Correction: only sometimes is it impossible to avoid censorship. Usually you just move to another place where there are no such restrictions on the access to information.
To make censorship anything other than opt-in, other measures have to be taken to prevent individuals in the group whose access to information is being restricted from simply leaving the reach of those restricting their freedom.
On a sidenote, moderation isn't always opt-in either.
Content isn't altered, content is accepted or rejected.
Which is merely another description of censorship, no?
Remember, moderation is always the enforcing of the opinions of a group or a single individual by removing 'unsuitable' opinions &c. You can not possibly consider moderation of whatever source of information to be purely objective.
For this reason there is no distinct difference between censorship and moderation, since both define the restricting of a person's or a group's access to a source of information.
Also, with censorship, content isn't altered. The content is simply 'moderated', meaning that some of the content is rendered unwatchable, unreadable or is made in some other way inaccessible.
Applying the car-anology to the music-industry, we get the following results:
The ones producing cars: car-manufacturers.
The ones 'producing' music: musicians.
So apparently the real issue are the musicians who want to make money from their music, no? Or are (mainstream) musicians being abused by the music-industry and do musicians not care so much about money after all?
Either way, what it comes down to is that apparently the issue is the pay-per-copy stance which is common in the music-industry.
Returning to the car-anology, the car-manufacturers (the music-industry) go out of business, because they're no longer needed and cars (music) are designed and produced by people themselves, not to make a profit, but because they need a car (wish to listen to music).
So in short, it seems that music will end up being produced and distributed because people wish to listen to music, not because they want to make a profit. Everyone can make a copy of any music he or she likes, and on one will be whining about 'lost revenue'.
Seems like the business model of musicians is outdated =P
I see your point, but there also appears to be some kind of 'law', akin to Murphy's law, which states that after you throw away a usable component, you'll need it shortly after you've thrown it away.
If it weren't for P2P-programs (and FTP-servers, IRC, etc.), I would probably never have found out about over 99% of the bands currently in my playlist.
Furthermore, I have, and will do so again in the future, buy CDs of bands I really like.
With the junk they sell in the average CD-shop, however, I have to order every CD, making them more expensive than they already are, therefore I only use the backup copies I make of each CD I buy, and have the songs on the CD ripped to.ogg so that I can listen to them on my PCs. The CD is then safely stored away, out of harm's way.
Presto, a legal use of P2P, a backdraw of the current, way too high prices for CDs, the new lows being reached in the commercial 'music'-scene and fair-use of media you own, all in one post.
Well, look at it this way: it's far easier/more realistic to mass-produce a lot of energy stored in anti-matter on, say, a planet or space-station, and use this to propel a spacecraft than to use any other method or propulsion if you intend to travel far and fast.
With the production of anti-matter becoming more efficient and cheaper, it might even become possible to generate the anti-matter on the spacecraft itself, by converting suitable 'ingredients' into the required anti-matter.
Sure, anti-matter will probably always end up costing more energy to produce than can be retrieved from it, but it's like comparing batteries for a laptop: would you rather have a battery which is 60% efficient, but which only powers the laptop for an hour, or a battery which is 20% efficient yet keeps the laptop running for 20 hours?
Not really. You must remember that the XBox is merely an x86-based system, so there's not much to be done to 'port' something from the very popular x86 (PC)-platform to the XBox, or to develop something for the XBox from scratch.
generally speaking, the more complex an operation, the harder it is to put it into words. This will mean that for more complex operations there won't be a single command possible, making the whole system more complex.
Some operations are done more efficiently using a keyboard or similar device, others by a mouse or similar, whereas it makes sense to use speech-commands for other operations.
So instead of choosing between different interface-methods/devices, why not use them for operations where their use makes the most sense?
Here's hoping we're here 5 years from now doing exactly the same thing with the same folks.
Anyone else wondering what the world will be like over 5 years? What will MSFT, AOL and 'em other monopolies *nudge* look like? Will they even exist?
Considering that 5 years ago PCs and the Internet were just starting to pick up speed on the market, one can't help but wonder what this will result in.
And not just technology. There's also the PATRIOT-act, the DMCA, the risk of Gulf War II, rumours about a recession of the economy (at least in 1929 it was obvious what was going on =P ).
It makes you wonder how we will look back on these political and economical events.
Aye, one more thing: don't even attempt to predict the future. We're all familiar with the grand expectations raised by a variety of companies and organizations around '95, how the 'net would [fill in idealistic view], and [ditto].
You must keep in mind that on these old (archaic =P ) systems you referred to in your post every program was tiny, so optimizing the whole program to waste no CPU-cycles was still feasible.
Nowadays it would be pure madness to even attempt to optimize a program the same way as 'back then'. Programs simply have become too large (size and features) and too complex to begin optimizing them in the same manner.
