I'm sure they're thinking that this is the best way for them to get ahead in the market to deliver the cpu power that tomorrow's demanding consumer requires. they don't make any money by "wasting" electricity so I'm sure they are doing what in their best interest is a good mix of engineering and catering to consumer needs. so tomorrow's cpu uses 150w. two light bulbs. jet engines use more fuel than reciprocating ones. if they made a bad technological bet, the marketplace will punish them. life moves on.
the "lack of metal clip", however, is so exciting that I am sure that we are to see perpetual world peace from its announcement any minute now.
When legitimate security people point out bugs and holes, they get treated like scum and are threatened with law suits. So whats the best thing to to?
Do nothing and MYOB. If companies lose substantial amounts of money because of lax security, then they will do one of two things:
improve their security / invest more in security
go out of business and/or be less competitive.
in either case, the consumer wins (as in case 2, more competitive companies will spring up to take their place).
If, as it turns out, that external security consultants are the way to go, then such companies will engage in a business relationship with one of dozens if not hundreds of world class security firms.
What we don't need is whiny "independent security researchers" doing what amounts to unprofessonal blackmail attempts ("let's establish a 'business relationship' or I spill the beans.) Computer tresspass is computer tresspass. We don't need to revise trespass laws to improve security - we need companies to go to legitimate security firms and use their tiger team services and so on.
I'd probably buy a few shares just 'cause I think they'd look cool in frames and would make great geek gifts!:-)
ah, idiot investors--the boiler room of modern economies. Once thought extinct after 1999, it seems they were just hiding. And I don't mean the garden variety idiot investor that ran from stocks to mutual funds because they were 'safer'--I mean hard-core idiot investors who yearn to buy stocks online!
Unless, of course, the parent post was entirely in jest.. but i dont see any evidence of that.
but you're wrong. you can't sell cheez wizz as parmesan any more than you can sell a horse as a type of cow. product labelling rules apply. now, in the case of parmesan cheese, maybe the specific labelling rules allow for a higher percentage of cellulose than you find to be reasonable, but in the general case most people agree that they're decent.
the thing with these stupid and anticompetitive named origin rules is that in general they stifle competition by preventing the SAME products from different regions from competing against each other. the excuse that it always used is some mythical combination of local conditions that supossedly makes "X", "X"---such as the fact that the oak used in barrels used in making some bordeaux were at one point shit upon by a particular sort of bird which ate a particular fruit which contributes to bordeaux's taste and hence only bordeaux is truly bordeaux.
basically, it taxes the imagination some of the bullshit justifications - there's a very simple test that can be applied. if competitor from a different region's cannot be differentiated by experts in a blind test, then it IS the same product.
And dont give me this shit about regions building things up from hard work. You or I can buy a place in the "Cheddar" region of england and thereby claim that our toe fungus is cheddar. Places are not organizations and they are not people. named origin is protectionism and the second biggest evil in europe, second only to CAP (common agricultural policy), which is what keeps africa in poverty and all of our taxes artificially high.
and americans love to laugh at europeans (EU) with their stupid and blatantly anticompetitive "named origin" rules that tolerate such bullshit.
the "best brands" that fall under such protectionism tend to be french--dijon mustard, champagne, etc. but, there's no shortage of ways in which such legistlation is aimed at reducing europe back into a place of protected guilds - stilton cheese, port (oporto), etc.
my two hobbies are aviation and photography. As a small airplane owner and a fairly experienced pilot, I have the luxury of being able to and knowing where I can safely attach a camera to the outside of the airplane to get some interesting shots. however, to date I've only attached a video camera (using duct tape--seriously) to the outside of the airplane and never a still camera. Why? because I don't have a digital camera that supports a remote shutter like i would like.
I am desperately looking for recommendations for a digital camera that supports a remote shutter. A cable assembly is fine, as long as I can get a cable preferably longer than 10-15 feet, though a wireless setup would be ideal. even more ideal would be if this is available in Sony, as all my gear is Sony (in fact, my current digital camera is a well-worn DSC-S75 which is about at its retirement age).
