Not to mention, if you're looking to convince someone who believes otherwise they're unlikely to put much faith in a study by a body called the Entertainment Software Association. Consider how/.-ers react to studies about Windows security and/or reliability from Microsoft. A skeptic is likely to remain skeptical, and with good reason.
I highly commend this effort as well. But the fact that a 6-part video presentation exists to explain to the average user how Linux can be a point-and-click solution proves, more than anything, that it is not. No 6-part video presentations exist on the ease-of-use of the refrigerator.
It seems to me what's crippling the eBook industry is the uncontested assertion that normal, everyday people are never going to pay for something they can steal for free. Think about restaurants that have a buffet. Imagine if they had employees patrolling to keep an eye on everyone and make sure nobody eats anything off someone else's plate. Who would go to that restaurant? Do people go to buffets and eat off their friend's plates without paying? Yes, they do. Somehow, the industry survives. Why? Because those people are in the minority. For the average individual, believe it or not, "because it's wrong" is reason enough not to do something. Social mores is a system that works (for the most part), and moreover it's free. In this digital age, businesses of all kinds are looking for the holy grail of DRM, the system that cannot be broken and that the people will accept. Unfortunately, it's impossible to create a system where it's possible to sell and possible to give away, but not possible to steal. It simply cannot be done. What you have to do is give the people what they want. Then they'll buy it. And sure, some people will steal it. You just have to accept that as the cost of doing business. But don't adopt a business model that makes the only option that gives people what they want the option of not paying for it.
Actually, if terrorists were to target the wireless networks, chances are some of those employees are the terrorists. These boys do their homework. They want to hijack an airplane, they don't sift through the public record on how to fly a plane. They send their people to flight school. They get jobs at the airport. This is something we already know, and it's the main reason this initiative is pointless. It seeks to prevent the network from attack by ordinary members of the public who don't already know how a wireless network operates. If they want to take down a wireless network they'll learn all they need to know in their first couple of weeks on the job. What's the point of classifying these reports top-secret when any dedicated and competent terrorist organization would have their people writing the reports?
I suppose one way to test this would be to try and throw something out of your car window onto the hood. I'd be inclined to guess that you wouldn't succeed. I am not a physicist, but I'll take a stab at it. While Spidey's on the train, there are a number of forces acting on him. There's the force of the train moving him forward, the force of wind resistance moving him backwards, gravity, his initial velocity, yadda yadda. When he's thrown, the force of the train no longer affects him while he's airborne, so all that's left is his initial velocity versus both gravity and wind resistance (acting in different vectors). Obviously, all else being equal, wind resistance will eventually overcome his initial forward velocity and the combination of wind resistance and gravity will overcome and reverse his upward velocity. End result, assuming he doesn't hit something like a bridge, the train, or the ground, Spidey will eventually be falling pretty much straight down, accelerating at a rate determine by the effect of gravity and wind resistance. Doc Ock (as well as the train), on the other hand, continue to experience forward acceleration. If nothing significant changes, Doc Ock's forward momentum will remain largely unchanged. There must therefore be a point at which Doc Ock would pass Spiderman's position horizontally. Depending on the angle and the force with which he was thrown, this point would either be before Spidey's vertical motion brings him back to the level of the train (in which case Spidey would land behind the good doctor), after (in which case Spidey would land in front), or just exactly coinciding (in which case Doc Ock would get a face-full of Spiderman). It's probably also worth mentioning that an experienced sky-diver can change the amount of resistance they present to the wind in order to slow their fall or to reduce the slowing effect in order to catch up to someone who jumped before them in order to form a... formation. Not that Peter Parker goes sky-diving of an afternoon, but I think we can silde him a few points for all the swinging, and the enhanced reflexes and body-sense. And fitting through the slats in the pedestrain bridge is a pretty strong argument favour of his having some amount of control over his descent. I haven't seen the film yet, but I'd guess Spidey landed fairly close to where he wanted to.
My thought was that if the distinction of the Kinternet was the port on which the pages were served, then all a site has to do to support it is accept connections on the new port in addition to the standard port 80. That way sites that are useful for kids but not specifically designed for kids can still be open to kid-friendly browsers. Any links they contain, the Kinternet browsers would seek to access on the Kinternet port.
I should also probably let it slip that I don't have any children, but if I did I'd never set them up with Kinternet access. I've always felt the solution to problems like this lie in providing children with more information, not less. Spend time with your children, find out what their interests are, help to answer their questions and to find the answers you yourself don't know. I don't see the Kinternet as a solution to the problem of children having access to too much information. I see it as a solution to the problem of other people seeing that as a problem, and seeking to restrict everyone's access as a result.
Ack, in reading this over again, I think it came across as more adversarial and sarcastic than I intended it (mainly in the comments about USENET). Let me apologize here for any offense.
