The original poster already said it: "Computers don't make opportunities. Teachers don't make opportunities. Public funding of projects, businesses and markets doesn't make opportunities. Opportunities come when a given community finds that is can accomplish something that others in a market want."
Another Armchair American who's never been outside of the country yet knows everything about politics.
No, a Swede who has lived on three continents, and traveled to more countries than you know the names of.
Countries with social programs, such as Australia, Japan, Canada and those in western Europe have highly productive economies and high standards of living for their citizens. Poor countries, like those in South America, have few social program, and a significant portion of the population live in dirt-floor poverty. A few wealthy faimilies re-direct all of the countries wealth to themselves.
Countries with social programs have slow growth, high unemployment, and are eating through the wealth they acquired through their otherwise liberal politics. My native Sweden (once the world's richest country, now among the poorest in OECD and poorer than every American state) is a shining example.
Since you mention South America, take a look at Argentina. At the end of WWI, Argentina was richer then most European countries. Then the "social programs" took over.
"Africa's problem is that its leaders take care of their people"? If only that were true. The problem is that they don't. Instead of investing in education, infrastructure, and economy, many African leaders invest mostly in a comfy life for themselves. If your line of reasoning were correct, Africa would have been a reasonably wealthy continent by now.
The grandparent was exactly right, and you are completely wrong. This is the socialist line of thinking that keeps people in poverty, keeps people dying, and is actively destroying hope where it exists. Many people who adhere to it mean well, but you could not possibly be more wrong. Read the grandparent again. Read what he writes, and consider that everything you have been told might be wrong.
Infrastructure is not the problem. Education is not the problem. And most of all, money is not the problem. It is when we understand this that there is real hope.
For people who lack a subscription to PRL the article can also be found here. It is a typical physics paper with plenty of vague plots, but little real math.
I used to use a software one (emulated another drive as "G:\" back when I used Windows) and pointed my browser there for it's cache folder into it - speeded up the whole surfing experience with already visited webpages...
I have a better idea. Why don't you make a RAM drive to put you swap file/partition on! That will make swapping real fast!!!!
(HINT: Browsers only use the disk cache when they have filled up the memory cache...)
There seems to be a lot of confusion in this thread regarding these two terms. It isn't that surprising, since they are both purposely misleading, but still.
"Trustworthy computing" is Microsoft's bullshit name for their so-called initiative to start taking security seriously. It was under this banner that Bill sent all his coders to secure coding seminars so they could learn what a buffer overflow is. The article is ironic in its title: that Microsoft have failed to find such a glaring issue as a native image format that purposely allows images to execute arbitrary code, and that they have not offered a patch even now when exploits are in the wild since almost a week, shows how trustworthy they really are.
"Trusted computing", on the other hand, is the bullshit name for a nefarious scheme involving hardware and software whereby control over PCs should be taken out of the hands of their owners, and given to the software and hardware vendors. This is sometimes claimed to be about security, but is actually motivated by DRM and DRM only (the name is short for "Trusted Client Computing" and comes from the ability of DRM vendors to trust that your computer, the client, will obey their directions).
The people pushing "trusted computing" are actually not so much Microsoft as Intel and IBM: Microsoft completely support the concept of trying to put the freely programmable computer back in the bottle, but they have had their own ideas about implementation (their version was first called "Palladium", but when they realized that it is bad to have a recognizable name for something customers actually don't want it was renamed "Next Generation Secure Computing Base" and after that it was renamed to nothing at all so they can be snuck into the coming versions of Windows without people noticing.)// oskar
Umm, if he did say something like that, he obviously meant the total number of passengers to fly over the twelve year period, not all at the same time in the same ship. SS2 is a suborbital plane, so any given flight will just last a few minutes/hours.
If they have 10 SS2s, flying one flight per day with 12 passengers over 12 years that would be more than half a million passengers. If Rutan said one million (the parent and grandparent might both be trolls), then he must have been thinking in terms of a bigger fleet.
