First off, if you're going to reject federal mandate/law you run into a huge problem. Namely, Article 1, section 8 of the constitution grants cogress the power "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrectioons and repeal Invasions" (emphasis added.)
Do you think congress/the federal government would simply stand by and watch laws be rejected? Or do you think they would construe laws that are contrary to federal mandate as an act of insurrection?
Yeah, a bunch of states basically tried this idea a long time ago. They were referred to as the "confederacy"... Yeah, that worked real well.
Why take 20,000 people when you could take 60,000 people and make your own state?? Don't like federal hiway taxes? Screw them! You have your own state! There's no size requirement for a state either. If there was, Rhode Island would've never made it into statehood.
So, get 60,000 of your closest, most personal, friends and move to a US territory! Write a state constitution, get 50% of the population (only 30,000!) to sign it, and viola! You're (with congressional approval) a state! Yay. Disobey federal mandate at own risk.
I agree. As someone who is slated to join the Air Force as a satellite intelligence operative (not exactly a front-line position), I'm ashamed to read of other discharged military people believing we need to obliterate our rights in order to "protect" our society. I believe this idea stems from being in the service.
The only people who should be giving up their rights to protect this country are those in the military. This is because of the nature of the organization. You cannot have a discussion of ideals during a battle-- unless you want to have a bunch of dead soldiers. As such, the military fosters an idea of "trust your superiors" (you have to in order to, umm, live) and "don't question those above you" (again, necssary to survival).
However, the United States of America is not a military organization! The people of this country cannot simply obey orders from officals on high. A military must be an autocracy in order to be efficent, but a democracy sacrifices some of that efficentcy in order to determine what's best for everyone. A discussion of ideas is the only way this can be accomplished, and although it may take longer, is ultimately better.
To simply say "hey! I served this country! You should listen to my bosses and not question!" is absurd. It only stems from the fact that you've served in an autocracy for so long.
Frankly, it saddens me to think that I will be giving up all of my rights to defend a country which is going to war in order to broaden it's sphere of influence. As I've been waiting to ship out for five months (I leave Nov 26), I've had a lot of restless nights over this. I've ultimately come to the conclusion that I may not agree with the war that's going on, but at least I can hope to bring compassion to the military. I will not be a front line soldier, but I would be happy to lay down my life for the people of my nation. I am honored to go to war for those that cannot, but only if that war is properly sanctioned. That means no granting the president- ANY president- the right to go to war wherever and whenever he chooses.
I fight for those that cannot or will not.
When I leave, I will take an oath to "uphold and defend the priciples of the constitution", not the president. I would hope that all servicepeople remember that they have also taken that oath. The constitution and the Bill of Rights are what you uphold, not the current administration!
"...to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government..." - Declaration of Independence (emphasis mine)
Then you need to qualify your arguments. When you state that you have the supposed right to place a camera anywhere you choose, you need to realize you are completely in the wrong. Rights do have limitations, and it appeared to me that you were arguing for a position that simply because you have a camera, you can place it where ever you want. This simply isn't true. No right is limitless. The line "your right to swing your fist only extends as far as my face" seems to apply here.
And your ad hominem attack certainly lacks any real analysis. Yes, I agree, if you are in public, you can be photographed, pure and simple. But, your argument prior to my posting seemed to inidcate that your position was for cameras anywhere and everywhere, in which case, my argumentation, as extreme as it may sound, would apply. Do you think that if there were no checks on where people can and cannot place cameras we wouldn't see pedophiles and other sick people using this to their advantage? Just some food for thought there...
I was going to mod this discussion, since I have acess, but I feel it'd be much better to post a reply here.
"I think you've got it backward. You don't have a right to not be seen -- that's placing an emcumbrance upon me"
In a word: bullshit. If I take a shower in a hotel, or I decide to use the toilet, you'd better damn well afford me the privacy and dignity I deserve as a human being. Let me ask you this: where do you get the "right" to monitor anything and everything, just because you can?
You're right, I am placing an encumberance upon you. You are encumbered to not look into my windows, by using infra-red, you are encumbered to not look up my ass when I take a shit, and you are encumbered to not look at my five year old daughter as she showers.
