You might want to define "well paying". I have talked to alot of CS majors who just came out of undergrad programs from top schools, their salary is an insult.
I have a Ph.D. in Computer Science and 16 years experience. The salaries I see being offered to CS majors coming right out of undergrad programs is an insult all right. An insult to *me*. I can't believe what some of these snot-nosed brats are pulling in these days. And if you've got a security clearance? Woo-hoo! That's worth 10 years experience and an advanced degree right there.
Either you're in the running for the Nonsequitur of the Year award, or you didn't read my question carefully. (Hint: My question was NOT "Why do people and/or player manufacturers want this capability.")
This new law allows them to legally strip videos without breaking copyright.
But in what way were they breaking copyright in the first place? It sounds to me like the accusation was groundless. The clearplay player and filter was not creating duplicates of the discs. Did they merely pass a law to clarify an existing law? I can see why it would piss off the MPAA and directors, but is there any way in which a claim of copyright infringement can be reasonably substantiated?
Well, if that's what it is, then the bill doesn't do anything. Just because the government says I can do something, it doesn't keep me from engaging in an agreement with someone in which I agree not to do that something.
of a Microsoft rule that was ridiculed on usenet around a decade ago. Here goes:
So, since Microsloth employees now have to quote the entire text of the message they are replying to, does this also pertain to already quoted text? How about messages they are forwarding that contain quoted text? How about.sigs? Will Bill be seeing this in his inbox one day?:
From: Joe-Bob@microsloth.com To: Bill-Gates@microsloth.com Subject: Proposal You Should Look At cc: Fred@microsloth.com
Mr. Gates, I think Fred's proposal is one you should look at. So I'm forwarding it to you. Please give me a bonus. Thanks.
-- Joe-Bob@microsloth.com
------- Forwarded Message
From: Fred@microsloth.com To: Joe-Bob@microsloth.com Subject: Re: I Love You
Joe-Bob wrote: > Fred wrote: > > Joe-Bob wrote: > > > Fred wrote: > > > > Joe-Bob wrote: > > > > > Fred wrote: > > > > > > Joe-Bob wrote: > > > > > > > Fred wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The subject says it all! Let's do lunch, please say > > > > > > > > yes? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Fred@microsloth.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lunch would be great. I always suspected, by the way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think of Bill's latest directive? Does that > > > > > > > a** even know what he's saying?!? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Joe-Bob@microsloth.com > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, you know how the Great Bill can get. Best follow his > > > > > > word to the letter. > > > > > > > > > > > > Lunch was wonderful. I'm looking forward to tonight. I > > > > > > can't believe this is happening. I'm so lucky! > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Fred@microsloth.com > > > > > > > > > > Look, Fred, I'm really, really sorry. I didn't mean to upset > > > > > you. I just thought it was really funny, all of a sudden. I > > > > > mean, there we were, two grown men, carrying on like that... > > > > > > > > > > Oh well, maybe the flowers will cheer you up. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks to the Wisdom of Bill, this email is really growing. At > > > > > least I can scroll up and remember how wonderful lunch was for > > > > > us yesterday. > > > > > > > > > > Please forgive me? > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Joe-Bob@microsloth.com > > > > > > > > I guess I will forgive you. I'm just very sensitive, Joe-Bob, > > > > you've got to learn to accept that. I don't show my Star Wars > > > > action figures to just any guy that walks in off the street, you > > > > know, much less pull them out and play with them in the sandbox! > > > > > > > > The flowers were nice. Thanks for caring. I do love you. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Fred@microsloth.com > > > > > > All I can say in my defense is that I haven't played with Star > > > Wars action figures in a sandbox before. Well, I guess I may > > > have, a little, as a kid. Anyway, I freaked. It won't happen > >
For example, what good has come from Sinfield [sic] on humanity?
Well, between busting my ass for 10 hours on Thursday, and busting my ass for 10 hours on Friday, I got to laugh my ass off for 30 minutes. As far as I'm concerned, everyone involved earned every last penny they made off that show.
I still laugh my ass off watching reruns. I just watched The Chinese Reseaurant:
George: She called. He yelled Cartwright. I missed her.
They did nothing more than attribute to him what he actually said
If you are going to continue to lie by claiming that "invent" is "what he actually said", when the central point of this discussion is the difference between "invent" and what he actually said, then we are at a stalemate.
