You did miss the point. I didn't say Slashdot had any commercial interest in pushing this product; I said Rob was rubbing a $450 gizmo in our face and calling it inexpensive. Cf recent claims of playing DVDs on his portable while on the place, and you'll see what I mean.
I wish I didn't have to explain these things, but ah well.
What the hell is that supposed to mean? Have you been hanging out with gangsta rappers or something???
Rob, you're losing touch with your inner geek, it's not even funny... Add to this the fact you're once again rubbing your money in our face, and I'm wondering if you won't rename Slashdot 'News for nouveau riches. Stuff that costs a leg' soon.
Aside from the cheap plug about helping some poor Russian install Linux on a Win98 box, what the FUCK does this have to do with Slashdot? Do we look like postal workers? What makes you think geeks mail stuff more often to Russia?
Hawking radiation comes from localized fluctuations in the electromagnetic field intensity of the void. That is to say, even though on average a certain area of empty space beyond the event horizon is, say, E_0, small localized fluctuations may result in, say, differences of +/-1eV.
Now, given that photons are the carriers of the electromagnetic force, you can consider the -1 eV and +1 eV as two virtual photons. These are not a photon and an anti-photon: they're a photon of positive energy, and a virtual (i.e. whose longevity is less than Plank's time) photon of negative energy. Or, if you prefer, if you set E_0 to 10 eV, then the first photon has 11 eV, and the second 9 eV.
Now, the positive photon may have enough energy to escape the black hole's pull; the negative photon, OTOH, automatically does not. It falls into the black hole, where it anihilates with a photon caught inside.
End result: the black hole is 1 eV poorer, and a 1 eV photon has been emited by the space around the black hole. This, in effect, means energy somehow 'escaped' the black hole, and can be measured as radiation.
It's a nifty concept, but unfortunately, its intensity pales in comparison to the radiation emitted by matter falling into the black hole as it is accelerated.
Laugh if you want, but I think it's things like these that allow gaming to be compared to some sort of a sport. After all, what is this but people continuing to beat their record, when everyone is sure there is simply no possible way to do it any faster.
Yeah, right. By that definition, eating hotdogs in the fastest time is a sport. And hey, I'm sure the guy doing it faces possibly injury, and I'm sure his heartbeat rate goes up.
Claiming computer games are a sport is the lamest form of geek self-gratification of which I can think.
"Data collection for ad targeting, under a good privacy policy is good. Data collection of any kind without a good privacy policy is bad. I will stop obsessing about sharing personal information, moreso if it means I'll get less annoying ads and will help the makers of a product I like make more money and improve the service."
If you don't want to share any information, it's simple: UNPLUG FROM THE NET. Obsessing about data sharing, especially when it's used for targeted and personalized content, is so 1995.
Gutenberg sucks. It may be a way to make texts open, but in the end, formatting is also important. Gutenberg is pretty much useless.
What you need is XML-compliant tagging, so that no specific format is enforced, but you can use an XSL-compliant translator. This way, you can automatically publish open netbooks with your own XSL specifications.
Guterberg's approach is so backward that it's as useful right now as shovelling clouds. Why does 'Openness' have to rhyme with 'crappy presentation and organization'? Somewhere along the line, someone forgot that these things need to be sexy too.
I think the difference is that the VBS can be activated without knowing, and thus can be used to mislead a user into damaging their own computer (I know, it takes a stupid user, but still), whereas source code requires some active action (such as compiling) to work.
If, for instance, you managed to distribute the source code to a virus, along with a compiler, and could trick a user into compiling and executing the code, I think the code would be seen as malicious. The point is, what can the code do on its own that is malicious in nature?
A compiled binary becomes a program and thus can constitute 'malicious' material; distribution of the compiled (i.e. active) version of ILOVEYOU, for instance, is certainly against the law, and against many corporate policies.
Posting source code, or text, however, is the whole point of this argument. Source code is information; what's dangerous is not information per se, but what you do with it. For instance, I know how to kill a man or rob a bank, but that knowledge is not punishable by law; using that knowledge is.
By posting the source code of the DeCSS, you're arguing that information itself is not criminal. By posting the binary, you're doing some bit of old-fashioned civil disobedience. While both are noble, the later is certainly much less effective than the former.
That might have been difficult to understand for some backward redneck who saw black helicopters more often than a dictionnary, but it made perfect sense to me. I guess 'incoherent' is the way USians qualify sentences expressing more than one concept.
