This is one of those "Why didn't I think of that" ideas. It facinated me as a kid how a matchstick sized bundle of nerves in charge of smell was able to renerate itself in about a month. Apparently even a strong sneeze can rip it up, but back it comes a few weeks later. I always wondered why these nerves could and other central nervous system parts. Looks like someone else decided "Who cares why? Nerves are nerves, lets use 'em."
That was my point. You get to choose 1 tag, and only 1 tag. Think of it like the Dewey Decimal system: each book was tagged with an ID number that related to the subject. If you wanted fiction, you went to the fiction section. There were subcategories if you were so inclined. Google could do the same: publish a system of tags (they could be numeric), and Google would only accept 1 tag per page.
Now could someone come up with some dynamic way of fooling Google, possibly. But the folks at Google are smart too.
It's not just porn that needs filtering. Ever do research on Google and have to wade through tons of irrelelivant hits? I honestly think Google could improve searching and help people self select content in one stroke. A quick metatag, or equivalent, that encodes subject type and maturity level would be happily picked up by web designers... if it helps drive traffic. And it could. If Google had an option that let you say "I want to limit to X" then those people who are promoting "X" will be highly motivated to include that tag on their page. The tag couldn't be used for multiple subjects, or it would act as a key word search again. But if I could say "I'm looking for an ACADEMIC ABSTRACT" then I won't find porn, commerical sites, or little Susy's musings. I'll find abstracts. On the flip side, a browser filter that people can self select to avoid certain types of content based on the tags isn't censorship. It's personal choice.
Does it also mean that there are so many addresses that unless someone knows your address, they'll never find you? Security by obscurity, if you'll stomach the term. If addresses numbers are scattered enough (random?) then won't it make finding open ports, unsecured services, etc much more difficult for viruses, worms, miscreants, etc by just incrementing IP #s?
A bit of support for what you are saying. Back in grad school (~1994), UIUC, I took an engineering economics course. We had to do a feature pricing model based on surveys. Our team chose as a project the hybrid Ford Escort the auto guys had built. Neat car. Looked just like a regular Escort station wagon (unless you looked under the hood), weighed 400 lbs more (lead batteries), ran on anything from gas to alcohol to whatever, had better acceleration and mileage, still carried 5 people and a full load of cargo, and was by all accounts a simple substitute for a regular Escort. The modifications were estimated to cost $4k. At the end of our statistical surverys, the median price premium people would pay was $400. That was a bit skewed since UIUC is in the middle of corn fields and we interviewed a disproportionate number of farmers who like the idea of an ethanol powered car. Rigourous study? No. But it did drive home that people will pay extra for a hybrid, just not much.
Yeah, the guy may be discussing real stuff, such as Casimir effect and interesting observations, but that alone doesn't make for an enabling invention. The dude is just smart enough to know it could be useful, but not smart enough to make it useful.
If you're willing to do the planting, the National Arbor Day Foundation will send you 10 trees for $10.
http://www.arborday.org/shopping/Memberships/membe rships.cfm
Get 10% of the registered users on Slashdot to sign up for this (and plant them) and you're close to a million.
Oddly enough, from the article it doesn't sound like a perpetual motion machine and more than an orbiting satellite is. Pumping enough energy into a volume to curve space enough to counteract gravity isn't free. In fact, it's incredibly expensive. I'm inclined to agree that if the patent implies the net energy needed is zero, it's effectively a perpetual motion machine. But the article didn't go that far and I'm too lazy to dig further.
On and interesting note, does anyone recall hearing about some sort of nazi pagan cult ufo propulsion device? Used magnetic thrust of some sort. The fact the guys were weirdos of the highest order makes me surprised no one has turned it into a book or movie.
Security means your safe. Dependability could mean that or that you can depend on being shafted on a regular basis. This is MS, so I'm guessing they mean the later.
Point taken, but I was thinking more along the lines of a small one. Or Van de Graaff generator. Something to discourage them from wandering into the house. If someone or something is seriously determined and capable to get you, yeah, splat.
I converted sxc to xls (see other post). Excel opened it in ~ 3 seconds. OO 1.9.122 opened in ~ 20 seconds, but used 137 meg. Would have opened in half the time except for all the auto row height stuff that it did. I'm beginning to suspect Excel is optimized in 2 ways: code size & IO speed. I suspect the IO speed trick is to only load what it required since the HD is busy whenever I go to another part of the document.
