I just went to see Charlize Theron in a series of successively tighter and skimpier leather outfits. While none of her costumes approached the level of Aeon Flux of the Liquid Television era, I wasn't terribly disappointed on that front.
I didn't expect the movie to be very interesting or very good... but it did exceed my, admittedly low, expectations. I don't know that I'd recommend it, but I wouldn't try to talk someone out of seeing it if they were consiering it.
Has anyone bothered to collect the data about/.ing in regards to how long it taks for a server to fall over and burst in to flames to see what role OS plays?
Load testing to the point of failure in real world conditions is a daily occurance for sites listed on/.. What's being done with all the load data? It's mentioned every few "Dang, dead before the First Post!"about how/. should offer to host the content of some of the smaller sites rather than just hammering them into the ground without notice... Why not offer to do that not so much out of benevolent concern, but to have a reliable source of real-world stress that can be applied to a server whose configuration can be modified under controlled conditions?
Compare products from different vendors, multiple products from a single vendor, several configurations of a single product... all in a controlled and replicable real-world load condition.
I think you're continuing to miss the point, an IQ of 100 is defined as 50th percentile for the population.
It says nothing at all about the absolute intelligence of someone with an IQ of 100, or 50, or 150. Even if schools did adequately teach that science is a process and not a collection of Facts About Stuff, and as a result the general population had highly developed critical thinking skills... 50% of the population would still have an IQ of 100 or less. That's just the definition of IQ.
Computer imaging and enhancement doesn't really work like a camera. It works more like a biological vision system by taking multiple sets of data and interpolating them to yeild a best fit... like if you look at a really pixelated still image, you can't tell what it is, but if you look at a bunch images of the same object that are all pixelated slightly differently, you can figure out what it's supposed to look like.
Theoretically, the resolution is arbitrary- it's just a matter of how much raw data you can collect and process.
I mean, sane, normal people who are not socially messed up or repulsive meet their love interests while out at a concert or a club or while doing things with their friends. [...] Why would you bother trying to hook up with a total roll of the dice on the net unless you were a total failure at it in person?
I'd say it's pathetic to hook-up with a "total roll of the dice" whether you meet them online or at club while doing stuff with your friends.
And I don't know about you, but there's a fair bit of overlap between the people I'm friends with in real life and the people I'm friends with online. So, what if one of my real-life friends wants to go to a club to meet a mutual internet-friend... and I end up hitting it off with the internet-friend? What if it was a real-life friend-of-a-friend who was only an internet-friend to me? What if it was someone I knew in real life but never had anything romantic develop until I got their contact information and talked to them online? What if it's someone I intially knew only online, but then was introduced to them by a mutual friend in real life, and then had something romantic develop online... and then met them in real life on my own for a hook-up?
Funny, when I heard that story about that one chick from MySpace my reaction was that the only reason this story was semi-national news was because it had a "The Internet" angle. Older weirdos killing teenage girls isn't something new that requires the interent.
And as long as we're on the MySpace chick... she'd apparently met the guy several times in meatspace. It wasn't: "Hi! It's nice to meet you for the FIRST TIME! What are you going to do with those trash bags and rope? TEE HEE!" She had a chance to figure out that this guy wasn't quite right... the internet is no more at fault than any other place where people can get to know other people.
As an American we all have the right of free speech.
As men (and women) we all have the Right of free speech. Being American has nothing to do with it, since the US Government is not the source of Rights... it is merely something create by The People and granted limited authority to ensure the Rights of The People are protected.
In theory, anyway. A couple hundred years of graft and corruption have modified the practice slightly.
Future Senators take note, and convince themselves that the main purpose of the bill is probably enough, and some of those infants might have deserved it anyway.
Republicans then campaign against Future Senators in their states, outraged that they would vote for mulching infants to subsidize the rich.
It's like giving away a cake with its recipe, but then saying that if anyone else wanted to sell the cake, they had to give away the recipe with the cake.
As you can surely recall, the first cookbooks swiftly destroyed the restaurant and food service industries.
If the comments are clear, a better programmer than you can come along later and say "What the hell was this guy doing?" and then replace your lines of fumbling crap with much cleaner/clearer code.