What do they [the Republicans] have to do with his statement? Nothing.
Correct. They have nothing to do with HIS STATEMENT. They have everything to do with thenon-existant statement that they misattributed to him.
I went to the CNN web site and found Gore's own statement... one in which "invent" is an accurate paraphrase.
We all know Gore's own statement, and "invent" is not an accurate paraphrase.
The same is true of Spamford Wallace's dream of an internet full of spam. Did Spamford end up inventing the Internet too?
Your question would be almost apprpriate if I were claiming that Gore *did* in fact *invent* the internet. I'm not. And he didn't either.
It is an accurate paraphrase, and the words mean the exact same thing in the context Gore used them
B.S. I've already demonstrated otherwise. It's obvious to anyone with two little gray cells to rub together that he was not claiming a technical innovation on his own part. But the Republicans (yes, they are the ones who first used that term) wouldn't have a case without distorting his words and misquoting him.
(just as the Democrats did not force GWB to make his "wings take dream" speech)
And you'll note that those words were not MISattributed to him.
Cerf does not anywhere claim that Gore had anything to do with creating it.
You need to read their statement again. They clearly discredit the Republican-led spin and misquotation, and they give him credit in many ways, numerous times throughout the letter, for exactly the things that he was claiming credit for.
If you apply "invent" to the creation of a singular technological entity, it is not a misattribution
Sure it is. "Creation", even of a single entity, involves much more than "invention". It involves communicating the vision, getting support, allocating funds, setting policy, manufacturing components, deploying components, laying down cable, etc. He never claimed to have done the whole thing single-handedly, from start to finish. And if the words meant the same thing, you wouldn't feel the need to use the one that he never uttered. And if one wanted to be really pedantic, he never even said "I created the internet". He said "I took the initiative in creating the Internet". He took the initiative. That initiative turned the Internet of yesterday into the Internet of today. Gore's statement was right on the mark, and the Republican use of the word "invent" is clearly inappropriate, just as Cerf and Kahn indicated when they said, "We don't think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the Internet". At no point do Cerf and Kahn state, or even suggest, that he misspoke.
First off. The distinction between Invent and Create in this context is silly
I disagree. It is the crux of the matter. "Invent" refers specifically to a process of intellectual ingenuity. "Create" is a much broader term, and includes even things like the manual routing of wires. Politicians take credit for their legislative creations all the time, without having words like "invent" misattributed to them. If the distinction were so inconsequential, as you would have us believe, then Republicans wouldn't have changed his statement in a way as to evoke such incredulity, and repeatedly gone out of their way to use the word he didn't use, rather than the one he did use.
Secondly, some have argued that he's a politician and didn't mean that he personally created it but through government created it. That's a real stretch [...]
Personally, I think the real stretch is what Republicans would have us believe: that Gore was claiming expertise in information coding, network protocols, and communication systems.
when you consider that ARPANet was created in 1969 and the modern internet was around at least in the early 80's.
The vision that Gore articulated during his congressional service was of an Internet that did not yet exist: a nearly ubiquitous communication medium for enhancing and facilitating education and commerce.
The criticism of what he said is not some Republican/Fox conspiracy
Actually, it is. They are the ones who coined the phrase "invented the internet", and have been using it ever since.
What he said was completely untrue. Like most politicians (Rep or Demo), he took credit for something he had little to do with
Why are you wasting your time discussing it here? Write to Cerf and Kahn and tell them how wrong they are.
It's amazing that people can demonstrate that they don't understand the difference in meaning between "create" and "invent", even right after that distinction is pointed out to them.
For all those that say Gore didn't claim to invent the net I include the following.
Ok, so you indicate that you're about to show that he claimed to have *invented* the internet. But then you quote Gore as having said:
I took the initiative in creating the Internet
I'd just like to make two points here: 1) If you question Gore's role in CREATING the internet, why don't you read what the guys who INVENTED the internet have to say about the matter. 2) "Invent" is not the same as "create". Last week I created a meatloaf in my kitchen. I did not *invent* meatloaf.
Actually, a photon cannot split into an electron-positron pair. It's *nothingness*, or more precisely, quantum fluctuations in the vacuum, from which pair production occurs. To see why a photon cannot splot into an e-p+ pair, consider the system from the rest frame (center of momentum frame) of the pair. The pair has zero momentum, obviously (their individual momenta cancel), but the photon is still travelling at c (albeit possibly with some other frequency) and hence has non-zero momenta.
