Right, they did. You didn't even have to read the article, just the post, to remember the old Divx;) discs that were supposed to self-destruct some how. They failed for the same reason these will: people hate the concept, since it just wastes their time. All they're going to do is just copy the disk right away. This will just make it a hassle for rental places to constantly restock their shelves.
If you read the article (which is breif, since its really just a feature description), you'd notice that the discs are recyclable after their "self-destruct".
This means one of two things: either they're recyclable in the generic sense that most plastic trash is recyclable, or the disk itself can be re-used by the distributor.
In the latter case, it may just mean you return a big bundle of them next time you go to rent a disk.
God I hate ACs: if you believe what you're saying, attach your name, idiot.
Incidentally, I made a typo in spelling the word. Your grammar errors, specifically the use of several sentence fragments, are easily as incorrect as a single misspelling of a word.
By the way, moderators...I was making a joke; who in the hell moderated me up as insightful?
The simplest solution is to take a video-in card, for example any of the All-In-Wonder series form ATI, and transfer it over to either VCD (since its likely you already have a CD-burner) or DVD (which is more universally readable in home theater players.
The reason RotJ involves Ewoks on the forest moon of Endor instead of Wookies on Kyshyyk is that the script called for tribes of savage creatures. Since the only wookie in the movie was apparently so intelligent that it could pilot and repair starships, not to mention rebuilding complicated robots, it was clear that wookies weren't viable for a "savage" race.
Combine that with the fact that his children asked him for a cuter character [since Empire had been...shall we say less than cute], and BAM, you have one of the worst creations in cinema.
Are you kidding? Someone got his post modded up as "funny" because he was too idiotic to realize that "gothic imagination" referred to a literary and historical perspective, as opposed to the mis-labeled fad of the late 90s? Damn, that karma sure is easily earned.
"You have to remember, the point of a public corp. isn't to obey the law, it is to make a profit."
See, I have to disagree with you there. I think that, (a) All groups, including corporations, are responsible to the law and so they must be concerned about whether or not their employees will be law abiding, and (b) From a purely moral perspective, all groups are responsible to act morally.
I know this wont be a popular viewpoint here on slashdot, but perhaps we shouldn't reward people who break laws [by hacking] by giving them a job?
I dont mean to suggest either that (a) we should ignore a potentially powerful resource, or that (b) all hackers are necessarily immoral. However I personally would be quite upset if I were a security advisor who abstained from illegal activity, and a former hacker was hired to either replace or supervise me.
Also, from a devil's advocate position, I'm thinking this is akin to the hiring of former insider-traders to work on preventing further cheating. Basically, we're inviting the dog back into the pantry.
Please dont mod this as a troll, since I'm being serious here.
"You know, if you realy don't see how to explain it to someone who doesn't already understand it, it's probably because you don't understand it very well yourself"
This is an open-faced logical fallacy. There is some minimum set of words which must, by definition, be understood in order to understand the discussed concept.
If you doubt this, try explaining any concept without using any language. Impossible, by definition, because there is a minimum set of words required to communicate any message in any language.
Thus in this case, if you lack the minimal lexicon, you're simply unable to understand the concept, much less have it communicated to you.
You mean like the arrogance of someone willing to criticize someone else, but not willing to even attach their name to the post?
The definition was extremely clear by anyone with a concept of a few simple mathematical concepts. If you dont know those concepts, then the content of the definition has no bearing on you at all anyway; it only affects someone who'd be interested enough to know such words.
Yes, not to be patronizing, but you're missing the point.
No matter how non-linear the programming of current software seems to be [i.e. through multithreading and object oriented programming], the software nonetheless relies on the fact that certain things will occur in a certain chronological order.
Quantum computing's power is in the ability to perform truly simultaneous, non-sequential operations. As a result, an entirely new language must be written to implement the new types of processes which are possible.
As an anology, consider the "programming language" of an abacus. When a computer is compared, you dont talk about writing a new "compiler" for abacus code on the computer, you write a new language. Similarly, quantum computing is in many ways something wholy different from normal computers.
Its a theme park, i.e. a zoo. We dont try and reach environmental equilibrium in our zoos: we bring outside food in, and feed the tigers, the wallabies and the zebras. Why wouldn't we just bring in outside food from Jurassic park to feed them?
Maybe its me, but every time I see one of these pint-sized robots demonstrated or released, my first impulse is to sing an Oompa-Loompa song in my head. I just picture a crowd of these, milling around my house taking care of random tasks, and singing moral lessons to all my visitors.
This is one of the things annoying about Jurassic Park, actually: if they hadn't made predators (i.e. they'd stuck to herbivores), they'd still have some of the largest and most impressive animals in the history of the world, without any of the risks we saw in the books and movies. Basically, the park would have worked with herbivores...
