I let my subscription lapse a couple of years ago and when I got around to re-subscribing last year I found quite a few unpleasant surprises.
Heck, I stopped subscribing to Scientific American about ten years ago. I sensed that the publisher was targeting an audience with less scientific background. When I started reading SA it was somewhere between a scientific journal and Popular Science magazine. It seems to have moved closer to Popular Science. That just too "thin and watery" for me.
I still subscribe to Science News. It delivers the goods; short summaries of new scientific discoveries, new research, and updates on important topics. It provides a good overview of what's going on in science research. I've had a subscription for going on 25 years...the quality has remained high all that time.
The remarkable Robotic Optical Transient Search Experiment [ROTSE] telescopes have tracked a 2 billion year old hypernova, from which an intense gamma ray burst reached earth on March 29.
Wonderful...an intense gamma ray burst. I wonder how much this increases my chances of getting cancer...?
Banning the alteration of photos is a good thing. Firing the photographer for a compositional modification isn't (IMHO). A month's leave w/o pay perhaps.
I totally disagree. Those were the rules, he knew them, he broke them, and the Times did exactly what they said they'd do. He is paid to be a photographer, not a digital artist. He stepped outside the bounds of his agreement with his employer, one that exists to protect the integrity of the press against just such incidents. I find it extraordinarily ironic that people would defend such behavior, particularly when so many people are questioning the integrity of the press.
Yes, the modifications were mostly compositional, but there is a *very good reason* for the L.A. Times banning the alteration of photos: because once you do it, the only difference between minor compositional alterations and ones that change the content in more significant ways is *just a matter of degree*. In other words, once you cross that threshold, the amount of alteration or significance of the alteration that is permissible is only a matter of judgement, a moving line in the sand. Banning such alteration of photographs outright shows good judgement by the publisher and demonstrates their commitment against the falsification of photographic evidence.
Of course, this does nothing to prevent completely staged photographs, but at least it's something.
Jeez, I post a humorous post on a lame, bogus April Fool's topic...and someone mods my post "offtopic". Wow, talk about ironic; I just CANNOT catch a break today. Maybe I need to start writing in French.
We.., *I* can solder SMPs with a *blow drier*. Ergo, I rule.
Hmmm...the period key seems to have climbed up my keyboard. Make that "Well" instead of "We.." It looks like I will need to *seriously menace* that troublesome key with the blow drier until it descends.
We ought to applaude O'Reilly for acknowledging the importance of honoring the original intent of copyright to promote innovation and the limited term of protection for intellectual property to benefit individuals. They are one of the few corporate citizens who have broken ranks to speak out against the attempts by industry to make copyrights more or less permanent. But we should also note that O'Reilly has a bit less self-interest in promoting extended copyright protections due to the nature of the majority of their publication: technical publications that have a limited shelf life.
I have three LED flashlights. My first was an Arc AAA flashlight. It uses a Nichia white LED, a DC-DC converter, and a single AAA cell. You twist the head of the flashlight to turn it on and off. It is very small, only a bit bigger than the AAA battery, but gives quite a bit of light and has a great runtime of approximately 5 hours on an alkaline cell. It's terrific.
My second LED light is an Arc LS LED flashlight. It features a white Luxeon Star 1 watt LED, a DC-DC current regulator, and runs on a lithium 123 cell. It has a hard anodized finish that is extremely durable. It is only 2 3/8" long and is just under an inch in diameter. It has a very bright bluish-white light. It is very easy to carry in your pocket and I find myself using it daily. I bought it as a factory second directly from Arc. I highly recommend this flashlight. Arc sells their flashlights through distributors and from their own webpage at http://store.yahoo.com/flashlight/.
My last LED light is an Electro Lumens Blaster II. It also features a white Luxeon Star 1 watt LED, but has a large aluminum body that holds three 1.5 volt D cells. This light is very bright and will run at nearly full brightness for about 24 hours, and at reduced brightness for another 48 hours. It is a very cool flashlight. You can find them for sale at http://www.elektrolumens.com/4_SALE/For_Sale.html
This isn't a referendum on Theo, so take your gratuitous ad hominem attack somewhere else. There are plenty of other more appropriate discussions where you can rag on Theo.
