The Dell 3007WFP still doesn't have LED backlighting and runs $1600. LED backlighting makes a huge difference when you are watching video with darkly-lit scenes. The ability to dim specific regions of the backlight means you don't end up with those washed-out greyish looking blacks that you get on CCFL backlit LCDs.
I have a 2.2ghz Core2Duo MBP from Early '08 with 4GB of RAM that is incapable of playing back 1080p x264 without stuttering. I've tried everything - MPlayer, VLC, numerous Boxee release. I can get close to normal playback if there are absolutely no other applications running, but the CPU still maxes out and stutters during rapid-motion scenes. It seems there is absolutely no hardware acceleration available for the mac, unless you have a new MBP with a 9400m and are playing back in Quicktime. Even more frustrating, if I boot into Windows with BootCamp I can play back 1080p video flawlessly with no stuttering as the Windows side supports GPU acceleration. So much for the wonders of OpenCL in Snow Leopard.
Depraved videos of people being brutally murdered, see "3guys1hammer" for example, are not illegal and they depict the most heinous of acts. I am sure a depraved sociopath or two has masturbated to such videos before as well. Yet, while these videos are legal and a certain segment of the population with extremely violent tendencies may experience sexual pleasure from them, having them legal has not increased the incidence of people making murder/rape videos on a for profit basis.
The whole thing has devolved into pure insanity. People being thrown in jail for pictures of the Simpsons having sex, people being framed, the FBI posting links on sites purporting to be child porn, then storing the IP of anyone who visits that URL without verifying in any way that they were in fact referred from the site where the link was posted. So long as the underlying act is kept illegal, legalizing possession of data depicting such acts does nothing to boost crime rates. I would also imagine it would be even easier to locate and prosecute actual pedophiles if such images were legal.
All comments from before 1999/01/01 have been deleted. The first post on 1999/01/01, still in the archive is;
Anonymous Coward on Friday January 01 1999, @05:15PM (#2049871)
I agree, that really boiled my blood. I saw the new layout this morning, I thought it was pretty damn cool looking.
His name in Korean is ë¥ì±ífoe. As mentioned in this article - http://blog.naver.com/PostView.nhn?blogId=ourbelief&logNo=130043884744
That would transliterate as Ryu-Seong-Tae, depending on the transliteration method you use. He may just have decided to transliterate it in his own way, as no one is likely to pronounce it properly anyway unless they can read Korean!
I wonder what percentage of the participants are using an IP blocklist or something even more secure such as Relakks. Do you think persons in the former category are safe? How effective are the blocklists?
Gasoline contains 39MJ/litre, so the capacitor contains the same energy density as 1 gallon of fuel (or 1.2 US gallons for leftpondians).
The capacitor stores 188MJ and weighs 127.7kg. So that's an energy density of 1.47MJ/kg. One litre of gasoline weighs 0.76kg and gasoline has an energy density of 46.4MJ/kg. Of course they don't say how dense it is, so maybe it has a density of 31.5kg/L, which is what it would take for them to be equal in terms of volume. The capacitor would have to be more than twice as dense as lead to compete on a volume basis. As it is, the energy density of this supercapacitor is comparable to a large number of other advanced batteries and fuel-cell storage systems.
There are some states where felons cannot obtain any state license, they even block felons from becoming barbers and plumbers. It's a good way to ensure the recidivism rate among drug distributors stays nice and high. This makes no sense to me.
5 years max., first offense = He's going to be "out custody" which means he'll be at a camp with no fence around it. Food isn't bad, people are relatively sane, as compared to the nutjobs and gang-members who get bumped up to USP level custody, and you can have all the books sent to you that you want. Of course it's loud and you have to work some crappy job, but he's old so they might give him something really easy to do like mopping the library.
I can't see how this guy got caught. If he was running a botnet over IRC, he should have been able to simply log in, issue commands for which target to attack, and disconnect. Or was he posting copy and paste scripts on the chans who then divulged his IP to the feds?
Seems like the majority of Anonymous are idiots. Recently, we have the guy using cTunnel to access Palin's email account, when he could have easily used TOR and had essentially 0% chance of being caught, or if that's to hard, at least multiple web-based proxies.
