From the tone of the post, it seems like they're making an argument against hybrid cars by showing that they're no more efficient than regular cars with this new tech... but why not just stop comparing the two and combine them? Shouldn't the title read "Hybrid Car Efficiency Improves Even More with new Technology?"
Yup, they lose the debate through the old "Not mutually exclusive" argument. Not only that, but those "intelligent" driving techniques aren't always practicable, like in bumper to bumper traffic. That sort of thing is where Hybrids really shine - where speeds are averaging less than 20 mph and people spend time sitting. If I'm in a hybrid, my engine cuts off and I run off the battery for the start-n-stop traffic, and it charges back later. A regular car will typically get well under 10 mph in such situations; a hybrid will get around 60.
In other words, hybrids totally kick ass in the city - small, nimble, typically a short turning radius, and great mileage in city driving.
Oh just GIVE UP with the world's cop business. It's complete BS. All the US does is act in its own interest. Nothing more. They stayed well away from WWII until GERMANY DECLARED WAR ON THEM.
You're a poor student of history. We had been aiding Britain for a very long time before entering the war.
Since then they've seriously avoided anywhere that really needed help (Rwanda, anyone?)
Can't solve them all, and that was flat-out civil war. And in way of proving my point - where was Europe? Note we did go to Somalia, and that wasn't exactly a high-value nation strategically.
Oh and the USSR thing: You're joking, right?
Must have been subtle since I didn't mention the USSR (time to up your lithium prescription), but go on...
France, UK could both have nuked Moscow at the drop of a beret.
Might want to check the relative numbers (and desctructive capacity) of warheads possessed by the Soviets compared to Europe. That would not have gone well for you, I expect. Not sure what your point is, but facts are facts. Russia would have utterly destroyed Britain and/or France.
Likewise, the Battle of Britain was won well before the USA entered WWII... but of course, the USA had to play the cavalry riding in to help.
The fact is that Churchill had been begging the US to enter for some time. And while I will grant that our role in WWI was a mop-up job, our role in WWII was most certainly not. Many Americans died in Europe, and to trivialize that is preposterous. America played a large role in the land battle to retake Europe.
Now you want to talk about who *really* saved Britain's ass, it's the Russians. If that weren't a two-front war, with the Russians suffering massive casualties but still winning, you'd be speaking German for certain. In the end, while officially at war with Germany, we didn't need to send massive numbers of troops to Europe while at war with Japan. We could have taken care of our own problems, which would have probably made the Pacific war more easily.
Nothing personal, but I'd rather ya'll sweat the petty stuff and let the US be the world's police. They don't do it all that well, but I'm pretty sure the alternatives would be worse.
Yeah, that whole US as global cop thing...the Euros bitch about the US doing everything unilaterally, but when you start doing stuff by committee nothing gets done (see current story). And it seems that for conflicts that the US doesn't get involved with for whatever reason, it seems that Europe doesn't really jump in with both feet.
Like now - for right or wrong, we have our hands full with Iraq and don't have the resources to solve Darfur. So where's Europe? Talking, telling the US to get involved. I'd say to Europe, with the US distracted, this is your chance to solve all those other problems your way, without the US stepping all over it. So let's see it.
As a US citizen, I'd rather my tax money weren't getting spent solving everyone else's problems, but it seems like the international will to do most of the dirty work just isn't there. Messy world problems can't be solved by parliamentary procedure at the UN.
They have a point, but man, that ranks right up there with:
* The Klan is a legal social club
* The Westboro Baptist Church has a right to protest at gay funerals
* Neo-Nazis have a right to march in Cincinnati
* Michael Stipe has the right to any haircut he likes
Actually, I don't think they have a point that is parallel to those. Each of those is an example of something bad that doesn't really directly tread on someone's rights (with a possible exception of the second point). These guys are trying to mix their right to speech free from criminal prosecution with freedom from civil action that may result from people harmed from their speech. The question is, are people harmed by turning over records to the government in a direct, quantifiable way? That's still a tough case to prove.
