Another benefit of this piracy is that much of the software archived today at online repositories are the cracked versions.'" Utter balderdash! Imagine if the only version of the Mona Lisa we had was one that someone had helpfully taken a paintbrush to. Archive both by all means, but don't give out that not having a copy of the original is somehow beneficial! Though in this case, having the original with piracy measures intact is like having the original Mona Lisa locked in a safe that nobody knows the combination to.
Maybe this is just nostalgia talking, but a lot of games back then were just plain fun. I recently dug out my Apple IIc and was amazed that a lot of my floppies still worked. After playing a few games, they seem to have a character that's lacking in today's games. That's likely a reflection of your last point as well... the games today are just all rehashes. Most first person shooters are simply the same game engine with a new graphics and sound facelift.
] CALL -151 * 300: AD 30 C0 20 ED FD 4C 00 03 * 300G
This is:
300: LDA $C030 ; Toggle the speaker 303: JSR $FDED ; Print (random) contents of accumulator to screen 306: JMP $0300 ; And start all over again
Makes a wonderful visual clickfest on your screen that gets annoying. Imagine a school lab filled with machines running that.:) Last time I posted this, someone provided the relative branch alternative, thus saving a byte. However, I remember the above code from 20 years ago and that's the ways I likes it! If there's any demo competitions restricted to programs with a single digit number of bytes, that's my entry.
I've always thought that things coming down from space have a tendency to burn up in the atmosphere, but on the other hand chunks of that space shuttle landed all over the place. The atmosphere isn't a lightsaber that will completely destroy everything that touches it. For a fast-moving object, it's more like a welding torch that tries to burn away as much as it can. If the object is large enough, not all of it will burn up before the object is slowed to the point where it no longer generates enough friction to burn.
I'd be irked too. First off, The Register is suggesting that using code from an open source project is "pinching". Pinching usually refers to theft, and there is no theft going on here. There's also no infringement, because the developers who worked on these projects have willingly licensed their code for anyone to use for free, regardless of whether or not the code is being used to make money.
How rude of The Register to lambaste the company for building software using code that others are handing out under licenses that say "don't pay us a cent".
First, I have yet to meet a human that does not massively multitask all of the time. Even while sleeping, your body and brain are doing lots of different tasks at the same time. Actions performed by your autonomous system do not require concentration.
Second, There is a reason that people would call other people dumb by saying "He can't walk and chew gum at the same time." long before 'Multitask' became a common word. Dumb, clumsy, whatever word you want to attach to that... while the autonomous system is likely not responsible for these actions, they similarly do not require concentration in the vast majority of the population.
While a task that takes all of your though to accomplish might take a hit if your doing two of them, the majority of tasks that people preform in a day do not take even a small fraction of our mental capabilities. Such as... walking and chewing gum. By saying that multi-tasking makes you worse at what you are doing, you are also saying at the very least, you cannot walk as well if you are chewing gum.
I don't know about you, but I really can walk and chew gum at the same time. If you did have to concentrate while walking and chewing gum, I'd say you're developmentally challenged because that shouldn't require multitasking skills. Multitasking in this context is in doing several things which require moderate to intense amounts of concentration. Like solving a complex math equation in your head while playing at the "hard" level a Guitar Hero track that you've never played before.
Now, um, how did the darn thing "loose power?..." Bet that's a secret... No kidding. You'd think with the government always trying to tighten power that you'd never see them do the opposite and loosen up power.
The US is good on free speech but it is not good on privacy which is the point of this article. As far as privacy is concerned, Privacy International ranks both Germany and Canada very highly. I'd recommend Canada to get around Germany's prohibited speech laws. And considering that this article was submitted by "BritishColumbian" I'm amazed he/she didn't consider their own country, which has some very good privacy protection.
This is a context thing. Whenever "cybercrime" or "cyberterrorism" is the topic, Paller is unearthed as the rational technology expert - rationailising the unpalatable and invasive loss of liberty that these grave threats require.