Essentially the same solution in reverse. The main reason I'd favour the version I proposed over yours is the idea of where the litigation is focussed. On the one hand, you maintain a subset of the Internet where content restrictions are enforced and leave the rest of the Net pretty much as is. On the other, you maintain a subset where content restrictions are not enforced, and focus on cleaning up and policing the rest of the entire Internet. I see the former as rocking fewer boats.
I can't really comment on how well the alt.sex.* USENET hierarchy has contained adult content since I stopped reading USENET when it became too difficult to sort through all the spam advertising penis pumps to get to the articles on kittens or gardening or whatever. Perhaps that problem has been solved in my absence?
Also, I think it's worth mentioning that pornography is not the only thing people will seek to keep out of the hands of children. One hopes not to see too many Soldier of Fortune magazines on the rack in the children's bookstore, either. The scope of what has to be restricted to the.adult domain is subject to growth as more opinions get involved.
For like eight years now I've been saying the solution to this dilemma is obvious. Establish a separate network of Web pages served on a specific port other than the standard. Provide a kid-friendly browser that is restricted to pages served on that port. What you've created here is the equivalent of a children's bookstore. Regulate that, and feel free to prosecute without fear of criticism those who seek to vend pornography in the children's bookstore.
These services are targeted at the average consumer. The average consumer uses the Internet to surf for porn. That means they send a tiny little packet of data upstream to request a whopping great stream of data down. In order to provide a bigger pipe for the downstream data, they shrink the upstream pipe. The reasons why the potential for this tradeoff exists are a little too technical to get into here (read as "I don't understand them too thoroughly myself").
When you connect to port 25 on a remote machine, the connection on your end already occupies a random, high-numbered port, not port 25. The target port is the important part.
That's an interesting statement. So there's really no difference in terms of worth between a 5 minute recording of a "talented" musician and 5 minutes of blank air or white noise. Wow, that's a bombshell to the RIAA, let me tell you. Thanks for clearing that up for us.
It's funny you don't see so much white noise traded on P2P networks, though.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention, if you're looking to convince someone who believes otherwise they're unlikely to put much faith in a study by a body called the Entertainment Software Association. Consider how /.-ers react to studies about Windows security and/or reliability from Microsoft. A skeptic is likely to remain skeptical, and with good reason.
I highly commend this effort as well. But the fact that a 6-part video presentation exists to explain to the average user how Linux can be a point-and-click solution proves, more than anything, that it is not. No 6-part video presentations exist on the ease-of-use of the refrigerator.
And for those tasks for which no-one has seen fit to write a manual... just become a subject expert and WTFM.
Whatever.
On the Commodore 64.
It seems to me what's crippling the eBook industry is the uncontested assertion that normal, everyday people are never going to pay for something they can steal for free. Think about restaurants that have a buffet. Imagine if they had employees patrolling to keep an eye on everyone and make sure nobody eats anything off someone else's plate. Who would go to that restaurant? Do people go to buffets and eat off their friend's plates without paying? Yes, they do. Somehow, the industry survives. Why? Because those people are in the minority. For the average individual, believe it or not, "because it's wrong" is reason enough not to do something. Social mores is a system that works (for the most part), and moreover it's free. In this digital age, businesses of all kinds are looking for the holy grail of DRM, the system that cannot be broken and that the people will accept. Unfortunately, it's impossible to create a system where it's possible to sell and possible to give away, but not possible to steal. It simply cannot be done. What you have to do is give the people what they want. Then they'll buy it. And sure, some people will steal it. You just have to accept that as the cost of doing business. But don't adopt a business model that makes the only option that gives people what they want the option of not paying for it.
You misspelled "I am a troll". HTH
Pretty relieved compared to the idea of it being 100% MicroSoft, actually. --Insert obligatory comment about the Blue Screen of Death here--
Or of this film?
Actually, if terrorists were to target the wireless networks, chances are some of those employees are the terrorists. These boys do their homework. They want to hijack an airplane, they don't sift through the public record on how to fly a plane. They send their people to flight school. They get jobs at the airport. This is something we already know, and it's the main reason this initiative is pointless. It seeks to prevent the network from attack by ordinary members of the public who don't already know how a wireless network operates. If they want to take down a wireless network they'll learn all they need to know in their first couple of weeks on the job. What's the point of classifying these reports top-secret when any dedicated and competent terrorist organization would have their people writing the reports?
Wow, and the dude even said, "Yes...this is a troll". Points to 09za+ for style.