But for the average user even a relatively simple url such as http://www.wamu.com/personal/default.asp will cause their eyes to glaze over when all they typed in was www.wamu.com.
Yup. And worse yet, that sort of thing allows the baddies to do something like www.blah blah/wamu.bank. So the ambiguousness of the period in the URL - used for both file and domain delimiters - will further obfuscate things.
A common definition of "nanotech" is a device that was devised with intentional features on a scale of under a 100 nm or so. The best optical microscopes can resolve down to about 200nm, or roughly half a wavelength of blue light.
So you are correct. In fact, for some devices even an electron microscope doesn't quite cut it, and a scanning-tunneling microscope (STM) or atomic-force microscope (AFM) are used.
"Judiciary Committee member Lamar Smith (R-TX) was quoted as saying, 'If we do not receive acceptable answers, Congress will be forced to act.'"
What the schools should say:
'Here's what we're doing to curb piracy: we respond to subpoenas signed by a judge to their full extent. We remove infringing content that has been identified by its owner in full compliance with the DMCA.
Oh, you wanted us to do your job for you? Don't think so.
Yeah, we need to start tarring and feathering the knobs who keep submitting/posting the inane "if somebody did X in 'Second Life', would it be just like if it happened in real life?"
No. It's not. Kind of how these idiots have girlfriends in 'Second Life' but not in their actual life.
So that means you support him Stealing a webpage/myspace page and screwing the guy that put all his work into it as well?
That guy named a site after a well-known person and attempted to hold it ransom for much more than it was worth. The guy didn't have a right to Obama's name. He also didn't have a right to force himself into the campaign as he attempted. Note that only the link - barack obama's name - got transferred, the idiot still has his page. He deserves what he got. If you don't want your site to be transferred, don't name it after a public figure. If this had been a registrar issue the result would have been no different.
For disclosure, I will not be voting for Obama, but this whole crapstorm over a story that boils down to little more than the old squat/extort trick doesn't deserve the legs it has.
No shit. By 'on its own' I mean dynamically based on the an algorithm that presumably forms the basis for the patent. But thanks for the insight that computers don't think for themselves.
From an admittedly shallow reading of the patent, it seems that it's difference is figuring out what to do on its own. Maybe you're right and that every aspect of what they're trying to do has been done, but I'm not so sure.
In any event, the title of the article ('Breakpoints have now been patented') is demonstrably false. The patent does not claim to patent the basic notion of a breakpoint.
Thus you end up with software breakpoints that can trigger the debugger based on optional listeners. At least, that's how I understand it. I could be wrong about the actual implementation.
You've just observed the slashdot patent attention span deficiency. Because most posters on this site don't have the slightest clue how to read a patent, they interpret a patent that claims to improve technology X by using method Y a synonymous to patenting X. Sure, this is obviously wrong to a moderately intelligent Orangutan, but nevertheless, it happens a lot here.
Add slashdot editor/submitter to personal block list for posting story that is nothing but flamebait. And only a day after I was praising digg for stealing our idiots. Looks like they missed a few.
I began using FF at something like v0.83 and its now mature, secure and stable.
Now by stable, do you mean that the manner in which it leaks memory and ultimately crashes is well characterized and predictable? Firefox on mac for me is nearly unusable. Sadly, safari is only slightly better. On my linux machine, it's a bit better but still a pig. Don't know about Windows.
He did not set out to make a profit! He first asked to be apart of the campaign as a contributor (by maintaining his myspace page). They rejected this, saying instead that they wanted to give a one-time payment and take total control. So he gave them a very generous offer (considering he had invested money in the page, and spent three years of his life working on it). So, they just took what they wanted.
He asked for $10,000 for the registration plus $50,000. That's not particularly generous, I really doubt he spent three man years on it. In any event, they only seem to have wanted the URL, not the site, so reimburesement for the $10K seems quite fair.
You also ignore the fact that he named his site after another person WHOM HE DID NOT ASK FOR PERMISSION. In pretty much all aspects of trademark law and similar with which I am familiar, he would find himself similarly screwed. He does not have the right to insinuate himself into the campaign. He does not have the right to hold hostage a domain (or a myspace site) named after another person. He asked for too much and got screwed. Too bad.
