I was sitting here, coding some stuff for a friend of mine, thinking about this desire the military has for the information overlays. You know, where things like opfor and escape routes are displayed over the field of vision, not to replace reality but augment it?
I started thinking about the right of a person to say, "hey, this is public transportation, I pay for it, I don't want it riddled with ads." And of course that would never happen because advertisers help (in whatever amount) to keep fares down and/or keep the transportation system at least partially subsidized. So imagine a future where HUDs are not exacly uncommon, but a pay service is available that -- through whatever mechanism (real-time recognition of, hardwired maps, whatever) -- is capable of nulling out advertisements. Instead of seeing a billboard you see trees. Instead of hearing an ad, you hear your favorite music, whatever.
Do we then find ourselves with anti-advertising laws designed to retain our eyes and ears? Will jamming be put into effect, rendering the providing company's economic model moot and thereby cause the destruction of such services? As absurd as it may seem, will corporations own enough of our mindshare (through media manipulation) and our representatives (through simple contributions) to actually cause public opinion to view users of such systems as "thieves"?
I know this sounds kind of far-fetched, but each one of the steps necessary to bring this to fruition is not only wholy plausible but in some cases already history.
starman97 writes: "Now, getting to Mach 7.6 to light one of these off may take a railgun, something that rules out living payloads, but good for launching cheap infrastructure into LEO."
Apologies in advance for splitting hairs (because that's more or less what I'm doing), but it needn't be cheap nor LEO, but it would help if it was hardened if you're going to railgun it up. =)
I hate Microsoft (trust me) just as much as the next Slashdotter, but if you read the page, it's a Q&A forum for people with computer problems and how to do this successfully is explained. In other words, you need to know what you're doing before you do it.
If someone whined to your average slashdotter that linux didn't install before they did their hardware homework, they'd be laughed at. The issue is more or less the same.
But as an aside, I think DRM is fairly evil in general inasmuch as fair use is not preserved.
Howzer writes: "Here are the numbers [thewizardofodds.com]. The casino edge for the exact setup that I wrote about is less than one half of one percent. So, half the time (actually 49.5% of the time), you win. Slightly more often, you lose."
Well, then a half-retraction. My point was correct and still stands in that the rules of the game skew the favorability away from 50/50.
I'll admit, however, that I had no idea that it was that close. I would have guessed closer to the 4% mark.
Yeah, okay, that's exactly what I want. Right in the middle of sex our respective plugs pop out and in the ensuing chaos, we plug them into the wrong outlets and I get to see precisely how stupid I look when I have an orgasm.
Howzer writes: "The facts are that even an 8-deck, machine shuffled, heavily cut monster will, just by pure random chance, about half the time be weighted to the player."
If you were playing the card game "War," yes. The rules that surround the game of Blackjack (such as the dealer must play past 17) make this very clearly not the case.
I really, really, really have to express much disagreement with this classification of the author's hesitancy to contribute to child labor and murder as "trivial." I understand your point, in principal (pick your battles), and I realize that this is not trivial on her end, but if there is a better thing to stick up for, I can't think of one.
cgleba writes: "Can you imagine the insanity editing in Emacs would be?:). M-> for end of buffer or C-M-w for append next kill to last. ..do we have that many fingers?"
You have yet to master the quad-bucky, young padwan. =)
Second, the reason we're so hostile is that I'm quite sure that before I die, someone is going to patent "a novel way to alleviate butt itch" (read; scratching) and then where will I be?
I'm joking, but the point is there. Patents should be granted to the novel. One-click is not novel. Hence our complaints.
While I wholeheartedly applaud this guy's efforts, I think he's missing the possibilities of using the upward motion of the finger as well as the downward. That having been said, I think this is fantastic. This might push me over the edge to ditch my 19" trinitron for some glasses.
For those who don't want to go through NYT, you can go right to his site at chordite.com.
