I work for a company (in a non-programming capacity.) that does this is exact thing. We have a "standard" product that we are constantly upgrading and making "better". However, contrary to the good code, and better product hope, we just get burried in a mountian of crap. Its not because the programmers are lazy or incompetent, but because nobody wants the "standard" product, whether or not it will satisfy thier needs. Then to top it off our company is run by marketers. And while most of them could sell ice to an eskimo, they would sell ice at 20 Celcius, and expect that somewhere between engineering and integration that we could get it going, and have it operating perfectly tomorrow. The problem is, we have ignorant people running the company, and marketers driving engineering. End result, bad product. (Though as a sad piece of commentary, we are in the top of our industry.) I'd say, if your management is causing you to write bad code, find yourself another job opportunity, then confront your managment, that way you can tell them what you think, and you don't need to fear reprisal. The, "allow me to write better code or I'll quit" is a bad way to do it, but the other job opportunity will provide a safety-net, just in case things get ugly.
"This seems to quite clearly put to shame all the designs for "powered soldiers" competeing for the recent DARPA specification." ---Above Post
You are, of course, assuming that the US military is being upfront and open about their developments in this field. Consider for a moment the SR-71, it was built in the 70's and it was until the 80's that it really became public knowledge, the F-117/A, was very similar, though the years were different. For the longest time the public knew about some "stealth" plane called the F-19 (I even owned the computer game) but the concept art was WAY off. And both of these projects has the serious security problem of having to be tested outside. A powered suit could be developed, tested, and produced entirely underground. If the US military has something up and running, they aren't going to create a website to tell us about it.
"Five comments! They stick this in obscurity, in the science section which few ever seem to read. "
Actually, I kind of see it as a blessing that these really good stories get stuck in the back. It keeps all of the standard idiots from reading them, and worse yet posting worthless junk that clogs up a good story. Keep them off of the main page, and we can actually have a good descusion about them, without all of the "heh heh, he said explode" comments. Sure the threshold thing is great, but it still leaves way to many dumb posts who get moded up from other idiots.
That being said, This artice seemed real light on details. They have evidece to show that there might be another good lightshow comming to Yellowstone, but the article seems a bit short on numbers and graphs. Though its nice to see that there is some work being done in the area of predicting volcainic eruptions.
Even still, if this is supportable research, I've got to wonder how the environmentalist movement is going to spin this one into being the fault of humans?
Having been around computers now for 16 years, I tend to feel pretty comfortable with the idea of seeing new things, and figuring them out. I learned on good old DOS on an 8088 with a *huge* 9 Megabyte drive. At the times of Windows 3.11 and 95, I was a bit of a purist and refused to give up my DOS prompt. Why switch? I can do everything I need from my prompt and more, my OS is better. Well a few years and a number of cool game releases later, I realized the stupidity of this stance. Change must happen. So I started learning Win98 and WinNT. Did a good job migrating, I now run NT based networks in my sleep. Then I decided to learn Linux, looked like a good system. I use the GNOME desktop. And I must agree with the results of this study. I found that:
1. Its not intuitive, sure Window's wasn't either, but its just plain dumb to ignore ease of use because someone else does. I thought the idea was to draw users away from M$, not drive them back to M$. The mass of geeks using Linux (quick note here: I am using Linux as an example, just because I have been exposed to it, I by no means am trying to promote it or demote other flavors of *nix) are not going to create enough of a market to make Linux mainstream. The *idiots*, as they are often called on/., decide what is mainstream. And they like Windows. Most users aren't going to go through the learning curve if they don't have a compeling reason to do so. And the much touted stability of Linux isn't enough. The only way to attract users to Linux would be to create an interface that panders to what they know, and then, for the power users, allow it to be modified to hell and back. Maybe then we can use stability and power as reasons to get them off of their expensive Windows habit.
2. RH Linux 7.0 (what I learned on) is an absolute pain in the arse. I don't know how many hours I have spent trying to add various packages (I like the.rmps, they do help a lot). Once I got the sytax of the RPM command down to the point of usability, I then would spend hours running down dependancies, and dependancies for those dependancies, ad infinitum. Perhaps it is a function of my inexperience, but there really needs to be a smoother way to add stuff than to run down obscure and enigmatic packages, that I had no clue that I needed. The average end user wants to be able to download program XYZ, double click on it, and have it install. And again, if we want to see Linux go mainstream, it has to pander to that level of user.
3. This study wasn't about GNOME vs. Windows, it was simply a study of people's reactions when dumped into a GNOME environment. Kind of a simulation of a standard user being given an new work computer with GNOME. In a way, it can be seen as a fesability study for a company switching to GNOME from Windows. And the fact is, while it may have passed, it didn't excel. And what the conclusions of this study do is, point the way for GNOME to excel. If Linux is ever going to become a major competitor for windows, and not distant second, is by becoming average-user-friendly. That is the point of this study, can the current average use migrate to GNOME without a major hassle? Sadly, the answer was still no. So quit sticking your head in the sand and saying, windows is no better. This sort of attitude will make GNOME only as good as windows. The better attitude is, ok, we see the flaws, lets fix them. And if that means adopting some of M$'s ideas for layout, etc. then so be it. GNOME can still be far better.
4. Do we nessecarrly want everyone using Linux? Truth is, I kind of love Windows. Its so buggy and sometimes so hard to fix, that I get paid quite well to do it. We all complain about M$ and thier inferior products, but let's face it, many of us make a good living *because* windows sucks.
5. IANAEM (I Am Not An English Major) this post will contain. Grammer and spelling errors. And I don't really care enough to use a spell checquer.
"Energy is far cheaper now, and continues to drop in price..."
Funny, I seem to recall my energy bill going through the roof last month.
Seriously though, I don't expect the energy companies to go running to fusion, unless its sigificantly cheaper than fossil fuels. Though I doubt that the consumer will see much of a price drop. Let's face it, they will just use the extra savings to pad thier profit margin. Ever notice how quickly prices go up, then creep back down real slow?
"Actually, you're only half right. History does in fact show that the _earth_ will survive - for a few billion years, at least. But what history (i.e., the fossil record) also shows emphatically is that individual _species_ only hang around for so long. While a few clever species such as the cockroach and clams have been around for hundreds of millions of years, we've only been around for a few million at best. By canabalizing our environment, we may set a new land speed record toward our own extinction. "
Yes, the fossil record shows that species have a tendancy do die out, though it also shows that we are the only species to be able to adapt to any environment, by use of our tools. No other species has been able to go from a mostly ground dwelling creature, to walking on the moon, in about 50 years. So, I doubt we'll "...set a new land speed record toward our own extiction."
