Just go to a bank or other financial institution and try to take out a loan about 10 times the amount of your net worth. In my case, that would be about 10 grand.;-)
It's likely that you'll get denied. Bada-bing! Get your free credit report.
Like one of the previous replies suggest, I didn't mean that a product had to be in "production" to count. I really only meant one functioning device. A prototype. Maybe there could be different time periods based on whether the device is intended to be standalone (these would be the shortest time periods) or a component in another device. I can see how this could get complicated, but hey...if the US tax code isn't complicated, what is? Anyway, I don't think this raises the barrier to entry, per se, but rather the barrier to keeping a patent over a period of time. As an example, you mentioned the black and decker tools taking 8 years to get a company to produce it right? Well, did it take 8 years for the inventor to create prototypes? It doesn't take a gob of money to have one device specially made in many cases, unless it takes a ton of raw resources.
Also, maybe there could be some way of reapplying for patents after they've expired. For example, maybe if you invented something and got a patent, but for whatever reason were not able to create a prototype device. You lose your patent after x months/years. You could then re-apply for your patent after a year or something like that.
The README suggests that removing support for SCO unix from GCC would hurt SCO's users, but not SCO. I disagree: If SCO's users can't develop software for their chosen platform anymore, then they will likely choose another platform, and SCO will be the one hurting in the end (which is the desired effect).
Of course, there are other compilers out there, but the best ones are limited by platform (icc comes to mind) or can't very well just be a drop in replacement for gcc (everything else).
Enter the "IP" holding company. The problem with such a company is that there is no defense against them. The traditional method of cross-licensing doesn't work because such a company doesn't infringe on any patents. It can't, because the company itself doesn't actually make anything. As often (probably more, actually) as not, these "IP" holding companies don't even invent anything. Their sole purpose in life is to suck money out of companies that do invent and build things. That can include any company that does a lot of free software work, like IBM and RedHat.
I think these "IP" companies are among the greatest dangers our technology-driven world faces today, because there is no effective remedy against them, short of legislation. And we all know how likely it is that that will be of overall benefit.
What if the system was changed so that once you have filed a patent and it is accepted by the U.S. patent office, you get a year (or some specific time period) to implement the patented concept in a product, or the patent expires? Would that not sufficiently defend the industry against patent portfolio sharks?
This could easily lead off into a tangent about what the limits of the first amendment are (and I think there are several), but I'm going to touch on a couple of the things that I think are abused: (1) the 1st amendment was primarily intended to protect political speech, not to give everyone the right to say whatever they want, whenever they want, and in whatever format that want (2) it doesn't say "freedom of expression". Free speech != do anything you want.
This is lame, I know, but I must correct myself. The first amendmend doesn't grant rights to the individual, but rather places limitations on the power of government. Therefore, even though the amendment was intended for political speech, it must apply to all speech. The government is not allowed to censor speech. The people, however, can censor whatever they like (e.g., a company can choose not to air views it doesn't like, etc). The tricky part how to determine what is "speech" and what isn't. I, for one, would be all for a very literal interpretation of speech that would be almost strictly limited to audible speech and the written word.
Recently, the US Supreme Court denied his appeal, with the notion that obscenity is a state-level affair, despite the First Amendment being a Federal law.
It's been legally established for a long time that states get to make their own obscenity laws. This could easily lead off into a tangent about what the limits of the first amendment are (and I think there are several), but I'm going to touch on a couple of the things that I think are abused: (1) the 1st amendment was primarily intended to protect political speech, not to give everyone the right to say whatever they want, whenever they want, and in whatever format that want (2) it doesn't say "freedom of expression". Free speech != do anything you want. At any rate, even if the Feds wanted to step in, they would have to get laws in the book that specifically give that power to the federal government. The constitution explicitly states that any powers not specifically granted to the federal government fall to the states, except those that are restricted (such as minting currency, etc).
Bad precedents for free speech
No, bad precedents for perverts, and precedents that have been around for a long time.
the CBDLF donations and giving to the EFF are Good Things.
