First off, did anybody else notice that there was a rope hanging down the cliff to the left of Cruise in the rock-climbing scene? At first I thought it was just a crack, but I'm pretty sure it was a rope. Whoops.
Second, what's up with him throwing himself off the cliff, then magically managing to catch himself with just his fingertips? I doubt even the buffest rockclimbers could do something like that.
Third, that car chase scene was not only criminal (in that it destroyed two of, IMO, the two most beautiful cars in the world), but also stupid. That 911 would have eaten the TT for lunch, both in terms of handling and acceleration. Zero-to-sixty in 3.7 seconds? I'd like to see a TT even approach that.
Fourth: How the hell did that SUV manage to catch up to Cruise in the chase scene? Anybody who's ever seen a motorcycle (of any type) pass a car knows that motorcycles have acceleration and top-end speed that no car, not even an exotic, can touch. There's no way that SUV could have caught up with Cruise... that is, unless Cruise doesn't know how to ride a motorcycle, which wouldn't surprise me. Or actually... it's more likely his stunt double doesn't know how.
And don't even get me started about all the laws-of-physics-out-the-window stuff that happened during the fight scenes. It was all way too much like the Matrix, but wait! We aren't in a computer-generated world here! This is supposedly real!
After two hours of first nearly falling asleep, then rolling my eyes, and then becoming outright disgusted that I spent $7 (!) to see this movie, we were treated to the coup de grace...
Metallica plays the music in the ending credits.
I stayed for the movie, but walked out immediately after Metallica started playing.
Truly the icing on a particularly horrible-tasting cake.
Does it not seem to everybody here that Jon Katz seems to be going for the position of patron saint of children, whether they currently happen to be in the right or wrong?
Ever since that Columbine thing, Jon seems to pick out any current media issue, pick it apart for anything that might have to do with harassing, intimidating or prosecuting children, and then proceeds to act like he's the only one who can see the injustice being done to these "innocent" children.
Well, news for you Jon--there's probably just as many adults using Napster as there are children. And, what you and many Slashdotters seem to keep ignoring is that copyrighted MP3 distribution is illegal. It is not illegal to create MP3's if you already own the music, meaning that you effectively have licensed it from the artist (or the artist's lawyers). But when you decide you're going to rip all of your 300 CD's and then proceed to share that 3,000 MP3's on Napster, you are committing a crime. Regardless of how little money the artist actually gets from the music, you are ripping off the band you claim to like so much. It's the same as creating bogus band T-shirts and selling them at a concert. The band gets nothing from it. Maybe some additional publicity, sure, but it doesn't sell records.
It really bugs me that this community I am a part of uses the rallying cry of "information wants to be free" to justify stealing every MP3 possible. MP3's that you do not own are not yours. It is a violation of copyright law to posess or distribute such MP3's, and if you choose to do so, you should not be surprised if someone decides to bring the law down on you!
Jon, defending all these poor, defenseless "kids" who are being so brutally harassed by lawyers accomplishes nothing. It tarnishes your already questionable reputation (you are known by the company you keep), and in my opinion makes you look like a fool with very little understanding of the issue at hand. Please quit trying to turn every current event into a soapbox crusade to protect the children. This is not some government conspiracy to persecute the geek children. This is lawyers doing their job. Metallica and their lawyers have not only the right, but the legal responsibility, to attempt to prevent piracy of their music.
Get over it. Until the laws change, all you MP3 pirates are going to have to lose some sleep at night worrying about things like this. That is, unless you stop pirating music, and actually buy it once again.
Light speed = 3 x 10^8 m sec^-1. = 300,000,000 m sec^-1
37,500,000 m / 300,000,000 m sec^-1 = 0.125 sec. for one leg (up to the satellite)
Multiply this by two and you get 0.250 sec from your demarcation point (the LNB on your satellite dish) to the other side's LNB.
As others have pointed out, though, this does not take into account other latencies (and we have a seven-layer network model here). Plus, you might even have to go through multiple satellites, depending on where you are and how this ISP configures its systems. I'd say to be safe, multiply our calculated latency by two, and maybe even by four.
So we expect half-second to 1-second delays. That's unacceptable for most applications. Games are a concern, but frankly aren't that important in the grand scheme. We're talking level-3 switching for voice-over-IP and whatnot. A 1-second delay won't even support full-duplex.
Doesn't seem to me like this is very realistic, although for downloads the bandwidth would sure be nice. For real-time applications, though, I'll stick with a landline, thanks.
The Muppets is on every afternoon on Odyssey, at 4 pm. At least, it is here in NM. We just recently found this out. Harry Belafonte was on it just the other day. Awesome. =)
Here in NM we used to get the Simpsons twice a day. The only problem was, the station would show the same episodes over and over... they had something like two seasons of episodes, which they would play in sequence. They did this for years, and if you were good enough you could accurately predict which episode would play on a given day. Needless to say I got tired of seeing 1/5 of all the possible Simpsons episodes.
Does anyone know why the stations do this? Is it because they only purchase seasons in blocks, or something? Or is it just because our station in Albuquerque is messed-up or cheap?
I know Yodaiken too, at least by reputation. He's now on sabbatical, but until the end of last semester was the head of the computer science department at my school, New Mexico Tech.
Yodaiken is reputed to be the most brilliant and innovative computer guy that anyone here knows. As far as I know, he pioneered the realtime Linux concept, and has worked closely with Linus Torvalds himself on this project. Yodaiken is highly acclaimed and has much respect both at this school and in the Linux and computing community as a whole.
The purpose of this patent appears to be to protect the concept of a real-time OS from those who would use it for corporate evil, i.e. Microsoft, Sun, etc. Yodaiken appears to either strongly support, or only support, this concept on Linux, and doesn't want Linux/free OS users to have to pay to use the concept. As far as Windoze users (and Solaris, and...) goes, Yodaiken doesn't care if they have to pay. If they're willing to pay for the OS, why not for the RT concept too, I think is the attitude.