"Unless the rules of physics should be discovered radically different than what we now believe, we'll eventually run out of all the "stuff" (food, fuel, light from the sun, etc.) we need to survive. There are basically three ways to stave off the inevitable:
1. Use less stuff (efficiency measures, conservation).
2. Go find more stuff (oil drilling, interplanetary travel).
3. Make more stuff ourselves (fusion, etc.).
For those of you who think number three will save us, I have one question:
-- Ever heard of *entropy*? -- "
I think this falls somewhere near that "Half-Right" category.
1. "Use Less Stuff" - Great, and we'll just end up with a higher population using less. End result, same amount of "stuff" being consumed. Eventually we are going to reach a critical mass point and begin dying off like flies. Kinda like the situation in sub-saharan Africa currently, there are too many people for the resources to support, if it wasn't for international aid there would be mass famine and death. Though this is bound to happen eventually, we're just prolonging the inevitable, not to mention making the situation worse. Its either let some die now, and regain balance with the local resources, or wait for some global economic hiccup, and have a mass of deaths occur when aid faulters, and the population has grown unchecked, "because we have to save the children". Children that would have otherwise not survived, and had several children of thier own, further over-taxing the existing resources. If we consider that humans are like most other oraganisims on this planet, then its likely that, no matter how they are used, humans will expand and grow as long as the resources will support them. Then, at some point, we will over-tax the resources and beging dying out until we fall to a level that is mantainable by the resources of the area. Conservation sounds nice and clean, but we would have to have some sort of population control to go with it. Almost reminds me of China, and that's what we all want, right? To live in a Communistic dictatorship and run protesting students over with tanks. Conservation is a short term solution, but will never solve the problem. Not that I'm against it, but it is too often held up as some "holy grail" to save the planet.
2. "Go find more stuff" - I like this one, but, it would seem to me, that the same people that are whining about the environment are the same people that are cutting funding for this sort of thing. Remeber good old Clinton, wanted to protect the environment, but killed the super accelerator project that scientists had been pushing. It would be great if we could get off this rock and start searching for more resources, but, insted of funding space research, we keep doing more computer models of the atmosphere. We need to get into space, and find more resources. Also, assunming that we could make it fiesable, start moving manufacturing and other polluting industires to somewhere like the moon. Just think, no atmosphere to worry about, very little of the pollution would stick around the actual moon, and the rest would disperse into space, harmlessly. What are we gonna do, fill it?
3. "Make more stuff ourselves (fusion, etc.)" - Actually, yes. Assuming that we can get the money into that area of research. Fusion is great. Its clean, usually only produces helium. Its unstable, (for those that think this is bad here's a quick lesson in physics: Stable - will continue without the continued input of energy, think fission, allows for meltdowns; Unstable - Needs continuous input of energy to maintain, a.k.a. if you don't sustain it, it turns off, this is fusion, no meltdowns, no explosions, you have a problem, you stop feeding the reaction, and the reaction stops.) As for the entropy problem that was mentioned, This is a silly idea, what are we gonna do, convert the entire planet to energy? Do you realize how much that is? We've been able to run on the paltry amount of energy given off by chemical reactions, fusion offers a much higher fuel to energy return. The same amount of energy that puts the shuttle in orbit, which is generated by tons of chemical propellant, could be generated with around a kilo of fusionable material. Now, I will admit that we would be driving entropy along, and there's no stopping that, laws of physics and all, and yes, we're contributing to the eventual heat death of the universe (though I'm doing a lot of that while typing this response.) But, what are we to do, not move at all?
Ok, so this is a pretty long rant, with bad grammer and spelling, but here's my point: Yes, we are not being kind to the Earth, but I doubt that we are really "destroying" it. We are just creating change. Ya, we've probably trounced a few species, but this is a natural process, survival of the fittest. and we're not gonna kill ourselves off with pollution, we just don't have the impact on the Earth that we seem to belive that we do. I heard it stated (though I admit I lack the numbers to back it at the moment.) that, Mt. Penetubo threw out more greenhouse gases in its big eruption, a while back, than humans have in thier entire existance. (If someone has the numbers to disprove this, by all means, I am willing to learn.) If this is true though, then its proof that we humans are little more than a pebble in the road of the Earth's natural processes.
I was unable to view the full paper at the site given by one of the previous posters, so I am only going off of the Nature article, so I may be a bit under-informed on the specifics. But, having read the Nature article, it strikes me that this could have some really great implications, assumming that the technical difficulties could be worked out. First off, could a magnetic field be constructed/generated, such that, it negates, or reduces to an insigficant level, the gravity in an area of the Earth? (e.g. Cape Canaveral) This might allow for easier launches into space. Second, and this may be pushing into the realm of Sci-Fi, since it appears that magnetic fields counteract the bending of space-time due to matter, is it possible that they are simply pushing it in the opposite direction as matter? i.e. if we call the direction of normal gravity "down" does a magnetic field push space-time "up"? And along that same assupmtion, can we use a magnetic field to create a bend in space-time in the opposite direction that creates gravity? e.g. Matter pushes "down" on space-time, attracting things, can we create a magnetic field that pushes "up" on space-time and repel things? If so, Anti-Grav drive, here we come.
(Remember that the pyramid builders didn't even have wheels!) -- Above post
Funny, I would have sworn that the Egyptians were the ones to come up with the first Chariots. Not to mention the theory that they used a wheel as a mesuring device for designing the pyramids. (A theory which seems plasable.)
For the curious, the wheel theory was something I saw in one of those Discover/PBS style documentaries. The evidence to suggest it was that, for the Great Pyramid, if you took the length of the base, and divided it by the height, you came up with pi, or a factor there of. Its a strange quirk of math that has often been used to point at aliens or the wisdom of the ancients, but the wheel mesurement theory seems more plasable. Something like: Height=10 Rods, Length = 10 rolls of a 1 Rod Diameter wheel.
therefore L = 10 X 1 Rod X pi
L/H = (10 Rods X pi)/(10 Rods) = pi
They picked a height, and rolled the wheel that many times for the base length. And Viola! dimensions that take into account a wonderfully complex and important number, without even knowing it.
Well enough, if humans are the problem, then we need to get rid of them. So the new bumper sticker slogan will read "SAVE THE PLANET...KILL YOURSELF."
On a more truthful note, we did our damnedest to kill the ecology of the New Mexico desert, radiation and the like, stuff won't grow there for many many years. Lo and Behold, plants are growing there. I'll concide that humans can force a change in the ecology of an area, I somehow doubt we will ever destroy it forever. And ya, we've knocked a few species off of the evolutionary train, but I wonder if we aren't also responsible for pushing evolution along for a few others. Personally I think a lot of this, "humans are destroying the world" hue and cry is just egotistical bull$h!t. The Earth has made it through fire and brimstone while forming, several catastrophic meteor impacts, huge volcanic explosions (which thorw out enormous amounts of greenhouse gases), and lots of other little things; isn't it just a bit infalamatory to claim that humans are doing what these things failed to do? Ya, we'll change the planet, but isn't that a normal thing? Afterall, the Earth isn't exactly the same place the dinosaurs saw.