SCO can kiss my fanny. Let them try to track down millions of unlicensed computers. Let them try to track my computers down. I dare them.
If they think they had financial trouble before, let them try to bring legal action against everyone who is "violating" their supposed IP rights. Then they'll see what financial trouble is.
It's extortion, plain and simple. I'm glad that IBM and RedHat are planning to stick it to them. I hope SCO dies a horrible death.
this post is just begging for a response from someone who knows better...
..."flunk courses". Courses designed to fail a maximum number of students. The professors had *NO* interest in making the subject interesting or accessable. As a whole the university (UCR) had a graduation rate of 60%, whereas the engineering college had an horrific graduation rate of 30%.
A) Regardless of what the professors do, you have to have a desire to learn it, or you won't. Period. B) Engineering/Hard Sciences is tougher than the rest of the subjects taught at the university. Naturally, the graduation rate will be below the university rate. Duh. Any university with a decent engineering college will experience this phenomenon.
There are several reasons for wanting to fail students, the most frequently mentioned is that theres "not enough room" in the upper courses. But the real reason is they are simply elitist bastards, they figure, "I had to go through it, you do to."
Um, the teachers may or may not have gone through the "same thing". The real reason is that there isn't enough room in the upper level classes: not enough teachers to teach the same number of upper level students as lower level students, not enough funding for equipment and to hire more teachers, not enough classroom space, etc, etc, etc. My university deals with this probably more than anywhere else except Ohio State, UT, and maybe 1 other. Our Engineering college alone is over 12,000 students. Another reason is that if they allow you to become upper level without a good understanding of fundamentals, you won't succeed anyway. The school gets a set amount of money to educate engineers. Why not set up a system that rewards those who show the most promise? If you can't get to upper level, chances are you wouldn't succeed in engineering anyway, and it would be a wasted investment on the part of the university (or the taxpayers, as the case often is).
For me to get a C with 15 out of 100 points. That means, about HALF of the students scored worse then me. The students who scored WORSE then me *financed* my C by getting D's and F's. If they weren't the cannon fodder, *I* would have failed the course. Now here's where things get tricky. Sometimes, you are the sacrifical lamb, and sometimes you are the priest. If you are the lamb, you take the course over -- but this time you're the priest because you've taken the course before and it's finally starting to make sense. So the first timers are competing on a curve with people who have taken the course before. This wouldn't be a problem with a normal distribution of scores, but with poor instruction causing scores to center around 15%, that advantadge *REALLY* counts.
Instructors don't "cause" scores. You (the student) do. It's way too easy to put the onus on the instructor for you to learn something. It's your responsibility to learn the material. Besides, 15% is a C? What kind of backyard school do you go to? I understand that in courses like engineering physics that people with low scores are going to pass, but the kind of curve I would expect is just a single (maybe 1.5) letter grade shift up. 50-60 is D, 60 - something is C, and so on.
So now that I've written a diseratation here, what I really mean is, in your post you assume that mathbooks are even designed to help students, when most of the time, they aren't.
Get a grip. It's nobody elses fault but your own if you didn't make it to upper level (ok, there are some extreme exceptions, but nothing you've mentioned here comes close to qualifying). Even learning from a book without an instructor is not all that terrible if the book is even halfway decent and you put some honest effort into it.
I happen to like Stewart's Calculus with Vectors book. Covers from precalc (quick review) all the way through 3-d vector calculus. Lots of problems and decent examples.
I used this book as an undergrad to learn calc, but even as a grad student I often find it invaluable as a reference.
I'm exactly where you are: university student with a discipline issue (less so now than before, but I still deal with it).
The key is to remove yourself from distractions. If you must do computer work, you just have to resist the temptation to go to the web
However, if it's not computer work, LEAVE YOUR COMPUTER!! I've found it's the only thing that works for me. If you have other homework besides computer stuff, or reading, or whatever, don't kid yourself by doing it in the presence of your easily-accessibly computer.
(I speak here as though the computer is the major distraction --- because for me, it is. If yours is something else, get away from whatever it is).
