When I do my reading, I do not care at all in which journal the article appeared
Are you kidding?
At least in physics it is quite evident that some journals publish articles with much more impact, longevity and generality than some others. The history of the group/institution and the journal where the article is published are indeed indications of quality of the work. Is it fair? Maybe not, but life in general isn't fair.
Personally, I would not cite an article that has been published in an open access journal until they gain more respectability and history (primarily so that I can better judge how stringent their peer-review process is). Yep, it's a catch-22 situation for such journals, but then again it's not really authors' problem. You can always safely publish in the more traditional media.
IIRC, our consumer protection laws define computer as a bundle of hardware and a pre-installed operating system (so that the bundle works out of box). Hence, selling a computer without an operating system is illegal. I can't say I am sure about it, though.
Heh. The last time I asked whether it was possible to buy a laptop without a pre-installed operating system, I was told that selling one could expose the company to litigation. The reason: knowingly selling a non-functional product.
In Canada we even even have the blank media levy (tax) to pay the copyright holders for their work.
Yep. We have the same thing and IIRC the official line is that it doesn't entitle us to copy copyrighted material except for our own private use. It's not an excuse to burn copies of an audio CD to your friends outside the immediate family, for instance. That's copyright infringement.
Interestingly, our taxi companies also have to pay for the music if the drivers want to have a radio on while driving around with a customer. It's deemed as public performance. More recently, churches and kindergartens have also been asked to pay if they wish "to perform" (ie. sing) copyrighted hymns and songs for children. No, that's not a joke. They tried this already a few years ago but that caused a public uproar. This time they might be able to pull it off, though.
I don't know where you live, but at least the MTV Nordic has been running "You wouldn't steal a purse, you would steal a car - why would you steal music?"-style ads for quite a long time now.
Dog-eat-dog capitalism is what brought you the lifestyle that allows you to post on Slashdot, kiddo
Wrong. It was first publicly funded government operation and then capitalism. For fuck's sake, as I said above, it's not a choice between dog-eat-dog capitalism and planned economy. Yes, I'm ok with capitalism, just not with the unlimited version.
Actually, being a physicist, I do know quite a lot of the properties of radioactive materials and radioactivity. Also, being a greenie, I've read plenty about reactor design and safety and personally I think fission is an acceptable energy source -- for the time being.
But my point was: you don't have to have a PhD in nuclear physics to have valid opinions on sociological and political aspects of such decisions. That's not democratic. If a granny fears for the safety of her grandchildren, because there's going to be a fission plant next door, then so be it. She should be heard and she should have one vote to cast -- just like the nuclear physicist/engineer living across the street.
In a democracy we end up making irrational and stupid decisions because of this, but I strongly believe that in the long run the system is self-healing.
Well, of course it is - politically - and that's what matters (or should matter, anyway) when it comes to high-impact decisions like this.
Such an argument might not be logical, it might not be reasonable, but the opinion should be counted nevertheless. If there's enough of them, then so be it. Otherwise we end up with a scientific elite dictating what's best for everyone else and, as a scientist, I for one wouldn't want to see that.
The last thing it needs is a "societal debate" and intense government scrutiny. How can you intelligently discuss and regulate something that is still in the discovery and development stage, before it really exists in a practical manufacturing sense?
Heh. This article is nothing but yet another libertarian call for unlimited dog-eat-dog capitalism. Then again, what else can you expect from Forbes?
Of course anything that has as monumental potential consequences as nanotech needs at least proper societal debate -- even when it's still in discovery and development stage. What are we going to do if the promises and nightmares come true? Furthermore, in the case of nanotech we would not only need government scrutiny but international governmental scrutiny and control. You don't have to be a greenie to realize that.
The fact that the people doing the debate do not understand the scientific details has nothing to do with their eligibility to participate in the debate. We already have referendums concerning whether we should build new fission plants and a perfectly valid argument against such a plant is: I don't want nuclear waste buried in my backyard for my grandchildren to take care of. You don't have to be a nuclear scientist to have something meaningful to say in a sociological/political sense. The same goes for nanotech.