In other words, again - if you don't want your site hijacked by someone, DON'T GIVE IT THEIR EXACT NAME.
You obviously didn't RTFAs. The Obama campaign literally STOLE his myspace account from him. If they had just agreed to part company, there would be no issue.
He called the damned thing 'barackobama', and sought to make a profit from it. If this were a registrar issue, he'd have to hand it over too.
If he had called it 'obamafans' or something like that, it'd be different. But he didn't. The guy still has his site, right? Just called something different? So what's the big deal.
For future reference, don't start a site named directly after another person, seek to make a profit from it, and get surprised when the registrar/site operator hands him the keys to the domain that's frigging named after him.
The guy wants to be president. He's a politician. And now some guy is surprised he is up to dirty tricks?
What's the dirty trick? He spent his own money to make a myspace site. Candidate tells him great job, I'd like to centralize control of the thing, I'll buy it off you for your trouble. Guy names rather high number. Candidate tells him to forget it, and starts his own myspace page from scratch. Which is his right to do.
So what's the issue here? Guy gets greedy, and/or overestimates his own value, and loses?
it's late and i might be saying something really obvious... but i've convinced myself that slashdot is better because it has been around for so long. the user base has mostly been around for very long and is familiar with the system as well as what possibilities exist to exploit and troll it. ie, it is stable and i always know what i'm getting.
i don't think digg will forever be a forum for immature posts, but it is still young and what we see now may not be its equilibrium state. though, i sure wouldn't mind if its homepage were always as hilarious as it is right now.
Slashdot was great before the idiot hordes of brainless 15 year olds found it (as opposed to the intelligent 15 year old geeks who belong here). Then it sucked while the morons were around. Now it's great again since they've left for digg.
I think your premise is correct, that slashdot established enough of a culture and history of people who know what they're talking about that there was something to revert to after it was (thankfully) no longer the flavor of the month. I don't think digg has that. I think once the kiddies roll over to the next big thing, digg doesn't have enough of an essence to sustain it. What is digg without the kiddies? Just the ability to vote on stories? Idol worship of that Kevin guy? Doesn't seem enough to sustain it. Digg was headed down, but it really jumped the shark when it opened itself to non-tech stories.
I think slashdot owes digg a substantial debt, in that digg took a large number of the morons and made it more than likely that highly moderated posts on slashdot are actually insightful as opposed to insipid.
Re:This is (now) a famous number-theory integer!
on
Censoring a Number
·
· Score: 1
I think he was joking. I'm also guessing you don't get invited to parties.
That's not even close to true. Your customers are, without fail, the people that pay you (or at least, the people you're trying to convince to pay you). Searchers are Google's product; advertisers are Google's customers.
In either case, the company in question was not an advertiser. They were a business taking advantage of Google's free service. In that light, they are neither customer nor product. They were a freeloader looking to game the system and they got what was coming to them.
Add to that the misery of attempting to hack to every proprietary firmware variation on every camera and hunting down someone who knows something about the camera firmware/driver and the misery is tripled. I know I owe this guy for my webcam working like magic.
In theory with SIP (VOIP) video conferencing is ready for the masses, but I still don't see web cams taking off as a kind of must-have accessory. You still don't see brands like HP jumping in and flushing logitech out of the business.
Anyone have any insight as to why that is?
Yes. Because the price is too low and there's no consumable. It's not worth pumping R&D money into a product that sells for $15, generates no repeat business (as printers do), and is used by webcamwhores (so it's not a loss leader to attract customers to other expensive products). The lucrative end of that market, as you say, is with videoconferencing clients, and you do see competition there.
Slashdot Mirror
From the tone of the post, it seems like they're making an argument against hybrid cars by showing that they're no more efficient than regular cars with this new tech... but why not just stop comparing the two and combine them? Shouldn't the title read "Hybrid Car Efficiency Improves Even More with new Technology?"