The one piece of advice that I can give for aerial photographers, be they of the kite, airplane, or helicopter variety is this: invest in a wide angle lens. I bought the most expensive and "best quality" wide angle lens for my dsc-s75 that I found on ebay - a.38 lens with adapter for about $70. It opens up a WORLD of possibiltiies for photos taken of the ground from the air. for example, I've taken photos from right above skyscrapers (well, the legal limit above) with the macro and I get some really superb shots that way.
Remote-shutter digital camera recommendations really appreciated. Preferably of the "normal price range" of 500 +- a few hundred at the most.
Slow day on slashdot? Why else has somebody posted a mediocre business-school masters "IT management" "research" quality humdrum thesis topic as an interesting article?
Not really. Norton, a company that has become infinitely more evil than MS on several fronts, has a "clever marketing strategy."
I have "Norton Internet Security" installed on this machine. It is impossible to unintstall. If you unintstall it, your internet connection will be irrepairably harmed, especially when it comes to secure pages. However, with Internet Security enabled, the internet is freeking useless.
The only solution is to load internet security and then disable it after it's running. That, or clean install the operating system.
You might think that this is an isolated problem. It's not. We routinely get support requests on our secure ecommerce sites saying "when I click on (secure link), i get a page error". Our #1 response to this is "have you recently unintstalled norton internet security?" Answer: "yes, by coiincidence i just did that this morning!"
the mathlibrary from newcastle scientific includes both "fast and portable" (well, in windows anyway--there are other options this was just the first one i googled) FFT and iFT functionality and costs $79.99. as a bonus, you get tech support and a point of accountability.
I recently started hiring a few coders using rent-a-coder's online service. when you submit a project bid, there is a little generic boilerplate for "deliverables" that gets put in there that I as the bid requestor fill-in. The boilerplate is basically three points--the second one is interesting. it basically says that the bidder (that is, the coder) will explicity not use any proprietary third-party tools unless asked (this makes sense--if somebody does some work for me, i dont want to be suprised to find out that i have to buy an expensive widget to maintain the coe), nor should the coder use any GPLd code.
Of course, the bidder is free to remove or alter any stipulation he wishes and i'm sure there are many projects on rent-a-coder that are explcitly gpl. however, for my proprietary needs, i'm happy with the no-GPL provision--it makes a lot of business sense in my particular case. i guess what i'm bringing out in this post is the notion that people are aware of the GPL's viral nature (the parent article notwithstanding) and do plan business strategy to avoid it regularly. similar non-gpl provisions are commonplace in many corporate IT departments as well. it's not necessarily foolhardy--it's a choice.
one of the largest problems with the channel tunnel has been illegal immigrants using (or attempting to use) it as a passageway to NHS, Finsbury Park, kebab stands, and other english "goodness." Whatever you think of the immigrants and their actions, this problem will likely be greater still for a tunnel direct from north africa.
I don't quite understand why a maglev is any better in these locations than a conventional "bullet" train. If I remember correctly, the main drag force on a fast moving train is not friction from the wheels but air resistance. Maglev trains experience the same air resistance as conventional trains. The upper speed limit for steel wheeled trains is 225 mph. This is faster than any existing commerical maglev system.
I'm not an expert, but here's my understanding:
long-term maglev maintenance and running costs are projected to be less than that of existing bullet trains. fewer moving parts.
you mentioned existing commercial maglev systems. the japanese experimental maglevs are opeating at the 500km/h+ range, if I recall. the fastest 'bullet trains' (including the tgv and the 500-series shinkansen) go no faster than 250km/h in normal service.
steel wheels are pretty much reaching the end of the line in terms of speed.
why does speed matter? the goal is to compete with airlines.
sure, we can discount maglev costs if we look at the short term development costs--but we could say that about any new technology then.
that said, maglev has taken a damn long time to become a reality, and it's not exactly clear how you'd find space in the US northeast or elsewhere to run a line..
the japanese are doing it right. slow, methodical, engineering-sensible development will probably result in a chuo-shinkansen maglev in 10-15 years at the longest and possibly in as little as 5-10 years. See here for a gentle introduction.
the chinese are building a maglev shanghai-beijing. every engineer or knowledgable person i have ever spoken to has said that this was a rushed through engineering abortion; an inefficient showpiece really. still, there's something to be said for having it done first, and, if the chinese do it, then more power to them.