So why is this guy saying that we shouldn't have public discussion (not referendums, mind you) about such a revolutionary technology as nanotech? Because it makes the profitmongering more difficult. That's why. The part of the article that I quoted above summarizes the attitude of the author perfectly: "shut up, shut up, shut up - I can make a lot of money with this, so you've better shut up about anything negative we might face when developing nanotech".
And where is that nasty Green Gang anyway? All sources I can see him quoting are respectable research organizations like the British Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering. If his beef is with scientists who're capable of thinking green in any other context than a dollar bill, he's the one who's risking the nanotech revolution.
A virtual keyboard is pretty nifty, but how far has speech recognition progressed?
My Nokia 6600 has rudimentary speech recognition software for setting the phone modes and probably (haven't tried it) for selecting the person who you want to call, but it's not working so well that I would trust it yet.
It's been years since I tried speech recognition on computer and I wouldn't want to prepare an entire document that way, but dictating short text message or e-mail could work. "Phone. Text message to Eve. Begin message. I'll buy the wine and food for tonight. Adam. End message. Send."
Of course you could leave a voice message, but that so old technology...;-)
I don't quite see how a blog - even one set up by a political organization - would be that effective a campaign tool for influencing peoples' voting behaviour and as such would warrant any kind of regulation.
Firstly, the voter would have to find the blog and this, unlike a tv or radio advertisment, requires active participation. Most people are too lazy and won't bother. Then the voter would have to keep reading it, which most people wouldn't do unless they already agree with the contents. Finally, in order to effect a change in a voter, the information and discussions on the blog would have to be overwhelmingly convincing - almost too much to ask from any internet site.
I don't understand why your university would go through the trouble of waiting for a court decision. It's their network, isn't it? Doesn't it mean that they should be able to just tell the students and the staff what is allowed and what is not?
My university banned all P2P in its network. If you install an unauthorized P2P client (you can get a permission to run one if it's a part of an official research project) and get caught, you'll be expelled/fired after one warning. Why? In short, the reasons cited were: "It's eating up our bandwidth, it's mainly used for copyright infringement, some P2P programs are an unnecessary security risk and - most important of all - because we say so." Makes sense to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you kidding?
At least in physics it is quite evident that some journals publish articles with much more impact, longevity and generality than some others. The history of the group/institution and the journal where the article is published are indeed indications of quality of the work. Is it fair? Maybe not, but life in general isn't fair.
Personally, I would not cite an article that has been published in an open access journal until they gain more respectability and history (primarily so that I can better judge how stringent their peer-review process is). Yep, it's a catch-22 situation for such journals, but then again it's not really authors' problem. You can always safely publish in the more traditional media.
I don't think you can use a 32-bit Flash plugin in a Firefox compiled using 64-bit libraries...
IIRC, our consumer protection laws define computer as a bundle of hardware and a pre-installed operating system (so that the bundle works out of box). Hence, selling a computer without an operating system is illegal. I can't say I am sure about it, though.
You'd still end up paying for Windows - even if you weren't using it.
Heh. The last time I asked whether it was possible to buy a laptop without a pre-installed operating system, I was told that selling one could expose the company to litigation. The reason: knowingly selling a non-functional product.
Mod the parent up. I think you've managed to summarize the appeal of The Simpsons (and also Futurama) right there.
Then, of course, you have Futurama that owns both Southpark and Simpsons.
I've often wondered why the Family Guy rubs the public the wrong way. What's so borderline acceptable about it?
You're nothing but freeloaders.
Bwahahah! You definitely deserve your Funny moderations. :)
Over here the privilege is limited to your family.
Yep. We have the same thing and IIRC the official line is that it doesn't entitle us to copy copyrighted material except for our own private use. It's not an excuse to burn copies of an audio CD to your friends outside the immediate family, for instance. That's copyright infringement.
Interestingly, our taxi companies also have to pay for the music if the drivers want to have a radio on while driving around with a customer. It's deemed as public performance. More recently, churches and kindergartens have also been asked to pay if they wish "to perform" (ie. sing) copyrighted hymns and songs for children. No, that's not a joke. They tried this already a few years ago but that caused a public uproar. This time they might be able to pull it off, though.