Of course, ultimately, there's some plain, old-fashioned disciplined involved. You just have to habitually force yourself to focus on the task at hand.
'The massive popularity of peer-to-peer networks also needs to be urgently addressed, the BSG said.'
I'm sure what they mean is to try their darndest to shut down p2p networks, but in the words of Hugh Grant, "that's just silly." Why do they have to be addressed this way? Why don't we address the broken IP and copyright legal system instead? Why don't we address the VERY broken entertainment and recording industry?
In this vacuum, judges have been empowered to create law by applying the general principles of justice and interpretting the intent of the legislature.
This is absolutely incorrect. Judges are not empowered to create law in any form or fashion. Applying general principles of justice is also not part of a judge's job description --- that's for superheros. Their only job is to interpret the intent of Congress which is written into law. By implication, their only job is to interpret law as it is written. There is no other way to ascertain the intent of the legislature, which alone has the authority (in the U.S. system) to create law. Precedent is used in the name of efficiency and convenience, but IMHO, I'd like to see the system do away with precedent because it does create an informal power for judges to create law --- which is unconstitutional. Judges should be required to weigh the specific facts of each and every case that they see against the letter of the law --- or at the very least, they should be required to show that the case meets a certain standard of similarity to previous cases in order to use precedent in their decisions.
Note: all of the above comment is directed at the federal level. Indivudual states have the authority to set things up somewhat differently, although not too much so.
Yes but they need to forced with legislation, company's won't do anything with out legislation because it costs money, they need to be forced sadly.
Wrong. That's the whole idea behind capitalism. If your ISP won't block spam, get one who will either block it for you, or get one that will tag it so you can block it yourself. If enough people left a particular ISP over spam, you better believe that they would get their rears in gear and address the issue. What's with this attitude that the government has to do everything for you?
Also any spammer blocked would just sue under freedom of speech...
The "freedom of speech" as found in the first amendment is a limitation on government to prevent _government_ from limiting speech. "Free speech" does not imply that we all have to listen; hence sysadmins can block ip's and domains all they want. All that is also not to mention that the majority of spammers are either (a) not in the U.S., or (b) bound their mail from somewhere outside the U.S., which makes free speech a moot point.
...(that law should have come with the provision that speaker thought first and lies aren't allowed).
Oh, that's genius. Not only is it a terrible idea, but how in the world would you enforce it? That idea would introduces an entire smorgasborg of restrictions on our freedoms and would not be enforceable anyway.
One way is for government run black lists that block i.p address with out taking out a whole country like some sys admins do at the moment.
Hmm....sounds so much like the setup in China that it's sinister. The free market is perfectly capable of handling this and sustaining....it is not capable of sustaining the government bureaucracy and bloat that this would surely introduce.
I think you're generally missing the point. The point was that freedom is more important than not getting spam, not how best to eliminate spam.
I don't think legislation is necessary anyway. I'm leary of laws that tell me how and to whom I can send messages. Anyway, if large ISP's would just block ip the sources of the spam (btamail.cn comes to mind) they could do a lot to alleviate the problem. I would rather live with minimal amounts of spam limited by filters than be forced to have laws that forbid it.
This is certainly not the end of the war. I don't know if this thing will work or not, but even if it does, it's at best a battle won. The War (TM) cannot be won.
Isn't this supposed to just be for foreign cities? I know the argument is "but it could be used in the wrong way", but I don't think the intent here is to use this thing on American cities (of course, unless we actually had urban warfare in an American city).
My take on it is there there are no really excellent browsers. Mozilla comes the closest, and Firebird is coming along nicely, but there is no IE for linux (I actually like IE6 for the most part, except it doesn't have the ability to block popups. That's all I want. really.) and Opera is just plain ugly and klunky. Konqueror is nice, except you have to install KDE (well, at least the kde libraries) which I don't want to do. Galeon has the same story with Gnome. I really like Links (tight, fast), but it doesn't show pictures:-). I use mozilla and I'm mostly satisfied with it, but there's definitely room for competition.
