So people should engage in (in their words) "principled leaking" to "lead us to a better future". Freakin progressive morons.
Seems to me the people who don't want corruption and illegal behaviour exposed are the morons...but hey, if you thought Nixon was an OK guy with a deep regard for proper democratic process, you're entitled to your opinion.
I suppose it won't be any trouble for those so inclined to leak secrets regarding construction of nuclear and biological weapons.
You do know Popular Mechanics published an article on how to make a nuclear bomb back in the 1980's, don't you? And any half-decent biochemist can make an effective biological weapon. Those horses have long ago bolted; if you're going to worry about information leaking, at least have the good sense to worry about information that isn't public already.
I, for one, would be interested in finding Al Gore's home phone number and leaking that.
And that would achieve...what precisely, apart from crank calls to a private citizen? Last time I checked, Gore wasn't the vice-president any more...perhaps greater scrutiny of the people in office now would be better for democracy? Just a thought.
What's the DoD hoping to find? I way to rearange someones genetic structure so the magically turn to goo? There are better, faster, cheaper, and realistic ways of actually killing someone.
Didn't you see Neon Genesis Evangelion? The DoD is obviously in cahoots with SEELE...
...perhaps it is necessary for all countries to sign on a global contract on what should be allowed and what not.
Terrific idea, and I can see such a contract being every bit as effective as the Geneva convention, the Nuclear Proliferation treaty, the Kyoto protocol, the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, the Germ Warfare treaty...
I wonder if this helps reduce rust and/or other corrosion and/or resistance to reaction with liquids?
It doesn't. Quote TFA:
That intense blast forces the surface of the metal to form and nanostructures--pits, globules, and strands that both dramatically increase the area of the surface and capture radiation.
The rate a metal reacts is proportional to its surface area, so it would make the metal more prone to corrosion.
...it is worth considering that any belief in God is only unscientific if that belief is wrong, and that God doesn't exist.
A belief in anything is unscientific if there's no tangible evidence to support it (or the evidence has been massaged to fit the belief). The scientific method relies on evidence; if you haven't got that, all you have is untestable speculation.
Belief by itself is not evidence. It is merely an opinion, however strongly it is held.
So in order to refute a belief in God as being unscientific, one first has to make a definitive judgment that God does not exist
Wrong: in order to refute belief in God as incorrect it is necessary to prove God does not exist. To establish whether belief in God is unsicentific is as simple as asking for any tangible proof of his existence: if no such evidence is available then the belief is not founded in science, and is therefore unscientific. See my previous point.
What does it say about science that in order to declare a belief in God as "anti-scientific", an "anti-scientific" judgment must first be made?
Its important to make the distiction between the terms "unscientific" (without a basis in science) and "anti-scientific" (actively opposed to the scientific method). A belief in God is unscientific, in that it cannot be proved or disproved using the scientific method. Refuting the scientific method solely on the basis of one's own religious beliefs is anti-scientific, and that's exactly what this teacher did.
And that's an important point: the complaint was raised not because the teacher believes in God, but because he was using his position in a secular public school to push his personal beliefs (to the point of informing a Muslim student she'd "go to hell if [she didn't] convert"). An individual's spirituality has a place: in the church they choose. It has no place in everybody's schools.
That's the problem. This "teacher" went well beyond an impartial examination of the beliefs and history of various religions, he actually belittled a student because of her religion (Islam) and made many comments that put his own beliefs above the curriculum (http://www.nj.com/cgi-bin/prxy/xmedia/nph-cache.c gi/cache=300;/njo/njo/classaudio.mp3). Far from holding an open discussion that gave each belief system (and science, which is a disbelief system) equal consideration, he said, essentially, "I'm right, anyone who disagrees with my world view is going to hell". That is being extremely selective, and doesn't even resemble education.
That aside, his job is teaching history, so why he feels the need to expound his own religious views is a mystery as they're irrelevant to the subject.
People get confused today as it is between CDs and DVDs.
Not in my experience. Most people usually can tell the difference between the larger DVD cases and the smaller CD jewel cases, and the disks themselves usually have labels on them which help identification somewhat. People do have difficulty telling the difference between CD and DVD drives and don't always know what they have in their computer, but that's a different matter; mostly, the CDs go into the box connected to the stereo, and DVDs go into the box connected to the TV (and those who have worked out that DVD players also play CDs have one box for everything; it doesn't get simpler than that).
Now two more formats are coming that are the same form factor that are incompatible.
