So you are advocating taking up all of your child's time so they don't have free time to spend online? These sites like MySpace aren't where kids go when they aren't getting enough attention at home. They go there to talk with their friends and share stories. They aren't there looking for someone to replace mommy and daddy, they are looking for other people who share their view, which, no matter how good a parent you are, won't always be you.
If it's not you- you need to figure out why not and change your parenting skills.
I'm not sure I understand this choice here. Does an abuse victim qualify as a 'juvenile delenquent'? The choice, as most people see it, is between a poorer education where their child won't have as many options and fewer chances for success and less time spent with the child, while still providing a happy and healthy household.
A girl who would go meet somebody she just met on the internet most certainly is missing something at home. Sexual abuse was once considered "encouraging juvenile deliquency".
Ignoring the rest of your somewhat racist statement
Not all illegal immigrants are Mexican. Being opposed to illegal immigration is about rule of law, not racism.
College debt is one of the most prevalent debts out there, it is the reason college graduates have to work 40-50 hours a week for 20 years.
I stayed single and paid off my college debt within the first 5 years of working. A college degree should allow you to do this if you continue to live like you did in college until the debt is paid off.
There are only 24 hours in a day and 7 days in a week. If the parents figure out a way that at least one parent is avaiable to the kids *all of that time* and is inventive enough to find activities *that fit the child's interests* to do *with* them, then there won't be any time for meeting strange men at the mall.
These predators don't just target children that don't get enough love and attention, they target any that they think that can be drawn out and will use any vector they can.
Only kids who don't get enough love an attention CAN be drawn out by a vector. The kid who is getting enough love and attention doesn't have the time for strangers- their time is taken up by their immediate family.
As far as the "Is it worth it" question; as far as I have seen (I haven't experienced this personally yet, my son is only 2), but sometimes its not about material wealth, often times parents are forced into situations like these just to keep a roof over their heads, food on the table, utilities running, and put their kids in decent schools. They are left with a decision of which is worse, a poorer education and more limited opportunities later in life or less time spent with the kids. This isn't true in all cases, but in most middle class situations I can understand it.
I can understand it to some extent- but I'd point out that if the choice is between a poorer education and a juvenile delequent, you're better off with the poorer education.
Now lower middle class- with both parents having skillsets worth less than $24,000/year, for instance- there's no way to do it. Which explains why the children of illegal immigrants often become gangsters and criminals. But for anybody with a college degree, then with careful savings there's room for everything.
I'm thinking that perhaps they didn't go out looking for someone that will abuse them.
No, they went out looking for someone who would give them the attention they weren't getting from their parents.
That just who they ended up with this time.
Yes, but if they were getting that attention from their families, they wouldn't need to go looking for others.
And what about all the normal girls that end up in these type of relationships? And anyway what is normal.
Normal is meeting somebody at school and bringing him home to meet your parents before dating him. Normal is spending time with your parents and immediate family instead of on MySpace. But it's not the girl's fault- she wouldn't be spending time on MySpace if her immediate family had paid the proper attention to begin with.
Good people can come from very dark family backgrounds. Bad kids can come from loving families.
Also true. But here's the kicker- kids who have time to get into trouble come from families that don't spend enough time together.
Maybe the parents should be charged for neglect seeing that they provided their children the internet access which they used to meet online predators.
Or better yet, for not providing enough love and attention to their child when she was growing up, forcing her to go to an abuser for love and attention.
I tend to agree- you can't watch your children all the time. But whose fault is it if you've given your little girl a private school education, but not enough love and attention that she has to go out and seek it from somebody who will abuse her? Is it really worth the material wealth to work 50 hours a week yet miss out on giving your kids the non-material attention that they need?
Much of the stuff that you now take for granted on the Internet came from "MIT Hackers" and their friends at Stanford and other places.
Agreed- no problem with that statement.
Any do you really support yourself by charging $50 for cleaning up after teenage LAN parties?
No, in fact I don't- which is why I worked very hard to get a government job. If I was younger, or had more advertisers, maybe. But only doing 3-4 such parties a year does not pay the bills. Same with my Virus/Spyware Detection and Elimination jobs. Sure, they're good for repeat business about 4 times a year, but "support myself"? No, just a little extra pocket money for taking the family out to eat. I do know people who used this to get through the 2001-2004 computer programmer depression though.
If you really want to set yourself up in that business, I'd suggest downloading my anticyberterrorism toolkit- really just a collection of free virus/spyware scanners and firewalls for Windows- and for the LAN parties I'd now suggest using Linksys USB 802.11G equipment. Lots less cables to trip over- unlike my original method which used pocket 10BaseT hubs.