I'm not sure this study is statistically significant...not only is it a small number of sample units, but it's also a self-selecting sample (great scientists who choose to marry and have children may also choose to do less science). The better study would be to find scientists and engineers who married, but still desire to make contributions to their field.
I think it would be far better to work for a company who puts a premium on process, quality, and correctness. These type of companies tend to be in niche markets, I think, but many are very-successful within those markets. A defense electronics company called E-systems comes to mind (because my dad worked there:-) ). Of course, I also think that the economic reality for most companies is that you have to meet somewhere in the middle to keep your customers happy.
I was pretty disappointed when I read this article. As fast as a Paris bus? Yeah....but the bus only does an average of 9 km/hr. That's pretty lame. I want a long distance travelator (under a different name, of course. Maybe "Pedestrian Speedwalk/Highway"?) that does up to 75 km/hr. Now that would be cool!
Re:Interesting technology
on
RFID Explained
·
· Score: 1
Okay, you're flaming a guy...
That wasn't a flame. This is.
chips that were designed to be hidden
Actually, they weren't. Rather, they were designed to ease inventory control.
Your second point is equally obtuse. UPCs 101 - The U in UPC stands for universal. Meaning no two objects have the same number.
Obtuse? Like suggesting that no two UPCs have the same number (not that it's relevant)?
Coupled with the fact that your "one foot" radius can, with current technology, be stretched to 5-6 feet with a powerful transciever. It's not outside the realm of reason to believe that this range could be stretched to several hundred feet, or farther, in the future.
First of all, nowhere did I saw "one foot". If you're going to quote me, at least get that right. Secondly, the tag, if they didn't remove it in the store, would be static. In case you don't see what I'm getting at: you can't take a tranceiver that has a fundamental physical limit on how much power it can accept and dish out and "stretch" it without modifying the hardware. Conclusion? FUD.
Also note that where FUD can't be beat, the consumer still has a little control: don't buy from stores that don't remove tags. Don't buy tires that have tags. If you really want to buy the tires, learn how to remove the tags.
I can't believe somebody actually modded you up.
I can't believe you had the guts to write something so stupid.
Re:Interesting technology
on
RFID Explained
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
This is just completely irrational:
Right now, you can buy a hammer, a pair of jeans, or a razor blade with anonymity.
Umm...not unless you buy with cash
Once you buy your RFID-tagged jeans at The Gap with RFID-tagged money, walk out of the store wearing RFID-tagged shoes, and get into your car with its RFID-tagged tires, you could be tracked anywhere you travel. Bar codes are usually scanned at the store, but not after purchase. But RFID transponders are, in many cases, forever part of the product, and designed to respond when they receive a signal. Imagine everything you own is "numbered, identified, catalogued, and tracked." Anonymity and privacy? Gone in a hailstorm of invisible communication, betrayed by your very property.
There's a simple solution: the tags will be removed from the products you buy at the store, much like current devices are. First, the store has incentive to re-use the tags. Yes, they may be cheap and get cheaper, but if they're reusable then most companies are going to want to reuse them. Secondly, if you had been reading anything else in the thread or simply been using your head, you would realize that even if the tags were to stay on the products, they couldn't be scanned from anywhere. The scanning range is only a few feet. Also, who's to say that there will be any connection between the id stored in the tag and your name? Companies would have no reason to keep track, and they're the only ones who could get that information. Also, for most products (e.g., non-electronic) destroying the tag would be somewhat trivial (put your Gap jeans in the microwave for a while, then see if they can invade your few feet of personal space).
Instead of spreading FUD, try promoting proper use and regulation of a new technology that could be very beneficial in a lot of areas.
Slashdot Mirror
I know how you can get free credit reports:
;-)
Just go to a bank or other financial institution and try to take out a loan about 10 times the amount of your net worth. In my case, that would be about 10 grand.
It's likely that you'll get denied. Bada-bing! Get your free credit report.