If I were asked to immolate myself for the sake of creatures who wanted to survive at the price of my blood, if I were asked to serve the interests of society apart from, above and against my own--I would refuse, I would reject it as the most contemptible evil, I would fight it with every power I possess, I would fight the whole of mankind, if one minute were all I could last before I were murdered, I would fight in the full confidence of the justice of my battle and of a living being's right to exist. Let there be no misunderstanding about me. If it is now the belief of my fellow men, who call themselves the public, that their good requires victims, then I say: The public good be damned, I will have no part of it!
I've been to Beijing and Hong Kong, but unfortunately I have not been to Mexico City, so I cannot quite evalualte your comparison.
Hong Kong is a like a European or American city in many ways (especially on the island), but there is still an element of asian street life. Beijing today is a lot richer and more developed than it was just a few years ago, and thus more like HK (or NYC or New York) than most third world cities. But it is still dirty, and you can still feel the presense of a dictatorial non-pluralist government (in a way you don't in HK).
You and the blurb are wrong, the grandparent is right. There are three frames of reference here, the helicopter, the air, and the wingtip.
From the helicopter's reference, the blade is spinning around a fixed point, so that at one extreme the edge of the blade is traveling forwards at speed x, and at one extreme is traveling backwards at speed -x. The air is rushing towards the helicopter at speed -x.
Now, from the air's reference, the helicopter is moving forwards at speed x. The point the blade is spinning around is also moving at speed x, so at one extreme the speed of the blade tip relative to the air is x + -x = 0, and at the other it is x + x = 2x.
Now, lastly, from the tips perspective. It sees itself as stationary, the helicopter as rotating around it with a speed of -x, and air meeting it with a speed between 0 (at one extreme) and 2x (at the other extreme).
If the helicopter were standing still, then the blade would always see the air coming towards it at x. On the other hand, if the blade were standing still and helicopter moving, then the blade would see the wind coming towards it at speed x at one extreme, and speed -x (from behind) at the other extreme. In other words, it is only when the rotor speed goes _below_ the airspeed that air starts rushing over the rotor in the "wrong direction".
So the different conditions are:
Rotor speed > Air speed: Tips sometimes flow backwards compared to the air, sometime forwards. Tips always see air flow from in front.
Rotor speed = Air speed: Tips sometimes stand still compared to the air, the rest of the time go forwards. Tips see air coming from in front, expect at the extreme where the air is not moving relative to them.
Rotor speed Air speed: Tips are always moving foward compared to the air. The tips see that air as coming alternatively from in front, and behind.
I think that as academia continues to pull its collective head out of its ass, and realizes that it does not need to pay for a multi-billion dollar publishing industry that gives nothing back (authors write for free, reviewers review for free, editors edit for free, yet my institution spends more than $200k per year on journal subscriptions), services like Google Scholar which revolve around open Internet publishing will become more and more important.
If the 302 page is just a redirect, why do they apply the redirectee's pagerank to the 302er's page, and not the other way around (apply the 302er's pagerank to the ridirected page)?
They don't. A PageRank is something that Google assigns to a URL rather than a page, based on how many pages containing the keyword links to it and some other stuff. The issue is that Google finds two URLs that lead to the same page, one is the page itself, and one is a 302 redirect.
Now when you search for a term and this page hits, Google doesn't want to display two links to the same page, so Google it has to decide which is the canonical address for the page. The way that it does this is simply to take the URL with the greater PageRank as the canonical URL, and returning that.
The issue is that this allows one, in theory, to hijack google entries by 302 to the page in question, and getting a higher pagerank for your URL then the real one. In this case the old URL will be suppressed, and Google will link to your URL instead. Once this is done, you can change your page to a phishing page or something, and get people.
Note, however, that if Google did not follow 302s, then this could still be done by simply proxying the actual page. If a request to my URL simply made the webserver fetch your page an return it, Google could never tell which was the real page, and which was the copy. It would have to return both (in which case I would be first if I had greater pagerank) or suppress one, and then they are back to the canonical problem.
That would be a sad development: another proprietary protocol winning despite good, free and open alternatives being available.
