I know there's someone out there who spent weeks writing a shell script that would "watch" the screen and return the appropriate feedback so he could play without having to get off his ass.
Come on, I know you're out there and I know you read Slashdot.
When I visited the Discworld Convention recently, Terry Pratchett asked how many people in the room had received a Nigerian spam. Nearly every one of the hundreds of people in the room put their hand up! Maybe comic fantasy (or scifi) fans have higher expectactions of connectivity?
I'd say there is a higher percentage of computer literate people at a Discworld convention than on Slashdot. At least you know everyone at the Discworld convention can read.
The reason at least 90% of Americans do not have a broadband connection is because even in the most wired cities (Washington, DC, San Francisco, etc.) barely 50% of the population has any kind of internet connection. People who have been using the Internet for a while take it for granted and vastly overestimate the percentage of the population that's connected.
See my earlier comments on the number of Internet users in the U.S. and worldwide:
The Washington Post ran an article about two years ago on a study of internet usage in major metropolitan areas in the U.S. It claimed that the Washington, DC area was the most "wired" region in the country, with about 50% of adults having some access to the Internet.
IIRC, the expected techie cities followed, but the percentages quickly dropped below 30%. Outside those areas, the percentage of adults who have internet access was much lower than that.
In industrialized nations with relatively strong economies, the average internet access rate is probably below 20%. China and India each have populations around 1 billion, but what miniscule fraction of a percentage of their citizens have internet access. Most of the world's population doesn't even have electricity.
I think the percentage of people who (1) have electricity, (2) can afford a computer, (3) have the training to use a computer, (4) and have access to the Internet is probably less than 5%. In fact, I suspect it's closer to 1%.
But I know most of us don't want the RCMP being able to look and see what we have been doing on the web, especially if it relates to porn.
I wouldn't worry about the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. By the time they dismount, you'll have wiped your hard drive clean. And that's after they obtain a warrant to bring a horse into your house and after they give up on their attempts to root your box by poking at the keys with a stick to avoid dismounting.
Do they still include Notepad? Because you know that's the only reason I buy Windows PCs. Everyone used to have Notepad but then they switched to the Boston stapler, and they were married, and if they take my Notepad away again I'll... I'll... OK...
I believe one reason there aren't more Ogg-compatible players is because Ogg requires more processing power to decode. So the question now becomes, does it cost the manufacturers more than 75 cents per unit to switch to a processor that can handle Ogg effectively. I'm sure this played a part in Fraunhofer's decision to set the fee at 75 cents.
However, at that price the bigger determining factor is still the installed base. Most users have MP3s, know nothing about Ogg and won't want to convert their MP3s, or MP3s they download from Napster-like services.
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913):
Religion \Re*li"gion\, n.
Strictness of fidelity in conforming to any practice, as
if it were an enjoined rule of conduct.
Many people colloquially think of religion as a very narrowly-defined book, clergy and place of worship -- usually their own religion and those of their friends. They go to church, they listen, they recite whatever they're supposed to say and for the next several days they can tell everyone they're a good _____.
They scoff at anything outside their narrowly-defined concept of a "genuine" religion. "That's not a real relgion, it's just an excuse to _____." "They're just thumbing their noses at us devout _____s, they're not religious." "I've never heard of anyone belonging to _____; it must be a fake."
Religion is much broader than that. Religion is about closely-held beliefs. In the United States we have what's known as "Freedom of Religion." Many people interpret this to simply mean that the government cannot prevent you from going to church/praying/etc. The Constitutional amendment which provides "Freedom of Religion" is also focused on "Freedom of Speech." The whole idea is "Freedom of Ideas." The government cannot tell you your your beliefs are wrong without solid proof
"Your belief that God is dead is wrong because God lives in every man," doesn't fly. "Your belief that you have a mandate from God to murder people of other religions is wrong, because you are harming another person," is valid.
This distinction is very important. When a government can condemn ideas or mandate ideas without the burden of proof, its leaders attain totalitarian power. The power to define valid religions/beliefs translates into the power to define facts and reality, and the government will evolve into a self-serving dictatorship.
