I actually just had to get rid of about 880 rounds of 7.62x54 which I had purchased by mistake (believing it to be 7.62x51; didn't read the page carefully enough). Ended up selling to to a guy for, I kid you not, $100, just to take it off my hands. Hungarian made surplus, still in one of those annoying as hell sealed tin cans with what could liberally be called a "can opener."
Nice. I just wanted to also correct my own error before someone else does it for me, M1s fire.30-06, I was thinking of an M14 (which does shoot 7.62x51mm NATO). If you're familiar with both guns, you'll understand the "monday" error.
Where do you keep your keys? I've given that same idea a lot of thought, but I always run into a few issues. A) reduced disk performance [typically, unless you're using some very expensive hardware] B) more data storage devices whose failure could result in the complete loss of the data (i.e. whatever is storing your crypto keys)
7.62x51mm NATO, aka.308 Winchester, is a standard cartridge round developed before WWII which (contrary to my earlier post) is not shot from the M1 (which shoots far more common.30-06) but is shot from the far more entertaining M14.
Someone should suggest that the Mythbusters "put this to the test," assuming their production company has the financial resources to pay for even modest data recovery services.
Even that might be effective. If you have like, a dozen drives, all of them similar, all of them wiped, one of which contains good data (or worse, a group of which once comprised like, a RAID 5 array so you need at least a few of them) you would be looking at a hypergeometric distribution, and the actual probable cost of recovering the data could grow extremely rapidly to something quite impractical. If instead, you had a big box full of used drives, five of which had been bent in half, it might actually be cheaper
Would you do this at a range? I'd imagine there might be a few that would take some issue with you shooting at something other than paper; it's pretty cool if they're cool with that. What were you using, an M1?
Well, in some sense internet gambling still is not really illegal, as in some respects the federal government would have some difficulty in passing a law like that without the cooperation of each individual state. Instead, the act, written by Kyl of Arizona, makes it illegal to transfer money to or receive money for the purposes of games of chance electronically over the internet, or some such mechanism like that. The actual function is to make the money transfers illegal, making it the banks problem rather than the problem of the firms that are typically located overseas anyway.
But yeah, that's what's interesting about it. The states that stand to lose the most are the minority (NJ, NV, CT, PA, couple of others that have legalized certain types of gaming). It seems likely that other states will continue to challenge this paradigm for the possibility of grabbing a bunch of tax cash very quickly until the law is repealed.
I'm sorry, "Clear and Present Danger?" test anyone? Freedom of speech is not without its limits, one of which is that you cannot essentially say things that are likely to get other people hurt. As was written in the relevant opinion,
The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the United States Congress has a right to prevent.
.
I think this case is pretty cut and dry, she's in the wrong, and should be stopped. Freedom of speech does not protect her actions in this case.
Right, and it also takes money away from the Casinos, which the government protects through grants of monopoly franchises. Obv the government's recourse to tax revenue on the gambling winnings is via the casinos, and while it would be good for one state to setup internet gambling, the other states would object as they would not see any of the money made from the operation. (otherwise the major casino operators would have already implemented something like this)
So is the right course to: change the tax code so that businesses have to pay the same taxes for international workers as for domestic workers (could reduce employment)? reduce the cost of employing domestic workers (could reduce tax revenue)? or further limit the number of work visas issued (could cause shortages of certain types of skilled labor)?
When you release BSD software, you get equal support to all the other people who cooperate with you. However, your competitors have a possibility to get a specific advantage. They can take your software, use it as you do, but add their own proprietary changes which they do not share.
I may be confused, but I'm not sure that this is even true 100% of the time with GPL'd code. If you improve a package, and then the competition takes that improved package and makes further improvements that it does not distribute outside of its organization, it does not need to share the code back and it gets the same benefit. Is that correct? I'm actually asking here, somewhat curious if I'm wrong about that.
I've also been recently irritated by a select open source project which will not be named (rather small project in the grand scheme of things) whose primary maintainer gains direct commercial benefit from unnecessarily crippling their package in order to encourage sales of overpriced proprietary hardware components, which also rubs me the wrong way. Has anyone out there faced a similar situation and come up with a solution?
I'm curious there because as I see it I have the option to create a series of unsupported patches which will never be merged with the trunk and will gradually become just a serious pain in the ass to maintain, which seriously discourages me from sharing them with the community, and all because of the self interest of a maintainer.
