It also scores great writing and even greater speaking very inconsistently.
When fed Kennedy's "I am a Berliner" speech these systems always scored it rather low. Repetitious. Gratuitous use of foreign words: Ich bin ein Berliner.
Religion, Dictators, and Kings have power of live and death over you. That they "Eventually Failed" was small consolation to the millions they put to the Sword, the Guillotine, and the Gallows.
RIAA/MPAA are on a death march. Their own. They just don't realize it yet.
And they will take intellectual property with them. The backlash will be rather sever, when the sheeple wake up and realize that you can't have a fast computer because some one in a far off land wrote a song.
Eventually, it will be necessary for society to roll it all back. Copyrights, Patents, the whole nine yards.
Compose a song, sing a song, write a book: You have 4 years, then its public domain. Invent warp drive: Ok, 7 years. Sorry, we can't wait for you to die in order to use the product of your brain. We birthed you, we fed you, we educated you, you owe us.!!
Don't want to sing a song under that scenario? Fine. We will get someone else. People have been producing music far longer than they have been paid for it.
User comments were more than 90% frivolous, 5% pure stupid, and the remainder made me doubt my understanding of the English language, if not my sanity.
For years, you fill in the form on the airplane, and walk thru customs after a perfunctory stamp stamp, here's your paper, no questions asked, no passport, no ID even looked at upon arrival at the Mexican Airport. Once in a while the "Red light" went off depending on how seedy you looked.
But by and large, getting into Mexico entailed less scrutiny than returning to the states, where questions were asked, documents were demanded, and bags were scanned and opened.
Having a company be able to SEE any user's password should be a crime. Standard practice is that NOBODY, not even sysadmins can see it. They can change it but not see it.
What about when the neighboring farms spread their unwanted "Natural" pollen to the GE farms? Why is that not an actionable offense?
You farm, you pretty much either accept what pollen comes your way or you plant hybrids that do not need pollination to fruit.
Pollen only affects seed production. Not root crops.
Unless you grow and replant your own seed, what the wind blows from the neighbor does root crops no harm. For those raising seed crop, this might be a problem, but so would being down-wind from a so called "natural" seed farm. (Which of course do not exist, as the seed stock has been artificially selected for centuries).
This is, when all is said and done, a situation where one farmer is getting out-produced by the next, and having difficulty selling his crop. Rather than proving his crop is better, they run to a judge.
This long after the fact, nobody in the US knows how President Reagan's moves were interpreted by the USSR nor how sincere they were in developing an automated response.
People in power in that era, like Gorbachev, live in the west, and freely talk about their understanding at the time.
The whole story hinges around this one line:
To Moscow it was the Death Starâ"and it confirmed that the US was planning an attack.
Yet we know that was NOT true, and the Soviet government did NOT seriously believe that.
But the story would be less believable if they mentioned the actual depth of knowledge and contact the Soviets had with western leaders.
This basic fabrication calls the rest of the story into question. That, and the fact that in the Regan years we were already photo-mapping every square inch of the Soviet Union, and knew exactly where each warhead was, and how many of them there were.
So while it appeals to the doom sayers, I call bs on this story. Too many holes. Too many inconsistencies. Designed more to scare us out of ever again electing a bold president than anything else.
In this case, it seems that Comcast (and others) are footing some of the bill for this service. I've not bothered to register to see if there are additional fees.
> Seems kind of weak to me. ISPs can screw you over first and make a half-assed attempt to determining if it was legal content or not afterward
But the proposed rulemaking gives ISPs/Carriers an incentive to get out of that business, because they need simply tell the copyright holders that they are no longer authorized to do deep packet inspection, and as such the copyright holders need to go talk to the source.
By removing fear of copyright enforcement from carriers there is no longer any valid reason for them to do this stuff.
> Which part of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate content over privately-owned wires?
Which wires are privately owned?
The wires running thru your subdivision on public right of way, the access to which was granted by cities and counties?
The microwave towers and cell towers using radio waves owned by the people and licensed to them?
The fiber-optic and copper laid in public right of way along our highways, and through easements taken by eminent domain all over the nation?
