It's a shame your opinion is not even closely related to the actual laws. In most (if not all) democracies, corprations are people in the eyes of the law.
Re:I agree. The very idea of such a penalty is evi
on
Death Penalty For Hackers?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
As benign as the crime may seem to you, it does cost billions of dollars to corporations. The death penalty is in no way acceptable -- that punishment doesn't even resemble something that fits the crime.
On the other hand, it is conceivable that people may die as a result of a virus in hospitals, for example.
To me, a virus release could range from a misdemeanor vandalism charge to possibly as high as manslaughter in the extreme case. The crime is serious, but you are right, some people do tend ot lose perspective. Perhaps a turn in the total perspective vortex would do some good.
Agreed. The first thing they teach you as a computer scientist is that GOTO is BAD. Then, when you get much further along in your education, they'll teach you the proper way to use a GOTO that both avoids the danger of infinite looping, and actually makes your code more readable and more efficient in certain situations. The uses are still rare, but sometimes the cost of avoiding GOTO is too great.
Say what you will about GOTO being an abomination, but even Leto Atreides, the biggest abomination of all, saved the universe.
AC adapter? Ummm...do you know *why* the AC adapter is needed? It's used to convert the AC power to DC power. These things will without a doubt generate DC power, so no adapter...just a small lead to plug in. Now, that may still be too cumbersome for some, but it's not as bad as you're making it out to be. And yes, that's still far more power generated than the average cell phone uses these days, but it is portable, and probably low enough voltage it wouldn't hurt too much when you get it wet...so it doesn't hurt to have a little extra power kicking around with you.
Take a course in macro-economics. I'm sick of explaining the real reason...it does have to do with what you're saying, but in the case of the current state of the US you're also way off. The short story is you have to spend money to make a strong economy. You won't spend money if you don't have it, so they (the infamous *they* is actually Alan Greenspan) give you more (lower interest rates, etc..)...but then Bush turns around and scares the shit out of you so you still won't spend it. You also fail to realize that less than 1 percent of the "money" that exists in the U.S. is in the form of cash, so *printing* more money has such a small effect your statement is laughable.
So quit whining about your dollar and go spend it already. PLEASE! Your weak dollar is hurting Canada's exports...if you don't smarten up soon we'll all be out of work and we'll HAVE to pirate all of our movies.
Nor is it available outside the US...hell, I can't even look at the web site.
Anyways, I think TV shows could also benefit from such a service, though syndication might get annoyed.
Holy Crap! Am I the only one that read this as a joke? Geez, some people take things way too seriously...and whoever modded this "Insightful" as opposed to "Funny" needs to grow a sense of humour.
That article mentions part of the problem is that internet access is going so fast now that larger movie files can easily be downloaded...maybe that means the MPAA can do something right that the RIAA didn't -- and that is to EMBRACE the new technology. Set up an online movie store where, for a small price (small because they don't have packaging fees and such), one can download a DVD -- legit.
Since DVDs are so easy to copy now anyways, there's no argument that it would make things easier to copy. So what's the delay? I think people would pay 5 to 10 bucks for a movie download. Look at iTunes as an example of where this has worked.
It would have been more like a month...if you look at the release schedule, you would see that devel freeze hapened essentially a month ago. You have to release sometime, and at the pace software goes in the OSS world, there will always be someone complaining the newest version of something isn't included.
Anyhow, it's not difficult to upgrade to Firefox 1.0 once it's released, so you'll just have to do that.
I don't think you understand the context. They were touring from Windsor to Quebec City, making stops along the way for the first anniversary of the blackout.
Yes, it wasn't scientific per se, but it was PR. I think you'll find that science without PR will never be useful -- nobody will know it exists.
Their solar cars are drivable. That's the message. If all they did for this tour was pack the cars in a trailer and show the car idle everywhere they went, they'd accomplish nothing.
On the other hand, if he were just out for a joy ride, I might be more inclined to agree with you, but things as they are, I think you're way off base.
Knowing the risks doesn't make it less tragic when the guy dies. All he was trying to do was further research in alternative energy sources...a very noble cause.
At the same time, you're right about the risks being there. They showed images of the minivan it hit on the local news about an hour after it happened -- broken headlight and a cracked windshield. The car didn't stand a chance. Seeing the wreckage of the car, you had to know the driver didn't stand a chance either...it was essentially a little pile of fibreglass and, across the road, a sheet of solar panels.