You want to talk about encumberance? How about this: might right to shoot you for having such a lame idea is encumbered by the law stating that I can't do so.
I have to agree with the professional photographer in this instance. This isn't a case of fighting an uber-huge corporation that has billions of dollars to spare. This guy is effectively cheating a good source of revenue out of a photographer who is trying to earn a living.
Let's face it, photographers are not millionares (for the most part!;) As one who has tried to get his art featured in several galleries, I can attest to this! Let's face it- photographers earn a living off of one thing- the final proof. It's very difficult to set up a shot, get the lighting perfect, and have a harmony of composition just right- combine this with the fact that many people want their wedding pictures to be *perfect* and you can see the photographer's dilemma. That shot that you've worked so very hard on is being distributed to hundreds of people, who will never pay you a dime for your efforts. Even worse is the person who stands over your shoulder just to snap the same shot you do... Come on people! It's not like the photographer is being unreasonable! She's simply trying to recoup her losses and earn a living... Oh, and if you don't think that photography is an expesnive business, allow me to demonstrate. A medium format camera (5 x 7 negative, which most professionals use for weddings) runs in the range of $1000-$3000 for the body(!!) alone! The lens, on top of that, will run somewhere from $100-$900, depending on what you need. Then, the film itself can cost up to $15 for a single negative! Oh yeah, there's also darkroom costs- chemicals, the enlarger, the processing time.... Oh, and don't forget that photographer might just want to earn some money for the hours that she's spent on site with your family...
So, I'm sorry, but this isn't an issue of "open sourcing" the finals. By giving High-Res pictures to your entire family without paying for each one of those photos distributed, you have cheated and honest, hard-working, photographer out of a living. (I know a few who have been driven out of business because of this.) So, please, spare me the "I have rights to a picture" argument... Sure, you have the right to do what you want with that photo... But by the same tokein, the photographer has the right to not sell you the super high res photo you want.
As an aside, and unrelated, I think that "analog" photography is a much "truer" art form. If anything, you have a negative, which you can use to prove you took the shot- as opposed to a jpg, tiff, or what have you which could be the property of anyone.
There's a simple explanation as to why this is a non-Newtonian 'fluid'. What you've created by mixing the glue with borax is a polymer... Common, "white"-- or Elmer's-- glue is usually made of a PVAc, which polymerizes when borax is introduced to the system.
I spent a semester of chemistry working with this and PVA (a clear glue, which also polymerizes when borax is introduced), getting different properties out of the polymers. Though, if you want to do something cooler than play around with goop, you can add just about anything around the house (detergant, shampoo, etc) to get different effects.
We once added NAIR- a hair removal product to one of the polymers we made... Since none of thought it would work, I put it on my arm for the entire class period... Well, now I can tell you, NAIR works... I had no hair on my arm for about a month... Ah the joys of chemistry...
As an aside, the 50/50 mix makes for a very runny mess. Try using about 10 mL of Water, 10 mL Glue, 6 mL Knotty Problems (Dog Hair cleaner), and 10 mL of Borax (diluted to a 2%, or 1/2 strength) solution. We made that polymer in class, and it managed to strech the entire length of the gym-- though, there was more than one batch in there.:)
"It's tricky on this show because we really only have 39 minutes to tell a story"
39? That's 21 minutes for commercials! Mind you I don't watch the show (don't get UPN here), but still, that seems like an awful amount of time devoted to advertisement for an hour long show. As I recall, the first star trek series ran closer to 50 minutes of actual show. Perhaps this goes to show the prevelance advertising has in our culture today.
Why should this come as a shock to anyone? The information that was posted, was posted by the author in a public domain.
The internet, in it's current incarnation, was created to be a public domain of knowledge, freely accessable by anyone who had the will to retrieve the data. She willingly put up her 5th grade story of the turtle, as well as a slew of other data. Why, then, does she have the right to complain when someone does a simple search and retrieves it? Should I complain if I put a billboard advertising my name, along with my resume, and a short story I wrote, and someone happens to actually read it? This is simply ludicrious. The argument attempting to be made is, if a person willingly posts something using their name, in a public domain, they should still have complete anonyminity. This, I find rediculous... As an aside, geneology records have been freely available for decades. Just ask the Latter Day Saints, who happen to have the largest collection of geneological records (not just of LDS people, either) in the country. The fact that someone simply added functionality by placing the database on the web does not mean that searching it was wrong.
