Suppose that you redirect all content requests to an illegal download that is not stored on anything that is associated with you. Who then would be legally at fault? You're doing nothing illegal, its your routing equipment, you can do with it what you damn well please. Is the freeloader suddenly guilty of breaking whatever laws the download or its contents violate?
then I will be setting up a script to make VOIP calls into Saudi Arabia and Iraq at 4am every morning, and have a text-to-speech program start reading off an Arabic or Farsi translation of Dr. Seuss. Let the NSA have fun with that one, 'cause I know I will.
Scary? Considering this is Microsoft we're talking about, to me this ranks somewhere slightly below surprising, and even then only because its almost an admission.
Just watch out for Windows Firewall to start filtering content and blocking non-Microsoft sites.
Suppose that I were to set up a WAP that rerouted all ftp requests to some kind of copyrighted material, hosted out there in the ether of the web. People connect to my network and try to get a download, instead getting the illegal content. Who, if anyone, is legally at fault here? At no point was the illegal content hosted or stored on anything of mine. And also, I have set up no controls on who can access my network, so I'm not legally at fault for them trying to download something through my network (or at least, that's how I understand it). As has been said before, its my networking equipment, I can do whatever I want with it, including redirecting all links or requests to something else. The people on the other end, however, did not request this illegal content, it was merely supplied to them through my equipment, which, again, never stored it. I have a feeling that someone would be legally at fault here, but I'll be damned if I can figure out who.
With regards to the Centauri being able to see nothing, was this a result of the Vorlons not having influenced them in these ways, or is it perhaps a Londo-specific matter, due to the fact that he was dealing with the Shadows at the time? I don't recall other Centauri remarking on the subject, but I imagine that they would see one of their household gods or something.
Please disregard the previous message - I just reread the title and picked up the "each" that I missed. Each episode will be about the past of a character. Not the series as a whole. That'll learn me to read more carefully before I post...
"Our Favorite Characters" - Your pics?
on
Babylon 5 Coming Back?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I'm betting that the series will be about Sheridan's actions during the Earth-Minbari war. That would provide sufficient eye-candy and war drama for a plot, while at the same time confining the characters to those of primarily human or Minbari origin, keeping G'Kar out of the picture (RIP Mr. Katsulas). Also, during this time frame, Stephen Franklin was galavanting around the galaxy learning about xenobiology, so this war setting would also keep his character out of the picture (RIP. Mr. Biggs).
You are correct, it would not be the same without Andreas Katsulas, who died of lung cancer on Feb. 13 of this year. Similarly, the death of Richard Biggs, who played Dr. Franklin, should not go unmourned. He died of an aortic tear back in 2004.
I submit that you could be absolutly right about this. I don't really have the time nor inclination to look it up at the moment. However, that does not invalidate the rest of my post, nor does it change the fact that, while this country and its citizens, in general, may adhere to certain values that christians hold dear, there is a guaranteed seperation of church (all churches, christian and otherwise) and state. This seperation means that we are not living in a christian nation, we are simply living in nation that has christians in it. Only a christian theocracy could truely be called a christian nation.
And, before anyone starts, my comment on GWB was only meant to point out the idiocy of the original poster's comment, it was not meant to make any kind of commentary on the war efforts.
Don't they interlace the lines, with each card doing an alternate line?
That's the way the old Voodoo cards did it, but that's not how it works with the new nVidia cards; they just split the screen into 2 halves (I believe the actual size of each portion is dynamic, to allow for a more even work load between the cards when one portion of the screen is recieving more action than the other) and each card renders its own half.
This is the NEW implimentation of SLI, not the old Voodoo school of thought. In this version, each card renders a different part of the screen, not every other line.
From what I understood (when I read an article about it around what, a month back?) is that yes, each card renders a seperate portion of the screen, but the spiffy thing about this new implimentation is that the ratio is dynamic; if there's a lot going on in one half of the screen, and not much in the other portion, the under-utilized card starts rendering more of the screen to allow more focus on the "action-intensive" area by the other card.