Larger arguments of patent issues aside, this is a Good Thing. It's as much a personality issue as it is a free software / no patents issue. Yodaiken is doing this for the good of the Linux/free software community. Trust me.
You know, Cliff et al., I really think it would be better to post the teaser and then reply to it yourself, rather than insert your own editorial comment along with the teaser. You are simply the person who decides to post the story to Slashdot; you're not the be-all, end-all person to comment on the story. This way, we're forced to read your little comment whether or not it has merit, and it cannot be moderated at all. I think this should go for all of Slashdot--Rob, Hemos, everybody. If you want to insert your particular questionably witty and possibly important dialogue, then reply to your own story. Let's have some news without bias, please!
As to your specific comment, I don't like people not using ALT tags either. But it's possible that these people simply forgot, or that their Web person forgot. It's not a heinous crime, for crying out loud. Now that it's been brought to light, it will most likely be fixed. Has anyone considered sending an email to the Web person, asking why ALT tags weren't used, and possibly explaining their value? Huh? Or are we simply going to bitch in 400+ comments like we always do, making ourselves feel self-important, and accomplishing nothing?
In the sense that the university usually has property stickers on all the equipment, the equipment belongs to the university. I'll concede that point. BUT, especially for private or non-research-funded universities, the university is there by and for the students. Students pay for most if not all of equipment that is bought, directly through fees or indirectly through tuition increases and hidden costs. You know how the students own the Student Union? It's the same way with the equipment. That's not to say that the students could just bust in and take routers and whatnot, but it does mean that the students can and should have a lot of clout with policies that relate to equipment that they (and previous years' classes) have paid for.
It might be legal for a university to make an arbitrary decision to ban a bandwidth-sucking site, but it would not necessarily be ethical, and I doubt students would stand for it. There would be outrage, protest, or large numbers of students simply transferring to get away from the administrative fascism. I had to put up with a lot of blank-faced, "it's-for-your-own-good" administrative bull in high school. It's the big leagues now; I pay for the equipment with my tuition and fees (as do my fellow students), and there is no reason for us to stand for such treatment. It will happen, but the students have several ways of fighting back.
The university is obligated to provide service that serves the academic interests of the campus community. The academic infrastructure and students alike are customers of the information systems department. Customers pay for stated service when they sign a contract, and it is breach of contract to rescind that service without renegotiation, except in cases where laws have been broken, etc. It's the university's responsibility to make the best effort to negotiate and work with the customer BEFORE going to extremes.
I see nothing wrong with a university choosing to ban the use of a program because it is using too much bandwidth--which effectively means it is blocking legitimate access for other users--provided the university is doing it for that purpose and not because the fscking RIAA or some other gestapo organization is breathing down their neck. IF the RIAA is pressuring the university, I expect the university to be truthful and inform the students. If there is a clause in the infosystems contract about no copyright violations, then the university has no reason not to inform the students that there have been numerous copyright violations and as a result access is being shut down. It just seems that universities are not giving the students--the whole reason the university is there--the whole story, and that sucks, frankly.
Further, I will concede that it is unreasonable for the priveleged few who have enough time/are taking few enough credit hours to be downloading copyrighted MP3's via napster or some other method, to be blocking access to other students or faculty who need the bandwidth to do real work. I'm a major proponent of music as a means of getting work done, but not when it's to the exclusion of anything else. I've ripped my entire CD collection; that's all I need. I have no problem paying for music if I like it; however, I, like many people, wish more of the monies would go to the artist and not to the corporations.
The beginning of science is stating "I don't know." Then you do research, learn things, and find not only the answer, but why the answer is what it is.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with an intelligent person saying, "I don't know the answer to that," or "Gosh, that's a hard, but interesting, question." There is something wrong with that person saying, "Well, that's a hard question, and I'm not going to even try to find out what the answer is, simply because it's such a difficult question."
What advice would you offer to a person about to start work on a B.S. in physics?
For a person to successfully obtain a degree in physics, would you say it is necessary to have a natural aptitude for science and mathematics, or is only a love of science and learning and a willingness to work hard required?
Are all physicists geniuses, as the general public thinks? How common are the physicists who throroughly enjoy their work, but rarely (if ever) get recognition for this work outside of physics circles?
Is physics a rewarding choice of career? Is it a competitive field? Do you, or have you felt, that your work or the work of others in physics has benefitted the general populace? (This is not to belittle your work in any way; I simply wonder how you feel, personally, about your impact on the world).
What opportunities are there for physicists, other than employment in government (national laboratories) or academia?
Thank you for the opportunity to ask these questions.
Hmm... I think there are probably a lot more female geeks out there than we think. It's just that male geeks (myself included) tend to act strange when they're around. At least in physical form, anyway.
On the Net, nobody knows... you could be a woman saying you're a man, or a man saying you're a woman. It's somewhat risky, so I always take it with a grain of salt anyway.
And then I suppose there are those men who are into feminism... I don't even know how to deal with that.
I personally welcome all female geeks everywhere. We need more of you--not because we men geeks are losers (at least some of us are), but because anything that adds to the diversity of our group is a Good Thing. Having women around allows us to look at tech-related issues through completely different eyes sometimes. That's not to say that women necessarily think about geek issues differently than men--they do in my opinion, but I don't want to generalize too much--but rather to say that it's interesting to get another person's opinion on something near and dear to one's heart, especially when it's computers (or something related).
I feel somewhat torn about Internet taxes. I consider myself more libertarian than anything else, but like many I'm liberal on some issues and conservative on others.
