Heh - the reason elevator button close door buttons don't usually do anything is because they're meant for people who are using the elevator in special modes - ie firemen and people servicing the elevator. The button is usually disabled in non-special modes.
Actually, you are quite wrong one a lot of points here.
Roulette does NOT give you 50% - its MUCH worse, considering there are 2 green slots.
And counting cards, as another poster said, is NOT illegal - but the casinos have the right to ask you to leave and never return. Violating THAT could be illegal.
Plus the fact is that roulette is ultimately a completely losing game that you CANNOT break 50% on. Other games (ie poker) you can gain an advantage through playing style and win money in the long run if you are better than your opponents. If there is a house take, then you have to be better by a larger amount, but in that sense it is winnable.
Why don't we face the fact that until we make spyware and malware and adware and ???ware unprofitable, there will always be somebody ready and willing to profit from it? </i>
This isn't as easy as it sounds - you have to be able to trace who the spy/mal/adware sells to. And then who they sell to. And so on. Following the trail so that you NEVER patronize these is pretty tough.
Plus you have to essentially prove a lot of marketing theory that says any viewing (ie if you see it but don't buy it) is good viewing.
Because there are plenty of web email services (yahoo) that have built in spam detection. Its not as if the user ever really did any work for these. So if the spammer can get to those users, there may be return on investment. Secondly, it may also be useful against far more users.
Not entirely a fair comparison, though. Presumably (I don't really know) a decommisioned ground based telescope is not destroyed - just shut down. It could be restarted later. Decommisioning it means it costs 0, but could later be restarted for some cost. Hubble can't simply be "shut down" and later started up again. It's orbit must be maintained, so decommisioning it in any non-destructive way is an expense.
I used to be a game developer, and while I was not able to read our agreements w/ sony, nintendo and microsoft, my understanding was that all the licensing and stuff was more or less forced by the fact that you HAD to use the devkits for any sort of reasonable development. Now, you might get in trouble for cracking the boot encryption, but I don't think you would be in trouble for anything else - you haven't signed any contracts, right? And if the nintendo logo was unavoidable, then its a part of the machine, rather than the code (well, not really, but arguable that way?)
Anyone looking for similar functionality in an open source package may want to check out Valgrind. It is "an open-source memory debugger for x86-GNU/Linux". I've used it for a short while and its great.
I would argue that furthurnet isn't moralistic (in my 2 or 3 days of using it!;-) but rather an extension of a much older culture of tape trading. AFAIK, I believe it more or less started w/ the Grateful Dead a long time ago. People would trade copies of tapes to each other from different concerts. I have an uncle who has a wall full of em. So my guess is that they're not trying to be moralistic, but rather are simply continuing a very old tradition.
I'd like to point people's attention to furthurnet.com. I'm sure it won't have the popularity of the other sharing systems, but its a legit system and you get unique material.
Furthurnet.com is a system where fans of bands which allow bootlegging of live concerts post full sets from those shows.
Pros: *Free, no ads, no spyware, nothin *Legal - music is only by bands who approve *New stuff - you can get stuff no on CD's yet *Live stuff - could be a plus or minus depending on the artist, but its a new perspective.
Cons: *Bigger - they're recorded in a non-lossy format shn, so a full concert is anywhere between 200-600 meg *Recording quality not as good - depending on the band, the recorder and show, the acoustics and equipment aren't as good as live CD's and certainly not as clean as studio. *Fewer artists
I just discovered this a few days ago looking for Jack Johnson stuff. I love it. Take a look. Its on Win and linux (maybe Mac too, not sure)
Technically, your second objection is trivial (well as trivial as any other part of the project) to overcome. The CM has to be in orbit. Don't continue the cable all the way out. You're right, it would be absurdly long. But instead just put on monstrous weight just outside of orbit. You have a lot less problem with radius*2 minimizing effect, and it probably simpler than building more cable
Nope, not at all. Terminal velocity is the max velocity you can travel at a certain point in the atmosphere. You hit it really quickly. By the time he pulls his shoot he won't be travelling any faster than someone who jumped from 15000ft. He'll be going fast when hes REALLY high up and the atmostphere is thin and terminal velocity is higher.
Nope. Won't be any sonic boom. He'll break the sea level speed of sound high in the atmosphere, where the speed of sound is higher. As he descends, he'll slow to terminal velocity. So there will never be a shockwave.
