If I can make something do what it wasn't intended to do, and it's not negatively harming others, why should I be deprived of my right to make it do that thing it wasn't meant to do?
Short answer - You shouldn't.
A slightly longer answer - In a perfect world, where you couldn't hurt others, you shouldn't.
A longer, but probably more realistic answer - Given that the network operators cannot absolutely secure their network and that rogue applications and third-party OSes have the potential to wreak havoc on their networks and other subscribers, it is in their best interests to keep the same off their network. Because the vendor of the device needs to provide support, a minimal set of software configurations will lower support costs. More importantly, rogue apps having access to the OS level of a device may very well allow the device to operate out of specification, causing interference to other devices (i.e., damage to their users) around them. I know that you are the exception and would never let your device's code have a bug but, frankly, with the level of software assurance anywhere, I sure wouldn't trust you.
So, yeah, most of these systems were designed to keep you from changing things for monetary reasons. But they also keep you from using your programmable RFI generator from f*cking up my access. So I'm not so hot to change that, if you know what I mean.
We'll just amend the law so that our honored corporate personages are no longer subject to these ignominities while keeping our human scum personages subjugated to the full extent of our data-searching wrath! After all, corporations never support illegal activities, but humans? You can't trust them any farther than you can throw them (or bomb them, or lock them up, etc.).
When we talk about "mandatory" recycling or composting we are talking about one more bin to throw things in that the trash people will pick up.
My city, Portland, has just instituted this program. Our household (dad, mom, one daughter) generate about one gallon of compostable waste each week (we have busy lives - we don't eat a huge amount of food at home). We mulch the grass clippings from our small yard so, other than the couple times of year we rake leaves, this is our total output of compost. Unfortunately, the city has provided us with fifty+ gallon containers to deliver the compostable material to the street. So, either we have to build up weeks worth of a stinking load of garbage in our garage (and, yes, it does stink after about four days - that's about as long as we can take for Sam's Slop Buckets (TM) to be emptied - waiting for a load big enough to recycle or we wash a lot of the garbage down our driveway, into our street, each week as we hose out the compost that stuck to the sides and bottom of the mega-can. Is this really how the program is supposed to work?
I guess it's a good thing we in Portland finished the "big pipe" project. All that space in the sewers that was being used for storm drainage is going to be needed for garbage coming out of the cans when you wash them out.
It's really sad that, if nothing is done about it, the unsustainable economic system that we have right now will lead to a collapse of our technological society long before any asteroid might hit us. The minds behind this project might better be used to solve that conundrum instead...
Well, first you get away from the notion that efficiency is the highest, best goal of a society. If, instead we start with the assumption that the first goal of a society should be self-preservation, followed by maximization of quality of life for the average individual, and that economics should be used as a tool to forecast and guide these efforts rather than used for the maximization of production and efficiency, then there's a lot you could do, You could start gradual wealth redistribution; start making strategic investments in infrastructure; nationalize energy production and distribution; nationalize healthcare; break up banks with more than about $100B in assets; break up communications/media conglomerates; etc.,, etc., etc.
Of course, this will be decried as socialism (which, I suppose, it is), However, unless you find a way to actively utilize whatever talents your populace has or, at the least, give them enough money to pacify them, you won't need to demolish houses every 20-30 years - your cities will burn. And believe me, that would add much more inefficiency than the limited amount of socialism suggested here would introduce.
Oddly enough, as long as someone is doing innovative R&D, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. In large organizations, promising R&D is often killed because of the "needing to be all things to all people" syndrome or, due to it being disruptive technology, because it has a chance to displace existing (and profitable) products. And, frankly, the purchase of a company whose innovative R&D shows promise is often a more certain payoff than trying to grow that business. Finally, most large organizations do not buy a smaller firm unless they've already shown market traction. If the product is not actually kept alive by the larger firm, someone will usually step in a with a look-alike in short order.
I expect a drug addict to steal, not a wall street banker.
Well, there's your problem right there.
Yeah. I mean, your expectations do have to have some contact with reality! Lets just say there's honor among thieves, professional courtesy between lawyers, and then there's bankers.
If you don't, the only way to deal with him is immediate destruction. Otherwise, you need to always assume a worst-case scenario at any time and he's too dangerous to leave hanging around. It's better to start from a probabilistic analysis of sanity. At least you have a calculation that leads you to a set of potential answers rather than a singular point of destruction.
That's the question? The answer is that you couldn't have stopped him. Information wants to be free. Especially when you have someone willing to pay for it. And I don't think you want to go to a world where anyone with sensitive knowledge is better off dead once they leave the employ of those who provided them with that knowledge - because that's the only way to stop it - bribery (which turns out to be ever-increasing in costs) or death.
