Go look at the websense or surfControl databases, and look at what matches "hate" websites. Ask yourself, are all these websites REALLY about hate? Or are they just unpopular political opinion? Do they advocate violence, or just getting rid of the current administration in the next election? the answers might suprise you.
I didn't say anything about aspiration. I said they had carburetors. As the website says, these engines are built to very fine tolerances, but they make the horsepower through huge displacement. As for shifting, don't be so stupid. they shift leaving the pits, they get into 4th, and they stay there.
And, if you think "rubbin in racin" - then you like the fact these cars are patched together with duct tape in the pits. Oh, and Dale Junior actually blurted out on the radio that he spun at Bristol intentionally to draw the yellow and give his team mate the ability to re-pit. He was fined for it. Dale Senior was killed, Sterling Marlin was crucified because he rear ended him ehrn Dale pulled up trying to block for Waltrip. Happens all the time.
Cars with carburetors and big block V8s, dropping 600hp into a tubular frame covered with a thin veneer of sheet metal made to look like a sedan that is shares nothing in common with. Make them RWD, and put slicks on them. Make them run primarily ovals. Make the track as crowded as possible, so all that gaudy advertising can fill the track.
I laugh at shows that feature "NASCAR technology" only to feature something about a new jack. Adavcnes in material science have made these cars last longer. Make these cars rub and race in ovals and create artificial closeness by allowing catchup during yellow flags. Virtually insure yellow flags by having owners run multiple cars and tech drivers how to put it into the wall at key moments in the race to draw a yellow. Make the difference between winning and losing about fuel consumption only, and yet create a totally rigid structure for aerodynamics. Give engine manufacturers who develop new ways to create horsepower inside this tight little box of restrictions a weight penalty, so all the manufacturers are about equal and everyone gets a chance to win.
If it were like the 1960s, this year would have seen the death of Jensen Button, JPM, and Jarno Trulli. Oh yeah, and Michael would eventually perish as well. It took Jimmy Clark dying and Jackie Stewart saying "this is bullshit, enough is enough" to get safety pushed up.
The late 60's and early 70's, esp Jackie's drive at the Nordschliefe, were insanely great. But if you ask Dan Gurney, nothing was worth the price paid.
I advocate a one-fuel tank strategy for F1, even if you cut the laps in the race from 70 to 50. No pitting, pit stops don't exist. 3 Hour long qualifying sessions, teams can only draw one session, draw is random, best lap counts - you can come in as many times as you want during qualifying. But the tires and fuel have to last the whole race. There would be huge changes in the cars, but they are already talking about mandating V8s. I think it would make the sport great again.
gpl_dan@yahoo.com. I will be in section C, way up high in row HH. Drop me a line if you will be there. Halfway between S/F line and T1. I'm hoping for Renault to do one of those crazy "we don't have launch control - wink wink" starts from row 3.:-)
A few years ago, F1 used to have two-way telemetry to the car. Computers were adjusting brake-bias settings on the fly on a TURN by TURN basis. Cars were dynamically adjusting settings to optimize for all kinds of things. Really, it was getting silly.
Eccelstone, the guru who presides over Formula 1 and looks like a cross between an evil elf from LOTR and Andy Warhol, had to make changes. He banned that. before last year's season, he reduced qualifying to a one lap shot instead of your best lap over time, and he created the parke-ferme, a parking garage that cars had to roll into after they pulled off the qualifying lap. Teams were (are) not allowed to touch the cars between the end of qualifying and the race start. At all.
this created goofy things, such as last week's Canadian race where Schumi qualified back because his brother Ralf (we call him Little Ralfy) and the BMW-Williams just decided to go totally lite on fuel for the purpose of getting the pole. He had to pit 12 laps into the race, but it was part of the strategy. michael went for a 2-lap strategy and won.
So, now - the rule changes have created a more boring sport. Unless you are some hard charger with brass ones (hello Montoya and Sato) you rarely risk passing for position, except at the start. It's just not worth the risk, wait for the pit strategy to kick in. It also promotes blocking. Rubens blocks for Michael and executes Team ferrari strategy, that's his role in life.
The technology is shattering the smaller clubs. Arrows is gone, Minardi will probably be gone, Eddie Jordan is constantly broke and needs Ford engines to run. Now the dollars are cutting into teams that are bigger. Jaguar may pull out of F1 if they lose Webber, a promising driver. Honda was thinking of dropping BAR, after they dropped Jordan and leaving altogether, knowing they could not match the spending that Toyota was going to do. Toyota is something like 5x the size and wealth of Honda, something I didn't know until I started wacthing F1.