It seems to me that the Internet and the economy (and whatever else it is that "supports" the Internet) are doing fine without taxes. They don't seem necessary, at least not at this point. A lot of Web sites are owned by big faceless corporations that usually give back to the community simply because they don't want half their profits to go to the government. Microsoft does this with the Gates foundation (seen all those new computers at the local library lately?), and I'd imagine most other large corporations do too. Probably most successful Net companies manage to give back in some way because it is good for business-promotes a good image, this and that.
The article mentions that at least Al Gore is fearful that a permanent ban/moratorium on Net taxes would crumble communities and local economies. He feels that there should be a solution that allows online businesses to flourish and local economies to not take a hit from tax absence. Sounds good--sorta middle-of-the-road stance. But for the most part, we don't have taxes today, and things seem to be going well. I haven't heard of many local economies being destroyed by online companies--plenty of people still like to buy stuff in a store, especially those who don't trust Web sites with credit card numbers. There are also those who like to support the local community and buy local.
I think, if anything, Internet taxes are an attempt by the government to cash in on something it doesn't own, shouldn't regulate, and doesn't understand. It's a sort of taxation without representation issue... sure, it's online commerce, but all the infrastructure is privately-owned. I may be missing something fundamental here, but it seems to me that Internet taxes would only be an impediment to progress.
Ten years from now we'll all look back and say, "Remember the good old days when you could order something off the Net and only get taken for shipping and handling? Now we get taken for that and taxes. Ah, those were the days."
I don't care how they'd do in Quake III. I care how they'd do in Unreal Tournament. Or even some old-school thing like... oh, Doom, or even Wolfenstein. Probably the liberal/libertarian candidates would do better--they're not as averse to blood and gore.
Something of a non-issue, I would imagine, for most of us who live in academia, but...
xDSL would be nice. However, as many are saying, this isn't free. Just because you don't pay out-of-pocket doesn't make it free--you must contend with ads and slow service and an unresponsive service provider. I don't know who would want that, but I imagine a lot of people would be willing to put up with it for the speed.
However, the thing to consider is that when you combine a second phone line (approx. $20/month) with a 56K ISP connection (also roughly $20/month), you're paying pretty close to what DSL costs, provided it's available in your area. Why not ditch the modem and second phone line and just upgrade to DSL, and not worry about all this so-called free stuff?
Same deal with the "free" PC's these days. They're not free. You usually either have to pay for them outright and get a rebate, or you have to look at ads or fill out surveys or some other random, pointless thing for a PC that will be obsolete in six months.
It's simple: if you're willing to jump through hoops to get an almost-free and probably sub-standard connection to the Internet, go for it, but don't complain about spam and whatnot. If you want to be real, though, why not pay a bit of money and get the real thing. Computers and Internet are not expensive, and are getting less expensive all the time.
I will concede that there are many useful features of using a POP/IMAP client like Outlook or Communicator for reading email and newsgroups, but it seems that more security vulnerabilities and privacy concerns are brought to light with these programs daily. If you value your privacy and desire (relative) security, use a UNIX shell client such as elm, pine, mutt, etc. These can do most, if not all, of the things that a complex POP/IMAP client can. And what they can't do isn't worth doing, in my opinion.
Or, if you're a serious masochist, you can even use Emacs to read your email...
This list was interesting, albeit incomplete (but any such list would be, of course). One point I really, really disagree with:
- The day Microsoft ported Internet Explorer to Solaris.
Was this person on crack, or what? I'll admit, I've never used MSIE on a platform other than Windows or Macintosh, so maybe there's something about it I don't know (is it really stable under Solaris, or something)?
Was the submission intended to be sarcastic? I couldn't tell.
Well, I've been through the public schools and know these feelings well. I know that on Slashdot it's something of a cliche to say I was an outcast, but I was, like most of my friends. We hung out in the computer labs, working on electronic counterculture (freely distributing, on my Web page that was on my ISP--not the school's server--how to exploit security weaknesses in my school's servers). That was my method of protesting the actions of school authorities. I didn't shoot anyone in high school, but I was a disciplinary problem just as this kid who wrote the essay is--I was suspended several times, mainly for computer hacking and whatnot. But I clearly remember entertaining thoughts of homicide all through high school. When Littleton happened I understood perfectly what might have driven the killers, although I must admit I never worshiped Hitler.
I think if you can honestly say you've never thought of killing someone, then you're probably a far happier person than I was--than most of us were--in school. Perhaps you're one of the more popular kids with lots of friends, or maybe you're on a football team, or something. I never was one of those people, and I was shunned by a great number of my peers. As a result I was unhappy and bitter towards those I was forced to go to school with. And I hated school authorities.
However, I managed to get through, and I didn't kill anyone. I didn't even get into many fights, since my school had a zero-tolerance policy for that. My point is, though, that I think homicidal thoughts among school-age kids are far more common than you might think. If you don't have these thoughts, then I congratulate you. You're one of the few remaining who can successfully coexist in this increasingly oppressive system we call the public schools. Ask a few of your friends, though, if they've ever thought about it. (But don't ask while you're at school--the gestapo might overhear you, since they have listening devices and informers everywhere).
If you think people under 18 have no rights simply because the law has arbitrarily decided that they are minors, then you have missed a lot of the point of the legal system we live in. People under 18 are people too, just like you. They are innocent until proven guilty and entitled to due process like everybody else. Weren't you ever picked on by a bully in high school or middle school? Can you honestly say that if someone had handed you a gun after that bully had finished beating the crap out of you, that you wouldn't have shot him right there? Be honest with yourself. I think it's probably very rare for a kid in school not to entertain thoughts of killing someone else or himself at some point. But, fortunately, very few kids act on these thoughts. If every kid who thought at some point of killing someone acted on those thoughts, then we'd be having a Littleton tragedy every day--no, every hour, or even more frequently.