The second issue raised, however, is perhaps the more important one. If a person deletes content, for fear of repraisal, etc, then that content should be deleted. I belive this applies only to the individual, and his/her personally controlled sites, however... For example, if I post my resume online, then recieve a slew of calls from unsavory characters, then remove the resume, the resume should no longer exist on the internet. Google shouldn't be caching personal webpages like that.... However, we must also realize that once something is posted on the internet, it is, more or less, in the public domain. What the public chooses to do with the information posted is up to the public. Ergo, if I post my resume, and some schmuck copies it a thousand times and disseminates it to all of his buddies, too bad for me. I posted in a public forum.
The main thing for us to remember, though, is that we live in a society where the notion of property rights of the individual vs the benefit gained by the community is being raised and challenged. In my huble opinion, if the rights of the individual don't cause harm to the community and benefit the individual, we should side with the individual (removal of a resume for instance)-- all other instances, we should side with the benefit of the community.
This is a perfect example of bad marketing. Rather than saying this costs $100 outright, which always upsets people, they should say this costs only $8.33/month.
It never ceases to amaze me how much we actually pay companies over time but never think about due to the fact that it's a monthly payment.
Those books were tame in comparison to Firefly and Dead Morn. One is about a sort of slime monster that makes everyone horny. There's nearly an entrie chapter devoted to the story of "nymph", a five year old girl who has sex with a grown man because she has been raised in a broken home. In Dead Morn, a tale of character time traveling in an effort to restore the future, the protaginist actually rapes a girl as he wanders through the forests of a Castro-revolution-era Cuba. Why don't you ask him about the "Superman" idea in these books? Or better yet, why all the-- for lack of a better word-- vulgarity? Firefly was banned for a number of years, by libraries and bookstores, as I recall. Certainly, you can't say Firefly was simply a "work of art". So, why all the wanton objectification of women in your novels, Mr. Anthony? (Note: that's not even his real name! It's a pseudoname-- seriously.;)
What on God's green earth posessed you to write Firefly??? Seriously!
Jesus, I did a book report on it in the eighth grade, and you wouldn't believe the amount of smirks, looks of shock, and angry glances I recieved... And then there was the kids in the class too!
Simple solution. Latitude and longitude are based of off an antiquated system of 360 degrees (180 for east and 180 for west). This was origionally made so that the makers of measuring tools could easily divide by six. A much better system is already in existance. We call it-- radians!
So, instead of saying 90 degrees east by 30 degrees north, would could simply say 3/2(pi) by 5/6(pi). Takes away any confusion about direction, as all you would have to establish are where the 0s for these lines are.
Let's see here. Using rudimentary figures we can compute the cost of electricity for those computers alone. Let's assume that the average computer draws 3.5 amps with 120 volts being supplied to it.
From Kirchoff's law (either him or Ohm, I forget which) we get Power (watts) = I (amps) * V (volts)
Mind you, this is per second! Let's convert this to an hourly figure.
Watts = 60 * 60 * 4,200,000
= 15,120,000,000
Let's convert this to kilowats for simplicity
= 15,120,000 kilowatts
Now, let's say that the power company charges $0.00346 (number pulled from thin air) per killowatt hour. Figure the computers are running 24 hours a day.
Cost per day = 15,120,000 * 24 *.00346
= $1,255,564.8
Something tells me that my figures had better be damn well off, or else there is some serious cash floating around there!
This isn't a good thing for anyone running *nix out there. Note that Microsoft has the hardware makers, Intel, AMD, and motherboard companies, all signed up to implement their version of DRM. Basically, you will no longer be able to run any OS other than windows on these systems. (Check out the X-Box if you don't beleive me) Implementing a key system at the hardware level is a terrible idea, especially since it is Microsoft dictating who and what software will recieve the other half of the key. Besides increasing "security", Microsoft will be able to take *nix out of the market- it simply won't have permission to run on any post 2004 microprocessor.