Drivers are no longer valued for just driving prowess, but the engineers they can bring WITH them, and their leadership abilities within the organization. Michael Schumacher is part CEO, part engineer, part driver and basically gets what he gets because he is a large reason that Ferrari executed the plan it had. He brought Ross Brawn with him from Bennetton Ford.
There are the big six in F1 right now - Honda, Toyota, Renault, Mercedes, BMW and Ferrari. Everyone else is an also-ran. Sauber uses 2 year old Ferrari engines, I think this year they upgraded to 1-year old engines. And to emphasize how big of a disadvantage that is - this year at Canada, the times were approaching 3 SECONDS faster than last year. The difference between a 1:12 and a 1:15 per lap is so large, old tech will leave you in the dust.
In contrast, if you attend Champ Car (formerly CART) it's like going to a damn vintage race. Spec chassis with spec Ford engines, standard turbo, no traction control, no ABS, manual gearboxes. It's like watching F1 in 1989. And IRL is KILLING it, this is almost certainly the last year. Nobody wants to see those tanks doing makeshift street courses. Americans like ovals, and speed speed speed.
F1 is brilliant, but they know they can't keep going as is. You hear crazy rumors all the time. One is that the V12s will get chucked, and everyone has to go to V8s. The spectacle and sound of a V12 revving at 19k RPM is amazing. THe cars will deafen you from 100 yards away. the carbon fiber chassis and cutting edge brake tech is stunning to see in person. Seeing a car brake from 200mph to 40mph in 200 feet really can't be described until you see it happen.
K-PAX was horrible. It was Kevin Spacey being spaced out. Halfway into filming it, the director should have said "hey, this is sucking... let's dump it.". It was One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest meets the Fisher King with Jeff Bridges apparently trying to set some sort of Guiness record for being droll and un-interesting.
Walking many ports over many hosts creates a lawnmower effect. A single IP port scan creates a stripe.
What I want to see is when a machine on the inside or a DMZ has a port open to it, say port 80 & 443 - I want to see when somebody who JUST walked my net with a lawnmower then starts sending ADDITIONAL packets to the open ports. Maybe you could do that with sound. The code could take a src-ip that just mowed you, and assign a sound to it. Then, any additional data to open ports would create a sound, maybe a buzzsaw into wood.wav file. The scanning itself is the least interesting part, it's what the attacker does after he finds an available service that is interesting. The way he has it visualized is ok, but perhaps 3D is the way to go, where that box is turned slightly, and the back wall of the box has little holes in it, where you have services mapped to a DMZ. Then when a connection goes through the hole, you can also visually see it.
The article states - what does it take to be a good POP reviewer? That makes no sense. No serious music critic would define the question that way. A good music critic reviews mnay genres - classical, jazz, rock - and sub-genres, alternative or indy-rock, ska, hip-hop, etc.
These reviewers would tell you the term "pop" means nothing to them. If you are going to confine yourself to reviewing what is on the Billboard charts, you should get out of the business.
His approach is flawed, he is taking written reviews of popular music, and attempting to determine what the critics liked about by de-constructing the review into keywords. Shouldn't he be de-constructing the music itself? If I steal the riff from this song, and combine it this way - I could create a new song that should also be popular. Either way, it's not going to work. No computational analysis, either of written reviews or of the actual notes themselves - will reveal a hidden formula for writing good songs that will be popular.
So the Web user interface is about 80% there, and even without new web browsers we can probably get 95% there. This is Good Enough for most people and it's certainly good enough for developers, who have voted to develop almost every significant new application as a web application.
Which means, suddenly, Microsoft's API doesn't matter so much. Web applications don't require Windows.
It's not that Microsoft didn't notice this was happening. Of course they did, and when the implications became clear, they slammed on the brakes. Promising new technologies like HTAs and DHTML were stopped in their tracks. The Internet Explorer team seems to have disappeared; they have been completely missing in action for several years. There's no way Microsoft is going to allow DHTML to get any better than it already is: it's just too dangerous to their core business, the rich client. The big meme at Microsoft these days is: "Microsoft is betting the company on the rich client." You'll see that somewhere in every slide presentation about Longhorn. Joe Beda, from the Avalon team, says that "Avalon, and Longhorn in general, is Microsoft's stake in the ground, saying that we believe power on your desktop, locally sitting there doing cool stuff, is here to stay. We're investing on the desktop, we think it's a good place to be, and we hope we're going to start a wave of excitement..."
The trouble is: it's too late.