Ok, here are my benchmark results:
on
OpenOffice Bloated?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I used the data you suggested. My methodology and note-taking aren't perfect, but here's the lowdown
On a 3.06 GHz Intel with hyperthreading on (though it makes no difference) and 2 Gig of ram OO 1.9.122 vs Excel 2002 SP3 3.4 Meg SVX file vs 191 meg xlm
File load: SXC OO ~3 minutes , XML Excel ~ 1 minute (not including time to unzip and open from withing excel). Memory use (meg): min/typical/max OO 13/115/212 excel 4/45/65 (yes, 4 meg with a 191 meg file open, go figure !?!?!) proc load: 100% during load times for both on "1" processor (HT did not help)
I saved the sxc file as ods and xls versions (hadn't figured out loading the zip into excel at that point). 3.9 meg and 49.5 meg file size repectively.
File load: ods OO ~1 minute, xls Excel ~3 seconds Memory use (meg): min/typical/max OO ?/72/72 Excel ?/91/91 proc load: 100% during load times for both on "1" processor (HT did not help)
Seems the Excel has some advantage in extreme situations but the caveat mileage may vary seems to apply.
If OO would run twice as fast or use half the memory, I'd be willing to pay twice as much!
From the NPR report this morning, it seems to revolve around use of the seal of the president for commercial purposes. Pretty cut and dried. Everyone else from IBM to the Red Cross protects their identification. The question is: Is the Onion the only high profile entity to use the symbol? I don't know. Does Saturday Night Live use the exact symbol? Or do they change it slightly? Seems the Onion could do the same. Everybody goes away happy.
I got a little misty eyed remembering talk and write too. Back before the internet became a crowded and you actually knew a percentage of the people using it. We used talk more than email. Write was for when you wanted to scare people.
Since ICANN is private, there's the little matter of how the US could legally hand it to anybody. Legistlative branch could legistlate it in such a way that ICANN must defer to a governing body. Or the executive branch could use eminent domain (there's a pun in there somewhere) to take over ICANN, then hand it to a governing body. Both would require a degree of willpower that just isn't there. Other countries can decry US policy until they are blue, but none of the threats I've seen would motivate either branch. More likely to do the opposite. This is a time for carrots, not sticks.
Or the UN could come up with a plan that ICANN likes, that the US doesn't object enough to for some official to monkey wrench it, and you have your new governing body. Again, carrots, not sticks.
Unfortunately, UPU and ITU are not good examples. Yes, they do a good job setting standards. But they don't administer post offices or telephone exchanges. Every decision they make takes time to evolve and takes even more time to implement. Running root servers allows and requires meddling on a second by second basis. So far, ICANN has been relatively benign because they report to only one neglectful master with laws against restricting information (a whole different debate). Policy has been to keep root servers serving. But when you turn it over to a group with varied agendas, things get Machiavelian (sp?) fast! And policies can be implemented faster than they can be debated.
Justices generally recuse themselves from cases involving possible conficts of interest. Since she was Microsofts attorney, any case of theirs that reaches SCOTUS will likely trigger her recusing. So if she is pro-microsoft, even indirectly such as supporting the rights of large corporations, the balance of the court shifts against MS. On the other hand, if working with MS left a bad taste for corporations, having her off the case is a plus for MS.
They're called lobbyists. There are hundreds, if not thousands, here promoting the agendas of their employers from other countries. They represent governments, companies, and individuals. If you want to send a Dutch advisor, go for it. Very likely there's already one here, but feel free to send another. Nobody will care or notice.
Pipe down. Reasoned submissions will not be tolerated. Please refrain from reading the articles and get back to ranting about misconceptions like everyone else.
Why do you think we have so many lawyers? As everyone is quick to point out, war is bad. Diplomacy goes both ways. But drop 100,000 lawyers on some poor country, and you quickly overwhelm them. No legal system can endure. Not a drop of blood spilled and a country is brought to its knees. Plus the lawyers bill the victim.
Still, it is rather expensive to feed and house a standing army of lawyers.
I get the joke, but gliders look more like a U2 plane (the U2 has been called a glider with jet engines). Pretty fun to fly. I'm still just a student but have stayed up for hours, gained altitude, and done 120 knots. Not bad for no engine. Haven't seen any pilots eating fish, but powdered donuts are strangely popular.
Slashdot Mirror
This is one of those "Why didn't I think of that" ideas. It facinated me as a kid how a matchstick sized bundle of nerves in charge of smell was able to renerate itself in about a month. Apparently even a strong sneeze can rip it up, but back it comes a few weeks later. I always wondered why these nerves could and other central nervous system parts. Looks like someone else decided "Who cares why? Nerves are nerves, lets use 'em."