As for examples that the United States are more interested in control than in cooperative management, here are two broad examples:
the Gulf War, and
the Kosovo situation
That's specific enough for you? Yes? Then please bend over and shove that condescending attitude up your ass. Thank you.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not bad karma. Bad karma is when you get moderated up despite a Goatse.cx link.
I wish I didn't have to explain these things, but ah well.
I'd rather not listen to Jeff and Rob sound drunk over badly-sampled webcasts, thank you!
What the hell is that supposed to mean? Have you been hanging out with gangsta rappers or something???
Rob, you're losing touch with your inner geek, it's not even funny... Add to this the fact you're once again rubbing your money in our face, and I'm wondering if you won't rename Slashdot 'News for nouveau riches. Stuff that costs a leg' soon.
Or are you refering to the killing FascDot is soon to make on eBay?
Fucked
Fucked
Fucked
(What? Saying fuck doesn't get you moderated up? It worked for this one!)
Not EVERYONE has to compensate for a small penis, you know...
Hah! You have it easy... I still have *160* to go. But I'm getting there... 1 flame at a time.
If this keeps up, we'll uncover the sinister truth: that CmdrTaco runs Win2K exclusively!
Aside from the cheap plug about helping some poor Russian install Linux on a Win98 box, what the FUCK does this have to do with Slashdot? Do we look like postal workers? What makes you think geeks mail stuff more often to Russia?
Hawking radiation comes from localized fluctuations in the electromagnetic field intensity of the void. That is to say, even though on average a certain area of empty space beyond the event horizon is, say, E_0, small localized fluctuations may result in, say, differences of +/-1eV.
Now, given that photons are the carriers of the electromagnetic force, you can consider the -1 eV and +1 eV as two virtual photons. These are not a photon and an anti-photon: they're a photon of positive energy, and a virtual (i.e. whose longevity is less than Plank's time) photon of negative energy. Or, if you prefer, if you set E_0 to 10 eV, then the first photon has 11 eV, and the second 9 eV.
Now, the positive photon may have enough energy to escape the black hole's pull; the negative photon, OTOH, automatically does not. It falls into the black hole, where it anihilates with a photon caught inside.
End result: the black hole is 1 eV poorer, and a 1 eV photon has been emited by the space around the black hole. This, in effect, means energy somehow 'escaped' the black hole, and can be measured as radiation.
It's a nifty concept, but unfortunately, its intensity pales in comparison to the radiation emitted by matter falling into the black hole as it is accelerated.
Just because it's a troll doesn't mean it's not true, buddy.
Yeah, right. By that definition, eating hotdogs in the fastest time is a sport. And hey, I'm sure the guy doing it faces possibly injury, and I'm sure his heartbeat rate goes up.
Claiming computer games are a sport is the lamest form of geek self-gratification of which I can think.
Will one single post from this crappy, troll-infested article make it past +2?
...it's Fukui-san!
If you don't want to share any information, it's simple: UNPLUG FROM THE NET. Obsessing about data sharing, especially when it's used for targeted and personalized content, is so 1995.
What you need is XML-compliant tagging, so that no specific format is enforced, but you can use an XSL-compliant translator. This way, you can automatically publish open netbooks with your own XSL specifications.
Guterberg's approach is so backward that it's as useful right now as shovelling clouds. Why does 'Openness' have to rhyme with 'crappy presentation and organization'? Somewhere along the line, someone forgot that these things need to be sexy too.
If, for instance, you managed to distribute the source code to a virus, along with a compiler, and could trick a user into compiling and executing the code, I think the code would be seen as malicious. The point is, what can the code do on its own that is malicious in nature?
...can't say FUCKED on a publicly-owned website?
Solitaire? We all know Rob plays Diablo on Windows. His saying he keeps Windows around to play DVD movies on his friggin' laptop is just bragging.
Posting source code, or text, however, is the whole point of this argument. Source code is information; what's dangerous is not information per se, but what you do with it. For instance, I know how to kill a man or rob a bank, but that knowledge is not punishable by law; using that knowledge is.
By posting the source code of the DeCSS, you're arguing that information itself is not criminal. By posting the binary, you're doing some bit of old-fashioned civil disobedience. While both are noble, the later is certainly much less effective than the former.
Huh... Someone has doubled his recommended daily dose of happy pills.
Oh, shut up, mr. troll expert. Why do you assume I'm trying to troll? Now go away.
As for examples that the United States are more interested in control than in cooperative management, here are two broad examples:
the Gulf War, and
the Kosovo situation
That's specific enough for you? Yes? Then please bend over and shove that condescending attitude up your ass. Thank you.
But even more importantly, what would Brian Boitano do?