Well, that is a problem, at least until one format wins out or manufacturers start making hybrid drives. But the advantage is that competition between the formats should push the price of hardware down faster than if there was only one; VHS succeeded because it was cheaper than the alternative, and I think some manufacturers will remember that lesson when it comes to making their preferred format successful. To be honest, I think the benefit here outweighs the inconvenience to the few who buy disks without regard to what they're playing them on (if you don't want to buy the wrong thing, know what the right thing is. Willful ignorance will be rewarded with wasted time).
I would have opted to make the next generation discs noticeable smaller so that there was an immediate visual difference.
You'd rather have a completely different physical format that isn't backwards compatible with your current collection of CDs and DVDs? Not even Sony, inventors of Betamax and MiniDisc, are prepared to go down that road. But I'd add that there are already 8cm CDs and DVDs, so a subtle size difference isn't going to be any more an effective means of identification than the blindingly obvious packaging and label.
IMO the standardisation of the 12cm disk format is a huge leap forward: it means any digital media bought in the last 20 years (and into the foreseeable future) can be played on one device, instead of needing a multitude of playback mechanisms. Is that not simple enough?
You've missed the point. The idea of replacing a collection of The West Wing the size of a microwave oven with one that will fit inside a microwave oven has a lot of appeal to those of us with significant others who are fans of the show.
I'm not an expert, but a properly coded film can be HD without taking such a lot of space as a HD-DVD or Blue-Ray. Think H.264, or even XVid.
H.264 (AVC) playback is mandatory for HD players of both formats (as is VC-1). IMO these codecs will probably be used in preference to MPEG-2 to allow more space for the obligatory extras.
Every time one of these stories comes up, some people post with great certainty their opinion that using someone else's wireless connection is clearly unethical.
And the responses to those opinions usually avoid the ethical questions entirely, and focus on asking "how am I supposed to know without leaving my basement and having to actually interact with people". Such a predictable web site, its a wonder there's anyone here at all.
Folks, please make your case more solid by answering the question of how you're supposed to tell a wide-open residential AP from a public access AP.
If the name of the network gives you no hints, how about this: if you aren't aware of any free wireless networks in the area, don't connect. I know erring on the side of caution might seem a strange approach, but it would appear to be the prudent course when you're using someone else's resources, especially if you don't know whose.
For that matter, how do you tell whether the neighbor was clueless in the setup or was being neighborly?
Does a network identify itself as the default, or as "Joe Blogg's free WiFi"? One suggests cluelessness, the other is pretty much an open invitation. But if you can't tell and can't be bothered doing the leg work to find out for certain, again, don't use it.
The knock-on-the-door-and-ask-politely algorithm doesn't work well in an apartment block where the range of the signal includes dozens of apartments.
It works just as well, it simply takes longer, although comparing an afternoon knocking on doors to three years in prison I wouldn't consider it that much of an inconvenience. Not that actually knocking on doors is necessary in these days of desktop publishing, cheap printers and email. This guy was clueful enough to find a wireless network, I'm sure he's capable of printing his email address on cards and slipping it under doors in the area (he may even have made some quick money securing the network in question rather than being arrested). We're talking roughly a 200 meter radius here; hardly a needle in a haystack, especially for someone with enough sense to narrow down the base station's location with signal strength readings.
What I'm really saying is if a person isn't prepared to get off their arse and make sure they have permission to use an open access point, they shouldn't feel entitled to use it. Considering they're both unauthorized use of other people's network resources, I see no real difference between leeching wireless and spamming...except that spammers are "them" and people who want free WiFi are "us". Does this difference in perspective alter the ethics of bandwidth misappropriation, and if not, how does your inability to determine your neighbour's intentions via technical means change the situation, considering the agreement to share the access point is between you and it's owner, not you and the machinery?
However Gartner, like the original poster, thinks Apple is still doomed unless they repeat the failed OS licensing experiment of the 90's and abandon their main profit base (hardware), regardless of what the actual numbers say.
Slashdot Mirror
Posting anonymous for obvious reasons...
You've sprung a leak?
So people should engage in (in their words) "principled leaking" to "lead us to a better future". Freakin progressive morons.
Seems to me the people who don't want corruption and illegal behaviour exposed are the morons...but hey, if you thought Nixon was an OK guy with a deep regard for proper democratic process, you're entitled to your opinion.
I suppose it won't be any trouble for those so inclined to leak secrets regarding construction of nuclear and biological weapons.
You do know Popular Mechanics published an article on how to make a nuclear bomb back in the 1980's, don't you? And any half-decent biochemist can make an effective biological weapon. Those horses have long ago bolted; if you're going to worry about information leaking, at least have the good sense to worry about information that isn't public already.
I, for one, would be interested in finding Al Gore's home phone number and leaking that.
