"Are we the only people who still believe that the whole point of cable was to not have to be inundated with commercials?"
No, the whole point of cable was to improve television reception, with more channels being an added bonus (no longer need to space out UHF channels six apart). Note that you can still get cable with only your local broadcast channels for ~$10.00
"It's possible that the Wachao..uh...however-you-spell-their-name Brothers has concerns about this release tainting a future and potentially more lucrative release."
That, or they plan on going all Lucas-like, and eventually selling fifteen different versions of the same movie throughout the next decade, never at the same time.
"if there were only 2 cars people could buy, selling for the same price, say the toyota camry and the ferrari 360 modena,"
Bad analogy. The only reason DAT players cost so much is the media corporations went out of their way to make sure DAT was priced too high for the general consumer market; there is no technical reason for those prices (it's tape for crying out loud). A better analogy would be comparing a Pinto to a Camry with a $60,000 price tag (due to a new disgustingly high import tariff the Big Three paid Congress to pass).
Re:One of my favorite google easter eggs...
on
Playing with Google
·
· Score: 1
"you get a pointer to the anti-scientology subtree of google groups."
Now that I would call an easter egg. Except, if you actually go over to the Scientology category and do a search for "goatse" just in that category, it does come up with a hit. Here.
So, does this count as circular linking, or the first official goatse webring?
(BTW, "goatse" only appears twice in the posting in question, so I'm still tempted to call it an easter egg.)
Re:One of my favorite google easter eggs...
on
Playing with Google
·
· Score: 4, Funny
At 28,900 hits for "goatse" and only 10,100 for "goatsex," I wouldn't call it an easter egg.
Should we mourn how many goatse links are out there, or be happy there are so "few" goatsex links?
Alright, so I don't know any math beyond basic partial differential equations, but...
"If modern string theory is true then most nano science applications will fail to work."
Note your use of the word "if." While the numbers on string theory work quite well on paper, there has yet to be experimental proof one way or the other. You can't say for sure it wouldn't work because nobody knows for sure if the rules we know are the correct rules.
"(and don't give that bullshit of it being un-ethical, they can chose to sell their products for as much or as little as they damn well please)"
Then I'll give you that "bullshit" about it being illegal instead. Dell and Gateway essentially had no choice but to sell Microsoft and only Microsoft on every machine, whether the customer asked for it or not. This is an illegal abuse of Microsoft's monopoly, and even the appeals court sees this as the case.
"Are we going to start calling it the Logitech tax because we can't buy a computer without a mouse or keyboard--most likely made buy Logitech?"
Even if Logitech had a monopoly, they don't say that manufacturers must sell every computer with Logitech mice and only Logitech mice, whether the customer wants them or not.
"Apparently, this is powerful and precise enough to destroy enemy intercontinental and intermediate-range missiles in mid-flight."
<SARCASM> You mean all we need to do is slap this ABL on a 747 and we won't need to worry about National Missile Defense? Wow! </SARCASM>
First off, the ABL is designed to shoot down missiles in the boost phase (ie. right after launching), not mid-flight. Once the boost phase is over, the rocket stages are expended (much smaller radar signature) and it's ballistic (no real heat signature), so they are pretty hard to find, let alone track. If it could shoot them down in mid-flight, it could also take out airborn artillery shells.
Secondly, it doesn't work on ICBMs, because it has to be within a few dozen miles from the launch in order to catch it in its boost phase. It's kinda hard to hit objects over the horizon with a lazer.
They're looking for a "federated" network identity, where "federated" means a level of intrinsic decentralization. To me, that sounds like there is a single "federal" (not to be confused with "federal government") information registry that keeps a bare minimum of information, and websites maintain their own private databases that collect their own information beyond the federated minimum. The central database essentially just makes sure that the private databases don't have redundant entries.
But how "federated" are they thinking here? Federated as in 1803 USA, or federated as in 2003 USA? How centrallized will this whole thing be, and who has a say in who controls how much? Will the central database really keep only a bare minimum of information, allowing most of the data maintenance to be performed by the interested parties, or will it be federated in name only, with the central database controlling everything, giving third parties the ability to collect extraneous BS "if they want to?"