I just don't agree they should be able to take over a public park and deny the rights of the other citizens access to it.
I don't think that they denied anyone access - it's just that you'd have to listen to those damn drum circles and put up with a higher population density. Even so, I don't think there are laws against making a park uninviting, unless you want to start talking about "public nuisance" laws, in which case, you could probably charge anyone at any protest.
Look at it this way - not many people want to use parks between 10pm and 5am (which is why most curfew laws aren't vigorously protested). If the OWS folk had simply showed up each day (without camping) between the hours of 5am and 10pm, they would have been just as "disruptive" to the general populace even though they were not permanently camped. I'm not sure how you prevent this sort of "permanent protest" without also getting to the point where you can step on other protests that are shorter-lived.
Apparently you didnt follow any of the coverage of the Tea Party.
The coverage of the Tea Party (at least for the first six-nine months, before people figured out they were a bunch of Koch-funded ex-Birchers) was mainly positive in the mainstream media and followed almost immediately, regardless of what you may have heard from your right-wing blogs.
Now look at the OWS coverage. It was almost completely ignored by the mainstream media for the first week, generally discounted thereafter (They don't have an agenda! They aren't serious!), and then actively denigrated by reprinting local government press releases (Homeless and ex-cons are taking over hippie-land! Something must be done!). Not to mention the fact that mainstream media is still using the Tea Party (and its advocates) as "the" representatives of conservative thought in this country - even though it's popularity even among self-identified conservatives has fallen through the floor.
Corporate, mainstream media is still giving conservatives blowjobs while lobbing brickbats at liberals. There is no "liberal media". Mainstream media is overwhelmingly in the pocket of conservatives and (more importantly) the corporate masters for whom they are the "useful idiots" (ala Stalin).
How do I get paid to 'research' things people already know?
Apply for grants to validate anecdotal evidence. Explain in the grant application why this work has value outside the immediate validation (harder than it looks) and be sure to put an interesting spin on things. Oh yeah... have a PhD (or be associated with one) before you go up against the big boys for the money, too (the feds like to see that work actually can be done by the people they hand it to).
This result seems fairly obvious to anyone who has looked at typography. It explains a lot of the rules of thumb used in font design. For example, one of the characteristics of a legible font is that ascenders and descenders are neither too-long nor too-short. Character shapes that are too-expanded or too-condensed or just weird are bad, too. These characteristics probably screw up the shape too much. Same with line spacing. Too narrow makes it hard to see the word shape on either line easily.
Ya know, that line started to get old about fifteen months ago and after the first hundred or so times I heard it. I guess I was right about conservatives... not one original thought in their head.
Oddly enough, the phrase "throughout the universe" is not an uncommon one anymore, at least in publishing and entertainment. I first stumbled across it in articles about recording contracts. I've seen it adopted in more and more places, as it seems to be an easy way to characterize "If I try to list them all, I'll forget one, so, no, I don't want to specify particular regions into which I can dump your crapola". Yeah, the "universe" part does seem a bit of overkill but, on the other hand, it does add that bit of cosmic surreality to the licensing experience. By now it's probably standard in all content licensing contracts.
1.48 MHz?, 256-bit? Wow! I can't believe you can hear anything through the distortion and aliasing at that rate!
I sample with at least 2.4GHz and 2048-bit accuracy. And maybe, just maybe, I can get a basic approximation to what I get from my 1928 Victrola. Now, maybe that lack of sound quality is because I'm only using Monster cables for my monitors right now. The good news is that I'm on a waiting list to sell a kidney so I can get these - a bargain at $21K for 3 meters! But I have to believe that the sample rate has something to do with it, too.
Specifically, my multi-channel audio I/O devices that have only Windows drivers. And my DAW, which doesn't run on Linux. And my audio plugins. Yes, I could buy other audio hardware and try one of the Linux DAWs, but the last time I tried that (when I had a lot smaller investment in my hardware), it didn't work out very well. I'm certainly not going to throw away the thousands of dollars in hardware and software in my studio because someone tells me Linux would work just as well. In this domain, it doesn't.
And by Randi Rhodes and Thom Hartmann and another half-billion or so talk-/sports-radio gabbers. Basically, if it's on radio, these guys will be there. Radio is cheap (and getting cheaper each day). I doubt they actually have an ideology to push.
Slashdot Mirror
... it's that improvements to the language are made without breaking legacy support -- no compromise and at any cost.
Well, maybe if the C++ folk had designed a language that could absorb new paradigms and features without breaking or becoming syntactically unwieldy, it would be better.
... was gained.
If I can make something do what it wasn't intended to do, and it's not negatively harming others, why should I be deprived of my right to make it do that thing it wasn't meant to do?
