Now, that this is a patent grab exploiting a broken system, is fairly evident. However, two thoughts:
1. This patent is described as setting forth "A method and system translating instant messages between users who communicate in different languages" Notice that it's only one method being patented; there's nothing stopping me from coming up with my own method. This is not a good patent, but there are worse (one-click shopping comes to mind).
2. This patent, if worded a bit differently, could set forth a way to transparently translate between the native languages of devices, not users, which would perhaps be a more interesting patent considering IPv6, pervasive intercommunication between devices, et cetera; did Microsoft drop the ball on this one?
I respect your disagreement- security is a process, not a product, et cetera. However, it will be harder to pull a twin tower-esque attack off in the future, and there are so many other ways to cause harm that it's simply a bad idea for terrorists to try it again. In my opinion, anyway.
The twin tower attack was a one-time thing; neither it nor anything like it will ever work again, especially after all the media attention and tactical commentary the attack received.
This is a solution to a problem which will never come up again in anything near the form it did. It's interesting to think about and expand our engineering knowhow with but it's worthless as a Real Solution to a Real Problem.
It's troubling that the intellectually unwholesome analogy which the record and movie industry lobby groups in America, that copying is identical to stealing, is finding purchase in other cultures.
Copying is one thing, stealing/shoplifting is another. Copying may not be good, but for goodness sake it's different than stealing! This press release, and the 'educational' campaign that it outlines, clouds thought in contexts where it need not be clouded.
I agree this would be the most efficient way to both channel and use resources regarding outerspace, but I think at that point these space-going corporate entities lose accountability to specific governments, government in general loses power, and we really would live in a corporatocracy.
The way we reach our goals in space travel is more important than when we do it, in my opinion. I think letting corporations run the show in this context would be the wrong way.
"If we believed slashdot editors, every bird with blue feathers should get a tenured position in nanotech."
In defence of the slashdot editors, it was the story submitter and the article itself which gave this story the slant we're being critical of, not the editors themselves. Approving something for posting does not imply asserting all that is asserted within the story.
Good thought- though to clarify, 'quantum physicists by futuristic standards' wouldn't be quantum physicists at all; after a Kuhnian paradigm shift, which is implied by 'futuristic standards', they'd undoubtedly call themselves something else. 'quantum physicists' could then take on some of the questionableness we attribute to alchemy today.
Cheers about the conceptual structure the phrase 'the arts we call science' implies as well.
Seriously; we all use nanoproperties of materials to achieve macro results; just this morning I used nanotechnology in the form of nano-molecular-structure surface tension in my coffee, preventing spillage. I think this is very interesting but in the interests of linguistic integrity, having words actually *mean* something through exclusion, I question the spin that 'Renaissance Potters Were Nanotechnologists'; that implies a level of conceptual or technological understanding of nanophenomena which simply wasn't there.
Were Renaissance Potters clever? Yes. Were they 'Nanotechnologists'? No.
I'd suggest seperating legal good from moral good. There's nothing legally wrong with their actions, but they're stifling and twisting many aspects of society (i.e. media integrity and artistic expression through monopolistic and exploitative business practices as a short list) to make a profit... and that's morally rehensible.
On the surface this stance seems plausible to me, but sublimely troubling. Imagine this comment applied to runaway slaves in 1850's America:
'These farmers do have ownership of the slaves in question and their owners' rights are being violated. Going after the people who violate their rights [i.e. escaped slaves, people helping slaves escape] seems legitimate to me. This is the way things should work.'
Well, I disagree with that on essentially the same grounds I disagree with this on copyright enforcement; furthermore, civil disobediance was a driving force behind fixing many historical unjust situations, and I offer it may be useful as such now as well.
Now, this isn't a perfect analogy (information doesn't quite 'want to be free' as slaves 'want to be free', and it's hard to say what an idea's rights are- perhaps a better analogy would involve the civil rights' movement of the 60's) and this is admittedly an emotionally charged issue, but, my point is,
Just because this sort of action is allowed in our legal system doesn't make it right. Furthermore, just because we invented the idea of copyrights back in the 1500's as a bribe from the crown to publishers friendly to the crown, doesn't mean that it's a sacred institution that must be upheld eternally or in stasis. It was useful in it's time, but the world is a lot different now than when copyright was institutionalized. One might say that inventers and artists have the natural right to exclusive ownership of their ideas; I'd say that contradicts the constitution ("The Congress shall have power... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries" Article I, Section 8). Not that the constitution is an end-all document or even that it has much real force nowadays, but the view on copyright allowing this kind of ownership and enforcement to happen is a very recent one.
In general, I'd say that 'This is in accordance with our current legal system, hence this is the way things should work' is a rather oppressive stance and the only thing the RIAA has going for it.
How people understand cultural and legal issues is often in terms of analogies; the RIAA is trying to create and focus attention on the analogy between copying music and theft; copy music and youâ(TM)re a common thief.
What are some better analogies? Music as basic human right when available, music as buckets full of water from a communal village stream?