I suppose you could have an electric version of a black hole
Not likely, and even if so, not for very long. What would hold this enormous amount of like-charged particles together? (Note: the electromagnetic force is way stronger than gravity.) But even if you had the electric equivalent of a black hole, it wouldn't last very long, because it would only attract oppositely charged particles, and they would reduce the net charge on the "hole".
Put another way, charge aggregation is a negative feedback loop, whereas mass aggregation is a positive feedback loop.
Slashdot Mirror
Not on personal names that happen to be similar to that [Bob Jones] Catholic university.
Actually, it's a Christian university, but not a Catholic university. (Actually, I've heard that the founder was very *anti* Roman Catholic.)
You might want to define "well paying". I have talked to alot of CS majors who just came out of undergrad programs from top schools, their salary is an insult.
I have a Ph.D. in Computer Science and 16 years experience. The salaries I see being offered to CS majors coming right out of undergrad programs is an insult all right. An insult to *me*. I can't believe what some of these snot-nosed brats are pulling in these days. And if you've got a security clearance? Woo-hoo! That's worth 10 years experience and an advanced degree right there.
Either you're in the running for the Nonsequitur of the Year award, or you didn't read my question carefully. (Hint: My question was NOT "Why do people and/or player manufacturers want this capability.")
This new law allows them to legally strip videos without breaking copyright.
But in what way were they breaking copyright in the first place? It sounds to me like the accusation was groundless. The clearplay player and filter was not creating duplicates of the discs. Did they merely pass a law to clarify an existing law? I can see why it would piss off the MPAA and directors, but is there any way in which a claim of copyright infringement can be reasonably substantiated?
Probably the DVDCSS license/contract
Well, if that's what it is, then the bill doesn't do anything. Just because the government says I can do something, it doesn't keep me from engaging in an agreement with someone in which I agree not to do that something.
... you insensitive clod.
Really, I don't.
aimed at allowing your DVD to skip past nude scenes and the like.
Before the bill, what exactly was prohibiting DVD players from doing this?
So I buy the collectors edition right?
How the hell should we know?
Crap, I forgot part of the equation. Then they add the aforementioned price times the number of people who have not yet been born.
The take the largest price they can charge, with a straight face, for the game, and multiply it by the number of people who did not yet have the game.
will accept papers just because no one can be arsed to read them is
Hardly surprising, indeed. I wouldn't want to be arsed either, whatever the hell that means.
I'm still going to pay to see it
Of course you will. He'll be wiping his ass with the money you paid for the ticket.
For example, what good has come from Sinfield [sic] on humanity?
Well, between busting my ass for 10 hours on Thursday, and busting my ass for 10 hours on Friday, I got to laugh my ass off for 30 minutes. As far as I'm concerned, everyone involved earned every last penny they made off that show.
I still laugh my ass off watching reruns. I just watched The Chinese Reseaurant:
George: She called. He yelled Cartwright. I missed her.
Jerry: Who's Cartwright?
George: I'm Cartwright!
Jerry: You're not Cartwri-
George: Of course I'm not Cartwright!
I'm still LMAO.
In some cases, it was better to not turn in anything at all.
"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt" -- Mark Twain
They did nothing more than attribute to him what he actually said
If you are going to continue to lie by claiming that "invent" is "what he actually said", when the central point of this discussion is the difference between "invent" and what he actually said, then we are at a stalemate.
What do they [the Republicans] have to do with his statement? Nothing.
Correct. They have nothing to do with HIS STATEMENT. They have everything to do with thenon-existant statement that they misattributed to him.
I went to the CNN web site and found Gore's own statement... one in which "invent" is an accurate paraphrase.
We all know Gore's own statement, and "invent" is not an accurate paraphrase.
The same is true of Spamford Wallace's dream of an internet full of spam. Did Spamford end up inventing the Internet too?
Your question would be almost apprpriate if I were claiming that Gore *did* in fact *invent* the internet. I'm not. And he didn't either.
It is an accurate paraphrase, and the words mean the exact same thing in the context Gore used them
B.S. I've already demonstrated otherwise. It's obvious to anyone with two little gray cells to rub together that he was not claiming a technical innovation on his own part. But the Republicans (yes, they are the ones who first used that term) wouldn't have a case without distorting his words and misquoting him.
