I think you *should* use human tissues for specific medical use. So do a lot of other people. Heart transplants are a good example. The "slippery slope" argument hasn't stopped organ donation (nor should it) - why should cloning (dealing with individual organs that don't belong to a living human) be any different from transplants (dealing with whole bodies that don't belong to a living human)? Did the availability of transplants result in bums being in danger walking by a hospital, or Neuromancer's cheap plastic replacements? Why would cloning be more dangerous?
Time to install Flash 6 on my girlfriend's computer! Too bad I don't live in the dorms anymore, man, that could be fun... This has even more potential than those folks at X10 ever dreamed of w/ their 'spy on [insert hot chick here]' ads!
Um, hate to be the frist to tell you, but it's a COMIC BOOK. Physics are supposed to be off. Lifelike character motion while swinging along a few hundred feet of silk strung between buildings won't make for nearly as interesting a story - it's simply too slow at the beginning and end of the swing. Want a realistic comic book fight? Stick to wrestling, but be prepared that it's a lot slower and less exciting for one guy to beat up 4 others when constrained by physics, and it tends to require rather unbelievable cooperation from the guys getting beat up. The poetic license helps make the story quicker and cooler, the whole thing is more fun because of the impossible animation. And in the end, isn't that the point?
For example, Episode 1 had so much advertising and marketing tie-ins they're still stuck with surplus toys (and are making fewer toys for Episode 2, thankfully). And it still sucked (if 'popular' requires people to like something, it failed miserably on that count, although DVD box sets will probably pull off 'enduring'). Amelie had negligible advertising, and everyone loved it. Infinite advertising has indeed made the Backstreet Boys 'popular', but 'enduring' is remarkably unlikely. In short, popular and enduring doesn't seem to correlate to advertising, so your one-liner needs some defense even though it's good enough to survive the nanosecond of scrutiny a Slashdot moderator gives it.
I'll bet there will be more reasonable and pleased responses to this than to any other Katz article, and hopefully teach Katz something about the power and nature of a good review.
... why isn't it a standard/normal/expected feature these days to control web traffic based on who wants it and where they're coming from? Sure, a *few* sites check referers when serving pictures, but it's the exception rather than the norm. And I don't really see why; the technology exists, why isn't it easier to use and used more?
In general, we're still stuck with an archaic 'public file system' notion of the web, rather than the intelligent 'request/response negotiation' notion that was originally intended, primarily because public-file-system was easier. It makes me sad.
The interesting part is he actually ran an experiment on it:
I was curious as to how many people our email request was scaring away. So (sneaky Joel) we changed the demo signup so that 50% of the guinea pigs, er, potential customers had to provide an email address and 50% didn't.
Result: about half of the people gave up when asked to type in an email address. We want people to try the demo, so we changed it to never ask for an email address."
This is 100% fine and dandy for a CS major who needs to be judged and weeded out. But I don't think I'd do very well in an intro physics class where I wasn't allowed to talk to my peers about the course, and I don't think it's reasonable that Tech asks the same of non-CS undergrads. Banning study groups just doesn't seem like a good way to help people learn.
I believe a reasonable solution to the problem of conflicting goals for in-major and out-of-major students is something called 'honors courses', but Tech's CS department doesn't agree.
The official remake/sequel/port of MULE got canned because the company doing it insisted on adding weapons, and the author (thankfully!) wouldn't allow it. ( Source: Read in a game mag interview that I can't find now, and mentioned separately at Retrogaming Times )
But, if the original designer's new version had to be scrapped due to unacceptable monkeying with it, what are the odds of this knock-off *not* monkeying too much, especially given that sufficient monkeying might give them some legal protection? So, I'm not getting my hopes up.
This drives me crazy: "...they were being constructed and posted by regular people in my community, trying to make a buck. I knew deep inside that the people I was really after were the people that run the Herbalife Corporation itself. "
NO!!! The fact that there is a bigger fish doesn't make what a littler fish does ok. The whole attitude is broken: "he's not really to blame, we want to get the guy above him" ensures that "the guy above him" always has plenty of people to do his dirty work. Get 'em all. If he's doing something wrong, BLAME the little man - so what if he just wants to make a buck, there are some ways you just don't do it! If people would refuse to do the wrong thing in the first place, then we wouldn't have the problem. The whole attitude that whatever I do is ok because somebody else talked me into has *got* to go.
...you would have stayed with the feds, but money talks, no matter what anyone says about all these other benefits that are supposedly worth taking pay cuts for.
And as for the alleged benefits, how is lack of accountability ("VERY hard to get laid off/fired.") a good thing? It means the morons you work with will be rewarded for being morons and you're stuck with them. What self respecting techie would want that? Being stuck surrounded by ineptitude is too high a price to pay, no matter what the benefit.