Like one of the previous replies suggest, I didn't mean that a product had to be in "production" to count. I really only meant one functioning device. A prototype. Maybe there could be different time periods based on whether the device is intended to be standalone (these would be the shortest time periods) or a component in another device. I can see how this could get complicated, but hey...if the US tax code isn't complicated, what is? Anyway, I don't think this raises the barrier to entry, per se, but rather the barrier to keeping a patent over a period of time. As an example, you mentioned the black and decker tools taking 8 years to get a company to produce it right? Well, did it take 8 years for the inventor to create prototypes? It doesn't take a gob of money to have one device specially made in many cases, unless it takes a ton of raw resources.
Also, maybe there could be some way of reapplying for patents after they've expired. For example, maybe if you invented something and got a patent, but for whatever reason were not able to create a prototype device. You lose your patent after x months/years. You could then re-apply for your patent after a year or something like that.
Oh well. Just shooting out ideas.
The README suggests that removing support for SCO unix from GCC would hurt SCO's users, but not SCO. I disagree: If SCO's users can't develop software for their chosen platform anymore, then they will likely choose another platform, and SCO will be the one hurting in the end (which is the desired effect). Of course, there are other compilers out there, but the best ones are limited by platform (icc comes to mind) or can't very well just be a drop in replacement for gcc (everything else).
Enter the "IP" holding company. The problem with such a company is that there is no defense against them. The traditional method of cross-licensing doesn't work because such a company doesn't infringe on any patents. It can't, because the company itself doesn't actually make anything. As often (probably more, actually) as not, these "IP" holding companies don't even invent anything. Their sole purpose in life is to suck money out of companies that do invent and build things. That can include any company that does a lot of free software work, like IBM and RedHat.
I think these "IP" companies are among the greatest dangers our technology-driven world faces today, because there is no effective remedy against them, short of legislation. And we all know how likely it is that that will be of overall benefit.
What if the system was changed so that once you have filed a patent and it is accepted by the U.S. patent office, you get a year (or some specific time period) to implement the patented concept in a product, or the patent expires? Would that not sufficiently defend the industry against patent portfolio sharks?
This could easily lead off into a tangent about what the limits of the first amendment are (and I think there are several), but I'm going to touch on a couple of the things that I think are abused: (1) the 1st amendment was primarily intended to protect political speech, not to give everyone the right to say whatever they want, whenever they want, and in whatever format that want (2) it doesn't say "freedom of expression". Free speech != do anything you want.
This is lame, I know, but I must correct myself. The first amendmend doesn't grant rights to the individual, but rather places limitations on the power of government. Therefore, even though the amendment was intended for political speech, it must apply to all speech. The government is not allowed to censor speech. The people, however, can censor whatever they like (e.g., a company can choose not to air views it doesn't like, etc). The tricky part how to determine what is "speech" and what isn't. I, for one, would be all for a very literal interpretation of speech that would be almost strictly limited to audible speech and the written word.
Recently, the US Supreme Court denied his appeal, with the notion that obscenity is a state-level affair, despite the First Amendment being a Federal law.
It's been legally established for a long time that states get to make their own obscenity laws. This could easily lead off into a tangent about what the limits of the first amendment are (and I think there are several), but I'm going to touch on a couple of the things that I think are abused: (1) the 1st amendment was primarily intended to protect political speech, not to give everyone the right to say whatever they want, whenever they want, and in whatever format that want (2) it doesn't say "freedom of expression". Free speech != do anything you want. At any rate, even if the Feds wanted to step in, they would have to get laws in the book that specifically give that power to the federal government. The constitution explicitly states that any powers not specifically granted to the federal government fall to the states, except those that are restricted (such as minting currency, etc).
Bad precedents for free speech
No, bad precedents for perverts, and precedents that have been around for a long time.
the CBDLF donations and giving to the EFF are Good Things.
Ok, I'll go along with that.
SCO can kiss my fanny. Let them try to track down millions of unlicensed computers. Let them try to track my computers down. I dare them.
If they think they had financial trouble before, let them try to bring legal action against everyone who is "violating" their supposed IP rights. Then they'll see what financial trouble is.
