Actually, a large majority do, according to Taco himself. Comment posters are a small percentage of the readership of Slashdot. Most people don't bother.
You're not really a "hacker" or a "cracker" either, but people use those terms all the time. Sheesh.
It's interesting though that you call it "copyright infringement," but when GPL code is stolen, like in the previous PearPC article, nobody has any qualms about calling it "source code theft."
"Redmond beast" "cheated and lied" "usual clueless customers"
How did Microsoft cheat and lie about anything? It claimed its codec was the best? Surprise, a company thinks its products are the best. Slashdot thinks Linux is the best. Does that mean it "cheated and lied" if it turns out Windows does something better? Come on.
I found it hard to continue reading after the storage space part. "Blue-Ray has more storage space, so that makes it better," completely ignoring that HD-DVD uses MPEG4 while Blue-Ray uses MPEG2, meaning HD-DVD doesn't need as much space because the compressed data takes up less of the disc anyway.
There's always more to it. This isn't a meaningful article. Personally, HD-DVD looks like it has more backing from the DVD forum and others like Microsoft (VC-9 is an accepted codec for it among others), while Blu-Ray is largely a Sony-pushed thing.
"Only 7?" While 15 is a lot, 7 isn't justified just because it's less than 15 and it's not IE...
Personally, I'm startled by the idea that such a widely-used program as IE only has 15 (~98% web share), while such a little-used program like Mozilla (in comparison, of course) already has 7.
It's all in how you look at the numbers, I guess. It's not "only 7."
As it is, nobody is forcing anyone to purchase CDs. You can go online and use iTunes, Napster, or one of the other online services. And buying CDs online is generally much cheaper as it is. It's different from, say, Microsoft Windows which is the backbone for 90+% of the desktop computing world.
The term "freedom" when describing things like speech, the economy, etc. is more of an abstract idea referring to a certain system. We don't really have freedom of speech--our freedom only extends so far as to not step on the rights of others (i.e., you can't harrass someone). And at the same time, the freedom of the economy also extends only so far, but the idea is that someone can charge whatever they want for their product and people can choose or choose not to buy it.
I find that a lot of Google news mostly just regurgitates what the Associated Press reports anyway, and I don't really trust them as they have written several biased or false articles (Scott Lindlaw is the guy who reported that people booed during the Bush convention at the mention of Clinton's hospital visit, which they later retracted...he has stated to other White House press that his "mission is to make sure Bush is not re-elected").
Just look at the skewed moderation flying around in this very article discussion. It's obvious which party this community leans toward.
Both sides have their viewpoints, their evidence, their facts, their proofs. I know a ton of extremely intelligent conservatives who could debate all these left-wing +5 posts off the planet, but they would get modded down by the groupthink going on in this article. This "Politics" section of Slashdot is a bad idea--I'm unchecking it now from my preferences. You'll never have fair coverage here!
Well, at least we know Michael's opinion on it. Sheesh. Is there a time he doesn't interject his viewpoint in an article submission?
I don't see how Slashdot expects to have balanced political coverage considering the left-leaning of this community. Look at all the "lie" accusations flying around, despite all the foreign intelligence that supported what the administration was claiming. Huge mistake? Fuck yeah. Lying? Uh, no. By that standard, CBSNews is a big liar as well.
FoxNews and CNN have a higher propensity for protraying both sides than Al-Jazeera, who is known for portraying a slanted agenda in several stories. I know it's hip to hate the popular news channels (especially FoxNews, whom UCLA/Stanford declared the most centrist of all the networks after a major study was conducted on its news coverage...).
I suppose the best solution would be to display multiple top entries, or ensure a system of balance. Why not spotlight all three networks at the same time? Surely that would be the most balanced solution of all.
The grandparent was proposing more than simple Bayeisan filtering. I don't want my browser auto-bookmarking websites for me, and I don't even like the idea of there being a togglable option for it.
I prefer the idea that a program that mediates my access to the public world should know as little about me as possible. I don't want it collecting related links and highlightening them, bookmarking frequently visited websites, and so on.
...a browser that doesn't have machine learning in it. Seriously, Firefox is slow enough for me. What on earth would you possibly need "machine learning" for in a web page browser? I'd immediately switch back to Opera (I don't use it simply because input forms lag during page-loading, some sort of multithreading issue).