So, when Slashdot goes on and on about how great Mozilla is (and it is good, I'm not saying it isn't - I really like FireFox 0.9) and laments how Microsoft hasn't done a damn thing with IE since 2001, and how you need the Google toolbar and this and that - remember that quote.
Microsoft wants to slow DOWN the rate of advancement in the browser. If you buy that, and buy Joel's premise on that, you now should conclude something VERY VERY IMPORTANT.
Mozilla for Windows may be the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT OSS project there is. In many ways, it is just as important as developments in Gnome and the linux kernel, disk systems, network protocols, what have you. It's advancements in being able to push rich applications is vital. It's replacement for Active Scripting needs to be secure. Every step it makes pushes another developer that may have gone to use the Windows API or.NET towards building a open web application, and making that application portable. You start stealing from the edges of Window developers. You start picking away at the hordes. That's how you win, you take Microsoft's strongest weapon away - the masses of developers. Where the devs go, users will follow.
All right, unlike that other guy you went 10 deep with - I'll buy that. A broadcast-only medium, whose decode and use has no effect on the provider. Why is it wrong to decode and use? Even the seemingly overbroad disclaimer during American Football NFL games, that states "this telecast may not be re-BROADCAST without the express written consent" doesn't cover just taping games for your collection. So why is this different?
The best analogy I can think of is the bar owner who puts his own records in the jukebox. Patrons play these songs, but no royalties are paid, unlike a radio station. People are listening to a broadcast that has been "decoded" in somewhat the same way the Playboy channel is. Is it a crime? The bar owner *can* be sued for doing this.
The guy who walks into the movie theater with a camcorder. His intention is only to record it for personal posterity, it was "locally broadcast" to his eyes and brain, why can't he keep an electronic copy of it? Are we not enititled to record our own lives?
I would submit that all of these examples, including the one of decoding a DirecTV stream using a hacked card, violates copyright law. There was no express authorization given to decode the stream, the decoding was unauthorized. The act of encoding something that requires a key to decode implies that consent from the broadcaster MUST be explicitly given. I thnk that's how common law has treated the question in court cases.
The EFF here has stopped DirecTV from grabbling name lists of people who own devices that can forge cards. Because the devices have legitimate uses other than forging cards, it cannot be proven by the mere ownership of a unit that the person's intention was to steal encrypted signals. This also has precedent in English law and common law. There is a very old case in English law that states the possesion of lockpicking tools did not, by itself, demonstrate intent to commit a crime. I need to look that case up...
head is an amateur, check this guy out...
on
Spammer Apologizes
·
· Score: 1
This guy knows how to do it. He is still a teenager, and he is manipulating stocks for $90k and acting as a bogus bookie, netting himself $1M. Ok, so he is caught - but he got a slap on the wrist. This kid has a future in Vegas.
Re:How to make a million dollars
on
Spammer Apologizes
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Like Carnegie, spammers understand critical aspects of cost accounting. As in, it doesn't cost them very much to distribute the message. Carnegie drove fixed costs down by looking to verticalize the means of production. Spammers are free riders on the fixed cost of the Internet infrastructure.
Carnegie drove millions of men to early graves with horrible working conditions and an insane desire to work them until they dropped. Spammers work the lines, pounding out messages 24/7 until mail servers die of exhaustion.
Lastly, Carnegie and Frick had assasination attempts on them for trying to smash unions. Spammers could get killed if they showed up somewhere where Microsoft hotmail exec's could get ahold of them.
Well, as a liberal, let me show you the downside of things like this. The feds show up at your house, because Comcast mixed up an IP address and confused you with a guy sharing - I dunno - the Matrix as MPEG on your web server. Why, I don't know, they were horrible movies. But I digress...
The feds swoop in and alas, even after scanning your drive for deleted sectors and file names, they don't find either the MPEGs or a web server. Hmmm. They DO find, however, some DVD decryption software you downloaded from DVDJon. And you have a DVD burner in your rig. Should you be charged with a crime? What if you have a copy of Star Wars on a DVD on your desk. You made it from your VHS copy, because Lucas is a dumb fuck who won't put it out on DVD, and your VHS machine busted. It's your copy, you had no intention of selling it, but you have the MEANS to do so. Time to meet Bubba in the federal-pound-you-in-the-ass prison?
Here's an easier one. You are pulled over for weaving on the road, because you have chewing gum on your shoe. The cop sees a bong in the passenger seat. Citing probable cause, he searches your car. Doesn't find drugs. The bong was for your hamster cage. Are you still chargable with a crime? DirecTV says you are.
