Ok you weant to get technical about it, fine. The first amendment originally applied only to the federal government. But the due process clause of the 14th amendment makes most of the bill of rights (but not all of it) apply to the state governments. Therefore, the first amendment applies to the states through the 14th amendment.
Since any governmental organization in the US is either a creation of state or federal government, then the 1st amendment applies to all governmental organizations.
sounds good. Just a further note if you like to have the tea without the sugar, try the eastern european way -- with a slice of lemon and some honey. Its much healthier, just as sweet and you get a much nicer honey taste.
But I looooove having Schweppes tonic water straight (w/o the vodka) as a soft drink. It has great taste (its a little bitter). And I do not think it has much sugar. Also it is very highly carbonated which has a nice refreshing effect.
I dont mind having it with vodka either but the question concerned soft drinks.
But make sure you get the Schweppes. The canada dry tonic is not nearly as good.
This helps illustrate the biggest problem I have with C (and most other modern languages). And that is that is that you can close your eyes, start banging on the keyboard and type in some random sequence of characters and it is very likely that it will get parsed and compiled and result in some kind of random program.
In other words, because there are so much abbreviations in C, any mistake usually results in syntaticaly valid but otherwise erroneous code.
Brevity is not the end all. A more verbose language (like Pascal) can be much more helpful by catching your typos before compiling.
He has achieved notoriety because he ended up being a convenient subject of ridicule. The only way a wikipedia article about him will be used is to subject him to more ridicule. Wikipedia did the right thing.
Snopes of course can have a Brian Peppers article, because Snopes does not aim to show encyclopedic information, but to talk about rumors and urban myths.
I dont agree. Wikipedia set out to be an encyclopedia, and not an all out gathering of all possible information. As such, there is data that belongs to it and there is data that does not.
Usually information in an encyclopedia should be reliable at least to a certain extent, and such that a person may actually need to refer to it. I only saw one of the articles of the "wikitruth" site and it seems to refer to some ongoing controversy about child pornography. This is not reliable as it is obviously written by parties of the controversy, and is not even that important to anyone that is not involved in the controversy.
I must agree. Due to slashdotting I was only able to see the Justin Berry bio, and it sure as hell does not belong in an encyclopedia. Some kid starts his own kiddie porn page, recruits other kids to do it, then gets pressed by the FBI, and turns witness. Now everyone that paid him to view the kiddie porn might get reported to the FBI, and they are all very worried. Well it sucks for them, but it still does not make this info really that important.
Wikipedia has been subject to a lot of criticism in the press lately (mostly because the publishers of the competeing commercial encyclopedias have a lot of influence in the press) but here is something they did right. As the parent said, Wikipedia is supposed to only hold specific type of information, it is not supposed to be free all shouting match where everyone can air their own gripes.
in other words, Apple is usually the brand of those assholes that tell everyone how they are an artist or musician, or (best of all) a movie director and expect to be treated as superiour people because of their self declared artistic ability. In the meantime they have not created anything that has brought even a single person a little enjoyment.
Of course I dont know how much of this is really Apple's fault, but they do encourage it by making their products as conspicuous as possible.
And here comes the everpresent mob of halfwitted Mac trolls that try to screw up every discussion by mentioning apple and "the wonderful OSX" no matter how offtopic it is.
One thing I know for sure is that nobody for whom this computer was intended to gives a flying f*ck about "the wonderful Mac OS". You see it may be hard for you to understand but not everybody on this planet considers the Mac OS interface the one and only true source for happiness. Actually most people don't... only a bunch bored and culturally limited suburban kids think so.
Most people would be happy with a working computer even if it does not have those transparent icons and whetever the hell else Mac Os has. Especially since trying to get MacOs to run on this thing will at least double its cost (and maybe triple it). And thats not even considering software.
So think about what you are saying... you want the poor people of the word to pay at least twice as much for their "Affordable" computer so you can affirm your fanatical belief in the infallibility of the holy Apple.
Most poor people already have religion. They just need a computer.
1. the math you need for software and the math you do in college in general is very different from the math you see in high school. There are much less numbers and formula memorization and there is a lot more conceptual thinking.
2. Anything you decide to do will have some difficult parts. That is life. If you keep running away from challanges you will never get anywhere. If you truly like writing programs and figuring out complex algorithms, then you should just stick it out with some math that may not be as enjoyable.
