When a child does something wrong, you spank them. Negative reinforcement discourages them from doing it again. But why spank them? Because otherwise, there would be no natural consequences that the child can immediately see - the child can't see how refusing to share his/her toys is a bad thing, so you artificially make it a bad thing by spanking them.
Destroying someone's PC as a punishment for copyright violations is like spanking them: artificially making it a bad thing.
Adults spank their children. Adults don't spank other adults. Corporations shouldn't be spanking anybody.
Call me idealistic, but I think it sucks. I am appalled that so many people will settle for such shallow and ineffective approaches to these problems. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Most of these people profit from the existence of spam so why bite the hand that feeds them on a major artery when you can collect some bucks and merely trim their nails?
If you do not like to read the printed page I would recommend getting an unabridged audio tape set of the LOTR and listening to it. You could borrow such a set from a library without too much searching. www.recordedbooks.com has an unabridged reading of the complete LOTR broken into the three books.
I second that recommendation. The performance by Rob Ingles was excellent; listening to his voices, I could visualize almost every character from the movies, because his voice matched the voice of the actors in the movie very well, and this was recorded in 1990. Notable exceptions included Elrond, who was completely different; I don't think Hugo Weaving was a particularly good choice for that role.
IPv6 by 2008 or else. What are they going to do? Cancel the internet?
Liberate it.
Re:Do younger minds absorb quicker?
on
Ageism in IT?
·
· Score: 1
Tying moral claims to unresolved empirical issues is a dangerous tactic. Suppose someday researchers discover that older workers really do learn more slowly (or have less brain bandwidth, or whatever), so the particular type of discrimination you argue against is rational after all. Will it then be morally acceptable to discriminate against older workers?
Is it moral for auto insurance companies to discriminate against men (by charging higher rates), just because statistics show men are more likely than women to be involved in accidents?
Los Angeles steals^H^H^H^H^Hbuys a TLD == geeky newsworthy.
No, see, that probably WOULD be newsworthy, but that's not what happened. Some company steals^H^H^H^H^H^Hbuys a TLD, then markets it as if it were supposed to be for Los Angeles in a desperate grab for cash - THAT'S what's not newsworthy.
And GWB falling off a Segway is pretty damned amusing. Of course, this is also the guy who choked on a pretzel while watching football, fell off the couch and passed out on the floor...
Yeah, there's a clear need for "my.home.movie", "sex.movie", "armageddon.com.movie".
I was envisioning strict rules governing who can get a.movie domain. Perhaps one stipulation could be that porn movies wouldn't qualify. I haven't given a lot of thought to what the rules should be.
It *does* create a national "do-not-spam" list. If you're on the list, and you get sent spam, it's a criminal offence. The list will be protect by "military-grade encryption", whatever this means. I'd like to see a few more details on how they ensure that spammers can't get addresses out of this database.
This is a BAD IDEA.
1) Take an existing list of 500 million e-mail addresses. While you're at it, guess a few billion more at random.
2) Check all of these against the super-duper military-grade heavily encrypted top-secret opt-out list. This does not require decryption of the list. Save the results.
3) Compile a new list of every address you found that's in the opt-out list. Burn this to CDs.
4) Send out spam, advertising your confirmed opt-in CDs for $500 each.
and with the "Do Not Spam" registry of e-mail addresses, wouldn't it make it easier for spammers to request such do-not-spam list and spam it??
Yes, absolutely. This is the biggest problem with the idea. Even if the list is only provided in the form of one-way queries (look up a particular address to see whether it's listed, without seeing the whole list), spammers outside the US would be able to brute-force the list and get a list of confirmed e-mail addresses. They'll figure their success rates should be pretty high, since these people aren't getting other spam from the US to distract them from whatever crap they're peddling. And of course once this is done, the resulting list will be for sale for about $500 per CD, and we'll get spam offering to sell it to us.
I must disagree with you on some of those. Although the capitals of Kuwait and Luxembourg share the names of their respective countries, they also have other cities, and the TLDs are assigned to the countries, not the cities. Singapore looks somewhat questionable; the CIA World Factbook seems to suggest that it falls in this category as well, along with Djibouti and San Marino.
Other countries whose capital cities share the name of the country include Mexico, Guatemala, and Panama.
Ahh, but ICANN didn't assign.va to Vatican City, the IANA did! It's a ccTLD, not a gTLD, and was assigned before ICANN existed (ICANN was created in 1998; the.va TLD was assigned in 1995). And yes, it would have been news, in 1995.
This isn't a new TLD, it's an old one that's been sold.