I don't care for Star Wars, and I don't think any one of these people can levitate rocks. But I do believe there are many people who are religiously fanatical about Star Wars. I'm not going to ridicule people for claiming Jedi as their religion or accuse them of lying about their beliefs, because their beliefs are just as valid as yours and mine.
I don't pity these "Jedi" for their beliefs. I pity them for living in Australia. In the U.S., the government doesn't have the right to suppress beliefs by calling them lies.
Microsoft tried Pig-to-Human transplants when they were first experimenting with the power of bundling. Couldn't make it work -- they ended up with Steve Ballmer.
I asked a recent parolee what he thought the numbers were on incorrect convictions, he told me that he'd estimate that 25% are guilty of what they were in for, 25% were inncocent and didn't belong is prison at all and 50% were in there convicted of something they didn't do, but had done something else roughly equivelent.
Interesting. The Justice Department announced yesterday that the U.S. correctional system's population has reached 6.6 million (up from 4.4 million in 1990. This means over 3 percent of American adults are in the system.
Hire a fat, bald man to charge onto the stage and chant "DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS" nonstop for 20 minutes, or until one of the following occurs:
Rather than a dozen rape-murders, you catch the perp after one or two.
It doesn't necessarily help you catch him -- it helps you convict him.
What percentage of violent crimes committed in poor neighborhoods fall under the category of rape-murders? I'm sure it's dwarfed by armed robbery and assault, in which case DNA won't aid in a conviction.
Rape occurs just as frequently among the middle and upper classes as it does among the poor, so why not apply the DNA database to everyone? When you head down to the station and voluntarily submit a DNA sample, you can encourage others to do the same and make the world safer for all of us.
How does being poor exempt one from adherence to the law? How does being uneducated about DNA make one less responsible for personal actions?
Nowhere in my post did I imply that the poor are exempt from adherence to the law or responsibility for their personal actions. The AC was trying to change the subject and interject his own prejudices -- a troll.
In my post, I said:
...tell me how the hell DNA profiling makes poor neighborhoods safer. How does DNA profiling of the poor, who are less likely to be educated about what DNA is, deter them from committing crimes?
Keeping a database of DNA does not prevent crimes, it only helps convict people of select crimes if they are caught.
An educated person may be deterred from committing one of those crimes if he knows the police could link him to it.
A poor, less-educated person is unlikely to understand the implications of a DNA database (he's probably not even aware of the database's existence), and therefore, if he plans to commit a crime, he will not be deterred by the database. He will be more likely to be convicted, but only after he commits the crime.
That does not enhance safety, but ObviousGuy states, "The people who live in those neighborhoods have a right to live in safety." I'd like to know why you think DNA profiling enhances safety.
One variant of the model calls for instituting oppression in graduated steps by segments of society. Start with a segment that is perceived as a threat or nuisance by the majority of the powerful, organized, outspoken individuals. They will applaud you for "cleaning up the trash," especially if you argue that you are fighting to improve the lives of those you are oppressing.
Then you move on to the middle class, who can't argue against the oppression because they so vocally supported the oppression of the poor. Besides, you're only offering them the same "right to live in safety" you provided to the poor. Why would the middle class want to "deprive itself" of something the poor have? "Everyone else" is getting it -- who does Joe Citizen think he is, trying to throw a monkey wrench into the works of progress? Meanwhile the rich continue to support this, contributing their wealth and power to push the propaganda.
Then you apply the oppression to the rich. If they refuse, they risk a revolt by the angry lower classes who have already bit the bullet. Of course, a select group of people, like you, are above the oppression, but that's your secret.
Now take a step back, and tell me how the hell DNA profiling makes poor neighborhoods safer. How does DNA profiling of the poor, who are less likely to be educated about what DNA is, deter them from committing crimes?
<SARCASM>
How else are they supposed to get you off death row 18 years after they coerce you to confess to a crime you did not commit? Can't you see this is for your own good? We have to choose between the lesser of two evils:
Keeping a DNA database of the innocent.
Scaling back efforts to force false confessions, letting both innocent and guilty individuals go free.
Keeping tabs on who washes his hands is pointless.
A man who does not wash his hands is obviously a dirty criminal who harbors contempt for all things good and true: cleanliness, laws, George Bush.