And that would achieve...what precisely, apart from crank calls to a private citizen? Last time I checked, Gore wasn't the vice-president any more...perhaps greater scrutiny of the people in office now would be better for democracy? Just a thought.
I bet the some non-western covert organization would be the first to pollute it with false information.
If you seriously believe the better funded western covert organisations won't get in first, I have a bridge to sell you.
Blast as in London bomb blast or Blast as in blast furnace?
Blast as in "blast off", something Buck Rogers was doing in rockets back in the 1930's.
Sensationalism and deception, or an AC's ignorance...?
What's the DoD hoping to find? I way to rearange someones genetic structure so the magically turn to goo? There are better, faster, cheaper, and realistic ways of actually killing someone.
Didn't you see Neon Genesis Evangelion? The DoD is obviously in cahoots with SEELE...
...perhaps it is necessary for all countries to sign on a global contract on what should be allowed and what not.
Terrific idea, and I can see such a contract being every bit as effective as the Geneva convention, the Nuclear Proliferation treaty, the Kyoto protocol, the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, the Germ Warfare treaty...
Thanks for spoiling the word "naked" for me.
So does this mean we can predict solar flares and use them to travel to the past or the future?
And risk being flung into a distant galaxy inhabited by cranky muppets? No frelling way!
I haven't seen any mention of the camera's on many phones - why wouldn't they be usable by spies as well?
Because no evidence is as damning as photos of pocket lint...
The iPod Cathode - So named for it's use of four EL84 vacuum tubes in the circuit that drives the headphones
l trad.jpg
Picture here: http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampins/failproj/be
I wonder if this helps reduce rust and/or other corrosion and/or resistance to reaction with liquids?
It doesn't. Quote TFA:
That intense blast forces the surface of the metal to form and nanostructures--pits, globules, and strands that both dramatically increase the area of the surface and capture radiation.
The rate a metal reacts is proportional to its surface area, so it would make the metal more prone to corrosion.
...it is worth considering that any belief in God is only unscientific if that belief is wrong, and that God doesn't exist.
A belief in anything is unscientific if there's no tangible evidence to support it (or the evidence has been massaged to fit the belief). The scientific method relies on evidence; if you haven't got that, all you have is untestable speculation.
Belief by itself is not evidence. It is merely an opinion, however strongly it is held.
So in order to refute a belief in God as being unscientific, one first has to make a definitive judgment that God does not exist
Wrong: in order to refute belief in God as incorrect it is necessary to prove God does not exist. To establish whether belief in God is unsicentific is as simple as asking for any tangible proof of his existence: if no such evidence is available then the belief is not founded in science, and is therefore unscientific. See my previous point.
What does it say about science that in order to declare a belief in God as "anti-scientific", an "anti-scientific" judgment must first be made?
Its important to make the distiction between the terms "unscientific" (without a basis in science) and "anti-scientific" (actively opposed to the scientific method). A belief in God is unscientific, in that it cannot be proved or disproved using the scientific method. Refuting the scientific method solely on the basis of one's own religious beliefs is anti-scientific, and that's exactly what this teacher did.
And that's an important point: the complaint was raised not because the teacher believes in God, but because he was using his position in a secular public school to push his personal beliefs (to the point of informing a Muslim student she'd "go to hell if [she didn't] convert"). An individual's spirituality has a place: in the church they choose. It has no place in everybody's schools.
The job of a school is to educate, not to select.
c gi/cache=300;/njo/njo/classaudio.mp3). Far from holding an open discussion that gave each belief system (and science, which is a disbelief system) equal consideration, he said, essentially, "I'm right, anyone who disagrees with my world view is going to hell". That is being extremely selective, and doesn't even resemble education.
That's the problem. This "teacher" went well beyond an impartial examination of the beliefs and history of various religions, he actually belittled a student because of her religion (Islam) and made many comments that put his own beliefs above the curriculum (http://www.nj.com/cgi-bin/prxy/xmedia/nph-cache.
That aside, his job is teaching history, so why he feels the need to expound his own religious views is a mystery as they're irrelevant to the subject.
People get confused today as it is between CDs and DVDs.
Not in my experience. Most people usually can tell the difference between the larger DVD cases and the smaller CD jewel cases, and the disks themselves usually have labels on them which help identification somewhat. People do have difficulty telling the difference between CD and DVD drives and don't always know what they have in their computer, but that's a different matter; mostly, the CDs go into the box connected to the stereo, and DVDs go into the box connected to the TV (and those who have worked out that DVD players also play CDs have one box for everything; it doesn't get simpler than that).
Now two more formats are coming that are the same form factor that are incompatible.