They're already beaming their signal straight into my fucking skull while I sleep
And when you walk past a corporate building, the 802.11b wireless is beaming into your skull as well. Oh wait, your MOTHERFUCKING skull. Sorry. That doesn't mean you are allowed to crack the WEP key and associate to the access point. The situation is no different with cable descramblers. It's coming over the coax into your GODDAMN house. Doesn't mean you can decode the Playboy channel and start watching it. You'd be stealin from Hef.
Nothing. Nada. They still have the stupid cap at 2.0Mb of storage, and they still pester you constantly with unblockable messages to get the full hotmail account for $20/yr.
I've been migrating registrations to point to yahoo over time, and once Gmail goes public, I'll get an account and dump MSN/Hotmail totally. I've had that hotmail account for a long time, before Microsoft even acquired hotmail. It's had more downtime than you'd think unless you use it every day. A couple days it was out for the whole day. I'm sure Google can do better.
Maybe he could invent a way to get that damn mole of his face then. That damn thing needs it's own RFID tag. Moley moley moley moley!
Re:Isn't this the dream of the Internet?
on
Meet Joe Blog
·
· Score: 1
Isn't the problem that most people, especially those with extreme views on either side, are a bit silly/stupid?
Yes, of course you are right. There are strong, well thought out views on the right, esp. those that clearly articulate the case for free trade, and why protectionism always loses. Time magazine's own assessment of Reagan clearly states that his move towards de-regulation and backing the SEC off ushered in an important era of mega-mergers and junk bonds that seems in retrospect to be lamentable, but in fact made American business much stronger, albeit at the expense of the little guy. I agree with that assessment.
I'm sure there are some extreme left blogs, with some very strong and blithering views on socialism. I haven't read any of them, but maybe they are all in French. (Sorry, cheap shot).
Being a moderate Democrat agnostic, it's hard to sometimes see the religious polarization of the U.S. and see some of the things written in conservative blogs. Esp. the ones that have borderline overt racism. Those tend to make me more angry than far left blogs, which only regard capitalism as evil in a sort of silly way. As if State control of industry doesn't have a two century litany of disaster. The fact is, democracy and capitalism have conflicting underlying values. It's that combination, however, that makes the West what it is. When either get pushed too far off center, it's time to look deeper into the underlying reasons.
Uh... no you don't. You love being modded up as informative because you corrected me publically. That's fine, and you are right, but don't pretend you don't enjoy your pedantic style.
NetFlix is putting some hurt on Blockbuster and other video chains. Using the post office as a distribution method and business class mail has proved to be much more viable to people who don't want to go pick out a movie from a store they have to drive to on a shelf. I, for one, HATE going to video stores so I don't do it anymore. I don't want to hear little johnny scream because his trailer park mama won't rent him the Mutant Turtles for the 16th time.
So, Netflix stock is going up-up and the question is, will this put a stop to it? Since my Tivo already has an ethernet connection going to my Linksys going to my cable modem - and since I ALREADY get previews for what's at the box office currently pushed to it - why shouldn't I just be able to use the menu system to pick movies and have them ready the next day or in a few hours? Is the sneakernet of the US post office going to be more efficient over time than broadband? No way.
The problem is the network, though. Broadband adoption rate worldwide, I don't have solid numbers for. I do know, from reading network operator mailing lists, that many infratsructures would not be prepared to handle this on a mass scale. if Comcast ALREADY has a secret usage cap, what would happen if people started busting through this en masse? I'd still bet on netFlix growth for awhile longer.
Re:Time magazine and blogs
on
Meet Joe Blog
·
· Score: 1
It sounds pretty hypocritical of Time to do that. This guy is a stringer, but HEY WAIT - his content is GOOD! We could SELL that! Shut him up!
I guess that's the blade that cuts both ways when you are on retainer for a news mag. Law firms sometimes shut down associates if they get into a pro-bono case that the firm doesn't like, even if it's on their own time (no pun intended).
Go ask Ron Rivest, Adi Shamir, and Leonard Adleman about making money from patents. they hardly cashed in on what was one of the net's most successful algorithms. Multiplying large primes was an important breakthrough in cryptography, I think Schnier states this in one of his diatribes.
The point is, if society doesn't use your invention en masse until after the patent expires, it's not a reason to extend patents any further than they already are.
Look, almost everyone on Slashdot and the technical media agree, the patent system is horribly broken and corrupted. For every story on the guy who ONLY made $3M on RFID, there are many more stories of bullshit patents on spellcheckers or the use of cookies in browsers to shop (the Bezos debacle) and a million other reasons not to hear the sob story and say "damn, he should be rich(er) but he's not!"