Yup, they lose the debate through the old "Not mutually exclusive" argument. Not only that, but those "intelligent" driving techniques aren't always practicable, like in bumper to bumper traffic. That sort of thing is where Hybrids really shine - where speeds are averaging less than 20 mph and people spend time sitting. If I'm in a hybrid, my engine cuts off and I run off the battery for the start-n-stop traffic, and it charges back later. A regular car will typically get well under 10 mph in such situations; a hybrid will get around 60.
In other words, hybrids totally kick ass in the city - small, nimble, typically a short turning radius, and great mileage in city driving.
Oh just GIVE UP with the world's cop business. It's complete BS. All the US does is act in its own interest. Nothing more. They stayed well away from WWII until GERMANY DECLARED WAR ON THEM.
You're a poor student of history. We had been aiding Britain for a very long time before entering the war.
Since then they've seriously avoided anywhere that really needed help (Rwanda, anyone?)
Can't solve them all, and that was flat-out civil war. And in way of proving my point - where was Europe? Note we did go to Somalia, and that wasn't exactly a high-value nation strategically.
Oh and the USSR thing: You're joking, right?
Must have been subtle since I didn't mention the USSR (time to up your lithium prescription), but go on...
France, UK could both have nuked Moscow at the drop of a beret.
Might want to check the relative numbers (and desctructive capacity) of warheads possessed by the Soviets compared to Europe. That would not have gone well for you, I expect. Not sure what your point is, but facts are facts. Russia would have utterly destroyed Britain and/or France.
Likewise, the Battle of Britain was won well before the USA entered WWII... but of course, the USA had to play the cavalry riding in to help.
The fact is that Churchill had been begging the US to enter for some time. And while I will grant that our role in WWI was a mop-up job, our role in WWII was most certainly not. Many Americans died in Europe, and to trivialize that is preposterous. America played a large role in the land battle to retake Europe.
Now you want to talk about who *really* saved Britain's ass, it's the Russians. If that weren't a two-front war, with the Russians suffering massive casualties but still winning, you'd be speaking German for certain. In the end, while officially at war with Germany, we didn't need to send massive numbers of troops to Europe while at war with Japan. We could have taken care of our own problems, which would have probably made the Pacific war more easily.
Nothing personal, but I'd rather ya'll sweat the petty stuff and let the US be the world's police. They don't do it all that well, but I'm pretty sure the alternatives would be worse.
Yeah, that whole US as global cop thing...the Euros bitch about the US doing everything unilaterally, but when you start doing stuff by committee nothing gets done (see current story). And it seems that for conflicts that the US doesn't get involved with for whatever reason, it seems that Europe doesn't really jump in with both feet.
Like now - for right or wrong, we have our hands full with Iraq and don't have the resources to solve Darfur. So where's Europe? Talking, telling the US to get involved. I'd say to Europe, with the US distracted, this is your chance to solve all those other problems your way, without the US stepping all over it. So let's see it.
As a US citizen, I'd rather my tax money weren't getting spent solving everyone else's problems, but it seems like the international will to do most of the dirty work just isn't there. Messy world problems can't be solved by parliamentary procedure at the UN.
They have a point, but man, that ranks right up there with:
* The Klan is a legal social club
* The Westboro Baptist Church has a right to protest at gay funerals
* Neo-Nazis have a right to march in Cincinnati
* Michael Stipe has the right to any haircut he likes
Actually, I don't think they have a point that is parallel to those. Each of those is an example of something bad that doesn't really directly tread on someone's rights (with a possible exception of the second point). These guys are trying to mix their right to speech free from criminal prosecution with freedom from civil action that may result from people harmed from their speech. The question is, are people harmed by turning over records to the government in a direct, quantifiable way? That's still a tough case to prove.
But for the average user even a relatively simple url such as http://www.wamu.com/personal/default.asp will cause their eyes to glaze over when all they typed in was www.wamu.com.
Yup. And worse yet, that sort of thing allows the baddies to do something like www.blah blah/wamu.bank. So the ambiguousness of the period in the URL - used for both file and domain delimiters - will further obfuscate things.
