I'll buy that. But do I have to get my "gee whiz" factor from something that goes "boom!" ?
Nyah...
Anyway, it only takes one gee whiz item to hook a kid. There must be dozens of things kids can get the gee whiz factor from without it becoming a potential weapon.
My bad. My point was that we can't always just spout off just "cuz the consteetution sez so". That is what a lot of people think the 1st amendment means. The trade secret exception was only a (poor) example. The top-secret exception is a good example though.
There's a difference between publishing chemical formulas that take education to read vs. publishing bomb construction instructions. As a chemist you might know that "if I mix this and this, then light this, and run away, it will go boom". And you would know that because of your hard won knowledge. Telling every joe on the street how to do that though, would be obviously unwise.
So, why don't all the violent types just go get educated and then make things boom? Well, they could. But in the process of becoming educated, your viewpoints tend to get tempered. You're not as likely to abuse your knowledge because you're probably more understanding, and because you've now got more to lose (since education typically = better future).
That then, is the "geek bar". There is a bar of entry; a standard; an initiation; a price of admission. Call it what you want. The fact is that if you are given technology without having the means to understand it well enough to control it, then you probably shouldn't have it in the first place.
So, I'll maintain that chemistry experiments/literature is a good thing as it leads one to the path of the prerequisite knowledge required for responsible action. However, is a bomb cookbook OK? I don't think so.
Actually, I was quoting something I read on the site that may or may not be true. IANAL and all that. Let us know when you find it.
BTW - There are other laws against publishing materials that clearly do not (according to the courts violate) the 1st amendment. How else do corporate trade secrets and national top-secret materials avoid getting published? Yeah, that's an obvious case, but it just points out that the 1st amendment is not an absolute, despite what every ignoramus who doesn't know any better will tell you.
Yeah, they're using more muscle than what they needed. They really didn't need to seize all of his political literature, unless maybe they consider it evidence of his highly anti-establishment attitude.
It all seems a bit extreme. But didn't he break the law? Isn't the law a good one? I mean, how many of us really want our neighbors and other assorted yokels having the knowledge to construct bombs out of legally available materials? I'm not so sure I want that available to everyone.
It's one thing to have and even construct guns. Bombs are a whole new level though. It may infringe on his free speech rights, but his free speech can easily lead to depriving someone else (or many others) of their lives.
Being a resident of the Twin Cities, and an occasional traveler, I find it somewhat amazing that they're offering wireless at all. Not much to say about that.. it could be nice.
However, it's going to be somewhat worthless to offer your travelers wireless without also giving them a place to plug in your laptop. Yes, I know laptops have batteries and don't have to be plugged in to be used. However, if you're like me, you hoard your battery's power for the actual flight instead of using it in the terminal. It *IS* possible to plug in at the terminal, but outlets are far and few in between, and you have to work around the rechargeable golf carts (or whatever they call those things) and other laptop users.
Lastly, with all the other concerns they have at airports these days, I am doubly amazed that they have the time to think about this. Not that I mind, it just makes me wonder.
You're correct in that files which contain the hives will be defragged. However, this technique still won't defrag the registry's internal data. For that you have to use a utility like RegCompact.
You ought to take this post and repost it in response to every new story that applies to life decisions. Then see how many times you get modded up for this.
The "average geek" uses way too much bandwidth for stupid things though. Like how many of us really need to download 50GB/month of MP3's and pr0n (which usually just gets deleted shortly after DL anyway)? Why do we do it then? Because we can!
Start metering a bit and people will trim down their consumption of bandwidth. Give me a 5GB cap and charge me a set amount for every 1GB after that. But, DO NOT tell me you're going to charge me per month for every PC I hook up on my connection. THAT pisses me off and it isn't even fair.
I do this all the time under Windows XP. I don't use squid obviously, but another proxy program (there's plenty of free/cheap ones out there!) Put a decent IP stack firewall on the machine, shut down all unecesary services, make sure you don't open up too many ports, and you've got a reasonably secure machine. (No, I **WON'T** give you my IP "just to check".;+)
I suppose it's *possible* for them to detect that I have more than 1 machine hooked up, but they're not savvy enough. Bottom line though is that if they come knocking for more cash, I will yank my cable service, my broadband PC service, and everything else. They won't get a dime out of me after that. I won't tolerate any more price jacking from those bastards. It's just not worth it. I send them almost $100 USD a month, and that's too much already. I sense I'm not alone.