Not to mention the fact that the average system in use today is simply overkill for 99% of all applications.
Sure, it would be possible, but would it be worth it? It would cost lots of money, take more time of larger development teams, driving up the costs of software.
Optimization is a good thing, but only up to a certain point, beyond which it just doesn't make any sense.
It feels... smoother than Mozilla, loads pages a bit faster (or at least doesn't hang for nearly a second when switching between apps while the page is loading), and it uses fewer resources:
Currently Mozilla (1.1) is using 32,852 kb of RAM, while Phoenix (phoenix.exe) is using 25,188 kb. This without any additional tabs/windows open.
There's only the fact that many, many preferences are not accessible yet (although many are enabled by default), but that is to be expected from an 0.1 release.
I'll definitely be keeping my eyes on this project:)
Is this really necessary? With 100GB hard drives becoming more commonplace, I think we're at the limit of what normal users need out of hardware.
Hardware. Users. Limit. It surprises me that people still use these three words in one sentence.
There'll always be a use for new hardware and technologies, if not now, some time in the future it will.
To stay on-topic, I would like to point out that we'll end up with yet another collection of incompatible formats, like with (re-)writable DVDs, although I doubt it will get that bad.
Wouldn't this mean that it's possible to send matter from a certain 'time-frame' to another time-frame, thereby increasing the total amount of matter in the latter time-frame's universe (or parallel universe, if you wish), and reducing the total amount of energy in the former time-frame's universe?
Consequently we've created ourselves another paradox: if you travel back in time to a period where you already existed, there'll be two copies of you, of a different age (most likely, at least). Which one of these travels back into time, and won't there be already two copies waiting? And then three copies will be there in the same period, no?
So if one were to travel back into time, wouldn't that automatically cause this traveling back in time to be repeated ad nauseam?
The first thing we've to do is to completely dismiss the idea that time is merely linear.
Whatever we think time is or might be is precisely what it is not or can't be.
Impossible to use in combination with...
on
Pie-Menus in Mozilla
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Standard features of Mozilla linked to mouse-actions (right-click, middle-click to open link in new tab, etc.) and mouse-gestures (using the right mouse-button).
Naturally, I couldn't set RadialContext to the left button, since I need that button to select text and click stuff.
The middle button couldn't be used because in that case I won't be able to open links in new tabs by clicking them with this button.
The right button couldn't be used because in that case it would interfere (practically disable) mouse-gestures.
I refuse to use modifier keys since that would nullify any advantages these pie-menus might have over the standard menu in regards to efficiency.
So in short, I installed RadialContext and discovered that it interfered or even rendered a number of standard and added (mouse-gestures) features of Mozilla unusable or made them much more cumbersome to use.
It's a nice idea, but needs some more thought in regards to its implementation.
If you look at the specs for both CPUs, you'll notice that P4s and Athlon XPs dissipate similar amounts of energy. The heatspreader on the P4 is apparently quite effective, resulting in much lower core-temperature, since much of the heat is immediately conducted away from the core.
Heatspreaders are also useful in prevention of cracked cores:)
The only other thing that this article brought to mind was a question about what the Linux community wants to do with Linux. Say it upseats Windows. Say it takes over on both the server and the desktop. Say that 95% of all computers now run some distro of Linux...
Haven't we then just painted ourselves into the same corner that Microsoft is in, and wouldn't Linux receive the same amount of critisism for a variety of other things?
You're forgetting about the little fact that whereas Windows is one single OS (granted, desktop and server-versions), Linux isn't an OS. It's a name which describes every single distribution (OS) out there which is based on the Linux-kernel.
Linux doesn't exist as a single OS, thus it can never take over Windows' place in the desktop-OS market. It's the fragmentation of the Linux distributions (each aimed at a different use) which will prevent it from ending up as Windows.
Well, that and the fact that anyone can create his or her own distro which will be fully (assuming no proprietary APIs and stuff are used) compatible with any other Linux app out there.
In fact, if Linux does supplant Windows, it's just going to become the next widely-hated major OS of the time, until someone else comes along and supplants Linux.
This seems very unlikely, considering that Linux isn't just a single OS. Due to its modular nature, there'll always remain countless distros of Linux, each aimed at a different task or group of people.
Slashdot Mirror
Correction: only sometimes is it impossible to avoid censorship. Usually you just move to another place where there are no such restrictions on the access to information.
To make censorship anything other than opt-in, other measures have to be taken to prevent individuals in the group whose access to information is being restricted from simply leaving the reach of those restricting their freedom.
On a sidenote, moderation isn't always opt-in either.
Content isn't altered, content is accepted or rejected.
Which is merely another description of censorship, no?
