when I see a copy of the NYTimes laying around, I pick it up and leaf through it.
In an airport, I'd sooner buy NYTimes than USAToday, because I have online experience with NYTimes. I know the Times' writing will satisfy me more than the pretty colors in the alternative.
I would _never_ have become interested in the rag if I hadn't started reading it online.
In addition, I read much less news in my local paper, because I like the non-local coverage in the NYTimes MUCH better. I also tell my friends about it.
But plastics are easier and cheaper to make and sculpt than other materials, so the achievement may eventually lead to some applications, including components for future computers that use quantum mechanical calculations.
I Am Not A Layperson, and I am not aware that anyone knows anything about how to construct a quantum mechanical computer.
Sounds more to me like a journalist who likes to spice up their writing with pseudoscience.
But, now that cancer is getting more and more curable, maybe quantum computing will become the new universal justification for grantwriting?
IANAL, but it seems to me that Aimster is setting up a nice reducto-ad-absurdium demonstration that DMCA is incosistent with the US law.
In addition, they're using AIM and buddy lists from AOL.
There is more than cunning Boies legalese here. Any argument that is raised against Aimster will likely attack AOL as well. AOL has money. Whatever legal strategy they pursue can then be used by Aimster.
Some lawyer out there has a good understanding of Goedel's incompleteness theorem, and has chopped up DMCA into little coded pieces, put them through the legal mill, and got a nice little paradox from it. You can tweak the DMCA all you want, but the basic concept is logically and inherently flawed.
Picture the day when all computers are downloading Microsoft Works (ha) and enjoying "improved security."
One single, trusted source of reliable, secure software.
A whole internet of cookie-cutter systems.
Now, any given security hole would be
A) plugged immediately in the next download,
B) exploited with unimaginable ease by crackers.
Iterate these options over the range of security holes.
The moral is: a diversity of security implementations protects the internet by limiting the amount of damage that one security hole can do.
> But picture this also. 30 or so years after this technology is in place with animals and is seen as safe and solid, they could start to trial this technology on prisoners for example to see how they go in society at first and slowly introduce it to every baby born.
Yeah, start with prisoners. In fact, you could eliminate prisons: instead of keeping them _in_ (requiring a cage), keep them _out_ (their chip locks doors that would otherwise be open).
Of course, you could control lots of things with these chips. And as you point out, why use them just for prisoners? Anyone who wants to do mainstream commerce would have one. Checks and cash would be obsolete, or at least inherently suspect.
Inmagine the fine granularity of reward and punishment in such a system.
Every scanner is going to squirt a few hundred bytes (11 byte for the ID, how many for GPS, and so on) into the web for every product within an X meter sphere (who cares what X is?).
Some database, somewhere, gets to index it.
Some data warehouse gets to reduce it.
Some fabulous graphics get spashed up at planetary control, real time.
20. Dumb & Dumber
19. Forbidden Planet
18. Lost in Space
17. Greater Tuna
16. 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea
15. Apollo 13
14. Flight of the Phoenix
13. Quest for Fire
12. The Abyss
11. Invasion of the Body Snatchers
10. Night of the Living Dead
9. The Day the Earth Stood Still
8. This Island Earth
7. The Man who Fell to Earth
6. Young Frankenstein
5. 2001, A Space Odyssy
4. Twilight's Last Gleaming
3. Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan
2. Debbie Does Dallas
1. Amazon Women on the Moon
Slashdot Mirror
> >This is NOT a case of copyright infridgement.
> You mean "infringement"? "Infridgement" is what you do with beer.
Beer just wants to be free.
Forget the moon bases, I anxiously await computers that can converse.
OTOH, I never wanted a videophone, and still don't.
when I see a copy of the NYTimes laying around, I pick it up and leaf through it.
In an airport, I'd sooner buy NYTimes than USAToday, because I have online experience with NYTimes. I know the Times' writing will satisfy me more than the pretty colors in the alternative.
I would _never_ have become interested in the rag if I hadn't started reading it online.
In addition, I read much less news in my local paper, because I like the non-local coverage in the NYTimes MUCH better. I also tell my friends about it.
The filter on my feed won't let the FCC directive through.
Would somebody please post the text to Slashdot?
Wait....
Does anybody have a copy of the Ken Starr report, with all of the clean parts edited out?
...the hit list had been judges, not doctors.
They're already going up: roadside storefronts offering to disable the pron filter on your computer.
