I'm not too worried about it. I think it's stupid to worry about what books people buy - especially the oft-mentioned "loophole" that people will use cash for secure purchases, but I'm not worried in the least about cameras.
How many cameras are there going to be? How many people monitoring them? I expect the answers are "lots" and "zero", respectively. The tapes will be looked at after a crime is committed - either to identify a criminal or to use as evidence. I might worry about mis-identification for people who look like other people, but how is that different/worse than the mis-identifications that go on all the time by eyewitnesses?
But just about *everything* important is learned during the first five years of life - after that, it's just a bunch of fleshing out. If you want your child to have an innate understanding of *anything*, it's best to start early. I think the basics of computers, math, spelling, and yes, "humanity" should all be taught in pre-school - even if it's only in rudimentary forms. That's what provides a base for everything else children will learn in their lives.
This is the *first* Google programming competition, so they've obviously never done this before. If I were a stockholder, I don't know if I'd be happy about my company offering $100k, $1M, whatever - in a plan that may not generate anything at all. I suspect that if this is as successful as I expect it to be, you may see that kind of money being thrown around by a lot of companies in the future. Imagine a world where you could make enough money to live on just by winning competitions companies put out...
BSD licencing is not about freedom. Licencing is not about freedom. It is about restricting freedoms.
If you want your code to be "free", stick "Public Domain, do whatever you want with it" at the top. Even the BSD licence is restrictive in the fact that people who use the code have to credit the author. It's not much, but they've still lost the ability to create software without crediting anyone.
Stop arguing about licence "freedom" - it doesn't exist. Just let software authors create software with whatever licence they want.
I took the time they were wasting with that blather to think about it a second. When do you think the best time for them to run commercials is? During a period when people are willing to sit through them thinking "this may be it!". Everyone knows the 2-minute commercial break, and a lot just flip for that time. But if no one wants to miss those vital first few Simpsons minutes, they're willing to spend 15 minutes on the same crappy network that won't let you see it on time. I know I did.
There are no laws stating that two things cannot appear to move faster than light relative to each other to *an observer*. Two spaceships moving at the speed of light towards each other, and starting 2 light seconds apart, will hit in 1 second. From your point of view.
On the interior of the spaceship, time dilation will take effect, and it will be much longer.
Okay - this I never understood, so could someone help me out?
Taking :
A^2 + B^2 = C^2
Therefore C^2 - A^2 = B^2
And assuming that A (velocity through space) > C
C^2 - A^2 < 0
B^2 < 0
B = (Something) x (Root of -1)
That's not "backwards in time", that's moving through a complex plane of time or something. I'm not claiming to know what that means, just that "backwards in time" doesn't make sense. Can someone help me understand this?
Those were more a result of huge government spending than anything else. If we were at war and it was determined that genetic engineering held the key to victory, you can bet that advancement would take place faster than we've seen thus far.
And don't give me that "The cat is out of the bag, they should evolve to use the internet."
But that's what the parent post is all about - they got big off of a system that would not work if it were brought in brand-new today, and now that they're big, they can crush opposition. Of course they don't want to adapt when what they've been doing has gotten them so much cash. The point is that the law allows obsolete business practices to litigate their way through a few more years of survival - hurting a lot of entrepreneurs and innovators in the process.
I'm no expert, but have editted a few httpd.conf files in my time. I have trouble understanding how a simple GUI wrapper around the whole thing is any trouble. At least for the majority of servers where simply clicking "Next"..."Finish" should be enough to give them a fully-functional webserver. If you're doing anything fancier, you're probably already pretty comfy with.conf files.
I'm not saying that the good people at Apache should do it - I'm sure they have enough on their hands - but with the millions of computers running it, is there no one else willing to take care of this? If so - is Apache willing to accept it?
Re:The demographic hasn't changed.
on
Attack of the Clones
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Personal anecdote :
In residence in university a few years ago we had an end-of-year party with some kids movies : The Princess Bride and The Dark Crystal. Everyone who had seen Princess Bride as a kid *loved* it, same with Dark Crystal - but those who hadn't seen them as children were indifferent, or downright hostile.
I think the same applies to Star Wars. People my age who see it for the first time are 50/50 on liking it - whereas people who have seen it as children love it - it obviously has children-appeal which then translates to nostalgia-appeal. When it first came out it was worth seeing just for the effects, and gained fans that way, but I don't see how modern Star Wars movies can hope to make the same splash in the PG-13 market as the originals did.
On the other hand, I think that "The only robot that can make beeps sound sarcastic" has far more appeal than JarJar to anyone over 8, and that Lucas should admit that while he won't neccessarily be making movie history again, he shouldn't toss our demographic aside with childrens-only appeal.