Actually, from what I understand about these hydrogen fuel cells, the hydrogen will be harvested from a slighly modified form of gasoline, or more technically, some C(x)H(2x+2)chain. This allows for the hydrogen to be collected, then attached to the oxygen to get H(2)O, and still get a net energy gain, as opposed to H(2)O -> H(2) + 1/2O(2) -> H(2)O wich has no net gain, and will end up losing energy due to ineffencies in the system.
It is this method that really has lots of benifits, existing infrastrucure, water and soot being the only exaust. It doesn't solve all the problems, but its a good start.
The other option is the, produce hydorgen in one place and distribute it method. This is good because it removes some of the weight from the vehicle, and makes them simpler, an hence less prone to failure. Also, we could then use the seawater electrolosys method to get the hydrogen, and get rid of the problems that are created by the distribution and burning of gasoline. Though now we get back to the whole perpetual motion problem, it will take more energy to produce the hydrogen than we get back from it. This, however, is a small problem, we simply need each hydrogen production facility to have a power plant attached (I'd say go nuclear, or solar if it will put out enough juice). We then get the savings that this technology promises, lower overall emissions, no nasty chemicals being driven around by trucks. And in the event of a hydrogen spill, we just stand back and let entropy do the cleanup. Its not as if we are going to make everyone one drive around in a setup like carnival bumper cars.
It may just be that the application of the filter, to their technology, created other limitations that are not explained in this article. While a strict mathematical approch gives us ~173 dpi ([[[300 dpi]^2]/3]^1/2 = 173.21 dpi), that does not consider any additional wires, electrodes, or other physical parts that need to be added.
Re:an idea on filtering these thigns out
on
Web Bug Detector
·
· Score: 1
I like the idea of putting the choice in the users hands, though one option I would like to see added to any filter/blocking software, is the ability to set/send gibberish cookies. i.e. We could drive down the attractiveness of cookies/web bugs/etc by rendering them useless. If we could proliferate a program (I would prefer open source) that will give the user the options of: accept, reject, and gibberish; we may be able to make cookies less attractive for companies, and still allow those cookies, that are useful, to be used. Kind of a DoS attack on cookies/web bugs as a whole. We fill the databases with so much useless crap, that extracting the useful information from them would be neigh impossible. Such a system would need a good randomizing engine, to keep the junk info from becoming easy to spot. Also it would need a good filter system, to allow for automating the treatment of cookies/web bugs from user defined sites (e.g. doubleclick.net). I am not a programer, though I am learning, otherwise I'd try this myself. But, to anyone out there with the expertise to do this -- please feel free to use my idea, just treat it like its been GPL'd, and maybe send me a copy when its ready.
Actully, I didn't intend to say that it would be stricken down, quite the opposite, I expect this one to survive review, once it gets to the supreme court. Which I expect to be a while. In the ruling, the motion to dismis the claim, against the Spammer was overturned, which starts a trial at the lower level, which then has to be run through the whole appeals process on its own. And at each level, I imagine that the question of consitutionality of this law will come up, until it hits the SC, where it will be decided. Sorry about the confusion. And of course, I am not a lawyer, but I play one in RPGs.
In contrast to the New York statute, which could reach all
content posted on the Internet and therefore subject individuals to
liability based on unintended access, the Act reaches only those deceptive
UCE messages directed to a Washington resident or initiated from a computer
located in Washington; in other words, the Act does not impose liability
for messages that are merely routed through Washington or that are read by
a Washington resident who was not the actual addressee. ---from the ruling
Would you want to go to prison because you downloaded porn from a server in a state where it's legal, to a state where it's legal, but went through a state where it's not? That is what's at stake here, and there are states that will try it.
---Above post
Could you at least read the article before you go and make such a blatanly dumb assertion about it?
A question to the above poster: Do you belive that there should be no regulation, what so ever, of the market? If so, that would imply that you are firmly against the protection that is offered to unions by the laws of the govenment, a form of regulation. I would then further assume that you would have all of us working under slave-like conditions for large corporations that need answer to no one. The simple fact is, governmental regulation helped put a stop to such practices, and further, keeps monopolies from causing huge market depressions. While enough training and knowledge can keep you above the average laborer, it is government regulation that keeps things like safe buildings, worker's compesation, and the like from become dreams. Do you really think compaines would shell out for it if they didn't need to? Further, anyone who creates noise about it would find themself unemployed, and stuck that way, because of current government regulation, your previous employer cannot say anything about you to a prospective employer, its not much, but it helps. America tried the concept of little or no regulation of the market, it failed, going back would be a big mistake. End Rant.
The federal government can certainly interfere, but I don't think they have the authority to directly change or overturn the law. --above post
Actually, that's exactly what they can do. It is the supreme court that will ultimately decide this case, and the fate of this law. If they decide that this law unduly tramples the power of the federal law, it will be stuck down. They can, and do, do this sort of thing all the time. Though from reading the ruling(interesting if a bit difficult.) it looks like the state supreme court put forth good reasoning behind remanding this one for trial. Though I am not a lawyer, and may have missed something.
While I will agree that intellectual property(IP) rights need to be protected, I tend to belive that comparing IP to physical property rights is a bit of a falicy. Assigning ownership of an object is a rather easy task, since the object exists as a single discrete unit, i.e. if I am holding my pen, you cannot be holding it as well. IP is different, in that I can have my idea, and you can have my idea as well, it is not limited to one person, phyisically speaking. So to compare the two is really not a vaild argument, and must be placed in the realm of falacious scare tactics. (See A. Hitler's "Mien Kampf" for more good examples of this sort of falicy.)
As for the DMCA itself, IMHO, it is a flawed attempt to do something that is nessecarry. IP must be protected, it helps to promote innovation, in that, it gives motivation, and funding, to innovators. For example, Bell Labs, if it wasn't for the profit from sales, why would they support the scientists who came up with transistors? Yes, IP is about money, and God forbid that any of us should want that! But the DCMA seems to be a bit over-bearing when it comes to protecting IP.
So what is the solution? I don't know, but if I were to put forth my opinion, a new law needs to be crafted that will fix some of the leaks in the DMCA, and in the same law, scrap the DMCA. To throw out the DMCA at the moment would create chaos. There needs to be some sort of framework to support IP, otherwise it will drain money out of innovation.