It isn't like Skype is winning because it was forced on consumers. The fact is that VoIP and SIP etc. were around before Skype, and yet Skype has managed to grow huge in less then a year, with zero advertising or large corporate support, while the other technologies are going nowhere.
I'm pretty much as big a supporter of open source and open standards as they come. In fact, Skype is the ONLY non-free application I run. The ONLY. But I do run Skype, because it provides me with something important that I cannot get elsewhere.
Skype is the only VoIP client for which I could tell my mother, on the other side of the planet - "just install and then search for my name to call me". I would have loved to point her at an open application, or an open protocol instead, but I found nothing.
So can you point me at the "good, free, open alternatives"? Because my experience is that with anything else I would have had to say to my Mom: "Please download and install the crappy (shareware/nagware/crippleware) client, then spend two days reconfiguring your NAT gateway (which you have no clue how to do), and then all you have to do to call me is type in a 12 digit number identifying my computer (which changes every week) and if you are lucky maybe it will ring on my side - after which we won't be able to talk anyways because the portforwards for the RTP stream aren't working correctly, and after a few days we will give up."
The fact is that we, the supporters of free and open protocols, have completely dropped the ball on this, and Skype, as much as I hate to say it, has got it right. Skype has made my life better, and my families life better, by producing VoIP software that actually WORKS. I would love to be wrong - and if I was to find a simple, good, firewall piercing, voip system with prescense and clients for Windows, Linux, and Mac, I think I could convince my family and friends to use that to talk to me. So please show me what it is you are talking about!
Jar Jar dies in a hideous 5 min torture scene where Annie cuts him slowly into kebabs with his lightsaber.
That scene alone would have made the movie. Hopefully, someone will add it later.
Lucas couldn't kill Jar-jar, even if he wanted to. Even if he had intended, since the very introduction of the character, that he should be killed by Darth Vader, there is no way he could have done it now. Why? Because the audience would have applauded!
I can see it now - dramactic scene where Anakin draws his light saber and decapitates Jar-Jar with one single swipe. Obi-Wan screams "Nooooooooo" in ones of those Lucasesque I-would-not-know-emotion-if-it-hit-me-on-the-head pieces of dialogue. Dramatic camera cut to Jar-Jar's body. Meanwhile, the audience cheers and applauds.
Do we have any evidence that they are really replacing all wired ethernet by wireless? It sounds to me like if the Dartmouth PR department and the NYT are putting the emphasis on the latest buzzword technology. The article does say, after all, that they have added 24,0000 ethernet ports as well.
I am not a student there, so I cannot say but it sounds more like what they have actually done is put phone and TV/video service into the IP based network - both wired and wireless - so as to simplify maintance. This is a great convergence of technology that many companies are going for as well. It was just that moving "Going all Wi-Fi" sounded a lot cooler to the NYT (and our dear Slashdot editors...)
For your protection, the PDF file you order is personalized with your name and other identifying information.
++ Does ++ Not ++ Compute ++
You have to wonder if they are being purposely ironic, or if they think anyone will believe that. What is wrong with just being flucking honest for once? Just say "To keep you from spreading the PDF, it is personalized with your and name identifying information."
Files aren't water marked for my protection, DRM isn't about my "security", and "Trusted Computing" is about the opposite of trust. Everybody knows it, why can't they just say it?
That is what I have today - except I have a Z600 (same as 610 but foldable) and an iRiver 320 (same as iPod but more features and crappier interface). But the camera in the phone is bad enough to make it useless, and I could certainly do with one device rather than two.
And yet still have £20 left. Sure, the above lot will take up more space, but you don't always need all your stuff with you, and I don't think there will be any competition on capability...
Oh, FFS, why do we have to keep hearing this shit over and over again. So you are a nerd and you find the idea of walking around with a trenchcoat loaded with a phone, an mp3 player, a digital camera, and a gaming platform appealing. Guess what? The rest of the world doesn't.
