What? This is not neat. This is a step backwards. If drivers gets accustomed that their car will alert them if they're about to hit something, it will probably encourage them to contiue that extra hour of unsafe driving.
I've been saying that for years. If a fornicator believes that they will not get pregnant/STDs, it will probably encourage them to continue that reprehensible exchange of bodily fluids. Down with condoms!
They should post your summary as the story, and link to the interview instead. If only I had the 30 minutes of my life back that were stolen by the long version.
Instead of buying half a dozen used books, I found this place that lets you borrow books for FREE. They also have newspapers, magazines, and a limited selection of music, all free. Since I'm not sure how legal it is, I can only hint on where you can find this stuff. Drive around and look for a building with the word "library" on it. But don't tell anyone I told you.
People are not a "great renewable energy source." We don't create energy, we consume it and convert it. You might be able to convert our body heat into another form of energy, or even use the heat directly to do work, but it's certainly one of the least efficient sources of energy.
Your quote could be taken in several ways, none of which imply that the band will receive a greater portion of the royalties than normal.
Interscope is the label, not the lead singer. And for all we know, the split in question could be $.59 to Interscope, $.01 to the band.
Not that the band in question is hurting for cash. Obviously they have enough money already, as evidenced by the band having a longer lifespan than Dick Clark. Every time a new U2 album comes out, I find myself asking why. You'd think all the crap albums they've made in the past decade would have more than made up for anything of quality that they produced in the decade before that.
I forgot to address the issue of whether individuals or government should be responsible for personal safety.
Proponents of individual choice would argue that whether they want to risk splitting their head open by not wearing a helmet should be their own. (And it is still, you'll just pay a higher penalty for taking that risk).
Opponents would say that the invidual isn't the one who bears the costs for splitting his head open. Physically, sure, the moron in question has paid a heavy penalty for his disregard of safety, however in actuality it's the other members of his health insurance/HMO/taxpayers who bear the financial costs, and it's the friends/family members who suffer the most grief.
Requiring people to excercise safe practices makes the most financial sense, and money makes the world go round.
Our society is more obsessed with safety than any other in history.
I disagree. Safety can be defined as a low risk of an event causing injury or death. It's not that people of years past were less concerned with staying alive and healthy -- self preservation is an instinct. The difference is that our world has become inherently safer than in years past ie, advances in medicine, society/law enforcement, etc. As such, instead of the wild west mentality where safety was a Colt.45, safety is now side-impact airbags and a crumple zone. Instead of a fear that we'll fall off the earth if we sail too far, we have a fear that global warming will cause the planet to become uninhabitable. The concern for safety is the same; it's merely the sources of danger that have changed. As we conquor the greatest threats to our health/lives in the present, our focus will naturally shift to the next most threatening event(s).
Like denying it? Coming out and admitting they made a mistake means they CAN be trusted in my opinion. Unfortunately, people would rather hear that everything's honky-dory than to hear the truth. I doubt it's a mistake they're likely to make again... when their next IPO comes around, I mean.
This wouldn't work at all. Many (most, I would venture to say) people sign up for the military for selfish reasons.. it's a guaranteed paycheck and a roof over your head. It's money for college, free training, good medical care. I'm not talking out of my ass either, I'm finishing up an enlistment right now. Sure, it's nice to be able to say I served my country, but most of us sign up for the reasons above.
Likewise, "serving," in whatever facet, to earn the privelage to vote does not demonstrate an ability to put the community first; it demonstrates a desire to vote.
First of all, the interference is only at range. If you get right next to your car, the remote should work just fine. Secondly, most alarms have override switches, usually placed under the dash, or some other obvious location that completely defeats the purpose of having an alarm. But we all know how effective a car alarm is in the first place.
Not only did the alleged offense occur outside of the United States, but unless I'm mistaken, Sharman Networks is based in Australia, so US laws are completely irrelevant.
It's simple really. The people with money hold the power. There's nothing anyone can do to change that, since money rules governments just as surely as it does everything else. The article clearly stated that the battle was not worth the time and money, despite the lack of merit on Sharman's allegations. If you want to change the situation, stop babbling about changing strings and send the poor guy some money. Or, if he doesn't want to spearhead the battle, write your own infringing protocol and wait to be served.
