One word for you: Grado. Highly recommended and reviewed at audiophile places. The lower end models price out at about the same as those earbuds, but with a superior sound.
I second that. I've used nothing but Grado headphones in the last 15 years. The only problem is the new ones come with inferior earpads than they did 10 years ago. But Grado still sells the superior cup shaped earpads separately. (It's astonishing how much the sound improves with the right earpads!) These headphones really are as great as everyone says and you can hardly beat the price!
Have you tried to find a pay phone lately? A couple of decades ago, there used to be phone booths practically every other block. There are virtually none in the city where I live any more. I think the mall has a few pay phones, but I honestly don't know of any others. So if you ever have an emergency, or simply want to call home to tell your wife, husband, parents, etc., that you'll be a bit late as you're stopping to get groceries, you pretty much need a cell phone these days.
Personally, I would much prefer not to have a cell phone. But that's pretty much impossible nowadays.
I just use my American-hosted server as an SSH proxy to watch Hulu.
I, too, have an American hosted account with SSH access, but thus far I have been unable to get Hulu to work. Which ports do you forward? Are there any other special things that need to be done besides port forwarding to make it work?
Watch Gattaca and get back with us. I would argue that a responsible society would provide extra help to such people, rather than punishing them for something that they have no control over.
One could argue that being male or female is a result of genetics (XX vs. XY chromosomes), and it is perfectly acceptable that car insurance companies charge more for male drivers than female because statistically they are in more accidents. How is this any different?
That is until they lobby congress to pass a law inregards to comercial rental of movies.
And that would probably be easier than you think. In fact, as was mentioned by someone above, the law has already been changed to prohibit rental of software and music, but the law didn't cover movies. The reason? At the time, it was very easy to copy software and audio CDs, but it was not possible to copy movies without serious degradation of quality (this was in the days of VHS-->VHS). Obviously that has changed, and copying DVDs is fairly simple. It wouldn't take much effort to lobby for a change in law which prohibits rental of movies without authorization from the copyright holders. The rental chains would complain bitterly, and a compromise would be reached allowing, say, a one month window from retail availability to rental availability.
However, they cannot stop the rental companies from buying the things at retail.
There are a couple of significant ways they can put pressure on rental companies, however. First, make them pay full retail for disks instead of wholesale as they do now. Secondly, the law allows them to rent physical disks only, so those that offer streaming rentals must have an agreement with the studio. So, one pressure tactic might be to cut off all streaming rental agreements, if a rental company rents out physical disks from their studio before their supposed to.
The problem is one of treating education as a business like any other. The country obtains a benefit from having an educated citizenry, and allowing education of this type to be treated as just another profit-center is at best short-sighted, at worst actively hostile to the country's best interests.
That's precisely what scholarships are for. I had both my undergrad and grad school education paid for with scholarships, so I had no debt when I graduated. There are many scholarships available from both government and private sources here in the U.S., but you have to work hard in high school to keep those grades up. If you're not a super academic, there are often sports and music scholarships available as well.
The real problem is a much greater percentage of the population is going to college than did fifty years ago. I agree with the parent that a well-educated population is a benefit to society, but the problem in America is that we have a large segment of the population that is under-educated (no high school diploma) and a huge segment of the population that is over educated. Too many people are going to college and it costs money.
The licensee has no rights whatsoever, except the rights received from copyright law.
Er, I think you have that backwards, but it's a common mistake, usually made by big media companies and their **AA agencies. Licensees have every right to copyright works except those rights specifically withheld by copyright law.
The license was already proven in court numerous times in different countries. It can definately hold up.
But did any of these cases involve the "derivative work" aspects of the license? That seems to be the issue here, not the GPL as a whole.
The one issue I've always disagreed with the GPL folks on, for instance, is code that links to GPL libraries. I know the LGPL was created to allow code to link to libraries without being GPL itself, but what if I distribute, say, a dynamic linking executable which links to GPL code, but I don't distribute the GPL libraries themselves, instead directing users to download them elsewhere. Does my code have to be licensed under the GPL? I believe the intention of the GPL is that it would, but does that have a legal basis?