Talking about shooting another kid is not a crime, regardless of what school administrators say. Shooting someone is. Writing about violence is not a crime, and should not be. You aren't by chance planning to be a school administrator, are you? Because you sound exactly like the type of person who ran my high school. Presume all students guilty until they are proven innocent (and they are never proven innocent).
I can't begin to describe how outraged I am that a kid could be jailed for writing a story in school. I can see counseling, or a teacher or administrator sitting the kid down and asking him why, or what he was thinking, or what might have provoked him to write a story such as he did, but to just cart him off to jail? It's sounding more and more like the school authorities are saying, "Write clean and sanitary stories, devoid of bad feelings and anything objectionable, or otherwise you will be punished." It sounds like something out of Huxley's Brave New World, except fortunately the public schools haven't yet begun drugging their students. Not yet anyway. But who knows? Maybe in the next couple of years they'll put anyone who deviates from the so-called norm on Prozac, and then all our kids will just be bubbly and happy and we'll have no problems whatsoever! Ha!
Ah, we live in such a crazy age. I can only wonder if this madness will continue, and to what end. I just thank God that I managed to get out of the public school system two years ago, just before everything went down. I could already see it happening--Jonesboro had just happened a month or two before I graduated--and I worry about friends of mine who are still in high school.
I remember my high school taking the stance that students, whether minors or adults, give up some or all of their constitutional rights at the door. I've heard of at least one court case that threw that attitude out. So where's the good old First Amendment in schools today? What happens if not just schools, but society itself, manages to make it illegal to write a story about violence, or express discontent with the system under which we live? It seems to me that a lot of people are going to be taken to jail. And on what charge? Inciting people to violence? Conspiracy? How about plain old creativity, or writing down feelings that would have otherwise been acted upon? What might have happened if the killers at Jonesboro or those at Littleton had written stories about what they wanted to do, rather than actually doing it? The tragedies might not have occurred.
I can tell you, though, that if this trend continues, there's no way in hell I'm going to put my kids through public school.
Funny, I don't recall Intel doing this before, at least not recently. Perhaps back in the day with the 486's.
Truly, though, I don't know which company is worse (or more disappointing)--Intel or Motorola. Both companies have screwed-up big-time in the past couple of weeks. Motorola announced the 500MHz G4 when it was essentially vaporware (and still is essentially vaporware), and now Intel has rushed to "market" with (as far as we the consumers can tell) a nonexistent chip.
It seems there is a parallel when deciding between which CPU maker to choose and which OS maker to choose. Intel and Motorola are not only disappointing, but appear (at least to me) to be resorting to tactics all too-often used in the industry today. Microsoft, meanwhile, uses many of the same tactics (but at least they release products, even if they continue to suck after the usual 300 patches are applied). All three companies suck far more than do their competition. And yet the majority still continues to purchase their products, mainly (I think) due to fear that software or hardware won't work properly if not used with the CPU or OS that "everyone uses."
Not true!
Choose the underdog who makes the superior and less-expensive product. Choose AMD and Linux, or any other OS of your choosing (do I hear a small voice shouting "OS/2 Warp!" in the background?) Be different. Don't follow the crowd.
Let's show Intel, Motorola, and Microsoft that we think they, or at least their marketing and management teams, suck!
Okay, so Apple has reversed their decision. That's good--but it comes a bit late. Apple should have made that decision in the first place. Simply more management insanity, followed by panic when Apple discovers that, hey, people actually _do_ know what's best for themselves, rather than Apple telling them what is! Hmm! Maybe Apple's actually learning a thing or two.
But yes, as you recommend, I will put the bat down now...
So is this technology considered ULSI (Ultra Large Scale Integrated) or would it be considered something even newer? I'd imagine this has many applications for wearable computing, although at some point we will hit a bottleneck of user interface size--the CPU, memory and whatnot will be far smaller than the output and input devices. But I guess those could be detachable. Perhaps this could be coupled to an extremely small (i.e. hundreds of gigahertz-range) antenna, and used for communications/tracking/something of some sort. However, the privacy implications, as always, are staggering... but we'll sort those out as they happen.
I know it's really hard in this day and age to defend the virtues of a once awesome, creative, and truly "for the rest of us" company, and keep a straight face. MacAddict has for years been advising the faithful on how to win the holy war with intelligent, informed discussion--but now the mother ship, Apple itself, is losing the battle for us!
Steve Jobs's Reality Distortion Field seems to have become quite a bit more powerful--now his force-field surrounds not only the entire Apple campus but also quite a bit of the Apple industry.
It seems amazing to me that there are still people out there who can say, "Sure, Apple has made yet another blunder, but it was for the greater good." As Gil Amelio once said, "If I have to shoot the lead buffalo to send a message to the rest of the herd, you bet I'll do it." This seems to be exactly what Apple is doing--but I thought that Amelio's thinking was killed when Jobs took over. Apparently not.
I continue to like Apple's hardware, but not their prices or availability. Apple's management, however, seems to be just as insane as Steve Jobs himself, and will likely continue to be as long as he is at Apple. Perhaps it's time for Steve to be ousted once again--this time for good.
At the rate Apple's going, there isn't going to be much left of the company or the Mac faithful in the next millenium, iMac or not. I hate to resort to doomcrying, because it's all been done before, but I finally have to admit that it's true. Apple is a poorly-managed company that relies on vaporware to push its reputation.
Doesn't it seem to everyone like Steve Jobs has been told by a marketing guru just what to say? Doesn't it strike you as funny that every time Apple brings out a new product, what Steve says about it is almost verbatim what goes up on the Web site? It seems like he doesn't know what the hell he's doing. Oh wait--he doesn't! He's a hippie college dropout who by some miracle got invited back to the company he almost destroyed.
Slashdot Mirror
First off, did anybody else notice that there was a rope hanging down the cliff to the left of Cruise in the rock-climbing scene? At first I thought it was just a crack, but I'm pretty sure it was a rope. Whoops.
