Um yes, I agree, but there is a problem. I attempted to make an icon of a monkey humping a football, but then realized that I was unable to conceive of HOW IN GOD'S NAME CAN A MONKEY HUMP A FOOTBALL? That's just plain wrong, period. I'm not sure what you think the monkey should be doing to the football, and I'm not sure we want to know the details.
Mod me down and I will become stronger than you could ever imagine.
SCO upps damages to 6 billion and enjoins Linux vendors, claiming that since Linux now contains SysV code, it is a derivative work, and thus owned by SCO group under the terms of their UNIX license.
SCO upps damages to 9 billion and enjoins HP after failed negotiations to assert SCO's ownership of HP/UX. (HP can waffle for a long time, but I bet SCO is getting nasty right about now).
SCO upps damages to 20 billion and enjoins Microsoft, claiming that admissions Microsoft made in the licensing contract signed weeks ago prove that Windows NT, XP, and other core competencies of the Microsoft business are derived from SCO works, and thus all sublicense contracts are void and renegotiable only through the SCO group.
Malkovitch mode:
Now, you can play SCO games on your SCO-Box, and the free OS SCONUX has been taken back from the public domain. Trafficking in it is equivalent to terrorism under the DMCA and Patriot acts. SCO/UX now gives them a break into the high end server market, but the really big wins were control of licensing for all SCO XP and SCONT/Server SCO based SCOs, and the SCO now owns SCO. SCO the SCO, sco the Sco's sco sco sco. SCO sco, sco, sco sco, Sco Sco sco, sco. Sco, sco sco sco sco, sco, Sco, SCO, SCO!
Put the cornstarch, corn oil and water inside a plastic bag and microwave it.
So now, you are using plastic to make bio-plastic? Doesn't that defeat the point? And teaching young kids that microwaving plastic bags is ok is horrible. It's well known that doing this generates harmful dioxins.
Then the children are encouraged to play with this and form it into balls.
I see what is going on here. Some anti-earth industrialists have conspired to induce our young ones into ingesting dioxins at a young and sensitive age, harming their reproductive system, and leading to infertility, in order to reduce future populations of environmentalists. Call your congresspeople now, and get this bio-plastic learning unit banned!
Re:How long till it decays
on
Corn-Based Plastic
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Brilliant idea. Difficult to work out in practice. Methane might react under high enough temperature, with an appropriate catalyst, but consider that most of the plastic hydrocarbon polymers in corn starch are going to be completely saturated. Saturated hyrocarbons won't combine readily, and in fact as the fatty acids in the corn plastic hydrogenize, they will become more solid and stronger (and less healthy for you).
The Oracle predicts events that happen both inside and outside the Matrix
Trinity's kiss in the real world restores Neo's life in the Matrix.
Agent Smith travels into a human outside of the Matrix.
Neo can control machines outside of the Matrix.
Your projected "residual body image" is actually what you look like. Consider that Neo when he wakes in Zion/Surface, looks the same as in the Matrix. How can he know what he looks like, if, in fact he has never seen his own body.
And the most telling of all, which was for me very difficult to accept in the first movie - if you die in the matrix, you die in the real world as well. You don't die if you die in a dream. Nor do you start bleeding internally if you get hit in a simulation.
It's not that Zion is a higher level simulation or a recursion. Zion/Surface and the Matrix are both the same simulation.
It is anyone's guess what the purpose of the simulation is. Popular theories are that humans are used for brain power, etc...
My belief is that the simulation is intended to produce an effect. Many concurrent simulations are running. The architect has been attempting to force Neo to express the choice between logic and emotion in the most clear cut way possible - the two doors. In all other cases, this has been the end of the simulation, as logic has prevailed.
Why? If Neo was supposed to return to the Source, why offer a second door. No architect would be that silly - this is like playing with matches.
This could provide him with a test to determine if his program (Neo) has developed the capacity for emotion (and possibly, a test for consciousness). Perhaps he is trying to meld AI with an element of humanity to create a new sentient life form.
Perhaps emotion is the bug he is trying to eliminate - his AI programs are slowly developing emotional responses, and he uses Neo as a test subject for the penultimate expression of the bug, so he can find a way to eliminate it.