This is the funniest April fools joke yet. State of digital music. Ipds. ROFL. How do they come up with this stuff?
I mean look at the "news story" -- just a bunch of fluff sayng absolutely nothing new (or nothing that hasnt been repeated a thousand times on slashdot), nothing of any technical or scientific interest and designed merely to get a bunch of Apple fanboys to feel good about themselves to get Apple some good publicity and to get designtechnica (whatever the fcuk that is) some extra hits.
As if that would ever be put on Slashdot. I mean only stuff that matters gets shown here. But it makes for a funny joke. HAHAHAHA
You changed the color scheme way before you put in this story. In order for a joke to be good all the elements of it must arrive more or less at the same time.
Now we knew the scheme was changed, we knew it was part of an April fools joke, and by the time the actual story came it was just not as funny as it could have been.
But I have to admit it was much funnier than Slashdot's previous attempts of April 1st humor.
Let me give you a good example of the "integration" of the movie and gaming divisions of Lucasfilm. I remmeber when I saw phantom menace there was a half an hour part of the movie that had nothing to do with the rest of the plot or the development of the characters.
It was the pod race. I kept thinking "why is this in the movie"... "and why in the world do they spend so much time introducing various racer characters which are obviously completely unrelated to the plot"... "and why are the big jedi who are supposedly on an important mission waiting for this kid to race around"... but then the pod race started looking familiar to me... it reminded me of a lame PS1 racing game called wipeout (i think). And then I thought wow... they have this whole thing in the movie only so that they can sell a lame clone of a PS1 game.
Sure enough a day or so after i saw people playing a wipeout clone which features the phantom menace pod race.
I guess this is what they call synergy in the movie business.
I agree. Starcraft was much better than WC3, and is probably the best RTS made so far. However, I also really hope Starcraft is not the end of the genre and Blizzard actually tries to make Starcraft2.
As such their refocusing on cosnoles is really worrying. It is well known that RTSs have always sucked on consoles. If Blizzard decides to go to consoles they will probably abandon the RTS genre.
I think that a camera is probably the worst candidate for convergence. I suppose by convergence people usually refer to convergence of communication/personal organization features. A mobile device that achieves that will be very succesfull.
As far as camera's go, in my opinion, they are completely pointless on any device whose primary purpose is not to be a digital camera. Cellphone/PDA cameras are bulky and of low quality. Which makes them kind of pointless. Furthermore, it is safe to say that cellphone cameras will be of low quality for the all foreseeable future, because higher processing power will not help them much. A good camera needs good lenses and those require space. Lenses cannot be etched on silicon, like electronics. Thus, to get high quality cell phone cameras we will need advances in material science and micro mechanics and advances in those fields come along much slower.
Meanwhile, anybody that actually needs a camera can just bring a digital camera along.
I mean who writes these things? Can you talk about the aging effect of space rediation without going off on a tangent about relativity. The two are completely unrelated you know.
Also as others have said relativistic speeds do not really extend your life. From the point of view of the person travelling at a high speed his/her life will not feel any longer.
Science where relevant should influence politics. Science in essence is an attempt to study reality and of naturally politics should be based on reality. And this is especially true in sciences which have been found to be reliable such as physics and chemistry.
In the unlikely event that any theatre owners are watching this, I would like to state the obvious -- digital cinema will destroy theatres. They would have to be fscking stupid to use it.
Theatres have always thrived on providing better viewing experience than home television. Thats why when television became popular, theatres adopted the wide screen format.
The problem with Digital is that it is not really better than a good TV set. And technologicaly TV sets have actually better potential for improvement than digital movie screens.
If movie theatres were smart, they would insist on improvements o film technology. All the current problems with film, such as flicker, and film imperfections could be fixed with better technology. Advanced robotics can be used to completely aliminate all flicker, and larger film size can make the picture so good, digital tvs will not be able to match it for another hundred years.
Also, i bet most of the technical issues concerning high quality film projection have already been researched and resolved in the context of computer chip manufacturing.
The studios like digital film distribution because (i) it saves them money because they do not have to produce film and (ii) even if people stop going to the movies, the studios figure people would just buy more DVDs. But the theatres should realize that their interests are not really aligned with those of the movie studios.
"I know the concept of Olympians being amateurs is outdated, but shouldn't they be barred from competition for this sort of thing?"