The crux of the argument is actually invalid as patents are supposed to only be for things which are non-obvious to someone reasonably skilled in the art; which clearly fails in this case if someone were to look at it closely.
not only is there prior art, but if someone in 2003 were tasked with periodically distributing an audio file from a feed possibly all the way to a portable player, I have a feeling they might just try something as simple as an XML feed an an Mp3 file first, and build support for it into a client *gasp*
I think the burden is already pretty high, and the sheer number of patents that are already stuffed into the pipeline (it's so damn long we don't even notice this crap until 3 years after its first submitted) that there is probably not much that will change in the criteria for acceptance anytime soon.
I think the best solution might just be limitations on the protections provided by patent law, and the inclusion of some degree of implied limited use license in certain cases. Patents are so massively abused these days as means to control interoperability. For that, one needs to look no further than the newfangled patented apple connectors for mac book power cords and the iPod dock connector. That kind of crap shouldn't be built on the back of the patent system, if it should even be legal in the first place.
I'm all for protecting the rights of the inventor, and I think the concept of a patent makes sense in the case of some software and for software inventors. But the system is a twisted labyrinth of loopholes exploited by industry to wage war on fair competition while making closed minded investors swoon. that's the freaking problem with patents.
I still have never understood this great debate. At the end of the day what's wrong with having access to both? Java is indeed a neat language, and I agree with all of your points on that front, but it just never seems to have stuck it when it comes to GUI app development as compared to C/C++, and frameworks like Mono can have fascinating levels of flexibility. Java, also amazing for its own purposes, but I think it's safe to admit that they each have their strengths and weaknesses. It just seems foolish to throw free tools out of the toolbox due to the implied political persuasions of those who crafted their prototypical ancestors.
One other comment; the whitehouse has committed more money to redesigning this website than the stimulus bill allocates to the state of NJ for technology projects.
What's sad about this is how much of a waste it clearly already is. Recovery.org, which is run by a private company, already has a lot more up to date and useful information about how the stimulus money is being spent than Recovery.gov does. Somehow I doubt their site cost 18M to develop. Furthermore, what use is an oversight website that is entirely controlled by the POTUS? The GAO should run it not the white house.
of course that point is moot already, as the final version of the act did not actually include the provisions necessary to actually establish any guidelines at all for recovery.gov, they were all struck from the final version (http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:8:./temp/~c111J3zW8Z:e39246:). I suppose that someone out there realized that the whitehouse had the power to setup a website, and indeed, find 18M to redesign a website, without having to involve anyone else. it's really a very cleaver system.
Good point. Why sell something more for the same price if it increases your costs to do so (hey, even at scale, twice as much bandwidth has to carry some added costs, in the peering?) I think WiMAX can even go quite a bit faster than that, at least, I know it can in the lab. Not sure what the fastest actual WiMAX deployment is, anyone know?
I feel like CDNs are almost a dime a dozen at this point, and are typically structured very differently from the way TPB is. I dunno, I feel like this may have been a bad investment for someone, with things like shows on YouTube, Boxee, Hulu, Amazon.COM on-demand, netflix watch instantly, etc, the peer to peer ship may have begun to sail at this point. Not saying it wont still be huge, but when I think of my average non-tech savvy friends, many of them have stopped using torrents all together and have not looked back.
Comcast reminds me a lot of a traditional utility company in some ways. They provide, in many areas, a virtually essential service for which they are nearly the only provider. They simply realized the truth that in most cases, for them, treating the customer well is more expensive than treating them like crap, and they're going to pay the same monthly subscriber fee no matter how you treat them in most cases. It's sort of like the incentives of landlords; in the vast majority of cases, the more poorly maintained the building is, the more money the landlord makes.
This kind of makes sense. For Sprint, it's probably a great way to sell nationwide data services plans through bundling which are usually highly profitable. For Comcast, it's a competitive advantage (wireless metro internet service) that's hard for the other traditional more "hard-wired" ISPs to match. It will be interesting to see how they market it on TV, and what types of non-techie people buy it and why
This is exactly right. One of the reasons that the world feels so small as a result is large pieces of it are totally useless if you remove the utility value of the road or flypoint. With teleportation there are large parts of the world that people would simply never go to; which in wow is honestly bad enough at this point when they screw up and don't give a city enough useful things (silvermoon for example is a ghost town). Transit hubs force players together in a way that teleporting everywhere would seriously undermine.