Well, that is a problem, at least until one format wins out or manufacturers start making hybrid drives. But the advantage is that competition between the formats should push the price of hardware down faster than if there was only one; VHS succeeded because it was cheaper than the alternative, and I think some manufacturers will remember that lesson when it comes to making their preferred format successful. To be honest, I think the benefit here outweighs the inconvenience to the few who buy disks without regard to what they're playing them on (if you don't want to buy the wrong thing, know what the right thing is. Willful ignorance will be rewarded with wasted time).
I would have opted to make the next generation discs noticeable smaller so that there was an immediate visual difference.
You'd rather have a completely different physical format that isn't backwards compatible with your current collection of CDs and DVDs? Not even Sony, inventors of Betamax and MiniDisc, are prepared to go down that road. But I'd add that there are already 8cm CDs and DVDs, so a subtle size difference isn't going to be any more an effective means of identification than the blindingly obvious packaging and label.
IMO the standardisation of the 12cm disk format is a huge leap forward: it means any digital media bought in the last 20 years (and into the foreseeable future) can be played on one device, instead of needing a multitude of playback mechanisms. Is that not simple enough?
You've missed the point. The idea of replacing a collection of The West Wing the size of a microwave oven with one that will fit inside a microwave oven has a lot of appeal to those of us with significant others who are fans of the show.
I'm not an expert, but a properly coded film can be HD without taking such a lot of space as a HD-DVD or Blue-Ray. Think H.264, or even XVid.
r sal_24.pdf
c ations
H.264 (AVC) playback is mandatory for HD players of both formats (as is VC-1). IMO these codecs will probably be used in preference to MPEG-2 to allow more space for the obligatory extras.
http://www.dvdforum.org/images/Forum_HD_DVD_Unive
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc#Specifi
As for Xvid...well, you can't get a smaller file of equal quality from a lesser codec.
Every time one of these stories comes up, some people post with great certainty their opinion that using someone else's wireless connection is clearly unethical.
And the responses to those opinions usually avoid the ethical questions entirely, and focus on asking "how am I supposed to know without leaving my basement and having to actually interact with people". Such a predictable web site, its a wonder there's anyone here at all.
Folks, please make your case more solid by answering the question of how you're supposed to tell a wide-open residential AP from a public access AP.
If the name of the network gives you no hints, how about this: if you aren't aware of any free wireless networks in the area, don't connect. I know erring on the side of caution might seem a strange approach, but it would appear to be the prudent course when you're using someone else's resources, especially if you don't know whose.
For that matter, how do you tell whether the neighbor was clueless in the setup or was being neighborly?
Does a network identify itself as the default, or as "Joe Blogg's free WiFi"? One suggests cluelessness, the other is pretty much an open invitation. But if you can't tell and can't be bothered doing the leg work to find out for certain, again, don't use it.
The knock-on-the-door-and-ask-politely algorithm doesn't work well in an apartment block where the range of the signal includes dozens of apartments.
It works just as well, it simply takes longer, although comparing an afternoon knocking on doors to three years in prison I wouldn't consider it that much of an inconvenience. Not that actually knocking on doors is necessary in these days of desktop publishing, cheap printers and email. This guy was clueful enough to find a wireless network, I'm sure he's capable of printing his email address on cards and slipping it under doors in the area (he may even have made some quick money securing the network in question rather than being arrested). We're talking roughly a 200 meter radius here; hardly a needle in a haystack, especially for someone with enough sense to narrow down the base station's location with signal strength readings.
What I'm really saying is if a person isn't prepared to get off their arse and make sure they have permission to use an open access point, they shouldn't feel entitled to use it. Considering they're both unauthorized use of other people's network resources, I see no real difference between leeching wireless and spamming...except that spammers are "them" and people who want free WiFi are "us". Does this difference in perspective alter the ethics of bandwidth misappropriation, and if not, how does your inability to determine your neighbour's intentions via technical means change the situation, considering the agreement to share the access point is between you and it's owner, not you and the machinery?
You'll find the time at the top of your post. Please write it down for future reference.
When an employee feels that he need to squirt one off...
Aha! Proof that Steve Ballmer posts anonymously on Slashdot!
AOL might be successful enough to break away from Time Warner and still remain in business
Can anyone actually think of a reason this is good news?
Knowing how Microsoft do things, they'd probably try to prove how insecure OS X is by including some Office trojans.
However Gartner, like the original poster, thinks Apple is still doomed unless they repeat the failed OS licensing experiment of the 90's and abandon their main profit base (hardware), regardless of what the actual numbers say.
/ 1748225
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/19
I was just saying there's always room for one more clown in the car...
If you're trying to land a job with Gartner, you'll have to stop posting anonymously.
If only the rest of us were so lucky.
As soon as the test subjects eye sockets stop smoldering.