I own a phone, an mp3 player, and a camera. I have my phone on me at all times. And most of the time I have the mp3 player too. And while I don't have the camera on me hardly ever, I often wish that I did. If I could get a device that did those three things decently well in one package I would jump at it - even if it meant losing some megabytes on the mp3 player, and some megapixels on camera.
The idea of getting to have all my electronics with me without having to carry a bag, or walking around with "gerbil pants", is extremely attractive to me. I seriously doubt I am alone in this sentiment, or even in the minority.
At least I haven't heard anyone say that there are no flotation devices onboard because the 380 is too big to crash.
When was last time you heard of a Jumbo jet successfully landing on water? Yeah, that is right: never!
Every time we step on a plane, we get to see a demonstration about the flotation devices under our seat and how to evacuate the plane if it has to crash land on water. The truth is, however, that if a jumbo actually tried landing on water, the result would be a wingtip submerging, instantly causing the plane to overturn and smash itself to pieces against the surface.
The only reason airliners still have life vests (and the reason they still look like something from the 1940s) is that Airline industry safety is still regulated by agreements from the 1940s (ever wonder why $100 million jumbo has seatbelts crappier then your $500 1982 Datsun?). And the reason these agreements cannot be updated is simply that they also contain liability limitations of airlines against the victims of crashes - and the US tort lobby would never allow that into new agreements (if such limitations were taken away, the price of plane tickets would double so that plane crash victim families could become multi-millionaires...)
I digress, but the point if we are not any worse off without flotation devices aboard the A380. If you took comfort in having that life vest under your seat, it was a delusion.
I realize that it is probably paid for by IBM as part of their campaign to try to dupe people into thinking that the DRM vehicle they call "trusted computing" (remember: that is "trusted" as in "other people can trust your computer to control you") is something benign. However, implementing "TC" in Linux feels like a gigantic waste of time: does anybody here REALLY think that the proprietary DRM applications that are the ONLY REASON WHY WE WOULD NEED "TC" are ever going to be ported to Linux?
Do you see the DRMed "music stores" (it is more like a barter: "give us your money and control over your computer, and we'll let some Britney and Fiddy come from your speakers!") falling over themselves to run on Linux? Do you think that is because Linux doesn't support "TC" or because those companies couldn't possibly care less about Linux as a platform? I'll give you three guesses. And the ENTIRE POINT with "TC" is to make it impossible for us to reverse engineer and write our own replacements for those applications - so be definition we can forget about that alternative.
All I can say is, I hope they had fun implementing it, and that they feel happy about the all the people who believe the astroturfing that "TC" isn't the Torjan Horse of DRM.
"TC" is DRM is the tool of closed networks, closed source, a closed society, and a closed future. People who believe it will coexist with Linux are so naive that it would be quaint if it wasn't so fucking scary...
This site does not have a very good record with mathematical breakthroughs that it runs on the front page. Just to give some examples:
1) A year and a half ago Slashdot ran a story (along with most of the MSM) about a Swedish girl having solved the 16th Hilbert problem. That turned out to be a completely bogus claim - she had, in fact, proved nothing.
3) No, the Riemann hypothesis (the most coveted result in all of Mathematics) has not been proved.
Those are just the examples I can remember off hand. There have been several more, and I cannot think of a single one that has turned out to actually be true. So please take vague stories about being "poised to make a great story" from local press with a pretty hefty grain of salt...
In case anybody is wondering - of course that cannot be done. While the atlantic ocean has been swum, it was done by swimming six hours a day in two hour intervals (and took almost 80 days). And the person who did it was a highly trained swimmer, not a corporate CEO.
Also, going via Iceland might be a bad idea - since in the north atlantic he will freeze to death without a dry suit. And try surface swimming six hours with a dry suit some time...
Slashdot Mirror
The original poster already said it: "Computers don't make opportunities. Teachers don't make opportunities. Public funding of projects, businesses and markets doesn't make opportunities. Opportunities come when a given community finds that is can accomplish something that others in a market want."
Another Armchair American who's never been outside of the country yet knows everything about politics.
