We're sorry, your freedoms, generosity, and sense of community aid and abet terrorism. We shall have to take those away. Have a nice day. Vote for your friendly neighborhood Republicrat today! Oh, and report to your local Social Security office to have your serial number tattooed.
-- Bob
Re:Tying two stories together...
on
The Be Lives!
·
· Score: 1
Congratulations, you get the joke.
And I can do 2 math operations in one step if I want to. (hint: divide by 2) There's only one math error there.
And fuckin' a that thing gets a lot of comments.
Tying two stories together...
on
The Be Lives!
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I wonder what it would take to ransom the source for BeOS. I can think of no single thing I would rather have the source for. Palm owns it now, right? Do they have any plans for it? What happened to BeIA? I haven't heard a peep from the BeOS community in...years...
Who is making releases anyway? Who has their paws on the source? Surely not Palm?
Cell phone providers do not manufacture the phones. They modify the phones (chipping) so that they only work with their network. Motorola, Samsung, Nokia, and others manufacture the phones and cell base stations and then sell them to providers.
A more apt analogy would be: "Does anyone else find it slightly odd that Dell is allowed to sell modified Intel processors that only work with Windows software?"
As I understand it, part of the reason the cell system in Europe sucks far less than here is that the towers themselves are a shared resource. In the US everyone is duplicating each other's networks and doubly- and triply- covering each urban area with overlapping, incompatible networks.
To view these demos, you need Microsoft Internet Explorer (version 5.0 or higher) and the Macromedia Flash Player (version 6.0). For an optimal viewing experience, use a high-speed Internet connection, and set your screen resolution to 800 × 600 or higher.
Awww, fuck it. It just pops up a blank window. Go microsoft.
These WILL NOT succeed until they are as easy to use and as convenient as paper. Numerous companies have tried to produce what is essentially a laptop with a pen attached, and failed miserably. Most applications are horrid to use with a pen. It will require a handful of revolutionary applications to make these things fly.
Think: replace PAPER, not nifty-new-gadget. I want to download my textbook in PDF format, and annotate it. I want to take notes in class (including math and drawings) and then organize them the way I do files on my computer. But if I have to spend a lot of time clicking and tapping to input my notes, it will fail. It has to be as easy as, or easier than paper. It's hard enough to both listen to the lecturer and transcribe the blackboard, without having to deal with the input mechanism not doing what you want it to...
Oh, and 3 hours of battery life? Forget it. That won't get me though one day's worth of classes.
This is important. Multicast is the single most important enabling technology for internet broadcasts of any kind. Unfortunately, those in the best position to be pushing this technology are busy suing related technologies out of existance. (RIAA/MPAA)
It is said IP6 has much better multicast support, but I'm not holding my breath to see IP6 either. From my limited perspective, there is ZERO incentive for any ISP to go IP6.
Someone with serious broadcasting interests needs to start pushing the buttons of major ISP's to get them routing multicast to everyone. NBC? ABC? FOX? ClearChannel? Anyone?
I've been ripping TV to mpeg for a while now, and downloading the stuff I miss from various P2P networks, and it's just awesome. Watch what I want, when I want to watch it. This is the future. But all existing P2P networks are unreliable (but props to ed2k for being the least unreliable). Who wants to start a company who will negotiate with content providers for broadcast rights, and transmit it over the internet. Don't do all the DRM crap, but instead let people pay for it, or place a few-minute video ad at the beginning of the content they download. I would do this in a second over P2P networks if it is more reliable (i.e. multicasted).
I don't think you are correct, it is a matter of talking to the right people.
Note that I said worth it's salt. It can be done, it has been done, I know people that have done it. However, you must live with the fact that you will have to go to a grad school that is 2nd or 3rd tier in the field. You will not get into Harvard or Berkeley or MIT by being persuasive. 2nd tier schools accept people that do not have the greatest grades, GRE scores, or classroom experience, (however you should probably have 1 or 2 of the three) because out of that pool there are some gems. There are fewer gems than the pool of straight-A, GRE-acing people though.