But it's the only way to be sure of a clean environment, unless your BIOS has been hacked.
But isn't that a rather serious problem? What if the keylogger is in the BIOS? Would a LiveCD help in that case? Is there any way to detect malware in the BIOS?
The author who wrote the NYT article, clearly doesn't know what the Higgs particle really is. Virtual Higgs particles exist everywhere around us. If the universe has a problem with creating real Higgs particles, then that problem should already have presented itself, since cosmic rays in the universe have collided with much greater energy than the LHC would ever produce and therefore such real Higgs should have been produced many times already. There's nothing special about the LHC except for the fact that it has detectors in place to record evidence of the particles that have been produced. Does the universe somehow have a problem with that?
Hm... I should have wrote CoE is averaged over time/space instead of "statistical"? Otherwise, stuffs can't pop in/out into "vacuum"?
That's correct. It's an example of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Time and energy are conjugate variables, so the shorter the time you look at something, the greater the non-conservation of energy, according to the relation Delta t times Delta E < hbar.
Seems you're trying to be misleading. The link you give isn't about limiting what you can think. (Until mind reading is a scientific reality, that will never be possible.) It's about telling you you can't be violent.
Actually, it's already a crime to be violent. Hate crime laws add additional penalties for what you are thinking while being violent.
Unless there was a policy forbidding the installation and use of any and all software by users at that site, then it sounds like it was authorized to me.
Really? So, unless you are specifically forbidden from installing software on other people's (or government) computers, then it is implied you can install whatever you want?
I suppose if you don't have a sign on your front door saying "Trespassers will be prosecuted", I can infer that I have implicit permission to enter your home at any time.
It gets worse if you just count 9 years ago. In 2001 we had a max vertical resolution of 1536 on a 22" monitor. Today on a 24" monitor you have either 1080 or 1200.
That's because today's monitors are widescreen (16:9) instead of the old standard (4:3). Comparing 22" 4:3 with 24" 16:9 doesn't actually mean you have more space in the vertical direction, but you have many more pixels in the horizontal direction.
Personally, I hate widescreen monitors. Unless you watch movies on your computer (which I don't) I don't see the point. Most of the work I do is page layout, and the typical pages I work on have a vertical orientation, so going to a widescreen monitor is a step in the wrong direction. But go shopping for a monitor today, and it's impossible to find 4:3. Surely there must be other people like me who prefer standard to widescreen in a computer monitor.
No, it's not how it works in the IPv4 world. You come to a provider with your own PI/24 and up of IPv4 space, and they'll take your announcements, or likely even announce it for you if you're not doing BGP, depending on the arrangement./48s are the v6 version of v4/24s at this point in time.
Just because some ISPs are allowing customers to use their own IP addresses doesn't mean that all should be required to. Imagine how complicated routing tables would become if each customer had their own personal IP address which they used with any ISP they like. I believe my point still stands. If you are a Verizon customer, there is no reason you shouldn't use the block of IP addresses that is assigned to you by Verizon. They even said they'll assign you a/48 block in exchange for the one you return.
If you read the summary, it sounds like Verizon is dropping a bunch of traffic from non-Verizon customers, but if you read the actual article, this isn't the case. To quote from TFA, "If you wish your/48 to be visible globally, you'll need to return your direct/48 allocation to ARIN and obtain a Verizon/48 from our network pool. Since our/48 assignment would be part of a/32 that we are announcing, your network would be globally routable. Otherwise, you are limited to AS701."
What this basically says is that if Verizon is your ISP, you must use IP addresses assigned to you by Verizon if you want your network to be globally visible. That makes sense to me, and it is certainly how things work in the IPv4 world. I don't see what all the fuss is about.