There is no way in hell that anybody could anything significant with 40ft or less. I'm not a pilot or even terribly proficient with physics, but I don't imagine it would take much to demonstrate that the output necessary to provide enough airflow over 40ft of even the most promising surface to attain sufficient lift would be beyond human ability, even if three 80lb Armstrongs were behind the yoke. And I'm assuming this is a vertical limit as well as a horizontal one, so that rules out things like balloon assist.
ThanatosNL writes: " Well said, and I agree with you about the media. However, my claim is that there is a double standard, i.e. no matter what M$ does, they're doing something bad, but we don't place others under the same level scrutiny. We should scrutinize them when they do wrong--just not make it an automatic process. Many have lost their capacity to think *critically* and analyze situations. Instead of getting down on M$ for _not_ using the DMCA, we should attack all instances of the DMCA, because it truly is a horrible bill."
I'm not suggesting we make Microsoft a special case, I'm suggesting that we cast a skeptical eye toward all corporations. This is not a "guilty until proven innocent" issue, but I don't think we should wait for malice to rear it's head before we start digging. I think all corporate actions should be suspect and only when evidence is found should we accuse. They, like the government, have not proven themselves capable of restraining themselves in even the slightest regard.
ThanatosNL wrote: "We shouldn't automatically suspect them of foul play."
This part I disagree with.
The collective known as "the media", the "5th branch" of government, the watchdog as it were, has the responsibility to cast an immediate suspicious eye at everyone and everything. They have failed us miserably. Look at the news. The problem is it's not. It's entertainment. Two babies joined at the head affects two babies and two extended families, perhaps some doctors. This is not news. The latest state of Angelina's love life is not news. A firefight in Afghanistan that kills 15 is not really news either. Wars that kill thousands, even tens or hundreds of thousands are news. A critical examination of the laws that are being passed to stop corruption (which cost many thousands to lose, in some cases, everything they had) qualify as news. We are being given just enough to think we're being informed when it amounts to nothing. Nothing.
It is with this in mind, the idea that the media no longer is, that I disagree that we should not cast a suspicious eye toward Microsoft (or indeed, virtually any company) when they take some action that impacts our freedom.
On one hand, he has a point. We have been treating it like it's our toy. Witness ICANN's atrocious behavior. On the other hand it is our toy. Doesn't excuse us, of course, but why should anyone be upset if they want an internet of their own? Let them finance it, control it, maintain it and deal with the headaches.
I wrote: " Microsoft might be driven solely by their obligation to their shareholders (as any company is, unfortunately), but they're not utterly without intelligence. "
ThanatosNL replied: "Why is obligation to shareholders bad? It's a delicate economical system that works fine. If the Enron execs had felt the obligation to shareholders, instead of themselves, than the company would have continued to grow in a reasonable, time tested manner. "
Well, you've kinda answered the question with your first two sentences here. A company's responsibility to the shareholder does not have any boundaries except for law, and even that doesn't work. As I type this, WorldCom is reporting and additional 3.3B in fudged figures. Corporations look at ethics the same way that science looks at ethics, which is to say that they don't at all (this is not a dig vs. science in even the slightest way, I'm a big fan). Science is not concerned with whether a thing is good or bad but merely -- and solely -- whether it is true or false. Similarly, a company has no thought but profit. These range from the obvious (Enron) to the notorious (Union Carbide) to the devastating (Exxon).
That having been said, I see your point and I do agree with you more than this post might let on. I simply feel that MS did what it felt was in it's own best interest, and the concept of fair use and where the boundaries lie wasn't one of them.
SN74S181 writes: "What, then, would the 'right thing' to do be? Should they ship a source tarball for Windows and all of their products on DVD-ROM to their entire customer base? Maybe they should give their entire cash reserves to the EFF? No, I think that probably wouldn't be enough. Hatred consumes the one who hates. There are a lot of Microsoft haters who need a nice long break from their preoccupation."