More importantly, if you intend to succeed in the field, you really really have to know that stuff, or you will most likely not be able to pass grad-level classes. It's more than just convincing some bureaucrat that you know it.
Let me say this though. If you can sit down and go through an undergrad upper-level physics text (or better: grad level - mail me if you want references), and do most of the problems in each chapter, you will do very well. That kind of determination and drive is rare, even among physicists. I recommend large state schools. They're a bit easier to get into, and have a large faculty and student body (meaning many opportunities for research and interaction).
That's all well and good, but art ain't physics and there's a good reason that physics programs require an undergrad in physics. That is, you simply have to have the knowledge taught in those classes. If you took the classes they want for grad school, then getting a BS in physics would be as simple as filling out a form in most schools. For many grad schools this isn't good enough either, they want a list of books you used in your upper-level coursework. This should include (at a minimum) texts in Quantum Mechanics, Electrodynamics, Classical Mechanics, and a few others depending on the sub-field you're interested in (Statistical Mechanics, Particle Physics, Plasma Physics, Astronomy etc).
You will probably not be able to convince any graduate school worth its salt that you know all this stuff without having taken these courses.
If I were ever president (not that it would happen...) I would veto anything congress sent me that did not repeal 3 times the amount of text added. I would also veto anything with an unrelated 'rider'. A bigger problem, I think, is that politicians vote along party lines, and do not read the fucking bills at all! (as evidinced by the "patriot" act and the recent war vote)
The sheer quantity of laws is ridiculous. We are headed down the road toward a authoritarian police state by selective enforcement of too many laws. The constitution was good. It was short, sweet, and to the point. Most importantly, it can be taught to a high-schooler in a semester. I firmly believe our laws should be that way. One should be able to take a one-semester class and learn EVERY law that applies to you as an individual, be able to pass a test on it, and contractually agree that you understand your rights.
But we live in a world where the laws you are responsible for obeying fill a room, and ignorance is no excuse.
On a related note, I think a very interesting project would be to codify laws in an algorithmic format, like computer code. Before a law is passed, it should be tested. Codify it and run it on a computer. Use monte-carlo to throw a million permutations of test-cases at it. The whole body of law should be encoded this way, so that we can algorithmically identify duplicates, and reduce law creep.
I understand that the state department has gone all Draconian with visas lately. I have a number of colleagues that have complained of not being able to get a visa (under circumstances where they could previously), and some stuck in China and Canada indefinitely...
Does anyone know more?
Glad I live in America, land of the free, where I am protected from these dangerous people.
I will not dignify your other ignorant post with a reply. Read some history of that region before you go spouting how great you are and how bad they are. And stop watching CNN. Do not extend my shame for the actions of the US government to cover the rest of this otherwise grand country.
And in response to this ignorant post, I have two things to say:
I love my country, but I fear my government.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
You will catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
Last thing, did you notice that I quoted THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION? I am proud of that ammendment and all it stands for. I am ashamed that this country was so willing to sweep it away.
By "self-righteousness" I mean that you assert the rightness of your cause without considering the possibility that your opposition could have a point.
I know new systems and apps create a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation.. but what about this:
...
Until the public learn more about security, how it works, and why it should be used, I think not.
So you state it's a chicken-and-egg problem and then go on to demonstrate it's a chicken-and-egg problem, adding nothing to the discussion. Then you say we all shouldn't use it, because it's a chicken-and-egg problem. Give me a break!
Here are a few ways to crawl out of the chicken-and-egg situation:
Signing your e-mail makes GPG visible to those that don't know yet. Every once in a while someone will actually look at that attachment, follow the little link, and maybe learn something. For technically saavy users, this is simply tech evangelism. Someday we will all learn in high school how to manage our private keys, instead of teaching us how to fill in the blanks on a check.
I have personally converted 4 or 5 friends (and my dad!) to using it.