But, then again, I may be thinking of the wrong type of "security". I was talking about digital privacy. They must be talking about market security.
"Finaly consider this: Checking for cheaters in a class isn't just doing a diff of two files. For every student in the class, you have to check his code against everyone else's. This is a O(n^2)problem. My class had around 350 people in it so that's 122500 checks to do. If it is anything more complex than a diff (multiple files, compiler front-end, fancy perl parcing) this can take a mad amount of computing."
There's an easier way to do this. Generate a script that takes into account the blank spaces associated with tabs, space bar hits, or carrige returns. All you need to do this is to assign all the characters (and spaces, etc) a value (hmmm... you could use the ascii equivalents) and add all the character make a checksum. Do this for every file/code/whatever or add all of the files/code/etc together to produce one checksum. Test that checksum against all of the other student's checksums within a degree of standard deviation. If the cheksums fall within this degree of deviation, then they are probably cheating...
Another way, if you want to make it more complicated than a simple ascii test, is to, assign values to statements. Note how I said statements- you assign each call (eg "int whatever" a value.) If someone types "int x", ignore the x, and just add the value for integers to the checksum. This can be done with loops, function calls, and more. Also, this can take into account multiple files of code, so long as they are linked properly. Again, compare the checksum generated to all other cheksum- within a standard deviation.
Another way to check would be to, instead of looking at the code itself, look at what is generated in the machine language. Compile the programs, and check the binarys against each other. Or, you could compile the program, feed the output into an assembler de-compiler and compare the steps, calls, whatever.
In short, it's not so difficult to make a cheat detector, nor would it take a great deal of computational power, especially if you are using checksums. But, what everyone must keep in mind is that a computer only runs programs. A cheat dectector should always be verified by a human to assure that the machine is not wrong. There are only so many ways one can code "printf("Hello World")."
-------
Who says you have to be an adult to matter in the world? I'm only 17.
Registrant:
Confinity, Inc (PAYPAL2-DOM)
1840 Embarcadero Rd.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
US
Domain Name: PAYPAL.COM
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Billing Contact:
PayPal, Inc. Hostmaster (PI2724-ORG) hostmaster@PAYPAL.COM
PayPal, Inc.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Palo Alto, CA 94303
US
650.251.1100
Fax- 650.251.1101
Record last updated on 03-Nov-2001.
Record expires on 15-Jul-2010.
Record created on 15-Jul-1999.
Database last updated on 10-Dec-2001 05:16:00 EST.
Easier way to get around
on
This is IT?
·
· Score: 0
It'd be a lot easier to buy a bicycle. Let's compare the two here:
Bike
$50-$2000 (Depending on what you want)
IT
$3000
Strike one...
Bike
Up to 30 mph (depending on gears, how fit you are, windspeed, etc)
IT
Approx 14 mph
Strike two...
Bike
Can carry as much as you want to push.
IT
Can carry, uh... it's going in reverse, now sideways, now forward.. Man, that center of gravity can be a bad thing too...
Strike three...
Face it, it's cheaper to buy a bike, you don't have to recharge it, can use it in any of the weather conditions IT can manuvere in, and you get the added benefit of getting off your huge, Quake 3000000 swollen, ass and working out on your way to work.
Slashdot Mirror
First off, if you're going to reject federal mandate/law you run into a huge problem. Namely, Article 1, section 8 of the constitution grants cogress the power "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrectioons and repeal Invasions" (emphasis added.)
Do you think congress/the federal government would simply stand by and watch laws be rejected? Or do you think they would construe laws that are contrary to federal mandate as an act of insurrection?
Yeah, a bunch of states basically tried this idea a long time ago. They were referred to as the "confederacy"... Yeah, that worked real well.
Why take 20,000 people when you could take 60,000 people and make your own state?? Don't like federal hiway taxes? Screw them! You have your own state! There's no size requirement for a state either. If there was, Rhode Island would've never made it into statehood.
So, get 60,000 of your closest, most personal, friends and move to a US territory! Write a state constitution, get 50% of the population (only 30,000!) to sign it, and viola! You're (with congressional approval) a state! Yay. Disobey federal mandate at own risk.