That kind of automatic crap is the same sort of stuff people would bitch about if Microsoft put it into IE. I mean, do you really want your browser actually learning anything about you? Imagine the havoc it could wreak, especially if trojans started fucking around with it.
Just give me the leanest, meanest browser out there. That's all Firefox 2.0 needs to be. Not a damn learning machine. Sheesh.
Laser launch is a nice idea, but the power requirements are huge. The current altitude record is 71 meters [space.com] (not kilometers), with a 51 gram (not Kg) craft and a 10 kilowatt laser.
Kare, who's been plugging this idea for decades, writes "A rule of thumb for laser launchers is that the unit payload is 1 kg per MW of laser power." The Apollo lunar module (all the stuff that went to the moon) massed about 6500 Kg, of which 2500Kg made the round trip. So we're going to need several gigawatts of laser power for a moon shot.
Kare is talking about using continuous diode lasers in the 1KW range. These don't exist, but 60W units are available, so this isn't totally unreasonable. Kare proposes to use maybe 150 of these future 1KW units in a prototype. That only launches a 150g craft.
Launching something the size of the Apollo lunar module would take six million such units, and about 12 gigawatts of electrical power for several minutes. This is twice the power output of Grand Coulee Dam, the biggest single power source in the US.
The power storage problem might be overcome using ultracapacitors. You can get 2600 farad capacitors (not ufd, farads) at 2.5V today, and you can take current out fast. Auto engines can be started with six of these things, weighing a total of about 3Kg. With a big budget, a laser launch system could have enough energy storage to do the job.
Six million lasers, though, is a bit much. The prototype doesn't put enough mass in orbit to be useful, and the real version is too big.
If you want to launch a microsat, you call Orbital Sciences Corporation, and they launch a Pegasus rocket from a L-1011 for you. The X-prize guys get all the press, but Orbital actually puts stuff in orbit. They've launched 45 payloads so far. Click here for their user manual.
I can't even begin to address the logical fallacies in your argument. To even equate today with that of Nazi Germany is completely insane...wow. I can make a comparison to absolutely anything else that would "prove" that their leader is magically becoming Hitler. But that would be incredibly foolish and void of rationality. The ONLY reason Hitler and Nazis come up in these discussions is because of left-wing people trolling with emotive terms in order to bash Bush. This pessimism has become so personal that it's not even about their policies anymore--it's about bashing Bush, and then bashing Bush some more.
I love that you baselessly accuse fascism as well without any examples. Nice touch, devoid of any intellectual point.
This is why the left has fallen apart in our country.
Okay, everyone, the article has been posted, so now let's start the right-wing bashing!
Even though Ashcroft wasn't even quoted in the article, let's bring him up. Please equate Ashcroft to being a "Nazi," make fun of the fact he dares believe in Jesus, and bonus points if you make a tie-in to Bush and end up bashing all of the administration. Let us revel in our pessimism as John Kerry gets $1,000 haircuts before going on Meet The Press, and meanwhile, anyone outside the two major organized religions, er, political parties don't get a shot at getting into the White House, thanks to the sheep who follow one side or the other instead of thinking outside the official designated partyline.
As is usually the case on Slashdot, posts that dare attempt a level-headed middleground instead of rabid right-wing bashing are mysteriously modded as "Overrated."
You know, since Overrated mods don't get meta-modded and all. Nice loophole in the system, that is.
The second someone resorts to the lazy intellectual copout of calling someone a "Nazi," not only do they dilute the real tragedy of what happened in history as a result of real Nazis, they reveal themself as the lame thinker that they are.
Read up on what real Nazis did. Denying some information request for a technical reason (witness all of Slashdot pretending to know the "real" reasons when it could very well be a database-in-transition issue) has nothing to do with being a "cocksucker," believing in Jesus (not that it's a bad thing, right, "open-minded" liberals?), or being a Nazi. Take that gutter ball political garbage somewhere else.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody comes here for just the stories
Actually, a large majority do, according to Taco himself. Comment posters are a small percentage of the readership of Slashdot. Most people don't bother.
You're not really a "hacker" or a "cracker" either, but people use those terms all the time. Sheesh.