I'll assume the people working on Streamburst are clever; but I wonder how susceptible the ghost-stream is to translation and recompression: whether it's possible to corrupt the signature-stream while retaining watchable quality.
If they do it right, it won't be. A human being can't see the difference between RGB color #FFFFFF white and #FEFEFE white, but a compressor won't change that color number and neither will a translator.
The key isn't to stop them from pirating. The key is to catch those people who are so careless with their data to allow pirating. And editing the first 5 seconds won't work- it won't remove the "random missing bits" fingerprint in the rest of the movie.
OTOH, it will make the user more protective of their data in the first place- and with this watermarking scheme, it is THEIR data.
Another business model from this could be "You TV"- upload your own bug, buy content- and it's stamped with YOUR bug and available on a website password protected as you choose for you and your friends. Eventually, the bug becomes a video file in and of itself and a route for advertising- and suddenly we'll have advertiser-supported IPTV.
That MIT-level hackers (See Steven Levy's book) have direct, Class-A network access to the Internet, or that a school like MIT still doesn't get the idea of the network as an infrastructure utility rather than a cost-recovery service.
Made up statistics without any practical meaning. I would rather buy from the most efficient supplier so that the local inefficient supplier can find something more productive to do with their time. I'm not going to beggar myself for the well being of others.
Then don't expect me to beggar myself for your well being. After all, that's what you're asking of your neighbor. And price != efficiency, in many cases the American is far more productive than the foreign supplier, the difference in price is due to bankers not efficiency.
Japan!?! The nation without a military?
The nation that figured out you don't need a military to take over the world, when you can just rent the military of a superpower.
The care was invented before the tank.
Yes, but the engine in a Model N bears less resemblence to a modern car than the engine in a Sherman does. Progress comes from the military.
Even if true (its not) computer and the advances have all taken place outside the military sphere. Perhaps (just perhaps) the military kicked them off (but they didn't) the true innovations that have made our lives better have been done in the private sector without any involvement of the military.
It's true- IBM's biggest customer in 1930 was Nazi Germany. Even the internet was created by DARPA, to create a communications system that wasn't vunerable to nuclear war. There is no real private sector since WWII- all businesses exist to serve the military in the end result, the military-industrial complex is alive and well. It's the reason we're in Iraq today.
The amount of blur you get from photographing a moving scene will be proportional to the total exposure time, as it is with any type of photography.
And since serial methods of gathering data are slower than parallel methods of gathering data at the same clock speed, limiting your input sensor to a serial device will *always* create some blur. Just like in those still pictures, when they limited the input to only 4k or 8k clock cycles, the image was degraded.
How many bits at a time do you think a harddrive head can read?
One per head, buffered. But unlike bits on a hard drive, subjects in real life MOVE. Just because you read a pixel on one side of the picture one nanosecond, doesn't mean that the next nanosecond that pixel will be the same. By using the mirrors instead of a massively parallel system, you're moving the serial from the connection to the hard drive or long-term memory storage, to actually taking the photo. Which will, at best, cause some pretty blurry photos when taking moving images. Look at the website referenced in the story- you'll see what I mean in their sample photos of even still items. The lossy compression is rotten.
It doesn't matter how fast the memory is- you're still only recording one pixel per whatever clock cycle the camera uses. Thus giving plenty of time for the subject you're looking at to move.
Actually, that graph looks like just about anything up to 85% is pretty doable- after that you hit the wall. Double isn't hard- infinity is VERY hard.....
I'd like to know how having a million "tiny mirrors" is less wasteful than having a million pixels.
THAT depends on the manufacturing process- it's entirely possible that the material needed to create the mirrors is cheaper than the material needed to make a pixel sensor. However, having said that- you know how bad digital cameras are now at storing the picture once you snap the button, just based on flash memory time to store? Think a million times worse, as each pixel is scanned individually, then reassembled to store on the flash card.
Yep- and just as crappy as the original DLPs. DLPs work because they have *very* high processing rates- unless the subject of the picture you're taking is perfectly still, I don't see this as being a big advance in digital photography.
Ruler predetermined programming = U.S. Constitution. (unfortunately it is not being enforced properly).
Correct- think how much better it would be if the US Constitution were as constraining as an operating system! "Library not found" would take on a whole new meaning.
Slashdot Mirror
So you are advocating taking up all of your child's time so they don't have free time to spend online? These sites like MySpace aren't where kids go when they aren't getting enough attention at home. They go there to talk with their friends and share stories. They aren't there looking for someone to replace mommy and daddy, they are looking for other people who share their view, which, no matter how good a parent you are, won't always be you.