That is true. It's a question of enforcement. You can inspect a car by pulling it over or what have you. You can't say "yes, this person is only using this program for legal purposes." It's not logistically possible without severe invasion of privacy. So, the only possible thing would be to ban the service in this case because there's no way to enforce something less strict.
At the same time, I don't think there's really any way to enforce a law that would ban P2P. There will always be other countries that don't ban it (for instance, here in Canada, I've heard of no such law even being suggested), and you can't watch every computer among the hundreds of millions.
Really, there is no sense passing a law that can't be enforced. Something that on paper is illegal but can't be enforced at all isn't really illegal. If they're going to ban something that the majority of society wants to use, they better make damn sure they're willing to put all the money and resources they need to into it. Hell, they did that with prohibition, and still look where it got them.
If they're worried about copyright infringement, the existing laws are sufficiently enforceable. They may need to amend some of them in order to include new technology, but they're not going to find a more successful law than the copyright laws at putting a stop to illegal file sharing.
"As long as there are some illegal warez being shared its still illegal and the underlying tool for distrubution"
I imagine it's more of a percentage thing. People smuggle things on boats, move stolen goods in cars, etc... all the time. It's just a very small percentage of ships and cars that are involved in this sort of illegal activity.
The 39.77 is perplexing, but some people just don't bother to remember things correctly and once it's been memorized incorrectly, it's tough to beat out.
What I don't get is if Canada and other countries can work in imperial units for certain things which have to deal with the U.S., why can't, say, NASA, just bite the bullet and use metric like everybody else when precision is absolutely critical??? If you're using SI units internally, why not work in SI units externally?
Or better yet, the U.S. could join the community of the rest of the world and use metric...that would save a lot of headaches.
Of course, that's probably a long way off. Some people are just determined to use inferior products.
I totally agree. Awesome lineup, and cheap...the Toronto show was sold out long ago (or very close to it IIRC). Oh well, guess I'll have to find something else to do with my time. Comdex has been going downhill since '99 or so anyways. Waiting for the next big trade show to take control.
Re:I really don't understand this.
on
Our Friend, The Meter
·
· Score: 2, Informative
There is, however, trouble in that there are two completely different definitions of the inch. The standard international definition, previously known as the Canadian inch until the U.S. and Britain agreed to use it as their standard in 1958, (according to wikipedia.org) is based on 1 inch = 2.54cm
The other, known as the U.S. survey inch gives 39.37 inches per metre, which gives 1 inch = 2.540000508cm
Both are only really used in the U.S. now (except for, among a small handful of other places, certain industries in Canada who have to trade with the U.S., as well as the old farts who are too stubborn to give it up). However, if you can't even agree on a single definition of the thing, no wonder there are so many conversion errors.
In defence of RIM, there are differences here: 1) RIM actually produced the thing...NTP produces nothing. 2) RIM's patent isn't nearly as broad as NTP's.
RIM (specifically Mike Lazaridis) put a lot of effort into perfecting that keyboard for thumb typing and it is what the blackberry was built around. So yes, there was a lot of innovation there. It seems simple now, but at the time, it was a novel idea.
Of course, I may be biased here because RIM was founded and is based right beside where I go to school (U of Waterloo), and they contribute a lot to and hire a lot of students from said school.
Don't ask me. I didn't say it was "human" I said it was a "person" in that it has the same rights and responsibilities as people. There's a description and history of this here.
The 14th amendment (I believe) in the U.S. constitution allows for this in the States, and the same is true (although through different documents obviously) in Canada and probably several other countries in the world.
I am actually really interested in this, and if you have any links or anything that might help out here, I'd appreciate them.
The problem as I see it is not the actual digital storage (as the wave fronts can be recorded as any other medium, such as sound), nor is it the motion (should be able to do something similar to video, using quickly changing frames to simulate motion).
What I see as the problem is finding a way to "draw" the wave fronts in some medium quickly enough to look like motion. With 2D, it's easy, just light up bits of phosphor (or turn on LCD cells). But with holography, you actually have to reproduce the wave fronts in the shape of the material.