Seems inherently unfair to me. Unless you are rich, you lose the rights to your work?
It wasn't particularly fair to YOU when congress increased the copyright protection period. And your comment is particularly ironic, because it is precisely because large corporations (like Disney) ARE rich that you lost YOUR rights...your right to have the material become part of the public domain after a reasonable time to allow the copyright holder to benefit from his work. Isn't THAT unfair?
I believe that charging a steadily INCREASING amount would be a better idea. That way there is increasing incentive to allow the copyright to revert to the public domain.
Recent changes to the timelines are clearly Faustian deals by politicians to sell out to copyright holders. In my mind the public clearly loses. The original idea of limiting the time one can claim intellectual property was sound and still has merit. The notion that ideas and information can permanently be surrounded by barbed wire and denied to all seems intuitively wrong. It should be clear that the institution of a fee to maintain the copyright amounts to another tax. So politicians would treat it as another endless source of funds to be milked to finance their pet projects. Perhaps you can see where this would lead.
Ultimately, I think the better idea is to put heavy pressure on congress to roll back the copyright protection period. Then we need some working campaign finance reform.
BSDForums writes "OpenBSD has a well-deserved reputation for fanatical security. Why is the U.S. military funding it? What do you get out of it? Cameron Laird and George Peter Staplin investigate and talk to Theo de Raadt, the creator, overseer, and taskmaster of the OpenBSD project!"
OpenBSD has a reputation for very good security. I wouldn't consider the quest for strong security "fanatical" any more than I would consider the quest for a bug-free operating system "fanatical."
Why is the U.S. military funding it? What do you get out of it?
The U.S. military is funding it because it makes sense to do so. Anyone who looks at OpenBSD's record for security and stability, the fact that it is free to use and modify in any way you desire, and doesn't consider it as a potentially cheap and useful platform for security applications...well, they aren't thinking clearly.
What do you get out of it?
I find it makes a great platform for firewalls and terminal servers, among other things. Ones that are reliable, very secure, with no software cost and lot of online support information.
Cameron Laird and George Peter Staplin investigate and talk to Theo de Raadt, the creator, overseer, and taskmaster of the OpenBSD project!"
They may have talked to Theo, but they sure didn't *quote* him much. The article was very thin on information. In my opinion it hardly merited a/. posting.
Woohoo...too bad I didn't get this in my previous posting (see above). Check this out...this comes from the Earthquakes FAQ from the Quake Tracker website created by Michael Kozuch, the guy responsible for geoForecaster.com:
4. Can earthquakes be predicted?
It is possible to estimate where big earthquakes are likely in the next 50 to 100 years, based on geological investigations and the historical record of earthquakes. However, it is not yet possible to accurately predict the time and location of the next earthquake. A number of physical changes have been observed before some earthquakes, but the problem is that so far, no particular change has been noted consistently. Some scientists have observed changes in the earth's magnetic and electric fields, gas emissions, changes in water well levels, and changes in the levels of dissolved gases in groundwater. Other scientists have noted changes in the frequency and location of small earthquakes. A very small number of earthquakes have been successfully predicted. The most notable success was near Haicheng, China in 1975, where 90,000 people were evacuated a few hours before an earthquake that destroyed 90 percent of the buildings. The prediction was based on unusual animal behaviour and a greatly increased number of small earthquakes (foreshocks) that suddenly stopped. One of the animal observations was that snakes came out of hibernation and died due to the cold. It is now thought that this was caused by unseasonably warm weather. However, scientists wrongly predicted a major quake in Kwantung Province, and for two months millions of people lived in tents before authorities decided the prediction was wrong. Later in 1976, an unpredicted quake, magnitude 7.8, in China's Tangshan Province took 250,000 lives. It was the most disastrous earthquake this century. Since then, China has moved its resources away from earthquake prediction and into improving the earthquake resistance of buildings.
I find it highly amusing that the FAQ page of the website hosting his earlier project says you can't predict an earthquake. I guess he didn't read the page.;^)
a story from the Southeast Missourian website that features several quotes such as this one from Professor Nicholas Tibbs of the Southeast Missouri State University in Cape Girardeau:
"You can't accurately predict earthquakes," he said. "The technology to do that doesn't exist. It sounds like a scam to me."