Well, it is correct that the Olympics no longer require that the contestants be amateurs, but even if they did the Australian in question would still be an amateur. I.e., olympic athletes were always allowed to be professionals in some field but untill few years ago they were not allowed to be pros in the field they are competing in. So the quoted sentence does not make much sence.
A think a much bigger issue is what this guy did may have been a crime in many of the countries he was doing it in. So should a criminal be allowed in the Olympics? I don't know... but since he probably has not been convicted anywhere, I dont think the Olympic games is the correct place to judge him.
What a meaningless test. Testing elevator robots for a space elevator when you do not have the carbon tubes to develop it is like testing seat cushions for an automobile when you do not have the internal combustion engine.
The most challenging thing about a space elevator is the "carbon nanotube composite ribbon". Yet all these companies that say that they are about to build a space elevator not only have not developped one but are not even trying to, instead they are doing silly demonstrations and studies which just assume that somebody else will develop a 65 000 mile (!!!) long carbon fibre rope anytime now.
So do not get excited, all of these tests are silly publicity stunts... the important research at this point has to be done at the molecular level and we are very far off from what we need. So far the longest carbon nanotube ever created is 0.4 cm long, and that is quite far off from 65 000 miles.
By the way notice how the press release that slashdot linked to slyly avoids the issue of what kind of rope they are using for the testing. When they describe the space elevator in the abstract they say that it will require "a carbon nanotube composite ribbon", when they describe their own test they say they used "a ribbon". A little misleading, some might say.
Their business plan seems pretty obvious. But just in case I will state it in the usual slashdot fashion:
1. buy out all competitors 2. charge high prices 3. profit
The same method has been used with some success by other companies (such as legal data providers, for example). But I am not sure it will work here. I mean on one hand they are eliminating competitors, but on the other, they are sending a clear message to developers, that if you want millions of dollars all you have to do is write a commercial grade database and let Oracle buy you out.
Then Oracle will just be breeding new competitors as it buys out the old ones.
hell even i am thinking of hitting the books and writing a database now. Considering the multi-million dollar reward... how hard could it be?
Slashdot Mirror
Ok you weant to get technical about it, fine. The first amendment originally applied only to the federal government. But the due process clause of the 14th amendment makes most of the bill of rights (but not all of it) apply to the state governments. Therefore, the first amendment applies to the states through the 14th amendment.
Since any governmental organization in the US is either a creation of state or federal government, then the 1st amendment applies to all governmental organizations.
Yes they are. They are governmental organizations.
coz we still have cheap motels (thank god).
sounds good. Just a further note if you like to have the tea without the sugar, try the eastern european way -- with a slice of lemon and some honey. Its much healthier, just as sweet and you get a much nicer honey taste.
But I looooove having Schweppes tonic water straight (w/o the vodka) as a soft drink. It has great taste (its a little bitter). And I do not think it has much sugar. Also it is very highly carbonated which has a nice refreshing effect.
I dont mind having it with vodka either but the question concerned soft drinks.
But make sure you get the Schweppes. The canada dry tonic is not nearly as good.
This helps illustrate the biggest problem I have with C (and most other modern languages). And that is that is that you can close your eyes, start banging on the keyboard and type in some random sequence of characters and it is very likely that it will get parsed and compiled and result in some kind of random program.
In other words, because there are so much abbreviations in C, any mistake usually results in syntaticaly valid but otherwise erroneous code.
Brevity is not the end all. A more verbose language (like Pascal) can be much more helpful by catching your typos before compiling.
He has achieved notoriety because he ended up being a convenient subject of ridicule. The only way a wikipedia article about him will be used is to subject him to more ridicule. Wikipedia did the right thing.
Snopes of course can have a Brian Peppers article, because Snopes does not aim to show encyclopedic information, but to talk about rumors and urban myths.
I dont agree. Wikipedia set out to be an encyclopedia, and not an all out gathering of all possible information. As such, there is data that belongs to it and there is data that does not.
Usually information in an encyclopedia should be reliable at least to a certain extent, and such that a person may actually need to refer to it. I only saw one of the articles of the "wikitruth" site and it seems to refer to some ongoing controversy about child pornography. This is not reliable as it is obviously written by parties of the controversy, and is not even that important to anyone that is not involved in the controversy.
