Good question. Arthur C. Clarke wrote 'any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic'. You're basically asking does 'any sufficiently alien being is indistinguishable from a teenage mutant ninja turtle' hold? Is TMNT only in the eye of the beholder?
Sorry, that's just blacklists all over again for web spam instead of
email spam. It won't work in the long run, and I'd rather not give
Google a blank check on privacy out of desperation for "relevant"
hits.
That's not depressing at all. There are 100 different 1 percents. Let's make sure that each of them gets to be the 1 percent that matters, over the course of human history.
Speed is limited by terminal velocity of about 200 km/h near the ground, where it matters.
The total heat generated from air friction during the jump can't be more than the initial potential energy,
but you'd need a profile of the air density to calculate it exactly.
It's a nice idea, but museums aren't fortified places. If civilisation collapses the museums will be among the first buildings to be looted (cf. in Iraq). It would be a lot better to put the artefacts in a Fort Knox, replacing the gold.
However, by far the most effective way to preserve knowledge for the future is distributing it far and wide, ie copies in private houses, freely shared and duplicated, today.
I think you're conflating one of the practical realities of picketing (it takes time away from other things) with the goal of picketing (to disrupt operation and make people aware of an issue).
There's no reason why an online picketing campaign needs to abide by obsolete practical aspects of physical picketing. In the online world, you could picket several different websites simultaneously on different issues, if you liked. That's something that's impossible in the physical world.
The bill is talking about "orphaned works" which are those works that will never again see the light of day because no owner claims
them. It is likely that when the copyright expires in 70 years, with nobody to preserve them, or assign their rights to a publisher
who can, these works will be completely lost to humanity.
If you live in Europe, write to your MEP. Vote fraud is no joke.
Who cares? If you live in Europe, or anywhere else for that matter, start scanning those books and put them up on the web.
There are places like formerly library.nu (now defunct) which will accept the scans, and replicate them. Fuck the publishers, and fuck the politicians. They can't be trusted with our human heritage.
A PC in those days cost around $2K, that's a big chunk of change that could have gone to Britannica instead. Regardless if their CD's were good or not (even if they were the best and had 100% market share) the revenues from those CD's were never going to be more than a tiny fraction of $2K after people bought their PC.
And in practice, people just pirated software anyway.
So the ultimate cause can't be that Britannica was poorly run, or that their CD's weren't up to standard - that may have been so or not. The ultimate cause was that the money that would have bought an encyclopedia worth thousands was spent on a PC worth thousands. Britannica was never going to get those thousands again, no matter what.
Needing to grab some evidence on a phone is a goal. Having Google hand over the passwords for a phone is a means (not the only one) to achieve that goal. It's simple, reliable, and overkill. It encourages Google to set up a turnkey spying system to serve law enforcement, and it encourages law enforcement to rely too much on an oracle.
I don't care. If the police's whole case stands or falls on a single cellphone password, then they're not doing their job properly. They should have several leads and avenues to explore, and they should not rely on getting special treatment.
It's a slippery slope, regardless. We're encouraged to trust Google with our data, and yet it's "ok" if the government gets to walk all over that trust. It's sloppy thinking, and I don't like it.
Sensible? Extradition of citizens is *never* sensible. One of the fundamental
obligations of a legitimate government is to protect its citizens. Regardless of the facts of the case, extraditing a citizen to another country (for *any* alleged crime whatsoever) is the opposite of protecting them.
As a metaphor, I find the implication disturbing. It's a gold rush mentality. Find one hose, and instead of looking around for things that improve the world one small fix at a time, it's all about finding another hose and anything else gets ignored.
It doesn't matter. By far the most companies doing business with each other operate in the same country/state/city even. Thus by the 80/20 rule, that's what must be optimized first.
We could be doing a 24 hour schedule but we still operate businesses and offices from 9-5. Why? I see no advantage.
Yes, but it depends on how much synchronization businesses and customers that work together need.
For online businesses, a 24 hour schedule is no problem, as the customer interaction happens instantly thanks to the wonders of computers, even if it the transaction sits there for half a day afterwards, until a human can process it.
For businesses where two actual people must communicate or work together to make a transaction, the physical limit is that both must be awake and in working mode at the same time. If three companies must interact via humans, even if it is A with B and then B with C, they all must have compatible hours, and so on. That leads to common working hours, 9-5.
Why not name the "former antiquities minister"? Zahi Hawass has been
on practically every TV show about the pyramids for as long as some
slashdotters have lived. He was a consultant on the Indiana Jones
set. I think he deserves more than being some anonymous Egyptian former
minister.
A lot of the time, developers are so intimately familiar
with the product and code that it is difficult to discern when something isn't intuitive to a novice
user.
Perhaps you didn't quite mean this, but it's a very one sided statement. There are novices and experts, and UIs shouldn't just be designed for novices. In fact, for software that gets used a lot, a user stays a novice only a small amount of time, before transitioning to advanced status. So a UI should be designed primarily for advanced users and experts first, and novices second, provided that doesn't interfere with advanced use too much.
The trouble with outside UI designers is that they think like novices, which they often are when they initially join a project. So their priorities are all wrong, and must be fought. Alternatively, they should prove that they already understand advance usage inside out, and then argue that a change is going to improve novice usage without worsening advanced usage.