14 million of research from an ab initio program isn't enough to make a toilet handle on a maglev train. a maglev is something at least as complicated as a 777 given all the supporting things that need to be built such as stations, emergency vehicles, turnouts (switches), safety devices, computer systems, and so forth. 14 million for a maglev project is GUARANTEED not to go anywhere other than perhaps some basic research in electrical systems that the japanese have done long ago.
a maglev is PERFECT for:
the US northeast corridor
london-edinburgh via manchester/liverpool
tokyo-osaka via the chuo-shinkansen route (duh).
hong kong - guangzhou - shanghai
Incidentally, I find Japan Railway Technical Review journal to be a well-written intelligent web site with discussion of the true state of the art of trains. Worth a read if you actually read things in more than the slashdot 3-second scan way.
How does the parent's lack of understanding of the most basic aspects of trademark law qualfy as "insightful?"
Inappropriate use of trademarks occurs when rational people might confuse the infringer's X (product, action) with something put out by the trademarkholder. In practice, this often amounts to that the infringer must be in the same or similar line of business. In practice part 2, there may be infringement even if you're in another line of business if a reasonable person could conclude that you chose that trademarked name in order to play off on existing fame/notoriety/image of the trademarkholder.
Therefore:
Windows / Windex - no infringement. Different name, different business.
Windows / Lindows - very very similar name could legitimately cause confusion (at least according to this court ruling). same line of buisiness. infringement.
Apple Computers / Apple Juice - Apple owns the trademark apple as it pertains to computers. Apple vendors everywhere unaffected.
Mercedes (automobiles) vs you making Mercedes Perfume without using the mercedes car symbol. undecided... i tend to think that this would be infringement, since mercedes is a well known luxury brand, automobile or not.
Microsoft / Microsoft porn magazine for women who like small men. Probably infringement, as a reasonable person would conclude that name probably wouldn't have been chosen were it not for the existence of the famous company.
Clearly this is insane. It's nothing other than welfare for copyright holders. One way to make things more sane is to abolish copyright.
another way is to extinguish the sun. this would also solve the problem of levies on CD-R discs within a few days.
blatant slander:
copyright abolitionists are idiots with no knowledge of history or economics. it's that simple. they are the economic equivalent of the "institute for creation research", the flat earth society, and velikovskyans rolled into one. they're that far off the scale of legitimate discourse that it's not even funny.
certainly, somebody will reply to this accusing me of being a troll or asking me to prove the most simple of assertions. oh well, this is the internet, and this is slashdot, and there are always outliers. but the fact of the matter is that each time throughout history copyright was abolished (see the french revolution for a good example), it was quickly returned as a necessary evil.
While I recognize that you are a troll, I just wanted to comment briefly on your use of the term "slippery slope."
We see a lot of slippery-slope arguments on slashdot, many of them from the tinfoil beanie crowd of which you are clearly a member. However, it is worth noting that the term "slippery slope" is a criticism of the argument - a "slippery slope" argument is quite often fallacious, and, if I recall, is listed as one of the fallacial argument types listed in the very good "constructing a logical argument" FAQ that floats around the internet. You seem to have used the term "slippery slope" in your post as if to emphasize or enhance your "point."
In reality, slippery slope arguments, especially unsupported conspiracybabble ones such as yours, are crap.
I think $10 US/Gallon would be a fair stupidity tax.
Actually, this would be a bargain. AVGas occasionally sells for as much as $12 per US gallon at places (airports) like Narssarssuaq in Greenland which do a brisk business with transatlantic aircraft ferry pilots.
even if his RV4 is set up to use MoGas (I suspect it is - it's unlikely that mcmurdo would have AvGas on hand to sell), $10/gallon in antarctica strikes me as not a bad deal.
ooh. so, you're argument that copyright is essentially a guarantee of compensation then? i'm sure that will go over real well in slashdot. hint: mpaa/riaa.
second hint: the fact remains that binary modules don't use copyright material (or rather, if they do, that's a seperate issue). they only use available interfaces. but let me guess--you were one of those far-sighted geniuses who were against plug-compatible peripherals for the ibm/360 series.
the point is that linus or "the linux community" don't have the standing to decide what a "reasonable interpretation" is any more than the RIAA has the right to decide copyright law (oh look! a slashdot-clone friendly analogy!)