The wires you paid for with your subscription to Publicly Regulated carriers who also have had massive government funding, but who's prices never go down?
The satellites launched by NASA at a net loss with government funds?
Those wires?
If you had attempted to read the article, you would have realized the FCC is proposing that the internet is to remain free of content blocking by companies selling you bandwidth.
It is after all, not like you have any free choice in this matter. You can't take your business down the street.
In most places your Internet service provider is a dictated choice. Only game in town. Further, your routing is dictated by people you are not even a customer of. M3 or one of the other backbone carriers could decide you will not be allowed to visit your favorite web site and it wouldn't matter who your ISP was. (Don't laugh, this has happened already).
The FCC is protecting your rights in this instance. You paid for bandwidth, and you should be free to do any legal thing with that bandwidth, and not be subject to the whims of some upstream provider that doesn't think you should be able to watch porn on Sunday morning.
The FCC is not adding any new regulation of content, and they are proposing to not allow ATT or Comcast to do so either.
But hey, its all private enterprise, Right? Never mind who paid for it. Its their wires, so lets hand the entire internet over to the carriers free of charge and let them control our choices with no government intervention. Let them block VOIP. Let them block movie rental on line. Let them filter our mail (sending copies to the CIA). Just turn it all over the people who "own" the wires.
Without the rule of law there is no such thing as a Free Market.
Its far easier to sell in bulk than to sell in individual units and deal with individual customer.
Comcast can provide their usual tech support for ESPN 360 (that is to say hopelessly inadequate). But could ESPN realistically provide any support at all?
". If the website creator wishes to restrict access, even on an ISP basis, that is their right to do so."
No, they don't. That is illegal restraint of trade. We have laws in this country against that. Ford can not tell you that you are not permitted to shop at AutoZone for your Ford Certified parts.
ESPN limits ISPs based on the ISP's decisions on bandwidth allocation, not because they don't want your dollars.
This will make it so ESPN will not have to engage in this practice. Besides: todate, no one has challenged this in court.
Some noise is needed, because pedestrians are so stupid.
So instead of taking the opportunity to quiet our cities, which are an absolute noise nightmare, we are going to legislate more noise. Can you imagine a stream of bumper to bumper traffic and the noise that would create?
Wouldn't it be easier for the blind or deaf to carry s little 360 degree Doppler radar which would squeal or vibrate when something is approaching faster then their gate?
Wouldn't that make more sense than making city environments more unpleasant for every one else?
You could fund this with gas/battery tax revenues. You could build it into mp3 players.
Such a device will work for cyclists as well as pedestrians.
âoeIn the last year or two IBM has built machines in the order of a petaflop and in the last couple of weeks IBM announced an ongoing partnership with the US Department of Energy to build a 20 petaflop machine by 2011-2012,â he said.
âoeWe will need machines which probably have hundreds of thousands of processor cores in them and we roughly know how we can go about engineering it,â he said. âoeIt wouldnâ(TM)t be cost- or technically-feasible to bolt together 50 20-petaflop machines⦠and the power consumed would be crazy. By the time we deliver the 20 petaflop machine we will be well on the way to an exaflop machine.â
But you still end up with hundreds of thousands of cores, and you still need an OS that can effectively use that many cores, and nothing we have comes close other than Grid Computing.
Data manipulation on this scale simply must be divided and parceled out to be handled effectively.
So while they might not call it Grid computing, it still will be under the skin.
The size of landfills are starting to attract attention of the metals recycling industry. There are concerns about reopening these landfills due to poor record keeping in the past; not knowing exactly what is down there.
But the plastic glass and metal will still be there when the econemic conditions are right for mining these places.
Dare I ask how much energy is expended in this conversion?
It doesn't matter EmagGeek, because it gets all the energy it need by burning some of the output product for power generation. It outputs both oil and power.
Since all that plastic was going into the ground anyway, its a net gain, and the energy of conversion is not an issue.
The summary left unsaid that it is the removed hydrocarbons that are retained, and the rest discarded.