(Side rant: You pay for cable right? They why do cable stations have so many f*cking ads??!!!)
It's new because they currently do have to throw away the chip, for a number of reasons. If you eliminate the traditional materials and start using nano-circuits, then don't you eliminate all the usual reasons you would discard a chip?
Granted the concept isn't new, but isn't this still going to make circuit production a lot cheaper?
I guess the "meaningful" bit is a bit hard to define and it's probably too subjective to be measurable. However, I can think of some ways that research can be NOT meaningful:
-Research which is sponsered by a 3rd party which is conducted largely for the purpose of enriching that 3rd party.
-Research for which the results do not contribute into lasting knowledge bases (e.g. assisting with measuring the height of Mt. Everest).
-Research which will not advance the state of the art, but will instead, merely produce a new invention that takes advantage of well known principles.
Perhaps the question for any project shouldn't be "is it meaningful?", the question should maybe be "has it not been proven to be not meaningful?"
IMO - Universities ought to be concerned with the more theoretical matters and companies ought to be more concerned with the practical applications of those results. One will always feed the other, but they must each remain separate in order for both of them to accomplish their relevant organizational goals.
Like nomadic, who replied above, I also suffered through a public university. In my case, the computer science program was barely able to afford the basics. This is in Minnesota, USA which is one of the most highly taxed regions of the country and yet, we could barely afford the basics. I paid my own tuition, I paid for my own meals, I paid my own room and board, and I worked the $4.25/hour jobs to do it. I emerged from school with much less debt than my coastal peers and, for the most part, with much more willingness to bust my ass to succeed.
To me, that is valuable. Having a role in remeasuring Mt. Everst, Legos products, and other commercial innovations is interesting to be sure. However, if we don't afford our students a bit of hardship, then how are they to have enough character to make real contributions to the world and not just invent the next profit margin gimmick? MIT may have done some important things in the past (and are probably doing so right now in some ways), but it didn't do those because they had every convenience and plush toy available to them. Why should that be the case now? If I provide all those extras, who am I going to attract? Will I attract those with an interest in being among the elite? Or will I attract those with an interest in being merely comfortable? If I simply provide an education with a reputation for producing lean and mean technologists, who will I attract? I will attract those who are motivated to become better.
As for professors, I do not begrudge any professor their salary. They put up with way too much for the likes of me to badmouth them. But there's a limit there too.
Excessive comfort does not promote real innovation.
I'm not sympathetic to edu's that want a free ride for all sorts of worthless research. It's especially bad when they start consorting with companies for all sort of bennies that have nothing to do with *meaningful* research. This not only diverts them from more meaningful activity, but it propagates the sort of economic bloat that gets passed on to consumers and/or taxpayers, directly and indirectly.
Maybe we'll start seeing some more great things from MIT (and other schools) as the economy forces them to focus on their core goals again.
I very much doubt that the bulk of that money is accounted for by equipment. Instead, I'm pretty sure that the bulk of that money is spent on the effort. It takes time to get a warrant, it takes time to hook up the equipment, it takes time to monitor the data, it takes time to analyze the data, and it takes time to get another warrant and start the whole process over when the bad guys mobilize.
I mean, there's probably a really good reason why MS is buying the patents. Like, perhaps they're sick of paying licensing fees to SGI for those patents?
Stop taking shots at the proto-typical "VB programmer". For starters, we have feelings too. Secondly, most of us who use VB and other dumbed-down tools at work do so for two reasons:
1. Our employer requires it.
2. It lets us get things done very quickly.
But I suppose you think everything should be written in C right? Where's my freedom of choice in that?!
Slashdot Mirror
" If you're looking for something free, well you might as well stick to Notepad++ because that's probably the most you'll get for 0.00$"
You mean, aside from emacs, vim, and the myriad other tools out there? There really is an embarrassment of riches out there from which to choose.
I'll buy that. But do I have to get my "gee whiz" factor from something that goes "boom!" ?
Nyah...
Anyway, it only takes one gee whiz item to hook a kid. There must be dozens of things kids can get the gee whiz factor from without it becoming a potential weapon.
My bad. My point was that we can't always just spout off just "cuz the consteetution sez so". That is what a lot of people think the 1st amendment means. The trade secret exception was only a (poor) example. The top-secret exception is a good example though.
