"The victor will never be asked if he told the truth."
"Strength lies not in defence but in attack."
"Success is the sole earthly judge of right and wrong."
"The great masses of the people... will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one."
It is an exercise to the reader to compare the some of the more prominant ideals in this "All-American" rant to the ideals of the man who made these statements I've quoted here.
And unlike the original poster, I am not a coward.
Admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery. Anybody want some more coffee!? *puffs on a cigarette* I'm gonna get some more coffee... *shakes and walks around of the room*
The Xbox is like a pre-Palladium machine. It has hardware controls to prevent unsigned code from running. Microsoft must be addressed to sign said code (hence they make themselves a necessary component in the Xbox software development process). I doubt that Microsoft are going to (somehow) sign a copy of the Linux kernel. Just like Palladium, you cannot get around this with software hacks. You have to break the hardware.
Anyone who has watched TOS back when Gene was running things knows that he considered Star Trek a "Space Western" and he went on-record in multiple interviews as saying that he hated the TV censors and tried to sneak past them as much material as possible. Original fans will also note Kirk's green bellydancer lovefest, and the harem girls he slept with (all of them?) and so on. TOS was violent, sexual, and campy. Gene chafed against the restrictions. I'm tired of the Johnny-come-lately's suggesting that Gene would hate foul language or sex or action scenes. Ugh.
Uhm, did you even read what you replied to before you got all hot headed? The following statement is true: "StarTrek has not show explicit sex". It has shown people in compromising positions, people bathing together (ST:TNG had the mudbaths, and ST:I had Dianna and Riker), Troy's mother, and so on. But it never had imagery of two people engaged in the act. The trailer showed a nude woman whose breasts were only obscured by the man laying on top of her, and they were obviously fucking. That level is a first for StarTrek and I think it is too much.
Wrapping up the whole argument again, if I want to see explicit sex, lots of brain-dead killing/violence/etc, there's plenty of Kevin Costnor, Bruce Willis, Samuel Jackson,.... movies I can go see. I watch StarTrek because it's intelligent, thoughtful, and subtle.
That's pretty bold, given that I have only seen the trailer, but here's why I think it'll be bad.
First, the trailer makes it out to have wanna-be horror elements. It's too dark for StarTrek; even First Contact and other encounters with the Borg (by far, the most powerful enemy the Federation knows) are nowhere near as intense. If it hadn't been for familiar characters, I would have said that the trailer was for a budget-hyped Babylon5 episode from the Shadows series.
Second, it seems too action oriented. Yes, we all love the StarTrek blow-up-the-other-ship action. If done well, battles are good and add a lot to the story (DS9 had a few episodes with epic battle scenes with Cards - incredibly cool). This movie just seems to have lots of fighting action without meaningful substance. There's also this ATV with guns driving around on rough terrain, then later jumping into another vehicle much better suited for transportation. That makes little sense to me (I can see arguments, but why?)
My third reason will get me flamed by all the horny geeks out there. The movie appears to have an explicit sex scene. While sex between two characters had been implied frequently in the past, it was never explicitly shown. This destroys an element of the StarTrek universe that I've always found charming: it's always had a childish innocence. A fun element. This kind of subject matter seems to turn ST into a different animal. (This reason is purely subjective.)
Fourth and last, all this spooky, "don't fear..." nonsense that just seems way to ominous to be believable (and quite cheesy - I laught when that bald guy says that in the trailer). This sort of ties into part of reason one. Again, the movie is trying to be something StarTrek isn't.
Overall, I get the strong impression that Rick Berman is not targeting geeks, but rather, the mainstream gun/sex/action oriented entertainment. "Blow stuff up and fuck the girl!" That seems great in a lot of ways, but I've always turned to ST for entertainment of a more intellectual sort.
Rick Berman is pulling a Lucas and not staying loyal to the fans.
As far as I recall, web designers/builders/maintainers/whatevers have traditionally ignored AOL, passing them off as irrelevant (for a variety of reasons from the custom browser they used to use, to the fact that AOL users are stupid by stereotype). To answer the question posted in the story, yes, I think the trends towards developing for Internet Explorer will (sadly) continue, for two reasons. First, the irrelevance AOL is considered to embody (read up), and second, because web design doesn't pay what it used to. As a result, those who want web sites built want them built as quickly as possible. Making cross-platform web sites is more expensive than IE-only.
It's still good to see yet another large company "support" open source software... Even if they do nothing other than lend credibility to a particular project.