-Jokerghost
Hell if you have a college degree and if you enjoy video games, be a fighter pilot. Like X-Wing/Tie Fighter? Hell, do it for real, in an F-16.
-jokerghost
I agree. As someone who is slated to join the Air Force as a satellite intelligence operative (not exactly a front-line position), I'm ashamed to read of other discharged military people believing we need to obliterate our rights in order to "protect" our society. I believe this idea stems from being in the service.
The only people who should be giving up their rights to protect this country are those in the military. This is because of the nature of the organization. You cannot have a discussion of ideals during a battle-- unless you want to have a bunch of dead soldiers. As such, the military fosters an idea of "trust your superiors" (you have to in order to, umm, live) and "don't question those above you" (again, necssary to survival).
However, the United States of America is not a military organization! The people of this country cannot simply obey orders from officals on high. A military must be an autocracy in order to be efficent, but a democracy sacrifices some of that efficentcy in order to determine what's best for everyone. A discussion of ideas is the only way this can be accomplished, and although it may take longer, is ultimately better.
To simply say "hey! I served this country! You should listen to my bosses and not question!" is absurd. It only stems from the fact that you've served in an autocracy for so long.
Frankly, it saddens me to think that I will be giving up all of my rights to defend a country which is going to war in order to broaden it's sphere of influence. As I've been waiting to ship out for five months (I leave Nov 26), I've had a lot of restless nights over this. I've ultimately come to the conclusion that I may not agree with the war that's going on, but at least I can hope to bring compassion to the military. I will not be a front line soldier, but I would be happy to lay down my life for the people of my nation. I am honored to go to war for those that cannot, but only if that war is properly sanctioned. That means no granting the president- ANY president- the right to go to war wherever and whenever he chooses.
I fight for those that cannot or will not.
When I leave, I will take an oath to "uphold and defend the priciples of the constitution", not the president. I would hope that all servicepeople remember that they have also taken that oath. The constitution and the Bill of Rights are what you uphold, not the current administration!
"...to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government..." - Declaration of Independence (emphasis mine)
*BOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!*
Some call me... Tim!!
-jokerghost
Then you need to qualify your arguments. When you state that you have the supposed right to place a camera anywhere you choose, you need to realize you are completely in the wrong. Rights do have limitations, and it appeared to me that you were arguing for a position that simply because you have a camera, you can place it where ever you want. This simply isn't true. No right is limitless. The line "your right to swing your fist only extends as far as my face" seems to apply here.
And your ad hominem attack certainly lacks any real analysis. Yes, I agree, if you are in public, you can be photographed, pure and simple. But, your argument prior to my posting seemed to inidcate that your position was for cameras anywhere and everywhere, in which case, my argumentation, as extreme as it may sound, would apply. Do you think that if there were no checks on where people can and cannot place cameras we wouldn't see pedophiles and other sick people using this to their advantage? Just some food for thought there...
-jokerghost
Sorry. That should read "...this: my right to..."
late night + speel checking do not mix.
-jokerghost
I was going to mod this discussion, since I have acess, but I feel it'd be much better to post a reply here.
"I think you've got it backward. You don't have a right to not be seen -- that's placing an emcumbrance upon me"
In a word: bullshit. If I take a shower in a hotel, or I decide to use the toilet, you'd better damn well afford me the privacy and dignity I deserve as a human being. Let me ask you this: where do you get the "right" to monitor anything and everything, just because you can?
You're right, I am placing an encumberance upon you. You are encumbered to not look into my windows, by using infra-red, you are encumbered to not look up my ass when I take a shit, and you are encumbered to not look at my five year old daughter as she showers.
You want to talk about encumberance? How about this: might right to shoot you for having such a lame idea is encumbered by the law stating that I can't do so.
-jokerghost
Sure it does, but only if ArthurAnderson does your accounting.
-jokerghost
No, it's not. Are you in China??
-jokerghost
I have to agree with the professional photographer in this instance. This isn't a case of fighting an uber-huge corporation that has billions of dollars to spare. This guy is effectively cheating a good source of revenue out of a photographer who is trying to earn a living.