As for this new case, I don't expect much to come out of it. Certainly nothing far reaching. Felton will likely get his protection, but the DMCA will not be declared unconstitutional. Corley will still be just as dicked as he was before this case. Afterall, Corley basically thumbed his nose as the courts, not a good way to get them on your side. And because of the special nature of this case, it involves scientific research, its not going to affect DeCSS or any other source code, source code is not scientific research.
Just a few disclaimers to close this out: I am not a lawyer, I am not a rep of any mega-coglomeration(think RIAA, who I still question on whether or not they might just be a trust), and I'm not a crook. Though I am long winded.
Why store it at all? Once its diluted it becomes great fuel for a plutonium burning reactor. Its rather sad, we have this huge store of energy, while not as cheap as some, but once the technology was up and running, I imagine that we would find ways to make it cheaper, kind of the american way, to use a cliche. If we want to get rid of this stuff we should be using it, not warehousing it. All this stupid monument is, is a way to hide weapons grade plutonium in plain sight(would someone really be stupid enough to try and break into a storage facility guarded by a few thousand marines, with orders to shoot first and kill any survivors later?), and pander to the stupid greens who would have us all living in trees. Yes, humans damage the environment, but I think its just plain alarmist to try and claim that we are destroying the Earth, its gotten through asteroid impacts, ice ages, and volcanic eruptions(which spew ridiculous amounts of greenhouse gases), the ecosystem will adapt. End Rant.
"Finally, if you have nothing to hide then don't worry about law enforcement. If you do have something to hide then put your tail between your legs. Every person on here who complains about the FBI and the gov't is just afraid that their warez'd version of Photoshop will be found."
--- Above post
If you've never had the chance, pick up a copy of either "1984" or "Brave New World". While they both show the extreams. they are a good warning about allowing a govenment to "bend the law". Its not about hiding illegal copies of software, its about protecting our rights to have our own opinions. Its like a domino effect.
1. We allow the FBI/CIA/Police/Whatever law enforcement organization, to search as they see fit, and "bend the law".
2. A law gets past, by the govenment, that prevents people from expressing opinions that are contrary to the government, not easy, it would requre a little more corruption than is currently present.
3. the FBI et al., begin collecting information about such "criminals", a process that you wish to see allowed.
4. These "criminals" are then quitely prosecuted and sent to jail.
5. The govenment now has the means to openly get rid of unwanted political movenments.
Its a slow process, and would require some coordination, in the govenment, to pull off, but then, the Roman empire started off as a great little democracy, and later became the behemoth it was after corruption in the govenment began creating problems.
I'm not afraid of the law enforcement seeing what software I have, I actually buy mine, I am afraid that they will use this as a means to suppress me from expressing my opinion.
Its not just the trailer parks that do it to you. I live within a 20 minute WALK of a Cal-State College. Across the street from the college DSL is available. But 20 min. walk away and we're screwed. I can't get DSL, line attenuation is too high, and the local cable company, Charter Communications, hasn't made cable available in our area yet. Its not like we live in the boon-docks, or near trailer parks (no offence intended), we live in a middle class neighborhood. This is an area rampant with school-age kids and, I'm sure, enough disposable income to be able to afford high-speed internet. But good old Verizon (whom I would leave if I had half a chance)doesn't have a clue about when they are going to get DSL service in our area, and Charter told us "try back in a few months." I would go with satelite, but it either requires a dial connection for the send portion (would like to avoid tying up the phone line, and it sends at 56k.) or costly equipment (about $1000 to get Starband set up.) And while I make enough to be able to go this route, $1000 dollar start-up, then $60 a month is more than I want to pay for 128Kbps. End result $10/month dial-up and a lot of curses about Verizon. (Is it just me, or is Verizon Customer Service an oxymoron?)
First, to the above poster - If you're going to make a statement like this at least stand behind it. (a.k.a. Don't post anonymous)
Secondly - I agree with the idea behind this post. Slahsdot often seems to be a forum for posting selfish desires. (Software should be GPL'd, closed source is bad. MP3's are great, we shouldn't give money to people for being creative.)
Thirdly - I think that the ACCC is doing the right thing. However, I agree that we should (gasp!) pay for movies, music, and any other creative endevor, which we wish to make use of. I would be happy to pay for MP3's (with the cavet that I am not paying a ridiculios amount for them, price gouging.) I do rip my own CDs for my own use as MP3's, though I have already paid for the use of the song. And I buy DVDs, I don't go out and download them. This being said though, I think its rediculous for the MPAA to be able to limit the import of DVDs to a country, and the region codeing is doing just this. If they wish to delay a release of a movie outside the US, then it is thier own fault that some DVDs will be sold in other countries before the movie hits theaters. Anyway, a good movie will draw people to the theaters to see it, even if they have it on DVD. (I went and saw the re-release of the Star Wars Trilogy when it was in the local theater. BTW, great was to spend a day, but the rear gets a bit sore.) What the MPAA is doing is simply trying to control when and where their products get released. This allows them to fix prices. And this is wrong as far as I am concerned.
In closing - Am I the only one who thinks that the MPAA might just be an illegal trust?
Actually, detecting which frequency was changed should be rather easy. By combining the resulting lasers with the origonal laser, out of phase, it should be possible to create destructive interference, such that, the only laser to return to the detector is the one that is changed. Factor out the interference from the origonal laser, and you have your changed frequency, and only your changed frequency. frequency searching solved. And lots of time saved.
This is rather amazing, how we scream about a curiosity, like the clipper chip, being handed over to the Chinese, but not about worse technologies. Ok, so security, privacy, etcetera is important. But good old Bubba didn't exactly stop with clipper chips. For example, he handed the Chinese MIRV technology, but people concentrate on the clipper chip. Why is it, that people can be outraged, by the possibility, that a forgien government will know that people are looking at porn, but it doesn't bother people that we have handed our enemies a better way to deploy weapons of mass destruction? Do they really buy that crap about, needing this for launching satalites? It wasn't nessecarry for Sputnik(sp?). Please wake up folks, there are worse demons out there, we are just being handed toys like the clipper chip to keep us distracted.
For those that don't know: MIRV - Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicles - used for dropping several nuclear warheads from an ICBM (InterContinental Ballistic Missle) see http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/NC/mirv/mirv.html
for more information.
While this might be a bit of a slippery slope falicy, it is still worth mentioning. M$ claims that this is only for some enterprise contracts. But let us look forward in time. Assume for a minute that this takes off and large companies start using it. The next step would be for M$ to come out with the small business license. It would conatain smaller numbers of licenses, for a lower per anum cost. After all, the small business market is a huge market, and this would really rake in the profits. Once established in the small business market, M$ need only roll this into their next product for the home user, who will accept it as the accepted standard (they see it everyday at work). Its a slow process, sure. But 6 to 10 years is acceptable to force the entire market over to the subscription model. And great for profits.