(just as the Democrats did not force GWB to make his "wings take dream" speech)
And you'll note that those words were not MISattributed to him.
Cerf does not anywhere claim that Gore had anything to do with creating it.
You need to read their statement again. They clearly discredit the Republican-led spin and misquotation, and they give him credit in many ways, numerous times throughout the letter, for exactly the things that he was claiming credit for.
If you apply "invent" to the creation of a singular technological entity, it is not a misattribution
Sure it is. "Creation", even of a single entity, involves much more than "invention". It involves communicating the vision, getting support, allocating funds, setting policy, manufacturing components, deploying components, laying down cable, etc. He never claimed to have done the whole thing single-handedly, from start to finish. And if the words meant the same thing, you wouldn't feel the need to use the one that he never uttered. And if one wanted to be really pedantic, he never even said "I created the internet". He said "I took the initiative in creating the Internet". He took the initiative. That initiative turned the Internet of yesterday into the Internet of today. Gore's statement was right on the mark, and the Republican use of the word "invent" is clearly inappropriate, just as Cerf and Kahn indicated when they said, "We don't think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the Internet". At no point do Cerf and Kahn state, or even suggest, that he misspoke.
First off. The distinction between Invent and Create in this context is silly
I disagree. It is the crux of the matter. "Invent" refers specifically to a process of intellectual ingenuity. "Create" is a much broader term, and includes even things like the manual routing of wires. Politicians take credit for their legislative creations all the time, without having words like "invent" misattributed to them. If the distinction were so inconsequential, as you would have us believe, then Republicans wouldn't have changed his statement in a way as to evoke such incredulity, and repeatedly gone out of their way to use the word he didn't use, rather than the one he did use.
Secondly, some have argued that he's a politician and didn't mean that he personally created it but through government created it. That's a real stretch [...]
Personally, I think the real stretch is what Republicans would have us believe: that Gore was claiming expertise in information coding, network protocols, and communication systems.
when you consider that ARPANet was created in 1969 and the modern internet was around at least in the early 80's.
The vision that Gore articulated during his congressional service was of an Internet that did not yet exist: a nearly ubiquitous communication medium for enhancing and facilitating education and commerce.
The criticism of what he said is not some Republican/Fox conspiracy
Actually, it is. They are the ones who coined the phrase "invented the internet", and have been using it ever since.
What he said was completely untrue. Like most politicians (Rep or Demo), he took credit for something he had little to do with
Why are you wasting your time discussing it here? Write to Cerf and Kahn and tell them how wrong they are.
He admitted it [...]
Citation please?
It's amazing that people can demonstrate that they don't understand the difference in meaning between "create" and "invent", even right after that distinction is pointed out to them.
For all those that say Gore didn't claim to invent the net I include the following.
Ok, so you indicate that you're about to show that he claimed to have *invented* the internet. But then you quote Gore as having said:
I took the initiative in creating the Internet
I'd just like to make two points here:
1) If you question Gore's role in CREATING the internet, why don't you read what the guys who INVENTED the internet have to say about the matter.
2) "Invent" is not the same as "create". Last week I created a meatloaf in my kitchen. I did not *invent* meatloaf.
I think Schwartz misunderstands. IP isn't used to pull you up. It is used to push others down.
As Genghis Khan once noted, both are necessary.
Or "they don't call it the STRONG force for yucks."
Yes, but there's a reason there aren't that many elements with high atomic number, and the ones that are synthesized with fusion don't last very long.
Actually, a photon cannot split into an electron-positron pair. It's *nothingness*, or more precisely, quantum fluctuations in the vacuum, from which pair production occurs. To see why a photon cannot splot into an e-p+ pair, consider the system from the rest frame (center of momentum frame) of the pair. The pair has zero momentum, obviously (their individual momenta cancel), but the photon is still travelling at c (albeit possibly with some other frequency) and hence has non-zero momenta.
But there are charged blackholes [yadda yadda yadda]
Yeah? So?
I suppose you could have an electric version of a black hole
Not likely, and even if so, not for very long. What would hold this enormous amount of like-charged particles together? (Note: the electromagnetic force is way stronger than gravity.) But even if you had the electric equivalent of a black hole, it wouldn't last very long, because it would only attract oppositely charged particles, and they would reduce the net charge on the "hole".
Put another way, charge aggregation is a negative feedback loop, whereas mass aggregation is a positive feedback loop.