;) As one who has tried to get his art featured in several galleries, I can attest to this! Let's face it- photographers earn a living off of one thing- the final proof. It's very difficult to set up a shot, get the lighting perfect, and have a harmony of composition just right- combine this with the fact that many people want their wedding pictures to be *perfect* and you can see the photographer's dilemma. That shot that you've worked so very hard on is being distributed to hundreds of people, who will never pay you a dime for your efforts. Even worse is the person who stands over your shoulder just to snap the same shot you do... Come on people! It's not like the photographer is being unreasonable! She's simply trying to recoup her losses and earn a living... Oh, and if you don't think that photography is an expesnive business, allow me to demonstrate. A medium format camera (5 x 7 negative, which most professionals use for weddings) runs in the range of $1000-$3000 for the body(!!) alone! The lens, on top of that, will run somewhere from $100-$900, depending on what you need. Then, the film itself can cost up to $15 for a single negative! Oh yeah, there's also darkroom costs- chemicals, the enlarger, the processing time.... Oh, and don't forget that photographer might just want to earn some money for the hours that she's spent on site with your family...
Let's face it, photographers are not millionares (for the most part!
So, I'm sorry, but this isn't an issue of "open sourcing" the finals. By giving High-Res pictures to your entire family without paying for each one of those photos distributed, you have cheated and honest, hard-working, photographer out of a living. (I know a few who have been driven out of business because of this.) So, please, spare me the "I have rights to a picture" argument... Sure, you have the right to do what you want with that photo... But by the same tokein, the photographer has the right to not sell you the super high res photo you want.
As an aside, and unrelated, I think that "analog" photography is a much "truer" art form. If anything, you have a negative, which you can use to prove you took the shot- as opposed to a jpg, tiff, or what have you which could be the property of anyone.
-jokerghost
Does it piss anyone else off that "united we stand, divided we fall" are the lyrics off of a Pink Floyd album??
just a thought,
-jokerghost
There's a simple explanation as to why this is a non-Newtonian 'fluid'. What you've created by mixing the glue with borax is a polymer... Common, "white"-- or Elmer's-- glue is usually made of a PVAc, which polymerizes when borax is introduced to the system. :)
I spent a semester of chemistry working with this and PVA (a clear glue, which also polymerizes when borax is introduced), getting different properties out of the polymers. Though, if you want to do something cooler than play around with goop, you can add just about anything around the house (detergant, shampoo, etc) to get different effects.
We once added NAIR- a hair removal product to one of the polymers we made... Since none of thought it would work, I put it on my arm for the entire class period... Well, now I can tell you, NAIR works... I had no hair on my arm for about a month... Ah the joys of chemistry...
As an aside, the 50/50 mix makes for a very runny mess. Try using about 10 mL of Water, 10 mL Glue, 6 mL Knotty Problems (Dog Hair cleaner), and 10 mL of Borax (diluted to a 2%, or 1/2 strength) solution. We made that polymer in class, and it managed to strech the entire length of the gym-- though, there was more than one batch in there.
-jokerghost
"It's tricky on this show because we really only have 39 minutes to tell a story"
39? That's 21 minutes for commercials! Mind you I don't watch the show (don't get UPN here), but still, that seems like an awful amount of time devoted to advertisement for an hour long show. As I recall, the first star trek series ran closer to 50 minutes of actual show. Perhaps this goes to show the prevelance advertising has in our culture today.
Why should this come as a shock to anyone? The information that was posted, was posted by the author in a public domain.
The internet, in it's current incarnation, was created to be a public domain of knowledge, freely accessable by anyone who had the will to retrieve the data. She willingly put up her 5th grade story of the turtle, as well as a slew of other data. Why, then, does she have the right to complain when someone does a simple search and retrieves it? Should I complain if I put a billboard advertising my name, along with my resume, and a short story I wrote, and someone happens to actually read it? This is simply ludicrious. The argument attempting to be made is, if a person willingly posts something using their name, in a public domain, they should still have complete anonyminity. This, I find rediculous... As an aside, geneology records have been freely available for decades. Just ask the Latter Day Saints, who happen to have the largest collection of geneological records (not just of LDS people, either) in the country. The fact that someone simply added functionality by placing the database on the web does not mean that searching it was wrong.
