Considering that Altavista hasn't even indexed, what, 20% of the available webpages? That makes for a considerable margin of error. What's worse, a lot of those might have gone 404. So let's take the results with a grain of salt, okay people?
Let's take the results with a grain of salt? I hope you're joking but I'm not sure. Of course we'll take it with a grain of salt, the article is a (funny) joke after all.
well, replace 256-bit with 64, leather jacket with fabric mesh, 100Tbps with 100Mbps, and forget the direct neural I/O (I wish) and that's my thesis. I'm starting in september...mmmm, Beowulf cluster in my underwear, hee hee!
Looks a little like a Red Herring to me. Who was that guy who's invented 100 Gig harddrives that come in (badly retouched pictures of) pentium II cases? Doesn't want to reveal to much info until they have a patent, because you know, last time I checked, it was simple to whip up a new storage device from a few vague comments about physics;)
Hey wait, I think I'll patent 3D storage devices right now!
This has always bothered me. It seems that *some* laws need to be followed to the letter, others are sort of wishy washy and the judge can decide if it should be applied or not. What's the deal with this? The whole reason adds have reams of small print is to protect the companies from sillyness like this. But Pepsi screwed up, so now they should pay up. I agree that it is opportunistic litigation, but companies do it all the time (eg. Record companies vs. Diamond; private firms vs. AOL to find out private names; etc...), so why shouldn't individuals?
That is the issue I was addressing. I suppose I should have spelled it out for our BUDDY though. Anyway, he can read my rant on rules further down the list if he wants to know my opinion.
You know, for a while, I understood why big executives and other oldbodies had such trouble understanding why any digital information available to the public was so easy to copy, and functionally impossible to keep secure. But I figured EVENTUALLY they would get the picture. Could someone please tell me why these people cannot be made to understand that, no matter how tricky they get, no matter how many layers of "software protection" they slap on, we will always be able to crack open the box and get at the goodies inside? We all know that, as soon as you render something digital, it is a supremely simple task to reproduce it with perfect fidelity. What part of the brain do these people lack that prevents them from realizing this fact? If they wanted good reliable copy protection, they should have stuck to LPs.
Seriously, what is the deep mystery here? Argh! And so ends my rant.
Maybe you didn't stop to think about it, but the theatre issue is a symptom of a much larger problem with the raising of our children. This discussion brings light to that issue, and is therefore beneficial. Of course, maybe you just didn't stop to think at all.
I couldn't have put it better myself! Parents seems to raise their children less and less.
I wonder who's fault that is? No sarcasm meant, I really am curious. You can't just say that parents are lazy, because I know some well meaning parents that arn't raising their kids the way they wanted to because they're so busy. And they're not busy making millions either, they're busy just getting by.
Don't tell me how to raise my kids! How many times to I have to scream this at the legislature, the schools, the companies?! If you like the rules, then YOU inforce them. YOU stay with your damn kid. YOU instill a sense of responsibility in him/her, so that he/she doesn't go to movies that you ask him/her not to. Do these things YOURSELF, don't foist them on others, ya lazy bum.
>Do you have children? >Maybe little girls? >Don't worry, I'll make sure they have access to >all aspects of human experience
The tone of your response suggests that you missed the entire point here. Pedofelia is a crime, it is illegal. Pornography is not. My kids can see porno if they like, but I'll have made damn sure that (by the time they're old enough to be curious about that kind of thing) I've taught them enough to know what is and isn't appropriate.
I don't know about you, but when I was at that curious age (~12), I flipped through porn with my friends and some of it we liked, and other stuff we found repulsive because of its degrading or disgusting nature. And guess what we did? Instead of growing up to be immoral, we simple didn't look at what we didn't like.
Wow, hypocrisy in a single line: The National Slashdot Service also has received reports of highly windy prose coupled with dubious assertions and questionable assumptions.
Exactly, mostly kids. As an adult, you should know that kids don't always see the whole picture. You, however should be able to.
What? You're telling me that unjaded, openminded kids are more narrowminded than some ancient, money grubbing, political minded, business man/politician, who is so set in their ways and fears change to the point that they feel they have to strangle anything new or different? Whatever.
Besides, no one sees "the whole picture". Everyone has their own point of view.
Man, that is exactly the kind of attitude that governments love to spread, because it makes the job of taking away your liberties that much easier. When the entire populace takes on this "Holier than thou" attitude, trying to prove to each other that "they have nothing to hide", the government has already won.