When was the last time an amendment was removed, once it made it to the constitution? The 18th (anti-alcohol) amendment was removed in 1933 - 14 years after it was ratified. Constitutional amendments have long staying power even if they're unpopular/wrong.
I'm going to have to shoot this suggestion down in flames as being impossible or impractical.
Goal : Children will not see "adult" material.
What's adult? According to the Australian government, it's just about anything not specifically aimed at kids. This actually makes it simpler. Adult accounts would have access to the internet, while non-adult accounts could only access a "whitelist" maintained by a trusted organization. Parents/regions could chose which authority they wanted based on culture/religion, etc. Beautiful - so you've got an internet where adults can surf to their hearts content, and children have full access to the 0.001% of the internet that's been fully examined and deemed safe. When they turn 13 (16? 18?) they get their new logins with their full access to the other 99.999% of everything.
But what happens when a 12-year-old gets sick of Sesame Street and wants something on Britney? I doubt those costumes are going to be deemed "fully acceptable for children" by all authorities. What about the 11-year-old who's really interested in computers (I was) and wants to find out how to program? Websites like that wouldn't go through the hassle of getting accredited.
"So let them on with adult supervision, under an adult account"....or pretty much what's happening now. Responsible parents would do this anyway, and unresponsible ones would ignore the law, or sit with their back turned to the computer watching tv - whatever.
So what would this law accomplish? Red tape for quality childrens programming on the internet.
Garr - seen this debate 6 times already. I think this guy's main argument was against a specific document outlining and government conduct. Freedom of speech? I'll give you that. Separation of church and state? Brilliant. But carrying guns as a basic right? Nuh-uh. I'm not saying guns are evil - I feel more comfortable in a gunless society, but I was brought up in one, so that's pretty natural. I've never seen fully-convincing arguments on either side of that argument. But it's hardly a basic neccessity of a healthy society. There are plenty of countries that get along fine without guns, and the common people generally aren't clamouring for this terrible injustice to be corrected.
The US constitution is held with reverence usually reserved for sacred texts - by Americans anyway. The problem there is that if the founding fathers - being only mortal - made a mis-step and included some things that will be detrimental in the long run, it'll last a long time. *No one* wants to fsck with the constitution. And I think that was the point - not "guns'r'bad"
Actually, I'd say that "real" artists are the rule, but they're never as popular as the manufactured salesmen that are Britney and Faith Hill, so they get drowned out. A point (no longer "the point" - that was lost a while ago:) is that the RIAA doesn't represent the creators of the vast amount of the content, just the creators of the teeny-bopper popular portion of it (ie, the RIAA themselves).
The original parent post (way up there now) was about the "content faction" being more of the distribution faction, which is pretty much true. But I'd say a good compromise would be to call it the "consumed content faction". There's a whole lot of content out there - any band that's ever recorded an album in their basement - but the "consumed content" of Britney-and-co is more prevalent. The question is if we want the law to reflect the interests of the creators of the most-seen content (*AA) or the most creators of content (basement bands, etc).
LOL - took me two minutes to figure out that "mpdes" == "modes", thinking it was some obscure acronym/shortened name. Whatever else you may say about Linux - it's easy to mistake pure gibberish for a valid command/option.
I'm with you. Downloaded the demo yesterday and placed my order an hour later. I haven't gotten full-screen to work with Redhat/KDE, so I've been playing the Windows version, but the game is - simply put - incredible. It's about time we saw some real inovation in the game market.
Fair enough - but it tends to be the exception rather than the rule in the recording industry. And if it's your own arrangement then there's at least some artistic effort going into it. The point is that anyone can make a shoe according to specifications, only *one* person could ever have written, say, American Pie (the song, that is) in the way that we all know and love...
And only one person could have written it in the fantastically horrible way that we all know and hate.
To make a point of the obvious, making shoes isn't exactly art. These people didn't sign up for Nike because they figured that that was the best way to get their wonderful shoes to the world.
It's not as simple as "Designer, Distributor"...in that case it's more like "Designer , Manufacturor, Distributor", and we all know where the factory workors sit.
While the law may treat artists like slave labourers, they're still the Designers, and should have control over where every one of their designs goes.
Wow, this comment has generated quite the debate...I'm just going to toss in my 2 cents from another angle - there *is* only so much uranium, but there's a whole lot of solar fusion to go around. At some point, the world is going to have to move to renewable resources, and now seems as good a time as any to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Depends on the situation, of course. Exceptions are (relatively) expensive.
I'm not too worried about it. I think it's stupid to worry about what books people buy - especially the oft-mentioned "loophole" that people will use cash for secure purchases, but I'm not worried in the least about cameras.