(Ironicly enough, involving the DoD may help keep things relatively decentrallized. They're not all that keen on single points of failure.)
"If, instead, one of the foci is the approximate center of mass of the body-satellite system, and outside the body and the satellite, the system is a binary planet."
If you take this idea one more iteration, you'll may end up with brown dwarfs being considered "planets" in what would otherwise be considered a "binary star system."
Of course, defining "brown dwarf" is tricky as it is...
"Also, by that definition of planet, Ceres is a planet. I don't have a problem with this"
"at least some of these objects are also held together gravitationally -- which would then make them all planets, as I understand your definition. Would you agree?"
I'm not a professional astronomer, but I'm comfortable with that. After all, our exploration of of extrasolar planets suggests that there are star systems with far stranger things than more than one planet sharing the same orbit (more or less).
But again, I'm not a professional astronomer, so my opinion doesn't mean squat.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the seventh posting on the front page in a row by Taco. And none of them are dupes!
Dammit, I knew I should have built that bomb shelter...
"Would you like to replace math notation with sentences in English?"
I'll go for the one that actually has keys on my keyboard. Until I start seeing Cyrillic on my QWERTY, I'm stuck with "the partial derivative of..."
And the last thing I'm going to do is make up new symbols just because they're not on my keyboard.
No, you got it all wrong. The cable companies will be offering a new Myst MMORPG.
"Are we the only people who still believe that the whole point of cable was to not have to be inundated with commercials?"
No, the whole point of cable was to improve television reception, with more channels being an added bonus (no longer need to space out UHF channels six apart). Note that you can still get cable with only your local broadcast channels for ~$10.00
"Roxio, the company that took Easy CD Creator and turned it into an unstable piece of garbage is going to do something with Napster? Good luck."
You obviously meant "going to do something to Napster."
Not until the RIAA pushed their CD-R tariff through Congress it didn't.
"It's possible that the Wachao..uh...however-you-spell-their-name Brothers has concerns about this release tainting a future and potentially more lucrative release."
That, or they plan on going all Lucas-like, and eventually selling fifteen different versions of the same movie throughout the next decade, never at the same time.
"if there were only 2 cars people could buy, selling for the same price, say the toyota camry and the ferrari 360 modena,"
Bad analogy. The only reason DAT players cost so much is the media corporations went out of their way to make sure DAT was priced too high for the general consumer market; there is no technical reason for those prices (it's tape for crying out loud). A better analogy would be comparing a Pinto to a Camry with a $60,000 price tag (due to a new disgustingly high import tariff the Big Three paid Congress to pass).
"If the TV networks can't adapt to the new style of TV, then they deserve to go out of business."
You forgot the Slashdot corolary that belongs on the end of all such anti-media statements:
"... unless it takes Farscape/Buffy/X-Files/Enterprise/Joe Millionaire off the air, in which case crippled media is our friend!"
"Guess who wins?"
The one that corporations throw their money behind. Like MiniDisc vs. DAT.
"I always thought it was weird that the goatse guy has a wedding band on."
And now you know just how badly a guy can be whipped.
"Why in the world does anyone think that identity depends upon someone's face? Are people really that simple-minded?"
You have to remember that these are people who think cloning is some sort of personality photocopier.
But who did he swap faces with? Liz Taylor?
"you get a pointer to the anti-scientology subtree of google groups."
Now that I would call an easter egg. Except, if you actually go over to the Scientology category and do a search for "goatse" just in that category, it does come up with a hit. Here.
So, does this count as circular linking, or the first official goatse webring?
(BTW, "goatse" only appears twice in the posting in question, so I'm still tempted to call it an easter egg.)
At 28,900 hits for "goatse" and only 10,100 for "goatsex," I wouldn't call it an easter egg.
Should we mourn how many goatse links are out there, or be happy there are so "few" goatsex links?