And we won't even talk about 'lots of management' and how rewarding and satisfying *that* makes a job. You're arguing how nice it is to be put out to pasture and not have much asked of you, but dear God I hope most of us don't need that yet. And when we do someday, no need for the feds - there is always SAS Institute.
"Several times a day, a pharmacy technician places the items in trays labeled for various nursing stations, locks the safe, and punches codes for the drugs' destinations into TOBOR's computer"
It's hard to tell by reading, but what it boils down to is that they have patented hooking a buffer up to a bus then locking the bus for the duration of a transmission in order to be able to transmit without the overhead of using headers.
Like every other software patent I've ever seen, it looks like BS to me, but at least they didn't patent hyperlinks.
If they can't compete, let 'em die. A company does not have a god-given right to existence. They'll survive if the consumer values their unique contribution (local flavor); if the consumer doesn't value this contribution, then exactly why were they being protected in the first place?
Open Source can pay programmers if the product is used to get a job done, but isn't the job itself. It works very well for tools that an I.T. shop needs; the development cost can be spread across several I.T. shops. It works horribly for a product that a software firm tries to developer and sell services on; other software firms can undercut.
In short, the ideal open source economic incentive is to share the cost of the development of code for the purpose of reducing existing costs, not for the purpose of selling a product.
"Who's Watching Me" now has a moral obligation to attempt to use the DMCA 'reverse engineering' rubbish for good instead of evil. This will further our anti-DMCA agenda, since if anything has a chance of getting the DMCA struck down, it's people trying to do reasonable things and defend existing freedoms with it. Using the DMCA to stop spy software would be like using free speech to criticize the government - you better believe the 'powers that be' aren't gonna like it, but it's the right thing to do.
Weren't we supposed to avoid Blizzard due to DMCA abuse, like we're supposed to stop going to movie theaters or buying CDs? If there is no financial penalty to their actions, what will get companies to stop trying to destroy 'fair use'?
Slashdot Mirror
I think you *should* use human tissues for specific medical use. So do a lot of other people. Heart transplants are a good example. The "slippery slope" argument hasn't stopped organ donation (nor should it) - why should cloning (dealing with individual organs that don't belong to a living human) be any different from transplants (dealing with whole bodies that don't belong to a living human)? Did the availability of transplants result in bums being in danger walking by a hospital, or Neuromancer's cheap plastic replacements? Why would cloning be more dangerous?
Ever heard of cheating? You don't read Slashdot regularly, do you?
Time to install Flash 6 on my girlfriend's computer!
Too bad I don't live in the dorms anymore, man, that could be fun...
This has even more potential than those folks at X10 ever dreamed of w/ their 'spy on [insert hot chick here]' ads!
Um, hate to be the frist to tell you, but it's a COMIC BOOK. Physics are supposed to be off. Lifelike character motion while swinging along a few hundred feet of silk strung between buildings won't make for nearly as interesting a story - it's simply too slow at the beginning and end of the swing. Want a realistic comic book fight? Stick to wrestling, but be prepared that it's a lot slower and less exciting for one guy to beat up 4 others when constrained by physics, and it tends to require rather unbelievable cooperation from the guys getting beat up. The poetic license helps make the story quicker and cooler, the whole thing is more fun because of the impossible animation. And in the end, isn't that the point?
For example, Episode 1 had so much advertising and marketing tie-ins they're still stuck with surplus toys (and are making fewer toys for Episode 2, thankfully). And it still sucked (if 'popular' requires people to like something, it failed miserably on that count, although DVD box sets will probably pull off 'enduring'). Amelie had negligible advertising, and everyone loved it. Infinite advertising has indeed made the Backstreet Boys 'popular', but 'enduring' is remarkably unlikely. In short, popular and enduring doesn't seem to correlate to advertising, so your one-liner needs some defense even though it's good enough to survive the nanosecond of scrutiny a Slashdot moderator gives it.
Katz posted something reasonable!
I'll bet there will be more reasonable and pleased responses to this than to any other Katz article, and hopefully teach Katz something about the power and nature of a good review.
... why isn't it a standard/normal/expected feature these days to control web traffic based on who wants it and where they're coming from? Sure, a *few* sites check referers when serving pictures, but it's the exception rather than the norm. And I don't really see why; the technology exists, why isn't it easier to use and used more?
In general, we're still stuck with an archaic 'public file system' notion of the web, rather than the intelligent 'request/response negotiation' notion that was originally intended, primarily because public-file-system was easier. It makes me sad.
They should have filtered out .gov from their dumb peep-at-home ad campaign!!!