Michael J. Kozuch; Ph.D., Peace Corps Volunteer Geologist, Honduras 1987-1990; Seismologist with the Institute of Geologic & Nuclear Sciences (New Zealand). Honduras Expertise: General geology of Honduras, tectonic modeling and geophysics Current activities: Investigation of novel approaches in seismic hazard analysis and collection of geophysical information relevant to Honduras, email: m.kozuch@gns.cri.nz Mail: P.O. IGNS, P.O. Box 1320, Wellington, New Zealand, Tel: 64-4-473-8208 (wk) or 225 Country Club Dr., San Francisco, CA 94132 USA. additional information at: http://www.gphs.vuw.ac.nz:80/staff/kozuch.html
this web page listing him Michael as part of the GNS of New Zealand. The GNS, formerly New Zealand's Geological Survey, which was transformed into a government-owned company in 1992. Interestingly, the GNS website hosts the New Zealand Hazard Watch web page which provides "up-to-date information on volcanoes, floods, landslips, tsunamis, solar activity and earthquakes." The GNS website identifies Mike Kozuch as one of two project leaders of the Quake Tracker Development Team. Perhaps Michael used his experience with this development to try to make a website that was more financially rewarding.
My take? Present knowledge and technology cannot forecast an earthquake. In my opinion anybody that represents otherwise is incorrect...you can be the judge of the reasons for their statements to the contrary.
Obviously citing a couple of examples cannot prove that regulation is bad in general...
Let me say one reason for rules is that there are people and organizations that will do unacceptable things (and often feel obligated to do them in the interests of their stakeholders) in the absence of rules to the contrary. Can we then agree that rules *might be a necessary evil*?
You site as examples rules that affect wages and labeling requirements for commerce. These are arguably bad (or misguided or selfish) regulations but certainly don't serve as arguments dismissing the value of laws such as those against price fixing in the absence of a competitive marketplace, or ones that keep large chemical companies from freely dumping carcinogens into waterways, or ones that set minimum standards for the packaging and shipment of explosive and caustic substances.
I know that currently it is popular to imagine that modern society got where it is without laws regulating business, or that people won't do the kind of harm with corporations that individuals can do with knives and guns. But history tells us that businesses DO need regulation, and that their power and resources allow them to cause pain and suffering to a great many more people than a single individual with a baseball bat.
Moreover, many business laws are much less dramatic than that, most serving to make business transactions more orderly and efficient. Businesses often ASK government to pass regulations to clarify what is acceptable corporate behavior and to ensure that the rules are applied equally and fairly to all competitors. This is what I meant earlier when I spoke of "providing a level playing field." Such rules are often mutually beneficial--not harmful--to business interests. Read up on the subject of Game Theory on how cooperation with enforceable rules can maximize the benefits to all the partners in a relationship.
1. So now you're arguing FOR rules when before you argued AGAINST them? I'm getting dizzy....
2. Rules get ignored if there is no organization (formal or informal, police or posse) that adequately enforces them. I just had this discussion with a friend who moved from his old neighborhood to a new community with strict homeowner's rules and enforcement to escape the drug dealers and trogolodytes who kept him awake at 1 a.m. tuning up their off road vehicles.
3. Please provide an example of a modern country within an order of magnitude of the size of Australia that has been able to exist for more than a generation without a centralized political authority.
In any case, none of this is even slightly relevant when it comes to maintaining order among telecommunications providers. Capitalism is a game played to win, and every game needs rules to ensure all are satisfied that it is won fairly.
Slashdot Mirror
I let my subscription lapse a couple of years ago and when I got around to re-subscribing last year I found quite a few unpleasant surprises.
Heck, I stopped subscribing to Scientific American about ten years ago. I sensed that the publisher was targeting an audience with less scientific background. When I started reading SA it was somewhere between a scientific journal and Popular Science magazine. It seems to have moved closer to Popular Science. That just too "thin and watery" for me.
I still subscribe to Science News. It delivers the goods; short summaries of new scientific discoveries, new research, and updates on important topics. It provides a good overview of what's going on in science research. I've had a subscription for going on 25 years...the quality has remained high all that time.