I use GPG to store sensitive information. I keep a GPG-encrypted file with passwords (mostly for websites) in it. That way for each %@#(&@$ vendor that insists on storing my credit card info, I can generate a 20-character random password, put it in this file and forget about it.
As a system administrator, I have had many occasions where people want an account but I'm not physically nearby for them to type in a password. I usually point out GPG saying that if they used it, I could send them a password. Since they don't, they'll have to wait a few days until we can be in the same room. Again, it's evangelism.
I pointed out gpg to my bank for account-related communications (but they don't seem to get it yet...they're a bank). Everybody else ask your bank about it too. It's evangelism.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
And most importantly, I encrypt love letters to my girlfriend. Don't want anyone reading that stuff.;)
Making the public aware that this kind of technology exists is, in my mind, the single most important revolution happening today. It is the key to take back freedom from our oppressive government (and the even more oppressive governments out there). It is the key to the electronic money of the future. It is the key to the electronic contract of the future (this click-to-accept shit has got to go). I definitely don't want to "click" to buy a house. As long as we keep them ignorant and don't evangelize, we can guarantee we will never see the electronic future we read about in books.
So it's great that they released this codec into the wild, but On2 Technologies is now up to a VP5 codec.
Will the features in VP4/VP5 ever be folded in to the open source version? (a la Aladdin Ghostscript) Are the differences between VP5 and VP3 enough for us to care? Are any On2 developers actively working on Ogg Theora?
Basically, is On2 playing the version game to force customers into upgrading (and getting more money), or are there real improvements in VP4/5 that Ogg users will want?
Anyway, kudos to On2 in any case. I will definitely be using it.
Getting back to repeating what you've heard...or assuming the definition by picking apart the words...Free trade means "International business not restrained by government interference or regulation".
I have never heard of the "coercive" trade you talk about.
All countries have an interest and a duty to protect the industries and agriculture in their country. Free trade agreements make this impossible.
For countries of similar economic standing, free trade is without question beneficial to both parties. However when one country has a vastly richer economy than the other, it has the power to flood markets with goods, drive down prices, increase the smaller country's dependence on foreign goods, and make it impossible for them to recover.
We can help third world countries by removing our tariffs (allowing americans to buy foreign goods) but not meddling with their ability to erect tariffs. Otherwise they will never be able to crawl out of their trade deficit.
The fair trade organizations, while very hippie, seem to be trying to establish equitable trade situations with the third world (seems like coffee only...)
Yeah, but the problem debating the issues is most of the people put forth explanations that are meaningless-- and they debate them with the ferocity of someone repeating what they heard, rather than what they know.
Yep.
Of course you just as guilty as I. No references or links! Bad boy. Anyway, I'll have to do some research on the subject.
Free trade supporters say things that are in direct conflict with what free trade opponents say. Clearly they cannot both be right.
In condemning free trade I am speaking mostly of Mexico and South America, where free trade generally:
Lowers prices through the floor
Small farmers are forced to bankruptcy, or to sell their farms.
US firms buy up farms from these farmers
US firms now control the majority of farms, block the formation of labor unions, schools, and other niceities, and pay barely subsistence salaries.
If Mexican tomato farmers and Colombian coffee farmers wanted to fix this situation and actually send their kids to school, they would be forced to break agreements. I think they would be right to do so.
For the Saudis nationalizing their oil was clearly a power play by the rich to get richer. Their situation is quite different, and I don't condone the Saudi's actions. But protecting a country's resources and breaking trade agreements is not, by definition, bad. (For instance, Brazil decided to "nationalize" some AIDS drugs in violation of IP agreements with the US...and I applaud them for doing so.)
And read the article I linked on Venezuela...clearly you're talking about the first coup...I'm talking about the second (third?) one where the OPEC chief warned the president of Venezuela that the US had set up the coup, after Venezuela started making noises about an oil embargo...
And you keep using "liberal" like it's a bad word...it's meaningless. Debate the issues, not the labels.;)
Slashdot Mirror
-- Bob
And I can do 2 math operations in one step if I want to. (hint: divide by 2) There's only one math error there.