Actually, the irony of your statement is that we're going to need better nano-technology to complete the task. As enthusiastic as these companies are, the problems in intentionally constructing a DNA molecule letter by letter are huge: notably, if you screw up in one spot, you can have tremendous problems.
Further, there's no "spell check" for them, using current methods. They wouldn't know they had a problem until they start letting it reproduce, only to find that they have an [apparently] inexplicably error, possibly making the organism unviable.
Whats needed is sophisticated enough nanobots that will be able to not only perform the construction of the DNA, but to "spell check" it by running up and down its length continually, comparing it against the desired pattern.
One, neither "centripetal" or "coriolis" are actual forces; they're better understood as virtual forces or pseudo forces. That is, they are an easier way for some people to compartmentalize the pragmatic effects of real forces [both are due to the interaction between radial acceleration and linear momentum].
Two, toilets do not spin in the opposite direction in the southern hemisphere as they do on in the northern hemisphere for any reason related to this physics; they spin in a certain direction because of several facts - 1, water is shot in at an angle into the bowl to better catch material stuck to the wall, 2, the toilet bowl is shaped a certain way to cause water to twirl, again to catch materiel.
STI is sexually transmitted infections, the term adopted now since among other things HIV is not a disease, but instead a virus which leads to a disease.
This is the proper term according to the CDC in the USA, among other countries.
There's an argument in several models of jurisprudence (notably realism and Dworkinism) that fraud, when it causes economic loss, is no different from theft. Or, if its different at all, it is not a seperate crime but instead a sub-class of theft.
In this interpretation, the definition of theft becomes something like "The deprivation of a person's rightful and legal property through illicit means." With such a definition, its clear that there's some difference between knocking you down and robbing you, and stealing your Ultima password and selling your stuff, but both would be theft.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, they did. You didn't even have to read the article, just the post, to remember the old Divx;) discs that were supposed to self-destruct some how. They failed for the same reason these will: people hate the concept, since it just wastes their time. All they're going to do is just copy the disk right away. This will just make it a hassle for rental places to constantly restock their shelves.
If you read the article (which is breif, since its really just a feature description), you'd notice that the discs are recyclable after their "self-destruct".
This means one of two things: either they're recyclable in the generic sense that most plastic trash is recyclable, or the disk itself can be re-used by the distributor.
In the latter case, it may just mean you return a big bundle of them next time you go to rent a disk.
God I hate ACs: if you believe what you're saying, attach your name, idiot.
Incidentally, I made a typo in spelling the word. Your grammar errors, specifically the use of several sentence fragments, are easily as incorrect as a single misspelling of a word.
By the way, moderators...I was making a joke; who in the hell moderated me up as insightful?
So, um, should the Keanu Reaves joke be about the Matrix or about Johnny Mneumonic?
The simplest solution is to take a video-in card, for example any of the All-In-Wonder series form ATI, and transfer it over to either VCD (since its likely you already have a CD-burner) or DVD (which is more universally readable in home theater players.
http://www.ati.com
No, thats incorrect.
The reason RotJ involves Ewoks on the forest moon of Endor instead of Wookies on Kyshyyk is that the script called for tribes of savage creatures. Since the only wookie in the movie was apparently so intelligent that it could pilot and repair starships, not to mention rebuilding complicated robots, it was clear that wookies weren't viable for a "savage" race.
Combine that with the fact that his children asked him for a cuter character [since Empire had been...shall we say less than cute], and BAM, you have one of the worst creations in cinema.
Are you kidding? Someone got his post modded up as "funny" because he was too idiotic to realize that "gothic imagination" referred to a literary and historical perspective, as opposed to the mis-labeled fad of the late 90s? Damn, that karma sure is easily earned.
"You have to remember, the point of a public corp. isn't to obey the law, it is to make a profit."
See, I have to disagree with you there. I think that, (a) All groups, including corporations, are responsible to the law and so they must be concerned about whether or not their employees will be law abiding, and (b) From a purely moral perspective, all groups are responsible to act morally.
I know this wont be a popular viewpoint here on slashdot, but perhaps we shouldn't reward people who break laws [by hacking] by giving them a job?
I dont mean to suggest either that (a) we should ignore a potentially powerful resource, or that (b) all hackers are necessarily immoral. However I personally would be quite upset if I were a security advisor who abstained from illegal activity, and a former hacker was hired to either replace or supervise me.
Also, from a devil's advocate position, I'm thinking this is akin to the hiring of former insider-traders to work on preventing further cheating. Basically, we're inviting the dog back into the pantry.
Please dont mod this as a troll, since I'm being serious here.