No, a Swede who has lived on three continents, and traveled to more countries than you know the names of.
Countries with social programs, such as Australia, Japan, Canada and those in western Europe have highly productive economies and high standards of living for their citizens. Poor countries, like those in South America, have few social program, and a significant portion of the population live in dirt-floor poverty. A few wealthy faimilies re-direct all of the countries wealth to themselves.
Countries with social programs have slow growth, high unemployment, and are eating through the wealth they acquired through their otherwise liberal politics. My native Sweden (once the world's richest country, now among the poorest in OECD and poorer than every American state) is a shining example.
Since you mention South America, take a look at Argentina. At the end of WWI, Argentina was richer then most European countries. Then the "social programs" took over.
"Africa's problem is that its leaders take care of their people"? If only that were true. The problem is that they don't. Instead of investing in education, infrastructure, and economy, many African leaders invest mostly in a comfy life for themselves. If your line of reasoning were correct, Africa would have been a reasonably wealthy continent by now.
The grandparent was exactly right, and you are completely wrong. This is the socialist line of thinking that keeps people in poverty, keeps people dying, and is actively destroying hope where it exists. Many people who adhere to it mean well, but you could not possibly be more wrong. Read the grandparent again. Read what he writes, and consider that everything you have been told might be wrong.
Infrastructure is not the problem. Education is not the problem. And most of all, money is not the problem. It is when we understand this that there is real hope.
For people who lack a subscription to PRL the article can also be found here. It is a typical physics paper with plenty of vague plots, but little real math.
I used to use a software one (emulated another drive as "G:\" back when I used Windows) and pointed my browser there for it's cache folder into it - speeded up the whole surfing experience with already visited webpages...
I have a better idea. Why don't you make a RAM drive to put you swap file/partition on! That will make swapping real fast!!!!
(HINT: Browsers only use the disk cache when they have filled up the memory cache...)
There seems to be a lot of confusion in this thread regarding these two terms. It isn't that surprising, since they are both purposely misleading, but still.
// oskar
"Trustworthy computing" is Microsoft's bullshit name for their so-called initiative to start taking security seriously. It was under this banner that Bill sent all his coders to secure coding seminars so they could learn what a buffer overflow is. The article is ironic in its title: that Microsoft have failed to find such a glaring issue as a native image format that purposely allows images to execute arbitrary code, and that they have not offered a patch even now when exploits are in the wild since almost a week, shows how trustworthy they really are.
"Trusted computing", on the other hand, is the bullshit name for a nefarious scheme involving hardware and software whereby control over PCs should be taken out of the hands of their owners, and given to the software and hardware vendors. This is sometimes claimed to be about security, but is actually motivated by DRM and DRM only (the name is short for "Trusted Client Computing" and comes from the ability of DRM vendors to trust that your computer, the client, will obey their directions).
The people pushing "trusted computing" are actually not so much Microsoft as Intel and IBM: Microsoft completely support the concept of trying to put the freely programmable computer back in the bottle, but they have had their own ideas about implementation (their version was first called "Palladium", but when they realized that it is bad to have a recognizable name for something customers actually don't want it was renamed "Next Generation Secure Computing Base" and after that it was renamed to nothing at all so they can be snuck into the coming versions of Windows without people noticing.)
Umm, if he did say something like that, he obviously meant the total number of passengers to fly over the twelve year period, not all at the same time in the same ship. SS2 is a suborbital plane, so any given flight will just last a few minutes/hours.
If they have 10 SS2s, flying one flight per day with 12 passengers over 12 years that would be more than half a million passengers. If Rutan said one million (the parent and grandparent might both be trolls), then he must have been thinking in terms of a bigger fleet.
That is because they are...
If I were asked to immolate myself for the sake of creatures who wanted to survive at the price of my blood, if I were asked to serve the interests of society apart from, above and against my own--I would refuse, I would reject it as the most contemptible evil, I would fight it with every power I possess, I would fight the whole of mankind, if one minute were all I could last before I were murdered, I would fight in the full confidence of the justice of my battle and of a living being's right to exist. Let there be no misunderstanding about me. If it is now the belief of my fellow men, who call themselves the public, that their good requires victims, then I say: The public good be damned, I will have no part of it!