It's the difference between being able to see what you were trying to do vs. figuring out what you actually did.
Call it "Intent Oriented Programming" if you want.
In fact, I don't believe that such thing [legal file-sharing] exists to a significant extent.
Depends how you measure significance. Legal file-sharing v. illegal file-sharing is probably insignficant. Then again, illegal file-sharing v. units sold is probably insignificant, too. Look at it this way, though, illegal file-sharing ultimately threatens only the bottom line of the business. Legal file-sharing threatens the core of the business (unless, of course, the businesses can set things up so only They fnord can share files). Any legal file-sharing is significant to you if it undermines your control.
If you're trading something on the net that sounds/looks like a copyright infringement, why shouldn't the companies have the right to check it out?
It's more cost effective to subpoena than to actually check it out. Eventually they may get the ISPs to crack down on file-sharing "voluntarily" to reduce the costs of responding to subpoenas. And I don't mean "illegal file sharing". Legal file-sharing will also generate frivolous subpoenas due to the minimalist checking.
Basically, the ISPs don't see why they should be forced to pay to do the legwork to make it easier for some other company to harrass their customers.
But when it's lobby groups backed by the industry as a whole that lobby for laws that go against everyday people, how can we compete?
Corporations cannot vote. Remind your Representatives/Senators of that in your personally written letters to them on topics which concern you. Even a single letter can get them wondering how many other voters think the same way.
We still get to decide whether they keep their power or not.
There's always this wierd assumption around Slashdot that NASA is a bunch of idiots, and that they don't know more than a bunch of random people on the internet when it comes to (insert topic here).
I think we'd all readily acknowledge that NASA is made up of a lot of very smart individuals. The point you're missing is that when you put a bunch of very smart individuals in a committee, they very frequently will perform no better than a bunch of random folks on the internet.
If Genius 1 has a great idea, and Genius 2 has a great idea... you can count on Genius 3 to suggest a compromise and Geniuses 4 and 5 to agree. What no one takes into account is that the compromise solution is often worse than either of the original ideas.
True, but I'd bet that in 90% of the cases of people downloading the 'illegal' content from that site, they could easily go to a nearby Wal-mart or Best Buy and get themselves a copy. Or they could order one from many of the online retailers- many of which ship overseas as well.
I bet that in 90% of the cases of people buying things off the internet, they could easily go to a nearby Wal-mart or Best Buy and get themselves a copy.
But they don't.
Even though they could get the item sooner (shipping time) and possibly cheaper (shipping charges) if they picked it up personally, people still choose to shop online. It doesn't matter why people make this choice, or what other options they might have... it's a market reality that certain information/entertainment/content industries refuse to accept and exploit.
Granted you could probably go to the video store and rent/buy a DVD faster than you can downloaded it... but you can download it faster than it can be shipped to you if you buy it online. So if you really really want to see it, downloading is faster. And if you only kinda want to see it, downloading it is less of a hassle and cheaper... and if you like it, you can order it online to vote with your dollars.
They mean the psychiatric definition of "socialization"- Where you are taught the norms and mores of a society. By failing to watch TV, we're not getting the correct doses of "BUY! BUY! BUY!" (which is bad) and by using the internet, you're learning to develop your own opinions about the world (which is worse). All around antisocial behaviour from the social control and culture industries' perspective.
Next thing you know, when internet users do watch that 1h42m of television, they might [gasp!] question the talking heads. Then where would they be?
So... If these people can afford to donate money to this site, then why the hell can they just go out and buy the stuff they are purportedly downloading illegally?
There aren't any legal downloads of the content in question to go out and buy?
Here is a better question: explain to me how you can modify the electromagnetic field produced by nucleons so that they will readily fuse with low kinetic energy. No one has a theoretical framework for this behaviour, and at best there is some dodgy experimental evidence for it, which has been refuted over and over again.
This reminds me of someone questioning ammonia synthesis from hydrogen and nitrogen gas while completely ignoring the platinum.
Weird shit the free state physicists don't understand happens in sold-state and surface effect physics.