How weâ(TM)ll think of the ownership of ideas is being determined right now. Iâ(TM)d say weâ(TM)ve an obligation not only to ourselves but also to others in our culture and future generations to think critically about what weâ(TM)re making music, the access to music, and the ownership of music, analogous to.
Well spoken, but please remember that this issue is extremely complex and that even though law usually follows cultural morality, the reverse is often true as well. What we think of as wrong, even how we understand what happens when we click a 'download song' button, is being partially dictated to us in this bill. "Distributing copyrighted materials without the permission of the copyright owner" is clearly not identical in nature to stealing, yet as a prior comment mentioned, this bill redefines such as stealing.
I'm not saying that law influencing cultural morality and cultural understanding/categorization is necessarily bad, but more is going on here than first meets the eye. Personally I don't like it; this extension of 'theft' smacks too much of the extension 'terrorist' has gone through.
Theoretical maximum for common stellar materials?
on
Non-Spherical Stars
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Any physics buffs know what the largest theoretical ratio would be between a star's polar radius and equatorial radius, for the stuff that stars are made out of? Is the ratio for this star anywhere close to that?
I'd imagine one can only attain this through centrifugal force, which necessarily puts structural stress on the star, and past a certain amount of structural stress stars should disintegrate.
It's tough to think of meaningful applications for the Last Mile because it's not here yet; impliment it comprehensively and watch the machinery of capitalism work and think up thousands of applications for it. Of which a few will probably be meaningful.
Also, I'm not sure that "As the internet gets more mature, the need for broadband lessens because of improvements in packet technology and of course data compression. What was possible 5 years ago on a 56K modem doesn't even compare to what you can do with the Internet today with even a lowly 28.8. The improvements are just so vast." Could you qualify this statement, as improvements in packet technology (IPv4 vs IPv6) have actually increased the likely overhead of packets, and though we've come a long way in sound/video compression, we've not made much progress in generic data compression (the majority of overall and residential packets, vs streaming audio/video) in the past 5 years AFAIK.
If you build it, they will come. Improving compression ratios is at best evolutionary in change, not revolutionary as the Last Mile potentially is. And it is definitely that.
As a business decision, it probably makes sense for Walmart to get into this. It's a simple (well, pseudo-simple) profit equation.
As a comment on technology, though, Walmart's efforts in building this arm of business seems like investing heavily in railroads at the turn of the century. Or keeping with and investing in physical music distribution despite the growing capabilities of online/digital distribution. More power to them, I suppose, though I hope they don't screw things up for others, as has seemingly happened with old-school business models in the music industry.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, that this is a patent grab exploiting a broken system, is fairly evident. However, two thoughts:
1. This patent is described as setting forth "A method and system translating instant messages between users who communicate in different languages"
Notice that it's only one method being patented; there's nothing stopping me from coming up with my own method. This is not a good patent, but there are worse (one-click shopping comes to mind).
2. This patent, if worded a bit differently, could set forth a way to transparently translate between the native languages of devices, not users, which would perhaps be a more interesting patent considering IPv6, pervasive intercommunication between devices, et cetera; did Microsoft drop the ball on this one?
What fonts is the graphic
Slashdot
News for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
Done with?
I respect your disagreement- security is a process, not a product, et cetera. However, it will be harder to pull a twin tower-esque attack off in the future, and there are so many other ways to cause harm that it's simply a bad idea for terrorists to try it again. In my opinion, anyway.
The twin tower attack was a one-time thing; neither it nor anything like it will ever work again, especially after all the media attention and tactical commentary the attack received.
This is a solution to a problem which will never come up again in anything near the form it did. It's interesting to think about and expand our engineering knowhow with but it's worthless as a Real Solution to a Real Problem.
It's troubling that the intellectually unwholesome analogy which the record and movie industry lobby groups in America, that copying is identical to stealing, is finding purchase in other cultures.
Copying is one thing, stealing/shoplifting is another. Copying may not be good, but for goodness sake it's different than stealing! This press release, and the 'educational' campaign that it outlines, clouds thought in contexts where it need not be clouded.
I agree this would be the most efficient way to both channel and use resources regarding outerspace, but I think at that point these space-going corporate entities lose accountability to specific governments, government in general loses power, and we really would live in a corporatocracy.
The way we reach our goals in space travel is more important than when we do it, in my opinion. I think letting corporations run the show in this context would be the wrong way.
"If we believed slashdot editors, every bird with blue feathers should get a tenured position in nanotech."
In defence of the slashdot editors, it was the story submitter and the article itself which gave this story the slant we're being critical of, not the editors themselves. Approving something for posting does not imply asserting all that is asserted within the story.
Good thought- though to clarify, 'quantum physicists by futuristic standards' wouldn't be quantum physicists at all; after a Kuhnian paradigm shift, which is implied by 'futuristic standards', they'd undoubtedly call themselves something else. 'quantum physicists' could then take on some of the questionableness we attribute to alchemy today.
Cheers about the conceptual structure the phrase 'the arts we call science' implies as well.
I think we're in agreement!
... In other news, we're all 'Nanotechnologists'!