The remarkable Robotic Optical Transient Search Experiment [ROTSE] telescopes have tracked a 2 billion year old hypernova, from which an intense gamma ray burst reached earth on March 29.
Wonderful...an intense gamma ray burst. I wonder how much this increases my chances of getting cancer...?
Banning the alteration of photos is a good thing. Firing the photographer for a compositional modification isn't (IMHO). A month's leave w/o pay perhaps.
I totally disagree. Those were the rules, he knew them, he broke them, and the Times did exactly what they said they'd do. He is paid to be a photographer, not a digital artist. He stepped outside the bounds of his agreement with his employer, one that exists to protect the integrity of the press against just such incidents. I find it extraordinarily ironic that people would defend such behavior, particularly when so many people are questioning the integrity of the press.
Yes, the modifications were mostly compositional, but there is a *very good reason* for the L.A. Times banning the alteration of photos: because once you do it, the only difference between minor compositional alterations and ones that change the content in more significant ways is *just a matter of degree*. In other words, once you cross that threshold, the amount of alteration or significance of the alteration that is permissible is only a matter of judgement, a moving line in the sand. Banning such alteration of photographs outright shows good judgement by the publisher and demonstrates their commitment against the falsification of photographic evidence.
Of course, this does nothing to prevent completely staged photographs, but at least it's something.
Man, it's like a Baghdad aircraft hangar in here...last one out turn out the lights.
At least now I know how to flush out german-speaking nerds.
Jeez, I post a humorous post on a lame, bogus April Fool's topic...and someone mods my post "offtopic". Wow, talk about ironic; I just CANNOT catch a break today. Maybe I need to start writing in French.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
Here it is, April 1, and I have 5 moderator points to use or lose. What a waste. All dressed up and nowhere to go.
So why do astronomers always compare the size of meteors to Volkswagen bugs?
Possibly because they have a similar tendency to explode in flames on impact.
We.., *I* can solder SMPs with a *blow drier*. Ergo, I rule.
Hmmm...the period key seems to have climbed up my keyboard. Make that "Well" instead of "We.." It looks like I will need to *seriously menace* that troublesome key with the blow drier until it descends.
Instead of the traditional soldering iron, Kenneth Maxon has successfully used a toaster oven to solder surface mount parts.
We.., *I* can solder SMPs with a *blow drier*. Ergo, I rule.
We ought to applaude O'Reilly for acknowledging the importance of honoring the original intent of copyright to promote innovation and the limited term of protection for intellectual property to benefit individuals. They are one of the few corporate citizens who have broken ranks to speak out against the attempts by industry to make copyrights more or less permanent. But we should also note that O'Reilly has a bit less self-interest in promoting extended copyright protections due to the nature of the majority of their publication: technical publications that have a limited shelf life.
I would think the following words would also be applicable:
I have three LED flashlights. My first was an Arc AAA flashlight. It uses a Nichia white LED, a DC-DC converter, and a single AAA cell. You twist the head of the flashlight to turn it on and off. It is very small, only a bit bigger than the AAA battery, but gives quite a bit of light and has a great runtime of approximately 5 hours on an alkaline cell. It's terrific.
My second LED light is an Arc LS LED flashlight. It features a white Luxeon Star 1 watt LED, a DC-DC current regulator, and runs on a lithium 123 cell. It has a hard anodized finish that is extremely durable. It is only 2 3/8" long and is just under an inch in diameter. It has a very bright bluish-white light. It is very easy to carry in your pocket and I find myself using it daily. I bought it as a factory second directly from Arc. I highly recommend this flashlight. Arc sells their flashlights through distributors and from their own webpage at http://store.yahoo.com/flashlight/.
My last LED light is an Electro Lumens Blaster II. It also features a white Luxeon Star 1 watt LED, but has a large aluminum body that holds three 1.5 volt D cells. This light is very bright and will run at nearly full brightness for about 24 hours, and at reduced brightness for another 48 hours. It is a very cool flashlight. You can find them for sale at http://www.elektrolumens.com/4_SALE/For_Sale.html
Us Alpha Nerds don't use cases. We just lay our motherboards down on cardboard pizza delivery boxes. Clear computer cases are for posers.