Slashdot Mirror
I just went to see Charlize Theron in a series of successively tighter and skimpier leather outfits. While none of her costumes approached the level of Aeon Flux of the Liquid Television era, I wasn't terribly disappointed on that front.
I didn't expect the movie to be very interesting or very good... but it did exceed my, admittedly low, expectations. I don't know that I'd recommend it, but I wouldn't try to talk someone out of seeing it if they were consiering it.
Has anyone bothered to collect the data about /.ing in regards to how long it taks for a server to fall over and burst in to flames to see what role OS plays?
Load testing to the point of failure in real world conditions is a daily occurance for sites listed on /.. What's being done with all the load data? It's mentioned every few "Dang, dead before the First Post!"about how /. should offer to host the content of some of the smaller sites rather than just hammering them into the ground without notice... Why not offer to do that not so much out of benevolent concern, but to have a reliable source of real-world stress that can be applied to a server whose configuration can be modified under controlled conditions?
Compare products from different vendors, multiple products from a single vendor, several configurations of a single product... all in a controlled and replicable real-world load condition.
Who needs benchmarks?
I think you're continuing to miss the point, an IQ of 100 is defined as 50th percentile for the population. It says nothing at all about the absolute intelligence of someone with an IQ of 100, or 50, or 150. Even if schools did adequately teach that science is a process and not a collection of Facts About Stuff, and as a result the general population had highly developed critical thinking skills... 50% of the population would still have an IQ of 100 or less. That's just the definition of IQ.
Computer imaging and enhancement doesn't really work like a camera. It works more like a biological vision system by taking multiple sets of data and interpolating them to yeild a best fit... like if you look at a really pixelated still image, you can't tell what it is, but if you look at a bunch images of the same object that are all pixelated slightly differently, you can figure out what it's supposed to look like.
Theoretically, the resolution is arbitrary- it's just a matter of how much raw data you can collect and process.
The've been having the users beta test their software for years. It's the next logical step to have the users do the actual bug hunt as well.
I mean, sane, normal people who are not socially messed up or repulsive meet their love interests while out at a concert or a club or while doing things with their friends. [...] Why would you bother trying to hook up with a total roll of the dice on the net unless you were a total failure at it in person?
I'd say it's pathetic to hook-up with a "total roll of the dice" whether you meet them online or at club while doing stuff with your friends.
And I don't know about you, but there's a fair bit of overlap between the people I'm friends with in real life and the people I'm friends with online. So, what if one of my real-life friends wants to go to a club to meet a mutual internet-friend... and I end up hitting it off with the internet-friend? What if it was a real-life friend-of-a-friend who was only an internet-friend to me? What if it was someone I knew in real life but never had anything romantic develop until I got their contact information and talked to them online? What if it's someone I intially knew only online, but then was introduced to them by a mutual friend in real life, and then had something romantic develop online... and then met them in real life on my own for a hook-up?
Funny, when I heard that story about that one chick from MySpace my reaction was that the only reason this story was semi-national news was because it had a "The Internet" angle. Older weirdos killing teenage girls isn't something new that requires the interent.
And as long as we're on the MySpace chick... she'd apparently met the guy several times in meatspace. It wasn't: "Hi! It's nice to meet you for the FIRST TIME! What are you going to do with those trash bags and rope? TEE HEE!" She had a chance to figure out that this guy wasn't quite right... the internet is no more at fault than any other place where people can get to know other people.
As an American we all have the right of free speech.
As men (and women) we all have the Right of free speech. Being American has nothing to do with it, since the US Government is not the source of Rights... it is merely something create by The People and granted limited authority to ensure the Rights of The People are protected.
In theory, anyway. A couple hundred years of graft and corruption have modified the practice slightly.
It seemed like the publication of those security flaws came from Mozilla itself... and a fix was out in about a week.
Who tells us about IE flaws and how long does it take for them to get fixed?
Future Senators take note, and convince themselves that the main purpose of the bill is probably enough, and some of those infants might have deserved it anyway.
Republicans then campaign against Future Senators in their states, outraged that they would vote for mulching infants to subsidize the rich.
Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.