Now, I am sure that you can come up with all kinds of reasons to tell me all that doesn't matter - they can already get it off the web, nobody was getting hurt, yada yada yada. The truth of the matter is this: IT WAS WRONG.
I beg your pardon?! Wait just a cotton pickin' minute! Just who do you think you are, telling me IT WAS WRONG. I happen to think that IT WAS NOT WRONG. I don't think lying is fundamentally wrong, in fact, I don't think ANYTHING is fundamentally wrong. You see, that's because I don't live my life out of a rule book. Rule books are for shallow, unintelligent individuals who can't think or reason for themselves.
Yes, children do need rules, but those rules should be justified by the parent, applied by the parent, and enforced by the parent.
Shame on you. And to the mother. That a woman when even consider to take her children to such a show is an embarrassment to the word mother.
The veins in my temples nearly burst when I read this. But I will be calm and rational in my response. Once again, how arrogant, presumptuous, and downright thoughtless of you to think that you are the only one who can define what it means to be a mother. YOU should feel SHAME at attacking the efforts and decisions of a mother, who's situation, religion, beliefs, and morals you have no knowledge of.
I do, however, want to see americans start standing up for a little decency and the like.
Good, you can start by attending to the needs of your own children then. By all means, protect your children from the horrors of South Park, instill in them the morals and ideas that you hold dear, nurture them so that they grow to be healthy/sane adults, and do it YOURSELF. Corporations and governments do NOT have the responsibility to your children, YOU DO!
Our country is closer now to "religious discrimination" then in ever has been - but only in the context of restricting prayer in school and the like.
Well, you may do that in the US, but in Canada we don't restrict our children from praying in the morning. It's just that they don't HAVE to speak prayer from any other religion but their own.
I have always maintained that it is better compose an original response from the head than to recite unthinking prose from The Book.
Man, you know a good article when your face turns four different colours when you read it! I think a vein was about to burst in my forhead when reading the part about the abnoxious manager and the mumbly cop. He actually asked you to MOVE ALONG?! Anyway, I think you handled that sitch extrordinarily well and I admire and commend you.
BTW, I'm just wondering what you look and dress like. I find cops and managers are much more fun to deal with if you're wearing a suit of some description. They get that wonderful "Uh, you look like my boss" uncomfortable expression;)
I see your point, and I'd love 5 cables to choose from as well, but not at the cost that that would entail. If all the companies had to pay to maintain their own pipe, while making no profit from leasing bandwidth, can you imagine how much more expensive your cable/phone bill would be?
Why is it so strange? Can you're VCR also wash your clothes, wallpaper your bed room, teach you calculus, and cook you dinner? No? That's because it is a single use, dedicated device. The computer is not. If you wanted your computer to do any 1 thing, and only that 1 thing (ie. web surfing), you could just throw everything you needed into ROM and, voila!, another mindless single purpose device.
And therein lies the problem. Technically there is no monopoly. Any other cable company is free to come in, set up, and LAY CABLE. That last part is the clincher. Say five cable companies want to compete. Now imagine they ALL lay cable to the curb. First off, can you imagine the logistics of that? We're already running out of room on our telephone poles where I live, and they just recently put everything under ground, which cost a fortune, and was reflected in our bills. Secondly, what a phenominal waste of money. Five pipes layed right to your front door, and you only use one of them! It's especially wastefull when you realize that ALL FIVE companies can fit all their combined content in just ONE PIPE (like they do now). I know it seems harsh to force a company to allow others to lease their hardware, but it's not like they're being forced to give it away for free. They are charging hefty lease rates. Ideally, I think the cabling should all be done by a seperate (government regulated) company, which cable and phone companies can rent from. Of course that never works because govt's can never afford to keep technology current.
Aw fuck it, the gov't should just jack us all up with a BIG FAT FIBER and end this crap. Fiber optics for all!;)
Thankyou for this thoughtfull if lengthy;) response. First off, I concede that lost works can have *been* great at one time, when there were individuals alive to consider them that way. But to me (and this is simply personal semantics), they are no longer great. You have to realize that when it comes to anything but concrete physics, I am an extreme relativist.
"And some people would debate the subjectivity of 'greatness'. If it is completely relative, why do so many people agree some things are great? If it is because of cultural or constitutional similarities, then it isn't really subjective, is it? " Well of course it is! Just because nearly everyone in a group of similar cultures believes something, that doesn't make it so. You will never be able to assure me that nowhere in time or space has there existed or will there exist a culture that does not hold a contrary opinion. And anyway, can you prove to me physically that something is/was a "great work?" No? Well, then it IS subjective.