The second issue raised, however, is perhaps the more important one. If a person deletes content, for fear of repraisal, etc, then that content should be deleted. I belive this applies only to the individual, and his/her personally controlled sites, however... For example, if I post my resume online, then recieve a slew of calls from unsavory characters, then remove the resume, the resume should no longer exist on the internet. Google shouldn't be caching personal webpages like that.... However, we must also realize that once something is posted on the internet, it is, more or less, in the public domain. What the public chooses to do with the information posted is up to the public. Ergo, if I post my resume, and some schmuck copies it a thousand times and disseminates it to all of his buddies, too bad for me. I posted in a public forum.
The main thing for us to remember, though, is that we live in a society where the notion of property rights of the individual vs the benefit gained by the community is being raised and challenged. In my huble opinion, if the rights of the individual don't cause harm to the community and benefit the individual, we should side with the individual (removal of a resume for instance)-- all other instances, we should side with the benefit of the community.
-jokerghost
This is a perfect example of bad marketing. Rather than saying this costs $100 outright, which always upsets people, they should say this costs only $8.33/month.
It never ceases to amaze me how much we actually pay companies over time but never think about due to the fact that it's a monthly payment.
Think about it.
ISP ($20-$50/month) = $240 - $600
Cell phone ($40/month) = $480
EverQuest addiction ($9/month) = $108
So what's a paltry $100? Nothing. Apple just made the business mistake of charging for it upfront, rather than over time.
Those books were tame in comparison to Firefly and Dead Morn. One is about a sort of slime monster that makes everyone horny. There's nearly an entrie chapter devoted to the story of "nymph", a five year old girl who has sex with a grown man because she has been raised in a broken home. In Dead Morn, a tale of character time traveling in an effort to restore the future, the protaginist actually rapes a girl as he wanders through the forests of a Castro-revolution-era Cuba. Why don't you ask him about the "Superman" idea in these books? Or better yet, why all the-- for lack of a better word-- vulgarity? Firefly was banned for a number of years, by libraries and bookstores, as I recall. Certainly, you can't say Firefly was simply a "work of art". So, why all the wanton objectification of women in your novels, Mr. Anthony? (Note: that's not even his real name! It's a pseudoname-- seriously. ;)
-jokerghost
What on God's green earth posessed you to write Firefly??? Seriously!
Jesus, I did a book report on it in the eighth grade, and you wouldn't believe the amount of smirks, looks of shock, and angry glances I recieved... And then there was the kids in the class too!
-jokerghost
Think of the porn I can download now! er, [notices significant other in room] think of the amount of data I could research and the time I'd save....
Simple solution. Latitude and longitude are based of off an antiquated system of 360 degrees (180 for east and 180 for west). This was origionally made so that the makers of measuring tools could easily divide by six. A much better system is already in existance. We call it-- radians!
So, instead of saying 90 degrees east by 30 degrees north, would could simply say 3/2(pi) by 5/6(pi). Takes away any confusion about direction, as all you would have to establish are where the 0s for these lines are.
Let's see here. Using rudimentary figures we can compute the cost of electricity for those computers alone. Let's assume that the average computer draws 3.5 amps with 120 volts being supplied to it.
.00346
From Kirchoff's law (either him or Ohm, I forget which) we get Power (watts) = I (amps) * V (volts)
therefore
P = 3.5amps * 120 volts * 10,000 computers
= 4,200,000 watts (egads!)
Mind you, this is per second! Let's convert this to an hourly figure.
Watts = 60 * 60 * 4,200,000
= 15,120,000,000
Let's convert this to kilowats for simplicity
= 15,120,000 kilowatts
Now, let's say that the power company charges $0.00346 (number pulled from thin air) per killowatt hour. Figure the computers are running 24 hours a day.
Cost per day = 15,120,000 * 24 *
= $1,255,564.8
Something tells me that my figures had better be damn well off, or else there is some serious cash floating around there!
