That quote from the FAQ, while certainly misleading, is not incorrect. You don't get charged for being literally a day or two late -- it's only after a week that you `buy' it.
However much I hate to defend Blockbuster, one has to admit that `No late fees if you're a little late' is a more reasonable policy (from the point of view of customers who want movies on the shelves!) than `No late fees ever ever ever'. While the distinction should have been made clear in promotions, I actually like the way it's really set up better.
It is true that no computer can judge the truth or falsity of all postulates. On the other hand, no mathematician can, either, and yet we let them keep working.
The best example of a `This is the end of the old era of [whatever]; now for an era of [senescence/complacence/computer overlords]' statement that I know is by someone high-up in the patent office, in 1975 or so. (I grabbed the quote from a quote book back before the end of books, when everyone burned their libraries in favour of e-books -- remember? Since I can't find it using Google, that vague attribution is as specific as I can get.) He said `It appears that we have reached the limits of the available technology, although one should be careful with such statements, as they tend to sound rather silly in 25 years.'
Predicting that mathematicians will soon be ushered out in favour of faster and more memorious (or whatever) computers is a favourite pasttime of many non-mathematicians, and some mathematicians, but we're still here.
The use of RFID chips in passports is a bad idea
I'm glad I have Slashdot so I know what opinions to have! Linux good! RFID baaaaaad!
Is this better language for the post?
In my opinion, which is in no way endorsed by syrinx, and which I would never inflict on another user, the use of RFID chips is... well, forget it, I'm just imposing now.
I had one of those. Reading the same location at different times gave different results. It's not really very useful.
If you want a hard drive where reading the same location at different times always gives the same result, you should probably try to get one without a write head.
It never ceases to amaze me how even the most bend-over-and-take-it initiative from companies/governments/&c. is billed as for your convenience, even when this is ludicrous (e.g. -- to bring up a real if slightly off-topic example -- `For your convenience and safety, outside food and drink are not allowed in this movie theatre').
I am particularly thrilled with Mookie's quote, `The user is not proficient enough in technology to know if the cookie is good or bad, or how it works.' Not some users aren't -- no user is. Shame on you, Slashdotters who delete cookies! You're practically stealing from Mookie, and putting yourself in danger besides! Imagine if your favourite site could no longer address you by name!
I knew one girl (EE) who was very cute and in a number of my classes. Every time there was a test, she would wear a dress and look really sexy.
OBLIGATORY JOKE: We can probably truncate that sentence at the fourth word.
Now, not to miss the joke, but this technique seems pretty worthless. I personally assign grades while grading, not during the test. If students want to come by in sexy dresses while I'm grading, well, at least it would break up the monotony a little; but during the exam I won't even notice.
I regularly get IRQ_DRIVER_NOT_LESS_THAN_EQ BSsOD when I'm trying out a new antivirus/system-monitor type program that XP doesn't like, or that conflicts with some existing capabilities. (Since the conflict usually occurs on login, it can be a delight trying to remove them and get back to your original configuration. I finally did it from safe mode.) Of course this isn't entirely Windows's fault, but it is a BSOD, in XP -- and highly reproducible.
There are two possible topologies, or shapes, that are one dimensional.
It certainly depends on what you mean by dimension, but I think there are few definitions according to which these are the only two possible one-dimensional topologies. Of course therefore you meant that there are at least two possible one-dimensional topologies.
It is possible to burn a disc which is specifically designed for use in MP3 players, but most players nowadays can handle just taking the MP3s off any old data disc (as you suggested).
I don't have enough songs yet to experiment, but I think burning a data disc burns it with M4Ps (which are protected), not MP3s.
This is just an infinite tape assembled in pieces. If I can successfully get cash from an ATM whenever I need it, then surely you would say that I have an infinite amount of money, even if I am at every time carrying only a finite amount?
I don't know Martin Taylor's opinion, but this article points to an interview with Gates in which he describes the `official' motivation. It is, of course, that DRM is there to -- wait for it -- empower the consumer:
Gates: No, I've said it exactly. We have your interests totally in mind, but that includes having... if there's content that can only be there if it's rights protected, we want to be able to have that content available to you. And so all we're doing... in no sense are we hurting you, because if they're willing to make the content available openly, believe me, that's always the most wonderful thing. It's the simplest.
(blah blah) But hey, we want you, instead of not having that content, to have that content. And in the case that the authors decided it's rights managed, you can decide to stay away from it or to use it. That, again, is your choice.
We're the guys of empowerment. We want these things to be out there everywhere.
Oh boy, does this sound like nitpicking, but I'm really curious. Besides the fact that I spit, as I suppose most of us here do, on intellectual property laws of this sort, as an academic I am also deeply grateful for programmes of the sort the poster describes. However, I don't understand this sentence:
However, this will probably stop in a short while as there is a legal battle raging against it brought by the same institutions that gave the Deutsche Bibliothek to crack DRM.
Which institutions? The ones that tried to prevent it from cracking DRM? (Were there some who specifically lobbied against the DB, as opposed to just lobbying generally for DRM?) The ones that tried to allow it to crack DRM? (Then why should they be on the other side of this question?) Another collection entirely?