It's like giving away a cake with its recipe, but then saying that if anyone else wanted to sell the cake, they had to give away the recipe with the cake.
As you can surely recall, the first cookbooks swiftly destroyed the restaurant and food service industries.
If the comments are clear, a better programmer than you can come along later and say "What the hell was this guy doing?" and then replace your lines of fumbling crap with much cleaner/clearer code.
It's the difference between being able to see what you were trying to do vs. figuring out what you actually did.
Call it "Intent Oriented Programming" if you want.
"This has been a subversion of the research purposes for which Internet2 was developed."
I never would have expected them to be so honest about what they were trying to do...
Depends how you measure significance. Legal file-sharing v. illegal file-sharing is probably insignficant. Then again, illegal file-sharing v. units sold is probably insignificant, too. Look at it this way, though, illegal file-sharing ultimately threatens only the bottom line of the business. Legal file-sharing threatens the core of the business (unless, of course, the businesses can set things up so only They fnord can share files). Any legal file-sharing is significant to you if it undermines your control.
It's more cost effective to subpoena than to actually check it out. Eventually they may get the ISPs to crack down on file-sharing "voluntarily" to reduce the costs of responding to subpoenas. And I don't mean "illegal file sharing". Legal file-sharing will also generate frivolous subpoenas due to the minimalist checking.
Basically, the ISPs don't see why they should be forced to pay to do the legwork to make it easier for some other company to harrass their customers.
Corporations cannot vote. Remind your Representatives/Senators of that in your personally written letters to them on topics which concern you. Even a single letter can get them wondering how many other voters think the same way.
We still get to decide whether they keep their power or not.
I think budgeting to underfund your projects, rather than adequately funding a smaller number of projects, is a pretty good example.
I think we'd all readily acknowledge that NASA is made up of a lot of very smart individuals. The point you're missing is that when you put a bunch of very smart individuals in a committee, they very frequently will perform no better than a bunch of random folks on the internet.
If Genius 1 has a great idea, and Genius 2 has a great idea... you can count on Genius 3 to suggest a compromise and Geniuses 4 and 5 to agree. What no one takes into account is that the compromise solution is often worse than either of the original ideas.
I bet that in 90% of the cases of people buying things off the internet, they could easily go to a nearby Wal-mart or Best Buy and get themselves a copy.
But they don't.
Even though they could get the item sooner (shipping time) and possibly cheaper (shipping charges) if they picked it up personally, people still choose to shop online. It doesn't matter why people make this choice, or what other options they might have... it's a market reality that certain information/entertainment/content industries refuse to accept and exploit.
Granted you could probably go to the video store and rent/buy a DVD faster than you can downloaded it... but you can download it faster than it can be shipped to you if you buy it online. So if you really really want to see it, downloading is faster. And if you only kinda want to see it, downloading it is less of a hassle and cheaper... and if you like it, you can order it online to vote with your dollars.
They mean the psychiatric definition of "socialization"- Where you are taught the norms and mores of a society. By failing to watch TV, we're not getting the correct doses of "BUY! BUY! BUY!" (which is bad) and by using the internet, you're learning to develop your own opinions about the world (which is worse). All around antisocial behaviour from the social control and culture industries' perspective.
Next thing you know, when internet users do watch that 1h42m of television, they might [gasp!] question the talking heads. Then where would they be?
There aren't any legal downloads of the content in question to go out and buy?
Ah, you mistakenly assume that video-games-turned-movies actually generated revenue.
Visit a secure .mil site some time.
It has always amused me when I get "The authority of this registrar is not recognized" when visiting sites the US Gov or DoD has signed themselves.
I've always thought ASIMO looked kind of funny when it tried to walk quickly (or jog, with the new model).
Then I started thinking about a black and white Japanese movie I saw a 3am a while back. The courtesians ran with the same tiny mincing gait.
So I'm curious if ASIMO's walking/jogging style is a design limitation, or are they trying for that particular style of movement?
This reminds me of someone questioning ammonia synthesis from hydrogen and nitrogen gas while completely ignoring the platinum.
Weird shit the free state physicists don't understand happens in sold-state and surface effect physics.