Second, what's up with him throwing himself off the cliff, then magically managing to catch himself with just his fingertips? I doubt even the buffest rockclimbers could do something like that.
Third, that car chase scene was not only criminal (in that it destroyed two of, IMO, the two most beautiful cars in the world), but also stupid. That 911 would have eaten the TT for lunch, both in terms of handling and acceleration. Zero-to-sixty in 3.7 seconds? I'd like to see a TT even approach that.
Fourth: How the hell did that SUV manage to catch up to Cruise in the chase scene? Anybody who's ever seen a motorcycle (of any type) pass a car knows that motorcycles have acceleration and top-end speed that no car, not even an exotic, can touch. There's no way that SUV could have caught up with Cruise ... that is, unless Cruise doesn't know how to ride a motorcycle, which wouldn't surprise me. Or actually ... it's more likely his stunt double doesn't know how.
And don't even get me started about all the laws-of-physics-out-the-window stuff that happened during the fight scenes. It was all way too much like the Matrix, but wait! We aren't in a computer-generated world here! This is supposedly real!
Don't waste your money!
After two hours of first nearly falling asleep, then rolling my eyes, and then becoming outright disgusted that I spent $7 (!) to see this movie, we were treated to the coup de grace ...
Metallica plays the music in the ending credits.
I stayed for the movie, but walked out immediately after Metallica started playing.
Truly the icing on a particularly horrible-tasting cake.
Does it not seem to everybody here that Jon Katz seems to be going for the position of patron saint of children, whether they currently happen to be in the right or wrong?
Ever since that Columbine thing, Jon seems to pick out any current media issue, pick it apart for anything that might have to do with harassing, intimidating or prosecuting children, and then proceeds to act like he's the only one who can see the injustice being done to these "innocent" children.
Well, news for you Jon--there's probably just as many adults using Napster as there are children. And, what you and many Slashdotters seem to keep ignoring is that copyrighted MP3 distribution is illegal. It is not illegal to create MP3's if you already own the music, meaning that you effectively have licensed it from the artist (or the artist's lawyers). But when you decide you're going to rip all of your 300 CD's and then proceed to share that 3,000 MP3's on Napster, you are committing a crime. Regardless of how little money the artist actually gets from the music, you are ripping off the band you claim to like so much. It's the same as creating bogus band T-shirts and selling them at a concert. The band gets nothing from it. Maybe some additional publicity, sure, but it doesn't sell records.
It really bugs me that this community I am a part of uses the rallying cry of "information wants to be free" to justify stealing every MP3 possible. MP3's that you do not own are not yours. It is a violation of copyright law to posess or distribute such MP3's, and if you choose to do so, you should not be surprised if someone decides to bring the law down on you!
Jon, defending all these poor, defenseless "kids" who are being so brutally harassed by lawyers accomplishes nothing. It tarnishes your already questionable reputation (you are known by the company you keep), and in my opinion makes you look like a fool with very little understanding of the issue at hand. Please quit trying to turn every current event into a soapbox crusade to protect the children. This is not some government conspiracy to persecute the geek children. This is lawyers doing their job. Metallica and their lawyers have not only the right, but the legal responsibility, to attempt to prevent piracy of their music.
Get over it. Until the laws change, all you MP3 pirates are going to have to lose some sleep at night worrying about things like this. That is, unless you stop pirating music, and actually buy it once again.
Okay ...
Distance is 37,500km = 37,500,000 m.
Light speed = 3 x 10^8 m sec^-1. = 300,000,000 m sec^-1
37,500,000 m / 300,000,000 m sec^-1 = 0.125 sec. for one leg (up to the satellite)
Multiply this by two and you get 0.250 sec from your demarcation point (the LNB on your satellite dish) to the other side's LNB.
As others have pointed out, though, this does not take into account other latencies (and we have a seven-layer network model here). Plus, you might even have to go through multiple satellites, depending on where you are and how this ISP configures its systems. I'd say to be safe, multiply our calculated latency by two, and maybe even by four.
So we expect half-second to 1-second delays. That's unacceptable for most applications. Games are a concern, but frankly aren't that important in the grand scheme. We're talking level-3 switching for voice-over-IP and whatnot. A 1-second delay won't even support full-duplex.
Doesn't seem to me like this is very realistic, although for downloads the bandwidth would sure be nice. For real-time applications, though, I'll stick with a landline, thanks.
The Muppets is on every afternoon on Odyssey, at 4 pm. At least, it is here in NM. We just recently found this out. Harry Belafonte was on it just the other day. Awesome. =)
Here in NM we used to get the Simpsons twice a day. The only problem was, the station would show the same episodes over and over ... they had something like two seasons of episodes, which they would play in sequence. They did this for years, and if you were good enough you could accurately predict which episode would play on a given day. Needless to say I got tired of seeing 1/5 of all the possible Simpsons episodes.
Does anyone know why the stations do this? Is it because they only purchase seasons in blocks, or something? Or is it just because our station in Albuquerque is messed-up or cheap?
I know Yodaiken too, at least by reputation. He's now on sabbatical, but until the end of last semester was the head of the computer science department at my school, New Mexico Tech.
Yodaiken is reputed to be the most brilliant and innovative computer guy that anyone here knows. As far as I know, he pioneered the realtime Linux concept, and has worked closely with Linus Torvalds himself on this project. Yodaiken is highly acclaimed and has much respect both at this school and in the Linux and computing community as a whole.
The purpose of this patent appears to be to protect the concept of a real-time OS from those who would use it for corporate evil, i.e. Microsoft, Sun, etc. Yodaiken appears to either strongly support, or only support, this concept on Linux, and doesn't want Linux/free OS users to have to pay to use the concept. As far as Windoze users (and Solaris, and...) goes, Yodaiken doesn't care if they have to pay. If they're willing to pay for the OS, why not for the RT concept too, I think is the attitude.