I may, of course, be waaay off base here, but as I say, I'd appreciate any info you may have come across.
Re:No Pointers?
on
Hardcore Java
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I suggest you work on your terminology. What Java uses IS a pointer, albeit dumbed down to the extent where it is nothing more than an address. An explanation (the first one I found in a google search, albeit not the best I've seen) can be found here.
The definition of a pointer does NOT require arithmetic, arbitrary pointing, or arbitrary data writing. Dictionary.com defines it as "A variable that holds the address of a core storage location." Java just happens to ensure you can't do these things because it thinks you'll screw it up (and in most cases it's right).
One thing I really hate about Java is it's severe lack of function pointers. They are very very useful if used properly, and Java really should be putting them in imo.
I suggest you read a book about implementing programming languages.
Know any good ones that will prove what you're trying to say? Or are you talking out of your ass again?
Re:No Pointers?
on
Hardcore Java
·
· Score: 2, Informative
well, for one, you can increment/decrement/otherwise manipulate the address pointed to by the C pointer...not so easy in Java. But these are dangerous things to do, in general, and there are other ways to do them.
Re:No Pointers?
on
Hardcore Java
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Incidentally, Java is *all* pointers (except for a few primitives). They just abstract it away so you don't need to worry about it. The 'new' keyword should be a dead giveaway if nothing else (unless you've never used C++ I suppose).
Just to play devil's advocate here...yes, I'd say practically all cars do only have one driver. Special cases may include some driver training cars, but the second driver in there has somewhat limited controls.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a shame your opinion is not even closely related to the actual laws. In most (if not all) democracies, corprations are people in the eyes of the law.
On the other hand, it is conceivable that people may die as a result of a virus in hospitals, for example.
To me, a virus release could range from a misdemeanor vandalism charge to possibly as high as manslaughter in the extreme case. The crime is serious, but you are right, some people do tend ot lose perspective. Perhaps a turn in the total perspective vortex would do some good.
Agreed. The first thing they teach you as a computer scientist is that GOTO is BAD. Then, when you get much further along in your education, they'll teach you the proper way to use a GOTO that both avoids the danger of infinite looping, and actually makes your code more readable and more efficient in certain situations. The uses are still rare, but sometimes the cost of avoiding GOTO is too great.
Say what you will about GOTO being an abomination, but even Leto Atreides, the biggest abomination of all, saved the universe.
AC adapter? Ummm...do you know *why* the AC adapter is needed? It's used to convert the AC power to DC power. These things will without a doubt generate DC power, so no adapter...just a small lead to plug in. Now, that may still be too cumbersome for some, but it's not as bad as you're making it out to be. And yes, that's still far more power generated than the average cell phone uses these days, but it is portable, and probably low enough voltage it wouldn't hurt too much when you get it wet...so it doesn't hurt to have a little extra power kicking around with you.
So quit whining about your dollar and go spend it already. PLEASE! Your weak dollar is hurting Canada's exports...if you don't smarten up soon we'll all be out of work and we'll HAVE to pirate all of our movies.
Nor is it available outside the US...hell, I can't even look at the web site. Anyways, I think TV shows could also benefit from such a service, though syndication might get annoyed.
Holy Crap! Am I the only one that read this as a joke? Geez, some people take things way too seriously...and whoever modded this "Insightful" as opposed to "Funny" needs to grow a sense of humour.
Since DVDs are so easy to copy now anyways, there's no argument that it would make things easier to copy. So what's the delay? I think people would pay 5 to 10 bucks for a movie download. Look at iTunes as an example of where this has worked.
Anyhow, it's not difficult to upgrade to Firefox 1.0 once it's released, so you'll just have to do that.
Yes, it wasn't scientific per se, but it was PR. I think you'll find that science without PR will never be useful -- nobody will know it exists.
Their solar cars are drivable. That's the message. If all they did for this tour was pack the cars in a trailer and show the car idle everywhere they went, they'd accomplish nothing.
On the other hand, if he were just out for a joy ride, I might be more inclined to agree with you, but things as they are, I think you're way off base.
At the same time, you're right about the risks being there. They showed images of the minivan it hit on the local news about an hour after it happened -- broken headlight and a cracked windshield. The car didn't stand a chance. Seeing the wreckage of the car, you had to know the driver didn't stand a chance either...it was essentially a little pile of fibreglass and, across the road, a sheet of solar panels.