Perhaps Neo is living in a self-defined delusion. The architect exists to allow him to restart his simulation as he desires, and he is the One - in another sense. The only living being in the simulation. The reboot cycles are refinements of his simulation until it has been adjusted to the point that he desires to return to it.
Perhaps the Architect is seeking a way to override logic, using emotion as a control. This emotional control, and his study of the mechanisms of it, may be useful to him outside of the simulation, as a form of mind control.
Where x is in years is the cumulative output of Intel.
This allows us to calculate with high accuracy the size of Intel's production line, a secret coveted by industry insiders. Differentiating, we have:
2276816 * e^(.17329 * x)
Thus, Intel currently has 173 million processors in various production stages.
This allows us to calculate another secret, coveted by all geeks - the true value of an Intel CPU.
Intel's current market capitalization is 141.6 billion US$. Based on their Q1 2003 quarterly report, 53.6% of their cost of production (including R&D and other expenses) goes into the Intel Architecture business unit.
If we know the size of the production line, the current valuation, and the percentage dedicated to CPU production, we can compute an average valuation for an Intel CPU.
Each current issue Intel CPU should be worth, on average.536*141.6e9/173e6 dollars. That works out to $438.67 Current list prices for the Intel Pentium III, 3.06 GHz, range from $365-$759.99, with an average price listing of $459.53.
Conclusion - for every current release Intel CPU you buy, on average you are being ripped off by about $20.86, about 4.75% the value of the product. That is less than sales tax, and doesn't seem like the work of a greed hungry power monster.
Any similar statistics on Microsoft's product valuation would be highly interesting.
Breakfast Kickoff Session:
Your choice: A hard boiled egg, or two slices of white bread and a cricket.
What kind of a meal is that? If I am going to pay almost a thousand dollars to go to this conference, I expect at least three slices of bread with my cricket!
>Does SCO believe that Linux would be
>substantially less useful if the code claimed to
>be excerpted >from SYSV were excised? Is the
>value of the allegedly stolen code significant
>to the overall value of the Linux system, or is
>it merely valuable to provide standing for SCO to
>discourage the use of a free competitor to SCO?
I'm sorry. I agree with most of your points, but this is undefendable. If I own the IP (and I'm not saying SCO does) on a type of button that someone pushes to call an elevator, and they use that on the battlestation galactica that is orbiting above our planet, am I providing significant value to the overall value of the system?
No, but if they use my patented button design, I expect to be payed for it. And the fact that they are using it in the battlestation galactica makes for quite a handsome check.
What about fine arts students? Most students who do 3d modelling learn just one program at a time - 3D Studio Max being a big seller on MS computers because it's way cheaper than Maya. And many of those students will have a very difficult time transitioning to another modelling package and being forced to re-learn how best to accomplish simple tasks. All interfaces are not the same here, sort of like the difference between using a hammer or a screwdriver. You can do the same things, but in different ways. The same goes for a lot of media and arts packages. It can take several semesters to get good at one particular package, and learn all of it's tricks.
Why deny students a choice of software because some bigshot alum wants to promote a totally free alternative? This is not logical to me, and I would certainly resent not having the full range of tools available to me.
I've seen scripting lead to shortcuts or obvious breaks far too often. It's far too easy to miss details in scripting by making assumptions that are convenient for the fast paced development tool. For example, assuming that input is line oriented, or that all of the input can be held in memory at the same time. Yes, you can make the same mistakes in C/C++. It's not done nearly as often, because the rapid developement and general assumptions that make scripting so fast and easy are missing - you have to think about each piece.
Scripting is slower as well. First of all, it's interpreted, not compiled, and most scripting languages are not lightweight to parse - they have a very flexible syntax. Also, it's fairly common for these syntaxes to transparently support different data types - meaning your data gets converted from strings to numbers or whatnot in all sort of places you wouldn't normally do that in C/C++. Often, regular expression matches/rewriting are thrown in as an additional feature, and abused for doing very simple things - changing case, re-ordering terms. Yes you can use perl hash tables and write fast scripts. Yes, you can write very poorly performing C/C++ code. I have yet to see a case where a well written C program can't outperform a scripting language.
Yes, scripting can be done well. In practice, most of it is thrown together quickly, or maintained by multiple authors with varying degrees of skill, and it quickly looses its value as a reliable and efficient tool. I think this is why it is relegated to the "quick and dirty" prototype status.