This isn't a good thing for anyone running *nix out there. Note that Microsoft has the hardware makers, Intel, AMD, and motherboard companies, all signed up to implement their version of DRM. Basically, you will no longer be able to run any OS other than windows on these systems. (Check out the X-Box if you don't beleive me) Implementing a key system at the hardware level is a terrible idea, especially since it is Microsoft dictating who and what software will recieve the other half of the key. Besides increasing "security", Microsoft will be able to take *nix out of the market- it simply won't have permission to run on any post 2004 microprocessor.
But, then again, I may be thinking of the wrong type of "security". I was talking about digital privacy. They must be talking about market security.
-jokerghost
We could save taxpayers millios by implementing this into the judicary system.
Judge: How do you plead Mr. Defendant?
Defandant: Not Guilty, your honor.
Judge: On what grounds?
Defendant: It wasn't my fault. The car BSOD'd.
Judge: Case dismissed.
Quote:
"Finaly consider this: Checking for cheaters in a class isn't just doing a diff of two files. For every student in the class, you have to check his code against everyone else's. This is a O(n^2)problem. My class had around 350 people in it so that's 122500 checks to do. If it is anything more complex than a diff (multiple files, compiler front-end, fancy perl parcing) this can take a mad amount of computing."
There's an easier way to do this. Generate a script that takes into account the blank spaces associated with tabs, space bar hits, or carrige returns. All you need to do this is to assign all the characters (and spaces, etc) a value (hmmm... you could use the ascii equivalents) and add all the character make a checksum. Do this for every file/code/whatever or add all of the files/code/etc together to produce one checksum. Test that checksum against all of the other student's checksums within a degree of standard deviation. If the cheksums fall within this degree of deviation, then they are probably cheating...
Another way, if you want to make it more complicated than a simple ascii test, is to, assign values to statements. Note how I said statements- you assign each call (eg "int whatever" a value.) If someone types "int x", ignore the x, and just add the value for integers to the checksum. This can be done with loops, function calls, and more. Also, this can take into account multiple files of code, so long as they are linked properly. Again, compare the checksum generated to all other cheksum- within a standard deviation.
Another way to check would be to, instead of looking at the code itself, look at what is generated in the machine language. Compile the programs, and check the binarys against each other. Or, you could compile the program, feed the output into an assembler de-compiler and compare the steps, calls, whatever.
In short, it's not so difficult to make a cheat detector, nor would it take a great deal of computational power, especially if you are using checksums. But, what everyone must keep in mind is that a computer only runs programs. A cheat dectector should always be verified by a human to assure that the machine is not wrong. There are only so many ways one can code "printf("Hello World")."
-------
Who says you have to be an adult to matter in the world? I'm only 17.
-Jokerghost
All you have to do is use NeoTracePro.
Registrant:
Confinity, Inc (PAYPAL2-DOM)
1840 Embarcadero Rd.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
US
Domain Name: PAYPAL.COM
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Billing Contact:
PayPal, Inc. Hostmaster (PI2724-ORG) hostmaster@PAYPAL.COM
PayPal, Inc.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Palo Alto, CA 94303
US
650.251.1100
Fax- 650.251.1101
Record last updated on 03-Nov-2001.
Record expires on 15-Jul-2010.
Record created on 15-Jul-1999.
Database last updated on 10-Dec-2001 05:16:00 EST.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.NIX.PAYPAL.COM 65.206.228.70
NS2.NIX.PAYPAL.COM 65.206.228.71
NS1.SC5.PAYPAL.COM 216.136.155.4
NS2.SC5.PAYPAL.COM 216.136.155.5
It'd be a lot easier to buy a bicycle. Let's compare the two here:
Bike
$50-$2000 (Depending on what you want)
IT
$3000
Strike one...
Bike
Up to 30 mph (depending on gears, how fit you are, windspeed, etc)
IT
Approx 14 mph
Strike two...
Bike
Can carry as much as you want to push.
IT
Can carry, uh... it's going in reverse, now sideways, now forward.. Man, that center of gravity can be a bad thing too...
Strike three...
Face it, it's cheaper to buy a bike, you don't have to recharge it, can use it in any of the weather conditions IT can manuvere in, and you get the added benefit of getting off your huge, Quake 3000000 swollen, ass and working out on your way to work.
Just my 2.5 * 10^-1 cents