I've been to Beijing and Hong Kong, but unfortunately I have not been to Mexico City, so I cannot quite evalualte your comparison.
Hong Kong is a like a European or American city in many ways (especially on the island), but there is still an element of asian street life. Beijing today is a lot richer and more developed than it was just a few years ago, and thus more like HK (or NYC or New York) than most third world cities. But it is still dirty, and you can still feel the presense of a dictatorial non-pluralist government (in a way you don't in HK).
We are talking about Relative motion here.
You and the blurb are wrong, the grandparent is right. There are three frames of reference here, the helicopter, the air, and the wingtip.
From the helicopter's reference, the blade is spinning around a fixed point, so that at one extreme the edge of the blade is traveling forwards at speed x, and at one extreme is traveling backwards at speed -x. The air is rushing towards the helicopter at speed -x.
Now, from the air's reference, the helicopter is moving forwards at speed x. The point the blade is spinning around is also moving at speed x, so at one extreme the speed of the blade tip relative to the air is x + -x = 0, and at the other it is x + x = 2x.
Now, lastly, from the tips perspective. It sees itself as stationary, the helicopter as rotating around it with a speed of -x, and air meeting it with a speed between 0 (at one extreme) and 2x (at the other extreme).
If the helicopter were standing still, then the blade would always see the air coming towards it at x. On the other hand, if the blade were standing still and helicopter moving, then the blade would see the wind coming towards it at speed x at one extreme, and speed -x (from behind) at the other extreme. In other words, it is only when the rotor speed goes _below_ the airspeed that air starts rushing over the rotor in the "wrong direction".
So the different conditions are:
Rotor speed > Air speed: Tips sometimes flow backwards compared to the air, sometime forwards. Tips always see air flow from in front.
Rotor speed = Air speed: Tips sometimes stand still compared to the air, the rest of the time go forwards. Tips see air coming from in front, expect at the extreme where the air is not moving relative to them.
Rotor speed Air speed: Tips are always moving foward compared to the air. The tips see that air as coming alternatively from in front, and behind.
That is a road. If you follow it long enough, it leads to Beijing.
You are off on the geography of the wall.
Slightly OT: It's my believe that you will get more citations if you publish in the more open journals, so I always prefer that.
It is not just your belief, it is well established:
http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/online-nature01/
I think that as academia continues to pull its collective head out of its ass, and realizes that it does not need to pay for a multi-billion dollar publishing industry that gives nothing back (authors write for free, reviewers review for free, editors edit for free, yet my institution spends more than $200k per year on journal subscriptions), services like Google Scholar which revolve around open Internet publishing will become more and more important.
If the 302 page is just a redirect, why do they apply the redirectee's pagerank to the 302er's page, and not the other way around (apply the 302er's pagerank to the ridirected page)?
They don't. A PageRank is something that Google assigns to a URL rather than a page, based on how many pages containing the keyword links to it and some other stuff. The issue is that Google finds two URLs that lead to the same page, one is the page itself, and one is a 302 redirect.
Now when you search for a term and this page hits, Google doesn't want to display two links to the same page, so Google it has to decide which is the canonical address for the page. The way that it does this is simply to take the URL with the greater PageRank as the canonical URL, and returning that.
The issue is that this allows one, in theory, to hijack google entries by 302 to the page in question, and getting a higher pagerank for your URL then the real one. In this case the old URL will be suppressed, and Google will link to your URL instead. Once this is done, you can change your page to a phishing page or something, and get people.
Note, however, that if Google did not follow 302s, then this could still be done by simply proxying the actual page. If a request to my URL simply made the webserver fetch your page an return it, Google could never tell which was the real page, and which was the copy. It would have to return both (in which case I would be first if I had greater pagerank) or suppress one, and then they are back to the canonical problem.