Slashdot Mirror
I work for a company (in a non-programming capacity.) that does this is exact thing. We have a "standard" product that we are constantly upgrading and making "better". However, contrary to the good code, and better product hope, we just get burried in a mountian of crap. Its not because the programmers are lazy or incompetent, but because nobody wants the "standard" product, whether or not it will satisfy thier needs. Then to top it off our company is run by marketers. And while most of them could sell ice to an eskimo, they would sell ice at 20 Celcius, and expect that somewhere between engineering and integration that we could get it going, and have it operating perfectly tomorrow. The problem is, we have ignorant people running the company, and marketers driving engineering. End result, bad product. (Though as a sad piece of commentary, we are in the top of our industry.) I'd say, if your management is causing you to write bad code, find yourself another job opportunity, then confront your managment, that way you can tell them what you think, and you don't need to fear reprisal. The, "allow me to write better code or I'll quit" is a bad way to do it, but the other job opportunity will provide a safety-net, just in case things get ugly.
"This seems to quite clearly put to shame all the designs for "powered soldiers" competeing for the recent DARPA specification." ---Above Post
You are, of course, assuming that the US military is being upfront and open about their developments in this field. Consider for a moment the SR-71, it was built in the 70's and it was until the 80's that it really became public knowledge, the F-117/A, was very similar, though the years were different. For the longest time the public knew about some "stealth" plane called the F-19 (I even owned the computer game) but the concept art was WAY off. And both of these projects has the serious security problem of having to be tested outside. A powered suit could be developed, tested, and produced entirely underground. If the US military has something up and running, they aren't going to create a website to tell us about it.
"Five comments! They stick this in obscurity, in the science section which few ever seem to read. "
Actually, I kind of see it as a blessing that these really good stories get stuck in the back. It keeps all of the standard idiots from reading them, and worse yet posting worthless junk that clogs up a good story. Keep them off of the main page, and we can actually have a good descusion about them, without all of the "heh heh, he said explode" comments. Sure the threshold thing is great, but it still leaves way to many dumb posts who get moded up from other idiots.
That being said, This artice seemed real light on details. They have evidece to show that there might be another good lightshow comming to Yellowstone, but the article seems a bit short on numbers and graphs. Though its nice to see that there is some work being done in the area of predicting volcainic eruptions.
Even still, if this is supportable research, I've got to wonder how the environmentalist movement is going to spin this one into being the fault of humans?
Having been around computers now for 16 years, I tend to feel pretty comfortable with the idea of seeing new things, and figuring them out. I learned on good old DOS on an 8088 with a *huge* 9 Megabyte drive. At the times of Windows 3.11 and 95, I was a bit of a purist and refused to give up my DOS prompt. Why switch? I can do everything I need from my prompt and more, my OS is better. Well a few years and a number of cool game releases later, I realized the stupidity of this stance. Change must happen. So I started learning Win98 and WinNT. Did a good job migrating, I now run NT based networks in my sleep. Then I decided to learn Linux, looked like a good system. I use the GNOME desktop. And I must agree with the results of this study. I found that: /., decide what is mainstream. And they like Windows. Most users aren't going to go through the learning curve if they don't have a compeling reason to do so. And the much touted stability of Linux isn't enough. The only way to attract users to Linux would be to create an interface that panders to what they know, and then, for the power users, allow it to be modified to hell and back. Maybe then we can use stability and power as reasons to get them off of their expensive Windows habit.
.rmps, they do help a lot). Once I got the sytax of the RPM command down to the point of usability, I then would spend hours running down dependancies, and dependancies for those dependancies, ad infinitum. Perhaps it is a function of my inexperience, but there really needs to be a smoother way to add stuff than to run down obscure and enigmatic packages, that I had no clue that I needed. The average end user wants to be able to download program XYZ, double click on it, and have it install. And again, if we want to see Linux go mainstream, it has to pander to that level of user.
1. Its not intuitive, sure Window's wasn't either, but its just plain dumb to ignore ease of use because someone else does. I thought the idea was to draw users away from M$, not drive them back to M$. The mass of geeks using Linux (quick note here: I am using Linux as an example, just because I have been exposed to it, I by no means am trying to promote it or demote other flavors of *nix) are not going to create enough of a market to make Linux mainstream. The *idiots*, as they are often called on
2. RH Linux 7.0 (what I learned on) is an absolute pain in the arse. I don't know how many hours I have spent trying to add various packages (I like the
3. This study wasn't about GNOME vs. Windows, it was simply a study of people's reactions when dumped into a GNOME environment. Kind of a simulation of a standard user being given an new work computer with GNOME. In a way, it can be seen as a fesability study for a company switching to GNOME from Windows. And the fact is, while it may have passed, it didn't excel. And what the conclusions of this study do is, point the way for GNOME to excel. If Linux is ever going to become a major competitor for windows, and not distant second, is by becoming average-user-friendly. That is the point of this study, can the current average use migrate to GNOME without a major hassle? Sadly, the answer was still no. So quit sticking your head in the sand and saying, windows is no better. This sort of attitude will make GNOME only as good as windows. The better attitude is, ok, we see the flaws, lets fix them. And if that means adopting some of M$'s ideas for layout, etc. then so be it. GNOME can still be far better.
4. Do we nessecarrly want everyone using Linux? Truth is, I kind of love Windows. Its so buggy and sometimes so hard to fix, that I get paid quite well to do it. We all complain about M$ and thier inferior products, but let's face it, many of us make a good living *because* windows sucks.
5. IANAEM (I Am Not An English Major) this post will contain. Grammer and spelling errors. And I don't really care enough to use a spell checquer.
"Energy is far cheaper now, and continues to drop in price..." Funny, I seem to recall my energy bill going through the roof last month. Seriously though, I don't expect the energy companies to go running to fusion, unless its sigificantly cheaper than fossil fuels. Though I doubt that the consumer will see much of a price drop. Let's face it, they will just use the extra savings to pad thier profit margin. Ever notice how quickly prices go up, then creep back down real slow?
"Actually, you're only half right. History does in fact show that the _earth_ will survive - for a few billion years, at least. But what history (i.e., the fossil record) also shows emphatically is that individual _species_ only hang around for so long. While a few clever species such as the cockroach and clams have been around for hundreds of millions of years, we've only been around for a few million at best. By canabalizing our environment, we may set a new land speed record toward our own extinction. "
Yes, the fossil record shows that species have a tendancy do die out, though it also shows that we are the only species to be able to adapt to any environment, by use of our tools. No other species has been able to go from a mostly ground dwelling creature, to walking on the moon, in about 50 years. So, I doubt we'll "...set a new land speed record toward our own extiction."