Without sounding like I'm trying to torch you, I don't know how you read my message and came away with this conclusion. Perhaps you're so used to a knee-jerk anti-Microsoft reaction (justified) on Slash, I don't know. But I'll take it from different angle.
Microsoft never does the "right thing." Sun never does the "right thing." Walmart never does the "right thing." Sears never does the "right thing."
Corporations do what is -- or what they think is -- in the best interest in the bottom line and by extension their shareholders. This is not anti-Microsoft. In fact I despise the fact that you can't say a pro-MS thing on Slashdot without getting modded into oblivion.
But to repeat myself, the morality (ie, the "correctness") of an action cannot be determined by the the action itself. Motives determine such nebulous concepts as morality and ethics. It is with this distinction that I proposed that Microsoft wasn't doing anything so desirable as getting a conscience.
Microsoft might be driven solely by their obligation to their shareholders (as any company is, unfortunately), but they're not utterly without intelligence.
Suppose someone dies and you know where they stashed $1,000 in cash. You might take that money, but later return it. Why? Did you return it because stealing it was wrong, and you came to this realization? Did you return it because you were afraid of being caught? Maybe you returned it out of guilt. The point is that honor and "good behavior" comes in many flavors which are not immediately obvious to the casual observer.
So do I think that Microsoft did the "right thing?" No way in hell. Do I think they did the "smart thing?" You bet. I think they took one look at the Felten debacle and knew to not play with the academics. I think they know the power of public relations, especially this year.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe they could equip the flight attendants with these things so actually show up when I want another !@#$ing soda.
I see your point, but the question is, "are you going from the the frying pan to the fire."
And the honest answer is, "I don't know."
I was sitting here, coding some stuff for a friend of mine, thinking about this desire the military has for the information overlays. You know, where things like opfor and escape routes are displayed over the field of vision, not to replace reality but augment it?
I started thinking about the right of a person to say, "hey, this is public transportation, I pay for it, I don't want it riddled with ads." And of course that would never happen because advertisers help (in whatever amount) to keep fares down and/or keep the transportation system at least partially subsidized. So imagine a future where HUDs are not exacly uncommon, but a pay service is available that -- through whatever mechanism (real-time recognition of, hardwired maps, whatever) -- is capable of nulling out advertisements. Instead of seeing a billboard you see trees. Instead of hearing an ad, you hear your favorite music, whatever.
Do we then find ourselves with anti-advertising laws designed to retain our eyes and ears? Will jamming be put into effect, rendering the providing company's economic model moot and thereby cause the destruction of such services? As absurd as it may seem, will corporations own enough of our mindshare (through media manipulation) and our representatives (through simple contributions) to actually cause public opinion to view users of such systems as "thieves"?
I know this sounds kind of far-fetched, but each one of the steps necessary to bring this to fruition is not only wholy plausible but in some cases already history.
Just a thought.
starman97 writes:
"Now, getting to Mach 7.6 to light one of these off may take a railgun, something that rules out living payloads, but good for launching cheap infrastructure into LEO."
Apologies in advance for splitting hairs (because that's more or less what I'm doing), but it needn't be cheap nor LEO, but it would help if it was hardened if you're going to railgun it up. =)
I hate Microsoft (trust me) just as much as the next Slashdotter, but if you read the page, it's a Q&A forum for people with computer problems and how to do this successfully is explained. In other words, you need to know what you're doing before you do it.
If someone whined to your average slashdotter that linux didn't install before they did their hardware homework, they'd be laughed at. The issue is more or less the same.
But as an aside, I think DRM is fairly evil in general inasmuch as fair use is not preserved.
Howzer writes:
"Here are the numbers [thewizardofodds.com]. The casino edge for the exact setup that I wrote about is less than one half of one percent. So, half the time (actually 49.5% of the time), you win. Slightly more often, you lose."
Well, then a half-retraction. My point was correct and still stands in that the rules of the game skew the favorability away from 50/50.
I'll admit, however, that I had no idea that it was that close. I would have guessed closer to the 4% mark.
