who has one of these. I used one in the CIT lab here at UT, but I think most Kinko's or drafting places will do it for you. I've done several large art prints with these, and they can't be beat. Building your own is a neat idea and all, but unless making your own large format printer is part of the piece, I'd stick with the professionals. No need to reinvent the wheel, man.
you didn't read the quote that i was commenting on when I said "is this not already the case?"
It is quite possible that programmers would be more inclined to keep their source code secret because it would be the source code that would be of incredible value, not the binaries themselves
anyone who is selling software keeps the source code for that sofware at least AS secret as the binaries. while the binaries may be easy to get, good luck getting the source code for Windows, or Word.
i realize that the GPL depends on copyright law to be enforced- what i'm saying is that even if we abolished copyright laws, that wouldn't prevent us from making laws which allowed us to designate that certain works and their derivitives are REQUIRED to be publicized, as that is really a different matter. that's what i mean by the antithesis of copyrights.
copyrights, with the exception of the GPL and similar licenses, grant one individual or group of individuals exclusive permission to publish and distribute a work. the GPL, on the otherhand, does not prevent anyone from using the work, but sets conditions for the publication of any derivitive works. it's really a completely different matter.
It is quite possible that programmers would be more inclined to keep their source code secret because it would be the source code that would be of incredible value, not the binaries themselves
is this not already the case? anyway, all i'm saying is there's a big diffrence between laws that say you can't copy something and distribute it for free versus laws that say you can can copy as much as you want but you have to include the source if you're redistributing it. it may well currently depend on copyright law for enforcement, but even if we abolished copyrights, it would be an entirely different matter to make laws that control the privatization of information instead of laws that control the publication of information. it is also a lot easier to prosecute someone if they're trying to make a business off of GPL software without including the source.
no it wouldn't. think about it... open source licenses are like anti-copyrights, as in not only are you free to copy this, but you HAVE to share it if you use it. just because we get rid of copyrights doesn't mean we have to get rid of anti-copyrights. i think it would be great if all we had were anti-copyrights.
apples naturally contain small amounts of cyanide... are you going to stop eating apples? the world is full of toxic things, and we eat them all the time. the fabric of your synthetic fiber shirt will abrade and give off trace amounts of known carcinogens. the plastic bottles your non-fluoridated water comes in will off-gass trace amounts of toxic chemicals. the pipes that you are currently getting your water from, i'm sure, contain trace amounts of all sorts of stuff that eventually makes it's way into your water.
i think the one thing that's really bringing you down is only ingesting trace amounts of science.
...it could be very useful if manufacturers could get black-box telemetry in an anonymous way. think of how much we've learned from black-boxes about airplane crashes, why they happen, and how to prevent them.
there could perhaps be engineering flaws which would could be revealed a lot sooner by analyzing black-box data, possibly saving lives.
he also makes the assumption that the public will have equal ability to parse that information. even if everything were made public, only the government and some large corporations would have the computing power and programs to cull some of the really useful information.
the story's not about RFID, it's not about "RFID Hell", and it's about a good use of technology that saves taxpayer money and allows convicted felons to be paroled so they can live more normal lives while still protecting the community.
Yeah, hit that one RIGHT ON THE HEAD, Matrix2110... Gattaca, here we come...
everyone here is making stupid jokes because they don't understand what the product is. i was skeptical at first, but i looked around at some of the documents on the site and did some googling and found this is actually kind of interesting.
here is a relevant article that explains the technology a little better.
why not just use smaller cars? then they would be easier to stop in time.
a good solution would be to replace each train with a passenger-capacity-equivalent amount of autonomous, computer-controlled bus-sized cars. they would be easier to stop, accidents would involve much less mass/energy/people making them less fatal, and they could leave at more regular intervals. it would be a packet-based system, sorta like the internet...
If you really want to find irony in this: consider how many 16-year-old singers whose only merit was sex appeal have been made famous by RIAA companies in the past decade, then ask what their problem with kiddie porn is.
Man, I wish I had some mod points- this is one of the best points I've seen on this article
it's a shame- maybe Be didn't have enough resources to fight MS successfully, but perhaps they could've gotten a bigger judgment had they followed through with the lawsuit?
If ever there were a case that could be proven of a directly competing (and superior) product that failed due to MS's anti-competitive practices in the OS market, it would be Be. A fair chance for Be would've been worth a lot more than a measly $23.25 mil.
of course. i didn't intend to imply otherwise, if that's what you inferred. i think the computer should just provide a friendly, highly usable interface for a printer which fills out the ballot in a human-readable format. this is then placed by the voter into the box....or perhaps displayed behind glass, or something, for their approval before submission (if for some reason there would be a problem with people tampering with their own ballots)
that's a good point... i forgot about the possibility of coercion, although that seems the least likely here in the US. (at least one would hope so, but alas, we must plan for the worst)... so what would be a good way for people to ensure that their vote hasn't been changed yet protect their anonymity? maybe if only the ballot had the human-readable values, along with a checksum of sorts that would be printed on the receipt? what a difficult logic problem...
Slashdot Mirror
who has one of these. I used one in the CIT lab here at UT, but I think most Kinko's or drafting places will do it for you. I've done several large art prints with these, and they can't be beat. Building your own is a neat idea and all, but unless making your own large format printer is part of the piece, I'd stick with the professionals. No need to reinvent the wheel, man.
256 beads ought to be enough for anybody...
well, obviously, if you travelled 75 miles in 60 minutes, you were going 75 MPH in a 65 MPH zone. so... guess what, you were speeding! don't speed!
don't get pissed off that they're getting more efficient at enforcing the laws. get pissed off that the laws exist in the first place.
precisely! no laws that permit people to restrict the dissemination of information, but laws that permit people to restrict the bottling-up of it. :)
you didn't read the quote that i was commenting on when I said "is this not already the case?"