If it's not you- you need to figure out why not and change your parenting skills.
I'm not sure I understand this choice here. Does an abuse victim qualify as a 'juvenile delenquent'? The choice, as most people see it, is between a poorer education where their child won't have as many options and fewer chances for success and less time spent with the child, while still providing a happy and healthy household.
A girl who would go meet somebody she just met on the internet most certainly is missing something at home. Sexual abuse was once considered "encouraging juvenile deliquency".
Ignoring the rest of your somewhat racist statement
Not all illegal immigrants are Mexican. Being opposed to illegal immigration is about rule of law, not racism.
College debt is one of the most prevalent debts out there, it is the reason college graduates have to work 40-50 hours a week for 20 years.
I stayed single and paid off my college debt within the first 5 years of working. A college degree should allow you to do this if you continue to live like you did in college until the debt is paid off.
There are only 24 hours in a day and 7 days in a week. If the parents figure out a way that at least one parent is avaiable to the kids *all of that time* and is inventive enough to find activities *that fit the child's interests* to do *with* them, then there won't be any time for meeting strange men at the mall.
These predators don't just target children that don't get enough love and attention, they target any that they think that can be drawn out and will use any vector they can.
Only kids who don't get enough love an attention CAN be drawn out by a vector. The kid who is getting enough love and attention doesn't have the time for strangers- their time is taken up by their immediate family.
As far as the "Is it worth it" question; as far as I have seen (I haven't experienced this personally yet, my son is only 2), but sometimes its not about material wealth, often times parents are forced into situations like these just to keep a roof over their heads, food on the table, utilities running, and put their kids in decent schools. They are left with a decision of which is worse, a poorer education and more limited opportunities later in life or less time spent with the kids. This isn't true in all cases, but in most middle class situations I can understand it.
I can understand it to some extent- but I'd point out that if the choice is between a poorer education and a juvenile delequent, you're better off with the poorer education.
Now lower middle class- with both parents having skillsets worth less than $24,000/year, for instance- there's no way to do it. Which explains why the children of illegal immigrants often become gangsters and criminals. But for anybody with a college degree, then with careful savings there's room for everything.
I'm thinking that perhaps they didn't go out looking for someone that will abuse them.
No, they went out looking for someone who would give them the attention they weren't getting from their parents.
That just who they ended up with this time.
Yes, but if they were getting that attention from their families, they wouldn't need to go looking for others.
And what about all the normal girls that end up in these type of relationships? And anyway what is normal.
Normal is meeting somebody at school and bringing him home to meet your parents before dating him. Normal is spending time with your parents and immediate family instead of on MySpace. But it's not the girl's fault- she wouldn't be spending time on MySpace if her immediate family had paid the proper attention to begin with.
Good people can come from very dark family backgrounds. Bad kids can come from loving families.
Also true. But here's the kicker- kids who have time to get into trouble come from families that don't spend enough time together.
Maybe the parents should be charged for neglect seeing that they provided their children the internet access which they used to meet online predators.
Or better yet, for not providing enough love and attention to their child when she was growing up, forcing her to go to an abuser for love and attention.
I tend to agree- you can't watch your children all the time. But whose fault is it if you've given your little girl a private school education, but not enough love and attention that she has to go out and seek it from somebody who will abuse her? Is it really worth the material wealth to work 50 hours a week yet miss out on giving your kids the non-material attention that they need?
Much of the stuff that you now take for granted on the Internet came from "MIT Hackers" and their friends at Stanford and other places.
Agreed- no problem with that statement.
Any do you really support yourself by charging $50 for cleaning up after teenage LAN parties?
No, in fact I don't- which is why I worked very hard to get a government job. If I was younger, or had more advertisers, maybe. But only doing 3-4 such parties a year does not pay the bills. Same with my Virus/Spyware Detection and Elimination jobs. Sure, they're good for repeat business about 4 times a year, but "support myself"? No, just a little extra pocket money for taking the family out to eat. I do know people who used this to get through the 2001-2004 computer programmer depression though.
If you really want to set yourself up in that business, I'd suggest downloading my anticyberterrorism toolkit- really just a collection of free virus/spyware scanners and firewalls for Windows- and for the LAN parties I'd now suggest using Linksys USB 802.11G equipment. Lots less cables to trip over- unlike my original method which used pocket 10BaseT hubs.
I'll assume the people working on Streamburst are clever; but I wonder how susceptible the ghost-stream is to translation and recompression: whether it's possible to corrupt the signature-stream while retaining watchable quality.
If they do it right, it won't be. A human being can't see the difference between RGB color #FFFFFF white and #FEFEFE white, but a compressor won't change that color number and neither will a translator.