This is 100% fine and dandy for a CS major who needs to be judged and weeded out. But I don't think I'd do very well in an intro physics class where I wasn't allowed to talk to my peers about the course, and I don't think it's reasonable that Tech asks the same of non-CS undergrads. Banning study groups just doesn't seem like a good way to help people learn.
I believe a reasonable solution to the problem of conflicting goals for in-major and out-of-major students is something called 'honors courses', but Tech's CS department doesn't agree.
The official remake/sequel/port of MULE got canned because the company doing it insisted on adding weapons, and the author (thankfully!) wouldn't allow it. ( Source: Read in a game mag interview that I can't find now, and mentioned separately at Retrogaming Times )
But, if the original designer's new version had to be scrapped due to unacceptable monkeying with it, what are the odds of this knock-off *not* monkeying too much, especially given that sufficient monkeying might give them some legal protection? So, I'm not getting my hopes up.
"Lie about your income, your age gender and race... we can stick a big old monkeywrench right up their database" The Privacy Song
This drives me crazy: "...they were being constructed and posted by regular people in my community, trying to make a buck. I knew deep inside that the people I was really after were the people that run the Herbalife Corporation itself. "
NO!!!
The fact that there is a bigger fish doesn't make what a littler fish does ok. The whole attitude is broken: "he's not really to blame, we want to get the guy above him" ensures that "the guy above him" always has plenty of people to do his dirty work. Get 'em all. If he's doing something wrong, BLAME the little man - so what if he just wants to make a buck, there are some ways you just don't do it! If people would refuse to do the wrong thing in the first place, then we wouldn't have the problem. The whole attitude that whatever I do is ok because somebody else talked me into has *got* to go.
And as for the alleged benefits, how is lack of accountability ("VERY hard to get laid off/fired.") a good thing? It means the morons you work with will be rewarded for being morons and you're stuck with them. What self respecting techie would want that? Being stuck surrounded by ineptitude is too high a price to pay, no matter what the benefit.
And we won't even talk about 'lots of management' and how rewarding and satisfying *that* makes a job. You're arguing how nice it is to be put out to pasture and not have much asked of you, but dear God I hope most of us don't need that yet. And when we do someday, no need for the feds - there is always SAS Institute.
Can YOUR r00t3d web server deliver THIS?
"Several times a day, a pharmacy technician places the items in trays labeled for various nursing stations, locks the safe, and punches codes for the drugs' destinations into TOBOR's computer"
It's hard to tell by reading, but what it boils down to is that they have patented hooking a buffer up to a bus then locking the bus for the duration of a transmission in order to be able to transmit without the overhead of using headers.
Like every other software patent I've ever seen, it looks like BS to me, but at least they didn't patent hyperlinks.
If they can't compete, let 'em die. A company does not have a god-given right to existence. They'll survive if the consumer values their unique contribution (local flavor); if the consumer doesn't value this contribution, then exactly why were they being protected in the first place?
Local newspapers still exist. No reason to believe it would be different for television shows.
In the land of Azeroth .
War was beginning.
Orc Shaman: What happen?
Grunt: Somebody set us up the bomb.
Peon: We get signal.
Shaman: What?
Peon: Ready to work.
Shaman: It's you!!
Blizzard: How are you gentlemen
Blizzard: All your base are belong to us.
Blizzard: You are on the way to destruction.
Blizzard: You have no chance to survive make your time.
HA HA HA HA . . .
This 'no really good games' comment being modded up is a sad april's fools joke, right? GT3? GTA3? Halo? What crack are you smoking?
The best model is Apache.
Open Source can pay programmers if the product is used to get a job done, but isn't the job itself. It works very well for tools that an I.T. shop needs; the development cost can be spread across several I.T. shops. It works horribly for a product that a software firm tries to developer and sell services on; other software firms can undercut.
In short, the ideal open source economic incentive is to share the cost of the development of code for the purpose of reducing existing costs, not for the purpose of selling a product.
Red Dwarf figured it all out years ago, watch "Better Than Life"
"Who's Watching Me" now has a moral obligation to attempt to use the DMCA 'reverse engineering' rubbish for good instead of evil. This will further our anti-DMCA agenda, since if anything has a chance of getting the DMCA struck down, it's people trying to do reasonable things and defend existing freedoms with it. Using the DMCA to stop spy software would be like using free speech to criticize the government - you better believe the 'powers that be' aren't gonna like it, but it's the right thing to do.
Perhaps new news would be better? http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/03/19/132123 9&mode=thread
Weren't we supposed to avoid Blizzard due to DMCA abuse, like we're supposed to stop going to movie theaters or buying CDs?
If there is no financial penalty to their actions, what will get companies to stop trying to destroy 'fair use'?