Personally, the new TLD I'd like to see is "movie", as in www.spider-man.movie or www.matrix.movie or www.lotr.movie. It should be available to movie producers only (not just Hollywood studios, but independent and foreign as well).
Every movie has a web site now, and none of the URLs are consistent at all. If they had a.movie TLD, maybe they could quit polluting.com?
These deals always strike me as lame. I can understand why poorer countries do this but I count the companies that cut the deals among the cheesier entities online.. right after spammers and porn sites. Do we really want to advertise for these clowns?
Wait wait wait, "officially"? Isn't the.la TLD still officially assigned to Laos, and they've just cut a deal with some company to promote it as a Los Angeles TLD, just like the TLDs of Western Samoa, Tuvalu and Belize are promoted as "Web Site", "Television" and "Business" respectively? Does the City of Los Angeles even know about this?
Seriously, this isn't worthy of a news article. It's just a country trying to make money and a company trying to make more money by trying to trick people into believing that anyone cares. If ICANN had assigned a TLD to a city, THAT would be news.
The picture seems to show the TV part as only the lower 1/3 or so of a larger mirror, with the upper 2/3 being a regular mirror. I think that would be strange - you'd basically have a mirror directly above your TV screen. It would also lessen the appearance of saving space - now it's just a mirror on top of a TV (two things), instead of a single thing that changes from a mirror to a TV. I think they'd have more success with a smaller wide-screen framed mirror/TV so that there would be no mirror while the TV was on.
Speaking of the TV being on, would you see your reflection during a dark scene in a movie? How would ambient room light affect this?
Many of my predictions are indeed based on a number of different rumor sites, but not copied directly. Some of the rumors I've read I disagree with, and some I agree with.
For example, I think it was Mac OS Rumors that said the G5 will not be called the G5, and I disagree with them. This issue was also mentioned by As the Apple Turns, who said that according to AppleInsider, it would be called the PowerMac G5. I agree with them. That doesn't mean my prediction is based on theirs, merely that we both made the same prediction.
The nature of the PPC970 chip, and that Apple will use it at all, is based largely on a couple of articles at ArsTechnica, but they didn't say anything about when it would ship.
The 1.4, dual 1.6 and dual 1.8GHz clock speeds are consistent with Mac OS Rumors, although I'm sure I've seen other speeds suggested elsewhere. I believe I've heard 2GHz suggested, and I don't agree with that (not for WWDC). I forgot to mention pricing, but I predict the low-end and mid-range models will be $1499 and $1999 respectively; this is based on Apple's current pricing, not on any rumor site.
USB2 support I heard somewhere, but don't remember where (it had to do with motherboard specs). Bluetooth, FireWire 800 and Airport Extreme are currently shipping features.
I've heard about the 15" Aluminum PowerBook from a few sources I think. The PowerBook G5 has also been mentioned in multiple places including this Slashdot article, but I don't expect to see it until next year, possibly announced at MacWorld San Francisco but probably not.
The G5 shipping with 10.2 was a possibility I had been considering, but was confirmed by ThinkSecret and eWEEK. Same source for gcc 3.3. Pricing is based on Apple's history.
The multiple simultaneous users feature I heard from a few places quite some time ago; I don't remember where. Apple's WWDC material says Panther and WebCore will be demonstrated at WWDC; that's no secret. As for PAC and WPAD, I haven't seen that suggested anywhere.
In any case, a rumor is "A piece of unverified information of uncertain origin usually spread by word of mouth." Many of my predictions are based on rumors. The sites I got the rumors from are mostly just passing on rumors they've heard. I don't feel that not citing sources was inappropriate, since these are MY predictions, BASED ON what many others have said, not simply a copy of someone else's predictions. I would expect others to be able to make similar predictions, based on overlapping sources.
They meant Eastern Daylight Time (GMT -0400), not Eastern Standard Time (GMT -0500). So, log on at midnight GMT (5:00pm Pacific Daylight Time, 1:00am British Summer Time, 2:00am in most of the rest of western Europe I think).
Slashdot Mirror
When a child does something wrong, you spank them. Negative reinforcement discourages them from doing it again. But why spank them? Because otherwise, there would be no natural consequences that the child can immediately see - the child can't see how refusing to share his/her toys is a bad thing, so you artificially make it a bad thing by spanking them.
Destroying someone's PC as a punishment for copyright violations is like spanking them: artificially making it a bad thing.
Adults spank their children. Adults don't spank other adults. Corporations shouldn't be spanking anybody.
Call me idealistic, but I think it sucks. I am appalled that so many people will settle for such shallow and ineffective approaches to these problems. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Most of these people profit from the existence of spam so why bite the hand that feeds them on a major artery when you can collect some bucks and merely trim their nails?