Remember, moderation is always the enforcing of the opinions of a group or a single individual by removing 'unsuitable' opinions &c. You can not possibly consider moderation of whatever source of information to be purely objective.
For this reason there is no distinct difference between censorship and moderation, since both define the restricting of a person's or a group's access to a source of information.
Also, with censorship, content isn't altered. The content is simply 'moderated', meaning that some of the content is rendered unwatchable, unreadable or is made in some other way inaccessible.
Applying the car-anology to the music-industry, we get the following results:
The ones producing cars: car-manufacturers.
The ones 'producing' music: musicians.
So apparently the real issue are the musicians who want to make money from their music, no? Or are (mainstream) musicians being abused by the music-industry and do musicians not care so much about money after all?
Either way, what it comes down to is that apparently the issue is the pay-per-copy stance which is common in the music-industry.
Returning to the car-anology, the car-manufacturers (the music-industry) go out of business, because they're no longer needed and cars (music) are designed and produced by people themselves, not to make a profit, but because they need a car (wish to listen to music).
So in short, it seems that music will end up being produced and distributed because people wish to listen to music, not because they want to make a profit. Everyone can make a copy of any music he or she likes, and on one will be whining about 'lost revenue'.
Seems like the business model of musicians is outdated =P
I see your point, but there also appears to be some kind of 'law', akin to Murphy's law, which states that after you throw away a usable component, you'll need it shortly after you've thrown it away.
Exploring music, 'nuff said.
.ogg so that I can listen to them on my PCs. The CD is then safely stored away, out of harm's way.
If it weren't for P2P-programs (and FTP-servers, IRC, etc.), I would probably never have found out about over 99% of the bands currently in my playlist.
Furthermore, I have, and will do so again in the future, buy CDs of bands I really like.
With the junk they sell in the average CD-shop, however, I have to order every CD, making them more expensive than they already are, therefore I only use the backup copies I make of each CD I buy, and have the songs on the CD ripped to
Presto, a legal use of P2P, a backdraw of the current, way too high prices for CDs, the new lows being reached in the commercial 'music'-scene and fair-use of media you own, all in one post.
Well, look at it this way: it's far easier/more realistic to mass-produce a lot of energy stored in anti-matter on, say, a planet or space-station, and use this to propel a spacecraft than to use any other method or propulsion if you intend to travel far and fast.
With the production of anti-matter becoming more efficient and cheaper, it might even become possible to generate the anti-matter on the spacecraft itself, by converting suitable 'ingredients' into the required anti-matter.
Sure, anti-matter will probably always end up costing more energy to produce than can be retrieved from it, but it's like comparing batteries for a laptop: would you rather have a battery which is 60% efficient, but which only powers the laptop for an hour, or a battery which is 20% efficient yet keeps the laptop running for 20 hours?
Not really. You must remember that the XBox is merely an x86-based system, so there's not much to be done to 'port' something from the very popular x86 (PC)-platform to the XBox, or to develop something for the XBox from scratch.
Well, there's some truth in his statement:
generally speaking, the more complex an operation, the harder it is to put it into words. This will mean that for more complex operations there won't be a single command possible, making the whole system more complex.
Some operations are done more efficiently using a keyboard or similar device, others by a mouse or similar, whereas it makes sense to use speech-commands for other operations.
So instead of choosing between different interface-methods/devices, why not use them for operations where their use makes the most sense?
/. also tends to be the greatest 'joy' of web-admins.
/. has caused to melt/explode/go up in flames in those 5 years...
I can't help but wonder how many servers
Here's hoping we're here 5 years from now doing exactly the same thing with the same folks.
:) *steps off soap-box*
Anyone else wondering what the world will be like over 5 years? What will MSFT, AOL and 'em other monopolies *nudge* look like? Will they even exist?
Considering that 5 years ago PCs and the Internet were just starting to pick up speed on the market, one can't help but wonder what this will result in.
And not just technology. There's also the PATRIOT-act, the DMCA, the risk of Gulf War II, rumours about a recession of the economy (at least in 1929 it was obvious what was going on =P ).
It makes you wonder how we will look back on these political and economical events.
Aye, one more thing: don't even attempt to predict the future. We're all familiar with the grand expectations raised by a variety of companies and organizations around '95, how the 'net would [fill in idealistic view], and [ditto].
Alright, I'm done
You must keep in mind that on these old (archaic =P ) systems you referred to in your post every program was tiny, so optimizing the whole program to waste no CPU-cycles was still feasible.
Nowadays it would be pure madness to even attempt to optimize a program the same way as 'back then'. Programs simply have become too large (size and features) and too complex to begin optimizing them in the same manner.
Not to mention the fact that the average system in use today is simply overkill for 99% of all applications.
Sure, it would be possible, but would it be worth it? It would cost lots of money, take more time of larger development teams, driving up the costs of software.