"Unless the rules of physics should be discovered radically different than what we now believe, we'll eventually run out of all the "stuff" (food, fuel, light from the sun, etc.) we need to survive. There are basically three ways to stave off the inevitable:
1. Use less stuff (efficiency measures, conservation).
2. Go find more stuff (oil drilling, interplanetary travel).
3. Make more stuff ourselves (fusion, etc.).
For those of you who think number three will save us, I have one question:
-- Ever heard of *entropy*? -- "
I think this falls somewhere near that "Half-Right" category.
1. "Use Less Stuff" - Great, and we'll just end up with a higher population using less. End result, same amount of "stuff" being consumed. Eventually we are going to reach a critical mass point and begin dying off like flies. Kinda like the situation in sub-saharan Africa currently, there are too many people for the resources to support, if it wasn't for international aid there would be mass famine and death. Though this is bound to happen eventually, we're just prolonging the inevitable, not to mention making the situation worse. Its either let some die now, and regain balance with the local resources, or wait for some global economic hiccup, and have a mass of deaths occur when aid faulters, and the population has grown unchecked, "because we have to save the children". Children that would have otherwise not survived, and had several children of thier own, further over-taxing the existing resources. If we consider that humans are like most other oraganisims on this planet, then its likely that, no matter how they are used, humans will expand and grow as long as the resources will support them. Then, at some point, we will over-tax the resources and beging dying out until we fall to a level that is mantainable by the resources of the area. Conservation sounds nice and clean, but we would have to have some sort of population control to go with it. Almost reminds me of China, and that's what we all want, right? To live in a Communistic dictatorship and run protesting students over with tanks. Conservation is a short term solution, but will never solve the problem. Not that I'm against it, but it is too often held up as some "holy grail" to save the planet.
2. "Go find more stuff" - I like this one, but, it would seem to me, that the same people that are whining about the environment are the same people that are cutting funding for this sort of thing. Remeber good old Clinton, wanted to protect the environment, but killed the super accelerator project that scientists had been pushing. It would be great if we could get off this rock and start searching for more resources, but, insted of funding space research, we keep doing more computer models of the atmosphere. We need to get into space, and find more resources. Also, assunming that we could make it fiesable, start moving manufacturing and other polluting industires to somewhere like the moon. Just think, no atmosphere to worry about, very little of the pollution would stick around the actual moon, and the rest would disperse into space, harmlessly. What are we gonna do, fill it?
3. "Make more stuff ourselves (fusion, etc.)" - Actually, yes. Assuming that we can get the money into that area of research. Fusion is great. Its clean, usually only produces helium. Its unstable, (for those that think this is bad here's a quick lesson in physics: Stable - will continue without the continued input of energy, think fission, allows for meltdowns; Unstable - Needs continuous input of energy to maintain, a.k.a. if you don't sustain it, it turns off, this is fusion, no meltdowns, no explosions, you have a problem, you stop feeding the reaction, and the reaction stops.) As for the entropy problem that was mentioned, This is a silly idea, what are we gonna do, convert the entire planet to energy? Do you realize how much that is? We've been able to run on the paltry amount of energy given off by chemical reactions, fusion offers a much higher fuel to energy return. The same amount of energy that puts the shuttle in orbit, which is generated by tons of chemical propellant, could be generated with around a kilo of fusionable material. Now, I will admit that we would be driving entropy along, and there's no stopping that, laws of physics and all, and yes, we're contributing to the eventual heat death of the universe (though I'm doing a lot of that while typing this response.) But, what are we to do, not move at all?
Ok, so this is a pretty long rant, with bad grammer and spelling, but here's my point: Yes, we are not being kind to the Earth, but I doubt that we are really "destroying" it. We are just creating change. Ya, we've probably trounced a few species, but this is a natural process, survival of the fittest. and we're not gonna kill ourselves off with pollution, we just don't have the impact on the Earth that we seem to belive that we do. I heard it stated (though I admit I lack the numbers to back it at the moment.) that, Mt. Penetubo threw out more greenhouse gases in its big eruption, a while back, than humans have in thier entire existance. (If someone has the numbers to disprove this, by all means, I am willing to learn.) If this is true though, then its proof that we humans are little more than a pebble in the road of the Earth's natural processes.
I was unable to view the full paper at the site given by one of the previous posters, so I am only going off of the Nature article, so I may be a bit under-informed on the specifics. But, having read the Nature article, it strikes me that this could have some really great implications, assumming that the technical difficulties could be worked out. First off, could a magnetic field be constructed/generated, such that, it negates, or reduces to an insigficant level, the gravity in an area of the Earth? (e.g. Cape Canaveral) This might allow for easier launches into space. Second, and this may be pushing into the realm of Sci-Fi, since it appears that magnetic fields counteract the bending of space-time due to matter, is it possible that they are simply pushing it in the opposite direction as matter? i.e. if we call the direction of normal gravity "down" does a magnetic field push space-time "up"? And along that same assupmtion, can we use a magnetic field to create a bend in space-time in the opposite direction that creates gravity? e.g. Matter pushes "down" on space-time, attracting things, can we create a magnetic field that pushes "up" on space-time and repel things? If so, Anti-Grav drive, here we come.
(Remember that the pyramid builders didn't even have wheels!) -- Above post
Funny, I would have sworn that the Egyptians were the ones to come up with the first Chariots. Not to mention the theory that they used a wheel as a mesuring device for designing the pyramids. (A theory which seems plasable.)
For the curious, the wheel theory was something I saw in one of those Discover/PBS style documentaries. The evidence to suggest it was that, for the Great Pyramid, if you took the length of the base, and divided it by the height, you came up with pi, or a factor there of. Its a strange quirk of math that has often been used to point at aliens or the wisdom of the ancients, but the wheel mesurement theory seems more plasable. Something like: Height=10 Rods, Length = 10 rolls of a 1 Rod Diameter wheel.
therefore L = 10 X 1 Rod X pi
L/H = (10 Rods X pi)/(10 Rods) = pi
They picked a height, and rolled the wheel that many times for the base length. And Viola! dimensions that take into account a wonderfully complex and important number, without even knowing it.
Well enough, if humans are the problem, then we need to get rid of them. So the new bumper sticker slogan will read "SAVE THE PLANET...KILL YOURSELF."
On a more truthful note, we did our damnedest to kill the ecology of the New Mexico desert, radiation and the like, stuff won't grow there for many many years. Lo and Behold, plants are growing there. I'll concide that humans can force a change in the ecology of an area, I somehow doubt we will ever destroy it forever. And ya, we've knocked a few species off of the evolutionary train, but I wonder if we aren't also responsible for pushing evolution along for a few others. Personally I think a lot of this, "humans are destroying the world" hue and cry is just egotistical bull$h!t. The Earth has made it through fire and brimstone while forming, several catastrophic meteor impacts, huge volcanic explosions (which thorw out enormous amounts of greenhouse gases), and lots of other little things; isn't it just a bit infalamatory to claim that humans are doing what these things failed to do? Ya, we'll change the planet, but isn't that a normal thing? Afterall, the Earth isn't exactly the same place the dinosaurs saw.