Seriously; we all use nanoproperties of materials to achieve macro results; just this morning I used nanotechnology in the form of nano-molecular-structure surface tension in my coffee, preventing spillage. I think this is very interesting but in the interests of linguistic integrity, having words actually *mean* something through exclusion, I question the spin that 'Renaissance Potters Were Nanotechnologists'; that implies a level of conceptual or technological understanding of nanophenomena which simply wasn't there.
Were Renaissance Potters clever? Yes. Were they 'Nanotechnologists'? No.
"This worm appears to primarily affect Microsoft systems, has an expiration date of July 14th,"
Yuck. The only thing worse than worms are rotten worms.
I'd suggest seperating legal good from moral good. There's nothing legally wrong with their actions, but they're stifling and twisting many aspects of society (i.e. media integrity and artistic expression through monopolistic and exploitative business practices as a short list) to make a profit... and that's morally rehensible.
Hence the negative slant.
On the surface this stance seems plausible to me, but sublimely troubling. Imagine this comment applied to runaway slaves in 1850's America:
... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries" Article I, Section 8). Not that the constitution is an end-all document or even that it has much real force nowadays, but the view on copyright allowing this kind of ownership and enforcement to happen is a very recent one.
'These farmers do have ownership of the slaves in question and their owners' rights are being violated. Going after the people who violate their rights [i.e. escaped slaves, people helping slaves escape] seems legitimate to me. This is the way things should work.'
Well, I disagree with that on essentially the same grounds I disagree with this on copyright enforcement; furthermore, civil disobediance was a driving force behind fixing many historical unjust situations, and I offer it may be useful as such now as well.
Now, this isn't a perfect analogy (information doesn't quite 'want to be free' as slaves 'want to be free', and it's hard to say what an idea's rights are- perhaps a better analogy would involve the civil rights' movement of the 60's) and this is admittedly an emotionally charged issue, but, my point is,
Just because this sort of action is allowed in our legal system doesn't make it right. Furthermore, just because we invented the idea of copyrights back in the 1500's as a bribe from the crown to publishers friendly to the crown, doesn't mean that it's a sacred institution that must be upheld eternally or in stasis. It was useful in it's time, but the world is a lot different now than when copyright was institutionalized. One might say that inventers and artists have the natural right to exclusive ownership of their ideas; I'd say that contradicts the constitution ("The Congress shall have power
In general, I'd say that 'This is in accordance with our current legal system, hence this is the way things should work' is a rather oppressive stance and the only thing the RIAA has going for it.
How people understand cultural and legal issues is often in terms of analogies; the RIAA is trying to create and focus attention on the analogy between copying music and theft; copy music and youâ(TM)re a common thief.
What are some better analogies? Music as basic human right when available, music as buckets full of water from a communal village stream?
How weâ(TM)ll think of the ownership of ideas is being determined right now. Iâ(TM)d say weâ(TM)ve an obligation not only to ourselves but also to others in our culture and future generations to think critically about what weâ(TM)re making music, the access to music, and the ownership of music, analogous to.
Well spoken, but please remember that this issue is extremely complex and that even though law usually follows cultural morality, the reverse is often true as well. What we think of as wrong, even how we understand what happens when we click a 'download song' button, is being partially dictated to us in this bill. "Distributing copyrighted materials without the permission of the copyright owner" is clearly not identical in nature to stealing, yet as a prior comment mentioned, this bill redefines such as stealing.
I'm not saying that law influencing cultural morality and cultural understanding/categorization is necessarily bad, but more is going on here than first meets the eye. Personally I don't like it; this extension of 'theft' smacks too much of the extension 'terrorist' has gone through.
Any physics buffs know what the largest theoretical ratio would be between a star's polar radius and equatorial radius, for the stuff that stars are made out of? Is the ratio for this star anywhere close to that?
I'd imagine one can only attain this through centrifugal force, which necessarily puts structural stress on the star, and past a certain amount of structural stress stars should disintegrate.
It's tough to think of meaningful applications for the Last Mile because it's not here yet; impliment it comprehensively and watch the machinery of capitalism work and think up thousands of applications for it. Of which a few will probably be meaningful.
Also, I'm not sure that
"As the internet gets more mature, the need for broadband lessens because of improvements in packet technology and of course data compression. What was possible 5 years ago on a 56K modem doesn't even compare to what you can do with the Internet today with even a lowly 28.8. The improvements are just so vast."
Could you qualify this statement, as improvements in packet technology (IPv4 vs IPv6) have actually increased the likely overhead of packets, and though we've come a long way in sound/video compression, we've not made much progress in generic data compression (the majority of overall and residential packets, vs streaming audio/video) in the past 5 years AFAIK.
If you build it, they will come. Improving compression ratios is at best evolutionary in change, not revolutionary as the Last Mile potentially is. And it is definitely that.
As a business decision, it probably makes sense for Walmart to get into this. It's a simple (well, pseudo-simple) profit equation.
As a comment on technology, though, Walmart's efforts in building this arm of business seems like investing heavily in railroads at the turn of the century. Or keeping with and investing in physical music distribution despite the growing capabilities of online/digital distribution. More power to them, I suppose, though I hope they don't screw things up for others, as has seemingly happened with old-school business models in the music industry.