. Page, "The Anatomy of a Large Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine", Proceedings of the 7th World Wide Web Converence, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 1998. pp. 107-117
[2] Chakrabarti, Dom, et. al., "Mining the Web's Link Structure", Computer, August 1999. pp. 60-66
I can tell the difference between a CD and a CD that's been spun over a demagnitizer just prior to playing.
Wow, that's really cool. Especially since data is stored on Compact Discs using light, not magnetism.
Maybe you can explain to us how the magnetism affects the holes in the CD's aluminium film? Or are you contending that the aluminium builds up a sufficiently strong magnetic field that it actually induces current in the electronics?
I'm not at all sure what you're talking about. Either you're the kind of person who thinks you can clean laundry by sticking fridge magnets in the washing machine, or you're confused about whatever that thing is you're calling a "demagnetizer".
TightVNC [tightvnc.com] adds variable JPG compression and is optimized for slow connections.
It was also broken when I tried it a couple months ago. It doesn't update the display properly, it fails to draw the display sometimes, and it just plain doesn't work. I tried it, then went back to plain old VNC.
Like a lot of others, I was interested in this, thinking that it might be a consumer device. I went looking though, and found this article from the bombay IEEE student newsletter which talks about the device. It says " The cost according to Prof. Wright is likely to be a few thousand pounds making it practical only for commercial use."
On the other hand, the article also has some (thin) technical details:
For the technically inclined, this facility measures 6m x 6m x 5m; the eight channel system is based on a Texas instruments tms320c32 processor using a two tap filter and a circular buffer technique to implement the delayed version of the update algorithm. This allows easy algorithm implementation in software and significantly reduces computation time for a large number of channels a 16 - input, 8 - output. PC 16108 provides a 12-bit interface with the external equipment. This board contains three selectable levels of gain: 1,10,100.
Does anyone know about the latency involved with using a tms320c32? It might be possible to rig a software solution to run on a PC, perhaps leading to a homebrew version.
Has anyone had any experience doing programming of this nature? Bear in mind that response time would have to be very low to cancel noise that you didn't predict (such as low-frequency hums, fan noise, etc).
I mean, you have to get "worlds" in there for the semantic difference, and the spacing and caps are kind of nice for nostalgic purposes. Now, I'm not totally sure where the first line break goes, but I think I have it right.
But then one thing occured to me. Nobody can _force_ me to accept the EULA that comes with Microsoft's products. So if I buy my laptop with Windows and Office, and refuse to accept the EULA, I should be able to return the software to Microsoft and get my money back. That's how it _should_ be, at least.
Can somebody confirm that the EULA gives you this possibility? Have anyone tried this? Any success?
I use mutt for my console mailer, actually. However, I haven't found an appropriate mailer for X and Windows - Under Windows, using a console program is actually really, really bad; I have never seen a decent terminal / console window application for Windows, and the "MS DOS Prompt" application sucks in several dimensions.
Finally, this is a proposed levy, not final. The amounts mentioned are amounts musicians and songwriters have lobbied for; and is subject to change based on public input. This is the first time the proposed amounts have been made public; basically it reflects what the musician's organisation wants and has lobbied for.
This may be the case, but it's pretty damn final. In fact, if nobody objects strongly enough, this WILL be the final version. This is to say, the default is that this will pass, not that it will not pass
From the PDF (English only):
(1) You can file written comments at any time between now
and the date the Board will set for hearing final arguments. This is
the most convenient way to proceed if all you wish to do is to
state your point of view. If you file a letter of comment, it will be
part of the record of the proceedings. CPCC will receive a copy of
it and the Board will take it into account when making a final
decision.