Larger arguments of patent issues aside, this is a Good Thing. It's as much a personality issue as it is a free software / no patents issue. Yodaiken is doing this for the good of the Linux/free software community. Trust me.
You know, Cliff et al., I really think it would be better to post the teaser and then reply to it yourself, rather than insert your own editorial comment along with the teaser. You are simply the person who decides to post the story to Slashdot; you're not the be-all, end-all person to comment on the story. This way, we're forced to read your little comment whether or not it has merit, and it cannot be moderated at all. I think this should go for all of Slashdot--Rob, Hemos, everybody. If you want to insert your particular questionably witty and possibly important dialogue, then reply to your own story. Let's have some news without bias, please!
As to your specific comment, I don't like people not using ALT tags either. But it's possible that these people simply forgot, or that their Web person forgot. It's not a heinous crime, for crying out loud. Now that it's been brought to light, it will most likely be fixed. Has anyone considered sending an email to the Web person, asking why ALT tags weren't used, and possibly explaining their value? Huh? Or are we simply going to bitch in 400+ comments like we always do, making ourselves feel self-important, and accomplishing nothing?
So pointless.
In the sense that the university usually has property stickers on all the equipment, the equipment belongs to the university. I'll concede that point. BUT, especially for private or non-research-funded universities, the university is there by and for the students. Students pay for most if not all of equipment that is bought, directly through fees or indirectly through tuition increases and hidden costs. You know how the students own the Student Union? It's the same way with the equipment. That's not to say that the students could just bust in and take routers and whatnot, but it does mean that the students can and should have a lot of clout with policies that relate to equipment that they (and previous years' classes) have paid for.
It might be legal for a university to make an arbitrary decision to ban a bandwidth-sucking site, but it would not necessarily be ethical, and I doubt students would stand for it. There would be outrage, protest, or large numbers of students simply transferring to get away from the administrative fascism. I had to put up with a lot of blank-faced, "it's-for-your-own-good" administrative bull in high school. It's the big leagues now; I pay for the equipment with my tuition and fees (as do my fellow students), and there is no reason for us to stand for such treatment. It will happen, but the students have several ways of fighting back.
The university is obligated to provide service that serves the academic interests of the campus community. The academic infrastructure and students alike are customers of the information systems department. Customers pay for stated service when they sign a contract, and it is breach of contract to rescind that service without renegotiation, except in cases where laws have been broken, etc. It's the university's responsibility to make the best effort to negotiate and work with the customer BEFORE going to extremes.
I see nothing wrong with a university choosing to ban the use of a program because it is using too much bandwidth--which effectively means it is blocking legitimate access for other users--provided the university is doing it for that purpose and not because the fscking RIAA or some other gestapo organization is breathing down their neck. IF the RIAA is pressuring the university, I expect the university to be truthful and inform the students. If there is a clause in the infosystems contract about no copyright violations, then the university has no reason not to inform the students that there have been numerous copyright violations and as a result access is being shut down. It just seems that universities are not giving the students--the whole reason the university is there--the whole story, and that sucks, frankly.
Further, I will concede that it is unreasonable for the priveleged few who have enough time/are taking few enough credit hours to be downloading copyrighted MP3's via napster or some other method, to be blocking access to other students or faculty who need the bandwidth to do real work. I'm a major proponent of music as a means of getting work done, but not when it's to the exclusion of anything else. I've ripped my entire CD collection; that's all I need. I have no problem paying for music if I like it; however, I, like many people, wish more of the monies would go to the artist and not to the corporations.
But the times, they are a-changin'.
He didn't say "hardon," he said "Hadron." There's a big difference.
A hadron is a particle which interacts by way of the strong force. Examples of hadrons are baryons and mesons.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with an intelligent person saying, "I don't know the answer to that," or "Gosh, that's a hard, but interesting, question." There is something wrong with that person saying, "Well, that's a hard question, and I'm not going to even try to find out what the answer is, simply because it's such a difficult question."
Open your mind a bit.
What advice would you offer to a person about to start work on a B.S. in physics?
For a person to successfully obtain a degree in physics, would you say it is necessary to have a natural aptitude for science and mathematics, or is only a love of science and learning and a willingness to work hard required?
Are all physicists geniuses, as the general public thinks? How common are the physicists who throroughly enjoy their work, but rarely (if ever) get recognition for this work outside of physics circles?
Is physics a rewarding choice of career? Is it a competitive field? Do you, or have you felt, that your work or the work of others in physics has benefitted the general populace? (This is not to belittle your work in any way; I simply wonder how you feel, personally, about your impact on the world).
What opportunities are there for physicists, other than employment in government (national laboratories) or academia?
Thank you for the opportunity to ask these questions.
Hmm ... I think there are probably a lot more female geeks out there than we think. It's just that male geeks (myself included) tend to act strange when they're around. At least in physical form, anyway.
On the Net, nobody knows ... you could be a woman saying you're a man, or a man saying you're a woman. It's somewhat risky, so I always take it with a grain of salt anyway.
And then I suppose there are those men who are into feminism ... I don't even know how to deal with that.
I personally welcome all female geeks everywhere. We need more of you--not because we men geeks are losers (at least some of us are), but because anything that adds to the diversity of our group is a Good Thing. Having women around allows us to look at tech-related issues through completely different eyes sometimes. That's not to say that women necessarily think about geek issues differently than men--they do in my opinion, but I don't want to generalize too much--but rather to say that it's interesting to get another person's opinion on something near and dear to one's heart, especially when it's computers (or something related).
I for one am all for it.
I feel somewhat torn about Internet taxes. I consider myself more libertarian than anything else, but like many I'm liberal on some issues and conservative on others.