Wrong. All they need to do is encrypt the data stored by the watermark, and tie it to the data stream with a checksum. Now you can't modify the watermark. Nor can you lift it and superimpose it on another track, or portion of a track.
All you can do is corrupt the watermark. You need to break the encryption before you can control the audit stream.
The really fun part of this though, is that any musical artist can create the facilities to help hack the watermark. What is the matermark of silence? Pink noise? White noise? That provides useful clues to breaking the encryption.
The test you propose is not a more interesting test. It is simply a different test.
The original test is designed to stress the theoretical maximum number of connections, which exercises the network stack, in particular the pcb hashing mechanisms and multiple IP address handling.
The test you propose is a real world scalability test, which has a much different purpose.
Executing DIR *.* or CATALOG or/bin/ls or similar command in a terminal type browser will provide you with a set of links to various pieces of content available in the filesystem of a machine. If this happens from a terminal station, then the traffic takes place over a network (the terminal server network). Some of these links may generate dynamic content by running a binary image which outputs text and or graphics to the terminal. This has been done since computers were around!
So why wouldn't you just demand a source license for all government systems and keep it secret under the national security clause? How do you know that isn't being done today with proprietary systems that run critical government systems?
Slashdot Mirror
Damn, I was looking for a grammar error, and I ended up thinking it was bread(), since the context doesn't fit with the definition of "bread".
Um yes, I agree, but there is a problem. I attempted to make an icon of a monkey humping a football, but then realized that I was unable to conceive of HOW IN GOD'S NAME CAN A MONKEY HUMP A FOOTBALL? That's just plain wrong, period. I'm not sure what you think the monkey should be doing to the football, and I'm not sure we want to know the details.
Mod me down and I will become stronger than you could ever imagine.
That would be correct. This entire thread was an absurd commentary, showing how to lie with statistics.
Almost right - pyramid hat mode:
SCO upps damages to 6 billion and enjoins Linux vendors, claiming that since Linux now contains SysV code, it is a derivative work, and thus owned by SCO group under the terms of their UNIX license.
SCO upps damages to 9 billion and enjoins HP after failed negotiations to assert SCO's ownership of HP/UX. (HP can waffle for a long time, but I bet SCO is getting nasty right about now).
SCO upps damages to 20 billion and enjoins Microsoft, claiming that admissions Microsoft made in the licensing contract signed weeks ago prove that Windows NT, XP, and other core competencies of the Microsoft business are derived from SCO works, and thus all sublicense contracts are void and renegotiable only through the SCO group.
Malkovitch mode:
Now, you can play SCO games on your SCO-Box, and the free OS SCONUX has been taken back from the public domain. Trafficking in it is equivalent to terrorism under the DMCA and Patriot acts. SCO/UX now gives them a break into the high end server market, but the really big wins were control of licensing for all SCO XP and SCONT/Server SCO based SCOs, and the SCO now owns SCO. SCO the SCO, sco the Sco's sco sco sco. SCO sco, sco, sco sco, Sco Sco sco, sco. Sco, sco sco sco sco, sco, Sco, SCO, SCO!
Not the bio-plastic, that is a great idea.
The directions for making it:
Put the cornstarch, corn oil and water inside a plastic bag and microwave it.
So now, you are using plastic to make bio-plastic? Doesn't that defeat the point? And teaching young kids that microwaving plastic bags is ok is horrible. It's well known that doing this generates harmful dioxins.
Then the children are encouraged to play with this and form it into balls.
I see what is going on here. Some anti-earth industrialists have conspired to induce our young ones into ingesting dioxins at a young and sensitive age, harming their reproductive system, and leading to infertility, in order to reduce future populations of environmentalists. Call your congresspeople now, and get this bio-plastic learning unit banned!
Brilliant idea. Difficult to work out in practice. Methane might react under high enough temperature, with an appropriate catalyst, but consider that most of the plastic hydrocarbon polymers in corn starch are going to be completely saturated. Saturated hyrocarbons won't combine readily, and in fact as the fatty acids in the corn plastic hydrogenize, they will become more solid and stronger (and less healthy for you).