Was this in the USA? The reason is that doing this, while so very nice to prevent the idiots who don't know how to put their phones on vibrate from bothering everyone else, is also highly illegal.
I think you are confusing active vs. passive blocking. Active blocking is illegal as it involves transmitting signals on the same frequencies as are used by cellphones, and this is regulated spectrum. Passive blocking, by using special paints or metal screens is perfectly legal.
Now, the DMCA would allow Autodesk to, say, validate a CD key online once only and then deny future installs on other hardware.
I am curious why this is not also a violation of the first sale doctrine. If I am allowed by law to sell a copyrighted work which I have legally purchased, Autodesk should not be permitted to implement a system which takes this right away.
No, the First Sale Doctrine is a defense against a copyright claim made on the basis that the copyright holder has prohibited resale. It prohibits copyright holders from successfully suing you for reselling your books. It does nothing to compel copyright holders to fashion their products in such a way that they can be resold.
It works kind of like the Fair Use Doctrine in which a copyright holder can't sue you for reproducing a brief excerpt for review purposes, but it doesn't prevent publishers from employing copy protection measures which make it difficult or impossible to do so.
If I get e-mails from banks that I have no relation with, it is usually spam and gets instantly deleted.
Perhaps that's why the recipient of the bank's private data didn't respond to any of their e-mails.
Or maybe the mailbox holder was simply on vacation? Is there a legal obligation to check your inbox on a regular basis? (There's a reason legal papers aren't sent by e-mail.)
Wouldn't this be like having a package wrongly delivered to your house (through no fault of your own: the sender had the wrong address), and since it contained highly confidential information, a judge ordered your house to be burned to the ground? (Okay, that's a bit extreme, but you get my point.)
Slashdot Mirror
One word for you: Grado. Highly recommended and reviewed at audiophile places. The lower end models price out at about the same as those earbuds, but with a superior sound.
I second that. I've used nothing but Grado headphones in the last 15 years. The only problem is the new ones come with inferior earpads than they did 10 years ago. But Grado still sells the superior cup shaped earpads separately. (It's astonishing how much the sound improves with the right earpads!) These headphones really are as great as everyone says and you can hardly beat the price!
An english degree helps you write in the same way that a history degree helps you change the world.
Actually, many universities offer English degrees with a specialty in creative writing.
Actually it's freshman-level physics.
General relativity and quantum mechanics are freshman level physics? Wow. You sure went to a fancier school than I did!
Have you tried to find a pay phone lately? A couple of decades ago, there used to be phone booths practically every other block. There are virtually none in the city where I live any more. I think the mall has a few pay phones, but I honestly don't know of any others. So if you ever have an emergency, or simply want to call home to tell your wife, husband, parents, etc., that you'll be a bit late as you're stopping to get groceries, you pretty much need a cell phone these days.
Personally, I would much prefer not to have a cell phone. But that's pretty much impossible nowadays.
I just use my American-hosted server as an SSH proxy to watch Hulu.
I, too, have an American hosted account with SSH access, but thus far I have been unable to get Hulu to work. Which ports do you forward? Are there any other special things that need to be done besides port forwarding to make it work?
Watch Gattaca and get back with us. I would argue that a responsible society would provide extra help to such people, rather than punishing them for something that they have no control over.
One could argue that being male or female is a result of genetics (XX vs. XY chromosomes), and it is perfectly acceptable that car insurance companies charge more for male drivers than female because statistically they are in more accidents. How is this any different?
That is until they lobby congress to pass a law inregards to comercial rental of movies.
And that would probably be easier than you think. In fact, as was mentioned by someone above, the law has already been changed to prohibit rental of software and music, but the law didn't cover movies. The reason? At the time, it was very easy to copy software and audio CDs, but it was not possible to copy movies without serious degradation of quality (this was in the days of VHS-->VHS). Obviously that has changed, and copying DVDs is fairly simple. It wouldn't take much effort to lobby for a change in law which prohibits rental of movies without authorization from the copyright holders. The rental chains would complain bitterly, and a compromise would be reached allowing, say, a one month window from retail availability to rental availability.