A man who washes his hands is is either nervous about a crime he is about to commit or trying to wash off the evidence of a past crime.
Either way, your honor, we have sufficient cause to believe the defendant is an enemy combatant.
Did any other late-night owls...
on
Pentium 4 2.8GHz
·
· Score: 2, Funny
...glance at the headline and read "Pentium 42.8GHz?" I wonder what kind of cryogenic storage compartment that box would require... I'll bet it makes the Internet really fast(TM), though.
When Americans (who measure in nonsensical units like feet and miles) build a telescope on their own, they call it "The Very Large Array in New Mexico."
When the international community is involved in the project, however, a more precise name like "The Square Kilometer Array" is used. Of course, Americans have no idea what a kilometer is, so American magazine Wired refers to it as "this huge radio telescope." Now I can visualize it.
When the U.S. government attempts to top this ten years from now, I'm sure they'll call it "The Very Unprecedented Array in Afghanistan"
but you do realize that someday Voyager is going to crash into a planet and obliterate an entire city of extraterrestrials.
Years later we will cheer and gawk as NASA or the U.S. Air Force reports a fleet of unidentified space ships entering the atmosphere... until they pull out their laser blasters and photon torpedoes and come looking for revenge.
A More Effective Method of Detecting and Killing Anthrax
Scientists at Rockefeller University in New York announced today in the journal Nature that a protein used by a bacteriophage (a virus that kills bacteria) can be used to quickly detect and kill anthrax. Last year, it took days to check a building for anthrax spores, but this method of causing the bacteria's cell wall to burst and yield an easily-detectible dye would cut the uncertainty to a period of minutes. It can also be used in a drug to kill strains of anthrax that have grown resistant to antibiotics. Rockefeller University has additional info, and the NYTimes has an article.
The Nature article also mentions an interesting tidbit about a difference between Western and Russian medicine: "Such 'phage therapy' is routine in Russia - the concept is over 80 years old - but was ousted by antibiotics in the West." A nice reminder that ignoring one approach in favor of another can have disastrous results."
Slashdot Mirror
Come on, I know you're out there and I know you read Slashdot.
Dude, Dance Dance Revolution is so much more fun than Radical Advanced Moronic Bouncing Up-and-down Skating!
See my earlier comments on the number of Internet users in the U.S. and worldwide:
Do they still include Notepad? Because you know that's the only reason I buy Windows PCs. Everyone used to have Notepad but then they switched to the Boston stapler, and they were married, and if they take my Notepad away again I'll... I'll... OK...
However, at that price the bigger determining factor is still the installed base. Most users have MP3s, know nothing about Ogg and won't want to convert their MP3s, or MP3s they download from Napster-like services.
Ogg is more of a CPU hOgg (pun intended)
They scoff at anything outside their narrowly-defined concept of a "genuine" religion. "That's not a real relgion, it's just an excuse to _____." "They're just thumbing their noses at us devout _____s, they're not religious." "I've never heard of anyone belonging to _____; it must be a fake."
Religion is much broader than that. Religion is about closely-held beliefs. In the United States we have what's known as "Freedom of Religion." Many people interpret this to simply mean that the government cannot prevent you from going to church/praying/etc. The Constitutional amendment which provides "Freedom of Religion" is also focused on "Freedom of Speech." The whole idea is "Freedom of Ideas." The government cannot tell you your your beliefs are wrong without solid proof
"Your belief that God is dead is wrong because God lives in every man," doesn't fly. "Your belief that you have a mandate from God to murder people of other religions is wrong, because you are harming another person," is valid.
This distinction is very important. When a government can condemn ideas or mandate ideas without the burden of proof, its leaders attain totalitarian power. The power to define valid religions/beliefs translates into the power to define facts and reality, and the government will evolve into a self-serving dictatorship.
I don't care for Star Wars, and I don't think any one of these people can levitate rocks. But I do believe there are many people who are religiously fanatical about Star Wars. I'm not going to ridicule people for claiming Jedi as their religion or accuse them of lying about their beliefs, because their beliefs are just as valid as yours and mine.