Yeah, okay, that's exactly what I want. Right in the middle of sex our respective plugs pop out and in the ensuing chaos, we plug them into the wrong outlets and I get to see precisely how stupid I look when I have an orgasm.
No thanks.
Howzer writes:
"The facts are that even an 8-deck, machine shuffled, heavily cut monster will, just by pure random chance, about half the time be weighted to the player."
If you were playing the card game "War," yes. The rules that surround the game of Blackjack (such as the dealer must play past 17) make this very clearly not the case.
I really, really, really have to express much disagreement with this classification of the author's hesitancy to contribute to child labor and murder as "trivial." I understand your point, in principal (pick your battles), and I realize that this is not trivial on her end, but if there is a better thing to stick up for, I can't think of one.
A simple workaround would be to print two barcodes on the item. *beep *beep, you've just given yourself 24 bits.
cgleba writes: :). M-> for end of buffer or C-M-w for append next kill to last. . .do we have that many fingers?"
"Can you imagine the insanity editing in Emacs would be?
You have yet to master the quad-bucky, young padwan. =)
First, great points.
Second, the reason we're so hostile is that I'm quite sure that before I die, someone is going to patent "a novel way to alleviate butt itch" (read; scratching) and then where will I be?
I'm joking, but the point is there. Patents should be granted to the novel. One-click is not novel. Hence our complaints.
But again, good points.
Anyway...
While I wholeheartedly applaud this guy's efforts, I think he's missing the possibilities of using the upward motion of the finger as well as the downward. That having been said, I think this is fantastic. This might push me over the edge to ditch my 19" trinitron for some glasses.
For those who don't want to go through NYT, you can go right to his site at chordite.com.
Heck, I'd be happy if it would just let me understand my girlfriend.
Oh, man. When I read "forcing function," I was going to suggest more fiber, but this is a bit different...
There is no way in hell that anybody could anything significant with 40ft or less. I'm not a pilot or even terribly proficient with physics, but I don't imagine it would take much to demonstrate that the output necessary to provide enough airflow over 40ft of even the most promising surface to attain sufficient lift would be beyond human ability, even if three 80lb Armstrongs were behind the yoke. And I'm assuming this is a vertical limit as well as a horizontal one, so that rules out things like balloon assist.
Some examples of the state of HPV flight include:
Velair
Daedelus
Musculair
Light Eagle
Sakuzo
40ft. Give me a break. Literally.
ThanatosNL writes:
" Well said, and I agree with you about the media. However, my claim is that there is a double standard, i.e. no matter what M$ does, they're doing something bad, but we don't place others under the same level scrutiny. We should scrutinize them when they do wrong--just not make it an automatic process. Many have lost their capacity to think *critically* and analyze situations. Instead of getting down on M$ for _not_ using the DMCA, we should attack all instances of the DMCA, because it truly is a horrible bill."
I'm not suggesting we make Microsoft a special case, I'm suggesting that we cast a skeptical eye toward all corporations. This is not a "guilty until proven innocent" issue, but I don't think we should wait for malice to rear it's head before we start digging. I think all corporate actions should be suspect and only when evidence is found should we accuse. They, like the government, have not proven themselves capable of restraining themselves in even the slightest regard.
ThanatosNL wrote:
"We shouldn't automatically suspect them of foul play."
This part I disagree with.
The collective known as "the media", the "5th branch" of government, the watchdog as it were, has the responsibility to cast an immediate suspicious eye at everyone and everything. They have failed us miserably. Look at the news. The problem is it's not. It's entertainment. Two babies joined at the head affects two babies and two extended families, perhaps some doctors. This is not news. The latest state of Angelina's love life is not news. A firefight in Afghanistan that kills 15 is not really news either. Wars that kill thousands, even tens or hundreds of thousands are news. A critical examination of the laws that are being passed to stop corruption (which cost many thousands to lose, in some cases, everything they had) qualify as news. We are being given just enough to think we're being informed when it amounts to nothing. Nothing.