Slashdot Mirror
Go look at the websense or surfControl databases, and look at what matches "hate" websites. Ask yourself, are all these websites REALLY about hate? Or are they just unpopular political opinion? Do they advocate violence, or just getting rid of the current administration in the next election? the answers might suprise you.
I shorted them by 150hp.
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question588.htm
I didn't say anything about aspiration. I said they had carburetors. As the website says, these engines are built to very fine tolerances, but they make the horsepower through huge displacement. As for shifting, don't be so stupid. they shift leaving the pits, they get into 4th, and they stay there.
And, if you think "rubbin in racin" - then you like the fact these cars are patched together with duct tape in the pits. Oh, and Dale Junior actually blurted out on the radio that he spun at Bristol intentionally to draw the yellow and give his team mate the ability to re-pit. He was fined for it. Dale Senior was killed, Sterling Marlin was crucified because he rear ended him ehrn Dale pulled up trying to block for Waltrip. Happens all the time.
Cars with carburetors and big block V8s, dropping 600hp into a tubular frame covered with a thin veneer of sheet metal made to look like a sedan that is shares nothing in common with. Make them RWD, and put slicks on them. Make them run primarily ovals. Make the track as crowded as possible, so all that gaudy advertising can fill the track.
I laugh at shows that feature "NASCAR technology" only to feature something about a new jack. Adavcnes in material science have made these cars last longer. Make these cars rub and race in ovals and create artificial closeness by allowing catchup during yellow flags. Virtually insure yellow flags by having owners run multiple cars and tech drivers how to put it into the wall at key moments in the race to draw a yellow. Make the difference between winning and losing about fuel consumption only, and yet create a totally rigid structure for aerodynamics. Give engine manufacturers who develop new ways to create horsepower inside this tight little box of restrictions a weight penalty, so all the manufacturers are about equal and everyone gets a chance to win.
no thanks.
If it were like the 1960s, this year would have seen the death of Jensen Button, JPM, and Jarno Trulli. Oh yeah, and Michael would eventually perish as well. It took Jimmy Clark dying and Jackie Stewart saying "this is bullshit, enough is enough" to get safety pushed up.
The late 60's and early 70's, esp Jackie's drive at the Nordschliefe, were insanely great. But if you ask Dan Gurney, nothing was worth the price paid.
I advocate a one-fuel tank strategy for F1, even if you cut the laps in the race from 70 to 50. No pitting, pit stops don't exist. 3 Hour long qualifying sessions, teams can only draw one session, draw is random, best lap counts - you can come in as many times as you want during qualifying. But the tires and fuel have to last the whole race. There would be huge changes in the cars, but they are already talking about mandating V8s. I think it would make the sport great again.
gpl_dan@yahoo.com. I will be in section C, way up high in row HH. Drop me a line if you will be there. Halfway between S/F line and T1. I'm hoping for Renault to do one of those crazy "we don't have launch control - wink wink" starts from row 3. :-)
A few years ago, F1 used to have two-way telemetry to the car. Computers were adjusting brake-bias settings on the fly on a TURN by TURN basis. Cars were dynamically adjusting settings to optimize for all kinds of things. Really, it was getting silly.
Eccelstone, the guru who presides over Formula 1 and looks like a cross between an evil elf from LOTR and Andy Warhol, had to make changes. He banned that. before last year's season, he reduced qualifying to a one lap shot instead of your best lap over time, and he created the parke-ferme, a parking garage that cars had to roll into after they pulled off the qualifying lap. Teams were (are) not allowed to touch the cars between the end of qualifying and the race start. At all.
this created goofy things, such as last week's Canadian race where Schumi qualified back because his brother Ralf (we call him Little Ralfy) and the BMW-Williams just decided to go totally lite on fuel for the purpose of getting the pole. He had to pit 12 laps into the race, but it was part of the strategy. michael went for a 2-lap strategy and won.
So, now - the rule changes have created a more boring sport. Unless you are some hard charger with brass ones (hello Montoya and Sato) you rarely risk passing for position, except at the start. It's just not worth the risk, wait for the pit strategy to kick in. It also promotes blocking. Rubens blocks for Michael and executes Team ferrari strategy, that's his role in life.
The technology is shattering the smaller clubs. Arrows is gone, Minardi will probably be gone, Eddie Jordan is constantly broke and needs Ford engines to run. Now the dollars are cutting into teams that are bigger. Jaguar may pull out of F1 if they lose Webber, a promising driver. Honda was thinking of dropping BAR, after they dropped Jordan and leaving altogether, knowing they could not match the spending that Toyota was going to do. Toyota is something like 5x the size and wealth of Honda, something I didn't know until I started wacthing F1.