Evidence supporting this theory:
The Oracle predicts events that happen both inside and outside the Matrix
Trinity's kiss in the real world restores Neo's life in the Matrix.
Agent Smith travels into a human outside of the Matrix.
Neo can control machines outside of the Matrix.
Your projected "residual body image" is actually what you look like. Consider that Neo when he wakes in Zion/Surface, looks the same as in the Matrix. How can he know what he looks like, if, in fact he has never seen his own body.
And the most telling of all, which was for me very difficult to accept in the first movie - if you die in the matrix, you die in the real world as well. You don't die if you die in a dream. Nor do you start bleeding internally if you get hit in a simulation.
It's not that Zion is a higher level simulation or a recursion. Zion/Surface and the Matrix are both the same simulation.
It is anyone's guess what the purpose of the simulation is. Popular theories are that humans are used for brain power, etc...
My belief is that the simulation is intended to produce an effect. Many concurrent simulations are running. The architect has been attempting to force Neo to express the choice between logic and emotion in the most clear cut way possible - the two doors. In all other cases, this has been the end of the simulation, as logic has prevailed.
Why? If Neo was supposed to return to the Source, why offer a second door. No architect would be that silly - this is like playing with matches.
This could provide him with a test to determine if his program (Neo) has developed the capacity for emotion (and possibly, a test for consciousness). Perhaps he is trying to meld AI with an element of humanity to create a new sentient life form.
Perhaps emotion is the bug he is trying to eliminate - his AI programs are slowly developing emotional responses, and he uses Neo as a test subject for the penultimate expression of the bug, so he can find a way to eliminate it.
Perhaps Neo is living in a self-defined delusion. The architect exists to allow him to restart his simulation as he desires, and he is the One - in another sense. The only living being in the simulation. The reboot cycles are refinements of his simulation until it has been adjusted to the point that he desires to return to it.
Perhaps the Architect is seeking a way to override logic, using emotion as a control. This emotional control, and his study of the mechanisms of it, may be useful to him outside of the simulation, as a form of mind control.
Thus,
.536*141.6e9/173e6 dollars. That works out to $438.67 Current list prices for the Intel Pentium III, 3.06 GHz, range from $365-$759.99, with an average price listing of $459.53.
13139006 * e^(.17329 * x)
Where x is in years is the cumulative output of Intel.
This allows us to calculate with high accuracy the size of Intel's production line, a secret coveted by industry insiders. Differentiating, we have:
2276816 * e^(.17329 * x)
Thus, Intel currently has 173 million processors in various production stages.
This allows us to calculate another secret, coveted by all geeks - the true value of an Intel CPU.
Intel's current market capitalization is 141.6 billion US$. Based on their Q1 2003 quarterly report, 53.6% of their cost of production (including R&D and other expenses) goes into the Intel Architecture business unit.
If we know the size of the production line, the current valuation, and the percentage dedicated to CPU production, we can compute an average valuation for an Intel CPU.
Each current issue Intel CPU should be worth, on average
Conclusion - for every current release Intel CPU you buy, on average you are being ripped off by about $20.86, about 4.75% the value of the product. That is less than sales tax, and doesn't seem like the work of a greed hungry power monster.
Any similar statistics on Microsoft's product valuation would be highly interesting.
Breakfast Kickoff Session:
Your choice: A hard boiled egg, or two slices of white bread and a cricket.
What kind of a meal is that? If I am going to pay almost a thousand dollars to go to this conference, I expect at least three slices of bread with my cricket!
>Does SCO believe that Linux would be
>substantially less useful if the code claimed to
>be excerpted >from SYSV were excised? Is the
>value of the allegedly stolen code significant
>to the overall value of the Linux system, or is
>it merely valuable to provide standing for SCO to
>discourage the use of a free competitor to SCO?
I'm sorry. I agree with most of your points, but this is undefendable. If I own the IP (and I'm not saying SCO does) on a type of button that someone pushes to call an elevator, and they use that on the battlestation galactica that is orbiting above our planet, am I providing significant value to the overall value of the system?
No, but if they use my patented button design, I expect to be payed for it. And the fact that they are using it in the battlestation galactica makes for quite a handsome check.
This proposal does not make any sense. It's a little late for April Fools jokes.
Where did you learn how to write?