"There is a reason why 'popular' and 'worthy' are different words. It isn't because the masses are ignorant, it's because few people are exposed more than a small fraction of literature. Most people would agree that Shakespeare was great playwrite, but how may of them have read on of his plays, let alone seen one? How many North Americans are exposed to the German literature, which boasts poets at least as great as S.?" Did you read what I said? I said "The masses are what make something worthy, whether by direct indorsement (ie. LotR), or BY DEFERRAL TO ACKNOWLEDGED EXPERTS (ie. Shakespear)." That means that if the population hasn't read it, but they endorse an expert which endorses the work, then the population is indirectly indorsing the work.
People naturally are exposed to more contemporary than historical works. Is Steven King (sp on first name?) a greater writer then Tolkien? Because I can assure you that he is more widely read. The National Enquirer has more readers than most poets and writers of the last few centuries, so is it greater? Where in my article did I say that readership is the factor that determines greatness? It's not readership, but what the majority *THINK* about a particular work. A very small number of people have read Shakespeare as compared to those who have read the Enquirer, but they don't THINK the enquirer is a great work, but they believe Shakespeare's plays ARE.
Anyhoo, you reply was well written, but it distresses me that you didn't seem to READ my STATEMENT, as a lot of your points either coincide with mine or don't address the points that I made.
Several million "processors" huh? So, what kind of bus does this thing run on? I guess it must be NUMA. And the bus lines are subatomic in size right? I mean, if each processor is a "particle on a molicule"...(what??) "Because no data is deleted, no heat is created"???? Where did you get that? Someone here (and it's not me) doesn't know how a traditional CPU works. Now I'm not saying that such a thing doesn't exist, some NMR computing device, but I'll bet you anything that it's a little different than you have explained, and that you can't use it for much more than predicting simple particle behaviour.
P.S. Computer in a flask, HA! I have one right here on my desk, I call it coffee.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's take the results with a grain of salt? I hope you're joking but I'm not sure. Of course we'll take it with a grain of salt, the article is a (funny) joke after all.
What it says in the subject line.
well, replace 256-bit with 64, leather jacket with fabric mesh, 100Tbps with 100Mbps, and forget the direct neural I/O (I wish) and that's my thesis. I'm starting in september...mmmm, Beowulf cluster in my underwear, hee hee!
Looks a little like a Red Herring to me. Who was that guy who's invented 100 Gig harddrives that come in (badly retouched pictures of) pentium II cases? Doesn't want to reveal to much info until they have a patent, because you know, last time I checked, it was simple to whip up a new storage device from a few vague comments about physics ;)
Hey wait, I think I'll patent 3D storage devices right now!
This has always bothered me. It seems that *some* laws need to be followed to the letter, others are sort of wishy washy and the judge can decide if it should be applied or not. What's the deal with this? The whole reason adds have reams of small print is to protect the companies from sillyness like this. But Pepsi screwed up, so now they should pay up.
I agree that it is opportunistic litigation, but companies do it all the time (eg. Record companies vs. Diamond; private firms vs. AOL to find out private names; etc...), so why shouldn't individuals?
That is the issue I was addressing. I suppose I should have spelled it out for our BUDDY though. Anyway, he can read my rant on rules further down the list if he wants to know my opinion.
Arg! Caught in an infinit if/else loop! Stack ... overflowing ... must ... reset ... brain!
:)
So this has to do with poor management, period. What else is new.
5:30? I'm out at 5:00, screw this "long hours" crap. I don't get paid extra for overtime, so I don't do it.
You know, for a while, I understood why big executives and other oldbodies had such trouble understanding why any digital information available to the public was so easy to copy, and functionally impossible to keep secure.
But I figured EVENTUALLY they would get the picture. Could someone please tell me why these people cannot be made to understand that, no matter how tricky they get, no matter how many layers of "software protection" they slap on, we will always be able to crack open the box and get at the goodies inside? We all know that, as soon as you render something digital, it is a supremely simple task to reproduce it with perfect fidelity. What part of the brain do these people lack that prevents them from realizing this fact? If they wanted good reliable copy protection, they should have stuck to LPs.
Seriously, what is the deep mystery here? Argh! And so ends my rant.
