What if for some reason you need to get somewhere in a hurry? I know I wouldn't give a shit about speed limits in such a situation, especially since no one obeys them anyway.
Maybe it's different in Britain though. I imagine there is less road there.
It's from Titan.
I recall seeing that picture as part of the first group of pictures Huygens sent back to be made public. Though it was in black and white initially.
An Anonymous Reader wrote in with a story on the Slashdot site, reporting that the Slashdot editors are going to keep control of the Duping System rather than handing it over to intelligent moderators that would be capable of successfully weeding out repeated stores. From the article: "...Slashdot is committed to taking no action when it sees a repeated story arrive for publication on its website, as this would have the potential to positively impact the effective and efficient operation of Slashdot.org.
>> "but I think there's a certain sense of freedom and independence embodied >> in American culture, and that freedom is alluring and infectious."
>...at least until the Patriot Act was created.
Bullshit.
The Patriot Act might unnecessarily narrow a few freedoms. For that it is a bad law. But it did not eliminate the "sense of freedom and independence embodied in American culture."
Now maybe you will say that people in the US are not as involved in government as they should be or can't notice the erosion of their freedoms taking place, and that might be a valid point. But I can't see any way the US populace would tolerate anything even close to the kind mass censorship of the internet the chinese government has instituted.
At least in the US you are still free to say whatever you want whereever you want to say it (for the most part, excluding fire in a crowded theater references). That is far beyond what the Chinese are capable of and it is precisely because of the "sense of freedom and independence embodied in American culture" that we still have that right.
I don't really see the Patriot Act as even really limiting when talking about that kind of basic freedom. I mean, so the FBI can now figure out what you checked out from the library. It still doesn't prohibit you from checking it out. In a lot of respects the Patriot Act is more a violation of privacy than basic freedom.
By simply pouring in billions of lobbying dollars, they are able to convince legislators with limited technological knowledge that they have the only viable platform and are able to successfully obfuscate the myriad of problems that their platform brings with it.
Well it can vary from user to user. The "ratio" you refer to would depend on the RWIN (TCP Receive window size) set in the OS and/or router. This controls how much data is recieved before an acknowledgement packet is sent.
Yours appears to be around 40k. But if I recall correctly the default on Win 98 and other older systems was sometimes as low as 8k, which would be in line with what the grandparent saw.
I would be interested to know what OS he was running.
You forgot the game price in your Windows numbers. You're not going to get the game free when you buy Windows (unless you pirate, but then you could do that for Linux too).
So it really is:
Windows Home = $100~ Windows Pro = $130~ Game X = $40-50 Total w/Windows Home = $140~$150 Total w/Windows Pro = $170~$180
Actually I haven't taken any algorithms classes yet, but that's a good thing to remember.
One thing though, wouldn't it still be linear for the entire process? I mean I understand what you are saying as far as the algorithm goes. It's not necessarily going to take twice as long for the algorithm that creates the index to run createIndex(a,b,c,d) compared to createIndex(a,b).
But you still have to scan twice as many files to derive the inputs. How could that part not be linear?
Wow, thanks for catching that. I had it right up to the point where I stopped, but I forgot the last step. I calculated a time of 2 hours for each GB instead of 2 hours for each block of 120 GB. 83,000 / 120 is indeed 660.
The funny thing is I got an A in Calc III last semester.;)
Well considering that Spotlight took about 2 hours to index my 120 GB drive, that would be (347 * 1024^2) * 2 = 72771174 hours = 83,000 years to index that much data.
Now I'm sure the gov would use a faster system than my laptop, but still!
Ok, I was tempted to make a pr0n joke about this, but I think the bigger question is what kind of indexing system will this use?
I haven't seen any software system that can reliably scale to that level and still make any kind of sense for someone that wants to find a piece of data in that haystack, err. haybarn.
So what are the space shuttle and NASA trying to accomplish
How about:
1. Exploring space (could be key to our future if something ever happens to earth)
2. Testing and developing new technologies to advance space flight, aviation, and other areas that wind up being useful here (velcro, etc.)