I'm not sure I entirely believe that pilots are popping prescription meds to keep them alert, and I'm also not condoning the use of amphetamines, however I'd rather have an alert pilot that makes some decisions too quickly than one who falls asleep. Or were you somehow inferring that we should be using PerfectPilots(TM), a product of Your Imagination.
Oh thank God Leo's gone. I guess it's in every geek's nature to assume they know everything, but most of us don't wind up on TV bullshitting our way through callers questions. We post our bullshit answers here where they belong. On Slashdot.
Now, if they could just get Morgan Webb to shut up and look bitty. Tig old bitty. I'm still waiting for the leg-cross swap ala Basic Instinct with all those skirts she wears. At least it's a reason to watch the otherwise worthless X-Play.
Maybe you've been left out of the loop, but the cost of Apple hardware, like everything else, is whatever the market will bear. Prices are in no way related to costs, except in the hopes that the former exceed the latter. It's basic economics.
This battery conditioning you speak of, where it has a lower capacity than it should -- that's called battery memory if I'm not mistaken. I was under the impression that Li Ion batteries had little to no "memory," even less than NiMH.
My friend and I both have the same model cell phone, but I have a more recent revision. I've noticed that my battery only seems to last ~24h with little or no use, whereas hers will last much longer. I haven't figured out if the culprit is the battery, or the different revision of my phone. They're both LiIon batteries, identical looking in fact. I'd like to figure out if I need a new battery without throwing down 66% of the price of the phone for a new battery, but she won't let me swap with hers so I can test it. The point is, I need someone to create a distraction so I can swap batteries. E-mail me if you're willing to participate.
Batteries aren't like solid state electronics, which pretty much work forever, or even hard drives (which have a constant failure probability, meaning that it's as likely to break down 20 years after you buy it as the day you bought it).
I'm no mathematician, but the idea of a "constant failure probability" seems entirely impossible to me. Anything with a probability of occuring would naturally seem to have a higher chance of occuring given the passing of time. IE, if I have a bag with 1 blue and 4 red marbles in it, the first time I pull one out I've got a 1 in 5 chance. Even if draw a red marble and replace it before drawing a second time, the odds of drawing a blue marble somehow increase because of some mechanism I don't really understand. It has to do with random stuff. That's random. For the odds to remain constant, you'd have to add marbles or parts of marbles or something wackily impossible like that. Just like you wouldn't expect to see the same side of a coin turn up 3 or 4 times in a row. I'm pretty sure there's no way that I turn on my computer each and every day with the same odds of hard drive failure. Every day it works brings me closer to the day when it won't. Which is soon, since it's a Deskstar.
I found this on the Usenet a few years ago but I just love it and it applies so well to this idiot.
So anyone who believes in something that can be neither proved nor disproved is an idiot? Or just the people whose beliefs conflict with yours? I must say though, I'm very much inclined to respect the opinions of a karma whore who posts an e-mail which has been circulating for years rather than trying to add some original thought to the discussion.
"This is a gigantic step toward the mark of the beast, " said Gary Wohlscheid, whose website, These Last Days Ministries, keeps tabs on what many Christians believe are the signs of a coming religious Armageddon. His site is one of dozens that link VeriChip to the apocalyptic prophecy.
Applied Digital officials say such concern is unfounded because people are chipped voluntarily.
While I don't really believe the book of Revelations, I don't see any reason to push things. If someone were to take me onto a military base, and show me two keys which would supposedly launch a nuclear weapon, I wouldn't necessarily believe them, but I wouldn't feel inclined to try to prove them wrong by turning the keys either.
The company's argument that the implant is voluntary is completely irrelevant. Many things start out as voluntary, then are phased to mandatory. While this isn't a perfect example, in America, taking a breathalyzer when you were pulled over used to be voluntary. As it stands now, most states will automatically suspend your license for a year if you refuse.
I'm not religious, but I don't see any reason to test fate.
Pretty funny, but even more funny when you replace "terrorist" with "communist." Same paranoia, different era.