When it comes to engineering documents, a combination of LyX, XCircuit or XFig, and MATLAB beats the shit out of Excel and Word any day of the week. I think I'd quit my job before I tried to write a real, equation-heavy engineering document in Word. LyX just has a better EQ editor hands down. And there's a native OSX version of LyX.
How about LaTeX? Why have a GUI frontend to insulate you from what you're really doing? Much better to dive right in and have all the power and flexibility right at your fingertips. Another advantage of this approach is that you don't need anything but a text editor (and, eventually, a LaTeX compiler) -- than which you can't get more portable.
P.S. `It's hard to learn' is no justification at all. Sit down with a handwritten version of a document you want to produce, or a document somebody else produced, and a LaTeX reference book. You'll be TeXing within the hour.
Spybot S&D also offers a real-time monitor, called Teatime. It similarly detects and prevents IE home-page hijackings. (I've found it a great tool to have around when signing up for broadband services -- the software InsightBB makes you install before use tries to change lots of settings, and Spybot catches most-to-all of it.)
I think Spybot S&D also lets you roll back home page changes if they were made before the monitor started, but maybe I'm confusing it with HijackThis (another great, but not quite so idiot-proof, utility).
The theorem on solvability of polynomials dramatically (though reasonably) restricts the methods of solution, so that we don't have anything like all possible finite processes; we're only allowed addition and multiplication (with inverses) and extraction of roots. As another poster pointed out, elliptic integrals (which I suppose you could call finite in some sense) can be used to find roots of polynomials.
When Powell was pushing this agenda in the first place, the best he could come up with as justification for why it was a good thing was `As [people] watch TV in the next coming days, months, and weeks, they're not going to see something radically different than they have seen for decades.' Not a word about why it's a good thing, only about why it's not such a bad thing.
When the decision was overturned, though, the gloves came off: An NPR story yestermorn quoted him saying `This is deeply troubling', and that he feels the ruling impairs his ability to -- no, really! -- `protect the American people.'
Slashdot Mirror
However much I hate to defend Blockbuster, one has to admit that `No late fees if you're a little late' is a more reasonable policy (from the point of view of customers who want movies on the shelves!) than `No late fees ever ever ever'. While the distinction should have been made clear in promotions, I actually like the way it's really set up better.
It is true that no computer can judge the truth or falsity of all postulates. On the other hand, no mathematician can, either, and yet we let them keep working.
Predicting that mathematicians will soon be ushered out in favour of faster and more memorious (or whatever) computers is a favourite pasttime of many non-mathematicians, and some mathematicians, but we're still here.
I am particularly thrilled with Mookie's quote, `The user is not proficient enough in technology to know if the cookie is good or bad, or how it works.' Not some users aren't -- no user is. Shame on you, Slashdotters who delete cookies! You're practically stealing from Mookie, and putting yourself in danger besides! Imagine if your favourite site could no longer address you by name!
Now, not to miss the joke, but this technique seems pretty worthless. I personally assign grades while grading, not during the test. If students want to come by in sexy dresses while I'm grading, well, at least it would break up the monotony a little; but during the exam I won't even notice.
Someone got hold of the Tardis ....
"Crikey, here's the info, you poofters" = "These are the data we collected".
Don't give anybody any ideas.
I regularly get IRQ_DRIVER_NOT_LESS_THAN_EQ BSsOD when I'm trying out a new antivirus/system-monitor type program that XP doesn't like, or that conflicts with some existing capabilities. (Since the conflict usually occurs on login, it can be a delight trying to remove them and get back to your original configuration. I finally did it from safe mode.) Of course this isn't entirely Windows's fault, but it is a BSOD, in XP -- and highly reproducible.
It certainly depends on what you mean by dimension, but I think there are few definitions according to which these are the only two possible one-dimensional topologies. Of course therefore you meant that there are at least two possible one-dimensional topologies.
Please be more careful with your spelling. Of course you meant `What's hi's is her's, and what's her's is her's.'
P.S. Of course this requires in its turn tolerance of the misspelling `viola' for `viole'.
I don't have enough songs yet to experiment, but I think burning a data disc burns it with M4Ps (which are protected), not MP3s.
At the expense of creating ten or so audio CDs for every CD's worth of MP3 files ....
This is just an infinite tape assembled in pieces. If I can successfully get cash from an ATM whenever I need it, then surely you would say that I have an infinite amount of money, even if I am at every time carrying only a finite amount?
P.S. `It's hard to learn' is no justification at all. Sit down with a handwritten version of a document you want to produce, or a document somebody else produced, and a LaTeX reference book. You'll be TeXing within the hour.
I think Spybot S&D also lets you roll back home page changes if they were made before the monitor started, but maybe I'm confusing it with HijackThis (another great, but not quite so idiot-proof, utility).
The theorem on solvability of polynomials dramatically (though reasonably) restricts the methods of solution, so that we don't have anything like all possible finite processes; we're only allowed addition and multiplication (with inverses) and extraction of roots. As another poster pointed out, elliptic integrals (which I suppose you could call finite in some sense) can be used to find roots of polynomials.
When the decision was overturned, though, the gloves came off: An NPR story yestermorn quoted him saying `This is deeply troubling', and that he feels the ruling impairs his ability to -- no, really! -- `protect the American people.'