They cannot be so naive as to think they are going to go to such a convention, hoping to win followers. What they are doing is tantamount to inciting a riot for exactly the reasons you stated: many open source zealots have no self control. (Come on, we've all gotten fired up from a conversation with a half-witten MS drone.) This is no different from going up to PennState's main campus, standing in the college town, shouting "PennState Football SUCKS!" then throwing a garbage can. It will cause a riot. Microsoft standing in at a Linux convention, shouting "Open Source SUCKS!" then throwing thriw software around. It's no different. Hopefully, no violence or misbehavior will come of this. (MS, afterall, are certainly paying their dues to have a booth.) However, if it does, the picture will be painted and open source gets its credibility knocked down a thousand points.
What needs to happen is exactly the opposite, and it needs to be documented. There needs to be a few groups of well-educated indivudals who know software and the market well. They need to go to that booth, followed by a few idiots with cameras, and demonstrate a clean, friendly, intelligent conversation with the MS people. Nobody needs to trip anyone else up. Either party needs to show respect, and if MS can't do that all the better. It will make open source supporters appear mature, level-headed, and above all else, credible in a corporate sense, especially since both sides will ask the tough questions.
That's the future of interfaces. Holograms that pretend they are tactile objects, but are dynamic and appropriately fitted for the task at hand. For example, manipulating a laser to target in 3D space gives you a sphere-like interface with rotating cuffs. Watching Aki Ross work on Gray in one of the earlier scenes really made sense. Adaptive buttons and switches based on the task will also be possible.
The best we can do is retry the classics (buttons, switches, levers, etc). These sorts of interfaces will just make the old way much more adaptable for a million tasks.
I've summarized my thoughts on this topic with the following essay.
If one examines premodernist materialism, one is faced with a choice: either
accept neoconstructivist capitalist theory or conclude that academe is
intrinsically impossible. In a sense, Sartre's model of premodernist
materialism suggests that art has intrinsic meaning. The subject is
interpolated into a constructivism that includes narrativity as a whole.
"Society is part of the dialectic of culture," says Marx; however, according to
Hanfkopf[1] , it is not so much society that is part of the
dialectic of culture, but rather the rubicon, and some would say the absurdity,
of society. It could be said that the main theme of the works of Spelling is
not narrative, but prenarrative. The example of premodernist materialism
prevalent in Spelling's Melrose Place is also evident in Models,
Inc..
However, the characteristic theme of Dahmus's[2] critique of
postcultural materialism is the role of the observer as writer. De Selby[3] states that we have to choose between premodernist
materialism and capitalist discourse.
It could be said that Bataille uses the term 'neoconstructivist capitalist
theory' to denote the common ground between sexuality and class. Marx suggests
the use of premodernist materialism to deconstruct the status quo.
However, neoconstructivist capitalist theory holds that art is capable of
intent, given that truth is distinct from art. The primary theme of the works
of Gaiman is not narrative, but subnarrative.
Thus, Sontag's analysis of constructivism suggests that reality serves to
oppress the proletariat. Marx promotes the use of the neotextual paradigm of
expression to attack and analyse society. 2. Gaiman and premodernist
materialism
"Truth is dead," says Derrida. Therefore, if neoconstructivist capitalist
theory holds, we have to choose between premodernist materialism and dialectic
libertarianism. Foucault suggests the use of neoconstructivist capitalist
theory to challenge capitalism.
If one examines constructivism, one is faced with a choice: either reject
neoconstructivist capitalist theory or conclude that the significance of the
observer is social comment. However, Debord uses the term 'postsemanticist
textual theory' to denote the role of the participant as artist. The premise of
premodernist materialism implies that consensus must come from communication.
Therefore, the subject is contextualised into a neoconstructivist capitalist
theory that includes narrativity as a reality. The main theme of Cameron's[4] model of Lacanist obscurity is not, in fact, appropriation,
but preappropriation.
In a sense, Sargeant[5] suggests that the works of Eco are
not postmodern. Marx's analysis of premodernist materialism holds that the law
is capable of significance, but only if the premise of constructivism is valid;
if that is not the case, Sontag's model of premodernist materialism is one of
"cultural nationalism", and hence fundamentally used in the service of the
status quo.
Thus, the characteristic theme of the works of Eco is a mythopoetical whole. If
Baudrillardist simulation holds, we have to choose between premodernist
materialism and neodeconstructive construction.
But Sartre uses the term 'constructivism' to denote not narrative, as
Lyotardist narrative suggests, but prenarrative. Derrida promotes the use of
neoconstructivist capitalist theory to modify class. 3. Modernist discourse
and Sontagist camp
"Society is part of the dialectic of reality," says Lyotard. Thus, Debord's
essay on constructivism states that the goal of the writer is deconstruction.
The main theme of Brophy's[6] model of semanticist
structuralism is a self-sufficient totality.
"Sexual identity is intrinsically dead," says Bataille; however, according to
Hanfkopf[7] , it is not so much sexual identity that is
intrinsically dead, but rather the paradigm, and eventually the genre, of
sexual identity. But the subject is interpolated into a Sontagist camp that
includes language as a reality. An abundance of discourses concerning the
dialectic of neodialectic society exist.