Oh geez, communists, communists, communists, we're all so afraid of communists. You may be a communist, your neighbor might be a communist, and I'm petrified by fear. I'm so paralyzed by fear that I think we should pull the plug on any project that might be potentially used by communists. Whether it's technological, or medical... hell, who cares that we might be coming up with new biological agents to help fight cancer... throw that research out the window! The communists might somehow morph the results of the research and create an Osama-superbug that's even wors that SARS and anthrax!!!
I believe the breakthrough was not in creating the virus from synthesized DNA, but in creating that DNA in just two weeks. It's logical to establish that a manufacturing process is sound before you go about changing what that process manufacturers. The fact that they didn't alter the DNA is irrelevant. The ability to synthesize DNA is the issue, and is somewhat more complicated than creating kanji with a few brush strokes.
Since they've made this project "open source," I'm sure we'll learn much more about the specifics in the near future.
I was thinking about this when someone else mentioned a widescreen display. I'd prefer two displays to one widescreen intuitively, but that's only due to issues which could be easily overcome. The first issue I had was already addressed - maximizing windows is much easier when it snaps to the display's fullscreen size, rather than the precise positioning required with a widescreen to accomplish a similar effect. This could be solved with either percentage maximizations, or a simple Tile button, or both. The second issue I had was that it would be difficult to find room for dual widescreens, but of course, now that I think about it, there's no reason the second display would have to be a widescreen. This would be especially well suited to my uses, as I usually watch a movie on one display and pretend to be productive on the second.
Interesting comments from "Ask the Prez," (an apparantly hip method of communicating with shareholders et al) as follows:
"So, you see, it isnt about who finds our protected songs on KaZaa, thats bound to happen, and happen quickly. Its about giving people a way to make licensed copies of their favorite music while enhancing the CD and making sure it plays everywhere...and to do it all without "blowing up" peoples computers in the process."
"Without MediaMax on the CD, users would be forced to make unlicensed and unrestricted copies of their music. In short, honest people, when given an option to do things legally or illegally, will opt for the legal method. Consumers have NEVER before had the option of making a legal and licensed copy of the music on their CD. Until MediaMax came along, the only copy was a totally unprotected copy.
When millions of consumers use MediaMax, they avoid populating the planet with unauthorized and illegal copies of the songs they like, while enjoying the music they love in a protected fashion. By the way, the DCMA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) makes it a crime to circumvent copy management technology placed on a CD. The presence of copy management software on the CD insures that people are presented with the right way to do things."
Quotes from Peter Jacobs, SunnComm CEO, taken from http://www.sunncomm.com/asktheprez/asktheprez.asp without permission.
In the words of Samuel L. Jackson, "Allow me to retort."
So, if I'm to understand Jacobs correctly, every copy of my music made heretoforth was illegal and unlicensed? I didn't realize I purchased a license with my CDs, or was it a de facto license? Furthermore, I'm not aware of any law which makes it illegal to copy my CD. At least not the CDs I own which have no copy protection. So this technology doesn't actually make it legal to copy my CDs, it only provides a legal avenue to copy music from the CD on which it has been installed, thereby making all other avenues of copying illegal. To put it another way, the only function this software performs is to provide a legal basis to sue anyone who does not use this software.
In addition, if this technology only makes it possible for some users to make legitimate copies (legitimate copies being defined as those which do not "circumvent" copy protection), and does not actually prevent copying, then is it really copy protection? If it's not copy protection, then is it protected under the DMCA? If my machine doesn't recognize the copy protection implementation, does that make a copy created by my machine illegitimate?
I find the old "Keep honest people honest," tagline wearing thin as well. Certainly everyone is dishonest from time to time, much like a CEO touting a version of the truth which may not accurately reflect reality. But truth can be subjective. At any rate, the line should be more along the lines of "Remove the temtation for dishonesty from currently honest people," which is rather ridiculous, because an "honest person," would remain so whether or not temptation was present. The whole thing is a poorly contrived guilt trip.
This is just the sort of case which should hopefully blow the DMCA out of the water. Let's hope Mr. Halderman receives adequate and competent legal representation should this case make it to trial.
Slashdot Mirror
What? This is not neat. This is a step backwards. If drivers gets accustomed that their car will alert them if they're about to hit something, it will probably encourage them to contiue that extra hour of unsafe driving.