Short answer - You shouldn't.
A slightly longer answer - In a perfect world, where you couldn't hurt others, you shouldn't.
A longer, but probably more realistic answer - Given that the network operators cannot absolutely secure their network and that rogue applications and third-party OSes have the potential to wreak havoc on their networks and other subscribers, it is in their best interests to keep the same off their network. Because the vendor of the device needs to provide support, a minimal set of software configurations will lower support costs. More importantly, rogue apps having access to the OS level of a device may very well allow the device to operate out of specification, causing interference to other devices (i.e., damage to their users) around them. I know that you are the exception and would never let your device's code have a bug but, frankly, with the level of software assurance anywhere, I sure wouldn't trust you.
So, yeah, most of these systems were designed to keep you from changing things for monetary reasons. But they also keep you from using your programmable RFI generator from f*cking up my access. So I'm not so hot to change that, if you know what I mean.
...you KNOW we are now considered the enemy of this current regime...
You don't think you were enemies of the previous one as well? Wow. You've drunk the KoolAid, my friend.
Language evolves. You can fight the tide or swim with it. I know which way gets you drowned first.
We'll just amend the law so that our honored corporate personages are no longer subject to these ignominities while keeping our human scum personages subjugated to the full extent of our data-searching wrath! After all, corporations never support illegal activities, but humans? You can't trust them any farther than you can throw them (or bomb them, or lock them up, etc.).
When we talk about "mandatory" recycling or composting we are talking about one more bin to throw things in that the trash people will pick up.
My city, Portland, has just instituted this program. Our household (dad, mom, one daughter) generate about one gallon of compostable waste each week (we have busy lives - we don't eat a huge amount of food at home). We mulch the grass clippings from our small yard so, other than the couple times of year we rake leaves, this is our total output of compost. Unfortunately, the city has provided us with fifty+ gallon containers to deliver the compostable material to the street. So, either we have to build up weeks worth of a stinking load of garbage in our garage (and, yes, it does stink after about four days - that's about as long as we can take for Sam's Slop Buckets (TM) to be emptied - waiting for a load big enough to recycle or we wash a lot of the garbage down our driveway, into our street, each week as we hose out the compost that stuck to the sides and bottom of the mega-can. Is this really how the program is supposed to work?
I guess it's a good thing we in Portland finished the "big pipe" project. All that space in the sewers that was being used for storm drainage is going to be needed for garbage coming out of the cans when you wash them out.
It's really sad that, if nothing is done about it, the unsustainable economic system that we have right now will lead to a collapse of our technological society long before any asteroid might hit us. The minds behind this project might better be used to solve that conundrum instead...
So what do you propose we do about this?
Well, first you get away from the notion that efficiency is the highest, best goal of a society. If, instead we start with the assumption that the first goal of a society should be self-preservation, followed by maximization of quality of life for the average individual, and that economics should be used as a tool to forecast and guide these efforts rather than used for the maximization of production and efficiency, then there's a lot you could do, You could start gradual wealth redistribution; start making strategic investments in infrastructure; nationalize energy production and distribution; nationalize healthcare; break up banks with more than about $100B in assets; break up communications/media conglomerates; etc.,, etc., etc.
Of course, this will be decried as socialism (which, I suppose, it is), However, unless you find a way to actively utilize whatever talents your populace has or, at the least, give them enough money to pacify them, you won't need to demolish houses every 20-30 years - your cities will burn. And believe me, that would add much more inefficiency than the limited amount of socialism suggested here would introduce.
Oddly enough, as long as someone is doing innovative R&D, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. In large organizations, promising R&D is often killed because of the "needing to be all things to all people" syndrome or, due to it being disruptive technology, because it has a chance to displace existing (and profitable) products. And, frankly, the purchase of a company whose innovative R&D shows promise is often a more certain payoff than trying to grow that business. Finally, most large organizations do not buy a smaller firm unless they've already shown market traction. If the product is not actually kept alive by the larger firm, someone will usually step in a with a look-alike in short order.
Most people do many other things more than they think. In fact, thinking is probably one of those activities people do least.
Yeah. I mean, your expectations do have to have some contact with reality! Lets just say there's honor among thieves, professional courtesy between lawyers, and then there's bankers.
Never assume the other guy is sane.
If you don't, the only way to deal with him is immediate destruction. Otherwise, you need to always assume a worst-case scenario at any time and he's too dangerous to leave hanging around. It's better to start from a probabilistic analysis of sanity. At least you have a calculation that leads you to a set of potential answers rather than a singular point of destruction.
That's the question? The answer is that you couldn't have stopped him. Information wants to be free. Especially when you have someone willing to pay for it. And I don't think you want to go to a world where anyone with sensitive knowledge is better off dead once they leave the employ of those who provided them with that knowledge - because that's the only way to stop it - bribery (which turns out to be ever-increasing in costs) or death.