Then again, I could just be talking out of my ass here - like I said, its been a while since I read the article, and I may have gotten some of the details mixed up with some other dual-card rendering schemes I've read about.
Yeah, it probably WOOD KNOT work as well as advertised. We should all LEAF it alone until someone can test the technology.
Call me a troll if you want, but, you know, STICKS and stones... it would only prove to me that you can't see the FOREST for the TREES, you LUMBERing oaf.
AMD has also recently released a new multiprocessor motherboard configuration for its low-end processors. Machines based on this technology will specialize in playing 80's MP3's.
That's because Microsoft has a proven history of stifling innovation, whereas Google has been doing nothing BUT innovation since their inception. Further, when MS expands, we can expect some technological offshoot of this expansion to be irrevocably tied to the OS with the next service pack, whereas Google still provides a better service while still leaving us the option of having it or not.
Re:Isn't all computing biologically inspired ?
on
Biomorphic Software
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
If you are talking about creating an Artificial Intelligence to pass the Turing Test, then yes. For those not in the know, the Turing Test is a test for artificial intelligence based on social interactions. If a person interacting with an entity on-screen cannot tell if that entity is a human or an AI, then the AI passes the test and is considered "intelligent".
The problem with the Turing Test is that it biases AI towards a human-style intelect, where that might not be the best way (or even a good way) to make an AI. For all we know, a good AI might have a thought-process which, to us, would seem completely crazy.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, so today we've had stories on how to do 3D Virtual Reconstructions of places or environments and now 3D visualization of people's internals. All we're missing is an article on holograms.
I want my freakin' holodeck!
"Doomsday can be understated."
Of course not! He killed Superman!
Well, if they're concentrating on this now then Vista *MUST* be free of all security holes, instabilities, and bugs. Right?
Right?
Suppose that you redirect all content requests to an illegal download that is not stored on anything that is associated with you. Who then would be legally at fault? You're doing nothing illegal, its your routing equipment, you can do with it what you damn well please. Is the freeloader suddenly guilty of breaking whatever laws the download or its contents violate?
then I will be setting up a script to make VOIP calls into Saudi Arabia and Iraq at 4am every morning, and have a text-to-speech program start reading off an Arabic or Farsi translation of Dr. Seuss. Let the NSA have fun with that one, 'cause I know I will.
Scary? Considering this is Microsoft we're talking about, to me this ranks somewhere slightly below surprising, and even then only because its almost an admission. Just watch out for Windows Firewall to start filtering content and blocking non-Microsoft sites.
Would it be appropriate to make a DNF joke here? Or maybe Starcraft: Ghost?
Suppose that I were to set up a WAP that rerouted all ftp requests to some kind of copyrighted material, hosted out there in the ether of the web. People connect to my network and try to get a download, instead getting the illegal content. Who, if anyone, is legally at fault here? At no point was the illegal content hosted or stored on anything of mine. And also, I have set up no controls on who can access my network, so I'm not legally at fault for them trying to download something through my network (or at least, that's how I understand it). As has been said before, its my networking equipment, I can do whatever I want with it, including redirecting all links or requests to something else. The people on the other end, however, did not request this illegal content, it was merely supplied to them through my equipment, which, again, never stored it. I have a feeling that someone would be legally at fault here, but I'll be damned if I can figure out who.
Simply because one is a real MD does not mean that one isn't a crackpot. Ever hear of homeopathic "medicine"?
With regards to the Centauri being able to see nothing, was this a result of the Vorlons not having influenced them in these ways, or is it perhaps a Londo-specific matter, due to the fact that he was dealing with the Shadows at the time? I don't recall other Centauri remarking on the subject, but I imagine that they would see one of their household gods or something.
On the subject of JMS and Star Trek, didn't he say at some point that he'd be interested in doing a Star Trek TV series recently?
Please disregard the previous message - I just reread the title and picked up the "each" that I missed. Each episode will be about the past of a character. Not the series as a whole. That'll learn me to read more carefully before I post...