I've been saying that for years. If a fornicator believes that they will not get pregnant/STDs, it will probably encourage them to continue that reprehensible exchange of bodily fluids. Down with condoms!
They should post your summary as the story, and link to the interview instead. If only I had the 30 minutes of my life back that were stolen by the long version.
Instead of buying half a dozen used books, I found this place that lets you borrow books for FREE. They also have newspapers, magazines, and a limited selection of music, all free. Since I'm not sure how legal it is, I can only hint on where you can find this stuff. Drive around and look for a building with the word "library" on it. But don't tell anyone I told you.
People are not a "great renewable energy source." We don't create energy, we consume it and convert it. You might be able to convert our body heat into another form of energy, or even use the heat directly to do work, but it's certainly one of the least efficient sources of energy.
Your quote could be taken in several ways, none of which imply that the band will receive a greater portion of the royalties than normal.
Interscope is the label, not the lead singer. And for all we know, the split in question could be $.59 to Interscope, $.01 to the band.
Not that the band in question is hurting for cash. Obviously they have enough money already, as evidenced by the band having a longer lifespan than Dick Clark. Every time a new U2 album comes out, I find myself asking why. You'd think all the crap albums they've made in the past decade would have more than made up for anything of quality that they produced in the decade before that.
I forgot to address the issue of whether individuals or government should be responsible for personal safety.
Proponents of individual choice would argue that whether they want to risk splitting their head open by not wearing a helmet should be their own. (And it is still, you'll just pay a higher penalty for taking that risk).
Opponents would say that the invidual isn't the one who bears the costs for splitting his head open. Physically, sure, the moron in question has paid a heavy penalty for his disregard of safety, however in actuality it's the other members of his health insurance/HMO/taxpayers who bear the financial costs, and it's the friends/family members who suffer the most grief.
Requiring people to excercise safe practices makes the most financial sense, and money makes the world go round.
--
Our society is more obsessed with safety than any other in history.
.45, safety is now side-impact airbags and a crumple zone. Instead of a fear that we'll fall off the earth if we sail too far, we have a fear that global warming will cause the planet to become uninhabitable. The concern for safety is the same; it's merely the sources of danger that have changed. As we conquor the greatest threats to our health/lives in the present, our focus will naturally shift to the next most threatening event(s).
I disagree. Safety can be defined as a low risk of an event causing injury or death. It's not that people of years past were less concerned with staying alive and healthy -- self preservation is an instinct. The difference is that our world has become inherently safer than in years past ie, advances in medicine, society/law enforcement, etc. As such, instead of the wild west mentality where safety was a Colt
Like denying it? Coming out and admitting they made a mistake means they CAN be trusted in my opinion. Unfortunately, people would rather hear that everything's honky-dory than to hear the truth. I doubt it's a mistake they're likely to make again... when their next IPO comes around, I mean.
This wouldn't work at all. Many (most, I would venture to say) people sign up for the military for selfish reasons.. it's a guaranteed paycheck and a roof over your head. It's money for college, free training, good medical care. I'm not talking out of my ass either, I'm finishing up an enlistment right now. Sure, it's nice to be able to say I served my country, but most of us sign up for the reasons above.
Likewise, "serving," in whatever facet, to earn the privelage to vote does not demonstrate an ability to put the community first; it demonstrates a desire to vote.
First of all, the interference is only at range. If you get right next to your car, the remote should work just fine. Secondly, most alarms have override switches, usually placed under the dash, or some other obvious location that completely defeats the purpose of having an alarm. But we all know how effective a car alarm is in the first place.
Not only did the alleged offense occur outside of the United States, but unless I'm mistaken, Sharman Networks is based in Australia, so US laws are completely irrelevant.
It's simple really. The people with money hold the power. There's nothing anyone can do to change that, since money rules governments just as surely as it does everything else. The article clearly stated that the battle was not worth the time and money, despite the lack of merit on Sharman's allegations. If you want to change the situation, stop babbling about changing strings and send the poor guy some money. Or, if he doesn't want to spearhead the battle, write your own infringing protocol and wait to be served.
