Fewer dead kevlar clad Americans, surely? The dead conscript pesants of the 'aggressor' don't count, I guess.
Meanwhile, back in the real world: At least 100,000 dead in Iraq as of September, and in an invasion, where for the most part, the Iraqi army didn't even bother to show up...
Hmmm.. Lycos should have expected this, as others here have pointed out. Others have also said that the way to go is the legal route, which I agree is the only long-term solution.
However, I would suggest that the approach to take is to target the retailers that are using the services of spammers. Spammers themselves are just the middle men and they get paid, I assume, by the folks who actualy sell the products in the first place. This also helps with the problems associated with targeting a spam server in Uzbekistan or somwhere.
It would require some interesting re interpretations of existing legislation or mabey some new laws. IANAL, so I nave no idea of the implications of doing this.
Its so ironic to hear people, usualy Americans, ranting about how crap the UN is. The whole purpose of the UN is to act as a forum to represent the collective concerns of its member nations. Its is not an enforcer, unless mandated to do so by its members, nor is it a law-maker, unless again in the case of a consensus of members to implement in their local laws the collective will of the member states
The power of the UN derives from the degree to which nations (and the most powerful ones at that) participate in its institutions. If the UN is weak it is precisely because the more powerful members, such as the US have chosen to make it so. In this case, the US is in no position to criticise the power, or lack there of, of the UN.
The difference between the Sun and Fox is that Tony Blairs' cousin doesn't own the Sun. For sure, its a piece of shit, but its a piece of shit because it wants to be popular, not because its got a political axe to grind.
My Girlfriend just completed a PhD thesis on this very subject. She dealt with the influence of the first language when learning a second, and part of the background work revealed studies that showed that the neural pathways of bilingual speakers are quite different to those of monolinguals. They have adapted their process for relating sound, text and meaning to deal with competing languages (actually nobody is truely bilingual, there is always a dominant language, usualy the one you swear in:)). As the child ages, the neural pathways become 'set' and the language(s) fixed, however the multilingual language access process facilitates the incorporation of a third, fourth language as an adult, as you have described.
It is a pity that in most western countries, particularly english speaking ones, second languages are not taught until the early teens, by which time the neural pathways have been hard-coded and our ability to incorporate second languages significantly dimished.
Yes, you are correct, however, China is in a somewhat unique category that it in princple doesnt qualify, but in practice it has been exempted from the normal rules of trade, even after Tiannamen square etc.. kinda makes them a bit special.. Anyway, my point re: the parent was the this is really no big deal.. if, say, the UK government did the same thing would it really be posted as a censorship issue, as opposed to, say, a (pornography+violence)+minors one as the Reuters article mentions?
Evil... tsk, you christians and your moral absolutism....
How typical. Well don't forget the future of the US economy is increasingly dependant on this 'corrupt, fascist, evil government' (look how many western companies now have a substantial portion of their manufacturing base in China), not to mention that this is also the country with most favoured nation trading status with the US. It's certainly no oasis of freedom, but the good thing is that they can regulate stuff like this when it needs to be done without any interfering from dodgy lobby groups. Democracy is overrated anyway:)
Si is a good waveguiding material and its optical properties are well known. That is the bottom line.
If you make everything on a silicon chip, you can create complex devices the require no chip-level post wafer integration. That is currently the case for electronics based chips, like your CPU. Compound optical devices at present cannot be integrated in the same way. This thing is effectively a transistor switch done opticaly (and most importantly at low power compared to the transmitted signal power[actually, i have not verified this]). So in theory you can now make all the elements of a chip on Si in the same way that electronics components are integrated. In theory. Optical computing is a possible app, but this is a best speculative as there are a whole mess of other engineering problems to over come before we get there. Basicaly this idea of converting from electronic to optical computing is a bit spurious; its not like converting from coke to pepsi, it requires developing completely new processes and radicaly different technologies. Thats not to say it can't be done, but i wouldn't hold yer breath. We will probably still be reading this stuff via 250watt electronics-based space-heaters in 20 years. The app the article actually talks about is all optical comms, well, what he says is true, again in theory. However, given that this device by design operates at one wavelength only, its probably not flexable enough to use in a way that would give it a commercial advantage over OEO (optical-electronic-optical) switches and routers. It ignores the (so far unsolved) problem of dynamic wavelength routing (to name just one problem) in the optical domain. Dynamic here means of the order of the transmission frequency, so 10's of pico seconds for a typical 10Gbs channel. I think they probably just stuck that one in to keep the DARPA guys happy as its probably the nearest semi-realistic commercial app. This is interesting research level stuff, but is grant-seeking propoganda rather than anything particularly revolutionary.
Slashdot Mirror
Fewer dead kevlar clad Americans, surely? The dead conscript pesants of the 'aggressor' don't count, I guess.