It's extortion, plain and simple. I'm glad that IBM and RedHat are planning to stick it to them. I hope SCO dies a horrible death.
this post is just begging for a response from someone who knows better...
..."flunk courses". Courses designed to fail a maximum number of students. The professors had *NO* interest in making the subject interesting or accessable. As a whole the university (UCR) had a graduation rate of 60%, whereas the engineering college had an horrific graduation rate of 30%.
A) Regardless of what the professors do, you have to have a desire to learn it, or you won't. Period.
B) Engineering/Hard Sciences is tougher than the rest of the subjects taught at the university. Naturally, the graduation rate will be below the university rate. Duh. Any university with a decent engineering college will experience this phenomenon.
There are several reasons for wanting to fail students, the most frequently mentioned is that theres "not enough room" in the upper courses. But the real reason is they are simply elitist bastards, they figure, "I had to go through it, you do to."
Um, the teachers may or may not have gone through the "same thing". The real reason is that there isn't enough room in the upper level classes: not enough teachers to teach the same number of upper level students as lower level students, not enough funding for equipment and to hire more teachers, not enough classroom space, etc, etc, etc. My university deals with this probably more than anywhere else except Ohio State, UT, and maybe 1 other. Our Engineering college alone is over 12,000 students. Another reason is that if they allow you to become upper level without a good understanding of fundamentals, you won't succeed anyway. The school gets a set amount of money to educate engineers. Why not set up a system that rewards those who show the most promise? If you can't get to upper level, chances are you wouldn't succeed in engineering anyway, and it would be a wasted investment on the part of the university (or the taxpayers, as the case often is).
For me to get a C with 15 out of 100 points. That means, about HALF of the students scored worse then me. The students who scored WORSE then me *financed* my C by getting D's and F's. If they weren't the cannon fodder, *I* would have failed the course. Now here's where things get tricky. Sometimes, you are the sacrifical lamb, and sometimes you are the priest. If you are the lamb, you take the course over -- but this time you're the priest because you've taken the course before and it's finally starting to make sense. So the first timers are competing on a curve with people who have taken the course before. This wouldn't be a problem with a normal distribution of scores, but with poor instruction causing scores to center around 15%, that advantadge *REALLY* counts.
Instructors don't "cause" scores. You (the student) do. It's way too easy to put the onus on the instructor for you to learn something. It's your responsibility to learn the material. Besides, 15% is a C? What kind of backyard school do you go to? I understand that in courses like engineering physics that people with low scores are going to pass, but the kind of curve I would expect is just a single (maybe 1.5) letter grade shift up. 50-60 is D, 60 - something is C, and so on.
So now that I've written a diseratation here, what I really mean is, in your post you assume that mathbooks are even designed to help students, when most of the time, they aren't.
Get a grip. It's nobody elses fault but your own if you didn't make it to upper level (ok, there are some extreme exceptions, but nothing you've mentioned here comes close to qualifying). Even learning from a book without an instructor is not all that terrible if the book is even halfway decent and you put some honest effort into it.
I happen to like Stewart's Calculus with Vectors book. Covers from precalc (quick review) all the way through 3-d vector calculus. Lots of problems and decent examples. I used this book as an undergrad to learn calc, but even as a grad student I often find it invaluable as a reference.
I'm exactly where you are: university student with a discipline issue (less so now than before, but I still deal with it).
The key is to remove yourself from distractions. If you must do computer work, you just have to resist the temptation to go to the web
However, if it's not computer work, LEAVE YOUR COMPUTER!! I've found it's the only thing that works for me. If you have other homework besides computer stuff, or reading, or whatever, don't kid yourself by doing it in the presence of your easily-accessibly computer.
(I speak here as though the computer is the major distraction --- because for me, it is. If yours is something else, get away from whatever it is).
Of course, ultimately, there's some plain, old-fashioned disciplined involved. You just have to habitually force yourself to focus on the task at hand.
'The massive popularity of peer-to-peer networks also needs to be urgently addressed, the BSG said.'