3. Eventually building space habitats that more people will be able to visit. ISS is for scientific purposes, but several private companies have already put forward plans to put up space hotels, resorts, etc. A lot of them use technology developed by NASA.
4. AI. Robotics has made large advancements thanks to NASA and the space program.
5. Developing new propulsion methods. Several preliminary designs for commercial hypersonic aircraft are based on NASA tech.
I could continue.
that cannot be accomplished with cheaper and safer unmanned missions
I'm not saying the same could not be accomplished using some better or cheaper methods. My beef was that, instead of suggesting such alternative methods, the article writer basically just insulted some very brave men and women who gave their lives for the advancement of science.
Again though, if you are referring to the ones on/. almost all of those have dealt with software patents. I just don't think analyzing that one category can give you enough information to determine if patents are good or bad in the general case. It certainly demonstrates one of the ways they can not be helpful, but that may not be sufficient cause to pass final judgement on all patents.
I took particular offense to this passage:
The gross glutted wealth of the federal government; the venality and stupidity of our representatives; the lobbying power of big rent-seeking corporations; the romantic enthusiasms of millions of citizens; these are the things that 14 astronauts died for. To abandon all euphemism and pretense, they died for pork, for votes, for share prices, and for thrills (immediate in their own case, vicarious in ours). I mean no insult to their memories, and I doubt they would take offense.
What a kook! This guy obviously has no background in anything scientific, has absolutely no clue about what the space shuttle or NASA are trying to accomplish and can not analyze anything outside of a patheticly narrow and egotistical political lens.
Not surprising to me though was seeing this kind of an article come from the National Review.
That's why I said "may not have been able to." I don't know if it has been scientifically proven but it is generally agreed upon by a majority of economists that it does promote innovation in some sense (not referring to software patents).
Another example where patents are interfering with innovation and in the end - the end users are suffering the consequences, because far more superior product can't see the light due to dirty tricks of the patent owners
I must take issue with this.
This description is exactly what patents were designed to do, protect the original product from imitators that intrude on its market position. Regardless of how you feel about software patents, in this case the patent concerns an actual product. So I would disagree with your logic of this being "another example" assuming you are referring to the previous patents covered on Slashdot almost all of which were software related. This is a different scenario, and one where I think patents are useful and necessary. Which brings me to my next point.
Whether this harms consumers is another issue. I would say it does and it doesn't. It does in the sense that if PodBuddy is indeed a superior product they will of course not be able to buy it and will have to settle for the inferior original. However, it benefits consumers in another way. That is, if we had no patent system and anyone could produce anything they wanted without restriction you may not have been able to buy either product. If the makers of TransPod had not had the incentive of a patent in developing their product, it may never have been developed and PodBuddy would not have been made to one up it.
Patents are a useful tool in protecting legitamite inventions and they do serve to create innovation there. Of course, whether TransPod qualifies as a legitimate invention is another matter entirely which I haven't touched on. But the point is don't just respond with a knee jerk reaction to any story about someone utilizing a patent with the assumption that they are a greedy monopolist, or patents in general are necessarily bad, etc.
I hope by "extend the standard" they don't mean "basterdize it and then break compatibility with all non-M$ versions" because we've all seen that before.
Unfortunately it is not that simple. You can't consider a decision like this in a vaccuum. It may or may not help New London, but private property rights could stand to suffer significantly in other areas where corporate interests cite this decision in support of their desire to seize ownership of the property of citizens.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want to get your testosterone rush on, then play GTA.
Or go to the track or drag strip. There are places where it is legal to drive at fast speeds in real cars.
What if for some reason you need to get somewhere in a hurry? I know I wouldn't give a shit about speed limits in such a situation, especially since no one obeys them anyway.
Maybe it's different in Britain though. I imagine there is less road there.
It's from Titan. I recall seeing that picture as part of the first group of pictures Huygens sent back to be made public. Though it was in black and white initially.
