You know if we really want to train the advertisers, we should only click on tasteful, unobtrusive ads. This rewards the sites that don't pander to the "used car dealers" of the internet and educates the advertisers that to reach some market segments, discreet is more effective.
One highly-annoying banner ad seems like a small price to pay. It's not a pop-up, pop-under or anything really obtrusive. Scroll past it and forget it.
It can be done, but pretty much requires a couple of EEs and possibly a semiconductor fab. At a minimum it requires documentation from the manufacturer about how they map the virtual cylinder/head/track/block IDs used by SATA/IDE into the physical locations on the media. Once you have this information, you could create your own disk device driver to force data into the specific locations. This still doesn't get you beyond the structure imposed by the low level format of the drive, though.
Alternatively, you could rip the controller hardware off the disk drive and reverse-engineer it to figure out the hardware location mappings on your own. You'd then have to build your own controller hardware (hence the fab) to gain the required control and impose your own low level format on the drive.
As a practical matter, your best bet is to write your own file system driver. That at least is plausible, even if it's reinventing the wheel.
Take a hint from spam and malware writers. Instead of putting up a boring error message, put up big flashing letters that say "YOU ARE THE 1,000,000th user of this system. Click here to claim your prize!!!"
Another option is to make your error boxes "unclickable" like that old prank software that would move the message box every time you moved over the "No" button, so you were forced to click "Yes". Make the "OK" button unclickable for your error messages.
I'll leave the question of artistic merit to others. It's probably only a matter of time until a system passes the musical Turing test.
Let's have fun with another ramification of this development: What happens to the political justification for copyright of music when anyone can buy a reasonably priced software package and generate a potential hit? Who owns the copyright of generated music, the software developer or the purchaser of the software? I foresee more interesting times in the evolution of the shrink-wrap EULA.
I'm more worried about when robots start reproducing themselves on their own initiative, which for me is the true Turing test: when a machine is able to recognize that its programming is contrary to its own self-interest and starts dismantling cars to build copies of itself, then you know you have a true AI.
Or how about Heinlein's suggestion that one house of the legislature pass laws with a 2/3 majority and one house can repeal laws with a simple majority.
I guess this means/. will have to register under this law.
I can see their intent. They want a charge to throw at the terrorists for cases where they can't prove any specific action. Kind of like getting Al Capone for tax evasion. And they probably brought the KKK types along as a new way to suppress the black vote.
I guess the first organizations this law should apply to are the TEA party, the Green party, the LIbertarian party and all those other political groups who aren't Democrats or Republicans. And whichever of the two major parties is out of office would have to register as well. After all, campaigning to replace the governor of the state every four years sure sounds subversive to me!
If you're referring to common carrier status, I'm not convinced that applies to internet data traffic. Although mobile browsing complicates things as a hybrid service between voice and data.
It seems like the Slashdot moderation/meta-moderation scheme would still work fairly well with that kind of volume. Though getting 4chan users to moderate would probably be futile. But that's a 4chan culture clash more than a technical limitation.
Interesting that the "herding cats" ad still gets mentioned after all these years. In some ways the "running of the squirrels" ad was even funnier, but IIRC it never aired on a superbowl.
I wonder if their new HP overlords will ever produce a commercial that is remembered 10 years later (or more).
The regulation link in the main article is a regulation that already took effect in January. The new regulation under discussion is the one referenced by parent. And that regulation ONLY discusses Li-ion batteries. Nothing about NiMH or Alkaline except to contrast their relative safety with the fire risks of lithium.
Don't fall for scare-mongering industry whores that masquerade as journalists.
"Sec. 171.12 North American shipments.
(a) * * *
(6) Lithium cells and batteries. Lithium cells and batteries must be offered for transport and transported in accordance with the provisions of this subchapter. Lithium metal cells and batteries (UN3090) are forbidden for transport aboard passenger-carrying aircraft.