Then the retained hydrocarbons (82% of the input) is reduced to an "oil product". Tfa linked to rather thin page which explained vary little.
Further digging at environ.com yielded this:
The reactor, a vital component of the unit, utilizes a heating system that converts plastic into oil through low temperature thermal cracking in a vacuum. Using this innovative approach, the Envion Oil Generatorâ produces oil and power safely, efficiently, and economically through an environmentally sensitive process that produces a net gain in energy recaptured.
A single Envion unit is capable of processing up to 10,000 tons of plastic waste annually, producing three to five barrels of refined petroleum product per ton of plastic waste.
> Exactly. So, why should we be spending money that we don't have?
Because you can not frugally "save" your way out of a depression. That simply leads to a deeper depression.
Its cheaper to build these things (as well as other infrastructure) in a down economy than wait till everyone if fully employed and demanding big salaries.
> We spend billions on observatories, but what's the point?
Calm down. There is a depression going on.
All that money enters the economy employing everyone from astronomer to shoe-shine guys. In the mean time some science gets done.
If your tag line is to be believed, you will forgive us if we wait till you are actually OUT of your mom's basement before we task you with prioritizing our national science budget.
Slashdot Mirror
It also scores great writing and even greater speaking very inconsistently.
When fed Kennedy's "I am a Berliner" speech these systems always scored it rather low. Repetitious. Gratuitous use of foreign words: Ich bin ein Berliner.
Religion, Dictators, and Kings have power of live and death over you. That they "Eventually Failed" was small consolation to the millions they put to the Sword, the Guillotine, and the Gallows.
RIAA/MPAA are on a death march. Their own. They just don't realize it yet.
And they will take intellectual property with them. The backlash will be rather sever, when the sheeple wake up and realize that you can't have a fast computer because some one in a far off land wrote a song.
Eventually, it will be necessary for society to roll it all back. Copyrights, Patents, the whole nine yards.
Compose a song, sing a song, write a book: You have 4 years, then its public domain. Invent warp drive: Ok, 7 years. Sorry, we can't wait for you to die in order to use the product of your brain. We birthed you, we fed you, we educated you, you owe us.!!
Don't want to sing a song under that scenario? Fine. We will get someone else. People have been producing music far longer than they have been paid for it.
User comments were more than 90% frivolous, 5% pure stupid, and the remainder made me doubt my understanding of the English language, if not my sanity.
And yet, here you are on slash dot......
Slow learner?
It is both new and interesting.
For years, you fill in the form on the airplane, and walk thru customs after a perfunctory stamp stamp, here's your paper, no questions asked, no passport, no ID even looked at upon arrival at the Mexican Airport. Once in a while the "Red light" went off depending on how seedy you looked.
But by and large, getting into Mexico entailed less scrutiny than returning to the states, where questions were asked, documents were demanded, and bags were scanned and opened.
Times change. But Mexico has always been lax.
Having a company be able to SEE any user's password should be a crime. Standard practice is that NOBODY, not even sysadmins can see it. They can change it but not see it.
Ah, no, its not that easy.
They would have to prove you planted it. They have to prove intent.
You show up in court with a weather report showing wind direction on a specific day, and case dismissed.
Monsanto would never be so stupid as to trespass to collect a sample or bring such an action in court.
You made it up.
What about when the neighboring farms spread their unwanted "Natural" pollen to the GE farms? Why is that not an actionable offense?
You farm, you pretty much either accept what pollen comes your way or you plant hybrids that do not need pollination to fruit.
Pollen only affects seed production. Not root crops.
Unless you grow and replant your own seed, what the wind blows from the neighbor does root crops no harm. For those raising seed crop, this might be a problem, but so would being down-wind from a so called "natural" seed farm. (Which of course do not exist, as the seed stock has been artificially selected for centuries).
This is, when all is said and done, a situation where one farmer is getting out-produced by the next, and having difficulty selling his crop. Rather than proving his crop is better, they run to a judge.