The RIAA can say that you don't have the right, under fair use, to share your physical dvd with your brother. the problem with this, of course, is that despite the riaa's intimidation, this view would likely not stand the test of law. likewise, just because "the geek community" might find the kernel/user interface to be a perfectly good place to delineate issues of license and maybe evern wrote pieces of their own license to accomodate this no more makes it enforcable or correct than you writing "i hereby own every lear jet ever built" on a piece of paper does.
So, can I make it any clearer to you? the law - copyright law - doesn't care about the user/kernel distinction just like it doesn't care about the engine/passenger compartment distinction. both are imporant to engineers. both are important, in a certain sense, to users. none have any bearing whatsoever as far as the relevant discussion here goes. the binary module writers are not using any GPLd code.. they are merely connecting at interfaces.
oh (and this goes to the other respondant too)stop gazing at your own navels. of course it's an important distinction as far as technical matters go. however, it's a meaningless and artificial one as far as the law goes. it was just a convenient line in the sand that linus arbitrarily chose as far as issues of GPL and licensing go.
Slashdot Mirror
the "lack of metal clip", however, is so exciting that I am sure that we are to see perpetual world peace from its announcement any minute now.
"the internet must be self policing. Keep government out of private property and transactions!"
but
"the RIAA must use established law enforecement!"
It's not my fault that I had to get a pirated version.
I'm sorry - did the fate of the universe rely on you getting the "theatrical version" of a product?
I found your equation of non-release of certain films to be "censorship" to be laughable. Buy a multi-region DVD; pressure the studios. Don't steal.
MOD PARENT DOWN.
Do nothing and MYOB. If companies lose substantial amounts of money because of lax security, then they will do one of two things:
- improve their security / invest more in security
- go out of business and/or be less competitive.
in either case, the consumer wins (as in case 2, more competitive companies will spring up to take their place).If, as it turns out, that external security consultants are the way to go, then such companies will engage in a business relationship with one of dozens if not hundreds of world class security firms.
What we don't need is whiny "independent security researchers" doing what amounts to unprofessonal blackmail attempts ("let's establish a 'business relationship' or I spill the beans.) Computer tresspass is computer tresspass. We don't need to revise trespass laws to improve security - we need companies to go to legitimate security firms and use their tiger team services and so on.
ah, idiot investors--the boiler room of modern economies. Once thought extinct after 1999, it seems they were just hiding. And I don't mean the garden variety idiot investor that ran from stocks to mutual funds because they were 'safer'--I mean hard-core idiot investors who yearn to buy stocks online!
Unless, of course, the parent post was entirely in jest.. but i dont see any evidence of that.
the thing with these stupid and anticompetitive named origin rules is that in general they stifle competition by preventing the SAME products from different regions from competing against each other. the excuse that it always used is some mythical combination of local conditions that supossedly makes "X", "X"---such as the fact that the oak used in barrels used in making some bordeaux were at one point shit upon by a particular sort of bird which ate a particular fruit which contributes to bordeaux's taste and hence only bordeaux is truly bordeaux.
basically, it taxes the imagination some of the bullshit justifications - there's a very simple test that can be applied. if competitor from a different region's cannot be differentiated by experts in a blind test, then it IS the same product.
And dont give me this shit about regions building things up from hard work. You or I can buy a place in the "Cheddar" region of england and thereby claim that our toe fungus is cheddar. Places are not organizations and they are not people. named origin is protectionism and the second biggest evil in europe, second only to CAP (common agricultural policy), which is what keeps africa in poverty and all of our taxes artificially high.
the "best brands" that fall under such protectionism tend to be french--dijon mustard, champagne, etc. but, there's no shortage of ways in which such legistlation is aimed at reducing europe back into a place of protected guilds - stilton cheese, port (oporto), etc.
no, it doesn't say that at all. at least, not in the article. In fact, it says just the opposite.