Slashdot Mirror
Good question. Arthur C. Clarke wrote 'any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic'. You're basically asking does 'any sufficiently alien being is indistinguishable from a teenage mutant ninja turtle' hold? Is TMNT only in the eye of the beholder?
So... you're saying the Aliens in the spaceships... they're really politicians from another planet? Explains a lot.
Sorry, but you've been lied to.
Sorry, that's just blacklists all over again for web spam instead of email spam. It won't work in the long run, and I'd rather not give Google a blank check on privacy out of desperation for "relevant" hits.
That's not depressing at all. There are 100 different 1 percents. Let's make sure that each of them gets to be the 1 percent that matters, over the course of human history.
Speed is limited by terminal velocity of about 200 km/h near the ground, where it matters. The total heat generated from air friction during the jump can't be more than the initial potential energy, but you'd need a profile of the air density to calculate it exactly.
However, by far the most effective way to preserve knowledge for the future is distributing it far and wide, ie copies in private houses, freely shared and duplicated, today.
There's no reason why an online picketing campaign needs to abide by obsolete practical aspects of physical picketing. In the online world, you could picket several different websites simultaneously on different issues, if you liked. That's something that's impossible in the physical world.
Who cares? If you live in Europe, or anywhere else for that matter, start scanning those books and put them up on the web. There are places like formerly library.nu (now defunct) which will accept the scans, and replicate them. Fuck the publishers, and fuck the politicians. They can't be trusted with our human heritage.
A PC in those days cost around $2K, that's a big chunk of change that could have gone to Britannica instead. Regardless if their CD's were good or not (even if they were the best and had 100% market share) the revenues from those CD's were never going to be more than a tiny fraction of $2K after people bought their PC. And in practice, people just pirated software anyway.
So the ultimate cause can't be that Britannica was poorly run, or that their CD's weren't up to standard - that may have been so or not. The ultimate cause was that the money that would have bought an encyclopedia worth thousands was spent on a PC worth thousands. Britannica was never going to get those thousands again, no matter what.
Cocaine-free Coca Cola!
Or we could just make a slashdot law like FOPA (First Obligatory Posts Allover), then everybody's posts can be first.
Needing to grab some evidence on a phone is a goal. Having Google hand over the passwords for a phone is a means (not the only one) to achieve that goal. It's simple, reliable, and overkill. It encourages Google to set up a turnkey spying system to serve law enforcement, and it encourages law enforcement to rely too much on an oracle.
Eh? If you object to monopolies, you should object to breaking up monopolies? Makes no sense.
It's a slippery slope, regardless. We're encouraged to trust Google with our data, and yet it's "ok" if the government gets to walk all over that trust. It's sloppy thinking, and I don't like it.
Sensible? Extradition of citizens is *never* sensible. One of the fundamental obligations of a legitimate government is to protect its citizens. Regardless of the facts of the case, extraditing a citizen to another country (for *any* alleged crime whatsoever) is the opposite of protecting them.
"What do you think, Helena?"
"Oh John, those poor aliens need our help!"
"So be it. Victor, can you reprogram Computer to land this planet on a planet?"
"Oh I don't know, John. Maybe we should go down in an Eagle instead?"
"Good thinking. Alan, lift-off in 5 minutes!"
As a metaphor, I find the implication disturbing. It's a gold rush mentality. Find one hose, and instead of looking around for things that improve the world one small fix at a time, it's all about finding another hose and anything else gets ignored.
That's what the low quality garbled voice sounded like. What the Microsoft system actually said was "Hey, google is full of evil".
It doesn't matter. By far the most companies doing business with each other operate in the same country/state/city even. Thus by the 80/20 rule, that's what must be optimized first.
Yes, but it depends on how much synchronization businesses and customers that work together need.
For online businesses, a 24 hour schedule is no problem, as the customer interaction happens instantly thanks to the wonders of computers, even if it the transaction sits there for half a day afterwards, until a human can process it.
For businesses where two actual people must communicate or work together to make a transaction, the physical limit is that both must be awake and in working mode at the same time. If three companies must interact via humans, even if it is A with B and then B with C, they all must have compatible hours, and so on. That leads to common working hours, 9-5.
Sounds like you should be directing the next Saw movie ;-)
Can you explain what you're giving up? I'm not sure you know what you're giving up.
Why not name the "former antiquities minister"? Zahi Hawass has been on practically every TV show about the pyramids for as long as some slashdotters have lived. He was a consultant on the Indiana Jones set. I think he deserves more than being some anonymous Egyptian former minister.
Perhaps you didn't quite mean this, but it's a very one sided statement. There are novices and experts, and UIs shouldn't just be designed for novices. In fact, for software that gets used a lot, a user stays a novice only a small amount of time, before transitioning to advanced status. So a UI should be designed primarily for advanced users and experts first, and novices second, provided that doesn't interfere with advanced use too much.
The trouble with outside UI designers is that they think like novices, which they often are when they initially join a project. So their priorities are all wrong, and must be fought. Alternatively, they should prove that they already understand advance usage inside out, and then argue that a change is going to improve novice usage without worsening advanced usage.