That was my point. You get to choose 1 tag, and only 1 tag. Think of it like the Dewey Decimal system: each book was tagged with an ID number that related to the subject. If you wanted fiction, you went to the fiction section. There were subcategories if you were so inclined. Google could do the same: publish a system of tags (they could be numeric), and Google would only accept 1 tag per page.
Now could someone come up with some dynamic way of fooling Google, possibly. But the folks at Google are smart too.
It's not just porn that needs filtering. Ever do research on Google and have to wade through tons of irrelelivant hits? I honestly think Google could improve searching and help people self select content in one stroke. A quick metatag, or equivalent, that encodes subject type and maturity level would be happily picked up by web designers ... if it helps drive traffic. And it could. If Google had an option that let you say "I want to limit to X" then those people who are promoting "X" will be highly motivated to include that tag on their page. The tag couldn't be used for multiple subjects, or it would act as a key word search again. But if I could say "I'm looking for an ACADEMIC ABSTRACT" then I won't find porn, commerical sites, or little Susy's musings. I'll find abstracts. On the flip side, a browser filter that people can self select to avoid certain types of content based on the tags isn't censorship. It's personal choice.
Does it also mean that there are so many addresses that unless someone knows your address, they'll never find you? Security by obscurity, if you'll stomach the term. If addresses numbers are scattered enough (random?) then won't it make finding open ports, unsecured services, etc much more difficult for viruses, worms, miscreants, etc by just incrementing IP #s?
1: wait for them to be sold commercially for significantly more than $100 http://edition.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/11/17/tu nisia.technology.ap/index.html
or
2: wait for some enterprising thief to steal them in mass from the kids and sell them on Ebay for less than the commercial price. Possibly way less.
So if you don't mind making some little kid cry, you don't ahve to wait long.
A bit of support for what you are saying. Back in grad school (~1994), UIUC, I took an engineering economics course. We had to do a feature pricing model based on surveys. Our team chose as a project the hybrid Ford Escort the auto guys had built. Neat car. Looked just like a regular Escort station wagon (unless you looked under the hood), weighed 400 lbs more (lead batteries), ran on anything from gas to alcohol to whatever, had better acceleration and mileage, still carried 5 people and a full load of cargo, and was by all accounts a simple substitute for a regular Escort. The modifications were estimated to cost $4k. At the end of our statistical surverys, the median price premium people would pay was $400. That was a bit skewed since UIUC is in the middle of corn fields and we interviewed a disproportionate number of farmers who like the idea of an ethanol powered car. Rigourous study? No. But it did drive home that people will pay extra for a hybrid, just not much.
Yeah, the guy may be discussing real stuff, such as Casimir effect and interesting observations, but that alone doesn't make for an enabling invention. The dude is just smart enough to know it could be useful, but not smart enough to make it useful.
If you're willing to do the planting, the National Arbor Day Foundation will send you 10 trees for $10. http://www.arborday.org/shopping/Memberships/membe rships.cfm
Get 10% of the registered users on Slashdot to sign up for this (and plant them) and you're close to a million.
Oddly enough, from the article it doesn't sound like a perpetual motion machine and more than an orbiting satellite is. Pumping enough energy into a volume to curve space enough to counteract gravity isn't free. In fact, it's incredibly expensive. I'm inclined to agree that if the patent implies the net energy needed is zero, it's effectively a perpetual motion machine. But the article didn't go that far and I'm too lazy to dig further. On and interesting note, does anyone recall hearing about some sort of nazi pagan cult ufo propulsion device? Used magnetic thrust of some sort. The fact the guys were weirdos of the highest order makes me surprised no one has turned it into a book or movie.
Speaking of VMWare and its ilk, does anyone care to predict if OSX will run on top of Linux or other OS's? Can the TPM functions be faked out?
Security means your safe. Dependability could mean that or that you can depend on being shafted on a regular basis. This is MS, so I'm guessing they mean the later.
Point taken, but I was thinking more along the lines of a small one. Or Van de Graaff generator. Something to discourage them from wandering into the house. If someone or something is seriously determined and capable to get you, yeah, splat.
Just a guess, but maybe a Tesla coil would work. Probably the equivalent of fingernails on a chalkboard to sentient electronics.
I converted sxc to xls (see other post). Excel opened it in ~ 3 seconds. OO 1.9.122 opened in ~ 20 seconds, but used 137 meg. Would have opened in half the time except for all the auto row height stuff that it did. I'm beginning to suspect Excel is optimized in 2 ways: code size & IO speed. I suspect the IO speed trick is to only load what it required since the HD is busy whenever I go to another part of the document.