Drivers are no longer valued for just driving prowess, but the engineers they can bring WITH them, and their leadership abilities within the organization. Michael Schumacher is part CEO, part engineer, part driver and basically gets what he gets because he is a large reason that Ferrari executed the plan it had. He brought Ross Brawn with him from Bennetton Ford.
There are the big six in F1 right now - Honda, Toyota, Renault, Mercedes, BMW and Ferrari. Everyone else is an also-ran. Sauber uses 2 year old Ferrari engines, I think this year they upgraded to 1-year old engines. And to emphasize how big of a disadvantage that is - this year at Canada, the times were approaching 3 SECONDS faster than last year. The difference between a 1:12 and a 1:15 per lap is so large, old tech will leave you in the dust.
In contrast, if you attend Champ Car (formerly CART) it's like going to a damn vintage race. Spec chassis with spec Ford engines, standard turbo, no traction control, no ABS, manual gearboxes. It's like watching F1 in 1989. And IRL is KILLING it, this is almost certainly the last year. Nobody wants to see those tanks doing makeshift street courses. Americans like ovals, and speed speed speed.
F1 is brilliant, but they know they can't keep going as is. You hear crazy rumors all the time. One is that the V12s will get chucked, and everyone has to go to V8s. The spectacle and sound of a V12 revving at 19k RPM is amazing. THe cars will deafen you from 100 yards away. the carbon fiber chassis and cutting edge brake tech is stunning to see in person. Seeing a car brake from 200mph to 40mph in 200 feet really can't be described until you see it happen.
K-PAX was horrible. It was Kevin Spacey being spaced out. Halfway into filming it, the director should have said "hey, this is sucking... let's dump it.". It was One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest meets the Fisher King with Jeff Bridges apparently trying to set some sort of Guiness record for being droll and un-interesting.
Walking many ports over many hosts creates a lawnmower effect. A single IP port scan creates a stripe.
.wav file. The scanning itself is the least interesting part, it's what the attacker does after he finds an available service that is interesting. The way he has it visualized is ok, but perhaps 3D is the way to go, where that box is turned slightly, and the back wall of the box has little holes in it, where you have services mapped to a DMZ. Then when a connection goes through the hole, you can also visually see it.
What I want to see is when a machine on the inside or a DMZ has a port open to it, say port 80 & 443 - I want to see when somebody who JUST walked my net with a lawnmower then starts sending ADDITIONAL packets to the open ports. Maybe you could do that with sound. The code could take a src-ip that just mowed you, and assign a sound to it. Then, any additional data to open ports would create a sound, maybe a buzzsaw into wood
The article states - what does it take to be a good POP reviewer? That makes no sense. No serious music critic would define the question that way. A good music critic reviews mnay genres - classical, jazz, rock - and sub-genres, alternative or indy-rock, ska, hip-hop, etc.
These reviewers would tell you the term "pop" means nothing to them. If you are going to confine yourself to reviewing what is on the Billboard charts, you should get out of the business.
His approach is flawed, he is taking written reviews of popular music, and attempting to determine what the critics liked about by de-constructing the review into keywords. Shouldn't he be de-constructing the music itself? If I steal the riff from this song, and combine it this way - I could create a new song that should also be popular. Either way, it's not going to work. No computational analysis, either of written reviews or of the actual notes themselves - will reveal a hidden formula for writing good songs that will be popular.
So the Web user interface is about 80% there, and even without new web browsers we can probably get 95% there. This is Good Enough for most people and it's certainly good enough for developers, who have voted to develop almost every significant new application as a web application.
.NET towards building a open web application, and making that application portable. You start stealing from the edges of Window developers. You start picking away at the hordes. That's how you win, you take Microsoft's strongest weapon away - the masses of developers. Where the devs go, users will follow.
Which means, suddenly, Microsoft's API doesn't matter so much. Web applications don't require Windows.
It's not that Microsoft didn't notice this was happening. Of course they did, and when the implications became clear, they slammed on the brakes. Promising new technologies like HTAs and DHTML were stopped in their tracks. The Internet Explorer team seems to have disappeared; they have been completely missing in action for several years. There's no way Microsoft is going to allow DHTML to get any better than it already is: it's just too dangerous to their core business, the rich client. The big meme at Microsoft these days is: "Microsoft is betting the company on the rich client." You'll see that somewhere in every slide presentation about Longhorn. Joe Beda, from the Avalon team, says that "Avalon, and Longhorn in general, is Microsoft's stake in the ground, saying that we believe power on your desktop, locally sitting there doing cool stuff, is here to stay. We're investing on the desktop, we think it's a good place to be, and we hope we're going to start a wave of excitement..."