That would be a sad development: another proprietary protocol winning despite good, free and open alternatives being available.
It isn't like Skype is winning because it was forced on consumers. The fact is that VoIP and SIP etc. were around before Skype, and yet Skype has managed to grow huge in less then a year, with zero advertising or large corporate support, while the other technologies are going nowhere.
I'm pretty much as big a supporter of open source and open standards as they come. In fact, Skype is the ONLY non-free application I run. The ONLY. But I do run Skype, because it provides me with something important that I cannot get elsewhere.
Skype is the only VoIP client for which I could tell my mother, on the other side of the planet - "just install and then search for my name to call me". I would have loved to point her at an open application, or an open protocol instead, but I found nothing.
So can you point me at the "good, free, open alternatives"? Because my experience is that with anything else I would have had to say to my Mom: "Please download and install the crappy (shareware/nagware/crippleware) client, then spend two days reconfiguring your NAT gateway (which you have no clue how to do), and then all you have to do to call me is type in a 12 digit number identifying my computer (which changes every week) and if you are lucky maybe it will ring on my side - after which we won't be able to talk anyways because the portforwards for the RTP stream aren't working correctly, and after a few days we will give up."
The fact is that we, the supporters of free and open protocols, have completely dropped the ball on this, and Skype, as much as I hate to say it, has got it right. Skype has made my life better, and my families life better, by producing VoIP software that actually WORKS. I would love to be wrong - and if I was to find a simple, good, firewall piercing, voip system with prescense and clients for Windows, Linux, and Mac, I think I could convince my family and friends to use that to talk to me. So please show me what it is you are talking about!
If they had, the war would have ended a long time ago.
Umm, det war did end a long time ago...
Jar Jar dies in a hideous 5 min torture scene where Annie cuts him slowly into kebabs with his lightsaber.
That scene alone would have made the movie. Hopefully, someone will add it later.
Lucas couldn't kill Jar-jar, even if he wanted to. Even if he had intended, since the very introduction of the character, that he should be killed by Darth Vader, there is no way he could have done it now. Why? Because the audience would have applauded!
I can see it now - dramactic scene where Anakin draws his light saber and decapitates Jar-Jar with one single swipe. Obi-Wan screams "Nooooooooo" in ones of those Lucasesque I-would-not-know-emotion-if-it-hit-me-on-the-head pieces of dialogue. Dramatic camera cut to Jar-Jar's body. Meanwhile, the audience cheers and applauds.
Do we have any evidence that they are really replacing all wired ethernet by wireless? It sounds to me like if the Dartmouth PR department and the NYT are putting the emphasis on the latest buzzword technology. The article does say, after all, that they have added 24,0000 ethernet ports as well.
I am not a student there, so I cannot say but it sounds more like what they have actually done is put phone and TV/video service into the IP based network - both wired and wireless - so as to simplify maintance. This is a great convergence of technology that many companies are going for as well. It was just that moving "Going all Wi-Fi" sounded a lot cooler to the NYT (and our dear Slashdot editors...)
Are Team 98 the ones who astroturf on Slashdot then? (You know, the ones moderating this down.)
For your protection, the PDF file you order is personalized with your name and other identifying information.
++ Does ++ Not ++ Compute ++
You have to wonder if they are being purposely ironic, or if they think anyone will believe that. What is wrong with just being flucking honest for once? Just say "To keep you from spreading the PDF, it is personalized with your and name identifying information."
Files aren't water marked for my protection, DRM isn't about my "security", and "Trusted Computing" is about the opposite of trust. Everybody knows it, why can't they just say it?
That is what I have today - except I have a Z600 (same as 610 but foldable) and an iRiver 320 (same as iPod but more features and crappier interface). But the camera in the phone is bad enough to make it useless, and I could certainly do with one device rather than two.
And yet still have £20 left. Sure, the above lot will take up more space, but you don't always need all your stuff with you, and I don't think there will be any competition on capability...
