Wouldn't it be ironic if the RIAA was *charging* artists for the increased cost to press a copy impaired disk? After all, why should the RIAA have foot the bill for looking after the artists' interests? Oh boy, wouldn't *that* just be a hoot?
I booted the laptop into Windows XP Home, inserted the Lycoris CD, and rebooted. A few seconds later I was greeted with the install program's Welcome screen. I pressed the Start button. I was then asked to confirm what the installation had discovered: that I had a 2-button mouse and a standard keyboard with Windows keys. It knew my video card and monitor, asked me to confirm the monitor's screen resolution and asked where I wanted to install the OS.
At this point I stopped to itch my arm. I itched it lightly, but with enough pressure to relieve the scratchy sensation. I looked to my right, and there I saw my dilbert calendar, my coffee cup, and my mouse. I used my hand to hold onto the mouse and click the buttons to continue.
Hey GUY, don't tell us every lousy second of what you did just to lengthen the word count on your story! Just say, "I installed it, it was easy."
Unless the law specified dstribution of *machine readable* malicious code (ie binaries)
Even better, I could write a compiler that takes the US Constitution as "source" and compiles it into a virus-like binary, and TADA, the Constitution is illegal to distribute!
...and do a damn good job. Without an *iron clad* definition, then you could make a case for things like say, Outlook, being "malicious". I don't mean to attack on Microsoft, I mean *anything* that unintentionally or intetionally causes damage could be considered malicious. Could "rm" be considered a "malicious" piece of code?
"If only they would devote a little bit of the millions of dollars they're spending on this ad campaign to help stop illegal downloading... but that wouldn't help them sell more CD burners, would it?"
If the RIAA would devote just a little bit of that money they use to fill thier jacuzzi's with hundred dollar bills to help stamp out Gateway's rivals.. sigh, but that wouldn't help them exploit more artists, would it?
Nail right on the head! If a department store is having trouble with shoplifting, THEY have to pay for the buzzers and sensors. they do NOT get to legislate that the clothing manufaturers make "unstealable" clothes.
The main problem with models like these is that they do not often take into account the dynamic nature of the "rules" that govern the simulated people. In the real world, people are able to change the rules that they live by, self-programming in a sense. For example, if we were to run a model that used the "rules" that governed race-relations in the 1800 and attempt to run that simulation forward to today, we would find that the end result is drastically different than the world we live in today, becuase the rules themlesves are evolving as the simulation moves forward. Maybe when simulating frog populations, this kind of rule-changing is less common, but when simulating people, it will always happen.
People have the ability to see the broader picture and alter the way the work in it. For example, in the scenario from the article where any particular square bases it's actions on the squares next to it, a "human" square would base it's rules on the squares next to it, BUT also on the makup of the board as a whole.
Once the simulators begin to allow the rules themselves to change, then we will see some really amazing results.
"They seem satisfied to try to attack it in the press rather than trying to make it work," said Sen. Hollings spokesman Andy Davis.
What kind of logic is that?
"They seem satisfied to try to attack it in the press rather than trying to make it work," said Terrorist Al-Fadim speaking about the terrorist attacks on America in the last few months, "If only the Americans would try and help us, we could destroy the Great Satan so much quicker."
...start lighting up over people's heads? I mean, the entire point of HAVING a congress is to do the will of the people. If not a single person wants this to be a law, why was it ever proposed? Of course, you and I know the answer to this question, but you would think SOMEONE with some power would kind of go, "Wait-a-second... What the hell happened to the "represenative" part of ouw represenative government?"
But won't it be so much fun when the spammer gets pulled over for rolling through a stopsign on his way home and finds himself behind bars in the county jailhouse with no idea of how he got there?
Why we don't notice them:
on
Time Travel
·
· Score: 2
Because while there are countless numbers of people from the future trying thier darndest right now to make it back here to muck about with our world, there are an equal number of people, also from the future, who are activly working to stop them. Anytime they see a paragraph in the history books suddenly appear that says, "King Jose De La Rosa, most beloved and wise man who ever lived, inventor of the time machine.", they go back in time and kick Jose's butt and make him give back the time machine he took from the physics lab.
IANAP (I ain't no freakin' physicist), but I don't get this -- if this scenario is true, then where does the parallel universe go? Doesn't it take energy from the same universe we're in?