Norman Borlaug is turning in his fresh grave. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/14/business/energy-environment/14borlaug.html?_r=1
This long after the fact, nobody in the US knows how President Reagan's moves were interpreted by the USSR nor how sincere they were in developing an automated response.
Now hold on there...
The Russians had TOTAL access to the US media, Congress, Executive Branch, and Defense department. The were never seriously frozen out like US Press and Military Attaché's were.
People in power in that era, like Gorbachev, live in the west, and freely talk about their understanding at the time.
The whole story hinges around this one line:
To Moscow it was the Death Starâ"and it confirmed that the US was planning an attack.
Yet we know that was NOT true, and the Soviet government did NOT seriously believe that.
But the story would be less believable if they mentioned the actual depth of knowledge and contact the Soviets had with western leaders.
This basic fabrication calls the rest of the story into question. That, and the fact that in the Regan years we were already photo-mapping every square inch of the Soviet Union, and knew exactly where each warhead was, and how many of them there were.
So while it appeals to the doom sayers, I call bs on this story. Too many holes. Too many inconsistencies. Designed more to scare us out of ever again electing a bold president than anything else.
Ah, does that really matter?
Kid goes to school, then has to spend every cent taking care of a failing parent. Parent dies anyway, kid broke for life.
Kid doesn't go to school, gets a job, puts self thru school, and both parent and kid come out better.
I see your point here.
(But as an aside, when I visit this site: http://espn.go.com/broadband/espn360/channels?channel=3578790 ) on my Comcast cable modem it has a "Powered by Comcast" banner at the top, and I can access the site.
In this case, it seems that Comcast (and others) are footing some of the bill for this service. I've not bothered to register to see if there are additional fees.
> Seems kind of weak to me. ISPs can screw you over first and make a half-assed attempt to determining if it was legal content or not afterward
But the proposed rulemaking gives ISPs/Carriers an incentive to get out of that business, because they need simply tell the copyright holders that they are no longer authorized to do deep packet inspection, and as such the copyright holders need to go talk to the source.
By removing fear of copyright enforcement from carriers there is no longer any valid reason for them to do this stuff.
> Which part of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate content over privately-owned wires?
Which wires are privately owned?
The wires running thru your subdivision on public right of way, the access to which was granted by cities and counties?
The microwave towers and cell towers using radio waves owned by the people and licensed to them?
The fiber-optic and copper laid in public right of way along our highways, and through easements taken by eminent domain all over the nation?
The wires you paid for with your subscription to Publicly Regulated carriers who also have had massive government funding, but who's prices never go down?
The satellites launched by NASA at a net loss with government funds?
Those wires?
If you had attempted to read the article, you would have realized the FCC is proposing that the internet is to remain free of content blocking by companies selling you bandwidth.
It is after all, not like you have any free choice in this matter. You can't take your business down the street.
In most places your Internet service provider is a dictated choice. Only game in town. Further, your routing is dictated by people you are not even a customer of. M3 or one of the other backbone carriers could decide you will not be allowed to visit your favorite web site and it wouldn't matter who your ISP was. (Don't laugh, this has happened already).
The FCC is protecting your rights in this instance. You paid for bandwidth, and you should be free to do any legal thing with that bandwidth, and not be subject to the whims of some upstream provider that doesn't think you should be able to watch porn on Sunday morning.
The FCC is not adding any new regulation of content, and they are proposing to not allow ATT or Comcast to do so either.
But hey, its all private enterprise, Right? Never mind who paid for it. Its their wires, so lets hand the entire internet over to the carriers free of charge and let them control our choices with no government intervention. Let them block VOIP. Let them block movie rental on line. Let them filter our mail (sending copies to the CIA). Just turn it all over the people who "own" the wires.
Without the rule of law there is no such thing as a Free Market.
Could they just as easily charge you directly?
Its far easier to sell in bulk than to sell in individual units and deal with individual customer.
Comcast can provide their usual tech support for ESPN 360 (that is to say hopelessly inadequate). But could ESPN realistically provide any support at all?
". If the website creator wishes to restrict access, even on an ISP basis, that is their right to do so."