"Director of information policy at the Cato Institute..." Oh, I'm sorry, am I supposed to continue giving a shit after that?
Of course. Why else did you bring that Cato report to the restroom if you weren't going to take a nice dump and wipe your ass with it?
A common definition of "nanotech" is a device that was devised with intentional features on a scale of under a 100 nm or so. The best optical microscopes can resolve down to about 200nm, or roughly half a wavelength of blue light.
So you are correct. In fact, for some devices even an electron microscope doesn't quite cut it, and a scanning-tunneling microscope (STM) or atomic-force microscope (AFM) are used.
How would life without Microsoft be different? WHY DON'T YOU TRY IT AND FIND OUT?
I'm pretty sure the question meant, "How would life be different if MS didn't exist?" Unfortunately, I do not have the means to cause MS to not exist.
"Judiciary Committee member Lamar Smith (R-TX) was quoted as saying, 'If we do not receive acceptable answers, Congress will be forced to act.'"
What the schools should say:
'Here's what we're doing to curb piracy: we respond to subpoenas signed by a judge to their full extent. We remove infringing content that has been identified by its owner in full compliance with the DMCA.
Oh, you wanted us to do your job for you? Don't think so.
Yeah, we need to start tarring and feathering the knobs who keep submitting/posting the inane "if somebody did X in 'Second Life', would it be just like if it happened in real life?"
No. It's not. Kind of how these idiots have girlfriends in 'Second Life' but not in their actual life.
So that means you support him Stealing a webpage/myspace page and screwing the guy that put all his work into it as well?
That guy named a site after a well-known person and attempted to hold it ransom for much more than it was worth. The guy didn't have a right to Obama's name. He also didn't have a right to force himself into the campaign as he attempted. Note that only the link - barack obama's name - got transferred, the idiot still has his page. He deserves what he got. If you don't want your site to be transferred, don't name it after a public figure. If this had been a registrar issue the result would have been no different.
For disclosure, I will not be voting for Obama, but this whole crapstorm over a story that boils down to little more than the old squat/extort trick doesn't deserve the legs it has.
No shit. By 'on its own' I mean dynamically based on the an algorithm that presumably forms the basis for the patent. But thanks for the insight that computers don't think for themselves.
From an admittedly shallow reading of the patent, it seems that it's difference is figuring out what to do on its own. Maybe you're right and that every aspect of what they're trying to do has been done, but I'm not so sure.
In any event, the title of the article ('Breakpoints have now been patented') is demonstrably false. The patent does not claim to patent the basic notion of a breakpoint.
Thus you end up with software breakpoints that can trigger the debugger based on optional listeners. At least, that's how I understand it. I could be wrong about the actual implementation.
You've just observed the slashdot patent attention span deficiency. Because most posters on this site don't have the slightest clue how to read a patent, they interpret a patent that claims to improve technology X by using method Y a synonymous to patenting X. Sure, this is obviously wrong to a moderately intelligent Orangutan, but nevertheless, it happens a lot here.
Add slashdot editor/submitter to personal block list for posting story that is nothing but flamebait. And only a day after I was praising digg for stealing our idiots. Looks like they missed a few.
...and now has an asshole that's about 3 bore sizes larger than it was last week. Yikes.
I began using FF at something like v0.83 and its now mature, secure and stable.
Now by stable, do you mean that the manner in which it leaks memory and ultimately crashes is well characterized and predictable? Firefox on mac for me is nearly unusable. Sadly, safari is only slightly better. On my linux machine, it's a bit better but still a pig. Don't know about Windows.
He did not set out to make a profit! He first asked to be apart of the campaign as a contributor (by maintaining his myspace page). They rejected this, saying instead that they wanted to give a one-time payment and take total control. So he gave them a very generous offer (considering he had invested money in the page, and spent three years of his life working on it). So, they just took what they wanted.
He asked for $10,000 for the registration plus $50,000. That's not particularly generous, I really doubt he spent three man years on it. In any event, they only seem to have wanted the URL, not the site, so reimburesement for the $10K seems quite fair.