Actually, from what I understand about these hydrogen fuel cells, the hydrogen will be harvested from a slighly modified form of gasoline, or more technically, some C(x)H(2x+2)chain. This allows for the hydrogen to be collected, then attached to the oxygen to get H(2)O, and still get a net energy gain, as opposed to H(2)O -> H(2) + 1/2O(2) -> H(2)O wich has no net gain, and will end up losing energy due to ineffencies in the system.
It is this method that really has lots of benifits, existing infrastrucure, water and soot being the only exaust. It doesn't solve all the problems, but its a good start.
The other option is the, produce hydorgen in one place and distribute it method. This is good because it removes some of the weight from the vehicle, and makes them simpler, an hence less prone to failure. Also, we could then use the seawater electrolosys method to get the hydrogen, and get rid of the problems that are created by the distribution and burning of gasoline. Though now we get back to the whole perpetual motion problem, it will take more energy to produce the hydrogen than we get back from it. This, however, is a small problem, we simply need each hydrogen production facility to have a power plant attached (I'd say go nuclear, or solar if it will put out enough juice). We then get the savings that this technology promises, lower overall emissions, no nasty chemicals being driven around by trucks. And in the event of a hydrogen spill, we just stand back and let entropy do the cleanup. Its not as if we are going to make everyone one drive around in a setup like carnival bumper cars.
It may just be that the application of the filter, to their technology, created other limitations that are not explained in this article. While a strict mathematical approch gives us ~173 dpi ([[[300 dpi]^2]/3]^1/2 = 173.21 dpi), that does not consider any additional wires, electrodes, or other physical parts that need to be added.
I like the idea of putting the choice in the users hands, though one option I would like to see added to any filter/blocking software, is the ability to set/send gibberish cookies. i.e. We could drive down the attractiveness of cookies/web bugs/etc by rendering them useless. If we could proliferate a program (I would prefer open source) that will give the user the options of: accept, reject, and gibberish; we may be able to make cookies less attractive for companies, and still allow those cookies, that are useful, to be used. Kind of a DoS attack on cookies/web bugs as a whole. We fill the databases with so much useless crap, that extracting the useful information from them would be neigh impossible. Such a system would need a good randomizing engine, to keep the junk info from becoming easy to spot. Also it would need a good filter system, to allow for automating the treatment of cookies/web bugs from user defined sites (e.g. doubleclick.net). I am not a programer, though I am learning, otherwise I'd try this myself. But, to anyone out there with the expertise to do this -- please feel free to use my idea, just treat it like its been GPL'd, and maybe send me a copy when its ready.
Actully, I didn't intend to say that it would be stricken down, quite the opposite, I expect this one to survive review, once it gets to the supreme court. Which I expect to be a while. In the ruling, the motion to dismis the claim, against the Spammer was overturned, which starts a trial at the lower level, which then has to be run through the whole appeals process on its own. And at each level, I imagine that the question of consitutionality of this law will come up, until it hits the SC, where it will be decided. Sorry about the confusion. And of course, I am not a lawyer, but I play one in RPGs.
In contrast to the New York statute, which could reach all
content posted on the Internet and therefore subject individuals to
liability based on unintended access, the Act reaches only those deceptive
UCE messages directed to a Washington resident or initiated from a computer
located in Washington; in other words, the Act does not impose liability
for messages that are merely routed through Washington or that are read by
a Washington resident who was not the actual addressee. ---from the ruling
Would you want to go to prison because you downloaded porn from a server in a state where it's legal, to a state where it's legal, but went through a state where it's not? That is what's at stake here, and there are states that will try it.
---Above post
Could you at least read the article before you go and make such a blatanly dumb assertion about it?
A question to the above poster: Do you belive that there should be no regulation, what so ever, of the market? If so, that would imply that you are firmly against the protection that is offered to unions by the laws of the govenment, a form of regulation. I would then further assume that you would have all of us working under slave-like conditions for large corporations that need answer to no one. The simple fact is, governmental regulation helped put a stop to such practices, and further, keeps monopolies from causing huge market depressions. While enough training and knowledge can keep you above the average laborer, it is government regulation that keeps things like safe buildings, worker's compesation, and the like from become dreams. Do you really think compaines would shell out for it if they didn't need to? Further, anyone who creates noise about it would find themself unemployed, and stuck that way, because of current government regulation, your previous employer cannot say anything about you to a prospective employer, its not much, but it helps. America tried the concept of little or no regulation of the market, it failed, going back would be a big mistake. End Rant.
The federal government can certainly interfere, but I don't think they have the authority to directly change or overturn the law. --above post
Actually, that's exactly what they can do. It is the supreme court that will ultimately decide this case, and the fate of this law. If they decide that this law unduly tramples the power of the federal law, it will be stuck down. They can, and do, do this sort of thing all the time. Though from reading the ruling(interesting if a bit difficult.) it looks like the state supreme court put forth good reasoning behind remanding this one for trial. Though I am not a lawyer, and may have missed something.
While I will agree that intellectual property(IP) rights need to be protected, I tend to belive that comparing IP to physical property rights is a bit of a falicy. Assigning ownership of an object is a rather easy task, since the object exists as a single discrete unit, i.e. if I am holding my pen, you cannot be holding it as well. IP is different, in that I can have my idea, and you can have my idea as well, it is not limited to one person, phyisically speaking. So to compare the two is really not a vaild argument, and must be placed in the realm of falacious scare tactics. (See A. Hitler's "Mien Kampf" for more good examples of this sort of falicy.)
As for the DMCA itself, IMHO, it is a flawed attempt to do something that is nessecarry. IP must be protected, it helps to promote innovation, in that, it gives motivation, and funding, to innovators. For example, Bell Labs, if it wasn't for the profit from sales, why would they support the scientists who came up with transistors? Yes, IP is about money, and God forbid that any of us should want that! But the DCMA seems to be a bit over-bearing when it comes to protecting IP.
So what is the solution? I don't know, but if I were to put forth my opinion, a new law needs to be crafted that will fix some of the leaks in the DMCA, and in the same law, scrap the DMCA. To throw out the DMCA at the moment would create chaos. There needs to be some sort of framework to support IP, otherwise it will drain money out of innovation.
