See, I had thought that Apple should take over publication of journals.
One problem is that you still need to make the paper copy--people like having them above their desks, and thumbing through them. but it would also be nice to have it online and searchable (i.e. google has access to the abstract AND the text).
The problem is that the company that puts the articles on line won't make much money on it, so will have to do it to gain some other sort of capital. Enter Apple, increases their image among accademics (i.e. free advertising) and they charge just enought to keep the section even.
Of course, it is much more likely that a large society would do this (like SIAM which you know doesn't try to make money because math text books from them cost about $15).
You miss the point. People only pay attention to publications that have good referees (i.e. that carry to good stuff) and so the whole incentive argument doesn't work. Plus the reviewers normally don't work for the publisher.
Secondly, the market has been taken over by one publisher and they are increasing all the prices so much that most universities and other similar organizations (national labs) are reducing their subscriptions!
Yes, but there are no fees involved in any of this. Everyboyd but the publisher pays for journals. The editor also gets a nominal amount of money, but this is nothing.
[...] adding an income tax has a certain amount of stupidity. Honestly have you ever heard of a politician reducing a tax?
You must not have understood. I'm talking about an adjustment to the system. What most people don't understand (and this is oging to sound stupid, but it's true) is that the government both collects taxes and pays for programs that you enjoy. For example, if you ask people if they would rather pay social security tax and receive social security, most say yes. If you ask if people like social security tax, most say no. You are caught in this hole, my friend. If Tennessee did change the tax code they would have to add programs to sustain both taxes--there would have to be a reason to do this.
At the end of the day, I guess I just don't understand why there is a tax on not earning enough money. It seems like times in my life when I'm earning more money I would rater pay a higher proportional tax than times in my life when I am earning less.
Okay, can someone explain to me what it means to be to the right or left of another opperator? What is periodic about this table?
The amazing properties of the periodic table was that you could predict properties of elements that had not yet been discovered, and this amazing property is of use today. For example, we can predict that, chemically, strontium makes a good calcium analog because they are in the same column, and we are right! Strontium is often found in bones where calcium normally is. (this was important when there was a lot of radioactive strontium in fallout and when it decayed it didn't hold the bone together as well.)
Anyway way, for other properties, next-to relationships are importantand also allows for predictions to be made.
Okay, I'm sorry but how are these exploits even that bad.
You have to download a.dmg and after the.dmg is downloaded and mounted (takes a few seconds), you have to click on another link. If you click on the link prematurely, you'll probably get an error.
I see that this is not secure. However, it can not be done with autorefreshs because you have to do two things. In addition,.dmg files are used (in my experience) to distribute applications. If you poeple are downloading.dmgs (that they would think are applications) from untrusted servers, how hard is it to get them anyway?
Again, I know this isn't secure and does not represent the best design, but it's significantly less likely to actualy get computers mucked up than:
a worm
an IE exploit that only requires you to visit one webpage
AND it will never get your dedicated server either (unless you use your server as a PC).
Sorry, but can someone please explain the exploit? How is ssh involved? Part of the problem is that the workaround site won't resolve on my computer...
Yes, and a digital transmission consumes almost exactly the same amount of spectrum as an analog transmission. This is not a coincidence, teh FCC mandated that any digital system consume the same or less spectrum. The difference is they can send one HD stream or up to six ED streams in a digital channel. (Plus a lot of other subchannel stuff, but let us not overly complicate the discussion.)
No, the spectrum is already set aside for digital. we will get the whole analog spectrum back in 2006. If you don't agree, perhaps you can explain how most networks are already broadcasting digital and analog.
Look you can look for ways to obscure and misconstrue my point or you can take a good look at it. The point is that spread spectrum is more difficult to jam--meaning that FCC has less to worry about with lower power transmissions. You are right, anything can be broken (I've already agreed with you on that one).
toodles
I don't know if you have been living under a rock or not, but TV will soon go to all digital. When they do this, they could go to all digital spread spectrum, allowing microbraodcase TV stations.
Yeah, I guess I was thinking of other bands like TV which will be free soon. When we go to digital TV, why not use spread spectrum and allow for more liberal licenses (i.e. you have to know what you are doing, but you don't get exclusive right to a band)? Also, those frequencies are much less harmful.
Yeah, I'd thought you would rear your little 'fact:' writing style when I wrote this. The problem is that your facts may be about as relevant as this one
Fact: the distance between two intersections is less than the distance between New York and London.
If there is enough bandwidth for everyone to communicate their life stories every second at 1 kW, it doesn't really matter that there is a theoretical upper limit.
that assumes the "other" broadcast is only using part of the available bandwidth on the band
Well, kind'a. It certainly is true that it is possible to stop all RF communication with a large enough noise signal on all frequencies, but that's not really suprising.
To emit all frequencies you have to have a large amount of power for all frequencies--i.e. 1 kW for 900 MHz and 1 kW for 901 MHz, et cetera. Even then low bandwidth communications could still happen between those, so you need a lot power to cover the whole frequency range with enough noise to stop everyting.
But all this is besides the point. The technical point (that the cartoon doesn't articulate) is that using spread spectrum communications, there is no reason why we need such strict limits on who can transmit and who can't--there is much more space available for many many more broadcasts.
Here is a primer on spread spectrum. It covers some points you might find interesting. like: The military uses it because it is resistent to jaming AND when you use it you are less likely to jam another broadcast.