You also ignore the fact that he named his site after another person WHOM HE DID NOT ASK FOR PERMISSION. In pretty much all aspects of trademark law and similar with which I am familiar, he would find himself similarly screwed. He does not have the right to insinuate himself into the campaign. He does not have the right to hold hostage a domain (or a myspace site) named after another person. He asked for too much and got screwed. Too bad.
In other words, again - if you don't want your site hijacked by someone, DON'T GIVE IT THEIR EXACT NAME.
You obviously didn't RTFAs. The Obama campaign literally STOLE his myspace account from him. If they had just agreed to part company, there would be no issue.
He called the damned thing 'barackobama', and sought to make a profit from it. If this were a registrar issue, he'd have to hand it over too.
If he had called it 'obamafans' or something like that, it'd be different. But he didn't. The guy still has his site, right? Just called something different? So what's the big deal.
For future reference, don't start a site named directly after another person, seek to make a profit from it, and get surprised when the registrar/site operator hands him the keys to the domain that's frigging named after him.
The guy wants to be president. He's a politician. And now some guy is surprised he is up to dirty tricks?
What's the dirty trick? He spent his own money to make a myspace site. Candidate tells him great job, I'd like to centralize control of the thing, I'll buy it off you for your trouble. Guy names rather high number. Candidate tells him to forget it, and starts his own myspace page from scratch. Which is his right to do.
So what's the issue here? Guy gets greedy, and/or overestimates his own value, and loses?
it's late and i might be saying something really obvious... but i've convinced myself that slashdot is better because it has been around for so long. the user base has mostly been around for very long and is familiar with the system as well as what possibilities exist to exploit and troll it. ie, it is stable and i always know what i'm getting.
i don't think digg will forever be a forum for immature posts, but it is still young and what we see now may not be its equilibrium state. though, i sure wouldn't mind if its homepage were always as hilarious as it is right now.
Slashdot was great before the idiot hordes of brainless 15 year olds found it (as opposed to the intelligent 15 year old geeks who belong here). Then it sucked while the morons were around. Now it's great again since they've left for digg.
I think your premise is correct, that slashdot established enough of a culture and history of people who know what they're talking about that there was something to revert to after it was (thankfully) no longer the flavor of the month. I don't think digg has that. I think once the kiddies roll over to the next big thing, digg doesn't have enough of an essence to sustain it. What is digg without the kiddies? Just the ability to vote on stories? Idol worship of that Kevin guy? Doesn't seem enough to sustain it. Digg was headed down, but it really jumped the shark when it opened itself to non-tech stories.
I think slashdot owes digg a substantial debt, in that digg took a large number of the morons and made it more than likely that highly moderated posts on slashdot are actually insightful as opposed to insipid.
I think he was joking. I'm also guessing you don't get invited to parties.
That's not even close to true. Your customers are, without fail, the people that pay you (or at least, the people you're trying to convince to pay you). Searchers are Google's product; advertisers are Google's customers.
In either case, the company in question was not an advertiser. They were a business taking advantage of Google's free service. In that light, they are neither customer nor product. They were a freeloader looking to game the system and they got what was coming to them.
Add to that the misery of attempting to hack to every proprietary firmware variation on every camera and hunting down someone who knows something about the camera firmware/driver and the misery is tripled. I know I owe this guy for my webcam working like magic.
In theory with SIP (VOIP) video conferencing is ready for the masses, but I still don't see web cams taking off as a kind of must-have accessory. You still don't see brands like HP jumping in and flushing logitech out of the business.
Anyone have any insight as to why that is?
Yes. Because the price is too low and there's no consumable. It's not worth pumping R&D money into a product that sells for $15, generates no repeat business (as printers do), and is used by webcamwhores (so it's not a loss leader to attract customers to other expensive products). The lucrative end of that market, as you say, is with videoconferencing clients, and you do see competition there.
Hello dear Sir or Madam, This is Mugu Maccaca The III, the son of the late Mugu Maccaca The II, the prime minister of Nigeria.
I thought Mugu Maccaca was the Senator from Virginia who just got un-elected.
Meet Mr. Macaca