The confederation bridge isn't a suspension bridge. Thats why this is impressive. Suspension bridges typically have a much shorter span. You can't really compare the two. There is a bridge which is by no means spectacular in the San Francisco Bay area (the San Mateo Bridge) which is about 10 miles long, so 13Km isn't really all that long.
Having done research with HMD's (Head mounted displays), I am pretty sure they never had 640x480 headsets for $700. The problem is that the optics and screens are super expensive, if you want them to be wearable for any reasonable amount of time. A couple of problems: Even if they could manufacture a really nice high quality HMD for $700, there STILL isn't a large consumer market for it. They would need to build something that wows people for $200, which just isn't possible with current display technologies. The other problem is field of view. Most modern consumer headsets have pretty limited FOV. Increase the FOV, and you effectively blur out the image. Makes text tough. I wouldn't wait for any cheap HMDs.
As for your question, VR as popularized by fiction, is a LONG way off. I don't think it was ever really alive. The problem is just that there are too many parts missing, too expensive, or just not there yet (good quality feedback, sourceless tracking) for anything more than expensive research projects.
I think maybe once we figure out some sort of brain-computer interface, we may see some real consumer VR. But I doubt much before that.
But you forget bouyancy. Just like things that are less dense than water float at the surface, things with a lower density than air (lighter-than-air) would float a certain distance up. This is just like helium ballons. A helium ballon is lighter than air. It wouldn't float in a vacuum, but it does in our atmosphere, at least until the density of the baloon equalizes with the density of air. Now, to have an air-surfboard, the stuff would have to be either pretty darn bouyant, or pretty big.
If I recall, the regulation you refer to in your first point is self-regulation. The movie industry does this on their own. We don't actually have any rules or laws (as far as I know) about what they "talk about in public."
As for the second argument, it is true that yelling fire in a crowded theater is illegal, but that poses an immediate, direct and undeniable thread of harm from a panicced mob. Remember that even the speech of the KKK has been protected, as crazy and disruptive as it is. So free speech is pretty close to Carte Blanche.
As for your last point, I would simply be curious about where this comes from. I have never heard this, and would be curious as to where the constitution distinguishes minors as "non-free Chattel"
Re:Cruel, Meaningless, May not make business sense
on
Remote Controlled Rats
·
· Score: 2
No.. rats really are a better alternative. Consider the case: a rat version and a computer version of the same "remote controlled thingie" are sitting on a tree branch. You issue the command "go right." The rat is smart enough to walk forward a foot and turn right at the next branch. The machine would simply fall off the branch. This isn't "mind control." Its the rough equivalent of "controlling" a person by yelling - "Hey if you turn right, I'll give you $100!"
The other thing is that rats are much more manueverable (and don't need batteries) than any small machine we have. We have yet to come close to mimicing anything nearly as complex as most animals.
I don't honestly believe that outlawing guns would get them off the street, but there is one difference from your example - manufacturing guns takes a lot more work than growing some marijuana in your closet. Of course, it would just mean guns would be illegally imported on a blackmarket, but still, comparing it to marijuana isn't that legit.
To be fair though, it is thought (at least from my old psych class, taugh by Pinker, who has strong thoughts on evolutionary psychology) that the often intense fear of heights is something that is *not* learned, but rather instinctual. It could be seen how evolution might account for this (those who don't go near the edge of that big cliff don't fall off and die!). I see how your argument might apply here if it weren't for the fact that the huge reaction is *instantaneous* and *involuntary * (physically, that is - increased heart rate and alertness, etc). I would expect a smaller reaction for learned responses.
My guess would be that a fear of falling/heights/awareness of gravity is somewhat engrained, but can be overcome with training. Also, consider that what makes a baby afraid of falling? Sure, I guess a baby could figure out that gravity implies falling, but with no experience of falling, whats to make a baby believe that falling is bad? Maybe thats a stupif question, I don't know, but I figured I'd throw it out.
Its funny.. that was my first thought too. I hate the litigous nature of things these days, but it might be a nice reversal - the USPO setting itself up for lawsuits instead of vice versa. It certainly seems to be failing to really do its job a lot of times these days.
I have no idea if this is even legal or possible, but, damn, it should be. Someone needs to smack the USPO upside the head.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh - the reason elevator button close door buttons don't usually do anything is because they're meant for people who are using the elevator in special modes - ie firemen and people servicing the elevator. The button is usually disabled in non-special modes.
Actually, you are quite wrong one a lot of points here.
Roulette does NOT give you 50% - its MUCH worse, considering there are 2 green slots.