Slashdot: Slashdot Won't Let Go of Dupes
An Anonymous Reader wrote in with a story on the Slashdot site, reporting that the Slashdot editors are going to keep control of the Duping System rather than handing it over to intelligent moderators that would be capable of successfully weeding out repeated stores. From the article: "...Slashdot is committed to taking no action when it sees a repeated story arrive for publication on its website, as this would have the potential to positively impact the effective and efficient operation of Slashdot.org.
Will they be forced to shut down as a result?
>> "but I think there's a certain sense of freedom and independence embodied
...at least until the Patriot Act was created.
>> in American culture, and that freedom is alluring and infectious."
>
Bullshit.
The Patriot Act might unnecessarily narrow a few freedoms. For that it is a bad law. But it did not eliminate the "sense of freedom and independence embodied in American culture." Now maybe you will say that people in the US are not as involved in government as they should be or can't notice the erosion of their freedoms taking place, and that might be a valid point. But I can't see any way the US populace would tolerate anything even close to the kind mass censorship of the internet the chinese government has instituted.
At least in the US you are still free to say whatever you want whereever you want to say it (for the most part, excluding fire in a crowded theater references). That is far beyond what the Chinese are capable of and it is precisely because of the "sense of freedom and independence embodied in American culture" that we still have that right.
I don't really see the Patriot Act as even really limiting when talking about that kind of basic freedom. I mean, so the FBI can now figure out what you checked out from the library. It still doesn't prohibit you from checking it out. In a lot of respects the Patriot Act is more a violation of privacy than basic freedom.
How could it not be?
By simply pouring in billions of lobbying dollars, they are able to convince legislators with limited technological knowledge that they have the only viable platform and are able to successfully obfuscate the myriad of problems that their platform brings with it.
Well it can vary from user to user. The "ratio" you refer to would depend on the RWIN (TCP Receive window size) set in the OS and/or router. This controls how much data is recieved before an acknowledgement packet is sent.
Yours appears to be around 40k. But if I recall correctly the default on Win 98 and other older systems was sometimes as low as 8k, which would be in line with what the grandparent saw.
I would be interested to know what OS he was running.
You forgot the game price in your Windows numbers. You're not going to get the game free when you buy Windows (unless you pirate, but then you could do that for Linux too).
So it really is:
Windows Home = $100~
Windows Pro = $130~
Game X = $40-50
Total w/Windows Home = $140~$150
Total w/Windows Pro = $170~$180
Making money is more important for corporations than catering to quaint notions like the principles of democracy and freedom of speech.
Actually I haven't taken any algorithms classes yet, but that's a good thing to remember.
One thing though, wouldn't it still be linear for the entire process? I mean I understand what you are saying as far as the algorithm goes. It's not necessarily going to take twice as long for the algorithm that creates the index to run createIndex(a,b,c,d) compared to createIndex(a,b).
But you still have to scan twice as many files to derive the inputs. How could that part not be linear?
Wow, thanks for catching that. I had it right up to the point where I stopped, but I forgot the last step. I calculated a time of 2 hours for each GB instead of 2 hours for each block of 120 GB. 83,000 / 120 is indeed 660.
;)
The funny thing is I got an A in Calc III last semester.
Well considering that Spotlight took about 2 hours to index my 120 GB drive, that would be (347 * 1024^2) * 2 = 72771174 hours = 83,000 years to index that much data.
Now I'm sure the gov would use a faster system than my laptop, but still!
Ok, I was tempted to make a pr0n joke about this, but I think the bigger question is what kind of indexing system will this use?
I haven't seen any software system that can reliably scale to that level and still make any kind of sense for someone that wants to find a piece of data in that haystack, err. haybarn.
Perhaps you missed it but in the post I was replying to the poster asked what "the space shuttle and NASA" were trying to accomplish.
I wasn't saying those things were related to the shuttle directly. I also acknowledged that the shuttle may well not be the best vehicle to use.