(i) The provisions of this paragraph (a)(6) do not apply to packages that contain 5 kg (11 pounds) net weight or less lithium metal cells or batteries that are contained in or packed with equipment (UN3091). "
There are similar provisions for international travel, but citing a different regulation.
Read the regulation. It does nothing of the kind. The point of not allowing batteries in CHECKED baggage is so that the "small fires" are in an area accessible to the cabin crew. There is no ban on the devices in carry-on. And if the airline just installs fire-suppression equipment (halon?) in the cargo hold, there is no need to ban the batteries in checked-luggage either. The airlines can recover their costs by raising the checked-bag fee by a buck or two.
The regulation says that batteries have to either be stored in an area of the cargo hold that is covered by fire-suppression equipment or they have to be in an area accessible by the flight crew (i.e., the cabin), so that the crew can act to suppress fires. Do a text search on "batteries" in the regulation to see. It's not that the batteries are any safer in one location vs. another, it's that the batteries have to be in an area where it's possible to put out a potential fire.
Also, there is no mention in the regulation of alkaline or NiMH batteries. That part of the article sounds like an industry troll that the Computerworld reporter swallowed whole. In fact the whole thing is a troll. The added cost of fire suppression equipment in the cargo hold of a plane, spread out over the lifetime of the aircraft and the amount of cargo/passengers it carries, is not going to increase the shipping cost of a digital camera by $40. I can see where the transition period might be a bit more painful. Older aircraft that need to be retrofitted would cost more to fix up than a new aircraft with the features built-in, and the lifetime to recover the added costs would be shorter.
Nothing to see here folks. Just another lobbyist ranting. Move along.
A lot of the article's examples are just plain false. Did a text search of the regulation for the word batteries and every mention of batteries is coupled with the word "Lithium" or else is a grammatical or referential revision that in no way alters the regulation. SO no impact to NiCad or Alkaline batteries.
Hear hear. Yes the limits are being exceeded - a lot -, but the limits have not been exceeded outside the plant perimeter (yet). No actual drinking water has been found to be contaminated. The problem is being investigated, and it looks like they are close to finding the leak. Their latest sample well came up at pretty much the concentration of the raw tritium in the plant.
On the other hand, if they know where tritium _can_ come from, they should be able to estimate the size of the leak based on how much is missing. It's alarming that no one has documented those numbers yet. And regardless of how much leaked out, there's a good chance the ground water for miles around the plant will have to be monitored for decades to come.
I agree about the need for _well-regulated_ nuclear power. If the plant is exceeding the legal limit, especially by a factor of 37 or so and even more-so with the stone-walling that appears to have taken place, it's time to shut it down. If the legal limit is set too low, that is a separate matter from the fact that they are violating the current law. If I'm going 90 in a 65 MPH zone, I can't defend myself by saying that 90 is a safe speed on that road, even if my analysis is correct that the road is safe at that speed.
Or if we accept for the sake of argument the idea that the 20,000 picocurie limit is too low, and the factor of 37 by which they are exceeding the radiation limit, the analogy is more like going 370 MPH in a 10 MPH speed zone. Which is a pretty stark reminder of just how badly they are breaking the law, and endangering the water supply.
Besides, I'm sure they have plenty of money to lobby congress and/or the EPA to modify the limits for the future. So no excuses. Take care of the problem.
Folks just need to be aware that it IS advertising-supported and be willing to put up with the inconveniences that causes. Fortunately MJ seems to be avoiding the trap of maximizing revenue by accepting ads from every scammy business that has money to throw around.
Slashdot Mirror
You know if we really want to train the advertisers, we should only click on tasteful, unobtrusive ads. This rewards the sites that don't pander to the "used car dealers" of the internet and educates the advertisers that to reach some market segments, discreet is more effective.
One highly-annoying banner ad seems like a small price to pay. It's not a pop-up, pop-under or anything really obtrusive. Scroll past it and forget it.