You don't see Bruce quoted by the WaPo or WSJ. Perhaps it's true that Paller gets called in for the evil terrorism angle on security issues... creating a crisis sells papers, after all. However, your last point appears to be in error:
"If you're looking for needles in the haystack, you need as much data as you can get because these are really tiny needles, and bad guys are trying to hide the needles." So what this fascist stooge is saying translates thusly: "When trying to find a needle in a haystack, what you really need is to gather all of the hay in the world into one pile. There's probably some needles in there!" That's one possible interpretation. The other is that since it's practically infeasible for a human to manually sort through a haystack, you need additional information not provided by the haystack itself. Such as if you had eyewitness reports or video footage of the needle-hider placing the needle inside, you could narrow down the search space considerably. You're right that additional haystacks will only make the job harder, but that seems to be an uncharitable characterization (though perhaps true... I've never heard of Paller) of that sentence. Your comment about being best able to succeed with smaller haystacks echoes this -- you get smaller haystacks by having more data that allows you to divide the haystacks intelligently.
insert your business/personal name address instead of Dozier Internet Law ect.
Register with Copyright office
every time they send you a C&D letter, you send one back
And because they can demonstrate that the date on their notice predated your registration for copyright, they can not only sue your for copyright infringement but it'd likely make a great case for charges of fraud, racketeering, or something like that.
The sites visitors don't necessarily have to click the ad. They only need to have an accelerator installed which preloads all hyperlinked pages regardless of whether they will click the links later or not. Do you have evidence that accelerators do that for third party domains? If you're browsing foo.com, I can see it preloading foo.com/products and foo.com/support... but preloading http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/iclk...? If so, that kind of software would be costing advertisers millions.
Well, imagine that you're a company/person contracted to build a website for XYZ Company. You come up with a dozen or so potential domain names, 'tasting' them in order to make sure they're available(without tying them up for a full year, or spending the money to register them for a year). You then present the domain names to the company, which picks the one they like the best, maybe one other for a redirect. You then release the other four and call it a day. And if you didn't release the other four and had to buy them, the client would have spent an extra $40 -- cost of doing business. I fail to see the problem here.
... the format war has been decided before any of us have had a chance to weigh in at all. That's what, a fiftieth of the population pretty much decided for everybody? Are you talking about Blu-Ray or George W. Bush getting "elected"?
Playing a video game, where they're actually interacting, thinking, solving puzzles, whatever, is far better than just sitting there passively staring at the screen. And if you get them a Wii, there's even an element of exercise to it. Agreed... much better than the "glass teat" as the Onion puts it. The only thing I'd add is that as long as it's in moderation and mixed up with other activities, I think it would be more beneficial than not having video games. Having kids play with Lego, Tinkertoy, Meccano, etc. is also vital for their spatial awareness. Combine video games with physical toys and getting them outdoors for some social sports, and I think that would make for a fairly well-rounded kid.
if the free market responds correctly Free market can do no wrong — by definition. What may happen is some hyperventilating politician pushing a law outlawing IBM's move on some pretext or another — and making the market less free...
i know if i was working there i'd be shopping my resume around after a slap in the face like this. Maybe, the job is still very good — interesting and otherwise rewarding, khm?.. This does sound like a slap in the face, but the first slap was by the employees — suing your employer (or anyone) "means war".
But yes, the market will sort it out... I've noticed that in your posts on this article you've made some interesting points that are outside of standard slashdot groupthink. However, it appears that some mods have a hard-on for modding you down because they disagree with the points you're making.
Mods: my post is off-topic, but the parent post is certainly not flamebait.
I have to pay a little extra for eat (about US$ 3/month), but it is well worth it. It is considered (and marketed as) an insurance. I have this since 1996, and I'm happy to say I never needed. I have a solution as well: use your credit card so that there's no liability to you even if someone does use it fraudulently. And since 1996, you've spent about $400 on this insurance you didn't need. The only time I could see that as being useful is if someone robs you while you're in the process of making a withdrawal at an ATM.
This project aims to find conditions that might only appear once in every 2,000 people (though how they intend to do that with half that number is unclear)
Let's try to make it clearer, then.
The probability that a given condition appears in an individual is 1 in 2000, or 0.0005. The probability that it does not appear in that individual is 0.9995. The probability that it does not appear in any of 1000 individuals is 0.9995^1000 = 0.6 approximately; and the probability that at least one of the 1000 individuals has it is 0.4. Not bad at all. (If you used 2000 people, the probability that at least one of them would have it would improve to about 0.6.)
Suppose you aren't interested in just one conditions, but in lots of conditions -- say, ten of them. The probability that at least one individual would have at least one of those conditions is 1 - 0.9995^(1000*10) = 0.993 == ie, practically certain.
They really ought to teach basic probability theory in schools...