It is quite possible that programmers would be more inclined to keep their source code secret because it would be the source code that would be of incredible value, not the binaries themselves
anyone who is selling software keeps the source code for that sofware at least AS secret as the binaries. while the binaries may be easy to get, good luck getting the source code for Windows, or Word.
i realize that the GPL depends on copyright law to be enforced- what i'm saying is that even if we abolished copyright laws, that wouldn't prevent us from making laws which allowed us to designate that certain works and their derivitives are REQUIRED to be publicized, as that is really a different matter. that's what i mean by the antithesis of copyrights.
copyrights, with the exception of the GPL and similar licenses, grant one individual or group of individuals exclusive permission to publish and distribute a work. the GPL, on the otherhand, does not prevent anyone from using the work, but sets conditions for the publication of any derivitive works. it's really a completely different matter.
It is quite possible that programmers would be more inclined to keep their source code secret because it would be the source code that would be of incredible value, not the binaries themselves
is this not already the case? anyway, all i'm saying is there's a big diffrence between laws that say you can't copy something and distribute it for free versus laws that say you can can copy as much as you want but you have to include the source if you're redistributing it. it may well currently depend on copyright law for enforcement, but even if we abolished copyrights, it would be an entirely different matter to make laws that control the privatization of information instead of laws that control the publication of information. it is also a lot easier to prosecute someone if they're trying to make a business off of GPL software without including the source.
no it wouldn't. think about it... open source licenses are like anti-copyrights, as in not only are you free to copy this, but you HAVE to share it if you use it. just because we get rid of copyrights doesn't mean we have to get rid of anti-copyrights. i think it would be great if all we had were anti-copyrights.
apples naturally contain small amounts of cyanide... are you going to stop eating apples? the world is full of toxic things, and we eat them all the time. the fabric of your synthetic fiber shirt will abrade and give off trace amounts of known carcinogens. the plastic bottles your non-fluoridated water comes in will off-gass trace amounts of toxic chemicals. the pipes that you are currently getting your water from, i'm sure, contain trace amounts of all sorts of stuff that eventually makes it's way into your water.
i think the one thing that's really bringing you down is only ingesting trace amounts of science.
it looks to me like they're not that hard to identify (sorry, it was the first thing that came to mind)
...it could be very useful if manufacturers could get black-box telemetry in an anonymous way. think of how much we've learned from black-boxes about airplane crashes, why they happen, and how to prevent them.
there could perhaps be engineering flaws which would could be revealed a lot sooner by analyzing black-box data, possibly saving lives.
I, for one, welcome our elderly mice overlords!
he also makes the assumption that the public will have equal ability to parse that information. even if everything were made public, only the government and some large corporations would have the computing power and programs to cull some of the really useful information.
Plus Apple laptops currently make up 30% of new laptops, the closest competitor is dell at 24%
where are you getting this figure? the best i can find is 7%.
the story's not about RFID, it's not about "RFID Hell", and it's about a good use of technology that saves taxpayer money and allows convicted felons to be paroled so they can live more normal lives while still protecting the community.
Yeah, hit that one RIGHT ON THE HEAD, Matrix2110... Gattaca, here we come...
everyone here is making stupid jokes because they don't understand what the product is. i was skeptical at first, but i looked around at some of the documents on the site and did some googling and found this is actually kind of interesting.
here is a relevant article that explains the technology a little better.
i think you mean movement, but given php's color of choice, i could understand calling it a mauvement... :)
okay, for starters, How hard is it to make a hyperlink to the site you're talking about?
you want to know why this thing will never sell? it looks stupid, and, imagine getting broadsided by H2 in this. no, don't imagine- here
dipthongs
so THAT's why they call it W(h)INE...
Frankly, I think it's ridiculous, and Apple music knows it, but probably figures they can milk them for a little more cash, so why not?
FYI- IIRC, this was the origin of the "sosumi" sound (one of the first sounds apples made) (so-sue-me)
why not just use smaller cars? then they would be easier to stop in time.
a good solution would be to replace each train with a passenger-capacity-equivalent amount of autonomous, computer-controlled bus-sized cars. they would be easier to stop, accidents would involve much less mass/energy/people making them less fatal, and they could leave at more regular intervals. it would be a packet-based system, sorta like the internet...
If you really want to find irony in this: consider how many 16-year-old singers whose only merit was sex appeal have been made famous by RIAA companies in the past decade, then ask what their problem with kiddie porn is.
Man, I wish I had some mod points- this is one of the best points I've seen on this article
it's a shame- maybe Be didn't have enough resources to fight MS successfully, but perhaps they could've gotten a bigger judgment had they followed through with the lawsuit?
If ever there were a case that could be proven of a directly competing (and superior) product that failed due to MS's anti-competitive practices in the OS market, it would be Be. A fair chance for Be would've been worth a lot more than a measly $23.25 mil.
of course. i didn't intend to imply otherwise, if that's what you inferred. i think the computer should just provide a friendly, highly usable interface for a printer which fills out the ballot in a human-readable format. this is then placed by the voter into the box. ...or perhaps displayed behind glass, or something, for their approval before submission (if for some reason there would be a problem with people tampering with their own ballots)
that's a good point... i forgot about the possibility of coercion, although that seems the least likely here in the US. (at least one would hope so, but alas, we must plan for the worst)... so what would be a good way for people to ensure that their vote hasn't been changed yet protect their anonymity? maybe if only the ballot had the human-readable values, along with a checksum of sorts that would be printed on the receipt? what a difficult logic problem...