I don't pity these "Jedi" for their beliefs. I pity them for living in Australia. In the U.S., the government doesn't have the right to suppress beliefs by calling them lies.
Sorry, it was just sooo begging to be posted.
What percentage of violent crimes committed in poor neighborhoods fall under the category of rape-murders? I'm sure it's dwarfed by armed robbery and assault, in which case DNA won't aid in a conviction.
Rape occurs just as frequently among the middle and upper classes as it does among the poor, so why not apply the DNA database to everyone? When you head down to the station and voluntarily submit a DNA sample, you can encourage others to do the same and make the world safer for all of us.
In my post, I said:
Keeping a database of DNA does not prevent crimes, it only helps convict people of select crimes if they are caught.An educated person may be deterred from committing one of those crimes if he knows the police could link him to it.
A poor, less-educated person is unlikely to understand the implications of a DNA database (he's probably not even aware of the database's existence), and therefore, if he plans to commit a crime, he will not be deterred by the database. He will be more likely to be convicted, but only after he commits the crime.
That does not enhance safety, but ObviousGuy states, "The people who live in those neighborhoods have a right to live in safety." I'd like to know why you think DNA profiling enhances safety.
One variant of the model calls for instituting oppression in graduated steps by segments of society. Start with a segment that is perceived as a threat or nuisance by the majority of the powerful, organized, outspoken individuals. They will applaud you for "cleaning up the trash," especially if you argue that you are fighting to improve the lives of those you are oppressing.
Then you move on to the middle class, who can't argue against the oppression because they so vocally supported the oppression of the poor. Besides, you're only offering them the same "right to live in safety" you provided to the poor. Why would the middle class want to "deprive itself" of something the poor have? "Everyone else" is getting it -- who does Joe Citizen think he is, trying to throw a monkey wrench into the works of progress? Meanwhile the rich continue to support this, contributing their wealth and power to push the propaganda.
Then you apply the oppression to the rich. If they refuse, they risk a revolt by the angry lower classes who have already bit the bullet. Of course, a select group of people, like you, are above the oppression, but that's your secret.
Now take a step back, and tell me how the hell DNA profiling makes poor neighborhoods safer. How does DNA profiling of the poor, who are less likely to be educated about what DNA is, deter them from committing crimes?
How else are they supposed to get you off death row 18 years after they coerce you to confess to a crime you did not commit? Can't you see this is for your own good? We have to choose between the lesser of two evils:
- Keeping a DNA database of the innocent.
- Scaling back efforts to force false confessions, letting both innocent and guilty individuals go free.
</SARCASM>- A man who does not wash his hands is obviously a dirty criminal who harbors contempt for all things good and true: cleanliness, laws, George Bush.
- A man who washes his hands is is either nervous about a crime he is about to commit or trying to wash off the evidence of a past crime.
Either way, your honor, we have sufficient cause to believe the defendant is an enemy combatant.OK, I officially need sleep now.
When the international community is involved in the project, however, a more precise name like "The Square Kilometer Array" is used. Of course, Americans have no idea what a kilometer is, so American magazine Wired refers to it as "this huge radio telescope." Now I can visualize it.
When the U.S. government attempts to top this ten years from now, I'm sure they'll call it "The Very Unprecedented Array in Afghanistan"
Years later we will cheer and gawk as NASA or the U.S. Air Force reports a fleet of unidentified space ships entering the atmosphere... until they pull out their laser blasters and photon torpedoes and come looking for revenge.
Scientists at Rockefeller University in New York announced today in the journal Nature that a protein used by a bacteriophage (a virus that kills bacteria) can be used to quickly detect and kill anthrax. Last year, it took days to check a building for anthrax spores, but this method of causing the bacteria's cell wall to burst and yield an easily-detectible dye would cut the uncertainty to a period of minutes. It can also be used in a drug to kill strains of anthrax that have grown resistant to antibiotics. Rockefeller University has additional info, and the NYTimes has an article.
The Nature article also mentions an interesting tidbit about a difference between Western and Russian medicine: "Such 'phage therapy' is routine in Russia - the concept is over 80 years old - but was ousted by antibiotics in the West." A nice reminder that ignoring one approach in favor of another can have disastrous results."