Your post is like that scene in Indiana Jones with the guy making some really impressive sword moves, looking all menacing... while Indy just pulls out his revolver and shoots him. You could get a whole room full of geeks cranking numbers and arguing over how many people they would need to find in order to exceed a particular probability that any one participant has Lou Gehrig's disease, while a simpler person would leave the room, come back the next day, and say "Hey guys, meet my neighbor Bob... he has Lou Gehrig's."
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe this is just nostalgia talking, but a lot of games back then were just plain fun. I recently dug out my Apple IIc and was amazed that a lot of my floppies still worked. After playing a few games, they seem to have a character that's lacking in today's games. That's likely a reflection of your last point as well... the games today are just all rehashes. Most first person shooters are simply the same game engine with a new graphics and sound facelift.
] CALL -151
:) Last time I posted this, someone provided the relative branch alternative, thus saving a byte. However, I remember the above code from 20 years ago and that's the ways I likes it! If there's any demo competitions restricted to programs with a single digit number of bytes, that's my entry.
* 300: AD 30 C0 20 ED FD 4C 00 03
* 300G
This is:
300: LDA $C030 ; Toggle the speaker
303: JSR $FDED ; Print (random) contents of accumulator to screen
306: JMP $0300 ; And start all over again
Makes a wonderful visual clickfest on your screen that gets annoying. Imagine a school lab filled with machines running that.
Futurama should set you straight:
Bender: [Singing, while reading from a dictionary] The use of words expressing something other than their literal intention. Now that is irony.
I'd be irked too. First off, The Register is suggesting that using code from an open source project is "pinching". Pinching usually refers to theft, and there is no theft going on here. There's also no infringement, because the developers who worked on these projects have willingly licensed their code for anyone to use for free, regardless of whether or not the code is being used to make money.
How rude of The Register to lambaste the company for building software using code that others are handing out under licenses that say "don't pay us a cent".
I don't know about you, but I really can walk and chew gum at the same time. If you did have to concentrate while walking and chewing gum, I'd say you're developmentally challenged because that shouldn't require multitasking skills. Multitasking in this context is in doing several things which require moderate to intense amounts of concentration. Like solving a complex math equation in your head while playing at the "hard" level a Guitar Hero track that you've never played before.
You don't see Bruce quoted by the WaPo or WSJ. Perhaps it's true that Paller gets called in for the evil terrorism angle on security issues... creating a crisis sells papers, after all. However, your last point appears to be in error:
6 results for "Bruce Schneier" on wsj.com.
3 results for "Alan Paller" on wsj.com.
169 results for "Bruce Schneier" on washingtonpost.com.
96 results for "Alan Paller" on washingtonpost.com.
- get copies of the lawyers boilerplate
- insert your business/personal name address instead of Dozier Internet Law ect.
- Register with Copyright office
- every time they send you a C&D letter, you send one back
And because they can demonstrate that the date on their notice predated your registration for copyright, they can not only sue your for copyright infringement but it'd likely make a great case for charges of fraud, racketeering, or something like that.
... the format war has been decided before any of us have had a chance to weigh in at all. That's what, a fiftieth of the population pretty much decided for everybody? Are you talking about Blu-Ray or George W. Bush getting "elected"?But yes, the market will sort it out... I've noticed that in your posts on this article you've made some interesting points that are outside of standard slashdot groupthink. However, it appears that some mods have a hard-on for modding you down because they disagree with the points you're making.
Mods: my post is off-topic, but the parent post is certainly not flamebait.
They could release it under the GNU General Phishing License.
Let's try to make it clearer, then.
The probability that a given condition appears in an individual is 1 in 2000, or 0.0005. The probability that it does not appear in that individual is 0.9995. The probability that it does not appear in any of 1000 individuals is 0.9995^1000 = 0.6 approximately; and the probability that at least one of the 1000 individuals has it is 0.4. Not bad at all. (If you used 2000 people, the probability that at least one of them would have it would improve to about 0.6.)
Suppose you aren't interested in just one conditions, but in lots of conditions -- say, ten of them. The probability that at least one individual would have at least one of those conditions is 1 - 0.9995^(1000*10) = 0.993 == ie, practically certain.
They really ought to teach basic probability theory in schools...
Your post is like that scene in Indiana Jones with the guy making some really impressive sword moves, looking all menacing... while Indy just pulls out his revolver and shoots him. You could get a whole room full of geeks cranking numbers and arguing over how many people they would need to find in order to exceed a particular probability that any one participant has Lou Gehrig's disease, while a simpler person would leave the room, come back the next day, and say "Hey guys, meet my neighbor Bob... he has Lou Gehrig's."