Oh, FFS, why do we have to keep hearing this shit over and over again. So you are a nerd and you find the idea of walking around with a trenchcoat loaded with a phone, an mp3 player, a digital camera, and a gaming platform appealing. Guess what? The rest of the world doesn't.
I own a phone, an mp3 player, and a camera. I have my phone on me at all times. And most of the time I have the mp3 player too. And while I don't have the camera on me hardly ever, I often wish that I did. If I could get a device that did those three things decently well in one package I would jump at it - even if it meant losing some megabytes on the mp3 player, and some megapixels on camera.
The idea of getting to have all my electronics with me without having to carry a bag, or walking around with "gerbil pants", is extremely attractive to me. I seriously doubt I am alone in this sentiment, or even in the minority.
At least I haven't heard anyone say that there are no flotation devices onboard because the 380 is too big to crash.
When was last time you heard of a Jumbo jet successfully landing on water? Yeah, that is right: never!
Every time we step on a plane, we get to see a demonstration about the flotation devices under our seat and how to evacuate the plane if it has to crash land on water. The truth is, however, that if a jumbo actually tried landing on water, the result would be a wingtip submerging, instantly causing the plane to overturn and smash itself to pieces against the surface.
The only reason airliners still have life vests (and the reason they still look like something from the 1940s) is that Airline industry safety is still regulated by agreements from the 1940s (ever wonder why $100 million jumbo has seatbelts crappier then your $500 1982 Datsun?). And the reason these agreements cannot be updated is simply that they also contain liability limitations of airlines against the victims of crashes - and the US tort lobby would never allow that into new agreements (if such limitations were taken away, the price of plane tickets would double so that plane crash victim families could become multi-millionaires...)
I digress, but the point if we are not any worse off without flotation devices aboard the A380. If you took comfort in having that life vest under your seat, it was a delusion.
I realize that it is probably paid for by IBM as part of their campaign to try to dupe people into thinking that the DRM vehicle they call "trusted computing" (remember: that is "trusted" as in "other people can trust your computer to control you") is something benign. However, implementing "TC" in Linux feels like a gigantic waste of time: does anybody here REALLY think that the proprietary DRM applications that are the ONLY REASON WHY WE WOULD NEED "TC" are ever going to be ported to Linux?
Do you see the DRMed "music stores" (it is more like a barter: "give us your money and control over your computer, and we'll let some Britney and Fiddy come from your speakers!") falling over themselves to run on Linux? Do you think that is because Linux doesn't support "TC" or because those companies couldn't possibly care less about Linux as a platform? I'll give you three guesses. And the ENTIRE POINT with "TC" is to make it impossible for us to reverse engineer and write our own replacements for those applications - so be definition we can forget about that alternative.
All I can say is, I hope they had fun implementing it, and that they feel happy about the all the people who believe the astroturfing that "TC" isn't the Torjan Horse of DRM.
"TC" is DRM is the tool of closed networks, closed source, a closed society, and a closed future. People who believe it will coexist with Linux are so naive that it would be quaint if it wasn't so fucking scary...
This site does not have a very good record with mathematical breakthroughs that it runs on the front page. Just to give some examples:
1) A year and a half ago Slashdot ran a story (along with most of the MSM) about a Swedish girl having solved the 16th Hilbert problem. That turned out to be a completely bogus claim - she had, in fact, proved nothing.
2) Slashdot ran with there being infinitely many twin primes. The proof was flawed.
3) No, the Riemann hypothesis (the most coveted result in all of Mathematics) has not been proved.
Those are just the examples I can remember off hand. There have been several more, and I cannot think of a single one that has turned out to actually be true. So please take vague stories about being "poised to make a great story" from local press with a pretty hefty grain of salt...
In case anybody is wondering - of course that cannot be done. While the atlantic ocean has been swum, it was done by swimming six hours a day in two hour intervals (and took almost 80 days). And the person who did it was a highly trained swimmer, not a corporate CEO.
Also, going via Iceland might be a bad idea - since in the north atlantic he will freeze to death without a dry suit. And try surface swimming six hours with a dry suit some time...