However, they cannot stop the rental companies from buying the things at retail.
There are a couple of significant ways they can put pressure on rental companies, however. First, make them pay full retail for disks instead of wholesale as they do now. Secondly, the law allows them to rent physical disks only, so those that offer streaming rentals must have an agreement with the studio. So, one pressure tactic might be to cut off all streaming rental agreements, if a rental company rents out physical disks from their studio before their supposed to.
The problem is one of treating education as a business like any other. The country obtains a benefit from having an educated citizenry, and allowing education of this type to be treated as just another profit-center is at best short-sighted, at worst actively hostile to the country's best interests.
That's precisely what scholarships are for. I had both my undergrad and grad school education paid for with scholarships, so I had no debt when I graduated. There are many scholarships available from both government and private sources here in the U.S., but you have to work hard in high school to keep those grades up. If you're not a super academic, there are often sports and music scholarships available as well.
The real problem is a much greater percentage of the population is going to college than did fifty years ago. I agree with the parent that a well-educated population is a benefit to society, but the problem in America is that we have a large segment of the population that is under-educated (no high school diploma) and a huge segment of the population that is over educated. Too many people are going to college and it costs money.
The licensee has no rights whatsoever, except the rights received from copyright law.
Er, I think you have that backwards, but it's a common mistake, usually made by big media companies and their **AA agencies. Licensees have every right to copyright works except those rights specifically withheld by copyright law.
The license was already proven in court numerous times in different countries. It can definately hold up.
But did any of these cases involve the "derivative work" aspects of the license? That seems to be the issue here, not the GPL as a whole.
The one issue I've always disagreed with the GPL folks on, for instance, is code that links to GPL libraries. I know the LGPL was created to allow code to link to libraries without being GPL itself, but what if I distribute, say, a dynamic linking executable which links to GPL code, but I don't distribute the GPL libraries themselves, instead directing users to download them elsewhere. Does my code have to be licensed under the GPL? I believe the intention of the GPL is that it would, but does that have a legal basis?
But it's the only way to be sure of a clean environment, unless your BIOS has been hacked.
But isn't that a rather serious problem? What if the keylogger is in the BIOS? Would a LiveCD help in that case? Is there any way to detect malware in the BIOS?
Not sure it is the same as in the Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 110502 (2007) -- linked from the article -- which is from 2007
The abstract is the same, so it appears to be the same paper.
I haven't read the article all the way through yet. Do the authors take in to account the possibility of optical or quantum computers?
Mod parent up!
The author who wrote the NYT article, clearly doesn't know what the Higgs particle really is. Virtual Higgs particles exist everywhere around us. If the universe has a problem with creating real Higgs particles, then that problem should already have presented itself, since cosmic rays in the universe have collided with much greater energy than the LHC would ever produce and therefore such real Higgs should have been produced many times already. There's nothing special about the LHC except for the fact that it has detectors in place to record evidence of the particles that have been produced. Does the universe somehow have a problem with that?
It's going to make administering tests a lot harder though, when anyone can Google any answer without moving a muscle.
But in a world where it is that easy to Google, does it make sense to test knowledge that can be Googled?
Hm... I should have wrote CoE is averaged over time/space instead of "statistical"? Otherwise, stuffs can't pop in/out into "vacuum"?
That's correct. It's an example of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Time and energy are conjugate variables, so the shorter the time you look at something, the greater the non-conservation of energy, according to the relation Delta t times Delta E < hbar.
Seems you're trying to be misleading. The link you give isn't about limiting what you can think. (Until mind reading is a scientific reality, that will never be possible.) It's about telling you you can't be violent.
Actually, it's already a crime to be violent. Hate crime laws add additional penalties for what you are thinking while being violent.
Unless there was a policy forbidding the installation and use of any and all software by users at that site, then it sounds like it was authorized to me.