So what are the space shuttle and NASA trying to accomplish
How about:
1. Exploring space (could be key to our future if something ever happens to earth)
2. Testing and developing new technologies to advance space flight, aviation, and other areas that wind up being useful here (velcro, etc.)
3. Eventually building space habitats that more people will be able to visit. ISS is for scientific purposes, but several private companies have already put forward plans to put up space hotels, resorts, etc. A lot of them use technology developed by NASA.
4. AI. Robotics has made large advancements thanks to NASA and the space program.
5. Developing new propulsion methods. Several preliminary designs for commercial hypersonic aircraft are based on NASA tech.
I could continue.
that cannot be accomplished with cheaper and safer unmanned missions
I'm not saying the same could not be accomplished using some better or cheaper methods. My beef was that, instead of suggesting such alternative methods, the article writer basically just insulted some very brave men and women who gave their lives for the advancement of science.
Again though, if you are referring to the ones on /. almost all of those have dealt with software patents. I just don't think analyzing that one category can give you enough information to determine if patents are good or bad in the general case. It certainly demonstrates one of the ways they can not be helpful, but that may not be sufficient cause to pass final judgement on all patents.
That article is far from "interesting."
I took particular offense to this passage: The gross glutted wealth of the federal government; the venality and stupidity of our representatives; the lobbying power of big rent-seeking corporations; the romantic enthusiasms of millions of citizens; these are the things that 14 astronauts died for. To abandon all euphemism and pretense, they died for pork, for votes, for share prices, and for thrills (immediate in their own case, vicarious in ours). I mean no insult to their memories, and I doubt they would take offense.
What a kook! This guy obviously has no background in anything scientific, has absolutely no clue about what the space shuttle or NASA are trying to accomplish and can not analyze anything outside of a patheticly narrow and egotistical political lens.
Not surprising to me though was seeing this kind of an article come from the National Review.
That's why I said "may not have been able to." I don't know if it has been scientifically proven but it is generally agreed upon by a majority of economists that it does promote innovation in some sense (not referring to software patents).
His spotty history is well-document in a MacInTouch special report.
Actually there was an entire website started just to inform people of his machinations.
Another example where patents are interfering with innovation and in the end - the end users are suffering the consequences, because far more superior product can't see the light due to dirty tricks of the patent owners
I must take issue with this.
This description is exactly what patents were designed to do, protect the original product from imitators that intrude on its market position. Regardless of how you feel about software patents, in this case the patent concerns an actual product. So I would disagree with your logic of this being "another example" assuming you are referring to the previous patents covered on Slashdot almost all of which were software related. This is a different scenario, and one where I think patents are useful and necessary. Which brings me to my next point.
Whether this harms consumers is another issue. I would say it does and it doesn't. It does in the sense that if PodBuddy is indeed a superior product they will of course not be able to buy it and will have to settle for the inferior original. However, it benefits consumers in another way. That is, if we had no patent system and anyone could produce anything they wanted without restriction you may not have been able to buy either product. If the makers of TransPod had not had the incentive of a patent in developing their product, it may never have been developed and PodBuddy would not have been made to one up it.
Patents are a useful tool in protecting legitamite inventions and they do serve to create innovation there. Of course, whether TransPod qualifies as a legitimate invention is another matter entirely which I haven't touched on. But the point is don't just respond with a knee jerk reaction to any story about someone utilizing a patent with the assumption that they are a greedy monopolist, or patents in general are necessarily bad, etc.
I thought the IETF had already rejected Sender-ID because it was MS proprietary.
I hope by "extend the standard" they don't mean "basterdize it and then break compatibility with all non-M$ versions" because we've all seen that before.
Unfortunately it is not that simple. You can't consider a decision like this in a vaccuum. It may or may not help New London, but private property rights could stand to suffer significantly in other areas where corporate interests cite this decision in support of their desire to seize ownership of the property of citizens.
Oops, you're right. I stopped reading after "it was flushed down the toilet."
I'm not sure I would want mine reattached if that happened to it.