This isn't a referendum on Theo, so take your gratuitous ad hominem attack somewhere else. There are plenty of other more appropriate discussions where you can rag on Theo.
Seems inherently unfair to me. Unless you are rich, you lose the rights to your work?
It wasn't particularly fair to YOU when congress increased the copyright protection period. And your comment is particularly ironic, because it is precisely because large corporations (like Disney) ARE rich that you lost YOUR rights...your right to have the material become part of the public domain after a reasonable time to allow the copyright holder to benefit from his work. Isn't THAT unfair?
I believe that charging a steadily INCREASING amount would be a better idea. That way there is increasing incentive to allow the copyright to revert to the public domain.
Recent changes to the timelines are clearly Faustian deals by politicians to sell out to copyright holders. In my mind the public clearly loses. The original idea of limiting the time one can claim intellectual property was sound and still has merit. The notion that ideas and information can permanently be surrounded by barbed wire and denied to all seems intuitively wrong. It should be clear that the institution of a fee to maintain the copyright amounts to another tax. So politicians would treat it as another endless source of funds to be milked to finance their pet projects. Perhaps you can see where this would lead.
Ultimately, I think the better idea is to put heavy pressure on congress to roll back the copyright protection period. Then we need some working campaign finance reform.
BSDForums writes "OpenBSD has a well-deserved reputation for fanatical security. Why is the U.S. military funding it? What do you get out of it? Cameron Laird and George Peter Staplin investigate and talk to Theo de Raadt, the creator, overseer, and taskmaster of the OpenBSD project!"
/. posting.
OpenBSD has a reputation for very good security. I wouldn't consider the quest for strong security "fanatical" any more than I would consider the quest for a bug-free operating system "fanatical."
Why is the U.S. military funding it? What do you get out of it?
The U.S. military is funding it because it makes sense to do so. Anyone who looks at OpenBSD's record for security and stability, the fact that it is free to use and modify in any way you desire, and doesn't consider it as a potentially cheap and useful platform for security applications...well, they aren't thinking clearly.
What do you get out of it?
I find it makes a great platform for firewalls and terminal servers, among other things. Ones that are reliable, very secure, with no software cost and lot of online support information.
Cameron Laird and George Peter Staplin investigate and talk to Theo de Raadt, the creator, overseer, and taskmaster of the OpenBSD project!"
They may have talked to Theo, but they sure didn't *quote* him much. The article was very thin on information. In my opinion it hardly merited a
So what is the radius?
Woohoo...too bad I didn't get this in my previous posting (see above). Check this out... this comes from the Earthquakes FAQ from the Quake Tracker website created by Michael Kozuch, the guy responsible for geoForecaster.com:
4. Can earthquakes be predicted?
It is possible to estimate where big earthquakes are likely in the next 50 to 100 years, based on geological investigations and the historical record of earthquakes. However, it is not yet possible to accurately predict the time and location of the next earthquake. A number of physical changes have been observed before some earthquakes, but the problem is that so far, no particular change has been noted consistently. Some scientists have observed changes in the earth's magnetic and electric fields, gas emissions, changes in water well levels, and changes in the levels of dissolved gases in groundwater. Other scientists have noted changes in the frequency and location of small earthquakes. A very small number of earthquakes have been successfully predicted. The most notable success was near Haicheng, China in 1975, where 90,000 people were evacuated a few hours before an earthquake that destroyed 90 percent of the buildings. The prediction was based on unusual animal behaviour and a greatly increased number of small earthquakes (foreshocks) that suddenly stopped. One of the animal observations was that snakes came out of hibernation and died due to the cold. It is now thought that this was caused by unseasonably warm weather. However, scientists wrongly predicted a major quake in Kwantung Province, and for two months millions of people lived in tents before authorities decided the prediction was wrong. Later in 1976, an unpredicted quake, magnitude 7.8, in China's Tangshan Province took 250,000 lives. It was the most disastrous earthquake this century. Since then, China has moved its resources away from earthquake prediction and into improving the earthquake resistance of buildings.
I find it highly amusing that the FAQ page of the website hosting his earlier project says you can't predict an earthquake. I guess he didn't read the page.