And counting cards, as another poster said, is NOT illegal - but the casinos have the right to ask you to leave and never return. Violating THAT could be illegal.
Plus the fact is that roulette is ultimately a completely losing game that you CANNOT break 50% on. Other games (ie poker) you can gain an advantage through playing style and win money in the long run if you are better than your opponents. If there is a house take, then you have to be better by a larger amount, but in that sense it is winnable.
Why don't we face the fact that until we make spyware and malware and adware and ???ware unprofitable, there will always be somebody ready and willing to profit from it?
</i>
This isn't as easy as it sounds - you have to be able to trace who the spy/mal/adware sells to. And then who they sell to. And so on. Following the trail so that you NEVER patronize these is pretty tough.
Plus you have to essentially prove a lot of marketing theory that says any viewing (ie if you see it but don't buy it) is good viewing.
Because there are plenty of web email services (yahoo) that have built in spam detection. Its not as if the user ever really did any work for these. So if the spammer can get to those users, there may be return on investment. Secondly, it may also be useful against far more users.
Not entirely a fair comparison, though. Presumably (I don't really know) a decommisioned ground based telescope is not destroyed - just shut down. It could be restarted later. Decommisioning it means it costs 0, but could later be restarted for some cost. Hubble can't simply be "shut down" and later started up again. It's orbit must be maintained, so decommisioning it in any non-destructive way is an expense.
I used to be a game developer, and while I was not able to read our agreements w/ sony, nintendo and microsoft, my understanding was that all the licensing and stuff was more or less forced by the fact that you HAD to use the devkits for any sort of reasonable development. Now, you might get in trouble for cracking the boot encryption, but I don't think you would be in trouble for anything else - you haven't signed any contracts, right? And if the nintendo logo was unavoidable, then its a part of the machine, rather than the code (well, not really, but arguable that way?)
Actually, no, they didn't get the gas to record the light. Thats what the LAST article did. This one stopped it w/o destroying the original photon.
Kevin
Oops. It is similar functionality to the Purify product. I should have specified that.
Anyone looking for similar functionality in an open source package may want to check out Valgrind. It is "an open-source memory debugger for x86-GNU/Linux". I've used it for a short while and its great.
Valgrind:
http://developer.kde.org/~sewardj/
I would argue that furthurnet isn't moralistic (in my 2 or 3 days of using it! ;-) but rather an extension of a much older culture of tape trading. AFAIK, I believe it more or less started w/ the Grateful Dead a long time ago. People would trade copies of tapes to each other from different concerts. I have an uncle who has a wall full of em. So my guess is that they're not trying to be moralistic, but rather are simply continuing a very old tradition.
But thats my $.01 (its not worth 2)
Try adaware by lavasoft. Think of it as a virus scanner for spy/ad/stealware. Not a bad product.
I'd like to point people's attention to furthurnet.com. I'm sure it won't have the popularity of the other sharing systems, but its a legit system and you get unique material.
Furthurnet.com is a system where fans of bands which allow bootlegging of live concerts post full sets from those shows.
Pros:
*Free, no ads, no spyware, nothin
*Legal - music is only by bands who approve
*New stuff - you can get stuff no on CD's yet
*Live stuff - could be a plus or minus depending on the artist, but its a new perspective.
Cons:
*Bigger - they're recorded in a non-lossy format shn, so a full concert is anywhere between 200-600 meg
*Recording quality not as good - depending on the band, the recorder and show, the acoustics and equipment aren't as good as live CD's and certainly not as clean as studio.
*Fewer artists
I just discovered this a few days ago looking for Jack Johnson stuff. I love it. Take a look. Its on Win and linux (maybe Mac too, not sure)
Technically, your second objection is trivial (well as trivial as any other part of the project) to overcome. The CM has to be in orbit. Don't continue the cable all the way out. You're right, it would be absurdly long. But instead just put on monstrous weight just outside of orbit. You have a lot less problem with radius*2 minimizing effect, and it probably simpler than building more cable
Nope, not at all. Terminal velocity is the max velocity you can travel at a certain point in the atmosphere. You hit it really quickly. By the time he pulls his shoot he won't be travelling any faster than someone who jumped from 15000ft. He'll be going fast when hes REALLY high up and the atmostphere is thin and terminal velocity is higher.
Nope. Won't be any sonic boom. He'll break the sea level speed of sound high in the atmosphere, where the speed of sound is higher. As he descends, he'll slow to terminal velocity. So there will never be a shockwave.