As for this new case, I don't expect much to come out of it. Certainly nothing far reaching. Felton will likely get his protection, but the DMCA will not be declared unconstitutional. Corley will still be just as dicked as he was before this case. Afterall, Corley basically thumbed his nose as the courts, not a good way to get them on your side. And because of the special nature of this case, it involves scientific research, its not going to affect DeCSS or any other source code, source code is not scientific research.
Just a few disclaimers to close this out: I am not a lawyer, I am not a rep of any mega-coglomeration(think RIAA, who I still question on whether or not they might just be a trust), and I'm not a crook. Though I am long winded.
Why store it at all? Once its diluted it becomes great fuel for a plutonium burning reactor. Its rather sad, we have this huge store of energy, while not as cheap as some, but once the technology was up and running, I imagine that we would find ways to make it cheaper, kind of the american way, to use a cliche. If we want to get rid of this stuff we should be using it, not warehousing it. All this stupid monument is, is a way to hide weapons grade plutonium in plain sight(would someone really be stupid enough to try and break into a storage facility guarded by a few thousand marines, with orders to shoot first and kill any survivors later?), and pander to the stupid greens who would have us all living in trees. Yes, humans damage the environment, but I think its just plain alarmist to try and claim that we are destroying the Earth, its gotten through asteroid impacts, ice ages, and volcanic eruptions(which spew ridiculous amounts of greenhouse gases), the ecosystem will adapt. End Rant.
"Finally, if you have nothing to hide then don't worry about law enforcement. If you do have something to hide then put your tail between your legs. Every person on here who complains about the FBI and the gov't is just afraid that their warez'd version of Photoshop will be found."
--- Above post
If you've never had the chance, pick up a copy of either "1984" or "Brave New World". While they both show the extreams. they are a good warning about allowing a govenment to "bend the law". Its not about hiding illegal copies of software, its about protecting our rights to have our own opinions. Its like a domino effect.
1. We allow the FBI/CIA/Police/Whatever law enforcement organization, to search as they see fit, and "bend the law".
2. A law gets past, by the govenment, that prevents people from expressing opinions that are contrary to the government, not easy, it would requre a little more corruption than is currently present.
3. the FBI et al., begin collecting information about such "criminals", a process that you wish to see allowed.
4. These "criminals" are then quitely prosecuted and sent to jail.
5. The govenment now has the means to openly get rid of unwanted political movenments.
Its a slow process, and would require some coordination, in the govenment, to pull off, but then, the Roman empire started off as a great little democracy, and later became the behemoth it was after corruption in the govenment began creating problems.
I'm not afraid of the law enforcement seeing what software I have, I actually buy mine, I am afraid that they will use this as a means to suppress me from expressing my opinion.
Its not just the trailer parks that do it to you. I live within a 20 minute WALK of a Cal-State College. Across the street from the college DSL is available. But 20 min. walk away and we're screwed. I can't get DSL, line attenuation is too high, and the local cable company, Charter Communications, hasn't made cable available in our area yet. Its not like we live in the boon-docks, or near trailer parks (no offence intended), we live in a middle class neighborhood. This is an area rampant with school-age kids and, I'm sure, enough disposable income to be able to afford high-speed internet. But good old Verizon (whom I would leave if I had half a chance)doesn't have a clue about when they are going to get DSL service in our area, and Charter told us "try back in a few months." I would go with satelite, but it either requires a dial connection for the send portion (would like to avoid tying up the phone line, and it sends at 56k.) or costly equipment (about $1000 to get Starband set up.) And while I make enough to be able to go this route, $1000 dollar start-up, then $60 a month is more than I want to pay for 128Kbps. End result $10/month dial-up and a lot of curses about Verizon. (Is it just me, or is Verizon Customer Service an oxymoron?)
First, to the above poster - If you're going to make a statement like this at least stand behind it. (a.k.a. Don't post anonymous) Secondly - I agree with the idea behind this post. Slahsdot often seems to be a forum for posting selfish desires. (Software should be GPL'd, closed source is bad. MP3's are great, we shouldn't give money to people for being creative.) Thirdly - I think that the ACCC is doing the right thing. However, I agree that we should (gasp!) pay for movies, music, and any other creative endevor, which we wish to make use of. I would be happy to pay for MP3's (with the cavet that I am not paying a ridiculios amount for them, price gouging.) I do rip my own CDs for my own use as MP3's, though I have already paid for the use of the song. And I buy DVDs, I don't go out and download them. This being said though, I think its rediculous for the MPAA to be able to limit the import of DVDs to a country, and the region codeing is doing just this. If they wish to delay a release of a movie outside the US, then it is thier own fault that some DVDs will be sold in other countries before the movie hits theaters. Anyway, a good movie will draw people to the theaters to see it, even if they have it on DVD. (I went and saw the re-release of the Star Wars Trilogy when it was in the local theater. BTW, great was to spend a day, but the rear gets a bit sore.) What the MPAA is doing is simply trying to control when and where their products get released. This allows them to fix prices. And this is wrong as far as I am concerned. In closing - Am I the only one who thinks that the MPAA might just be an illegal trust?
Actually, detecting which frequency was changed should be rather easy. By combining the resulting lasers with the origonal laser, out of phase, it should be possible to create destructive interference, such that, the only laser to return to the detector is the one that is changed. Factor out the interference from the origonal laser, and you have your changed frequency, and only your changed frequency. frequency searching solved. And lots of time saved.
Class action lawsuit. 'Nuff said...
This is rather amazing, how we scream about a curiosity, like the clipper chip, being handed over to the Chinese, but not about worse technologies. Ok, so security, privacy, etcetera is important. But good old Bubba didn't exactly stop with clipper chips. For example, he handed the Chinese MIRV technology, but people concentrate on the clipper chip. Why is it, that people can be outraged, by the possibility, that a forgien government will know that people are looking at porn, but it doesn't bother people that we have handed our enemies a better way to deploy weapons of mass destruction? Do they really buy that crap about, needing this for launching satalites? It wasn't nessecarry for Sputnik(sp?). Please wake up folks, there are worse demons out there, we are just being handed toys like the clipper chip to keep us distracted. For those that don't know: MIRV - Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicles - used for dropping several nuclear warheads from an ICBM (InterContinental Ballistic Missle) see http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/NC/mirv/mirv.html
for more information.
While this might be a bit of a slippery slope falicy, it is still worth mentioning. M$ claims that this is only for some enterprise contracts. But let us look forward in time. Assume for a minute that this takes off and large companies start using it. The next step would be for M$ to come out with the small business license. It would conatain smaller numbers of licenses, for a lower per anum cost. After all, the small business market is a huge market, and this would really rake in the profits. Once established in the small business market, M$ need only roll this into their next product for the home user, who will accept it as the accepted standard (they see it everyday at work). Its a slow process, sure. But 6 to 10 years is acceptable to force the entire market over to the subscription model. And great for profits.