At the risk of offending the grammar nazis, shouldn't that be "You've don't got mail!" or maybe "You aint got no mail!"
Wrong! You should have rote:
At the risk of offending the grammer nazis, shouldn't that be "You doesn't got mail!" or maybe "You ain't got no mail!"
What about fine arts students? Most students who do 3d modelling learn just one program at a time - 3D Studio Max being a big seller on MS computers because it's way cheaper than Maya. And many of those students will have a very difficult time transitioning to another modelling package and being forced to re-learn how best to accomplish simple tasks. All interfaces are not the same here, sort of like the difference between using a hammer or a screwdriver. You can do the same things, but in different ways. The same goes for a lot of media and arts packages. It can take several semesters to get good at one particular package, and learn all of it's tricks.
Why deny students a choice of software because some bigshot alum wants to promote a totally free alternative? This is not logical to me, and I would certainly resent not having the full range of tools available to me.
I've seen scripting lead to shortcuts or obvious breaks far too often. It's far too easy to miss details in scripting by making assumptions that are convenient for the fast paced development tool. For example, assuming that input is line oriented, or that all of the input can be held in memory at the same time. Yes, you can make the same mistakes in C/C++. It's not done nearly as often, because the rapid developement and general assumptions that make scripting so fast and easy are missing - you have to think about each piece.
Scripting is slower as well. First of all, it's interpreted, not compiled, and most scripting languages are not lightweight to parse - they have a very flexible syntax. Also, it's fairly common for these syntaxes to transparently support different data types - meaning your data gets converted from strings to numbers or whatnot in all sort of places you wouldn't normally do that in C/C++. Often, regular expression matches/rewriting are thrown in as an additional feature, and abused for doing very simple things - changing case, re-ordering terms. Yes you can use perl hash tables and write fast scripts. Yes, you can write very poorly performing C/C++ code. I have yet to see a case where a well written C program can't outperform a scripting language.
Yes, scripting can be done well. In practice, most of it is thrown together quickly, or maintained by multiple authors with varying degrees of skill, and it quickly looses its value as a reliable and efficient tool. I think this is why it is relegated to the "quick and dirty" prototype status.
Wrong. All they need to do is encrypt the data stored by the watermark, and tie it to the data stream with a checksum. Now you can't modify the watermark. Nor can you lift it and superimpose it on another track, or portion of a track.
All you can do is corrupt the watermark. You need to break the encryption before you can control the audit stream.
The really fun part of this though, is that any musical artist can create the facilities to help hack the watermark. What is the matermark of silence? Pink noise? White noise? That provides useful clues to breaking the encryption.
FreeBSD is NOT GPL'd people! It is still free to fork, but it has a BSD license. Sorry, but this inaccurary highly annoys me. Score: -1, Anti-GPL
You forgot: Imagine a Beowulf cluster running on five different forks of BSD!
Future Iraqi WiFi devices will detect the presence of military radar and tune their frequency spectrum to transmit on top of it as much as possible.
How is releasing technical details that make this possible a good idea?
The test you propose is not a more interesting test. It is simply a different test.
The original test is designed to stress the theoretical maximum number of connections, which exercises the network stack, in particular the pcb hashing mechanisms and multiple IP address handling.
The test you propose is a real world scalability test, which has a much different purpose.
Executing DIR *.* or CATALOG or /bin/ls or similar command in a terminal type browser will provide you with a set of links to various pieces of content available in the filesystem of a machine. If this happens from a terminal station, then the traffic takes place over a network (the terminal server network). Some of these links may generate dynamic content by running a binary image which outputs text and or graphics to the terminal. This has been done since computers were around!
You can do the same thing without changing a static document documents, just using a simple symlink in the filesystem... since 1970!
It will take all of a day to find documented prior art on this.
So why wouldn't you just demand a source license for all government systems and keep it secret under the national security clause? How do you know that isn't being done today with proprietary systems that run critical government systems?
Hey, just imagine being able to game for 86 hours straight. It sure would have helped this guy.
Doesn't he wan to support the building of the embassy and the cloning of Rael? Click here!
T. Beier and S. Neely. Feature-based image metamorphosis. Computer Graphics (Proc. of SIGGRAPH), pages 35-42, 1992