"You know, if you realy don't see how to explain it to someone who doesn't already understand it, it's probably because you don't understand it very well yourself"
This is an open-faced logical fallacy. There is some minimum set of words which must, by definition, be understood in order to understand the discussed concept.
If you doubt this, try explaining any concept without using any language. Impossible, by definition, because there is a minimum set of words required to communicate any message in any language.
Thus in this case, if you lack the minimal lexicon, you're simply unable to understand the concept, much less have it communicated to you.
You mean like the arrogance of someone willing to criticize someone else, but not willing to even attach their name to the post?
The definition was extremely clear by anyone with a concept of a few simple mathematical concepts. If you dont know those concepts, then the content of the definition has no bearing on you at all anyway; it only affects someone who'd be interested enough to know such words.
I have to tell you, if that definition isn't clear to you, then there's no point in explaining the concept to you.
There is a certain minimum amount of familiarity with the relevant field that is demanded when discussing certain concepts.
Here's my problem withe the parent being modded up as funny. The guy can't understand Descartes, and so he makes some stupid, flippant comment.
Was the moderator saying that the stupid post was funny, or that it was funny that the poster was so stupid as to be unable to read Descartes?
Arg, its not hard to quote accurately, it just came up in a post repeatedly like a week ago:
"Lisa, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"
Yes, not to be patronizing, but you're missing the point.
No matter how non-linear the programming of current software seems to be [i.e. through multithreading and object oriented programming], the software nonetheless relies on the fact that certain things will occur in a certain chronological order.
Quantum computing's power is in the ability to perform truly simultaneous, non-sequential operations. As a result, an entirely new language must be written to implement the new types of processes which are possible.
As an anology, consider the "programming language" of an abacus. When a computer is compared, you dont talk about writing a new "compiler" for abacus code on the computer, you write a new language. Similarly, quantum computing is in many ways something wholy different from normal computers.
Already a double post of an April Fools joke within 2 hours. Very impressive.
Incidentally, shouldn't these jokes be funny? Jeesh.
Its a theme park, i.e. a zoo. We dont try and reach environmental equilibrium in our zoos: we bring outside food in, and feed the tigers, the wallabies and the zebras. Why wouldn't we just bring in outside food from Jurassic park to feed them?
Maybe its me, but every time I see one of these pint-sized robots demonstrated or released, my first impulse is to sing an Oompa-Loompa song in my head. I just picture a crowd of these, milling around my house taking care of random tasks, and singing moral lessons to all my visitors.
Then again, I do wear a purple top hat.
This is one of the things annoying about Jurassic Park, actually: if they hadn't made predators (i.e. they'd stuck to herbivores), they'd still have some of the largest and most impressive animals in the history of the world, without any of the risks we saw in the books and movies. Basically, the park would have worked with herbivores...
Actually, the irony of your statement is that we're going to need better nano-technology to complete the task. As enthusiastic as these companies are, the problems in intentionally constructing a DNA molecule letter by letter are huge: notably, if you screw up in one spot, you can have tremendous problems.
Further, there's no "spell check" for them, using current methods. They wouldn't know they had a problem until they start letting it reproduce, only to find that they have an [apparently] inexplicably error, possibly making the organism unviable.
Whats needed is sophisticated enough nanobots that will be able to not only perform the construction of the DNA, but to "spell check" it by running up and down its length continually, comparing it against the desired pattern.
Two points:
One, neither "centripetal" or "coriolis" are actual forces; they're better understood as virtual forces or pseudo forces. That is, they are an easier way for some people to compartmentalize the pragmatic effects of real forces [both are due to the interaction between radial acceleration and linear momentum].
Two, toilets do not spin in the opposite direction in the southern hemisphere as they do on in the northern hemisphere for any reason related to this physics; they spin in a certain direction because of several facts - 1, water is shot in at an angle into the bowl to better catch material stuck to the wall, 2, the toilet bowl is shaped a certain way to cause water to twirl, again to catch materiel.
I find it amazing that with only three replies posted, this site is already slashdotted.
STI is sexually transmitted infections, the term adopted now since among other things HIV is not a disease, but instead a virus which leads to a disease.
This is the proper term according to the CDC in the USA, among other countries.
Well, there are plenty of words we have that are devoid of meaning, thanks to one linguistic event or another, but to answer your question...
I can defraud you, taking things that are solely of emotional value such as virginity.
There are other examples, but its late and I'm in a rush.
There's an argument in several models of jurisprudence (notably realism and Dworkinism) that fraud, when it causes economic loss, is no different from theft. Or, if its different at all, it is not a seperate crime but instead a sub-class of theft.
In this interpretation, the definition of theft becomes something like "The deprivation of a person's rightful and legal property through illicit means." With such a definition, its clear that there's some difference between knocking you down and robbing you, and stealing your Ultima password and selling your stuff, but both would be theft.