I'm a huge fan of P2P systems, and I personally believe that the public library system should run and support a p2p network of public domain materials (while cutting copyright times). Yes, in New York it is real VOD. But I don't like it because it's very limited and they charge too much for it (tivo does the job just fine). I honestly don't think you can find a bigger supporter of p2p than me, but I'm just pointing out that this has more in common with broadcast television than napster or kazaa.
Umm, Video on Demand is already being done successfully by Time Warner Cable in New York. I agree P2P ends up being much cheaper and easier, but don't make it like it can't be done. Besides, true video on demand lets you watch something whenever you want. Streaming P2P does not, it's like a broadcast. You can't go back and watch from the beginning. And not only that, the more people watching this "live" broadcast, the more lag you'll have.
I think this stuff is great, but you can't compare it to video on demand. And if you saw "Peer-to-peer" and though "Kazaa," the I also agree with you; Kazaa is great, and peer-to-peer is the future. Your post doesn't belong in this story though.
I think you're overly optimistic about the prospects of terraforming. No matter how successful terraforming is, it will ALWAYS be a new, different and exciting place. The geography will always be different, it will always be much colder, and it's not necessarily going to be all green like earth. Even a successful terraforming effort will leave a lot of red lying around. I don't think terraforming will take away from Mars's uniqueness and adventure.
The bill of rights was designed to enumerate the rights of the citizens, not to limit them. There wouldn't be an amendment designed to say, as you put it, "that only the government may keep and bear arms". The 2nd amendment was written to expand, not limit, the rights of the people. I'm not saying the 2nd amendment is good or bad, but I can assure you it was not written to say that "only the government may keep and bear arms".
Re:Why is this NOW a problem?
on
DOD vs. 802.11b
·
· Score: 1
This is about protecting the cell phone industry, plain and simple. Just before all this stuff started coming from the DoD complaining about wifi, there was an article in the Wall Street Journal about how wifi is hurting the cell phone industry's investment in "wireless internet".
Don't listen to him. It might not have to do with spam, and you might not like the particular article he linked to, but the story is pretty relevant. It's about people on the internet, using the internet, to give people a taste of their own medecine. Whether spam, or "total information awareness", the stories are pretty similar.
Shouldn't that be on the *outside* track? I mean, assuming the angular velocity is constant, the part of the disc with the most bits whizzing by the laser (linear velocity) will be on the outside track. Yes, even though the "inside track" is synonymous with speed and success.
actually, no. The most compact/efficient representation is to do it in ternary, since 3 is the closest to e, which is the most efficient base. Here's the article. I read this in a slashdot article, but since slashdot's search sucks, I can't find it, but here's the article that was linked to.
That guide *would* be copyrightable, but the information in the guide is not. I can make my own guide with no other source but that original copyrighted guide, and it would be legal. The information is not copyrightable, only the unique way of expressing it.
Right, it's only "illegal" if you had to do something illegal to obtain and reveal the information. If the information was hidden well enough that you had to break in to an office to find it out, then it's a trade secret. But if they didn't do a good job keeping it secret, then it's not considered trade secret anymore.
> His plays were very much written for the "common" people.
I am *very* aware of that fact. This is actually precisely my point. Whether you want to admit it or not, most modern, ordinary English speaking people don't enjoy Shakespeare as "entertainment". It was just common entertainment back then, but today we refuse to translate it. The real reason they don't translate it is the same reason open-source software (which I'm a fan of) is generally not user friendly: the people who are qualified to make it more accessible don't because it's already accessibe to them.
And I have no idea where you get this notion that "people who speak other languages enjoy Shakespeare much more" to begin with. This is news to me.
The tone you're using makes it sound like because you've never heard of it, it's not true. Read "Word on the Street" by John McWhorter. He gives a very interesting and entertaining explanation and history of this topic. Yes, it is true: people who speak non-English languages typically enjoy Shakespeare more. And no, the translations were not made "a couple of hundred years ago." Even if they were, they're always updated, because they don't feel they have to be 100% absoultely faithful to the text, since it's already a translation. The book I mentioned, Word on the Street, illustrates exactly how little most people understand the text of Shakespeare. Even those lines that you think you understand often have a totally different meaning than what you expect.