However, the primary theme of the works of Eco is the role of the observer as
writer. The subject is contextualised into a premodernist materialism that
includes culture as a totality.
In a sense, several appropriations concerning constructivism may be revealed.
The subject is interpolated into a Sontagist camp that includes consciousness
as a whole.
Therefore, constructivism holds that art is part of the genre of truth, given
that language is interchangeable with consciousness. The subject is
contextualised into a Sontagist camp that includes sexuality as a paradox.
4. Eco and premodernist materialism
In the works of Eco, a predominant concept is the concept of textual culture.
Thus, the paradigm, and subsequent futility, of Sontagist camp depicted in
Eco's Foucault's Pendulum emerges again in The Aesthetics of Thomas
Aquinas, although in a more mythopoetical sense. Many theories concerning
the collapse, and therefore the failure, of premodernist sexuality exist.
The main theme of la Tournier's[8] critique of
constructivism is the role of the artist as poet. In a sense, the premise of
premodernist materialism implies that narrative is a product of the masses.
Dahmus[9] suggests that we have to choose between Sontagist
camp and preconceptual cultural theory.
Thus, constructivism holds that language may be used to reinforce class
divisions. If postcapitalist discourse holds, we have to choose between
constructivism and semanticist precultural theory.
But the subject is interpolated into a premodernist materialism that includes
culture as a totality. Derrida suggests the use of materialist narrative to
deconstruct outmoded perceptions of society.
In a sense, Abian[10] implies that we have to choose
between premodernist materialism and subsemiotic desituationism. Bataille
promotes the use of constructivism to analyse and read truth.
1. Hanfkopf, R. (1997) Constructivism in the works of
Cage. University of Georgia Press
2. Dahmus, V. G. ed. (1988) Reassessing Surrealism:
Premodernist materialism in the works of Gaiman. Schlangekraft
3. de Selby, D. F. G. (1994) Constructivism, socialism and
capitalist predialectic theory. University of Michigan Press
4. Cameron, Y. ed. (1971) The Narrative of Defining
characteristic: Premodernist materialism in the works of Eco.
Schlangekraft
5. Sargeant, F. I. W. (1985) Constructivism and premodernist
materialism. Harvard University Press
6. Brophy, L. D. ed. (1993) Consensuses of Failure:
Postcapitalist libertarianism, socialism and constructivism. University of
Georgia Press
7. Hanfkopf, Y. (1972) Premodernist materialism and
constructivism. And/Or Press
8. la Tournier, M. S. O. ed. (1985) The Absurdity of Context:
Constructivism and premodernist materialism. University of Michigan
Press
9. Dahmus, A. O. (1996) Premodernist materialism and
constructivism. Panic Button Books
10. Abian, L. S. D. ed. (1974) Expressions of Stasis:
Constructivism, socialism and poststructural dialectic theory. And/Or
Press
Floppy disk drives are a ubiquitous piece of hardware for PCs. You might as well try to be rid of power supplies and processors. What's the cause of this travesty of being stuck with a dead, antique piece of hardware? The PC, trapped with proprietary, unworkable BIOSes have no mechanism to replace the functionality of floppy disks, and to do so would require a great deal of architectural overhaul.
Sun, Apple, etc. and other non-PC boxen have more advanced solutions for booting the machine and working with it before any boot code is even touched (ie: Sun OpenPROM lets you boot from any source you want, including network sources with trivial ease). Furthermore, you cannot even update the BIOS contents on PCs without booting into a realmode OS and running code from there. Who here is going to burn a bootable CD-ROM that loads DOS and stores a few Kb worth of BIOS image? (This method would also disallow you to backup your exiting BIOS.)
Yes, floppies are old, annoying, and outright stupid. Sadly, because of horrible design, we are dependent on them for as long as we use x86 PCs. Now, why do we need to be using x86 PCs when better architectures exist?
It's not about lying on the form, fuck head. True, I don't want them to have correct information. The crux of the issue is that I do not feel like taking the time to fill-out 20+ fields of nonsense, then go back and correct it repeatedly when it says "your ZIP/email/state/whatever is invalid".
As for personal information, spam is not the issue. NYT doesn't need to know my gender, age, region, etc. It's an issue of privacy.
Did the NYT defeat the random account generator? It no longer seems to work for me which is extremely disappointing. My personal information is far more valuable than the right to read a few newspaper articles. (Really, how does one weigh intimate knowledge to a few quarters?)
"Don't they have something better to do during the summer than hack our site?" asked the RIAA representative, who asked not to be identified. "Perhaps it at least took 10 minutes away from stealing music."
Don't they have anything better to do than to DDoS P2P networks?...and bitch FOR YEARS about the free trade of music online?...and push for stupid legislation?...and file lawsuits?...and...