I must agree. Due to slashdotting I was only able to see the Justin Berry bio, and it sure as hell does not belong in an encyclopedia. Some kid starts his own kiddie porn page, recruits other kids to do it, then gets pressed by the FBI, and turns witness. Now everyone that paid him to view the kiddie porn might get reported to the FBI, and they are all very worried. Well it sucks for them, but it still does not make this info really that important.
Wikipedia has been subject to a lot of criticism in the press lately (mostly because the publishers of the competeing commercial encyclopedias have a lot of influence in the press) but here is something they did right. As the parent said, Wikipedia is supposed to only hold specific type of information, it is not supposed to be free all shouting match where everyone can air their own gripes.
in other words, Apple is usually the brand of those assholes that tell everyone how they are an artist or musician, or (best of all) a movie director and expect to be treated as superiour people because of their self declared artistic ability. In the meantime they have not created anything that has brought even a single person a little enjoyment.
Of course I dont know how much of this is really Apple's fault, but they do encourage it by making their products as conspicuous as possible.
They have to write informative headlines now.
And here comes the everpresent mob of halfwitted Mac trolls that try to screw up every discussion by mentioning apple and "the wonderful OSX" no matter how offtopic it is.
... only a bunch bored and culturally limited suburban kids think so.
... you want the poor people of the word to pay at least twice as much for their "Affordable" computer so you can affirm your fanatical belief in the infallibility of the holy Apple.
One thing I know for sure is that nobody for whom this computer was intended to gives a flying f*ck about "the wonderful Mac OS". You see it may be hard for you to understand but not everybody on this planet considers the Mac OS interface the one and only true source for happiness. Actually most people don't
Most people would be happy with a working computer even if it does not have those transparent icons and whetever the hell else Mac Os has. Especially since trying to get MacOs to run on this thing will at least double its cost (and maybe triple it). And thats not even considering software.
So think about what you are saying
Most poor people already have religion. They just need a computer.
1. the math you need for software and the math you do in college in general is very different from the math you see in high school. There are much less numbers and formula memorization and there is a lot more conceptual thinking.
2. Anything you decide to do will have some difficult parts. That is life. If you keep running away from challanges you will never get anywhere. If you truly like writing programs and figuring out complex algorithms, then you should just stick it out with some math that may not be as enjoyable.
This is the funniest April fools joke yet. State of digital music. Ipds. ROFL. How do they come up with this stuff?
I mean look at the "news story" -- just a bunch of fluff sayng absolutely nothing new (or nothing that hasnt been repeated a thousand times on slashdot), nothing of any technical or scientific interest and designed merely to get a bunch of Apple fanboys to feel good about themselves to get Apple some good publicity and to get designtechnica (whatever the fcuk that is) some extra hits.
As if that would ever be put on Slashdot. I mean only stuff that matters gets shown here. But it makes for a funny joke. HAHAHAHA
You changed the color scheme way before you put in this story. In order for a joke to be good all the elements of it must arrive more or less at the same time.
Now we knew the scheme was changed, we knew it was part of an April fools joke, and by the time the actual story came it was just not as funny as it could have been.
But I have to admit it was much funnier than Slashdot's previous attempts of April 1st humor.
Let me give you a good example of the "integration" of the movie and gaming divisions of Lucasfilm. I remmeber when I saw phantom menace there was a half an hour part of the movie that had nothing to do with the rest of the plot or the development of the characters.
... "and why in the world do they spend so much time introducing various racer characters which are obviously completely unrelated to the plot" ... "and why are the big jedi who are supposedly on an important mission waiting for this kid to race around" ... but then the pod race started looking familiar to me... it reminded me of a lame PS1 racing game called wipeout (i think). And then I thought wow ... they have this whole thing in the movie only so that they can sell a lame clone of a PS1 game.
It was the pod race. I kept thinking "why is this in the movie"
Sure enough a day or so after i saw people playing a wipeout clone which features the phantom menace pod race.
I guess this is what they call synergy in the movie business.
I agree. Starcraft was much better than WC3, and is probably the best RTS made so far. However, I also really hope Starcraft is not the end of the genre and Blizzard actually tries to make Starcraft2.
As such their refocusing on cosnoles is really worrying. It is well known that RTSs have always sucked on consoles. If Blizzard decides to go to consoles they will probably abandon the RTS genre.
I think that a camera is probably the worst candidate for convergence. I suppose by convergence people usually refer to convergence of communication/personal organization features. A mobile device that achieves that will be very succesfull.