It isn't worth trying.
It can be done, but pretty much requires a couple of EEs and possibly a semiconductor fab. At a minimum it requires documentation from the manufacturer about how they map the virtual cylinder/head/track/block IDs used by SATA/IDE into the physical locations on the media. Once you have this information, you could create your own disk device driver to force data into the specific locations. This still doesn't get you beyond the structure imposed by the low level format of the drive, though.
Alternatively, you could rip the controller hardware off the disk drive and reverse-engineer it to figure out the hardware location mappings on your own. You'd then have to build your own controller hardware (hence the fab) to gain the required control and impose your own low level format on the drive.
As a practical matter, your best bet is to write your own file system driver. That at least is plausible, even if it's reinventing the wheel.
Take a hint from spam and malware writers. Instead of putting up a boring error message, put up big flashing letters that say "YOU ARE THE 1,000,000th user of this system. Click here to claim your prize!!!"
Another option is to make your error boxes "unclickable" like that old prank software that would move the message box every time you moved over the "No" button, so you were forced to click "Yes". Make the "OK" button unclickable for your error messages.
Is there anything that's exciting as the press release makes it out to be? Sports Championships? Gadgets? Travel?
Heck even porn is never as exciting as the press release.
As an employee of an IBM competitor, I'd be overjoyed if it turned out to be empty marketing hype. :D
I'll leave the question of artistic merit to others. It's probably only a matter of time until a system passes the musical Turing test.
Let's have fun with another ramification of this development: What happens to the political justification for copyright of music when anyone can buy a reasonably priced software package and generate a potential hit? Who owns the copyright of generated music, the software developer or the purchaser of the software? I foresee more interesting times in the evolution of the shrink-wrap EULA.
As a computer engineer, I'm fascinated by the potential improvements in performance.
As a wired citizen, I'm terrified of the additional data-mining capabilities this will provide to our corporate overlords.
when they pry my hands from my cold, dead brain.
I'm more worried about when robots start reproducing themselves on their own initiative, which for me is the true Turing test: when a machine is able to recognize that its programming is contrary to its own self-interest and starts dismantling cars to build copies of itself, then you know you have a true AI.
Or how about Heinlein's suggestion that one house of the legislature pass laws with a 2/3 majority and one house can repeal laws with a simple majority.
I guess this means /. will have to register under this law.
I can see their intent. They want a charge to throw at the terrorists for cases where they can't prove any specific action. Kind of like getting Al Capone for tax evasion. And they probably brought the KKK types along as a new way to suppress the black vote.
I guess the first organizations this law should apply to are the TEA party, the Green party, the LIbertarian party and all those other political groups who aren't Democrats or Republicans. And whichever of the two major parties is out of office would have to register as well. After all, campaigning to replace the governor of the state every four years sure sounds subversive to me!
If you're referring to common carrier status, I'm not convinced that applies to internet data traffic. Although mobile browsing complicates things as a hybrid service between voice and data.
It seems like the Slashdot moderation/meta-moderation scheme would still work fairly well with that kind of volume. Though getting 4chan users to moderate would probably be futile. But that's a 4chan culture clash more than a technical limitation.
Interesting that the "herding cats" ad still gets mentioned after all these years. In some ways the "running of the squirrels" ad was even funnier, but IIRC it never aired on a superbowl.
I wonder if their new HP overlords will ever produce a commercial that is remembered 10 years later (or more).
The regulation link in the main article is a regulation that already took effect in January. The new regulation under discussion is the one referenced by parent. And that regulation ONLY discusses Li-ion batteries. Nothing about NiMH or Alkaline except to contrast their relative safety with the fire risks of lithium.
Don't fall for scare-mongering industry whores that masquerade as journalists.
"Sec. 171.12 North American shipments.
(a) * * *
(6) Lithium cells and batteries. Lithium cells and batteries must
be offered for transport and transported in accordance with the
provisions of this subchapter. Lithium metal cells and batteries
(UN3090) are forbidden for transport aboard passenger-carrying
aircraft.