It is with this in mind, the idea that the media no longer is, that I disagree that we should not cast a suspicious eye toward Microsoft (or indeed, virtually any company) when they take some action that impacts our freedom.
Who else will?
Google's mirror is here.
If you think I'm karma whoring, please go and mod down some of my other posts. I could care less. =)
On one hand, he has a point. We have been treating it like it's our toy. Witness ICANN's atrocious behavior. On the other hand it is our toy. Doesn't excuse us, of course, but why should anyone be upset if they want an internet of their own? Let them finance it, control it, maintain it and deal with the headaches.
I wrote:
" Microsoft might be driven solely by their obligation to their shareholders (as any company is, unfortunately), but they're not utterly without intelligence. "
ThanatosNL replied:
"Why is obligation to shareholders bad? It's a delicate economical system that works fine. If the Enron execs had felt the obligation to shareholders, instead of themselves, than the company would have continued to grow in a reasonable, time tested manner. "
Well, you've kinda answered the question with your first two sentences here. A company's responsibility to the shareholder does not have any boundaries except for law, and even that doesn't work. As I type this, WorldCom is reporting and additional 3.3B in fudged figures. Corporations look at ethics the same way that science looks at ethics, which is to say that they don't at all (this is not a dig vs. science in even the slightest way, I'm a big fan). Science is not concerned with whether a thing is good or bad but merely -- and solely -- whether it is true or false. Similarly, a company has no thought but profit. These range from the obvious (Enron) to the notorious (Union Carbide) to the devastating (Exxon).
That having been said, I see your point and I do agree with you more than this post might let on. I simply feel that MS did what it felt was in it's own best interest, and the concept of fair use and where the boundaries lie wasn't one of them.
SN74S181 writes:
"What, then, would the 'right thing' to do be? Should they ship a source tarball for Windows and all of their products on DVD-ROM to their entire customer base? Maybe they should give their entire cash reserves to the EFF? No, I think that probably wouldn't be enough. Hatred consumes the one who hates. There are a lot of Microsoft haters who need a nice long break from their preoccupation."
Without sounding like I'm trying to torch you, I don't know how you read my message and came away with this conclusion. Perhaps you're so used to a knee-jerk anti-Microsoft reaction (justified) on Slash, I don't know. But I'll take it from different angle.
Microsoft never does the "right thing."
Sun never does the "right thing."
Walmart never does the "right thing."
Sears never does the "right thing."
Corporations do what is -- or what they think is -- in the best interest in the bottom line and by extension their shareholders. This is not anti-Microsoft. In fact I despise the fact that you can't say a pro-MS thing on Slashdot without getting modded into oblivion.
But to repeat myself, the morality (ie, the "correctness") of an action cannot be determined by the the action itself. Motives determine such nebulous concepts as morality and ethics. It is with this distinction that I proposed that Microsoft wasn't doing anything so desirable as getting a conscience.
Microsoft might be driven solely by their obligation to their shareholders (as any company is, unfortunately), but they're not utterly without intelligence.
Suppose someone dies and you know where they stashed $1,000 in cash. You might take that money, but later return it. Why? Did you return it because stealing it was wrong, and you came to this realization? Did you return it because you were afraid of being caught? Maybe you returned it out of guilt. The point is that honor and "good behavior" comes in many flavors which are not immediately obvious to the casual observer.
So do I think that Microsoft did the "right thing?" No way in hell. Do I think they did the "smart thing?" You bet. I think they took one look at the Felten debacle and knew to not play with the academics. I think they know the power of public relations, especially this year.
"So what movies would you want to see on IMAX?"
The list would be long, but we can start with anything that involves a naked Angelina Jolie.
Please.
The paper is very, very clear and I am very, very glad that I don't run Windows. =)
While "Shatter" is a great name, it would have been a great inside joke if he called it "Defenestrate". =)