Whether the performances you've been to were "jam packed" or not is irrelevant. What I said is still true: people of non-English speaking languages enjoy Shakespeare much more.
And I never even said elitist was a bad thing. But, by definition, if most people don't enjoy something because they can't understand it, and this thing is universally excepted as something for "intelligent" people, then yes, it's elitist.
I understand Shakespeare reasonably well, and the author of the book I mentioned probably understands it better than most anyone. There is nothing wrong with reading the original Shakespeare text, just as there is nothing wrong with learning ancient hebrew to read the Old Testament, or reading Beowulf in Old English.
And whether or not the Shakespeare translations are 200 years old doesn't really matter. English from 200 years ago is VERY understandable. Languages evolve in quick spurts with a lot of change fast, especially back when literacy and written materials were much more scarce. So the difference between 500 years ago, 400, 300, 200 or 100 are not linear.
> So where does this Modern English even begin? 50 years ago? 100? Who gets to make this decision? Do we have to rewrite all literature every few decades or so to keep it non-elitist?
Linguistics is not a hard science. You can't draw those lines. There are different degrees of elitism. I'm sure you know that though.
Shakespeare is elitist because there is an expectation of people to read it an enjoy it. It is difficult to understand. I'm not trying to say Shakespeare has no merit in our modern world, and I myself enjoy it to some extent, but it is elitist. You're not allowed to say you don't enjoy it, otherwise you'll be perceived as ignorant or stupid.
What is recreational today is pedagogical tomorrow.
Shakespeare is elitist because the academic elite among English speaking scholars refuse to make a proper translation into modern English. This is why the people who speak other languages enjoy Shakespeare much more. They understand it.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a huge fan of P2P systems, and I personally believe that the public library system should run and support a p2p network of public domain materials (while cutting copyright times). Yes, in New York it is real VOD. But I don't like it because it's very limited and they charge too much for it (tivo does the job just fine). I honestly don't think you can find a bigger supporter of p2p than me, but I'm just pointing out that this has more in common with broadcast television than napster or kazaa.
Umm, Video on Demand is already being done successfully by Time Warner Cable in New York. I agree P2P ends up being much cheaper and easier, but don't make it like it can't be done. Besides, true video on demand lets you watch something whenever you want. Streaming P2P does not, it's like a broadcast. You can't go back and watch from the beginning. And not only that, the more people watching this "live" broadcast, the more lag you'll have.
I think this stuff is great, but you can't compare it to video on demand. And if you saw "Peer-to-peer" and though "Kazaa," the I also agree with you; Kazaa is great, and peer-to-peer is the future. Your post doesn't belong in this story though.
I think you're overly optimistic about the prospects of terraforming. No matter how successful terraforming is, it will ALWAYS be a new, different and exciting place. The geography will always be different, it will always be much colder, and it's not necessarily going to be all green like earth. Even a successful terraforming effort will leave a lot of red lying around. I don't think terraforming will take away from Mars's uniqueness and adventure.
The bill of rights was designed to enumerate the rights of the citizens, not to limit them. There wouldn't be an amendment designed to say, as you put it, "that only the government may keep and bear arms". The 2nd amendment was written to expand, not limit, the rights of the people. I'm not saying the 2nd amendment is good or bad, but I can assure you it was not written to say that "only the government may keep and bear arms".
This is about protecting the cell phone industry, plain and simple. Just before all this stuff started coming from the DoD complaining about wifi, there was an article in the Wall Street Journal about how wifi is hurting the cell phone industry's investment in "wireless internet".
So how do you pay for bandwidth?
Do you run NineNine? If so, thanks for all the porn.
Don't listen to him. It might not have to do with spam, and you might not like the particular article he linked to, but the story is pretty relevant. It's about people on the internet, using the internet, to give people a taste of their own medecine. Whether spam, or "total information awareness", the stories are pretty similar.
Happens to the best of us.