What would you suggest, then?
If you do not like to read the printed page I would recommend getting an unabridged audio tape set of the LOTR and listening to it. You could borrow such a set from a library without too much searching. www.recordedbooks.com has an unabridged reading of the complete LOTR broken into the three books.
I second that recommendation. The performance by Rob Ingles was excellent; listening to his voices, I could visualize almost every character from the movies, because his voice matched the voice of the actors in the movie very well, and this was recorded in 1990. Notable exceptions included Elrond, who was completely different; I don't think Hugo Weaving was a particularly good choice for that role.
btw, the powerglove was a piece of crap. i think i still have mine in a closet somewhere. completely unuseable.
Mine's stuffed away in a box too. Played SMB3 yesterday, though.
IPv6 by 2008 or else. What are they going to do? Cancel the internet?
Liberate it.
Tying moral claims to unresolved empirical issues is a dangerous tactic. Suppose someday researchers discover that older workers really do learn more slowly (or have less brain bandwidth, or whatever), so the particular type of discrimination you argue against is rational after all. Will it then be morally acceptable to discriminate against older workers?
Is it moral for auto insurance companies to discriminate against men (by charging higher rates), just because statistics show men are more likely than women to be involved in accidents?
Los Angeles steals^H^H^H^H^Hbuys a TLD == geeky newsworthy.
No, see, that probably WOULD be newsworthy, but that's not what happened. Some company steals^H^H^H^H^H^Hbuys a TLD, then markets it as if it were supposed to be for Los Angeles in a desperate grab for cash - THAT'S what's not newsworthy.
And GWB falling off a Segway is pretty damned amusing. Of course, this is also the guy who choked on a pretzel while watching football, fell off the couch and passed out on the floor...
Yeah, there's a clear need for "my.home.movie", "sex.movie", "armageddon.com.movie".
.movie domain. Perhaps one stipulation could be that porn movies wouldn't qualify. I haven't given a lot of thought to what the rules should be.
I was envisioning strict rules governing who can get a
It *does* create a national "do-not-spam" list. If you're on the list, and you get sent spam, it's a criminal offence. The list will be protect by "military-grade encryption", whatever this means. I'd like to see a few more details on how they ensure that spammers can't get addresses out of this database.
This is a BAD IDEA.
1) Take an existing list of 500 million e-mail addresses. While you're at it, guess a few billion more at random.
2) Check all of these against the super-duper military-grade heavily encrypted top-secret opt-out list. This does not require decryption of the list. Save the results.
3) Compile a new list of every address you found that's in the opt-out list. Burn this to CDs.
4) Send out spam, advertising your confirmed opt-in CDs for $500 each.
5) ???
6) Profit!
and with the "Do Not Spam" registry of e-mail addresses, wouldn't it make it easier for spammers to request such do-not-spam list and spam it??
Yes, absolutely. This is the biggest problem with the idea. Even if the list is only provided in the form of one-way queries (look up a particular address to see whether it's listed, without seeing the whole list), spammers outside the US would be able to brute-force the list and get a list of confirmed e-mail addresses. They'll figure their success rates should be pretty high, since these people aren't getting other spam from the US to distract them from whatever crap they're peddling. And of course once this is done, the resulting list will be for sale for about $500 per CD, and we'll get spam offering to sell it to us.
I must disagree with you on some of those. Although the capitals of Kuwait and Luxembourg share the names of their respective countries, they also have other cities, and the TLDs are assigned to the countries, not the cities. Singapore looks somewhat questionable; the CIA World Factbook seems to suggest that it falls in this category as well, along with Djibouti and San Marino.
;-)
Other countries whose capital cities share the name of the country include Mexico, Guatemala, and Panama.
In any case, none of these count.
Now, "First city with a TLD and drive-through breast augmentation" - that I would believe.
What?!? They don't do that in the Vatican? Damn!
Ahh, but ICANN didn't assign .va to Vatican City, the IANA did! It's a ccTLD, not a gTLD, and was assigned before ICANN existed (ICANN was created in 1998; the .va TLD was assigned in 1995). And yes, it would have been news, in 1995.
It's a separate country...or maybe even a planet. ;)
Do you mean Los Angeles or Laos?
Why do we need more top level domains?
.movie TLD, maybe they could quit polluting .com?
This isn't a new TLD, it's an old one that's been sold.
Personally, the new TLD I'd like to see is "movie", as in www.spider-man.movie or www.matrix.movie or www.lotr.movie. It should be available to movie producers only (not just Hollywood studios, but independent and foreign as well).