I suppose one way to test this would be to try and throw something out of your car window onto the hood. I'd be inclined to guess that you wouldn't succeed. I am not a physicist, but I'll take a stab at it. While Spidey's on the train, there are a number of forces acting on him. There's the force of the train moving him forward, the force of wind resistance moving him backwards, gravity, his initial velocity, yadda yadda. When he's thrown, the force of the train no longer affects him while he's airborne, so all that's left is his initial velocity versus both gravity and wind resistance (acting in different vectors). Obviously, all else being equal, wind resistance will eventually overcome his initial forward velocity and the combination of wind resistance and gravity will overcome and reverse his upward velocity. End result, assuming he doesn't hit something like a bridge, the train, or the ground, Spidey will eventually be falling pretty much straight down, accelerating at a rate determine by the effect of gravity and wind resistance. Doc Ock (as well as the train), on the other hand, continue to experience forward acceleration. If nothing significant changes, Doc Ock's forward momentum will remain largely unchanged. There must therefore be a point at which Doc Ock would pass Spiderman's position horizontally. Depending on the angle and the force with which he was thrown, this point would either be before Spidey's vertical motion brings him back to the level of the train (in which case Spidey would land behind the good doctor), after (in which case Spidey would land in front), or just exactly coinciding (in which case Doc Ock would get a face-full of Spiderman). It's probably also worth mentioning that an experienced sky-diver can change the amount of resistance they present to the wind in order to slow their fall or to reduce the slowing effect in order to catch up to someone who jumped before them in order to form a... formation. Not that Peter Parker goes sky-diving of an afternoon, but I think we can silde him a few points for all the swinging, and the enhanced reflexes and body-sense. And fitting through the slats in the pedestrain bridge is a pretty strong argument favour of his having some amount of control over his descent. I haven't seen the film yet, but I'd guess Spidey landed fairly close to where he wanted to.
My thought was that if the distinction of the Kinternet was the port on which the pages were served, then all a site has to do to support it is accept connections on the new port in addition to the standard port 80. That way sites that are useful for kids but not specifically designed for kids can still be open to kid-friendly browsers. Any links they contain, the Kinternet browsers would seek to access on the Kinternet port.
I should also probably let it slip that I don't have any children, but if I did I'd never set them up with Kinternet access. I've always felt the solution to problems like this lie in providing children with more information, not less. Spend time with your children, find out what their interests are, help to answer their questions and to find the answers you yourself don't know. I don't see the Kinternet as a solution to the problem of children having access to too much information. I see it as a solution to the problem of other people seeing that as a problem, and seeking to restrict everyone's access as a result.
Ack, in reading this over again, I think it came across as more adversarial and sarcastic than I intended it (mainly in the comments about USENET). Let me apologize here for any offense.
Essentially the same solution in reverse. The main reason I'd favour the version I proposed over yours is the idea of where the litigation is focussed. On the one hand, you maintain a subset of the Internet where content restrictions are enforced and leave the rest of the Net pretty much as is. On the other, you maintain a subset where content restrictions are not enforced, and focus on cleaning up and policing the rest of the entire Internet. I see the former as rocking fewer boats.
.adult domain is subject to growth as more opinions get involved.
I can't really comment on how well the alt.sex.* USENET hierarchy has contained adult content since I stopped reading USENET when it became too difficult to sort through all the spam advertising penis pumps to get to the articles on kittens or gardening or whatever. Perhaps that problem has been solved in my absence?
Also, I think it's worth mentioning that pornography is not the only thing people will seek to keep out of the hands of children. One hopes not to see too many Soldier of Fortune magazines on the rack in the children's bookstore, either. The scope of what has to be restricted to the
For like eight years now I've been saying the solution to this dilemma is obvious. Establish a separate network of Web pages served on a specific port other than the standard. Provide a kid-friendly browser that is restricted to pages served on that port. What you've created here is the equivalent of a children's bookstore. Regulate that, and feel free to prosecute without fear of criticism those who seek to vend pornography in the children's bookstore.
These services are targeted at the average consumer. The average consumer uses the Internet to surf for porn. That means they send a tiny little packet of data upstream to request a whopping great stream of data down. In order to provide a bigger pipe for the downstream data, they shrink the upstream pipe. The reasons why the potential for this tradeoff exists are a little too technical to get into here (read as "I don't understand them too thoroughly myself").
Sure, just like the Dreamcast.
There's no way to tell the difference, so the answer is yes.
When you connect to port 25 on a remote machine, the connection on your end already occupies a random, high-numbered port, not port 25. The target port is the important part.
Chuck
That system is called CAPPS. Yeah, it's based on profiling.
Uhhm. Read the article. Yeah.
I think the thing you are missing might be that some people like to listen to the music recorded on the LPs, tapes, or CDs.
The word you're looking for is Oobleck, and derives from the Dr. Seuss book: Bartholomew and the Oobleck.
Music, films, etc. are inherently worthless...
That's an interesting statement. So there's really no difference in terms of worth between a 5 minute recording of a "talented" musician and 5 minutes of blank air or white noise. Wow, that's a bombshell to the RIAA, let me tell you. Thanks for clearing that up for us.
It's funny you don't see so much white noise traded on P2P networks, though.
Chuck
The most honest answer I ever heard to "How long is it going to tak?" was "How long is a piece of string?"
Chuck