I feel like this is a straw man argument, at least as it pertains to how I use facebook and google (that statement alone may discredit the rest of my comment). If I'm searching for something with a general purpose search engine like google, I generally am looking for a piece of factual information that I know to exist, or at least a relevant reference point as a starting place for a topic of interest. I go to facebook to "browse" what my friends, family, and colleagues are up to in their day to day lives; which is an entirely different type of information. additional things may leak through, such as if a friend has just purchased a new digital SLR camera and they post about it to facebook, I may send them a message asking them how they like it or something like that, but such things (at least in my case) are more often coincidences than purposeful encounters.
furthermore, i dont feel as though sites like facebook purport to be general human knowledge-bases any more than google claims to be an authoritative reference point for my former college roommate's birthday and current place of residence. it can also be good for remembering which of my friends are trek fans and which are not ("which of my friends likes star trek" doesn't work in google yet, but i'm feeling optimistic about the future)
Slashdot Mirror
I actually just had to get rid of about 880 rounds of 7.62x54 which I had purchased by mistake (believing it to be 7.62x51; didn't read the page carefully enough). Ended up selling to to a guy for, I kid you not, $100, just to take it off my hands. Hungarian made surplus, still in one of those annoying as hell sealed tin cans with what could liberally be called a "can opener."
Nice. I just wanted to also correct my own error before someone else does it for me, M1s fire .30-06, I was thinking of an M14 (which does shoot 7.62x51mm NATO). If you're familiar with both guns, you'll understand the "monday" error.
Where do you keep your keys? I've given that same idea a lot of thought, but I always run into a few issues. A) reduced disk performance [typically, unless you're using some very expensive hardware] B) more data storage devices whose failure could result in the complete loss of the data (i.e. whatever is storing your crypto keys)
7.62x51mm NATO, aka .308 Winchester, is a standard cartridge round developed before WWII which (contrary to my earlier post) is not shot from the M1 (which shoots far more common .30-06) but is shot from the far more entertaining M14.
Someone should suggest that the Mythbusters "put this to the test," assuming their production company has the financial resources to pay for even modest data recovery services.
Even that might be effective. If you have like, a dozen drives, all of them similar, all of them wiped, one of which contains good data (or worse, a group of which once comprised like, a RAID 5 array so you need at least a few of them) you would be looking at a hypergeometric distribution, and the actual probable cost of recovering the data could grow extremely rapidly to something quite impractical. If instead, you had a big box full of used drives, five of which had been bent in half, it might actually be cheaper
dont forget the safety goggles!
Would you do this at a range? I'd imagine there might be a few that would take some issue with you shooting at something other than paper; it's pretty cool if they're cool with that. What were you using, an M1?
I think it would be easy to melt the disk into a nice puddle of slag, what might be harder is not burning the building down in the process.
Why not just use a degausser? or DBAN?
But yeah, that's what's interesting about it. The states that stand to lose the most are the minority (NJ, NV, CT, PA, couple of others that have legalized certain types of gaming). It seems likely that other states will continue to challenge this paradigm for the possibility of grabbing a bunch of tax cash very quickly until the law is repealed.
I'm sorry, "Clear and Present Danger?" test anyone? Freedom of speech is not without its limits, one of which is that you cannot essentially say things that are likely to get other people hurt. As was written in the relevant opinion,
The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the United States Congress has a right to prevent.
.
I think this case is pretty cut and dry, she's in the wrong, and should be stopped. Freedom of speech does not protect her actions in this case.
Right, and it also takes money away from the Casinos, which the government protects through grants of monopoly franchises. Obv the government's recourse to tax revenue on the gambling winnings is via the casinos, and while it would be good for one state to setup internet gambling, the other states would object as they would not see any of the money made from the operation. (otherwise the major casino operators would have already implemented something like this)
So is the right course to: change the tax code so that businesses have to pay the same taxes for international workers as for domestic workers (could reduce employment)? reduce the cost of employing domestic workers (could reduce tax revenue)? or further limit the number of work visas issued (could cause shortages of certain types of skilled labor)?
When you release BSD software, you get equal support to all the other people who cooperate with you. However, your competitors have a possibility to get a specific advantage. They can take your software, use it as you do, but add their own proprietary changes which they do not share.
I may be confused, but I'm not sure that this is even true 100% of the time with GPL'd code. If you improve a package, and then the competition takes that improved package and makes further improvements that it does not distribute outside of its organization, it does not need to share the code back and it gets the same benefit. Is that correct? I'm actually asking here, somewhat curious if I'm wrong about that.
I've also been recently irritated by a select open source project which will not be named (rather small project in the grand scheme of things) whose primary maintainer gains direct commercial benefit from unnecessarily crippling their package in order to encourage sales of overpriced proprietary hardware components, which also rubs me the wrong way. Has anyone out there faced a similar situation and come up with a solution?
I'm curious there because as I see it I have the option to create a series of unsupported patches which will never be merged with the trunk and will gradually become just a serious pain in the ass to maintain, which seriously discourages me from sharing them with the community, and all because of the self interest of a maintainer.
not only is there prior art, but if someone in 2003 were tasked with periodically distributing an audio file from a feed possibly all the way to a portable player, I have a feeling they might just try something as simple as an XML feed an an Mp3 file first, and build support for it into a client *gasp*
I think the burden is already pretty high, and the sheer number of patents that are already stuffed into the pipeline (it's so damn long we don't even notice this crap until 3 years after its first submitted) that there is probably not much that will change in the criteria for acceptance anytime soon.