Every movie has a web site now, and none of the URLs are consistent at all. If they had a
These deals always strike me as lame. I can understand why poorer countries do this but I count the companies that cut the deals among the cheesier entities online.. right after spammers and porn sites. Do we really want to advertise for these clowns?
I agree. This is the second completely retarded article I've seen in 6 hours.
They're trying to promote "hooker.la" and "coke.la" as "premium names" for $100. It doesn't get much sleazier than that.
Note that this TLD has absolutely nothing to do with the City of Los Angeles; the city probably doesn't even know about it.
Won't this be confusing when the state of Louisiana gets its own domain?
.la.us, and .la will be quickly forgotten. :-)
Not at all, because Louisiana already has
Wait wait wait, "officially"? Isn't the .la TLD still officially assigned to Laos, and they've just cut a deal with some company to promote it as a Los Angeles TLD, just like the TLDs of Western Samoa, Tuvalu and Belize are promoted as "Web Site", "Television" and "Business" respectively? Does the City of Los Angeles even know about this?
Seriously, this isn't worthy of a news article. It's just a country trying to make money and a company trying to make more money by trying to trick people into believing that anyone cares. If ICANN had assigned a TLD to a city, THAT would be news.
The picture seems to show the TV part as only the lower 1/3 or so of a larger mirror, with the upper 2/3 being a regular mirror. I think that would be strange - you'd basically have a mirror directly above your TV screen. It would also lessen the appearance of saving space - now it's just a mirror on top of a TV (two things), instead of a single thing that changes from a mirror to a TV. I think they'd have more success with a smaller wide-screen framed mirror/TV so that there would be no mirror while the TV was on.
Speaking of the TV being on, would you see your reflection during a dark scene in a movie? How would ambient room light affect this?
Many of my predictions are indeed based on a number of different rumor sites, but not copied directly. Some of the rumors I've read I disagree with, and some I agree with.
For example, I think it was Mac OS Rumors that said the G5 will not be called the G5, and I disagree with them. This issue was also mentioned by As the Apple Turns, who said that according to AppleInsider, it would be called the PowerMac G5. I agree with them. That doesn't mean my prediction is based on theirs, merely that we both made the same prediction.
The nature of the PPC970 chip, and that Apple will use it at all, is based largely on a couple of articles at ArsTechnica, but they didn't say anything about when it would ship.
The 1.4, dual 1.6 and dual 1.8GHz clock speeds are consistent with Mac OS Rumors, although I'm sure I've seen other speeds suggested elsewhere. I believe I've heard 2GHz suggested, and I don't agree with that (not for WWDC). I forgot to mention pricing, but I predict the low-end and mid-range models will be $1499 and $1999 respectively; this is based on Apple's current pricing, not on any rumor site.
USB2 support I heard somewhere, but don't remember where (it had to do with motherboard specs). Bluetooth, FireWire 800 and Airport Extreme are currently shipping features.
I've heard about the 15" Aluminum PowerBook from a few sources I think. The PowerBook G5 has also been mentioned in multiple places including this Slashdot article, but I don't expect to see it until next year, possibly announced at MacWorld San Francisco but probably not.
The G5 shipping with 10.2 was a possibility I had been considering, but was confirmed by ThinkSecret and eWEEK. Same source for gcc 3.3. Pricing is based on Apple's history.
The multiple simultaneous users feature I heard from a few places quite some time ago; I don't remember where. Apple's WWDC material says Panther and WebCore will be demonstrated at WWDC; that's no secret. As for PAC and WPAD, I haven't seen that suggested anywhere.
In any case, a rumor is "A piece of unverified information of uncertain origin usually spread by word of mouth." Many of my predictions are based on rumors. The sites I got the rumors from are mostly just passing on rumors they've heard. I don't feel that not citing sources was inappropriate, since these are MY predictions, BASED ON what many others have said, not simply a copy of someone else's predictions. I would expect others to be able to make similar predictions, based on overlapping sources.
They meant Eastern Daylight Time (GMT -0400), not Eastern Standard Time (GMT -0500). So, log on at midnight GMT (5:00pm Pacific Daylight Time, 1:00am British Summer Time, 2:00am in most of the rest of western Europe I think).
Here - and yes, they meant EDT (GMT-0400).
a mod UP point for statement coherency
And a mod DOWN point for simply being wrong, i.e. a well-thought-out coherent argument based on factually incorrect assumptions.
I have never seen any of the above implemented.
Haven't really looked, have you?
Mozilla
Firebird
BannerBlind
AdBlock