Maybe you didn't stop to think about it, but the theatre issue is a symptom of a much larger problem with the raising of our children. This discussion brings light to that issue, and is therefore beneficial.
Of course, maybe you just didn't stop to think at all.
I couldn't have put it better myself! Parents seems to raise their children less and less.
I wonder who's fault that is? No sarcasm meant, I really am curious. You can't just say that parents are lazy, because I know some well meaning parents that arn't raising their kids the way they wanted to because they're so busy. And they're not busy making millions either, they're busy just getting by.
Don't tell me how to raise my kids! How many times to I have to scream this at the legislature, the schools, the companies?! If you like the rules, then YOU inforce them. YOU stay with your damn kid. YOU instill a sense of responsibility in him/her, so that he/she doesn't go to movies that you ask him/her not to. Do these things YOURSELF, don't foist them on others, ya lazy bum.
Grrr...
Um, are you advocating pedofelia here?
>Do you have children?
>Maybe little girls?
>Don't worry, I'll make sure they have access to
>all aspects of human experience
The tone of your response suggests that you missed the entire point here. Pedofelia is a crime, it is illegal. Pornography is not. My kids can see porno if they like, but I'll have made damn sure that (by the time they're old enough to be curious about that kind of thing) I've taught them enough to know what is and isn't appropriate.
I don't know about you, but when I was at that curious age (~12), I flipped through porn with my friends and some of it we liked, and other stuff we found repulsive because of its degrading or disgusting nature. And guess what we did? Instead of growing up to be immoral, we simple didn't look at what we didn't like.
Wow, hypocrisy in a single line: The National Slashdot Service also has received reports of highly windy prose coupled with dubious assertions and questionable assumptions.
And I suppose your prose is a much better candidate for public consumption? Anyway, who are you to judge another's writing skills anyway?
Exactly, mostly kids. As an adult, you should know that kids don't always see the whole picture. You, however should be able to.
What? You're telling me that unjaded, openminded kids are more narrowminded than some ancient, money grubbing, political minded, business man/politician, who is so set in their ways and fears change to the point that they feel they have to strangle anything new or different? Whatever.
Besides, no one sees "the whole picture". Everyone has their own point of view.
Man, that is exactly the kind of attitude that governments love to spread, because it makes the job of taking away your liberties that much easier. When the entire populace takes on this "Holier than thou" attitude, trying to prove to each other that "they have nothing to hide", the government has already won.
Now, I am sure that you can come up with all kinds of reasons to tell me all that doesn't matter - they can already get it off the web, nobody was getting hurt, yada yada yada. The truth of the matter is this: IT WAS WRONG.
I beg your pardon?! Wait just a cotton pickin' minute! Just who do you think you are, telling me IT WAS WRONG. I happen to think that IT WAS NOT WRONG. I don't think lying is fundamentally wrong, in fact, I don't think ANYTHING is fundamentally wrong. You see, that's because I don't live my life out of a rule book. Rule books are for shallow, unintelligent individuals who can't think or reason for themselves.
Yes, children do need rules, but those rules should be justified by the parent, applied by the parent, and enforced by the parent.
Shame on you. And to the mother. That a woman when even consider to take her children to such a show is an embarrassment to the word mother.
The veins in my temples nearly burst when I read this. But I will be calm and rational in my response. Once again, how arrogant, presumptuous, and downright thoughtless of you to think that you are the only one who can define what it means to be a mother. YOU should feel SHAME at attacking the efforts and decisions of a mother, who's situation, religion, beliefs, and morals you have no knowledge of.
I do, however, want to see americans start standing up for a little decency and the like.
Good, you can start by attending to the needs of your own children then. By all means, protect your children from the horrors of South Park, instill in them the morals and ideas that you hold dear, nurture them so that they grow to be healthy/sane adults, and do it YOURSELF. Corporations and governments do NOT have the responsibility to your children, YOU DO!
Our country is closer now to "religious discrimination" then in ever has been - but only in the context of restricting prayer in school and the like.
Well, you may do that in the US, but in Canada we don't restrict our children from praying in the morning. It's just that they don't HAVE to speak prayer from any other religion but their own.
I have always maintained that it is better compose an original response from the head than to recite unthinking prose from The Book.
Deal.
Man, you know a good article when your face turns four different colours when you read it! I think a vein was about to burst in my forhead when reading the part about the abnoxious manager and the mumbly cop. He actually asked you to MOVE ALONG?! Anyway, I think you handled that sitch extrordinarily well and I admire and commend you.