I am desperately looking for recommendations for a digital camera that supports a remote shutter. A cable assembly is fine, as long as I can get a cable preferably longer than 10-15 feet, though a wireless setup would be ideal. even more ideal would be if this is available in Sony, as all my gear is Sony (in fact, my current digital camera is a well-worn DSC-S75 which is about at its retirement age).
The one piece of advice that I can give for aerial photographers, be they of the kite, airplane, or helicopter variety is this: invest in a wide angle lens. I bought the most expensive and "best quality" wide angle lens for my dsc-s75 that I found on ebay - a .38 lens with adapter for about $70. It opens up a WORLD of possibiltiies for photos taken of the ground from the air. for example, I've taken photos from right above skyscrapers (well, the legal limit above) with the macro and I get some really superb shots that way.
Remote-shutter digital camera recommendations really appreciated. Preferably of the "normal price range" of 500 +- a few hundred at the most.
don't forget godzilla attacks.
Slow day on slashdot? Why else has somebody posted a mediocre business-school masters "IT management" "research" quality humdrum thesis topic as an interesting article?
I have "Norton Internet Security" installed on this machine. It is impossible to unintstall. If you unintstall it, your internet connection will be irrepairably harmed, especially when it comes to secure pages. However, with Internet Security enabled, the internet is freeking useless.
The only solution is to load internet security and then disable it after it's running. That, or clean install the operating system.
You might think that this is an isolated problem. It's not. We routinely get support requests on our secure ecommerce sites saying "when I click on (secure link), i get a page error". Our #1 response to this is "have you recently unintstalled norton internet security?" Answer: "yes, by coiincidence i just did that this morning!"
This '12 year technology strategy consultant' wants to know what you think of her view of e-mail list buying. why don't you tell her what you think?
Let me guess, you're one of those people who routinely blasts the media for their context-less use of figures as well.
the mathlibrary from newcastle scientific includes both "fast and portable" (well, in windows anyway--there are other options this was just the first one i googled) FFT and iFT functionality and costs $79.99. as a bonus, you get tech support and a point of accountability.
Of course, the bidder is free to remove or alter any stipulation he wishes and i'm sure there are many projects on rent-a-coder that are explcitly gpl. however, for my proprietary needs, i'm happy with the no-GPL provision--it makes a lot of business sense in my particular case. i guess what i'm bringing out in this post is the notion that people are aware of the GPL's viral nature (the parent article notwithstanding) and do plan business strategy to avoid it regularly. similar non-gpl provisions are commonplace in many corporate IT departments as well. it's not necessarily foolhardy--it's a choice.
one of the largest problems with the channel tunnel has been illegal immigrants using (or attempting to use) it as a passageway to NHS, Finsbury Park, kebab stands, and other english "goodness." Whatever you think of the immigrants and their actions, this problem will likely be greater still for a tunnel direct from north africa.
I'm not an expert, but here's my understanding:
- long-term maglev maintenance and running costs are projected to be less than that of existing bullet trains. fewer moving parts.
- you mentioned existing commercial maglev systems. the japanese experimental maglevs are opeating at the 500km/h+ range, if I recall. the fastest 'bullet trains' (including the tgv and the 500-series shinkansen) go no faster than 250km/h in normal service.
- steel wheels are pretty much reaching the end of the line in terms of speed.
- why does speed matter? the goal is to compete with airlines.
sure, we can discount maglev costs if we look at the short term development costs--but we could say that about any new technology then.that said, maglev has taken a damn long time to become a reality, and it's not exactly clear how you'd find space in the US northeast or elsewhere to run a line..
- the japanese are doing it right. slow, methodical, engineering-sensible development will probably result in a chuo-shinkansen maglev in 10-15 years at the longest and possibly in as little as 5-10 years. See here for a gentle introduction.
- the chinese are building a maglev shanghai-beijing. every engineer or knowledgable person i have ever spoken to has said that this was a rushed through engineering abortion; an inefficient showpiece really. still, there's something to be said for having it done first, and, if the chinese do it, then more power to them.