Shouldn't that be on the *outside* track? I mean, assuming the angular velocity is constant, the part of the disc with the most bits whizzing by the laser (linear velocity) will be on the outside track. Yes, even though the "inside track" is synonymous with speed and success.
The cursor moves. The price per foot is for the distance the cursor travels.
-1; painfully unfunny
actually, no. The most compact/efficient representation is to do it in ternary, since 3 is the closest to e, which is the most efficient base.
Here's the article. I read this in a slashdot article, but since slashdot's search sucks, I can't find it, but here's the article that was linked to.
They want to find a message from God. Read Contact, Carl Sagan.
You misspelled "Miss Peld".
No, then he would say faster by a factor of 0.5. Yes, then it isn't faster.
You sound like a busy guy. How do you manage to find time to post to /. ;)
That guide *would* be copyrightable, but the information in the guide is not. I can make my own guide with no other source but that original copyrighted guide, and it would be legal. The information is not copyrightable, only the unique way of expressing it.
Maybe that's a sign that you don't really want to buy the DVD?
Right, it's only "illegal" if you had to do something illegal to obtain and reveal the information. If the information was hidden well enough that you had to break in to an office to find it out, then it's a trade secret. But if they didn't do a good job keeping it secret, then it's not considered trade secret anymore.
Can you moderate your own anonymous posts?
> His plays were very much written for the "common" people.
I am *very* aware of that fact. This is actually precisely my point. Whether you want to admit it or not, most modern, ordinary English speaking people don't enjoy Shakespeare as "entertainment". It was just common entertainment back then, but today we refuse to translate it. The real reason they don't translate it is the same reason open-source software (which I'm a fan of) is generally not user friendly: the people who are qualified to make it more accessible don't because it's already accessibe to them.
And I have no idea where you get this notion that "people who speak other languages enjoy Shakespeare much more" to begin with. This is news to me.
The tone you're using makes it sound like because you've never heard of it, it's not true. Read "Word on the Street" by John McWhorter. He gives a very interesting and entertaining explanation and history of this topic. Yes, it is true: people who speak non-English languages typically enjoy Shakespeare more. And no, the translations were not made "a couple of hundred years ago." Even if they were, they're always updated, because they don't feel they have to be 100% absoultely faithful to the text, since it's already a translation. The book I mentioned, Word on the Street, illustrates exactly how little most people understand the text of Shakespeare. Even those lines that you think you understand often have a totally different meaning than what you expect.
Whether the performances you've been to were "jam packed" or not is irrelevant. What I said is still true: people of non-English speaking languages enjoy Shakespeare much more.
And I never even said elitist was a bad thing. But, by definition, if most people don't enjoy something because they can't understand it, and this thing is universally excepted as something for "intelligent" people, then yes, it's elitist.
I understand Shakespeare reasonably well, and the author of the book I mentioned probably understands it better than most anyone. There is nothing wrong with reading the original Shakespeare text, just as there is nothing wrong with learning ancient hebrew to read the Old Testament, or reading Beowulf in Old English.
And whether or not the Shakespeare translations are 200 years old doesn't really matter. English from 200 years ago is VERY understandable. Languages evolve in quick spurts with a lot of change fast, especially back when literacy and written materials were much more scarce. So the difference between 500 years ago, 400, 300, 200 or 100 are not linear.
> So where does this Modern English even begin? 50 years ago? 100? Who gets to make this decision? Do we have to rewrite all literature every few decades or so to keep it non-elitist?
Linguistics is not a hard science. You can't draw those lines. There are different degrees of elitism. I'm sure you know that though.
Shakespeare is elitist because there is an expectation of people to read it an enjoy it. It is difficult to understand. I'm not trying to say Shakespeare has no merit in our modern world, and I myself enjoy it to some extent, but it is elitist. You're not allowed to say you don't enjoy it, otherwise you'll be perceived as ignorant or stupid.
What is recreational today is pedagogical tomorrow.
xbox live
Shakespeare is elitist because the academic elite among English speaking scholars refuse to make a proper translation into modern English. This is why the people who speak other languages enjoy Shakespeare much more. They understand it.
does that mean a capital letter in middle of a word?