It's interesting though that you call it "copyright infringement," but when GPL code is stolen, like in the previous PearPC article, nobody has any qualms about calling it "source code theft."
"Redmond beast"
"cheated and lied"
"usual clueless customers"
How did Microsoft cheat and lie about anything? It claimed its codec was the best? Surprise, a company thinks its products are the best. Slashdot thinks Linux is the best. Does that mean it "cheated and lied" if it turns out Windows does something better? Come on.
I found it hard to continue reading after the storage space part. "Blue-Ray has more storage space, so that makes it better," completely ignoring that HD-DVD uses MPEG4 while Blue-Ray uses MPEG2, meaning HD-DVD doesn't need as much space because the compressed data takes up less of the disc anyway.
There's always more to it. This isn't a meaningful article. Personally, HD-DVD looks like it has more backing from the DVD forum and others like Microsoft (VC-9 is an accepted codec for it among others), while Blu-Ray is largely a Sony-pushed thing.
Give it up, Urine1diot/Disevidence. You've been had.
"Only 7?" While 15 is a lot, 7 isn't justified just because it's less than 15 and it's not IE...
Personally, I'm startled by the idea that such a widely-used program as IE only has 15 (~98% web share), while such a little-used program like Mozilla (in comparison, of course) already has 7.
It's all in how you look at the numbers, I guess. It's not "only 7."
As it is, nobody is forcing anyone to purchase CDs. You can go online and use iTunes, Napster, or one of the other online services. And buying CDs online is generally much cheaper as it is. It's different from, say, Microsoft Windows which is the backbone for 90+% of the desktop computing world.
The term "freedom" when describing things like speech, the economy, etc. is more of an abstract idea referring to a certain system. We don't really have freedom of speech--our freedom only extends so far as to not step on the rights of others (i.e., you can't harrass someone). And at the same time, the freedom of the economy also extends only so far, but the idea is that someone can charge whatever they want for their product and people can choose or choose not to buy it.
I find that a lot of Google news mostly just regurgitates what the Associated Press reports anyway, and I don't really trust them as they have written several biased or false articles (Scott Lindlaw is the guy who reported that people booed during the Bush convention at the mention of Clinton's hospital visit, which they later retracted...he has stated to other White House press that his "mission is to make sure Bush is not re-elected").
Just look at the skewed moderation flying around in this very article discussion. It's obvious which party this community leans toward.
Both sides have their viewpoints, their evidence, their facts, their proofs. I know a ton of extremely intelligent conservatives who could debate all these left-wing +5 posts off the planet, but they would get modded down by the groupthink going on in this article. This "Politics" section of Slashdot is a bad idea--I'm unchecking it now from my preferences. You'll never have fair coverage here!
Well, at least we know Michael's opinion on it. Sheesh. Is there a time he doesn't interject his viewpoint in an article submission?
I don't see how Slashdot expects to have balanced political coverage considering the left-leaning of this community. Look at all the "lie" accusations flying around, despite all the foreign intelligence that supported what the administration was claiming. Huge mistake? Fuck yeah. Lying? Uh, no. By that standard, CBSNews is a big liar as well.
In Soviet Russia, the geography doesn't know you!
FoxNews and CNN have a higher propensity for protraying both sides than Al-Jazeera, who is known for portraying a slanted agenda in several stories. I know it's hip to hate the popular news channels (especially FoxNews, whom UCLA/Stanford declared the most centrist of all the networks after a major study was conducted on its news coverage...).
I suppose the best solution would be to display multiple top entries, or ensure a system of balance. Why not spotlight all three networks at the same time? Surely that would be the most balanced solution of all.
The grandparent was proposing more than simple Bayeisan filtering. I don't want my browser auto-bookmarking websites for me, and I don't even like the idea of there being a togglable option for it.
I prefer the idea that a program that mediates my access to the public world should know as little about me as possible. I don't want it collecting related links and highlightening them, bookmarking frequently visited websites, and so on.
Shouldn't you be off anonymously trolling people's posts?
...a browser that doesn't have machine learning in it. Seriously, Firefox is slow enough for me. What on earth would you possibly need "machine learning" for in a web page browser? I'd immediately switch back to Opera (I don't use it simply because input forms lag during page-loading, some sort of multithreading issue).