Meanwhile, back in the real world:
At least 100,000 dead in Iraq as of September, and in an invasion, where for the most part, the Iraqi army didn't even bother to show up...
Sure, its mostly in the west, I agree. I ment anywhere where juristiction may be a problem, where say, the prosecution was under local criminal law.
Hmmm.. Lycos should have expected this, as others here have pointed out. Others have also said that the way to go is the legal route, which I agree is the only long-term solution.
However, I would suggest that the approach to take is to target the retailers that are using the services of spammers. Spammers themselves are just the middle men and they get paid, I assume, by the folks who actualy sell the products in the first place. This also helps with the problems associated with targeting a spam server in Uzbekistan or somwhere.
It would require some interesting re interpretations of existing legislation or mabey some new laws. IANAL, so I nave no idea of the implications of doing this.
...if you mistype 'terrorist' suitibly badly, you can spell 'terrortits'...
Its so ironic to hear people, usualy Americans, ranting about how crap the UN is. The whole purpose of the UN is to act as a forum to represent the collective concerns of its member nations. Its is not an enforcer, unless mandated to do so by its members, nor is it a law-maker, unless again in the case of a consensus of members to implement in their local laws the collective will of the member states
The power of the UN derives from the degree to which nations (and the most powerful ones at that) participate in its institutions. If the UN is weak it is precisely because the more powerful members, such as the US have chosen to make it so. In this case, the US is in no position to criticise the power, or lack there of, of the UN.
The difference between the Sun and Fox is that Tony Blairs' cousin doesn't own the Sun. For sure, its a piece of shit, but its a piece of shit because it wants to be popular, not because its got a political axe to grind.
My Girlfriend just completed a PhD thesis on this very subject. She dealt with the influence of the first language when learning a second, and part of the background work revealed studies that showed that the neural pathways of bilingual speakers are quite different to those of monolinguals. They have adapted their process for relating sound, text and meaning to deal with competing languages (actually nobody is truely bilingual, there is always a dominant language, usualy the one you swear in :)). As the child ages, the neural pathways become 'set' and the language(s) fixed, however the multilingual language access process facilitates the incorporation of a third, fourth language as an adult, as you have described.
It is a pity that in most western countries, particularly english speaking ones, second languages are not taught until the early teens, by which time the neural pathways have been hard-coded and our ability to incorporate second languages significantly dimished.
Yes, you are correct, however, China is in a somewhat unique category that it in princple doesnt qualify, but in practice it has been exempted from the normal rules of trade, even after Tiannamen square etc.. kinda makes them a bit special.. Anyway, my point re: the parent was the this is really no big deal.. if, say, the UK government did the same thing would it really be posted as a censorship issue, as opposed to, say, a (pornography+violence)+minors one as the Reuters article mentions?
Evil... tsk, you christians and your moral absolutism....
:)
How typical. Well don't forget the future of the US economy is increasingly dependant on this 'corrupt, fascist, evil government' (look how many western companies now have a substantial portion of their manufacturing base in China), not to mention that this is also the country with most favoured nation trading status with the US.
It's certainly no oasis of freedom, but the good thing is that they can regulate stuff like this when it needs to be done without any interfering from dodgy lobby groups. Democracy is overrated anyway
Si is a good waveguiding material and its optical properties are well known. That is the bottom line.
If you make everything on a silicon chip, you can create complex devices the require no chip-level post wafer integration. That is currently the case for electronics based chips, like your CPU. Compound optical devices at present cannot be integrated in the same way. This thing is effectively a transistor switch done opticaly (and most importantly at low power compared to the transmitted signal power[actually, i have not verified this]). So in theory you can now make all the elements of a chip on Si in the same way that electronics components are integrated.
In theory.
Optical computing is a possible app, but this is a best speculative as there are a whole mess of other engineering problems to over come before we get there. Basicaly this idea of converting from electronic to optical computing is a bit spurious; its not like converting from coke to pepsi, it requires developing completely new processes and radicaly different technologies. Thats not to say it can't be done, but i wouldn't hold yer breath. We will probably still be reading this stuff via 250watt electronics-based space-heaters in 20 years.
The app the article actually talks about is all optical comms, well, what he says is true, again in theory. However, given that this device by design operates at one wavelength only, its probably not flexable enough to use in a way that would give it a commercial advantage over OEO (optical-electronic-optical) switches and routers. It ignores the (so far unsolved) problem of dynamic wavelength routing (to name just one problem) in the optical domain. Dynamic here means of the order of the transmission frequency, so 10's of pico seconds for a typical 10Gbs channel.
I think they probably just stuck that one in to keep the DARPA guys happy as its probably the nearest semi-realistic commercial app.
This is interesting research level stuff, but is grant-seeking propoganda rather than anything particularly revolutionary.