As far as camera's go, in my opinion, they are completely pointless on any device whose primary purpose is not to be a digital camera. Cellphone/PDA cameras are bulky and of low quality. Which makes them kind of pointless. Furthermore, it is safe to say that cellphone cameras will be of low quality for the all foreseeable future, because higher processing power will not help them much. A good camera needs good lenses and those require space. Lenses cannot be etched on silicon, like electronics. Thus, to get high quality cell phone cameras we will need advances in material science and micro mechanics and advances in those fields come along much slower.
Meanwhile, anybody that actually needs a camera can just bring a digital camera along.
... ever.
I mean who writes these things? Can you talk about the aging effect of space rediation without going off on a tangent about relativity. The two are completely unrelated you know.
Also as others have said relativistic speeds do not really extend your life. From the point of view of the person travelling at a high speed his/her life will not feel any longer.
Science where relevant should influence politics. Science in essence is an attempt to study reality and of naturally politics should be based on reality. And this is especially true in sciences which have been found to be reliable such as physics and chemistry.
They disabled them so well the Argentinians sank a British destroyer.
In the unlikely event that any theatre owners are watching this, I would like to state the obvious -- digital cinema will destroy theatres. They would have to be fscking stupid to use it.
Theatres have always thrived on providing better viewing experience than home television. Thats why when television became popular, theatres adopted the wide screen format.
The problem with Digital is that it is not really better than a good TV set. And technologicaly TV sets have actually better potential for improvement than digital movie screens.
If movie theatres were smart, they would insist on improvements o film technology. All the current problems with film, such as flicker, and film imperfections could be fixed with better technology. Advanced robotics can be used to completely aliminate all flicker, and larger film size can make the picture so good, digital tvs will not be able to match it for another hundred years.
Also, i bet most of the technical issues concerning high quality film projection have already been researched and resolved in the context of computer chip manufacturing.
The studios like digital film distribution because (i) it saves them money because they do not have to produce film and (ii) even if people stop going to the movies, the studios figure people would just buy more DVDs. But the theatres should realize that their interests are not really aligned with those of the movie studios.
From the original Slashdot story:
... but since he probably has not been convicted anywhere, I dont think the Olympic games is the correct place to judge him.
"I know the concept of Olympians being amateurs is outdated, but shouldn't they be barred from competition for this sort of thing?"
Well, it is correct that the Olympics no longer require that the contestants be amateurs, but even if they did the Australian in question would still be an amateur. I.e., olympic athletes were always allowed to be professionals in some field but untill few years ago they were not allowed to be pros in the field they are competing in. So the quoted sentence does not make much sence.
A think a much bigger issue is what this guy did may have been a crime in many of the countries he was doing it in. So should a criminal be allowed in the Olympics? I don't know
What a meaningless test. Testing elevator robots for a space elevator when you do not have the carbon tubes to develop it is like testing seat cushions for an automobile when you do not have the internal combustion engine.
... the important research at this point has to be done at the molecular level and we are very far off from what we need. So far the longest carbon nanotube ever created is 0.4 cm long, and that is quite far off from 65 000 miles.
The most challenging thing about a space elevator is the "carbon nanotube composite ribbon". Yet all these companies that say that they are about to build a space elevator not only have not developped one but are not even trying to, instead they are doing silly demonstrations and studies which just assume that somebody else will develop a 65 000 mile (!!!) long carbon fibre rope anytime now.
So do not get excited, all of these tests are silly publicity stunts
By the way notice how the press release that slashdot linked to slyly avoids the issue of what kind of rope they are using for the testing. When they describe the space elevator in the abstract they say that it will require "a carbon nanotube composite ribbon", when they describe their own test they say they used "a ribbon". A little misleading, some might say.
Their business plan seems pretty obvious. But just in case I will state it in the usual slashdot fashion:
... how hard could it be?
1. buy out all competitors
2. charge high prices
3. profit
The same method has been used with some success by other companies (such as legal data providers, for example). But I am not sure it will work here. I mean on one hand they are eliminating competitors, but on the other, they are sending a clear message to developers, that if you want millions of dollars all you have to do is write a commercial grade database and let Oracle buy you out.
Then Oracle will just be breeding new competitors as it buys out the old ones.
hell even i am thinking of hitting the books and writing a database now. Considering the multi-million dollar reward