;)
BTW, I'm just wondering what you look and dress like. I find cops and managers are much more fun to deal with if you're wearing a suit of some description. They get that wonderful "Uh, you look like my boss" uncomfortable expression
I see your point, and I'd love 5 cables to choose from as well, but not at the cost that that would entail. If all the companies had to pay to maintain their own pipe, while making no profit from leasing bandwidth, can you imagine how much more expensive your cable/phone bill would be?
Why is it so strange? Can you're VCR also wash your clothes, wallpaper your bed room, teach you calculus, and cook you dinner? No?
That's because it is a single use, dedicated device. The computer is not. If you wanted your computer to do any 1 thing, and only that 1 thing (ie. web surfing), you could just throw everything you needed into ROM and, voila!, another mindless single purpose device.
And therein lies the problem. Technically there is no monopoly. Any other cable company is free to come in, set up, and LAY CABLE. That last part is the clincher.
;)
Say five cable companies want to compete. Now imagine they ALL lay cable to the curb. First off, can you imagine the logistics of that? We're already running out of room on our telephone poles where I live, and they just recently put everything under ground, which cost a fortune, and was reflected in our bills.
Secondly, what a phenominal waste of money. Five pipes layed right to your front door, and you only use one of them! It's especially wastefull when you realize that ALL FIVE companies can fit all their combined content in just ONE PIPE (like they do now).
I know it seems harsh to force a company to allow others to lease their hardware, but it's not like they're being forced to give it away for free. They are charging hefty lease rates.
Ideally, I think the cabling should all be done by a seperate (government regulated) company, which cable and phone companies can rent from. Of course that never works because govt's can never afford to keep technology current.
Aw fuck it, the gov't should just jack us all up with a BIG FAT FIBER and end this crap. Fiber optics for all!
Thankyou for this thoughtfull if lengthy ;) response.
First off, I concede that lost works can have *been* great at one time, when there were individuals alive to consider them that way. But to me (and this is simply personal semantics), they are no longer great. You have to realize that when it comes to anything but concrete physics, I am an extreme relativist.
"And some people would debate the subjectivity of 'greatness'. If it is completely relative, why do so many people agree some things are great? If it is because of cultural or constitutional similarities, then it isn't really subjective, is it? "
Well of course it is! Just because nearly everyone in a group of similar cultures believes something, that doesn't make it so. You will never be able to assure me that nowhere in time or space has there existed or will there exist a culture that does not hold a contrary opinion.
And anyway, can you prove to me physically that something is/was a "great work?" No? Well, then it IS subjective.
"There is a reason why 'popular' and 'worthy' are different words. It isn't because the masses are ignorant, it's because few people are exposed more than a small fraction of literature. Most people would agree that Shakespeare was great playwrite, but how may of them have read on of his plays, let alone seen one? How many North Americans are exposed to the German literature, which boasts poets at least as great as S.?"
Did you read what I said? I said "The masses are what make something worthy, whether by direct indorsement (ie. LotR), or BY DEFERRAL TO ACKNOWLEDGED EXPERTS (ie. Shakespear)."
That means that if the population hasn't read it, but they endorse an expert which endorses the work, then the population is indirectly indorsing the work.
People naturally are exposed to more contemporary than historical works. Is Steven King (sp on first name?) a greater writer then Tolkien? Because I can assure you that he is more widely read. The National Enquirer has more readers than most poets and writers of the last few centuries, so is it greater?
Where in my article did I say that readership is the factor that determines greatness? It's not readership, but what the majority *THINK* about a particular work. A very small number of people have read Shakespeare as compared to those who have read the Enquirer, but they don't THINK the enquirer is a great work, but they believe Shakespeare's plays ARE.
Anyhoo, you reply was well written, but it distresses me that you didn't seem to READ my STATEMENT, as a lot of your points either coincide with mine or don't address the points that I made.
Several million "processors" huh? So, what kind of bus does this thing run on? I guess it must be NUMA. And the bus lines are subatomic in size right? I mean, if each processor is a "particle on a molicule"...(what??)
"Because no data is deleted, no heat is created"???? Where did you get that? Someone here (and it's not me) doesn't know how a traditional CPU works.
Now I'm not saying that such a thing doesn't exist, some NMR computing device, but I'll bet you anything that it's a little different than you have explained, and that you can't use it for much more than predicting simple particle behaviour.
P.S. Computer in a flask, HA! I have one right here on my desk, I call it coffee.