I just don't agree they should be able to take over a public park and deny the rights of the other citizens access to it.
I don't think that they denied anyone access - it's just that you'd have to listen to those damn drum circles and put up with a higher population density. Even so, I don't think there are laws against making a park uninviting, unless you want to start talking about "public nuisance" laws, in which case, you could probably charge anyone at any protest.
Look at it this way - not many people want to use parks between 10pm and 5am (which is why most curfew laws aren't vigorously protested). If the OWS folk had simply showed up each day (without camping) between the hours of 5am and 10pm, they would have been just as "disruptive" to the general populace even though they were not permanently camped. I'm not sure how you prevent this sort of "permanent protest" without also getting to the point where you can step on other protests that are shorter-lived.
Apparently you didnt follow any of the coverage of the Tea Party.
The coverage of the Tea Party (at least for the first six-nine months, before people figured out they were a bunch of Koch-funded ex-Birchers) was mainly positive in the mainstream media and followed almost immediately, regardless of what you may have heard from your right-wing blogs.
Now look at the OWS coverage. It was almost completely ignored by the mainstream media for the first week, generally discounted thereafter (They don't have an agenda! They aren't serious!), and then actively denigrated by reprinting local government press releases (Homeless and ex-cons are taking over hippie-land! Something must be done!). Not to mention the fact that mainstream media is still using the Tea Party (and its advocates) as "the" representatives of conservative thought in this country - even though it's popularity even among self-identified conservatives has fallen through the floor.
Corporate, mainstream media is still giving conservatives blowjobs while lobbing brickbats at liberals. There is no "liberal media". Mainstream media is overwhelmingly in the pocket of conservatives and (more importantly) the corporate masters for whom they are the "useful idiots" (ala Stalin).
How do I get paid to 'research' things people already know?
Apply for grants to validate anecdotal evidence. Explain in the grant application why this work has value outside the immediate validation (harder than it looks) and be sure to put an interesting spin on things. Oh yeah... have a PhD (or be associated with one) before you go up against the big boys for the money, too (the feds like to see that work actually can be done by the people they hand it to).
This result seems fairly obvious to anyone who has looked at typography. It explains a lot of the rules of thumb used in font design. For example, one of the characteristics of a legible font is that ascenders and descenders are neither too-long nor too-short. Character shapes that are too-expanded or too-condensed or just weird are bad, too. These characteristics probably screw up the shape too much. Same with line spacing. Too narrow makes it hard to see the word shape on either line easily.
Ya know, that line started to get old about fifteen months ago and after the first hundred or so times I heard it. I guess I was right about conservatives... not one original thought in their head.
Oddly enough, the phrase "throughout the universe" is not an uncommon one anymore, at least in publishing and entertainment. I first stumbled across it in articles about recording contracts. I've seen it adopted in more and more places, as it seems to be an easy way to characterize "If I try to list them all, I'll forget one, so, no, I don't want to specify particular regions into which I can dump your crapola". Yeah, the "universe" part does seem a bit of overkill but, on the other hand, it does add that bit of cosmic surreality to the licensing experience. By now it's probably standard in all content licensing contracts.
I just remind myself this isn't Dr Who, it's Han Solo with a Time Machine and a British accent.
Oh, I see. What you mean is that they actually made it watchable. Yeah. Big mistake, that.
1.48 MHz?, 256-bit? Wow! I can't believe you can hear anything through the distortion and aliasing at that rate!
I sample with at least 2.4GHz and 2048-bit accuracy. And maybe, just maybe, I can get a basic approximation to what I get from my 1928 Victrola. Now, maybe that lack of sound quality is because I'm only using Monster cables for my monitors right now. The good news is that I'm on a waiting list to sell a kidney so I can get these - a bargain at $21K for 3 meters! But I have to believe that the sample rate has something to do with it, too.
Specifically, my multi-channel audio I/O devices that have only Windows drivers. And my DAW, which doesn't run on Linux. And my audio plugins. Yes, I could buy other audio hardware and try one of the Linux DAWs, but the last time I tried that (when I had a lot smaller investment in my hardware), it didn't work out very well. I'm certainly not going to throw away the thousands of dollars in hardware and software in my studio because someone tells me Linux would work just as well. In this domain, it doesn't.
It makes sense. Might as well get them ready for what they'll get after coming out...
And by Randi Rhodes and Thom Hartmann and another half-billion or so talk-/sports-radio gabbers. Basically, if it's on radio, these guys will be there. Radio is cheap (and getting cheaper each day). I doubt they actually have an ideology to push.