I already addressed this in my original post, albeit lightly. What I am trying to say is that currently, AI is nothing more than a magic trick. In that, I gave the analogy of the illusionist levitating an object for a magic show. It is already on the horizon that we will be levitating objects and people with ease (currently, it's a little difficult with mag-lev). In the distant future, we'll be able either to block gravity or generate our own. The point is simply that we haven't been working on intelligence for as long as evolution has. Right now, it's only a trick. It's a showman's tool to get "oohs" and "awhs" from a crowd. In the future, the intelligence we create will be as real as ours (and even then, it will have to be something grown or "raised", not created). Even humans evolved from creatures that were little more than a bundle of nerves that literally acted like a finite state machines. Evolution moved beyond a simple trick to get something to operate "intelligently" to a very sophisticated, sentient creature.
The debate of whether or not we humans are infact "truly" intelligent is another issue altogether. It's far to complicated to get into here and it was not what I was trying to address in the first place.
That's what my one professor, Donald Simon, always says. For the moment, he's right.
Currently, AI is nothing more than a magic trick. It's not about intelligence - it's simply an illusion that when you figure out how it works, it is no longer impressive. Every AI researcher is a magician in that respect, no matter which of the two schools you come from. Yes, all of this is quite sophisticated, but so are most modern magic tricks.
Needless to say, the same as illusionists today make people appear to levitate, we will one day have that technology. While AI today is just a bunch of deceit, some day we may see "intelligent" (as far as we understand it - currently, all AI is "stupid") machines.
It may be a bit more elegant if you actually hacked the p2p client or FTP server to just pipe x bytes from/dev/null.
Exactly how does one pipe bytes from/dev/null? Isn't that like trying to get oxygen from a vacuum or light from a black hole? "Null" is nothing, that's why it's called that. If you pipe from null, you'll get... nothing.
Perhaps what you meant to say was/dev/zero or/dev/[u]random. Or if you're doing this to piss of the RIAA and you're really stupid, then dd if=/dev/hda of=m00z4k.mp3.
So how is this any different from sinking the guy who didn't pay up with cement shoes? Mafia's often have legit business - they are just protecting their interests, right?
Will the MPAA & RIAA be allowed to assassinate pirates in the future?
It's simple. Pirates are very determined to continue piracy. If the MPAA, RIAA, or whoever start hacking, three things will happen.
1. The outcome will be true to the traditional form of computer security: the more people you have banging on something, the better it'll get in the long run. People who design and develop the P2P networks and the systems they run on will have intense motivation to make those systems more secure against crackers. More bugs will be found and squashed since the attackers in this case are not afraid of legal ramifications.
2. Pirates'll change their software. Most pirates are probably on fairly insecure systems at the moment. When they find themselves being shut down in this manner, they'll move to more secure platforms and services.
3. Whoever these entities are will eventually blunder such that they will destroy both their credibility and make them look like jackasses. In time, they are going to hire people who will abuse this to the maximum possible extent. There's also the extreme likelihood that some attacks will be waged on critical systems for businesses or whoever (someone sets of a warez depot on their company's xyz server).
These people who want this nonsense fail to realize exactly how pointless all this is. They don't understand that they are dealing with an animal that heals faster than it can be injured. When they took out Napster, a dozen file sharing services popped up to take its place. Likewise today, when they start cracking to take down sharing networks and systems, the users will only build them up stronger. Not to mention that no matter at what scale they launch these attacks, the MPAA, RIAA, or whoever could never have enough attackers to even make a dent on the whole system. There's at least an order of magnitude more pirates than there are people stopping them. Again, they will make themselves look like jackasses.
Damn fools. Greed makes them both blind and stupid. They could spend some time coming up with a fair business model that could survive out there today without a lot of extra bullshit (Palladium, DRM, etc). That would require a lot less time and money.
They have always demonstrated sanity, restraint and professionalism along with thoughtful commentary - unlike certain other well known Linux news sites.
The parent is 100% correct. They need to hear from real, genuine customers who are interested in their products because of their support for open source. Here's a letter I composed to the contact on the press release. Do NOT copy this word-for-word. It is only meant to give an idea of what we should probably be saying. (Incidently, the letter is entirely true. That is also important.)
Greetings!
I have used an NVIDIA TNT2 for the past several years, and have been hesitant to buy a new 3D card lately. The offerings have (mostly) all been good, but I've been looking into which company was most willing to support open source initiatives. I choose open source because I believe the community is able to produce superior products compared to closed source alternatives. As a result, I look to purchase from companies who are willing either to make their products available and interoperable with open source technologies, or make contributions the open source community can use.