No, they don't. That is illegal restraint of trade. We have laws in this country against that. Ford can not tell you that you are not permitted to shop at AutoZone for your Ford Certified parts.
ESPN limits ISPs based on the ISP's decisions on bandwidth allocation, not because they don't want your dollars.
This will make it so ESPN will not have to engage in this practice. Besides: todate, no one has challenged this in court.
Some noise is needed, because pedestrians are so stupid.
So instead of taking the opportunity to quiet our cities, which are an absolute noise nightmare, we are going to legislate more noise. Can you imagine a stream of bumper to bumper traffic and the noise that would create?
Wouldn't it be easier for the blind or deaf to carry s little 360 degree Doppler radar which would squeal or vibrate when something is approaching faster then their gate?
Wouldn't that make more sense than making city environments more unpleasant for every one else?
You could fund this with gas/battery tax revenues. You could build it into mp3 players.
Such a device will work for cyclists as well as pedestrians.
From TFA:
âoeIn the last year or two IBM has built machines in the order of a petaflop and in the last couple of weeks IBM announced an ongoing partnership with the US Department of Energy to build a 20 petaflop machine by 2011-2012,â he said.
âoeWe will need machines which probably have hundreds of thousands of processor cores in them and we roughly know how we can go about engineering it,â he said. âoeIt wouldnâ(TM)t be cost- or technically-feasible to bolt together 50 20-petaflop machines⦠and the power consumed would be crazy. By the time we deliver the 20 petaflop machine we will be well on the way to an exaflop machine.â
But you still end up with hundreds of thousands of cores, and you still need an OS that can effectively use that many cores, and nothing we have comes close other than Grid Computing.
Data manipulation on this scale simply must be divided and parceled out to be handled effectively.
So while they might not call it Grid computing, it still will be under the skin.
EXACTLY.
Pop up a little text box that says this vendor will not
allow you to listen to a preview.
Problem solved. Buyers will run away from those artists as fast as they can.
Think of landfills as caches for the future.
The size of landfills are starting to attract attention of the metals recycling industry. There are concerns about reopening these landfills due to poor record keeping in the past; not knowing exactly what is down there.
But the plastic glass and metal will still be there when the econemic conditions are right for mining these places.
Dare I ask how much energy is expended in this conversion?
It doesn't matter EmagGeek, because it gets all the energy it need by burning some of the output product for power generation. It outputs both oil and power.
Since all that plastic was going into the ground anyway, its a net gain, and the energy of conversion is not an issue.
Quoting the Envion.com web page:
You utilize a heating system that converts plastic into oil through low temperature thermal cracking in a vacuum.
Does that clear it up? If so, please explain it to me....
That's what plastic is made of!
The summary left unsaid that it is the removed hydrocarbons that are retained, and the rest discarded.
Then the retained hydrocarbons (82% of the input) is reduced to an "oil product". Tfa linked to rather thin page which explained vary little.
Further digging at environ.com yielded this:
The reactor, a vital component of the unit, utilizes a heating system that converts plastic into oil through low temperature thermal cracking in a vacuum. Using this innovative approach, the Envion Oil Generatorâ produces oil and power safely, efficiently, and economically through an environmentally sensitive process that produces a net gain in energy recaptured.
A single Envion unit is capable of processing up to 10,000 tons of plastic waste annually, producing three to five barrels of refined petroleum product per ton of plastic waste.
> Exactly. So, why should we be spending money that we don't have?
Because you can not frugally "save" your way out of a depression. That simply leads to a deeper depression.
Its cheaper to build these things (as well as other infrastructure) in a down economy than wait till everyone if fully employed and demanding big salaries.
> We spend billions on observatories, but what's the point?
Calm down. There is a depression going on.
All that money enters the economy employing everyone from astronomer to shoe-shine guys. In the mean time some science gets done.
If your tag line is to be believed, you will forgive us if we wait till you are actually OUT of your mom's basement before we task you with prioritizing our national science budget.
Movicus Berateicus?
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1888197888/tt0213248
Mod parent funny.
And what ever you do, always assign your apprentice to deal with the shower drain pipes.