(2) You can also file a formal objection. This form of participa-
tion requires that you abide by certain rules. You will enjoy a
certain number of rights, and will undertake a certain number of
duties. You will be required to file a written statement of case
opposing the proposed tariff and to provide any evidence in sup-
port thereof. You will be entitled to receive a copy of every
document filed with the Board in these proceedings and will be
expected to provide copies of the documents that you file with the
Board to all other participants. You will be allowed to ask ques-
tions and obtain information from other participants and be ex-
pected to answer questions and provide information to them. You
will be allowed, but not required, to appear before the Board
at a public hearing to present evidence and ask questions from
witnesses.
Also note from the PDF that this is a proposal for 2003/2004 - they'll be talking about raising the prices again in TWO YEARS.
Slashdot Mirror
You must have had some kind of strange battery fault. My Newton runs for 24 hours continuously with the backlight on. That's what makes it my favourite book reader - I can read all night without waking up my girlfriend, because the backlight means I don't need a light to read. The LCD screen is very stable and doesn't make my eyes hurt, either.
Often I guess people feel a responsibility to take care of shared property, as long as they don't take it for granted.
Yes, thank you for preventing a potential disaster! You see, I just got The Ringworld Throne out of the library, and I was actually going to read it. Apparently you have saved my vision and most of my ability to reason and produce sentences other than "...That's part of my life I will never get back...".
I'm on board with your explanation, and the wikipedia article includes proofs which is refreshing. However, I feel that I should point out that it may not be the most compelling of sources to cite when saying "You don't have to believe me, see for yourself".
I think that it is a reasonable simplification to claim that most of the people who speed claim that speed limits are too low, at least as a form of rationalization of their otherwise immoral behaviour. Far more than 50% of the population near me seems to speed; it appears likely to me that at least 50%+1 of the population believes speed limits to be "bad law".
This probably will not mean less expensive games, and it certainly will not mean free games (giving it away for free makes it less valuable as an advertising medium; free things don't always get used). The game companies will want to maintain the perceived value of their games by not positioning it as a cheap, second-rate game. Of course, we know that it'd just be cheap spyware, so you can count me out too. That's my internet connection, thanks, and just like spam I don't want them using it for their benefit and not mine.
On the other hand, you're assuming that the USA is a democracy, which it isn't; decisions are not made to please the majority of the population. To see this, consider speed limits (which far more than 50% of the US population that I have observed do not follow). When the way in which your country is being governed does not represent the wishes of the goverened people (or as an approximation, the majority of said people), your country is not a democracy. I'm not sure, but it looks to me like in the USA each dollar gets a vote rather than each person.
You're absolutely right that sexuality is a delicate thing and has long-term, real-world consequences if gone about in a unwise fashion. I commend you for taking a stand for what is clearly a considered moral decision on your part with respect to how you would like to raise your children.
However, I do not believe that this is the motivation of the FCC, or indeed of most people who would like to censor words or images. It has not been raised as an issue of sex education, or childrearing; it has been raised as an issue of simple prudery, of blanket and unthinking aversion that cannot be based on a considered moral stance for the simple reason that it is inflexible. The word "shit" has never hurt anyone. I will not speculate as to what bias you may hold, or the background that leads to it; I will however entreat you to consider that we none of us have grown up without social pressure, and it is important to be aware of the effect that that pressure has on our thinking. I mean no offense, it is entirely possible that this medium interferes with your message.
Your point, while well taken, is nearly moot; censorship is never entirely successful. The only result of censorship is to engender a stigma in (sometimes large) portions of the society in question with regard to the concepts being censored. When the now-marginalised people who care about those concepts need information, it is now difficult to both access the information and remain a fully-participating member of the society. We've seen this time and time again, in different settings:
I hope you will note that information about all of these concepts has been available throughout the period of censorship. People do continue having sex, making and using drugs (often of dangerously poor quality), etc.
Therefore, while I agree with you that it is important to become wise with regard to life before creating any life one's self, I disagree that it is possible, let alone preferable to do so by attempting to delay sexual activity. Instead, since we cannot stop the flow of information it is by far preferable to ensure that correct information is the first to reach our children - not just information about how to avoid predatory adults, or how to use contraception, although both are important - but also about the nature of a loving, nurturing environment that I believe we all believe a child should be raised in. Do not first teach them to fear, and to hide. I believe that most evil in the world is accomplished out of fear, and the poor treatment of mates made in the back seats of cars is but a small but salient example.