I'm not sure I entirely believe that pilots are popping prescription meds to keep them alert, and I'm also not condoning the use of amphetamines, however I'd rather have an alert pilot that makes some decisions too quickly than one who falls asleep. Or were you somehow inferring that we should be using PerfectPilots(TM), a product of Your Imagination.
Oh thank God Leo's gone. I guess it's in every geek's nature to assume they know everything, but most of us don't wind up on TV bullshitting our way through callers questions. We post our bullshit answers here where they belong. On Slashdot.
Now, if they could just get Morgan Webb to shut up and look bitty. Tig old bitty. I'm still waiting for the leg-cross swap ala Basic Instinct with all those skirts she wears. At least it's a reason to watch the otherwise worthless X-Play.
Maybe you've been left out of the loop, but the cost of Apple hardware, like everything else, is whatever the market will bear. Prices are in no way related to costs, except in the hopes that the former exceed the latter. It's basic economics.
This battery conditioning you speak of, where it has a lower capacity than it should -- that's called battery memory if I'm not mistaken. I was under the impression that Li Ion batteries had little to no "memory," even less than NiMH.
My friend and I both have the same model cell phone, but I have a more recent revision. I've noticed that my battery only seems to last ~24h with little or no use, whereas hers will last much longer. I haven't figured out if the culprit is the battery, or the different revision of my phone. They're both LiIon batteries, identical looking in fact. I'd like to figure out if I need a new battery without throwing down 66% of the price of the phone for a new battery, but she won't let me swap with hers so I can test it. The point is, I need someone to create a distraction so I can swap batteries. E-mail me if you're willing to participate.
Batteries aren't like solid state electronics, which pretty much work forever, or even hard drives (which have a constant failure probability, meaning that it's as likely to break down 20 years after you buy it as the day you bought it).
I'm no mathematician, but the idea of a "constant failure probability" seems entirely impossible to me. Anything with a probability of occuring would naturally seem to have a higher chance of occuring given the passing of time. IE, if I have a bag with 1 blue and 4 red marbles in it, the first time I pull one out I've got a 1 in 5 chance. Even if draw a red marble and replace it before drawing a second time, the odds of drawing a blue marble somehow increase because of some mechanism I don't really understand. It has to do with random stuff. That's random. For the odds to remain constant, you'd have to add marbles or parts of marbles or something wackily impossible like that. Just like you wouldn't expect to see the same side of a coin turn up 3 or 4 times in a row. I'm pretty sure there's no way that I turn on my computer each and every day with the same odds of hard drive failure. Every day it works brings me closer to the day when it won't. Which is soon, since it's a Deskstar.
I found this on the Usenet a few years ago but I just love it and it applies so well to this idiot.
So anyone who believes in something that can be neither proved nor disproved is an idiot? Or just the people whose beliefs conflict with yours? I must say though, I'm very much inclined to respect the opinions of a karma whore who posts an e-mail which has been circulating for years rather than trying to add some original thought to the discussion.
But I'm probably just an idiot.
"This is a gigantic step toward the mark of the beast, " said Gary Wohlscheid, whose website, These Last Days Ministries, keeps tabs on what many Christians believe are the signs of a coming religious Armageddon. His site is one of dozens that link VeriChip to the apocalyptic prophecy.
Applied Digital officials say such concern is unfounded because people are chipped voluntarily.
While I don't really believe the book of Revelations, I don't see any reason to push things. If someone were to take me onto a military base, and show me two keys which would supposedly launch a nuclear weapon, I wouldn't necessarily believe them, but I wouldn't feel inclined to try to prove them wrong by turning the keys either.
The company's argument that the implant is voluntary is completely irrelevant. Many things start out as voluntary, then are phased to mandatory. While this isn't a perfect example, in America, taking a breathalyzer when you were pulled over used to be voluntary. As it stands now, most states will automatically suspend your license for a year if you refuse.
I'm not religious, but I don't see any reason to test fate.
Math nerds were never that hot in my school. Yet another reason to move to Sweden.
Pretty funny, but even more funny when you replace "terrorist" with "communist." Same paranoia, different era.