- a story from the Southeast Missourian website that features several quotes such as this one from Professor Nicholas Tibbs of the Southeast Missouri State University in Cape Girardeau:
-
this entry on the University of Texas Institute for Geophysics" website identifying a Michael J. Kozuch, Ph.D. as being a geoscientist "with active interests in Honduras"
- this web page listing Michael J. Kozuch in an academic reference to a geological map of Honduras.
- this web page listing him Michael as part of the GNS of New Zealand. The GNS, formerly New Zealand's Geological Survey, which was transformed into a government-owned company in 1992. Interestingly, the GNS website hosts the New Zealand Hazard Watch web page which provides "up-to-date information on volcanoes, floods, landslips, tsunamis, solar activity and earthquakes." The GNS website identifies Mike Kozuch as one of two project leaders of the Quake Tracker Development Team. Perhaps Michael used his experience with this development to try to make a website that was more financially rewarding.
My take? Present knowledge and technology cannot forecast an earthquake. In my opinion anybody that represents otherwise is incorrect...you can be the judge of the reasons for their statements to the contrary."You can't accurately predict earthquakes," he said. "The technology to do that doesn't exist. It sounds like a scam to me."
Michael J. Kozuch; Ph.D., Peace Corps Volunteer Geologist, Honduras 1987-1990; Seismologist with the Institute of Geologic & Nuclear Sciences (New Zealand). Honduras Expertise: General geology of Honduras, tectonic modeling and geophysics Current activities: Investigation of novel approaches in seismic hazard analysis and collection of geophysical information relevant to Honduras, email: m.kozuch@gns.cri.nz Mail: P.O. IGNS, P.O. Box 1320, Wellington, New Zealand, Tel: 64-4-473-8208 (wk) or 225 Country Club Dr., San Francisco, CA 94132 USA. additional information at: http://www.gphs.vuw.ac.nz:80/staff/kozuch.html
Have these people not heard of the words "fair use"?
Of course they've heard of fair use...they've been trying to ELIMINATE IT, via technology, for years.
Obviously citing a couple of examples cannot prove that regulation is bad in general...
Let me say one reason for rules is that there are people and organizations that will do unacceptable things (and often feel obligated to do them in the interests of their stakeholders) in the absence of rules to the contrary. Can we then agree that rules *might be a necessary evil*?
You site as examples rules that affect wages and labeling requirements for commerce. These are arguably bad (or misguided or selfish) regulations but certainly don't serve as arguments dismissing the value of laws such as those against price fixing in the absence of a competitive marketplace, or ones that keep large chemical companies from freely dumping carcinogens into waterways, or ones that set minimum standards for the packaging and shipment of explosive and caustic substances.
I know that currently it is popular to imagine that modern society got where it is without laws regulating business, or that people won't do the kind of harm with corporations that individuals can do with knives and guns. But history tells us that businesses DO need regulation, and that their power and resources allow them to cause pain and suffering to a great many more people than a single individual with a baseball bat.
Moreover, many business laws are much less dramatic than that, most serving to make business transactions more orderly and efficient. Businesses often ASK government to pass regulations to clarify what is acceptable corporate behavior and to ensure that the rules are applied equally and fairly to all competitors. This is what I meant earlier when I spoke of "providing a level playing field." Such rules are often mutually beneficial--not harmful--to business interests. Read up on the subject of Game Theory on how cooperation with enforceable rules can maximize the benefits to all the partners in a relationship.
1. So now you're arguing FOR rules when before you argued AGAINST them? I'm getting dizzy....
2. Rules get ignored if there is no organization (formal or informal, police or posse) that adequately enforces them. I just had this discussion with a friend who moved from his old neighborhood to a new community with strict homeowner's rules and enforcement to escape the drug dealers and trogolodytes who kept him awake at 1 a.m. tuning up their off road vehicles.
3. Please provide an example of a modern country within an order of magnitude of the size of Australia that has been able to exist for more than a generation without a centralized political authority.
In any case, none of this is even slightly relevant when it comes to maintaining order among telecommunications providers. Capitalism is a game played to win, and every game needs rules to ensure all are satisfied that it is won fairly.
Excellent response, Xtifr. You've got it just right. It's rare indeed when I see a