I'm sure what they mean is to try their darndest to shut down p2p networks, but in the words of Hugh Grant, "that's just silly." Why do they have to be addressed this way? Why don't we address the broken IP and copyright legal system instead? Why don't we address the VERY broken entertainment and recording industry?
In this vacuum, judges have been empowered to create law by applying the general principles of justice and interpretting the intent of the legislature.
This is absolutely incorrect. Judges are not empowered to create law in any form or fashion. Applying general principles of justice is also not part of a judge's job description --- that's for superheros. Their only job is to interpret the intent of Congress which is written into law. By implication, their only job is to interpret law as it is written. There is no other way to ascertain the intent of the legislature, which alone has the authority (in the U.S. system) to create law. Precedent is used in the name of efficiency and convenience, but IMHO, I'd like to see the system do away with precedent because it does create an informal power for judges to create law --- which is unconstitutional. Judges should be required to weigh the specific facts of each and every case that they see against the letter of the law --- or at the very least, they should be required to show that the case meets a certain standard of similarity to previous cases in order to use precedent in their decisions.
Note: all of the above comment is directed at the federal level. Indivudual states have the authority to set things up somewhat differently, although not too much so.
Yes but they need to forced with legislation, company's won't do anything with out legislation because it costs money, they need to be forced sadly.
...(that law should have come with the provision that speaker thought first and lies aren't allowed).
Wrong. That's the whole idea behind capitalism. If your ISP won't block spam, get one who will either block it for you, or get one that will tag it so you can block it yourself. If enough people left a particular ISP over spam, you better believe that they would get their rears in gear and address the issue. What's with this attitude that the government has to do everything for you?
Also any spammer blocked would just sue under freedom of speech...
The "freedom of speech" as found in the first amendment is a limitation on government to prevent _government_ from limiting speech. "Free speech" does not imply that we all have to listen; hence sysadmins can block ip's and domains all they want. All that is also not to mention that the majority of spammers are either (a) not in the U.S., or (b) bound their mail from somewhere outside the U.S., which makes free speech a moot point.
Oh, that's genius. Not only is it a terrible idea, but how in the world would you enforce it? That idea would introduces an entire smorgasborg of restrictions on our freedoms and would not be enforceable anyway.
One way is for government run black lists that block i.p address with out taking out a whole country like some sys admins do at the moment.
Hmm....sounds so much like the setup in China that it's sinister. The free market is perfectly capable of handling this and sustaining....it is not capable of sustaining the government bureaucracy and bloat that this would surely introduce.
I think you're generally missing the point. The point was that freedom is more important than not getting spam, not how best to eliminate spam.
It's "leery", not "leary".
Actually, it's both. If you look in Merrian-Webster, you'll find that "leary" is a variant of "leery".
I don't think legislation is necessary anyway. I'm leary of laws that tell me how and to whom I can send messages. Anyway, if large ISP's would just block ip the sources of the spam (btamail.cn comes to mind) they could do a lot to alleviate the problem. I would rather live with minimal amounts of spam limited by filters than be forced to have laws that forbid it.
Procmail is your friend.
This is certainly not the end of the war. I don't know if this thing will work or not, but even if it does, it's at best a battle won. The War (TM) cannot be won.
Isn't this supposed to just be for foreign cities? I know the argument is "but it could be used in the wrong way", but I don't think the intent here is to use this thing on American cities (of course, unless we actually had urban warfare in an American city).
My take on it is there there are no really excellent browsers. Mozilla comes the closest, and Firebird is coming along nicely, but there is no IE for linux (I actually like IE6 for the most part, except it doesn't have the ability to block popups. That's all I want. really.) and Opera is just plain ugly and klunky. Konqueror is nice, except you have to install KDE (well, at least the kde libraries) which I don't want to do. Galeon has the same story with Gnome. I really like Links (tight, fast), but it doesn't show pictures :-). I use mozilla and I'm mostly satisfied with it, but there's definitely room for competition.
I'm not sure this study is statistically significant...not only is it a small number of sample units, but it's also a self-selecting sample (great scientists who choose to marry and have children may also choose to do less science). The better study would be to find scientists and engineers who married, but still desire to make contributions to their field.