At the same time, I don't think there's really any way to enforce a law that would ban P2P. There will always be other countries that don't ban it (for instance, here in Canada, I've heard of no such law even being suggested), and you can't watch every computer among the hundreds of millions.
Really, there is no sense passing a law that can't be enforced. Something that on paper is illegal but can't be enforced at all isn't really illegal. If they're going to ban something that the majority of society wants to use, they better make damn sure they're willing to put all the money and resources they need to into it. Hell, they did that with prohibition, and still look where it got them.
If they're worried about copyright infringement, the existing laws are sufficiently enforceable. They may need to amend some of them in order to include new technology, but they're not going to find a more successful law than the copyright laws at putting a stop to illegal file sharing.
I imagine it's more of a percentage thing. People smuggle things on boats, move stolen goods in cars, etc... all the time. It's just a very small percentage of ships and cars that are involved in this sort of illegal activity.
What I don't get is if Canada and other countries can work in imperial units for certain things which have to deal with the U.S., why can't, say, NASA, just bite the bullet and use metric like everybody else when precision is absolutely critical??? If you're using SI units internally, why not work in SI units externally?
Or better yet, the U.S. could join the community of the rest of the world and use metric...that would save a lot of headaches.
Of course, that's probably a long way off. Some people are just determined to use inferior products.
I totally agree. Awesome lineup, and cheap...the Toronto show was sold out long ago (or very close to it IIRC). Oh well, guess I'll have to find something else to do with my time. Comdex has been going downhill since '99 or so anyways. Waiting for the next big trade show to take control.
The other, known as the U.S. survey inch gives 39.37 inches per metre, which gives 1 inch = 2.540000508cm
Both are only really used in the U.S. now (except for, among a small handful of other places, certain industries in Canada who have to trade with the U.S., as well as the old farts who are too stubborn to give it up). However, if you can't even agree on a single definition of the thing, no wonder there are so many conversion errors.
RIM (specifically Mike Lazaridis) put a lot of effort into perfecting that keyboard for thumb typing and it is what the blackberry was built around. So yes, there was a lot of innovation there. It seems simple now, but at the time, it was a novel idea.
Of course, I may be biased here because RIM was founded and is based right beside where I go to school (U of Waterloo), and they contribute a lot to and hire a lot of students from said school.
The 14th amendment (I believe) in the U.S. constitution allows for this in the States, and the same is true (although through different documents obviously) in Canada and probably several other countries in the world.
IANAL, but I believe corporations are persons under the law...and have all the rights of a person.
The problem as I see it is not the actual digital storage (as the wave fronts can be recorded as any other medium, such as sound), nor is it the motion (should be able to do something similar to video, using quickly changing frames to simulate motion).
What I see as the problem is finding a way to "draw" the wave fronts in some medium quickly enough to look like motion. With 2D, it's easy, just light up bits of phosphor (or turn on LCD cells). But with holography, you actually have to reproduce the wave fronts in the shape of the material.
I may, of course, be waaay off base here, but as I say, I'd appreciate any info you may have come across.
The definition of a pointer does NOT require arithmetic, arbitrary pointing, or arbitrary data writing. Dictionary.com defines it as "A variable that holds the address of a core storage location." Java just happens to ensure you can't do these things because it thinks you'll screw it up (and in most cases it's right).
One thing I really hate about Java is it's severe lack of function pointers. They are very very useful if used properly, and Java really should be putting them in imo.
I suggest you read a book about implementing programming languages.
Know any good ones that will prove what you're trying to say? Or are you talking out of your ass again?
well, for one, you can increment/decrement/otherwise manipulate the address pointed to by the C pointer...not so easy in Java. But these are dangerous things to do, in general, and there are other ways to do them.
Incidentally, Java is *all* pointers (except for a few primitives). They just abstract it away so you don't need to worry about it. The 'new' keyword should be a dead giveaway if nothing else (unless you've never used C++ I suppose).
My apologies...I can't read very well it seems. I guess I just look for jokes even when they're not there.
Just to play devil's advocate here...yes, I'd say practically all cars do only have one driver. Special cases may include some driver training cars, but the second driver in there has somewhat limited controls.