And fuckin' a that thing gets a lot of comments.
Who is making releases anyway? Who has their paws on the source? Surely not Palm?
-- Bob
A more apt analogy would be: "Does anyone else find it slightly odd that Dell is allowed to sell modified Intel processors that only work with Windows software?"
As I understand it, part of the reason the cell system in Europe sucks far less than here is that the towers themselves are a shared resource. In the US everyone is duplicating each other's networks and doubly- and triply- covering each urban area with overlapping, incompatible networks.
-- Bob
Both allow me to use Mozilla/Galeon.
-- Bob
Congratulations! You got the joke!
Wrong. Search my past comments for the other 40,000 explanations of my sig.
Those incapable of doing 2 arithmetic operations at once will never understand my sig.
--Bob
Think: replace PAPER, not nifty-new-gadget. I want to download my textbook in PDF format, and annotate it. I want to take notes in class (including math and drawings) and then organize them the way I do files on my computer. But if I have to spend a lot of time clicking and tapping to input my notes, it will fail. It has to be as easy as, or easier than paper. It's hard enough to both listen to the lecturer and transcribe the blackboard, without having to deal with the input mechanism not doing what you want it to...
Oh, and 3 hours of battery life? Forget it. That won't get me though one day's worth of classes.
-- Bob
It is said IP6 has much better multicast support, but I'm not holding my breath to see IP6 either. From my limited perspective, there is ZERO incentive for any ISP to go IP6.
Someone with serious broadcasting interests needs to start pushing the buttons of major ISP's to get them routing multicast to everyone. NBC? ABC? FOX? ClearChannel? Anyone?
I've been ripping TV to mpeg for a while now, and downloading the stuff I miss from various P2P networks, and it's just awesome. Watch what I want, when I want to watch it. This is the future. But all existing P2P networks are unreliable (but props to ed2k for being the least unreliable). Who wants to start a company who will negotiate with content providers for broadcast rights, and transmit it over the internet. Don't do all the DRM crap, but instead let people pay for it, or place a few-minute video ad at the beginning of the content they download. I would do this in a second over P2P networks if it is more reliable (i.e. multicasted).
-- Bob
More importantly, if you intend to succeed in the field, you really really have to know that stuff, or you will most likely not be able to pass grad-level classes. It's more than just convincing some bureaucrat that you know it.
Let me say this though. If you can sit down and go through an undergrad upper-level physics text (or better: grad level - mail me if you want references), and do most of the problems in each chapter, you will do very well. That kind of determination and drive is rare, even among physicists. I recommend large state schools. They're a bit easier to get into, and have a large faculty and student body (meaning many opportunities for research and interaction).
I love Wisconsin! ;)
-- Bob
You will probably not be able to convince any graduate school worth its salt that you know all this stuff without having taken these courses.
-- Bob
The sheer quantity of laws is ridiculous. We are headed down the road toward a authoritarian police state by selective enforcement of too many laws. The constitution was good. It was short, sweet, and to the point. Most importantly, it can be taught to a high-schooler in a semester. I firmly believe our laws should be that way. One should be able to take a one-semester class and learn EVERY law that applies to you as an individual, be able to pass a test on it, and contractually agree that you understand your rights.
But we live in a world where the laws you are responsible for obeying fill a room, and ignorance is no excuse.
On a related note, I think a very interesting project would be to codify laws in an algorithmic format, like computer code. Before a law is passed, it should be tested. Codify it and run it on a computer. Use monte-carlo to throw a million permutations of test-cases at it. The whole body of law should be encoded this way, so that we can algorithmically identify duplicates, and reduce law creep.
-- Bob
Does anyone know more?
Glad I live in America, land of the free, where I am protected from these dangerous people.
-- Bob
And in response to this ignorant post, I have two things to say:
Last thing, did you notice that I quoted THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION? I am proud of that ammendment and all it stands for. I am ashamed that this country was so willing to sweep it away.