Today, I read NVIDIA's announcement (http://www.nvidia.com/view.asp?IO=IO_20020719_726 9 "NVIDIA Open Sources Cg Compiler Technology") and was immensely pleased. As a direct result, my decision was made. I took the plunge and picked up an NVIDIA GeForce 4 Ti based video card on my way home from work. I'm incredibly happy with the product (performance under XFree86 is excellent) and the company that produced its core technology.
In conclusion, I want to make it clear that this purchase was triggered by NVIDIA's move to open source Cg. This makes a powerful technology available to those of us who chose not to be bound to one vendor's idea of how the industry ought to be shaped. I am eager to remain an NVIDIA customer as your company enables my platform of choice!
Slashdot Mirror
the cost of several hundred (or even thousand) cheap cd walkmans is hardly going to eat into a multinational record companies bottom line.
Interestingly enough, you're absolutely correct. Funny how, with this in mind, P2P file-sharing services do.
...uses throw-away accounts to avoid spam.
If you want to talk to me, there's contact information right there.
"What luck for the rulers that men do not think."
"The victor will never be asked if he told the truth."
"Strength lies not in defence but in attack."
"Success is the sole earthly judge of right and wrong."
"The great masses of the people... will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one."
It is an exercise to the reader to compare the some of the more prominant ideals in this "All-American" rant to the ideals of the man who made these statements I've quoted here.
And unlike the original poster, I am not a coward.
Admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery. Anybody want some more coffee!? *puffs on a cigarette* I'm gonna get some more coffee... *shakes and walks around of the room*
"2.8Ghz...my first computer didn't have that many MHz"
Well, geez... thank you captain obvious.
The Xbox is like a pre-Palladium machine. It has hardware controls to prevent unsigned code from running. Microsoft must be addressed to sign said code (hence they make themselves a necessary component in the Xbox software development process). I doubt that Microsoft are going to (somehow) sign a copy of the Linux kernel. Just like Palladium, you cannot get around this with software hacks. You have to break the hardware.
Anyone who has watched TOS back when Gene was running things knows that he considered Star Trek a "Space Western" and he went on-record in multiple interviews as saying that he hated the TV censors and tried to sneak past them as much material as possible. Original fans will also note Kirk's green bellydancer lovefest, and the harem girls he slept with (all of them?) and so on. TOS was violent, sexual, and campy. Gene chafed against the restrictions. I'm tired of the Johnny-come-lately's suggesting that Gene would hate foul language or sex or action scenes. Ugh.
.... movies I can go see. I watch StarTrek because it's intelligent, thoughtful, and subtle.
Uhm, did you even read what you replied to before you got all hot headed? The following statement is true: "StarTrek has not show explicit sex". It has shown people in compromising positions, people bathing together (ST:TNG had the mudbaths, and ST:I had Dianna and Riker), Troy's mother, and so on. But it never had imagery of two people engaged in the act. The trailer showed a
nude woman whose breasts were only obscured by the man laying on top of her, and they were obviously fucking. That level is a first for StarTrek and I think it is too much.
Wrapping up the whole argument again, if I want to see explicit sex, lots of brain-dead killing/violence/etc, there's plenty of Kevin Costnor, Bruce Willis, Samuel Jackson,
That's pretty bold, given that I have only seen the trailer, but here's why I think it'll be bad.
First, the trailer makes it out to have wanna-be horror elements. It's too dark for StarTrek; even First Contact and other encounters with the Borg (by far, the most powerful enemy the Federation knows) are nowhere near as intense. If it hadn't been for familiar characters, I would have said that the trailer was for a budget-hyped Babylon5 episode from the Shadows series.
Second, it seems too action oriented. Yes, we all love the StarTrek blow-up-the-other-ship action. If done well, battles are good and add a lot to the story (DS9 had a few episodes with epic battle scenes with Cards - incredibly cool). This movie just seems to have lots of fighting action without meaningful substance. There's also this ATV with guns driving around on rough terrain, then later jumping into another vehicle much better suited for transportation. That makes little sense to me (I can see arguments, but why?)
My third reason will get me flamed by all the horny geeks out there. The movie appears to have an explicit sex scene. While sex between two characters had been implied frequently in the past, it was never explicitly shown. This destroys an element of the StarTrek universe that I've always found charming: it's always had a childish innocence. A fun element. This kind of subject matter seems to turn ST into a different animal. (This reason is purely subjective.)
Fourth and last, all this spooky, "don't fear..." nonsense that just seems way to ominous to be believable (and quite cheesy - I laught when that bald guy says that in the trailer). This sort of ties into part of reason one. Again, the movie is trying to be something StarTrek isn't.
Overall, I get the strong impression that Rick Berman is not targeting geeks, but rather, the mainstream gun/sex/action oriented entertainment. "Blow stuff up and fuck the girl!" That seems great in a lot of ways, but I've always turned to ST for entertainment of a more intellectual sort.