I used the data you suggested. My methodology and note-taking aren't perfect, but here's the lowdown
On a 3.06 GHz Intel with hyperthreading on (though it makes no difference) and 2 Gig of ram
OO 1.9.122 vs Excel 2002 SP3
3.4 Meg SVX file vs 191 meg xlm
File load: SXC OO ~3 minutes , XML Excel ~ 1 minute (not including time to unzip and open from withing excel).
Memory use (meg): min/typical/max OO 13/115/212 excel 4/45/65 (yes, 4 meg with a 191 meg file open, go figure !?!?!)
proc load: 100% during load times for both on "1" processor (HT did not help)
I saved the sxc file as ods and xls versions (hadn't figured out loading the zip into excel at that point). 3.9 meg and 49.5 meg file size repectively.
File load: ods OO ~1 minute, xls Excel ~3 seconds
Memory use (meg): min/typical/max OO ?/72/72 Excel ?/91/91
proc load: 100% during load times for both on "1" processor (HT did not help)
Seems the Excel has some advantage in extreme situations but the caveat mileage may vary seems to apply.
If OO would run twice as fast or use half the memory, I'd be willing to pay twice as much!
From the NPR report this morning, it seems to revolve around use of the seal of the president for commercial purposes. Pretty cut and dried. Everyone else from IBM to the Red Cross protects their identification. The question is: Is the Onion the only high profile entity to use the symbol? I don't know. Does Saturday Night Live use the exact symbol? Or do they change it slightly? Seems the Onion could do the same. Everybody goes away happy.
I got a little misty eyed remembering talk and write too. Back before the internet became a crowded and you actually knew a percentage of the people using it. We used talk more than email. Write was for when you wanted to scare people.
Since ICANN is private, there's the little matter of how the US could legally hand it to anybody. Legistlative branch could legistlate it in such a way that ICANN must defer to a governing body. Or the executive branch could use eminent domain (there's a pun in there somewhere) to take over ICANN, then hand it to a governing body. Both would require a degree of willpower that just isn't there. Other countries can decry US policy until they are blue, but none of the threats I've seen would motivate either branch. More likely to do the opposite. This is a time for carrots, not sticks.
Or the UN could come up with a plan that ICANN likes, that the US doesn't object enough to for some official to monkey wrench it, and you have your new governing body. Again, carrots, not sticks.
Unfortunately, UPU and ITU are not good examples. Yes, they do a good job setting standards. But they don't administer post offices or telephone exchanges. Every decision they make takes time to evolve and takes even more time to implement. Running root servers allows and requires meddling on a second by second basis. So far, ICANN has been relatively benign because they report to only one neglectful master with laws against restricting information (a whole different debate). Policy has been to keep root servers serving. But when you turn it over to a group with varied agendas, things get Machiavelian (sp?) fast! And policies can be implemented faster than they can be debated.
Justices generally recuse themselves from cases involving possible conficts of interest. Since she was Microsofts attorney, any case of theirs that reaches SCOTUS will likely trigger her recusing. So if she is pro-microsoft, even indirectly such as supporting the rights of large corporations, the balance of the court shifts against MS. On the other hand, if working with MS left a bad taste for corporations, having her off the case is a plus for MS.
They're called lobbyists. There are hundreds, if not thousands, here promoting the agendas of their employers from other countries. They represent governments, companies, and individuals. If you want to send a Dutch advisor, go for it. Very likely there's already one here, but feel free to send another. Nobody will care or notice.
Pipe down. Reasoned submissions will not be tolerated. Please refrain from reading the articles and get back to ranting about misconceptions like everyone else.
Why do you think we have so many lawyers? As everyone is quick to point out, war is bad. Diplomacy goes both ways. But drop 100,000 lawyers on some poor country, and you quickly overwhelm them. No legal system can endure. Not a drop of blood spilled and a country is brought to its knees. Plus the lawyers bill the victim.
Still, it is rather expensive to feed and house a standing army of lawyers.
I get the joke, but gliders look more like a U2 plane (the U2 has been called a glider with jet engines). Pretty fun to fly. I'm still just a student but have stayed up for hours, gained altitude, and done 120 knots. Not bad for no engine. Haven't seen any pilots eating fish, but powdered donuts are strangely popular.
more information on the bug at: www.youissostupid.ru/scriptyuiopuioqwhjklfashuiopy uiopuiopuiopuouihjklasd-2789789-hfsjadkhuiof