After all, if we simply wanted to promote reproductive responsibility, it would be trivial to promote homosexuality as an introductory practice. The Greeks did...
By the way, your username is excellent.
This is already happening. Behold PLOS Biology, the Biology journal of the Public Library of Science. This has been around for some years and was started up by Michael Eisen of the Eisen lab at Lawrence Berkeley. As Slashdot history will attest, I found the original introduction of the PLOS to be insipiring and in fact it led me to take up my current career in natural language processing (because someone has to search through all that science!). I had the pleasure of talking with Dr. Eisen at a presentation he made at VANBUG recently, and he was very enthusiastic about hearing that NLP people are interested in working on searching and managing open science information, so I again urge you to help out projects like the PLOS (not just Biology, although that's the only current journal).
It's not clear if we agree or not, but I am certain that it is the case that some limits to contract law are reasonable for reasons other than just to protect the stupid. I'm not sure what you mean, so I'll just go on and hope we agree by the end. Reading some of the replies to your comment, it is clear that some people aren't thinking carefully enough about what they are writing.
It is not the case that individuals can always negotiate a fair contract with corporations, and it is disingenious to cast the transaction as one between equals. The power differential is severe, and does not favour the individual. To observe this in action, try to negotiate your own cell phone package, or a la carte channel access from your cable company, or to buy half-life licenses without buying the game CD. The only decision is to take what is already offered, or leave it if what is offered is not exactly what you want. There is no chance to say "Do you have this in green?" or "Could I just pay you $10/mo for this instead of being spammed?" or "Please, not in the face!" - you are not dealing with a person and cannot negotiate.
Furthermore, it is common practice to ratchet offerings across an entire industry so that the consumer is not offered any choices. This is why you cannot get a credit card without signing away your financial privacy, and even why it is very hard to get some kinds of work without signing away your rights to spurious ideas you have while coincidentally at the office.
It is of note that some very popular laws in Canada and the USA agree with the viewpoint I am expressing. It is impossible to contractually sign away your human rights, for example. Further, it is impossible under our law to contractually agree to work under conditions that are prohibited by the labour laws (ie, you cannot agree to work for less than a minimum wage, hand-pack asbestos, etc).
The bottom line is that what we consider "rights" are in fact things that can be taken away, and it is simply the overwhelming will of the people that nobody should allow them to be taken away. If we permit people to contractually agree not to be protected by this will, then these "rights" are meaningless as we can be forced by circumstances (that can be created by others, note) to sign away our rights. Consider for example the case of the minimum wage: The majority of the populations of Canada and the USA seem to agree that there are wages that provide a standard of living below which nobody should be forced to work. If the law allows me to sign away my right to do so, then I may choose to work for that wage rather than go hungry - however by my stated assumption, nobody should have to make that choice (the astute will notice that this does not imply a solution; discussion of solutions to this problem are beyond the scope of this post). History backs this up; consider the living situation of the industrial world prior to the labour movement, with killing duty cycles, punishing labour conditions, child labour, etc. The 40-hour work week, the minimum working age, and the weekend are all products of that movement, and both are essentially constraints on contract law.
One of the central problems with capitalism is that it only works if we assume perfect or near-perfect competition. This does not happen in reality. As a caveat, the problem with many forms of socialism is that they only work if we assume perfect or near-perfect cooperation, which also does not happen in reality. I'm sorry, but it turns out there are no simple answers and it is likely that neither extreme socialism nor libertarianism are the answer in the real world.
- The organization in question, Barwatch, donated $5000 to the incredibly right-wing Liberal party (go figure) that currently runs the province. The same organization was behind a fight with the worker's compensation board of BC regarding the rights of workers not to have to work in a cloud of second-hand smoke. The Liberals changed the law to remove the WCB ventilation requirements.