The confederation bridge isn't a suspension bridge. Thats why this is impressive. Suspension bridges typically have a much shorter span. You can't really compare the two. There is a bridge which is by no means spectacular in the San Francisco Bay area (the San Mateo Bridge) which is about 10 miles long, so 13Km isn't really all that long.
Having done research with HMD's (Head mounted displays), I am pretty sure they never had 640x480 headsets for $700. The problem is that the optics and screens are super expensive, if you want them to be wearable for any reasonable amount of time. A couple of problems: Even if they could manufacture a really nice high quality HMD for $700, there STILL isn't a large consumer market for it. They would need to build something that wows people for $200, which just isn't possible with current display technologies. The other problem is field of view. Most modern consumer headsets have pretty limited FOV. Increase the FOV, and you effectively blur out the image. Makes text tough. I wouldn't wait for any cheap HMDs.
As for your question, VR as popularized by fiction, is a LONG way off. I don't think it was ever really alive. The problem is just that there are too many parts missing, too expensive, or just not there yet (good quality feedback, sourceless tracking) for anything more than expensive research projects.
I think maybe once we figure out some sort of brain-computer interface, we may see some real consumer VR. But I doubt much before that.
Two words:
Battery life.
Seriously, I prefer the monochrome because they are very readable and the batteries last forever.
But you forget bouyancy. Just like things that are less dense than water float at the surface, things with a lower density than air (lighter-than-air) would float a certain distance up. This is just like helium ballons. A helium ballon is lighter than air. It wouldn't float in a vacuum, but it does in our atmosphere, at least until the density of the baloon equalizes with the density of air. Now, to have an air-surfboard, the stuff would have to be either pretty darn bouyant, or pretty big.
If I recall, the regulation you refer to in your first point is self-regulation. The movie industry does this on their own. We don't actually have any rules or laws (as far as I know) about what they "talk about in public."
As for the second argument, it is true that yelling fire in a crowded theater is illegal, but that poses an immediate, direct and undeniable thread of harm from a panicced mob. Remember that even the speech of the KKK has been protected, as crazy and disruptive as it is. So free speech is pretty close to Carte Blanche.
As for your last point, I would simply be curious about where this comes from. I have never heard this, and would be curious as to where the constitution distinguishes minors as "non-free Chattel"
No.. rats really are a better alternative. Consider the case: a rat version and a computer version of the same "remote controlled thingie" are sitting on a tree branch. You issue the command "go right." The rat is smart enough to walk forward a foot and turn right at the next branch. The machine would simply fall off the branch. This isn't "mind control." Its the rough equivalent of "controlling" a person by yelling - "Hey if you turn right, I'll give you $100!"
The other thing is that rats are much more manueverable (and don't need batteries) than any small machine we have. We have yet to come close to mimicing anything nearly as complex as most animals.
I don't honestly believe that outlawing guns would get them off the street, but there is one difference from your example - manufacturing guns takes a lot more work than growing some marijuana in your closet. Of course, it would just mean guns would be illegally imported on a blackmarket, but still, comparing it to marijuana isn't that legit.
To be fair though, it is thought (at least from my old psych class, taugh by Pinker, who has strong thoughts on evolutionary psychology) that the often intense fear of heights is something that is *not* learned, but rather instinctual. It could be seen how evolution might account for this (those who don't go near the edge of that big cliff don't fall off and die!). I see how your argument might apply here if it weren't for the fact that the huge reaction is *instantaneous* and *involuntary * (physically, that is - increased heart rate and alertness, etc). I would expect a smaller reaction for learned responses.
My guess would be that a fear of falling/heights/awareness of gravity is somewhat engrained, but can be overcome with training. Also, consider that what makes a baby afraid of falling? Sure, I guess a baby could figure out that gravity implies falling, but with no experience of falling, whats to make a baby believe that falling is bad? Maybe thats a stupif question, I don't know, but I figured I'd throw it out.
But then again, I'm no psychologist!
The thing is, these aren't *PCs*.. they're servers. Big difference. This guy is looking for a *personal computer*, not a server machine.
Its funny.. that was my first thought too. I hate the litigous nature of things these days, but it might be a nice reversal - the USPO setting itself up for lawsuits instead of vice versa. It certainly seems to be failing to really do its job a lot of times these days.
I have no idea if this is even legal or possible, but, damn, it should be. Someone needs to smack the USPO upside the head.