Nope, because the exact instant that our good-hearted scientist jumped back in time (to another universe) to save JFK, and evil version of him jumped into our universe to kill him in our timeline. So the mass exchange will be exactly equal.
If he is successful...
on
Time Travel
·
· Score: 2
...he could come and give the machine to himself today and save us all the wait.
Why does everyone whine about nuking asteroids? Why NOT nuke them? Even the really big ones? Even the ones that people say are "the size of Texas"? And I don't mean the "try one nuke and give up" that they do in the movies right before sending the poorly trained oil rig workers. I mean rain down thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands, of 150 megaton nukes. Turn that whole nasty blob of metal and rock into white hot hell-fire plasma. Not only would it be fun and pretty, but we'd also get to empty out all the really nasty big mother nukes that have been sitting around and collecting dust forever.
I don't remembering God *having* a biotech lab, or at least it wasn't mentioned in any bible *I'VE* ever heard of... (Though, perhaps it's in $cientology's secret documents)
UNTIL we can manipulate ALL REALITY with only the power of WILL, we will NOT be be coming anywhere close to "playing god".
Just as long as they don't have the CD logo... if they do, then which one do you, as the consumer, believe? The CD logo that says it will work in your computer, or the Sony one that says it won't? Sounds like fradulent marketing to me.
Imagine :
"Malboro Advisory: These cigarettes will not cause cancer!" "Surgeon Genral's warning: these will cause cancer."
XML RPC is simple - it has a 4 page specification. SOAP is, well, not so simple. SOAP started out simple, but then committees got a hold of it. Try reading the specification - it's well over 100 pages long - and all legaleeze.
The "Simple" in SOAP is like the Green in Greenland... it's there to keep the non-Vikings out... Look for Complex Hyperbolic Interface Protocol, that'll be the one that M$ ACTUALLY uses...
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't it be ironic if the RIAA was *charging* artists for the increased cost to press a copy impaired disk? After all, why should the RIAA have foot the bill for looking after the artists' interests? Oh boy, wouldn't *that* just be a hoot?
paraphrase:
I booted the laptop into Windows XP Home, inserted the Lycoris CD, and rebooted. A few seconds later I was greeted with the install program's Welcome screen. I pressed the Start button. I was then asked to confirm what the installation had discovered: that I had a 2-button mouse and a standard keyboard with Windows keys. It knew my video card and monitor, asked me to confirm the monitor's screen resolution and asked where I wanted to install the OS.
At this point I stopped to itch my arm. I itched it lightly, but with enough pressure to relieve the scratchy sensation. I looked to my right, and there I saw my dilbert calendar, my coffee cup, and my mouse. I used my hand to hold onto the mouse and click the buttons to continue.
Hey GUY, don't tell us every lousy second of what you did just to lengthen the word count on your story! Just say, "I installed it, it was easy."
Because they can't get ...aww, it was crass then, and it's crass now...
7up.
Unless the law specified dstribution of *machine readable* malicious code (ie binaries)
Even better, I could write a compiler that takes the US Constitution as "source" and compiles it into a virus-like binary, and TADA, the Constitution is illegal to distribute!
...and do a damn good job. Without an *iron clad* definition, then you could make a case for things like say, Outlook, being "malicious". I don't mean to attack on Microsoft, I mean *anything* that unintentionally or intetionally causes damage could be considered malicious. Could "rm" be considered a "malicious" piece of code?
I second that! Where is the code?
"If only they would devote a little bit of the millions of dollars they're spending on this ad campaign to help stop illegal downloading ... but that wouldn't help them sell more CD burners, would it?"
If the RIAA would devote just a little bit of that money they use to fill thier jacuzzi's with hundred dollar bills to help stamp out Gateway's rivals.. sigh, but that wouldn't help them exploit more artists, would it?
Maybe if the RIAA would price their CDs more reasonably
Hmm, has there even been an ATTEMPT at lowering CD prices? Wow, I don't think that there even was!
Nail right on the head! If a department store is having trouble with shoplifting, THEY have to pay for the buzzers and sensors. they do NOT get to legislate that the clothing manufaturers make "unstealable" clothes.