By "self-righteousness" I mean that you assert the rightness of your cause without considering the possibility that your opposition could have a point.
-- Bob
Yeah, I'm lucky.
Signing your e-mail makes GPG visible to those that don't know yet. Every once in a while someone will actually look at that attachment, follow the little link, and maybe learn something. For technically saavy users, this is simply tech evangelism. Someday we will all learn in high school how to manage our private keys, instead of teaching us how to fill in the blanks on a check. I have personally converted 4 or 5 friends (and my dad!) to using it.
I use GPG to store sensitive information. I keep a GPG-encrypted file with passwords (mostly for websites) in it. That way for each %@#(&@$ vendor that insists on storing my credit card info, I can generate a 20-character random password, put it in this file and forget about it.
As a system administrator, I have had many occasions where people want an account but I'm not physically nearby for them to type in a password. I usually point out GPG saying that if they used it, I could send them a password. Since they don't, they'll have to wait a few days until we can be in the same room. Again, it's evangelism.
I pointed out gpg to my bank for account-related communications (but they don't seem to get it yet...they're a bank). Everybody else ask your bank about it too. It's evangelism. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
And most importantly, I encrypt love letters to my girlfriend. Don't want anyone reading that stuff. ;)
Making the public aware that this kind of technology exists is, in my mind, the single most important revolution happening today. It is the key to take back freedom from our oppressive government (and the even more oppressive governments out there). It is the key to the electronic money of the future. It is the key to the electronic contract of the future (this click-to-accept shit has got to go). I definitely don't want to "click" to buy a house. As long as we keep them ignorant and don't evangelize, we can guarantee we will never see the electronic future we read about in books.
-- Bob
What, can't you divide by 2?
Will the features in VP4/VP5 ever be folded in to the open source version? (a la Aladdin Ghostscript) Are the differences between VP5 and VP3 enough for us to care? Are any On2 developers actively working on Ogg Theora?
Basically, is On2 playing the version game to force customers into upgrading (and getting more money), or are there real improvements in VP4/5 that Ogg users will want?
Anyway, kudos to On2 in any case. I will definitely be using it.
-- Bob
:P
-- Bob
-- Bob
Getting back to repeating what you've heard...or assuming the definition by picking apart the words...Free trade means "International business not restrained by government interference or regulation".
I have never heard of the "coercive" trade you talk about.
All countries have an interest and a duty to protect the industries and agriculture in their country. Free trade agreements make this impossible.
For countries of similar economic standing, free trade is without question beneficial to both parties. However when one country has a vastly richer economy than the other, it has the power to flood markets with goods, drive down prices, increase the smaller country's dependence on foreign goods, and make it impossible for them to recover.
We can help third world countries by removing our tariffs (allowing americans to buy foreign goods) but not meddling with their ability to erect tariffs. Otherwise they will never be able to crawl out of their trade deficit.
The fair trade organizations, while very hippie, seem to be trying to establish equitable trade situations with the third world (seems like coffee only...)
-- Bob
Of course you just as guilty as I. No references or links! Bad boy. Anyway, I'll have to do some research on the subject.
Free trade supporters say things that are in direct conflict with what free trade opponents say. Clearly they cannot both be right.
-- Bob
If Mexican tomato farmers and Colombian coffee farmers wanted to fix this situation and actually send their kids to school, they would be forced to break agreements. I think they would be right to do so.
For the Saudis nationalizing their oil was clearly a power play by the rich to get richer. Their situation is quite different, and I don't condone the Saudi's actions. But protecting a country's resources and breaking trade agreements is not, by definition, bad. (For instance, Brazil decided to "nationalize" some AIDS drugs in violation of IP agreements with the US...and I applaud them for doing so.)
And read the article I linked on Venezuela...clearly you're talking about the first coup...I'm talking about the second (third?) one where the OPEC chief warned the president of Venezuela that the US had set up the coup, after Venezuela started making noises about an oil embargo...
And you keep using "liberal" like it's a bad word...it's meaningless. Debate the issues, not the labels. ;)
-- Bob