Rick Berman is pulling a Lucas and not staying loyal to the fans.
As far as I recall, web designers/builders/maintainers/whatevers have traditionally ignored AOL, passing them off as irrelevant (for a variety of reasons from the custom browser they used to use, to the fact that AOL users are stupid by stereotype). To answer the question posted in the story, yes, I think the trends towards developing for Internet Explorer will (sadly) continue, for two reasons. First, the irrelevance AOL is considered to embody (read up), and second, because web design doesn't pay what it used to. As a result, those who want web sites built want them built as quickly as possible. Making cross-platform web sites is more expensive than IE-only.
It's still good to see yet another large company "support" open source software... Even if they do nothing other than lend credibility to a particular project.
They cannot be so naive as to think they are going to go to such a convention, hoping to win followers. What they are doing is tantamount to inciting a riot for exactly the reasons you stated: many open source zealots have no self control. (Come on, we've all gotten fired up from a conversation with a half-witten MS drone.) This is no different from going up to PennState's main campus, standing in the college town, shouting "PennState Football SUCKS!" then throwing a garbage can. It will cause a riot. Microsoft standing in at a Linux convention, shouting "Open Source SUCKS!" then throwing thriw software around. It's no different. Hopefully, no violence or misbehavior will come of this. (MS, afterall, are certainly paying their dues to have a booth.) However, if it does, the picture will be painted and open source gets its credibility knocked down a thousand points.
What needs to happen is exactly the opposite, and it needs to be documented. There needs to be a few groups of well-educated indivudals who know software and the market well. They need to go to that booth, followed by a few idiots with cameras, and demonstrate a clean, friendly, intelligent conversation with the MS people. Nobody needs to trip anyone else up. Either party needs to show respect, and if MS can't do that all the better. It will make open source supporters appear mature, level-headed, and above all else, credible in a corporate sense, especially since both sides will ask the tough questions.
That's the future of interfaces. Holograms that pretend they are tactile objects, but are dynamic and appropriately fitted for the task at hand. For example, manipulating a laser to target in 3D space gives you a sphere-like interface with rotating cuffs. Watching Aki Ross work on Gray in one of the earlier scenes really made sense. Adaptive buttons and switches based on the task will also be possible.
The best we can do is retry the classics (buttons, switches, levers, etc). These sorts of interfaces will just make the old way much more adaptable for a million tasks.
If one examines premodernist materialism, one is faced with a choice: either accept neoconstructivist capitalist theory or conclude that academe is intrinsically impossible. In a sense, Sartre's model of premodernist materialism suggests that art has intrinsic meaning. The subject is interpolated into a constructivism that includes narrativity as a whole.
"Society is part of the dialectic of culture," says Marx; however, according to Hanfkopf[1] , it is not so much society that is part of the dialectic of culture, but rather the rubicon, and some would say the absurdity, of society. It could be said that the main theme of the works of Spelling is not narrative, but prenarrative. The example of premodernist materialism prevalent in Spelling's Melrose Place is also evident in Models, Inc..
However, the characteristic theme of Dahmus's[2] critique of postcultural materialism is the role of the observer as writer. De Selby[3] states that we have to choose between premodernist materialism and capitalist discourse.
It could be said that Bataille uses the term 'neoconstructivist capitalist theory' to denote the common ground between sexuality and class. Marx suggests the use of premodernist materialism to deconstruct the status quo. However, neoconstructivist capitalist theory holds that art is capable of intent, given that truth is distinct from art. The primary theme of the works of Gaiman is not narrative, but subnarrative.
Thus, Sontag's analysis of constructivism suggests that reality serves to oppress the proletariat. Marx promotes the use of the neotextual paradigm of expression to attack and analyse society. 2. Gaiman and premodernist materialism
"Truth is dead," says Derrida. Therefore, if neoconstructivist capitalist theory holds, we have to choose between premodernist materialism and dialectic libertarianism. Foucault suggests the use of neoconstructivist capitalist theory to challenge capitalism.
If one examines constructivism, one is faced with a choice: either reject neoconstructivist capitalist theory or conclude that the significance of the observer is social comment. However, Debord uses the term 'postsemanticist textual theory' to denote the role of the participant as artist. The premise of premodernist materialism implies that consensus must come from communication.
Therefore, the subject is contextualised into a neoconstructivist capitalist theory that includes narrativity as a reality. The main theme of Cameron's[4] model of Lacanist obscurity is not, in fact, appropriation, but preappropriation.
In a sense, Sargeant[5] suggests that the works of Eco are not postmodern. Marx's analysis of premodernist materialism holds that the law is capable of significance, but only if the premise of constructivism is valid; if that is not the case, Sontag's model of premodernist materialism is one of "cultural nationalism", and hence fundamentally used in the service of the status quo. Thus, the characteristic theme of the works of Eco is a mythopoetical whole. If Baudrillardist simulation holds, we have to choose between premodernist materialism and neodeconstructive construction.