This will always be true.
:-) In the end, the _STAT_WAG will almost always be faster when data_to_transfer == "really big".
#define _STAT_WAG N
#define _COMM_LINE M
#define infinity "really big"
int main()
{
int bandwidth=0;
int disk_capacity=0;
int data_to_transfer=infinity;
int t=0;
int min_time=infinity;
for(t; t<=infinity; t++)
{
bandwith++;
disk_capacity++;
data_to_transfer++;
}
min_time = (data_to_transfer == infinity)?/
_STAT_WAG:_COMM_LINE;
return min_time;
}
or something along those lines
I think it would be far better to work for a company who puts a premium on process, quality, and correctness. These type of companies tend to be in niche markets, I think, but many are very-successful within those markets. A defense electronics company called E-systems comes to mind (because my dad worked there :-) ). Of course, I also think that the economic reality for most companies is that you have to meet somewhere in the middle to keep your customers happy.
if he makes $95 mil from $0.08 / share, then why would he make $1.13 bil from $1 / share???
I was pretty disappointed when I read this article. As fast as a Paris bus? Yeah....but the bus only does an average of 9 km/hr. That's pretty lame. I want a long distance travelator (under a different name, of course. Maybe "Pedestrian Speedwalk/Highway"?) that does up to 75 km/hr. Now that would be cool!
Okay, you're flaming a guy...
That wasn't a flame. This is.
chips that were designed to be hidden
Actually, they weren't. Rather, they were designed to ease inventory control.
Your second point is equally obtuse. UPCs 101 - The U in UPC stands for universal. Meaning no two objects have the same number.
Obtuse? Like suggesting that no two UPCs have the same number (not that it's relevant)?
Coupled with the fact that your "one foot" radius can, with current technology, be stretched to 5-6 feet with a powerful transciever. It's not outside the realm of reason to believe that this range could be stretched to several hundred feet, or farther, in the future.
First of all, nowhere did I saw "one foot". If you're going to quote me, at least get that right. Secondly, the tag, if they didn't remove it in the store, would be static. In case you don't see what I'm getting at: you can't take a tranceiver that has a fundamental physical limit on how much power it can accept and dish out and "stretch" it without modifying the hardware. Conclusion? FUD.
Also note that where FUD can't be beat, the consumer still has a little control: don't buy from stores that don't remove tags. Don't buy tires that have tags. If you really want to buy the tires, learn how to remove the tags.
I can't believe somebody actually modded you up.
I can't believe you had the guts to write something so stupid.
This is just completely irrational: Right now, you can buy a hammer, a pair of jeans, or a razor blade with anonymity.
Umm...not unless you buy with cash
Once you buy your RFID-tagged jeans at The Gap with RFID-tagged money, walk out of the store wearing RFID-tagged shoes, and get into your car with its RFID-tagged tires, you could be tracked anywhere you travel. Bar codes are usually scanned at the store, but not after purchase. But RFID transponders are, in many cases, forever part of the product, and designed to respond when they receive a signal. Imagine everything you own is "numbered, identified, catalogued, and tracked." Anonymity and privacy? Gone in a hailstorm of invisible communication, betrayed by your very property.
There's a simple solution: the tags will be removed from the products you buy at the store, much like current devices are. First, the store has incentive to re-use the tags. Yes, they may be cheap and get cheaper, but if they're reusable then most companies are going to want to reuse them. Secondly, if you had been reading anything else in the thread or simply been using your head, you would realize that even if the tags were to stay on the products, they couldn't be scanned from anywhere. The scanning range is only a few feet. Also, who's to say that there will be any connection between the id stored in the tag and your name? Companies would have no reason to keep track, and they're the only ones who could get that information. Also, for most products (e.g., non-electronic) destroying the tag would be somewhat trivial (put your Gap jeans in the microwave for a while, then see if they can invade your few feet of personal space).
Instead of spreading FUD, try promoting proper use and regulation of a new technology that could be very beneficial in a lot of areas.