- The same liberals have passed (I think) some privacy legislation that allows disclosure of personal information collected by observation at a performance, sports meet, or a similar event that is open to the public (Think Tampa superbowl), and allows organisations not to tell individuals what information they have, "if the disclosure of the personal information would reveal confidential commercial information that if disclosed, could, in the opinion of a reasonable person, harm the competitive position of the organization". In other words, it's pretty wide open.
- This isn't the first time Barwatch has cranked up surveillance of its patrons: This article mentions that video taping has been going on in Barwatch bars for three years before the article was written, in 1999. It also demonstrates that while these programs are justified by safety concerns, they are also used for marketing data.
- These guys have some power: Apart from the smoking legislation, Barwatch also lobbied to implement bus service later, and allow bars open later. Recently, the BC Liberal party allowed bars to be open until 4 AM on Fridays, and Translink began offering night bus service to at least SFU.
- On his geocities resume web site, Bradley Shende claims to be the Barwatch founder. According to his site, "Barwatch is an original concept. It's purpose was to establish communication between licensed establishments and the various branches of municipal law enforcement and regulation to create a forum of co-operation rather than adversity, and to set standards by which we would all operate our licensed premises. The organization has been a success over the years and is now branched out into the US and all over Canada." Apparently he is also "a quick study on systems and software". Nice win2k experience, Bradley.
- Barwatch has changed their phone number, and no longer has a web presence (www.barwatch.org as posted on Shende's web site). I was unable to contact them before posting this. The often cited name of the chair and spokesman of Barwatch is Vance Campbell.
I'm usually a proponent of strong authentication; I sign all my mail with gpg. However, I know that this makes me uncomfortable and I probably won't be going to these establishments.Well, actually...
See J.M. Kleinberg, "Authoritative Sources in a Hyperlinked Environment", Proceedings of the 9th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, ACM Press, New York and SIAM Press, Philadelphia, 1998, pp.668-677
That discusses the HITS algorithm, which is the core of PageRank (which is a simplified version of HITS). Sergey Brin and Lawrence Page in fact developed [1] Google from HITS [2].
References:
[1] S. Brin and L. Page, "The Anatomy of a Large Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine", Proceedings of the 7th World Wide Web Converence, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 1998. pp. 107-117
[2] Chakrabarti, Dom, et. al., "Mining the Web's Link Structure", Computer, August 1999. pp. 60-66
Maybe you can explain to us how the magnetism affects the holes in the CD's aluminium film? Or are you contending that the aluminium builds up a sufficiently strong magnetic field that it actually induces current in the electronics?
I'm not at all sure what you're talking about. Either you're the kind of person who thinks you can clean laundry by sticking fridge magnets in the washing machine, or you're confused about whatever that thing is you're calling a "demagnetizer".
On the other hand, the article also has some (thin) technical details:
Does anyone know about the latency involved with using a tms320c32? It might be possible to rig a software solution to run on a PC, perhaps leading to a homebrew version.Has anyone had any experience doing programming of this nature? Bear in mind that response time would have to be very low to cancel noise that you didn't predict (such as low-frequency hums, fan noise, etc).
At least get it right!
ALL THESE WORLDS
ARE YOURS
EXCEPT EUROPA
ATTEMPT NO LANDINGS THERE
I mean, you have to get "worlds" in there for the semantic difference, and the spacing and caps are kind of nice for nostalgic purposes. Now, I'm not totally sure where the first line break goes, but I think I have it right.
I use mutt for my console mailer, actually. However, I haven't found an appropriate mailer for X and Windows - Under Windows, using a console program is actually really, really bad; I have never seen a decent terminal / console window application for Windows, and the "MS DOS Prompt" application sucks in several dimensions.
From the PDF (English only):
Also note from the PDF that this is a proposal for 2003/2004 - they'll be talking about raising the prices again in TWO YEARS.