But Sartre uses the term 'constructivism' to denote not narrative, as Lyotardist narrative suggests, but prenarrative. Derrida promotes the use of neoconstructivist capitalist theory to modify class. 3. Modernist discourse and Sontagist camp
"Society is part of the dialectic of reality," says Lyotard. Thus, Debord's essay on constructivism states that the goal of the writer is deconstruction. The main theme of Brophy's[6] model of semanticist structuralism is a self-sufficient totality.
"Sexual identity is intrinsically dead," says Bataille; however, according to Hanfkopf[7] , it is not so much sexual identity that is intrinsically dead, but rather the paradigm, and eventually the genre, of sexual identity. But the subject is interpolated into a Sontagist camp that includes language as a reality. An abundance of discourses concerning the dialectic of neodialectic society exist.
However, the primary theme of the works of Eco is the role of the observer as writer. The subject is contextualised into a premodernist materialism that includes culture as a totality.
In a sense, several appropriations concerning constructivism may be revealed. The subject is interpolated into a Sontagist camp that includes consciousness as a whole.
Therefore, constructivism holds that art is part of the genre of truth, given that language is interchangeable with consciousness. The subject is contextualised into a Sontagist camp that includes sexuality as a paradox. 4. Eco and premodernist materialism
In the works of Eco, a predominant concept is the concept of textual culture. Thus, the paradigm, and subsequent futility, of Sontagist camp depicted in Eco's Foucault's Pendulum emerges again in The Aesthetics of Thomas Aquinas, although in a more mythopoetical sense. Many theories concerning the collapse, and therefore the failure, of premodernist sexuality exist.
The main theme of la Tournier's[8] critique of constructivism is the role of the artist as poet. In a sense, the premise of premodernist materialism implies that narrative is a product of the masses. Dahmus[9] suggests that we have to choose between Sontagist camp and preconceptual cultural theory.
Thus, constructivism holds that language may be used to reinforce class divisions. If postcapitalist discourse holds, we have to choose between constructivism and semanticist precultural theory.
But the subject is interpolated into a premodernist materialism that includes culture as a totality. Derrida suggests the use of materialist narrative to deconstruct outmoded perceptions of society.
In a sense, Abian[10] implies that we have to choose between premodernist materialism and subsemiotic desituationism. Bataille promotes the use of constructivism to analyse and read truth. 1. Hanfkopf, R. (1997) Constructivism in the works of Cage. University of Georgia Press
2. Dahmus, V. G. ed. (1988) Reassessing Surrealism: Premodernist materialism in the works of Gaiman. Schlangekraft
3. de Selby, D. F. G. (1994) Constructivism, socialism and capitalist predialectic theory. University of Michigan Press
4. Cameron, Y. ed. (1971) The Narrative of Defining characteristic: Premodernist materialism in the works of Eco. Schlangekraft
5. Sargeant, F. I. W. (1985) Constructivism and premodernist materialism. Harvard University Press
6. Brophy, L. D. ed. (1993) Consensuses of Failure: Postcapitalist libertarianism, socialism and constructivism. University of Georgia Press
7. Hanfkopf, Y. (1972) Premodernist materialism and constructivism. And/Or Press
8. la Tournier, M. S. O. ed. (1985) The Absurdity of Context: Constructivism and premodernist materialism. University of Michigan Press
9. Dahmus, A. O. (1996) Premodernist materialism and constructivism. Panic Button Books
10. Abian, L. S. D. ed. (1974) Expressions of Stasis: Constructivism, socialism and poststructural dialectic theory. And/Or Press
Floppy disk drives are a ubiquitous piece of hardware for PCs. You might as well try to be rid of power supplies and processors. What's the cause of this travesty of being stuck with a dead, antique piece of hardware? The PC, trapped with proprietary, unworkable BIOSes have no mechanism to replace the functionality of floppy disks, and to do so would require a great deal of architectural overhaul.
Sun, Apple, etc. and other non-PC boxen have more advanced solutions for booting the machine and working with it before any boot code is even touched (ie: Sun OpenPROM lets you boot from any source you want, including network sources with trivial ease). Furthermore, you cannot even update the BIOS contents on PCs without booting into a realmode OS and running code from there. Who here is going to burn a bootable CD-ROM that loads DOS and stores a few Kb worth of BIOS image? (This method would also disallow you to backup your exiting BIOS.)
Yes, floppies are old, annoying, and outright stupid. Sadly, because of horrible design, we are dependent on them for as long as we use x86 PCs. Now, why do we need to be using x86 PCs when better architectures exist?
It's not about lying on the form, fuck head. True, I don't want them to have correct information. The crux of the issue is that I do not feel like taking the time to fill-out 20+ fields of nonsense, then go back and correct it repeatedly when it says "your ZIP/email/state/whatever is invalid".