The key isn't to stop them from pirating. The key is to catch those people who are so careless with their data to allow pirating. And editing the first 5 seconds won't work- it won't remove the "random missing bits" fingerprint in the rest of the movie.
OTOH, it will make the user more protective of their data in the first place- and with this watermarking scheme, it is THEIR data.
Another business model from this could be "You TV"- upload your own bug, buy content- and it's stamped with YOUR bug and available on a website password protected as you choose for you and your friends. Eventually, the bug becomes a video file in and of itself and a route for advertising- and suddenly we'll have advertiser-supported IPTV.
That MIT-level hackers (See Steven Levy's book) have direct, Class-A network access to the Internet, or that a school like MIT still doesn't get the idea of the network as an infrastructure utility rather than a cost-recovery service.
It's becoming standard. Heck, my CITY is going wireless, and this article says the building I work in will be covered by MetroFi in the next 4 months.
Posted to Technocrat.net- as I'm "semi-paid contributing editor" there, it hit the front page immediately of course.
Only when the real Seamonkey 2.0 is released from Monsanto- telepathic anthromorphic brine shrimp.....
Made up statistics without any practical meaning. I would rather buy from the most efficient supplier so that the local inefficient supplier can find something more productive to do with their time. I'm not going to beggar myself for the well being of others.
Then don't expect me to beggar myself for your well being. After all, that's what you're asking of your neighbor. And price != efficiency, in many cases the American is far more productive than the foreign supplier, the difference in price is due to bankers not efficiency.
Japan!?! The nation without a military?
The nation that figured out you don't need a military to take over the world, when you can just rent the military of a superpower.
The care was invented before the tank.
Yes, but the engine in a Model N bears less resemblence to a modern car than the engine in a Sherman does. Progress comes from the military.
Even if true (its not) computer and the advances have all taken place outside the military sphere. Perhaps (just perhaps) the military kicked them off (but they didn't) the true innovations that have made our lives better have been done in the private sector without any involvement of the military.
It's true- IBM's biggest customer in 1930 was Nazi Germany. Even the internet was created by DARPA, to create a communications system that wasn't vunerable to nuclear war. There is no real private sector since WWII- all businesses exist to serve the military in the end result, the military-industrial complex is alive and well. It's the reason we're in Iraq today.
But would you mind if I submitted it to Technocrat?
The amount of blur you get from photographing a moving scene will be proportional to the total exposure time, as it is with any type of photography.
And since serial methods of gathering data are slower than parallel methods of gathering data at the same clock speed, limiting your input sensor to a serial device will *always* create some blur. Just like in those still pictures, when they limited the input to only 4k or 8k clock cycles, the image was degraded.
How many bits at a time do you think a harddrive head can read?
One per head, buffered. But unlike bits on a hard drive, subjects in real life MOVE. Just because you read a pixel on one side of the picture one nanosecond, doesn't mean that the next nanosecond that pixel will be the same. By using the mirrors instead of a massively parallel system, you're moving the serial from the connection to the hard drive or long-term memory storage, to actually taking the photo. Which will, at best, cause some pretty blurry photos when taking moving images. Look at the website referenced in the story- you'll see what I mean in their sample photos of even still items. The lossy compression is rotten.
It doesn't matter how fast the memory is- you're still only recording one pixel per whatever clock cycle the camera uses. Thus giving plenty of time for the subject you're looking at to move.
Actually, that graph looks like just about anything up to 85% is pretty doable- after that you hit the wall. Double isn't hard- infinity is VERY hard.....
I'd like to know how having a million "tiny mirrors" is less wasteful than having a million pixels.
THAT depends on the manufacturing process- it's entirely possible that the material needed to create the mirrors is cheaper than the material needed to make a pixel sensor. However, having said that- you know how bad digital cameras are now at storing the picture once you snap the button, just based on flash memory time to store? Think a million times worse, as each pixel is scanned individually, then reassembled to store on the flash card.
required per student for college math classes, and fit comfortably in that same students back pocket.
I try not to keep calculators in my back pocket. Shards of shattered LCD screens hurt when embedded in one's ass.
Yep- and just as crappy as the original DLPs. DLPs work because they have *very* high processing rates- unless the subject of the picture you're taking is perfectly still, I don't see this as being a big advance in digital photography.
Yes, that's a rather passive one. Bouncing radar waves off of an object is a more active version, but basically the same thing.
Ruler predetermined programming = U.S. Constitution. (unfortunately it is not being enforced properly).
Correct- think how much better it would be if the US Constitution were as constraining as an operating system! "Library not found" would take on a whole new meaning.