I'm betting that the series will be about Sheridan's actions during the Earth-Minbari war. That would provide sufficient eye-candy and war drama for a plot, while at the same time confining the characters to those of primarily human or Minbari origin, keeping G'Kar out of the picture (RIP Mr. Katsulas). Also, during this time frame, Stephen Franklin was galavanting around the galaxy learning about xenobiology, so this war setting would also keep his character out of the picture (RIP. Mr. Biggs).
You are correct, it would not be the same without Andreas Katsulas, who died of lung cancer on Feb. 13 of this year. Similarly, the death of Richard Biggs, who played Dr. Franklin, should not go unmourned. He died of an aortic tear back in 2004.
I submit that you could be absolutly right about this. I don't really have the time nor inclination to look it up at the moment. However, that does not invalidate the rest of my post, nor does it change the fact that, while this country and its citizens, in general, may adhere to certain values that christians hold dear, there is a guaranteed seperation of church (all churches, christian and otherwise) and state. This seperation means that we are not living in a christian nation, we are simply living in nation that has christians in it. Only a christian theocracy could truely be called a christian nation.
And, before anyone starts, my comment on GWB was only meant to point out the idiocy of the original poster's comment, it was not meant to make any kind of commentary on the war efforts.
That's because this isn't Scan Line Interleave. Its Scalable Link Interface.
http://www.nvidia.com/page/sli.html
Don't they interlace the lines, with each card doing an alternate line?
That's the way the old Voodoo cards did it, but that's not how it works with the new nVidia cards; they just split the screen into 2 halves (I believe the actual size of each portion is dynamic, to allow for a more even work load between the cards when one portion of the screen is recieving more action than the other) and each card renders its own half.
This is the NEW implimentation of SLI, not the old Voodoo school of thought. In this version, each card renders a different part of the screen, not every other line.
As I understand it, you're real close here.
From what I understood (when I read an article about it around what, a month back?) is that yes, each card renders a seperate portion of the screen, but the spiffy thing about this new implimentation is that the ratio is dynamic; if there's a lot going on in one half of the screen, and not much in the other portion, the under-utilized card starts rendering more of the screen to allow more focus on the "action-intensive" area by the other card.
Then again, I could just be talking out of my ass here - like I said, its been a while since I read the article, and I may have gotten some of the details mixed up with some other dual-card rendering schemes I've read about.
Yeah, it probably WOOD KNOT work as well as advertised. We should all LEAF it alone until someone can test the technology.
Call me a troll if you want, but, you know, STICKS and stones... it would only prove to me that you can't see the FOREST for the TREES, you LUMBERing oaf.
Palm trees: Jimmy Buffet
Cannibus: Grateful Dead, Pink Floyd
Vegetables: Boy-bands and Brittney Spears
Grains, Barley, Hops, & Tobacco: Frank Sinatra
Squashes: Smashing Pumpkins
Eggplants: MC Hawking
Genetically modified crops: "Weird" Al
AMD has also recently released a new multiprocessor motherboard configuration for its low-end processors. Machines based on this technology will specialize in playing 80's MP3's.
They're calling it the Duron-Duron.
That's because Microsoft has a proven history of stifling innovation, whereas Google has been doing nothing BUT innovation since their inception. Further, when MS expands, we can expect some technological offshoot of this expansion to be irrevocably tied to the OS with the next service pack, whereas Google still provides a better service while still leaving us the option of having it or not.
If you are talking about creating an Artificial Intelligence to pass the Turing Test, then yes. For those not in the know, the Turing Test is a test for artificial intelligence based on social interactions. If a person interacting with an entity on-screen cannot tell if that entity is a human or an AI, then the AI passes the test and is considered "intelligent".
The problem with the Turing Test is that it biases AI towards a human-style intelect, where that might not be the best way (or even a good way) to make an AI. For all we know, a good AI might have a thought-process which, to us, would seem completely crazy.
Wow, I'm impressed - a bunch of intelligent responces, and narry an MS bash in sight!
Alrighty folks, you've convinced me.
FireFox.Users++;