How many cameras are there going to be? How many people monitoring them? I expect the answers are "lots" and "zero", respectively. The tapes will be looked at after a crime is committed - either to identify a criminal or to use as evidence. I might worry about mis-identification for people who look like other people, but how is that different/worse than the mis-identifications that go on all the time by eyewitnesses?
But just about *everything* important is learned during the first five years of life - after that, it's just a bunch of fleshing out. If you want your child to have an innate understanding of *anything*, it's best to start early. I think the basics of computers, math, spelling, and yes, "humanity" should all be taught in pre-school - even if it's only in rudimentary forms. That's what provides a base for everything else children will learn in their lives.
This is the *first* Google programming competition, so they've obviously never done this before. If I were a stockholder, I don't know if I'd be happy about my company offering $100k, $1M, whatever - in a plan that may not generate anything at all. I suspect that if this is as successful as I expect it to be, you may see that kind of money being thrown around by a lot of companies in the future. Imagine a world where you could make enough money to live on just by winning competitions companies put out...
BSD licencing is not about freedom. Licencing is not about freedom. It is about restricting freedoms.
If you want your code to be "free", stick "Public Domain, do whatever you want with it" at the top. Even the BSD licence is restrictive in the fact that people who use the code have to credit the author. It's not much, but they've still lost the ability to create software without crediting anyone.
Stop arguing about licence "freedom" - it doesn't exist. Just let software authors create software with whatever licence they want.
I took the time they were wasting with that blather to think about it a second. When do you think the best time for them to run commercials is? During a period when people are willing to sit through them thinking "this may be it!". Everyone knows the 2-minute commercial break, and a lot just flip for that time. But if no one wants to miss those vital first few Simpsons minutes, they're willing to spend 15 minutes on the same crappy network that won't let you see it on time. I know I did.
LoL - doesn't have much to do with the parent post, but still damn funny.
That's where the whole time-slowdown comes in.
There are no laws stating that two things cannot appear to move faster than light relative to each other to *an observer*. Two spaceships moving at the speed of light towards each other, and starting 2 light seconds apart, will hit in 1 second. From your point of view.
On the interior of the spaceship, time dilation will take effect, and it will be much longer.
Okay - this I never understood, so could someone help me out?
Taking :
A^2 + B^2 = C^2
Therefore C^2 - A^2 = B^2
And assuming that A (velocity through space) > C
C^2 - A^2 < 0
B^2 < 0
B = (Something) x (Root of -1)
That's not "backwards in time", that's moving through a complex plane of time or something. I'm not claiming to know what that means, just that "backwards in time" doesn't make sense. Can someone help me understand this?
Those were more a result of huge government spending than anything else. If we were at war and it was determined that genetic engineering held the key to victory, you can bet that advancement would take place faster than we've seen thus far.
And don't give me that "The cat is out of the bag, they should evolve to use the internet."
But that's what the parent post is all about - they got big off of a system that would not work if it were brought in brand-new today, and now that they're big, they can crush opposition. Of course they don't want to adapt when what they've been doing has gotten them so much cash. The point is that the law allows obsolete business practices to litigate their way through a few more years of survival - hurting a lot of entrepreneurs and innovators in the process.
Wouldn't the easiest way of detecting variable-names/whitespace/etc be to simply compile&strip the program, *then* run diff?
I'm no expert, but have editted a few httpd.conf files in my time. I have trouble understanding how a simple GUI wrapper around the whole thing is any trouble. At least for the majority of servers where simply clicking "Next"..."Finish" should be enough to give them a fully-functional webserver. If you're doing anything fancier, you're probably already pretty comfy with .conf files.
I'm not saying that the good people at Apache should do it - I'm sure they have enough on their hands - but with the millions of computers running it, is there no one else willing to take care of this? If so - is Apache willing to accept it?
Personal anecdote :
In residence in university a few years ago we had an end-of-year party with some kids movies : The Princess Bride and The Dark Crystal. Everyone who had seen Princess Bride as a kid *loved* it, same with Dark Crystal - but those who hadn't seen them as children were indifferent, or downright hostile.
I think the same applies to Star Wars. People my age who see it for the first time are 50/50 on liking it - whereas people who have seen it as children love it - it obviously has children-appeal which then translates to nostalgia-appeal. When it first came out it was worth seeing just for the effects, and gained fans that way, but I don't see how modern Star Wars movies can hope to make the same splash in the PG-13 market as the originals did.
On the other hand, I think that "The only robot that can make beeps sound sarcastic" has far more appeal than JarJar to anyone over 8, and that Lucas should admit that while he won't neccessarily be making movie history again, he shouldn't toss our demographic aside with childrens-only appeal.