- 14 million of research from an ab initio program isn't enough to make a toilet handle on a maglev train. a maglev is something at least as complicated as a 777 given all the supporting things that need to be built such as stations, emergency vehicles, turnouts (switches), safety devices, computer systems, and so forth. 14 million for a maglev project is GUARANTEED not to go anywhere other than perhaps some basic research in electrical systems that the japanese have done long ago.
- a maglev is PERFECT for:
- the US northeast corridor
- london-edinburgh via manchester/liverpool
- tokyo-osaka via the chuo-shinkansen route (duh).
- hong kong - guangzhou - shanghai
Incidentally, I find Japan Railway Technical Review journal to be a well-written intelligent web site with discussion of the true state of the art of trains. Worth a read if you actually read things in more than the slashdot 3-second scan way.Inappropriate use of trademarks occurs when rational people might confuse the infringer's X (product, action) with something put out by the trademarkholder. In practice, this often amounts to that the infringer must be in the same or similar line of business. In practice part 2, there may be infringement even if you're in another line of business if a reasonable person could conclude that you chose that trademarked name in order to play off on existing fame/notoriety/image of the trademarkholder.
Therefore:
another way is to extinguish the sun. this would also solve the problem of levies on CD-R discs within a few days.
blatant slander: copyright abolitionists are idiots with no knowledge of history or economics. it's that simple. they are the economic equivalent of the "institute for creation research", the flat earth society, and velikovskyans rolled into one. they're that far off the scale of legitimate discourse that it's not even funny.
certainly, somebody will reply to this accusing me of being a troll or asking me to prove the most simple of assertions. oh well, this is the internet, and this is slashdot, and there are always outliers. but the fact of the matter is that each time throughout history copyright was abolished (see the french revolution for a good example), it was quickly returned as a necessary evil.
We see a lot of slippery-slope arguments on slashdot, many of them from the tinfoil beanie crowd of which you are clearly a member. However, it is worth noting that the term "slippery slope" is a criticism of the argument - a "slippery slope" argument is quite often fallacious, and, if I recall, is listed as one of the fallacial argument types listed in the very good "constructing a logical argument" FAQ that floats around the internet. You seem to have used the term "slippery slope" in your post as if to emphasize or enhance your "point."
In reality, slippery slope arguments, especially unsupported conspiracybabble ones such as yours, are crap.
Actually, this would be a bargain. AVGas occasionally sells for as much as $12 per US gallon at places (airports) like Narssarssuaq in Greenland which do a brisk business with transatlantic aircraft ferry pilots.
even if his RV4 is set up to use MoGas (I suspect it is - it's unlikely that mcmurdo would have AvGas on hand to sell), $10/gallon in antarctica strikes me as not a bad deal.
second hint: the fact remains that binary modules don't use copyright material (or rather, if they do, that's a seperate issue). they only use available interfaces. but let me guess--you were one of those far-sighted geniuses who were against plug-compatible peripherals for the ibm/360 series.
the point is that linus or "the linux community" don't have the standing to decide what a "reasonable interpretation" is any more than the RIAA has the right to decide copyright law (oh look! a slashdot-clone friendly analogy!)
The RIAA can say that you don't have the right, under fair use, to share your physical dvd with your brother. the problem with this, of course, is that despite the riaa's intimidation, this view would likely not stand the test of law. likewise, just because "the geek community" might find the kernel/user interface to be a perfectly good place to delineate issues of license and maybe evern wrote pieces of their own license to accomodate this no more makes it enforcable or correct than you writing "i hereby own every lear jet ever built" on a piece of paper does.
So, can I make it any clearer to you? the law - copyright law - doesn't care about the user/kernel distinction just like it doesn't care about the engine/passenger compartment distinction. both are imporant to engineers. both are important, in a certain sense, to users. none have any bearing whatsoever as far as the relevant discussion here goes. the binary module writers are not using any GPLd code.. they are merely connecting at interfaces.
oh (and this goes to the other respondant too)stop gazing at your own navels. of course it's an important distinction as far as technical matters go. however, it's a meaningless and artificial one as far as the law goes. it was just a convenient line in the sand that linus arbitrarily chose as far as issues of GPL and licensing go.