There's a difference between publishing chemical formulas that take education to read vs. publishing bomb construction instructions. As a chemist you might know that "if I mix this and this, then light this, and run away, it will go boom". And you would know that because of your hard won knowledge. Telling every joe on the street how to do that though, would be obviously unwise.
So, why don't all the violent types just go get educated and then make things boom? Well, they could. But in the process of becoming educated, your viewpoints tend to get tempered. You're not as likely to abuse your knowledge because you're probably more understanding, and because you've now got more to lose (since education typically = better future).
That then, is the "geek bar". There is a bar of entry; a standard; an initiation; a price of admission. Call it what you want. The fact is that if you are given technology without having the means to understand it well enough to control it, then you probably shouldn't have it in the first place.
So, I'll maintain that chemistry experiments/literature is a good thing as it leads one to the path of the prerequisite knowledge required for responsible action. However, is a bomb cookbook OK? I don't think so.
Actually, I was quoting something I read on the site that may or may not be true. IANAL and all that. Let us know when you find it.
BTW - There are other laws against publishing materials that clearly do not (according to the courts violate) the 1st amendment. How else do corporate trade secrets and national top-secret materials avoid getting published? Yeah, that's an obvious case, but it just points out that the 1st amendment is not an absolute, despite what every ignoramus who doesn't know any better will tell you.
Is it really any more complicated than that?
Yeah, they're using more muscle than what they needed. They really didn't need to seize all of his political literature, unless maybe they consider it evidence of his highly anti-establishment attitude.
It all seems a bit extreme. But didn't he break the law? Isn't the law a good one? I mean, how many of us really want our neighbors and other assorted yokels having the knowledge to construct bombs out of legally available materials? I'm not so sure I want that available to everyone.
It's one thing to have and even construct guns. Bombs are a whole new level though. It may infringe on his free speech rights, but his free speech can easily lead to depriving someone else (or many others) of their lives.
I evidently do not fly enough as I had not scrounged around enough to find all of this.
What desks? Argh!
BTW - I've only ever attempted to use my laptop in the airport while I'm at the gate. I suppose that was my most critical error.
Being a resident of the Twin Cities, and an occasional traveler, I find it somewhat amazing that they're offering wireless at all. Not much to say about that.. it could be nice.
However, it's going to be somewhat worthless to offer your travelers wireless without also giving them a place to plug in your laptop. Yes, I know laptops have batteries and don't have to be plugged in to be used. However, if you're like me, you hoard your battery's power for the actual flight instead of using it in the terminal. It *IS* possible to plug in at the terminal, but outlets are far and few in between, and you have to work around the rechargeable golf carts (or whatever they call those things) and other laptop users.
Lastly, with all the other concerns they have at airports these days, I am doubly amazed that they have the time to think about this. Not that I mind, it just makes me wonder.
You're correct in that files which contain the hives will be defragged. However, this technique still won't defrag the registry's internal data. For that you have to use a utility like RegCompact.
You ought to take this post and repost it in response to every new story that applies to life decisions. Then see how many times you get modded up for this.
It really is amazing...
The "average geek" uses way too much bandwidth for stupid things though. Like how many of us really need to download 50GB/month of MP3's and pr0n (which usually just gets deleted shortly after DL anyway)? Why do we do it then? Because we can!
Start metering a bit and people will trim down their consumption of bandwidth. Give me a 5GB cap and charge me a set amount for every 1GB after that. But, DO NOT tell me you're going to charge me per month for every PC I hook up on my connection. THAT pisses me off and it isn't even fair.
So what do you think are his currrent odds of finishing the series given his current state of progress?
Clue: equals zilch
Too sad...
I do this all the time under Windows XP. I don't use squid obviously, but another proxy program (there's plenty of free/cheap ones out there!) Put a decent IP stack firewall on the machine, shut down all unecesary services, make sure you don't open up too many ports, and you've got a reasonably secure machine. (No, I **WON'T** give you my IP "just to check". ;+)
I suppose it's *possible* for them to detect that I have more than 1 machine hooked up, but they're not savvy enough. Bottom line though is that if they come knocking for more cash, I will yank my cable service, my broadband PC service, and everything else. They won't get a dime out of me after that. I won't tolerate any more price jacking from those bastards. It's just not worth it. I send them almost $100 USD a month, and that's too much already. I sense I'm not alone.
(Side rant: You pay for cable right? They why do cable stations have so many f*cking ads??!!!)
Umm... like I said:
"Must be all that vapor."