Oh geez, communists, communists, communists, we're all so afraid of communists. You may be a communist, your neighbor might be a communist, and I'm petrified by fear. I'm so paralyzed by fear that I think we should pull the plug on any project that might be potentially used by communists. Whether it's technological, or medical... hell, who cares that we might be coming up with new biological agents to help fight cancer... throw that research out the window! The communists might somehow morph the results of the research and create an Osama-superbug that's even wors that SARS and anthrax!!!
I believe the breakthrough was not in creating the virus from synthesized DNA, but in creating that DNA in just two weeks. It's logical to establish that a manufacturing process is sound before you go about changing what that process manufacturers. The fact that they didn't alter the DNA is irrelevant. The ability to synthesize DNA is the issue, and is somewhat more complicated than creating kanji with a few brush strokes.
Since they've made this project "open source," I'm sure we'll learn much more about the specifics in the near future.
I was thinking about this when someone else mentioned a widescreen display. I'd prefer two displays to one widescreen intuitively, but that's only due to issues which could be easily overcome. The first issue I had was already addressed - maximizing windows is much easier when it snaps to the display's fullscreen size, rather than the precise positioning required with a widescreen to accomplish a similar effect. This could be solved with either percentage maximizations, or a simple Tile button, or both. The second issue I had was that it would be difficult to find room for dual widescreens, but of course, now that I think about it, there's no reason the second display would have to be a widescreen. This would be especially well suited to my uses, as I usually watch a movie on one display and pretend to be productive on the second.
Except that smoking IS good for you, and all the other people I don't kill on a daily basis thanks to regular doses of nicotene.
Ah yes.. there are rumors of this method producing creations which take on a life of their own, as it were.
Although pundits are quick to add that this has a far greater likelihood of resulting in sore rear ends than conception.
Interesting comments from "Ask the Prez," (an apparantly hip method of communicating with shareholders et al) as follows:
"So, you see, it isnt about who finds our protected songs on KaZaa, thats bound to happen, and happen quickly. Its about giving people a way to make licensed copies of their favorite music while enhancing the CD and making sure it plays everywhere...and to do it all without "blowing up" peoples computers in the process."
"Without MediaMax on the CD, users would be forced to make unlicensed and unrestricted copies of their music. In short, honest people, when given an option to do things legally or illegally, will opt for the legal method. Consumers have NEVER before had the option of making a legal and licensed copy of the music on their CD. Until MediaMax came along, the only copy was a totally unprotected copy.
When millions of consumers use MediaMax, they avoid populating the planet with unauthorized and illegal copies of the songs they like, while enjoying the music they love in a protected fashion. By the way, the DCMA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) makes it a crime to circumvent copy management technology placed on a CD. The presence of copy management software on the CD insures that people are presented with the right way to do things."
Quotes from Peter Jacobs, SunnComm CEO, taken from http://www.sunncomm.com/asktheprez/asktheprez.asp without permission.
In the words of Samuel L. Jackson, "Allow me to retort."
So, if I'm to understand Jacobs correctly, every copy of my music made heretoforth was illegal and unlicensed? I didn't realize I purchased a license with my CDs, or was it a de facto license? Furthermore, I'm not aware of any law which makes it illegal to copy my CD. At least not the CDs I own which have no copy protection. So this technology doesn't actually make it legal to copy my CDs, it only provides a legal avenue to copy music from the CD on which it has been installed, thereby making all other avenues of copying illegal. To put it another way, the only function this software performs is to provide a legal basis to sue anyone who does not use this software.
In addition, if this technology only makes it possible for some users to make legitimate copies (legitimate copies being defined as those which do not "circumvent" copy protection), and does not actually prevent copying, then is it really copy protection? If it's not copy protection, then is it protected under the DMCA? If my machine doesn't recognize the copy protection implementation, does that make a copy created by my machine illegitimate?
I find the old "Keep honest people honest," tagline wearing thin as well. Certainly everyone is dishonest from time to time, much like a CEO touting a version of the truth which may not accurately reflect reality. But truth can be subjective. At any rate, the line should be more along the lines of "Remove the temtation for dishonesty from currently honest people," which is rather ridiculous, because an "honest person," would remain so whether or not temptation was present. The whole thing is a poorly contrived guilt trip.
This is just the sort of case which should hopefully blow the DMCA out of the water. Let's hope Mr. Halderman receives adequate and competent legal representation should this case make it to trial.