Optimization is a good thing, but only up to a certain point, beyond which it just doesn't make any sense.
I've got a rather large (200 kb) bookmark-file? =P
No idea, actually, but for me Mozilla has always used about this much memory, on a number of systems. All running Win2k, BTW.
It feels... smoother than Mozilla, loads pages a bit faster (or at least doesn't hang for nearly a second when switching between apps while the page is loading), and it uses fewer resources:
:)
Currently Mozilla (1.1) is using 32,852 kb of RAM, while Phoenix (phoenix.exe) is using 25,188 kb. This without any additional tabs/windows open.
There's only the fact that many, many preferences are not accessible yet (although many are enabled by default), but that is to be expected from an 0.1 release.
I'll definitely be keeping my eyes on this project
Few countries outside the US do much about regio-encoding.
In Europe just about any DVD-player you can buy is region-free, and it doesn't appear that this will change any time soon.
Is the delay of the Hammer CPU due to design- and production-issues? Also some notes on AMD's financial situation.
Anyone else getting a strange, nauseous feeling while reading this?
Is this really necessary? With 100GB hard drives becoming more commonplace, I think we're at the limit of what normal users need out of hardware.
Hardware. Users. Limit. It surprises me that people still use these three words in one sentence.
There'll always be a use for new hardware and technologies, if not now, some time in the future it will.
To stay on-topic, I would like to point out that we'll end up with yet another collection of incompatible formats, like with (re-)writable DVDs, although I doubt it will get that bad.
Wouldn't this mean that it's possible to send matter from a certain 'time-frame' to another time-frame, thereby increasing the total amount of matter in the latter time-frame's universe (or parallel universe, if you wish), and reducing the total amount of energy in the former time-frame's universe?
Consequently we've created ourselves another paradox: if you travel back in time to a period where you already existed, there'll be two copies of you, of a different age (most likely, at least). Which one of these travels back into time, and won't there be already two copies waiting? And then three copies will be there in the same period, no?
So if one were to travel back into time, wouldn't that automatically cause this traveling back in time to be repeated ad nauseam?
The first thing we've to do is to completely dismiss the idea that time is merely linear.
Whatever we think time is or might be is precisely what it is not or can't be.
Nature Science Update: Eyes write
Standard features of Mozilla linked to mouse-actions (right-click, middle-click to open link in new tab, etc.) and mouse-gestures (using the right mouse-button).
Naturally, I couldn't set RadialContext to the left button, since I need that button to select text and click stuff.
The middle button couldn't be used because in that case I won't be able to open links in new tabs by clicking them with this button.
The right button couldn't be used because in that case it would interfere (practically disable) mouse-gestures.
I refuse to use modifier keys since that would nullify any advantages these pie-menus might have over the standard menu in regards to efficiency.
So in short, I installed RadialContext and discovered that it interfered or even rendered a number of standard and added (mouse-gestures) features of Mozilla unusable or made them much more cumbersome to use.
It's a nice idea, but needs some more thought in regards to its implementation.
If you look at the specs for both CPUs, you'll notice that P4s and Athlon XPs dissipate similar amounts of energy. The heatspreader on the P4 is apparently quite effective, resulting in much lower core-temperature, since much of the heat is immediately conducted away from the core.
:)
Heatspreaders are also useful in prevention of cracked cores
They started at 1 FPS to allow the patient to adjust. After that the FPS (the number of stimulations of the visual cortex per second) was increased.
:)
You simply misread the article
The only other thing that this article brought to mind was a question about what the Linux community wants to do with Linux. Say it upseats Windows. Say it takes over on both the server and the desktop. Say that 95% of all computers now run some distro of Linux...
Haven't we then just painted ourselves into the same corner that Microsoft is in, and wouldn't Linux receive the same amount of critisism for a variety of other things?
You're forgetting about the little fact that whereas Windows is one single OS (granted, desktop and server-versions), Linux isn't an OS. It's a name which describes every single distribution (OS) out there which is based on the Linux-kernel.
Linux doesn't exist as a single OS, thus it can never take over Windows' place in the desktop-OS market.
It's the fragmentation of the Linux distributions (each aimed at a different use) which will prevent it from ending up as Windows.
Well, that and the fact that anyone can create his or her own distro which will be fully (assuming no proprietary APIs and stuff are used) compatible with any other Linux app out there.
In fact, if Linux does supplant Windows, it's just going to become the next widely-hated major OS of the time, until someone else comes along and supplants Linux.
This seems very unlikely, considering that Linux isn't just a single OS. Due to its modular nature, there'll always remain countless distros of Linux, each aimed at a different task or group of people.
Linux is whatever you want it to be.
The article mentions 12 cm, and shows pictures of CD-sized disks, so I'm willing to bet that these disks are 12 cm :)