Really? So, unless you are specifically forbidden from installing software on other people's (or government) computers, then it is implied you can install whatever you want?
I suppose if you don't have a sign on your front door saying "Trespassers will be prosecuted", I can infer that I have implicit permission to enter your home at any time.
It gets worse if you just count 9 years ago. In 2001 we had a max vertical resolution of 1536 on a 22" monitor. Today on a 24" monitor you have either 1080 or 1200.
That's because today's monitors are widescreen (16:9) instead of the old standard (4:3). Comparing 22" 4:3 with 24" 16:9 doesn't actually mean you have more space in the vertical direction, but you have many more pixels in the horizontal direction.
Personally, I hate widescreen monitors. Unless you watch movies on your computer (which I don't) I don't see the point. Most of the work I do is page layout, and the typical pages I work on have a vertical orientation, so going to a widescreen monitor is a step in the wrong direction. But go shopping for a monitor today, and it's impossible to find 4:3. Surely there must be other people like me who prefer standard to widescreen in a computer monitor.
No, it's not how it works in the IPv4 world. You come to a provider with your own PI /24 and up of IPv4 space, and they'll take your announcements, or likely even announce it for you if you're not doing BGP, depending on the arrangement. /48s are the v6 version of v4 /24s at this point in time.
Just because some ISPs are allowing customers to use their own IP addresses doesn't mean that all should be required to. Imagine how complicated routing tables would become if each customer had their own personal IP address which they used with any ISP they like. I believe my point still stands. If you are a Verizon customer, there is no reason you shouldn't use the block of IP addresses that is assigned to you by Verizon. They even said they'll assign you a /48 block in exchange for the one you return.
If you read the summary, it sounds like Verizon is dropping a bunch of traffic from non-Verizon customers, but if you read the actual article, this isn't the case. To quote from TFA, "If you wish your /48 to be visible globally, you'll need to return your direct /48 allocation to ARIN and obtain a Verizon /48 from our network pool. Since our /48 assignment would be part of a /32 that we are announcing, your network would be globally routable. Otherwise, you are limited to AS701."
What this basically says is that if Verizon is your ISP, you must use IP addresses assigned to you by Verizon if you want your network to be globally visible. That makes sense to me, and it is certainly how things work in the IPv4 world. I don't see what all the fuss is about.
Was this in the USA? The reason is that doing this, while so very nice to prevent the idiots who don't know how to put their phones on vibrate from bothering everyone else, is also highly illegal.
I think you are confusing active vs. passive blocking. Active blocking is illegal as it involves transmitting signals on the same frequencies as are used by cellphones, and this is regulated spectrum. Passive blocking, by using special paints or metal screens is perfectly legal.
I am curious why this is not also a violation of the first sale doctrine. If I am allowed by law to sell a copyrighted work which I have legally purchased, Autodesk should not be permitted to implement a system which takes this right away.
No, the First Sale Doctrine is a defense against a copyright claim made on the basis that the copyright holder has prohibited resale. It prohibits copyright holders from successfully suing you for reselling your books. It does nothing to compel copyright holders to fashion their products in such a way that they can be resold.
It works kind of like the Fair Use Doctrine in which a copyright holder can't sue you for reproducing a brief excerpt for review purposes, but it doesn't prevent publishers from employing copy protection measures which make it difficult or impossible to do so.
If I get e-mails from banks that I have no relation with, it is usually spam and gets instantly deleted.
Perhaps that's why the recipient of the bank's private data didn't respond to any of their e-mails.
Or maybe the mailbox holder was simply on vacation? Is there a legal obligation to check your inbox on a regular basis? (There's a reason legal papers aren't sent by e-mail.)
Wouldn't this be like having a package wrongly delivered to your house (through no fault of your own: the sender had the wrong address), and since it contained highly confidential information, a judge ordered your house to be burned to the ground? (Okay, that's a bit extreme, but you get my point.)