I think the best solution might just be limitations on the protections provided by patent law, and the inclusion of some degree of implied limited use license in certain cases. Patents are so massively abused these days as means to control interoperability. For that, one needs to look no further than the newfangled patented apple connectors for mac book power cords and the iPod dock connector. That kind of crap shouldn't be built on the back of the patent system, if it should even be legal in the first place.
I'm all for protecting the rights of the inventor, and I think the concept of a patent makes sense in the case of some software and for software inventors. But the system is a twisted labyrinth of loopholes exploited by industry to wage war on fair competition while making closed minded investors swoon. that's the freaking problem with patents.
I still have never understood this great debate. At the end of the day what's wrong with having access to both? Java is indeed a neat language, and I agree with all of your points on that front, but it just never seems to have stuck it when it comes to GUI app development as compared to C/C++, and frameworks like Mono can have fascinating levels of flexibility. Java, also amazing for its own purposes, but I think it's safe to admit that they each have their strengths and weaknesses. It just seems foolish to throw free tools out of the toolbox due to the implied political persuasions of those who crafted their prototypical ancestors.
One other comment; the whitehouse has committed more money to redesigning this website than the stimulus bill allocates to the state of NJ for technology projects.
of course that point is moot already, as the final version of the act did not actually include the provisions necessary to actually establish any guidelines at all for recovery.gov, they were all struck from the final version (http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:8:./temp/~c111J3zW8Z:e39246:). I suppose that someone out there realized that the whitehouse had the power to setup a website, and indeed, find 18M to redesign a website, without having to involve anyone else. it's really a very cleaver system.
Good point. Why sell something more for the same price if it increases your costs to do so (hey, even at scale, twice as much bandwidth has to carry some added costs, in the peering?) I think WiMAX can even go quite a bit faster than that, at least, I know it can in the lab. Not sure what the fastest actual WiMAX deployment is, anyone know?
I feel like CDNs are almost a dime a dozen at this point, and are typically structured very differently from the way TPB is. I dunno, I feel like this may have been a bad investment for someone, with things like shows on YouTube, Boxee, Hulu, Amazon.COM on-demand, netflix watch instantly, etc, the peer to peer ship may have begun to sail at this point. Not saying it wont still be huge, but when I think of my average non-tech savvy friends, many of them have stopped using torrents all together and have not looked back.
Comcast reminds me a lot of a traditional utility company in some ways. They provide, in many areas, a virtually essential service for which they are nearly the only provider. They simply realized the truth that in most cases, for them, treating the customer well is more expensive than treating them like crap, and they're going to pay the same monthly subscriber fee no matter how you treat them in most cases. It's sort of like the incentives of landlords; in the vast majority of cases, the more poorly maintained the building is, the more money the landlord makes.
This kind of makes sense. For Sprint, it's probably a great way to sell nationwide data services plans through bundling which are usually highly profitable. For Comcast, it's a competitive advantage (wireless metro internet service) that's hard for the other traditional more "hard-wired" ISPs to match. It will be interesting to see how they market it on TV, and what types of non-techie people buy it and why
4G the marketing terminology vs. 4G the technical definition?
This is exactly right. One of the reasons that the world feels so small as a result is large pieces of it are totally useless if you remove the utility value of the road or flypoint. With teleportation there are large parts of the world that people would simply never go to; which in wow is honestly bad enough at this point when they screw up and don't give a city enough useful things (silvermoon for example is a ghost town). Transit hubs force players together in a way that teleporting everywhere would seriously undermine.
I feel like this is a straw man argument, at least as it pertains to how I use facebook and google (that statement alone may discredit the rest of my comment). If I'm searching for something with a general purpose search engine like google, I generally am looking for a piece of factual information that I know to exist, or at least a relevant reference point as a starting place for a topic of interest. I go to facebook to "browse" what my friends, family, and colleagues are up to in their day to day lives; which is an entirely different type of information. additional things may leak through, such as if a friend has just purchased a new digital SLR camera and they post about it to facebook, I may send them a message asking them how they like it or something like that, but such things (at least in my case) are more often coincidences than purposeful encounters.
furthermore, i dont feel as though sites like facebook purport to be general human knowledge-bases any more than google claims to be an authoritative reference point for my former college roommate's birthday and current place of residence. it can also be good for remembering which of my friends are trek fans and which are not ("which of my friends likes star trek" doesn't work in google yet, but i'm feeling optimistic about the future)