What next? "I won't pay my taxes because TurboTax comes with a yellow fringe on the box?"
Alright, so I don't know any math beyond basic partial differential equations, but...
"If modern string theory is true then most nano science applications will fail to work."
Note your use of the word "if." While the numbers on string theory work quite well on paper, there has yet to be experimental proof one way or the other. You can't say for sure it wouldn't work because nobody knows for sure if the rules we know are the correct rules.
"(and don't give that bullshit of it being un-ethical, they can chose to sell their products for as much or as little as they damn well please)"
Then I'll give you that "bullshit" about it being illegal instead. Dell and Gateway essentially had no choice but to sell Microsoft and only Microsoft on every machine, whether the customer asked for it or not. This is an illegal abuse of Microsoft's monopoly, and even the appeals court sees this as the case.
"Are we going to start calling it the Logitech tax because we can't buy a computer without a mouse or keyboard--most likely made buy Logitech?"
Even if Logitech had a monopoly, they don't say that manufacturers must sell every computer with Logitech mice and only Logitech mice, whether the customer wants them or not.
"When I bought my computer I fairly compensated programmers for their hours of work."
Did you have a choice about having Windows installed? If you couldn't say "no," it's essentially a tax.
"On the plus side, countries that are more technologically advanced have falling birth rates."
The third most populous country is a very notable exception.
"An Interplanetary highway, eh? Better head down to the pub, in a hurry!"
First you have to find that bottle of aspirin before the house gets bulldozed.
It could be worse, though. You could be trying to catch that God-forsaken Babelfish...
"Apparently, this is powerful and precise enough to destroy enemy intercontinental and intermediate-range missiles in mid-flight."
<SARCASM>
You mean all we need to do is slap this ABL on a 747 and we won't need to worry about National Missile Defense? Wow!
</SARCASM>
First off, the ABL is designed to shoot down missiles in the boost phase (ie. right after launching), not mid-flight. Once the boost phase is over, the rocket stages are expended (much smaller radar signature) and it's ballistic (no real heat signature), so they are pretty hard to find, let alone track. If it could shoot them down in mid-flight, it could also take out airborn artillery shells.
Secondly, it doesn't work on ICBMs, because it has to be within a few dozen miles from the launch in order to catch it in its boost phase. It's kinda hard to hit objects over the horizon with a lazer.
They're looking for a "federated" network identity, where "federated" means a level of intrinsic decentralization. To me, that sounds like there is a single "federal" (not to be confused with "federal government") information registry that keeps a bare minimum of information, and websites maintain their own private databases that collect their own information beyond the federated minimum. The central database essentially just makes sure that the private databases don't have redundant entries.
But how "federated" are they thinking here? Federated as in 1803 USA, or federated as in 2003 USA? How centrallized will this whole thing be, and who has a say in who controls how much? Will the central database really keep only a bare minimum of information, allowing most of the data maintenance to be performed by the interested parties, or will it be federated in name only, with the central database controlling everything, giving third parties the ability to collect extraneous BS "if they want to?"
(Ironicly enough, involving the DoD may help keep things relatively decentrallized. They're not all that keen on single points of failure.)
"If, instead, one of the foci is the approximate center of mass of the body-satellite system, and outside the body and the satellite, the system is a binary planet."
If you take this idea one more iteration, you'll may end up with brown dwarfs being considered "planets" in what would otherwise be considered a "binary star system."
Of course, defining "brown dwarf" is tricky as it is...
"Also, by that definition of planet, Ceres is a planet. I don't have a problem with this"
Is something in orbit around Ceres?
"at least some of these objects are also held together gravitationally -- which would then make them all planets, as I understand your definition. Would you agree?"
I'm not a professional astronomer, but I'm comfortable with that. After all, our exploration of of extrasolar planets suggests that there are star systems with far stranger things than more than one planet sharing the same orbit (more or less).
But again, I'm not a professional astronomer, so my opinion doesn't mean squat.