It seems to me that the Internet and the economy (and whatever else it is that "supports" the Internet) are doing fine without taxes. They don't seem necessary, at least not at this point. A lot of Web sites are owned by big faceless corporations that usually give back to the community simply because they don't want half their profits to go to the government. Microsoft does this with the Gates foundation (seen all those new computers at the local library lately?), and I'd imagine most other large corporations do too. Probably most successful Net companies manage to give back in some way because it is good for business-promotes a good image, this and that.
The article mentions that at least Al Gore is fearful that a permanent ban/moratorium on Net taxes would crumble communities and local economies. He feels that there should be a solution that allows online businesses to flourish and local economies to not take a hit from tax absence. Sounds good--sorta middle-of-the-road stance. But for the most part, we don't have taxes today, and things seem to be going well. I haven't heard of many local economies being destroyed by online companies--plenty of people still like to buy stuff in a store, especially those who don't trust Web sites with credit card numbers. There are also those who like to support the local community and buy local.
I think, if anything, Internet taxes are an attempt by the government to cash in on something it doesn't own, shouldn't regulate, and doesn't understand. It's a sort of taxation without representation issue ... sure, it's online commerce, but all the infrastructure is privately-owned. I may be missing something fundamental here, but it seems to me that Internet taxes would only be an impediment to progress.
Ten years from now we'll all look back and say, "Remember the good old days when you could order something off the Net and only get taken for shipping and handling? Now we get taken for that and taxes. Ah, those were the days."
I don't care how they'd do in Quake III. I care how they'd do in Unreal Tournament. Or even some old-school thing like ... oh, Doom, or even Wolfenstein. Probably the liberal/libertarian candidates would do better--they're not as averse to blood and gore.
Something of a non-issue, I would imagine, for most of us who live in academia, but...
xDSL would be nice. However, as many are saying, this isn't free. Just because you don't pay out-of-pocket doesn't make it free--you must contend with ads and slow service and an unresponsive service provider. I don't know who would want that, but I imagine a lot of people would be willing to put up with it for the speed.
However, the thing to consider is that when you combine a second phone line (approx. $20/month) with a 56K ISP connection (also roughly $20/month), you're paying pretty close to what DSL costs, provided it's available in your area. Why not ditch the modem and second phone line and just upgrade to DSL, and not worry about all this so-called free stuff?
Same deal with the "free" PC's these days. They're not free. You usually either have to pay for them outright and get a rebate, or you have to look at ads or fill out surveys or some other random, pointless thing for a PC that will be obsolete in six months.
It's simple: if you're willing to jump through hoops to get an almost-free and probably sub-standard connection to the Internet, go for it, but don't complain about spam and whatnot. If you want to be real, though, why not pay a bit of money and get the real thing. Computers and Internet are not expensive, and are getting less expensive all the time.
I will concede that there are many useful features of using a POP/IMAP client like Outlook or Communicator for reading email and newsgroups, but it seems that more security vulnerabilities and privacy concerns are brought to light with these programs daily. If you value your privacy and desire (relative) security, use a UNIX shell client such as elm, pine, mutt, etc. These can do most, if not all, of the things that a complex POP/IMAP client can. And what they can't do isn't worth doing, in my opinion.
...
Or, if you're a serious masochist, you can even use Emacs to read your email
This list was interesting, albeit incomplete (but any such list would be, of course). One point I really, really disagree with:
- The day Microsoft ported Internet Explorer to Solaris.
Was this person on crack, or what? I'll admit, I've never used MSIE on a platform other than Windows or Macintosh, so maybe there's something about it I don't know (is it really stable under Solaris, or something)?
Was the submission intended to be sarcastic? I couldn't tell.
Well, I've been through the public schools and know these feelings well. I know that on Slashdot it's something of a cliche to say I was an outcast, but I was, like most of my friends. We hung out in the computer labs, working on electronic counterculture (freely distributing, on my Web page that was on my ISP--not the school's server--how to exploit security weaknesses in my school's servers). That was my method of protesting the actions of school authorities. I didn't shoot anyone in high school, but I was a disciplinary problem just as this kid who wrote the essay is--I was suspended several times, mainly for computer hacking and whatnot. But I clearly remember entertaining thoughts of homicide all through high school. When Littleton happened I understood perfectly what might have driven the killers, although I must admit I never worshiped Hitler.
I think if you can honestly say you've never thought of killing someone, then you're probably a far happier person than I was--than most of us were--in school. Perhaps you're one of the more popular kids with lots of friends, or maybe you're on a football team, or something. I never was one of those people, and I was shunned by a great number of my peers. As a result I was unhappy and bitter towards those I was forced to go to school with. And I hated school authorities.
However, I managed to get through, and I didn't kill anyone. I didn't even get into many fights, since my school had a zero-tolerance policy for that. My point is, though, that I think homicidal thoughts among school-age kids are far more common than you might think. If you don't have these thoughts, then I congratulate you. You're one of the few remaining who can successfully coexist in this increasingly oppressive system we call the public schools. Ask a few of your friends, though, if they've ever thought about it. (But don't ask while you're at school--the gestapo might overhear you, since they have listening devices and informers everywhere).
If you think people under 18 have no rights simply because the law has arbitrarily decided that they are minors, then you have missed a lot of the point of the legal system we live in. People under 18 are people too, just like you. They are innocent until proven guilty and entitled to due process like everybody else. Weren't you ever picked on by a bully in high school or middle school? Can you honestly say that if someone had handed you a gun after that bully had finished beating the crap out of you, that you wouldn't have shot him right there? Be honest with yourself. I think it's probably very rare for a kid in school not to entertain thoughts of killing someone else or himself at some point. But, fortunately, very few kids act on these thoughts. If every kid who thought at some point of killing someone acted on those thoughts, then we'd be having a Littleton tragedy every day--no, every hour, or even more frequently.