Because the repair is pre-sales. Besides, they might not even know the repair occurred if other technology repaired it automatically.
At the end of the line, if the chip passes its test suite, why would they tell us anyway? It works...
Not my area but...
It's new because they currently do have to throw away the chip, for a number of reasons. If you eliminate the traditional materials and start using nano-circuits, then don't you eliminate all the usual reasons you would discard a chip?
Granted the concept isn't new, but isn't this still going to make circuit production a lot cheaper?
I know this is all still a bit sci-fi, but if we could finally put together NanoBots.... it kinda boggles the imagination.
It has applications in:
-consumer electronics
-medicine
-military (covert, weapons, etc.)
-industrial machinery
-nano-tech - nano-bots that construct other nano-bots
-ad infinitum...
It makes me light headed just thinking about it. Must be all that vapor.
;+)
And in the case of Bell Labs, my theory would state that research would have been more appropriately conducted at a university.
:+)
But, we can thank our lucky stars that wasn't what happened.
I guess the "meaningful" bit is a bit hard to define and it's probably too subjective to be measurable. However, I can think of some ways that research can be NOT meaningful:
-Research which is sponsered by a 3rd party which is conducted largely for the purpose of enriching that 3rd party.
-Research for which the results do not contribute into lasting knowledge bases (e.g. assisting with measuring the height of Mt. Everest).
-Research which will not advance the state of the art, but will instead, merely produce a new invention that takes advantage of well known principles.
Perhaps the question for any project shouldn't be "is it meaningful?", the question should maybe be "has it not been proven to be not meaningful?"
IMO - Universities ought to be concerned with the more theoretical matters and companies ought to be more concerned with the practical applications of those results. One will always feed the other, but they must each remain separate in order for both of them to accomplish their relevant organizational goals.
Like nomadic, who replied above, I also suffered through a public university. In my case, the computer science program was barely able to afford the basics. This is in Minnesota, USA which is one of the most highly taxed regions of the country and yet, we could barely afford the basics. I paid my own tuition, I paid for my own meals, I paid my own room and board, and I worked the $4.25/hour jobs to do it. I emerged from school with much less debt than my coastal peers and, for the most part, with much more willingness to bust my ass to succeed.
To me, that is valuable. Having a role in remeasuring Mt. Everst, Legos products, and other commercial innovations is interesting to be sure. However, if we don't afford our students a bit of hardship, then how are they to have enough character to make real contributions to the world and not just invent the next profit margin gimmick? MIT may have done some important things in the past (and are probably doing so right now in some ways), but it didn't do those because they had every convenience and plush toy available to them. Why should that be the case now? If I provide all those extras, who am I going to attract? Will I attract those with an interest in being among the elite? Or will I attract those with an interest in being merely comfortable? If I simply provide an education with a reputation for producing lean and mean technologists, who will I attract? I will attract those who are motivated to become better.
As for professors, I do not begrudge any professor their salary. They put up with way too much for the likes of me to badmouth them. But there's a limit there too.
Excessive comfort does not promote real innovation.
I'm not sympathetic to edu's that want a free ride for all sorts of worthless research. It's especially bad when they start consorting with companies for all sort of bennies that have nothing to do with *meaningful* research. This not only diverts them from more meaningful activity, but it propagates the sort of economic bloat that gets passed on to consumers and/or taxpayers, directly and indirectly.
Maybe we'll start seeing some more great things from MIT (and other schools) as the economy forces them to focus on their core goals again.
I very much doubt that the bulk of that money is accounted for by equipment. Instead, I'm pretty sure that the bulk of that money is spent on the effort. It takes time to get a warrant, it takes time to hook up the equipment, it takes time to monitor the data, it takes time to analyze the data, and it takes time to get another warrant and start the whole process over when the bad guys mobilize.
I mean, there's probably a really good reason why MS is buying the patents. Like, perhaps they're sick of paying licensing fees to SGI for those patents?
Duh!
In another posting in another discussion, I suggested that top-level articles be subject to moderation, with all the gimmicks that apply.
:+{
I was mod'ded up twice, then mod'ded down twice.
Net result: No one will see the idea.
Stop taking shots at the proto-typical "VB programmer". For starters, we have feelings too. Secondly, most of us who use VB and other dumbed-down tools at work do so for two reasons:
1. Our employer requires it.
2. It lets us get things done very quickly.
But I suppose you think everything should be written in C right? Where's my freedom of choice in that?!