I Am Not A Layperson, and I am not aware that anyone knows anything about how to construct a quantum mechanical computer.
Sounds more to me like a journalist who likes to spice up their writing with pseudoscience.
But, now that cancer is getting more and more curable, maybe quantum computing will become the new universal justification for grantwriting?
> Ceramics on the other hand, are made up of materials which make up 20% of the earth's crust...
With what shall we make the energy to melt the earths crust into ceramics? Surely not fossil fuels. Nukes? Wind?
IANAL, but it seems to me that Aimster is setting up a nice reducto-ad-absurdium demonstration that DMCA is incosistent with the US law.
In addition, they're using AIM and buddy lists from AOL.
There is more than cunning Boies legalese here. Any argument that is raised against Aimster will likely attack AOL as well. AOL has money. Whatever legal strategy they pursue can then be used by Aimster.
Some lawyer out there has a good understanding of Goedel's incompleteness theorem, and has chopped up DMCA into little coded pieces, put them through the legal mill, and got a nice little paradox from it. You can tweak the DMCA all you want, but the basic concept is logically and inherently flawed.
Picture the day when all computers are downloading Microsoft Works (ha) and enjoying "improved security."
One single, trusted source of reliable, secure software.
A whole internet of cookie-cutter systems.
Now, any given security hole would be
A) plugged immediately in the next download,
B) exploited with unimaginable ease by crackers.
Iterate these options over the range of security holes.
The moral is: a diversity of security implementations protects the internet by limiting the amount of damage that one security hole can do.
It's the usenet of the gods. Once the basic DNA coding was done and distributed, spam began to clog the works. Software bloat, the whole enchilada.
Half-heartedly hidden in the object code you can find "!seineew era sreenigne tfosorciM"
> But picture this also. 30 or so years after this technology is in place with animals and is seen as safe and solid, they could start to trial this technology on prisoners for example to see how they go in society at first and slowly introduce it to every baby born.
Yeah, start with prisoners. In fact, you could eliminate prisons: instead of keeping them _in_ (requiring a cage), keep them _out_ (their chip locks doors that would otherwise be open).
Of course, you could control lots of things with these chips. And as you point out, why use them just for prisoners? Anyone who wants to do mainstream commerce would have one. Checks and cash would be obsolete, or at least inherently suspect.
Inmagine the fine granularity of reward and punishment in such a system.
Every scanner is going to squirt a few hundred bytes (11 byte for the ID, how many for GPS, and so on) into the web for every product within an X meter sphere (who cares what X is?).
Some database, somewhere, gets to index it.
Some data warehouse gets to reduce it.
Some fabulous graphics get spashed up at planetary control, real time.
Who was it that was selling this technology? Sun?
Did anyone check to see if this guy is human?
Hah. RIAA says Napster doesn't "have the technology." What a laugh.
If that's their best defense, let them climb further out on the limb. No need to even saw it off for them.
So that's why that "download your baby photo" hoax was collecting people's birthdays.
Clearly the ultimate would be bash in bash.
Use your hard-earned Large Scale Integrated Circuits to fight the space program.
Quick, before they invent something else for you to complain with.
This reminds me of when I used to turn up the filament voltage on the tube tester to torture the poor little vacuum tubes.
> even when it makes two years of mistakes up until that point. This is where the 'bunch of smart guys' quotent pays off.
Limit the money and you also limit the number of pointy-haired bosses.
It's nice to own a Caddy with a HUD.
Still, I have trouble driving rentals now. I keep hitting things when I'm out of town.
It's not so bad when I turn on the headlights.
20. Dumb & Dumber
19. Forbidden Planet
18. Lost in Space
17. Greater Tuna
16. 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea
15. Apollo 13
14. Flight of the Phoenix
13. Quest for Fire
12. The Abyss
11. Invasion of the Body Snatchers
10. Night of the Living Dead
9. The Day the Earth Stood Still
8. This Island Earth
7. The Man who Fell to Earth
6. Young Frankenstein
5. 2001, A Space Odyssy
4. Twilight's Last Gleaming
3. Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan
2. Debbie Does Dallas
1. Amazon Women on the Moon
> I would assume that they could afford one player for each region.
Silly, they got 20 _DVD's_, not 20 Movies.
One for each region.
> So, who's laws apply in Space?
Locally, Newton's.
Globally, Einstein's.