(i) The provisions of this paragraph (a)(6) do not apply to
packages that contain 5 kg (11 pounds) net weight or less lithium metal
cells or batteries that are contained in or packed with equipment
(UN3091).
"
There are similar provisions for international travel, but citing a different regulation.
Read the regulation. It does nothing of the kind. The point of not allowing batteries in CHECKED baggage is so that the "small fires" are in an area accessible to the cabin crew. There is no ban on the devices in carry-on. And if the airline just installs fire-suppression equipment (halon?) in the cargo hold, there is no need to ban the batteries in checked-luggage either. The airlines can recover their costs by raising the checked-bag fee by a buck or two.
The regulation says that batteries have to either be stored in an area of the cargo hold that is covered by fire-suppression equipment or they have to be in an area accessible by the flight crew (i.e., the cabin), so that the crew can act to suppress fires. Do a text search on "batteries" in the regulation to see. It's not that the batteries are any safer in one location vs. another, it's that the batteries have to be in an area where it's possible to put out a potential fire.
Also, there is no mention in the regulation of alkaline or NiMH batteries. That part of the article sounds like an industry troll that the Computerworld reporter swallowed whole. In fact the whole thing is a troll. The added cost of fire suppression equipment in the cargo hold of a plane, spread out over the lifetime of the aircraft and the amount of cargo/passengers it carries, is not going to increase the shipping cost of a digital camera by $40. I can see where the transition period might be a bit more painful. Older aircraft that need to be retrofitted would cost more to fix up than a new aircraft with the features built-in, and the lifetime to recover the added costs would be shorter.
Nothing to see here folks. Just another lobbyist ranting. Move along.
A lot of the article's examples are just plain false. Did a text search of the regulation for the word batteries and every mention of batteries is coupled with the word "Lithium" or else is a grammatical or referential revision that in no way alters the regulation. SO no impact to NiCad or Alkaline batteries.
Some interesting stuff on fuel-cells, though.
Nice viral marketing campaign, you two.
Not 37%. 3750%
750,000 vs. 20,000
</pedantic>
Hear hear. Yes the limits are being exceeded - a lot -, but the limits have not been exceeded outside the plant perimeter (yet). No actual drinking water has been found to be contaminated. The problem is being investigated, and it looks like they are close to finding the leak. Their latest sample well came up at pretty much the concentration of the raw tritium in the plant.
On the other hand, if they know where tritium _can_ come from, they should be able to estimate the size of the leak based on how much is missing. It's alarming that no one has documented those numbers yet. And regardless of how much leaked out, there's a good chance the ground water for miles around the plant will have to be monitored for decades to come.
I agree about the need for _well-regulated_ nuclear power. If the plant is exceeding the legal limit, especially by a factor of 37 or so and even more-so with the stone-walling that appears to have taken place, it's time to shut it down. If the legal limit is set too low, that is a separate matter from the fact that they are violating the current law. If I'm going 90 in a 65 MPH zone, I can't defend myself by saying that 90 is a safe speed on that road, even if my analysis is correct that the road is safe at that speed.
Or if we accept for the sake of argument the idea that the 20,000 picocurie limit is too low, and the factor of 37 by which they are exceeding the radiation limit, the analogy is more like going 370 MPH in a 10 MPH speed zone. Which is a pretty stark reminder of just how badly they are breaking the law, and endangering the water supply.
Besides, I'm sure they have plenty of money to lobby congress and/or the EPA to modify the limits for the future. So no excuses. Take care of the problem.
...still thinking.
Folks just need to be aware that it IS advertising-supported and be willing to put up with the inconveniences that causes. Fortunately MJ seems to be avoiding the trap of maximizing revenue by accepting ads from every scammy business that has money to throw around.
A zombie maybe, but not a scam.