As for personal information, spam is not the issue. NYT doesn't need to know my gender, age, region, etc. It's an issue of privacy.
Did the NYT defeat the random account generator? It no longer seems to work for me which is extremely disappointing. My personal information is far more valuable than the right to read a few newspaper articles. (Really, how does one weigh intimate knowledge to a few quarters?)
"Don't they have something better to do during the summer than hack our site?" asked the RIAA representative, who asked not to be identified. "Perhaps it at least took 10 minutes away from stealing music."
...and bitch FOR YEARS about the free trade of music online? ...and push for stupid legislation? ...and file lawsuits? ...and...
Don't they have anything better to do than to DDoS P2P networks?
I already addressed this in my original post, albeit lightly. What I am trying to say is that currently, AI is nothing more than a magic trick. In that, I gave the analogy of the illusionist levitating an object for a magic show. It is already on the horizon that we will be levitating objects and people with ease (currently, it's a little difficult with mag-lev). In the distant future, we'll be able either to block gravity or generate our own. The point is simply that we haven't been working on intelligence for as long as evolution has. Right now, it's only a trick. It's a showman's tool to get "oohs" and "awhs" from a crowd. In the future, the intelligence we create will be as real as ours (and even then, it will have to be something grown or "raised", not created). Even humans evolved from creatures that were little more than a bundle of nerves that literally acted like a finite state machines. Evolution moved beyond a simple trick to get something to operate "intelligently" to a very sophisticated, sentient creature.
The debate of whether or not we humans are infact "truly" intelligent is another issue altogether. It's far to complicated to get into here and it was not what I was trying to address in the first place.
That's what my one professor, Donald Simon, always says. For the moment, he's right.
Currently, AI is nothing more than a magic trick. It's not about intelligence - it's simply an illusion that when you figure out how it works, it is no longer impressive. Every AI researcher is a magician in that respect, no matter which of the two schools you come from. Yes, all of this is quite sophisticated, but so are most modern magic tricks.
Needless to say, the same as illusionists today make people appear to levitate, we will one day have that technology. While AI today is just a bunch of deceit, some day we may see "intelligent" (as far as we understand it - currently, all AI is "stupid") machines.
Just a few thoughts...
It may be a bit more elegant if you actually hacked the p2p client or FTP server to just pipe x bytes from /dev/null.
/dev/null? Isn't that like trying to get oxygen from a vacuum or light from a black hole? "Null" is nothing, that's why it's called that. If you pipe from null, you'll get... nothing.
/dev/zero or /dev/[u]random. Or if you're doing this to piss of the RIAA and you're really stupid, then dd if=/dev/hda of=m00z4k.mp3.
Exactly how does one pipe bytes from
Perhaps what you meant to say was
So how is this any different from sinking the guy who didn't pay up with cement shoes? Mafia's often have legit business - they are just protecting their interests, right?
Will the MPAA & RIAA be allowed to assassinate pirates in the future?
It's simple. Pirates are very determined to continue piracy. If the MPAA, RIAA, or whoever start hacking, three things will happen.
1. The outcome will be true to the traditional form of computer security: the more people you have banging on something, the better it'll get in the long run. People who design and develop the P2P networks and the systems they run on will have intense motivation to make those systems more secure against crackers. More bugs will be found and squashed since the attackers in this case are not afraid of legal ramifications.
2. Pirates'll change their software. Most pirates are probably on fairly insecure systems at the moment. When they find themselves being shut down in this manner, they'll move to more secure platforms and services.
3. Whoever these entities are will eventually blunder such that they will destroy both their credibility and make them look like jackasses. In time, they are going to hire people who will abuse this to the maximum possible extent. There's also the extreme likelihood that some attacks will be waged on critical systems for businesses or whoever (someone sets of a warez depot on their company's xyz server).
These people who want this nonsense fail to realize exactly how pointless all this is. They don't understand that they are dealing with an animal that heals faster than it can be injured. When they took out Napster, a dozen file sharing services popped up to take its place. Likewise today, when they start cracking to take down sharing networks and systems, the users will only build them up stronger. Not to mention that no matter at what scale they launch these attacks, the MPAA, RIAA, or whoever could never have enough attackers to even make a dent on the whole system. There's at least an order of magnitude more pirates than there are people stopping them. Again, they will make themselves look like jackasses.
Damn fools. Greed makes them both blind and stupid. They could spend some time coming up with a fair business model that could survive out there today without a lot of extra bullshit (Palladium, DRM, etc). That would require a lot less time and money.
They have always demonstrated sanity, restraint and professionalism along with thoughtful commentary - unlike certain other well known Linux news sites.
You mean like this one?
My god, an anonymous coward.