Talking about shooting another kid is not a crime, regardless of what school administrators say. Shooting someone is. Writing about violence is not a crime, and should not be. You aren't by chance planning to be a school administrator, are you? Because you sound exactly like the type of person who ran my high school. Presume all students guilty until they are proven innocent (and they are never proven innocent).
In short, your post disturbs me.
I can't begin to describe how outraged I am that a kid could be jailed for writing a story in school. I can see counseling, or a teacher or administrator sitting the kid down and asking him why, or what he was thinking, or what might have provoked him to write a story such as he did, but to just cart him off to jail? It's sounding more and more like the school authorities are saying, "Write clean and sanitary stories, devoid of bad feelings and anything objectionable, or otherwise you will be punished." It sounds like something out of Huxley's Brave New World, except fortunately the public schools haven't yet begun drugging their students. Not yet anyway. But who knows? Maybe in the next couple of years they'll put anyone who deviates from the so-called norm on Prozac, and then all our kids will just be bubbly and happy and we'll have no problems whatsoever! Ha!
Ah, we live in such a crazy age. I can only wonder if this madness will continue, and to what end. I just thank God that I managed to get out of the public school system two years ago, just before everything went down. I could already see it happening--Jonesboro had just happened a month or two before I graduated--and I worry about friends of mine who are still in high school.
I remember my high school taking the stance that students, whether minors or adults, give up some or all of their constitutional rights at the door. I've heard of at least one court case that threw that attitude out. So where's the good old First Amendment in schools today? What happens if not just schools, but society itself, manages to make it illegal to write a story about violence, or express discontent with the system under which we live? It seems to me that a lot of people are going to be taken to jail. And on what charge? Inciting people to violence? Conspiracy? How about plain old creativity, or writing down feelings that would have otherwise been acted upon? What might have happened if the killers at Jonesboro or those at Littleton had written stories about what they wanted to do, rather than actually doing it? The tragedies might not have occurred.
I can tell you, though, that if this trend continues, there's no way in hell I'm going to put my kids through public school.
Funny, I don't recall Intel doing this before, at least not recently. Perhaps back in the day with the 486's.
Truly, though, I don't know which company is worse (or more disappointing)--Intel or Motorola. Both companies have screwed-up big-time in the past couple of weeks. Motorola announced the 500MHz G4 when it was essentially vaporware (and still is essentially vaporware), and now Intel has rushed to "market" with (as far as we the consumers can tell) a nonexistent chip.
It seems there is a parallel when deciding between which CPU maker to choose and which OS maker to choose. Intel and Motorola are not only disappointing, but appear (at least to me) to be resorting to tactics all too-often used in the industry today. Microsoft, meanwhile, uses many of the same tactics (but at least they release products, even if they continue to suck after the usual 300 patches are applied). All three companies suck far more than do their competition. And yet the majority still continues to purchase their products, mainly (I think) due to fear that software or hardware won't work properly if not used with the CPU or OS that "everyone uses."
Not true!
Choose the underdog who makes the superior and less-expensive product. Choose AMD and Linux, or any other OS of your choosing (do I hear a small voice shouting "OS/2 Warp!" in the background?) Be different. Don't follow the crowd.
Let's show Intel, Motorola, and Microsoft that we think they, or at least their marketing and management teams, suck!
Okay, so Apple has reversed their decision. That's good--but it comes a bit late. Apple should have made that decision in the first place. Simply more management insanity, followed by panic when Apple discovers that, hey, people actually _do_ know what's best for themselves, rather than Apple telling them what is! Hmm! Maybe Apple's actually learning a thing or two.
But yes, as you recommend, I will put the bat down now...
So is this technology considered ULSI (Ultra Large Scale Integrated) or would it be considered something even newer? I'd imagine this has many applications for wearable computing, although at some point we will hit a bottleneck of user interface size--the CPU, memory and whatnot will be far smaller than the output and input devices. But I guess those could be detachable. Perhaps this could be coupled to an extremely small (i.e. hundreds of gigahertz-range) antenna, and used for communications/tracking/something of some sort. However, the privacy implications, as always, are staggering ... but we'll sort those out as they happen.
It must be damned frustrating to work at Apple.
I know it's really hard in this day and age to defend the virtues of a once awesome, creative, and truly "for the rest of us" company, and keep a straight face. MacAddict has for years been advising the faithful on how to win the holy war with intelligent, informed discussion--but now the mother ship, Apple itself, is losing the battle for us!
Steve Jobs's Reality Distortion Field seems to have become quite a bit more powerful--now his force-field surrounds not only the entire Apple campus but also quite a bit of the Apple industry.
It seems amazing to me that there are still people out there who can say, "Sure, Apple has made yet another blunder, but it was for the greater good." As Gil Amelio once said, "If I have to shoot the lead buffalo to send a message to the rest of the herd, you bet I'll do it." This seems to be exactly what Apple is doing--but I thought that Amelio's thinking was killed when Jobs took over. Apparently not.
I continue to like Apple's hardware, but not their prices or availability. Apple's management, however, seems to be just as insane as Steve Jobs himself, and will likely continue to be as long as he is at Apple. Perhaps it's time for Steve to be ousted once again--this time for good.
At the rate Apple's going, there isn't going to be much left of the company or the Mac faithful in the next millenium, iMac or not. I hate to resort to doomcrying, because it's all been done before, but I finally have to admit that it's true. Apple is a poorly-managed company that relies on vaporware to push its reputation.
Doesn't it seem to everyone like Steve Jobs has been told by a marketing guru just what to say? Doesn't it strike you as funny that every time Apple brings out a new product, what Steve says about it is almost verbatim what goes up on the Web site? It seems like he doesn't know what the hell he's doing. Oh wait--he doesn't! He's a hippie college dropout who by some miracle got invited back to the company he almost destroyed.
It's incredible how lucky some people get.