The main problem with models like these is that they do not often take into account the dynamic nature of the "rules" that govern the simulated people. In the real world, people are able to change the rules that they live by, self-programming in a sense. For example, if we were to run a model that used the "rules" that governed race-relations in the 1800 and attempt to run that simulation forward to today, we would find that the end result is drastically different than the world we live in today, becuase the rules themlesves are evolving as the simulation moves forward. Maybe when simulating frog populations, this kind of rule-changing is less common, but when simulating people, it will always happen.
People have the ability to see the broader picture and alter the way the work in it. For example, in the scenario from the article where any particular square bases it's actions on the squares next to it, a "human" square would base it's rules on the squares next to it, BUT also on the makup of the board as a whole.
Once the simulators begin to allow the rules themselves to change, then we will see some really amazing results.
"They seem satisfied to try to attack it in the press rather than trying to make it work," said Sen. Hollings spokesman Andy Davis.
What kind of logic is that?
"They seem satisfied to try to attack it in the press rather than trying to make it work," said Terrorist Al-Fadim speaking about the terrorist attacks on America in the last few months, "If only the Americans would try and help us, we could destroy the Great Satan so much quicker."
...start lighting up over people's heads? I mean, the entire point of HAVING a congress is to do the will of the people. If not a single person wants this to be a law, why was it ever proposed? Of course, you and I know the answer to this question, but you would think SOMEONE with some power would kind of go, "Wait-a-second... What the hell happened to the "represenative" part of ouw represenative government?"
Like we don't have ENOUGH jokes about Huntsville?
But won't it be so much fun when the spammer gets pulled over for rolling through a stopsign on his way home and finds himself behind bars in the county jailhouse with no idea of how he got there?
Because while there are countless numbers of people from the future trying thier darndest right now to make it back here to muck about with our world, there are an equal number of people, also from the future, who are activly working to stop them. Anytime they see a paragraph in the history books suddenly appear that says, "King Jose De La Rosa, most beloved and wise man who ever lived, inventor of the time machine.", they go back in time and kick Jose's butt and make him give back the time machine he took from the physics lab.
IANAP (I ain't no freakin' physicist), but I don't get this -- if this scenario is true, then where does the parallel universe go? Doesn't it take energy from the same universe we're in?
Nope, because the exact instant that our good-hearted scientist jumped back in time (to another universe) to save JFK, and evil version of him jumped into our universe to kill him in our timeline. So the mass exchange will be exactly equal.
...he could come and give the machine to himself today and save us all the wait.
No, you don't know who I am, but I can do the job, honest. I promise to only take really REALLY big bribes.
Why does everyone whine about nuking asteroids? Why NOT nuke them? Even the really big ones? Even the ones that people say are "the size of Texas"? And I don't mean the "try one nuke and give up" that they do in the movies right before sending the poorly trained oil rig workers. I mean rain down thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands, of 150 megaton nukes. Turn that whole nasty blob of metal and rock into white hot hell-fire plasma. Not only would it be fun and pretty, but we'd also get to empty out all the really nasty big mother nukes that have been sitting around and collecting dust forever.
I don't remembering God *having* a biotech lab, or at least it wasn't mentioned in any bible *I'VE* ever heard of... (Though, perhaps it's in $cientology's secret documents)
UNTIL we can manipulate ALL REALITY with only the power of WILL, we will NOT be be coming anywhere close to "playing god".
The logo has a meaning, though. It would be like sticking "FDA Approved" stickers on untested drugs.
Just as long as they don't have the CD logo... if they do, then which one do you, as the consumer, believe? The CD logo that says it will work in your computer, or the Sony one that says it won't? Sounds like fradulent marketing to me.
Imagine :
"Malboro Advisory: These cigarettes will not cause cancer!"
"Surgeon Genral's warning: these will cause cancer."
XML RPC is simple - it has a 4 page specification. SOAP is, well, not so simple. SOAP started out simple, but then committees got a hold of it. Try reading the specification - it's well over 100 pages long - and all legaleeze.
The "Simple" in SOAP is like the Green in Greenland... it's there to keep the non-Vikings out... Look for Complex Hyperbolic Interface Protocol, that'll be the one that M$ ACTUALLY uses...
You couldn't fool your mother on the foolingest day of your life if you had an electrified fooling machine!
but no. You couldn't fool your mother on the foolingest day of your life if you had an electrified fooling machine!