I don't know where you live, but at least the MTV Nordic has been running "You wouldn't steal a purse, you would steal a car - why would you steal music?"-style ads for quite a long time now.
If something's legal, it doesn't mean it's also moral and conversely, doing the morally right thing might not be legal at the time.
Maybe, but I'd rather have the mob rule where everybody has a single vote than that nonsense.
Wrong. It was first publicly funded government operation and then capitalism. For fuck's sake, as I said above, it's not a choice between dog-eat-dog capitalism and planned economy. Yes, I'm ok with capitalism, just not with the unlimited version.
I will, if all that nonsense goes through the fair democratic process. I would, however, consider moving somewhere else.
But my point was: you don't have to have a PhD in nuclear physics to have valid opinions on sociological and political aspects of such decisions. That's not democratic. If a granny fears for the safety of her grandchildren, because there's going to be a fission plant next door, then so be it. She should be heard and she should have one vote to cast -- just like the nuclear physicist/engineer living across the street.
In a democracy we end up making irrational and stupid decisions because of this, but I strongly believe that in the long run the system is self-healing.
Such an argument might not be logical, it might not be reasonable, but the opinion should be counted nevertheless. If there's enough of them, then so be it. Otherwise we end up with a scientific elite dictating what's best for everyone else and, as a scientist, I for one wouldn't want to see that.
Your faith in the markets is touching, but your false dichotomy and appeal to authority remain unconvincing.
It's not like we're forced to choose between two extremes: a dog-eat-dog capitalism or an oppressive communist planned economy.
Heh. This article is nothing but yet another libertarian call for unlimited dog-eat-dog capitalism. Then again, what else can you expect from Forbes?
Of course anything that has as monumental potential consequences as nanotech needs at least proper societal debate -- even when it's still in discovery and development stage. What are we going to do if the promises and nightmares come true? Furthermore, in the case of nanotech we would not only need government scrutiny but international governmental scrutiny and control. You don't have to be a greenie to realize that.
The fact that the people doing the debate do not understand the scientific details has nothing to do with their eligibility to participate in the debate. We already have referendums concerning whether we should build new fission plants and a perfectly valid argument against such a plant is: I don't want nuclear waste buried in my backyard for my grandchildren to take care of. You don't have to be a nuclear scientist to have something meaningful to say in a sociological/political sense. The same goes for nanotech.
So why is this guy saying that we shouldn't have public discussion (not referendums, mind you) about such a revolutionary technology as nanotech? Because it makes the profitmongering more difficult. That's why. The part of the article that I quoted above summarizes the attitude of the author perfectly: "shut up, shut up, shut up - I can make a lot of money with this, so you've better shut up about anything negative we might face when developing nanotech".
And where is that nasty Green Gang anyway? All sources I can see him quoting are respectable research organizations like the British Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering. If his beef is with scientists who're capable of thinking green in any other context than a dollar bill, he's the one who's risking the nanotech revolution.
Linux Sex Positions - The Open Source Kama Sutra.
My Nokia 6600 has rudimentary speech recognition software for setting the phone modes and probably (haven't tried it) for selecting the person who you want to call, but it's not working so well that I would trust it yet.
It's been years since I tried speech recognition on computer and I wouldn't want to prepare an entire document that way, but dictating short text message or e-mail could work. "Phone. Text message to Eve. Begin message. I'll buy the wine and food for tonight. Adam. End message. Send."
Of course you could leave a voice message, but that so old technology... ;-)
Firstly, the voter would have to find the blog and this, unlike a tv or radio advertisment, requires active participation. Most people are too lazy and won't bother. Then the voter would have to keep reading it, which most people wouldn't do unless they already agree with the contents. Finally, in order to effect a change in a voter, the information and discussions on the blog would have to be overwhelmingly convincing - almost too much to ask from any internet site.
My university banned all P2P in its network. If you install an unauthorized P2P client (you can get a permission to run one if it's a part of an official research project) and get caught, you'll be expelled/fired after one warning. Why? In short, the reasons cited were: "It's eating up our bandwidth, it's mainly used for copyright infringement, some P2P programs are an unnecessary security risk and - most important of all - because we say so." Makes sense to me.