You may want to read some other information about this topic (or the cartoon itself), he is trying to defend whispering.
The valid point here is that spread spectrum could allow significantly more dense communication using RF. This would lead to more microbroadcasters (read whisperers) to be able to broadcast.
right, unless you use a spead spectrum transmission where you hop between many frequencies in a unique patern. If the spreading algo. is capable, it could be possible that everyone could have several transmissions going at once and nobody would know.
Slashdot Mirror
One problem is that you still need to make the paper copy--people like having them above their desks, and thumbing through them. but it would also be nice to have it online and searchable (i.e. google has access to the abstract AND the text).
The problem is that the company that puts the articles on line won't make much money on it, so will have to do it to gain some other sort of capital. Enter Apple, increases their image among accademics (i.e. free advertising) and they charge just enought to keep the section even.
Of course, it is much more likely that a large society would do this (like SIAM which you know doesn't try to make money because math text books from them cost about $15).
Secondly, the market has been taken over by one publisher and they are increasing all the prices so much that most universities and other similar organizations (national labs) are reducing their subscriptions!
Yes, but there are no fees involved in any of this. Everyboyd but the publisher pays for journals. The editor also gets a nominal amount of money, but this is nothing.
No, normally reviewers work without pay. Even editors normally just get a nominal amount of money.
It's long, but a good read.
At the end of the day, I guess I just don't understand why there is a tax on not earning enough money. It seems like times in my life when I'm earning more money I would rater pay a higher proportional tax than times in my life when I am earning less.
This relates to this post because internet access is not something that poor people can afford, i.e. this is a regressive tax cut.
great. What does this have to do with this "periodic table"?
The amazing properties of the periodic table was that you could predict properties of elements that had not yet been discovered, and this amazing property is of use today. For example, we can predict that, chemically, strontium makes a good calcium analog because they are in the same column, and we are right! Strontium is often found in bones where calcium normally is. (this was important when there was a lot of radioactive strontium in fallout and when it decayed it didn't hold the bone together as well.)
Anyway way, for other properties, next-to relationships are importantand also allows for predictions to be made.
My take on it is this, some people hack for fun, some people reinstall. This guy is the latter.
Ya' know, come to think of it, he might save some time by just running windows ME.
wait, so did the exploits work on you BEFORE you updated/installed the patches.
You have to download a .dmg and after the .dmg is downloaded and mounted (takes a few seconds), you have to click on another link. If you click on the link prematurely, you'll probably get an error.
I see that this is not secure. However, it can not be done with autorefreshs because you have to do two things. In addition, .dmg files are used (in my experience) to distribute applications. If you poeple are downloading .dmgs (that they would think are applications) from untrusted servers, how hard is it to get them anyway?
Again, I know this isn't secure and does not represent the best design, but it's significantly less likely to actualy get computers mucked up than:
- a worm
- an IE exploit that only requires you to visit one webpage
AND it will never get your dedicated server either (unless you use your server as a PC).so to implement this you need a trojan as well (the .dmg). and how did ssh get involved?
Sorry, but can someone please explain the exploit? How is ssh involved? Part of the problem is that the workaround site won't resolve on my computer...
did apple update AAC recently or am i just loosing my mind? If they did, is iTunes 4.2 the right version to be using?
Look you can look for ways to obscure and misconstrue my point or you can take a good look at it. The point is that spread spectrum is more difficult to jam--meaning that FCC has less to worry about with lower power transmissions. You are right, anything can be broken (I've already agreed with you on that one). toodles
I don't know if you have been living under a rock or not, but TV will soon go to all digital. When they do this, they could go to all digital spread spectrum, allowing microbraodcase TV stations.
Yeah, I guess I was thinking of other bands like TV which will be free soon. When we go to digital TV, why not use spread spectrum and allow for more liberal licenses (i.e. you have to know what you are doing, but you don't get exclusive right to a band)? Also, those frequencies are much less harmful.
That is a cute word, but when you herd it you misunderstood its definition. a mockumentary is a humorous film. check out this site for examples.
Fact: the distance between two intersections is less than the distance between New York and London.
If there is enough bandwidth for everyone to communicate their life stories every second at 1 kW, it doesn't really matter that there is a theoretical upper limit.
To emit all frequencies you have to have a large amount of power for all frequencies--i.e. 1 kW for 900 MHz and 1 kW for 901 MHz, et cetera. Even then low bandwidth communications could still happen between those, so you need a lot power to cover the whole frequency range with enough noise to stop everyting.
But all this is besides the point. The technical point (that the cartoon doesn't articulate) is that using spread spectrum communications, there is no reason why we need such strict limits on who can transmit and who can't--there is much more space available for many many more broadcasts.
Here is a primer on spread spectrum. It covers some points you might find interesting. like: The military uses it because it is resistent to jaming AND when you use it you are less likely to jam another broadcast.
The valid point here is that spread spectrum could allow significantly more dense communication using RF. This would lead to more microbroadcasters (read whisperers) to be able to broadcast.
right, unless you use a spead spectrum transmission where you hop between many frequencies in a unique patern. If the spreading algo. is capable, it could be possible that everyone could have several transmissions going at once and nobody would know.
I think I just downloaded it. It doens't require a restart and is dated as a security update for monday.