The trouble is: it's too late.
So, when Slashdot goes on and on about how great Mozilla is (and it is good, I'm not saying it isn't - I really like FireFox 0.9) and laments how Microsoft hasn't done a damn thing with IE since 2001, and how you need the Google toolbar and this and that - remember that quote.
Microsoft wants to slow DOWN the rate of advancement in the browser. If you buy that, and buy Joel's premise on that, you now should conclude something VERY VERY IMPORTANT.
Mozilla for Windows may be the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT OSS project there is. In many ways, it is just as important as developments in Gnome and the linux kernel, disk systems, network protocols, what have you. It's advancements in being able to push rich applications is vital. It's replacement for Active Scripting needs to be secure. Every step it makes pushes another developer that may have gone to use the Windows API or
All right, unlike that other guy you went 10 deep with - I'll buy that. A broadcast-only medium, whose decode and use has no effect on the provider. Why is it wrong to decode and use? Even the seemingly overbroad disclaimer during American Football NFL games, that states "this telecast may not be re-BROADCAST without the express written consent" doesn't cover just taping games for your collection. So why is this different?
The best analogy I can think of is the bar owner who puts his own records in the jukebox. Patrons play these songs, but no royalties are paid, unlike a radio station. People are listening to a broadcast that has been "decoded" in somewhat the same way the Playboy channel is. Is it a crime? The bar owner *can* be sued for doing this.
The guy who walks into the movie theater with a camcorder. His intention is only to record it for personal posterity, it was "locally broadcast" to his eyes and brain, why can't he keep an electronic copy of it? Are we not enititled to record our own lives?
I would submit that all of these examples, including the one of decoding a DirecTV stream using a hacked card, violates copyright law. There was no express authorization given to decode the stream, the decoding was unauthorized. The act of encoding something that requires a key to decode implies that consent from the broadcaster MUST be explicitly given. I thnk that's how common law has treated the question in court cases.
The EFF here has stopped DirecTV from grabbling name lists of people who own devices that can forge cards. Because the devices have legitimate uses other than forging cards, it cannot be proven by the mere ownership of a unit that the person's intention was to steal encrypted signals. This also has precedent in English law and common law. There is a very old case in English law that states the possesion of lockpicking tools did not, by itself, demonstrate intent to commit a crime. I need to look that case up...
This guy knows how to do it. He is still a teenager, and he is manipulating stocks for $90k and acting as a bogus bookie, netting himself $1M. Ok, so he is caught - but he got a slap on the wrist. This kid has a future in Vegas.
Like Carnegie, spammers understand critical aspects of cost accounting. As in, it doesn't cost them very much to distribute the message. Carnegie drove fixed costs down by looking to verticalize the means of production. Spammers are free riders on the fixed cost of the Internet infrastructure.
Carnegie drove millions of men to early graves with horrible working conditions and an insane desire to work them until they dropped. Spammers work the lines, pounding out messages 24/7 until mail servers die of exhaustion.
Lastly, Carnegie and Frick had assasination attempts on them for trying to smash unions. Spammers could get killed if they showed up somewhere where Microsoft hotmail exec's could get ahold of them.
Well, as a liberal, let me show you the downside of things like this. The feds show up at your house, because Comcast mixed up an IP address and confused you with a guy sharing - I dunno - the Matrix as MPEG on your web server. Why, I don't know, they were horrible movies. But I digress...
The feds swoop in and alas, even after scanning your drive for deleted sectors and file names, they don't find either the MPEGs or a web server. Hmmm. They DO find, however, some DVD decryption software you downloaded from DVDJon. And you have a DVD burner in your rig. Should you be charged with a crime? What if you have a copy of Star Wars on a DVD on your desk. You made it from your VHS copy, because Lucas is a dumb fuck who won't put it out on DVD, and your VHS machine busted. It's your copy, you had no intention of selling it, but you have the MEANS to do so. Time to meet Bubba in the federal-pound-you-in-the-ass prison?
Here's an easier one. You are pulled over for weaving on the road, because you have chewing gum on your shoe. The cop sees a bong in the passenger seat. Citing probable cause, he searches your car. Doesn't find drugs. The bong was for your hamster cage. Are you still chargable with a crime? DirecTV says you are.
Is skinny the opposite of big? What if he meant big, as in "livin large"? Like "hey that dude is Big Pimpin'!"