Yeah - I can't tell you how long I've waited for the "User -> Messages -> Remote Command Line" option to appear on my own AIM client.
When was the last time an amendment was removed, once it made it to the constitution? The 18th (anti-alcohol) amendment was removed in 1933 - 14 years after it was ratified. Constitutional amendments have long staying power even if they're unpopular/wrong.
I'm going to have to shoot this suggestion down in flames as being impossible or impractical.
Goal : Children will not see "adult" material.
What's adult? According to the Australian government, it's just about anything not specifically aimed at kids. This actually makes it simpler. Adult accounts would have access to the internet, while non-adult accounts could only access a "whitelist" maintained by a trusted organization. Parents/regions could chose which authority they wanted based on culture/religion, etc. Beautiful - so you've got an internet where adults can surf to their hearts content, and children have full access to the 0.001% of the internet that's been fully examined and deemed safe. When they turn 13 (16? 18?) they get their new logins with their full access to the other 99.999% of everything.
But what happens when a 12-year-old gets sick of Sesame Street and wants something on Britney? I doubt those costumes are going to be deemed "fully acceptable for children" by all authorities. What about the 11-year-old who's really interested in computers (I was) and wants to find out how to program? Websites like that wouldn't go through the hassle of getting accredited.
"So let them on with adult supervision, under an adult account"....or pretty much what's happening now. Responsible parents would do this anyway, and unresponsible ones would ignore the law, or sit with their back turned to the computer watching tv - whatever.
So what would this law accomplish? Red tape for quality childrens programming on the internet.
Garr - seen this debate 6 times already. I think this guy's main argument was against a specific document outlining and government conduct. Freedom of speech? I'll give you that. Separation of church and state? Brilliant. But carrying guns as a basic right? Nuh-uh. I'm not saying guns are evil - I feel more comfortable in a gunless society, but I was brought up in one, so that's pretty natural. I've never seen fully-convincing arguments on either side of that argument. But it's hardly a basic neccessity of a healthy society. There are plenty of countries that get along fine without guns, and the common people generally aren't clamouring for this terrible injustice to be corrected.
The US constitution is held with reverence usually reserved for sacred texts - by Americans anyway. The problem there is that if the founding fathers - being only mortal - made a mis-step and included some things that will be detrimental in the long run, it'll last a long time. *No one* wants to fsck with the constitution. And I think that was the point - not "guns'r'bad"
Actually, I'd say that "real" artists are the rule, but they're never as popular as the manufactured salesmen that are Britney and Faith Hill, so they get drowned out. A point (no longer "the point" - that was lost a while ago :) is that the RIAA doesn't represent the creators of the vast amount of the content, just the creators of the teeny-bopper popular portion of it (ie, the RIAA themselves).
The original parent post (way up there now) was about the "content faction" being more of the distribution faction, which is pretty much true. But I'd say a good compromise would be to call it the "consumed content faction". There's a whole lot of content out there - any band that's ever recorded an album in their basement - but the "consumed content" of Britney-and-co is more prevalent. The question is if we want the law to reflect the interests of the creators of the most-seen content (*AA) or the most creators of content (basement bands, etc).
LOL - took me two minutes to figure out that "mpdes" == "modes", thinking it was some obscure acronym/shortened name. Whatever else you may say about Linux - it's easy to mistake pure gibberish for a valid command/option.
I'm with you. Downloaded the demo yesterday and placed my order an hour later. I haven't gotten full-screen to work with Redhat/KDE, so I've been playing the Windows version, but the game is - simply put - incredible. It's about time we saw some real inovation in the game market.
Fair enough - but it tends to be the exception rather than the rule in the recording industry. And if it's your own arrangement then there's at least some artistic effort going into it. The point is that anyone can make a shoe according to specifications, only *one* person could ever have written, say, American Pie (the song, that is) in the way that we all know and love...
And only one person could have written it in the fantastically horrible way that we all know and hate.
To make a point of the obvious, making shoes isn't exactly art. These people didn't sign up for Nike because they figured that that was the best way to get their wonderful shoes to the world.
It's not as simple as "Designer, Distributor"...in that case it's more like "Designer , Manufacturor, Distributor", and we all know where the factory workors sit.
While the law may treat artists like slave labourers, they're still the Designers, and should have control over where every one of their designs goes.
You can also fight majors'monopoles by endorsing Free Art distribution policies.
True - only you can help. There's a good introduction to the enemy right here.
Wow, this comment has generated quite the debate...I'm just going to toss in my 2 cents from another angle - there *is* only so much uranium, but there's a whole lot of solar fusion to go around. At some point, the world is going to have to move to renewable resources, and now seems as good a time as any to me.