That kind of automatic crap is the same sort of stuff people would bitch about if Microsoft put it into IE. I mean, do you really want your browser actually learning anything about you? Imagine the havoc it could wreak, especially if trojans started fucking around with it.
Just give me the leanest, meanest browser out there. That's all Firefox 2.0 needs to be. Not a damn learning machine. Sheesh.
Laser launch is a nice idea, but the power requirements are huge. The current altitude record is 71 meters [space.com] (not kilometers), with a 51 gram (not Kg) craft and a 10 kilowatt laser.
Kare, who's been plugging this idea for decades, writes "A rule of thumb for laser launchers is that the unit payload is 1 kg per MW of laser power." The Apollo lunar module (all the stuff that went to the moon) massed about 6500 Kg, of which 2500Kg made the round trip. So we're going to need several gigawatts of laser power for a moon shot.
Kare is talking about using continuous diode lasers in the 1KW range. These don't exist, but 60W units are available, so this isn't totally unreasonable. Kare proposes to use maybe 150 of these future 1KW units in a prototype. That only launches a 150g craft.
Launching something the size of the Apollo lunar module would take six million such units, and about 12 gigawatts of electrical power for several minutes. This is twice the power output of Grand Coulee Dam, the biggest single power source in the US.
The power storage problem might be overcome using ultracapacitors. You can get 2600 farad capacitors (not ufd, farads) at 2.5V today, and you can take current out fast. Auto engines can be started with six of these things, weighing a total of about 3Kg. With a big budget, a laser launch system could have enough energy storage to do the job.
Six million lasers, though, is a bit much. The prototype doesn't put enough mass in orbit to be useful, and the real version is too big.
If you want to launch a microsat, you call Orbital Sciences Corporation, and they launch a Pegasus rocket from a L-1011 for you. The X-prize guys get all the press, but Orbital actually puts stuff in orbit. They've launched 45 payloads so far. Click here for their user manual.
I can't even begin to address the logical fallacies in your argument. To even equate today with that of Nazi Germany is completely insane...wow. I can make a comparison to absolutely anything else that would "prove" that their leader is magically becoming Hitler. But that would be incredibly foolish and void of rationality. The ONLY reason Hitler and Nazis come up in these discussions is because of left-wing people trolling with emotive terms in order to bash Bush. This pessimism has become so personal that it's not even about their policies anymore--it's about bashing Bush, and then bashing Bush some more.
I love that you baselessly accuse fascism as well without any examples. Nice touch, devoid of any intellectual point.
This is why the left has fallen apart in our country.
Okay, everyone, the article has been posted, so now let's start the right-wing bashing!
Even though Ashcroft wasn't even quoted in the article, let's bring him up. Please equate Ashcroft to being a "Nazi," make fun of the fact he dares believe in Jesus, and bonus points if you make a tie-in to Bush and end up bashing all of the administration. Let us revel in our pessimism as John Kerry gets $1,000 haircuts before going on Meet The Press, and meanwhile, anyone outside the two major organized religions, er, political parties don't get a shot at getting into the White House, thanks to the sheep who follow one side or the other instead of thinking outside the official designated partyline.
Let it begin!
What does Bush have to do with Michael Moore lying about being an Independent?
As is usually the case on Slashdot, posts that dare attempt a level-headed middleground instead of rabid right-wing bashing are mysteriously modded as "Overrated."
You know, since Overrated mods don't get meta-modded and all. Nice loophole in the system, that is.
After all, Apache servers never go down when Slashdot links to them...
The second someone resorts to the lazy intellectual copout of calling someone a "Nazi," not only do they dilute the real tragedy of what happened in history as a result of real Nazis, they reveal themself as the lame thinker that they are.
Read up on what real Nazis did. Denying some information request for a technical reason (witness all of Slashdot pretending to know the "real" reasons when it could very well be a database-in-transition issue) has nothing to do with being a "cocksucker," believing in Jesus (not that it's a bad thing, right, "open-minded" liberals?), or being a Nazi. Take that gutter ball political garbage somewhere else.
After all, Clinton never lied. Neither did anybody in his administration.
Just say no to zionism!
Yeah, let's mod up the anti-semitic troll linked to on Anti-Slash right now.
After all, the Clinton administration was a bastion of open justice. Say hi to Mark Rich for me.