They're already beaming their signal straight into my fucking skull while I sleep
And when you walk past a corporate building, the 802.11b wireless is beaming into your skull as well. Oh wait, your MOTHERFUCKING skull. Sorry. That doesn't mean you are allowed to crack the WEP key and associate to the access point. The situation is no different with cable descramblers. It's coming over the coax into your GODDAMN house. Doesn't mean you can decode the Playboy channel and start watching it. You'd be stealin from Hef.
He formally changes his first name to "Dick". And says his first and last name each time he introduces himself.
Nothing. Nada. They still have the stupid cap at 2.0Mb of storage, and they still pester you constantly with unblockable messages to get the full hotmail account for $20/yr.
I've been migrating registrations to point to yahoo over time, and once Gmail goes public, I'll get an account and dump MSN/Hotmail totally. I've had that hotmail account for a long time, before Microsoft even acquired hotmail. It's had more downtime than you'd think unless you use it every day. A couple days it was out for the whole day. I'm sure Google can do better.
John-Boy for one.
Maybe he could invent a way to get that damn mole of his face then. That damn thing needs it's own RFID tag. Moley moley moley moley!
Isn't the problem that most people, especially those with extreme views on either side, are a bit silly/stupid?
Yes, of course you are right. There are strong, well thought out views on the right, esp. those that clearly articulate the case for free trade, and why protectionism always loses. Time magazine's own assessment of Reagan clearly states that his move towards de-regulation and backing the SEC off ushered in an important era of mega-mergers and junk bonds that seems in retrospect to be lamentable, but in fact made American business much stronger, albeit at the expense of the little guy. I agree with that assessment.
I'm sure there are some extreme left blogs, with some very strong and blithering views on socialism. I haven't read any of them, but maybe they are all in French. (Sorry, cheap shot).
Being a moderate Democrat agnostic, it's hard to sometimes see the religious polarization of the U.S. and see some of the things written in conservative blogs. Esp. the ones that have borderline overt racism. Those tend to make me more angry than far left blogs, which only regard capitalism as evil in a sort of silly way. As if State control of industry doesn't have a two century litany of disaster. The fact is, democracy and capitalism have conflicting underlying values. It's that combination, however, that makes the West what it is. When either get pushed too far off center, it's time to look deeper into the underlying reasons.
Uh, hate to break it to you...
Uh... no you don't. You love being modded up as informative because you corrected me publically. That's fine, and you are right, but don't pretend you don't enjoy your pedantic style.
NetFlix is putting some hurt on Blockbuster and other video chains. Using the post office as a distribution method and business class mail has proved to be much more viable to people who don't want to go pick out a movie from a store they have to drive to on a shelf. I, for one, HATE going to video stores so I don't do it anymore. I don't want to hear little johnny scream because his trailer park mama won't rent him the Mutant Turtles for the 16th time.
So, Netflix stock is going up-up and the question is, will this put a stop to it? Since my Tivo already has an ethernet connection going to my Linksys going to my cable modem - and since I ALREADY get previews for what's at the box office currently pushed to it - why shouldn't I just be able to use the menu system to pick movies and have them ready the next day or in a few hours? Is the sneakernet of the US post office going to be more efficient over time than broadband? No way.
The problem is the network, though. Broadband adoption rate worldwide, I don't have solid numbers for. I do know, from reading network operator mailing lists, that many infratsructures would not be prepared to handle this on a mass scale. if Comcast ALREADY has a secret usage cap, what would happen if people started busting through this en masse? I'd still bet on netFlix growth for awhile longer.
It sounds pretty hypocritical of Time to do that. This guy is a stringer, but HEY WAIT - his content is GOOD! We could SELL that! Shut him up!
I guess that's the blade that cuts both ways when you are on retainer for a news mag. Law firms sometimes shut down associates if they get into a pro-bono case that the firm doesn't like, even if it's on their own time (no pun intended).
Go ask Ron Rivest, Adi Shamir, and Leonard Adleman about making money from patents. they hardly cashed in on what was one of the net's most successful algorithms. Multiplying large primes was an important breakthrough in cryptography, I think Schnier states this in one of his diatribes.
The point is, if society doesn't use your invention en masse until after the patent expires, it's not a reason to extend patents any further than they already are.
Look, almost everyone on Slashdot and the technical media agree, the patent system is horribly broken and corrupted. For every story on the guy who ONLY made $3M on RFID, there are many more stories of bullshit patents on spellcheckers or the use of cookies in browsers to shop (the Bezos debacle) and a million other reasons not to hear the sob story and say "damn, he should be rich(er) but he's not!"
Why not? Doesn't he have children and grandchildren?