Anyway, I'm curious to know how this guy got nailed. Does anyone have any info on how they tracked him down?
Firewire 3 (1394c) provides speeds of up to 3200mbps, over standard ethernet cables no less, and the port can function simultaneously as a 1394c port and an ethernet port. 1394b runs at 800mbps and 1394a at 400mbps. All 3 have different port configurations, although 1394b is backwards compatible with 1394a so long as you have a 1394b port to 1394a port cable. Unfortunately, because it looks like a fantastic standard and has been out for over a year now, 1394c is not available anywhere.
I could understand if they had dropped 1394a for 1394b, forcing people to buy compatible cables wouldn't be such a bad thing, but dropping firewire entirely is silly.
I didn't want to overload the/. crowd with too much Korean-speaker-only vocabulary, probably shouldn't have even mentioned hangul now that I think of it. I didn't realize hanmoon was different from hanja though, is it? Most of the hanmoon/hanja in the newspapers is exactly the same in Chinese/Korean/Japanese, is it not?
The only problem I have with Korean net-speak is the funky verb endings, i.e. yeong/saem instead of yeo/nida, with the lack of spaces, with the slang, and with the pure phonetic spelling, i.e. cho-na-hae instead of choen-hwa-hae. The phonetic stuff is easy to get over if you read it out in your head, you get a feel for the spaces after a while, but some of the slang is pretty hard to keep up with. My 40-something Korean coworker didn't know what hueh-mi meant today, which was a slight triumph in my quest to conquer slang. I hope no one mods this up, as it is straying several AUs from the topic at hand.
Point taken, but in order to even read the newspaper you need to understand the basic ~2000-character traditional Chinese set. I suppose my viewpoint is skewed as I spend a lot of time translating Korean legal documents (patents mostly) into English and they are generally a mixture of about 25% traditional Chinese and 75% genuine Korean. The hangul system itself is uniquely Korean, and ingenious at that. The way the characters actually illustrate the tongue's position as used when pronouncing them probably makes Korean among the most ideal language systems, if not the most. I've heard that they don't use hanja in North Korea, which would make North-Korean Korean more unique than South-Korean Korean, as odd as it sounds.
Most Koreans can't understand anything babelfish says. It's complete unintelligible gibberish to them. Korean->English can be equally nightmarish. Most Koreans don't follow traditional rules for word separation, so the system can't figure out where the words end. In addition, hangul uses a very limited range of pronunciation whereas as its parent language, Chinese, has a variety of different inflections. As such, each Korean character has up to 50 or 60 different meanings. I can get by with most stuff, even technical documents, but talking to a University age student on the Internet is excruciatingly painful. It's like they all use some hyper-evolved form of leet-speak where you can't use spaces.
I think you've confused what I was saying. I wasn't trying to say that there was a person/being/entity in any form that we could conceive of guiding the universe, more that chaos guides the universe through particle interaction and people just like to call the chaos "God." So when some good fortune falls upon them they say "Thank God", etc. I wasn't trying to make God some sort of testable concept, more to say that people just use it as a comfortable term for the chaos they see about them. I think when most people use the term "God" in common parlance that is essentially what it boils down to. i.e.; God be With You = Good Luck Thank God = Thank Chance What God Has Given Us = What Luck Has Given Us God Loves Man = We're Lucky to be Here God Damnit = What Luck! etc.
Just because some scientist likes to use the term "God" to refer to chance doesn't mean he's not a real scientist. I mean, if he starts believing in long haired hippie dudes walking across water, making water into wine, and coming back to life or what have you, yeah he's a little nuts. However, thanking chance for the good and not blaming it for the bad doesn't make the guy a nut case. It's just a comforting thought to keep in their mind. They like to think that maybe chance is looking out for us, essentially they're just hoping we as humans are lucky, or that chaos is looking out for us in a sense. Really the term God in and of itself is so vague that it could reasonably be assigned to something like chance, probability, chaos or what have you. If you want to argue that probability doesn't exist, knock yourself out.
Basically, taking God in that sort of context, people who go to Church would essentially be praying to chance. A lighting bolt strikes 10-feet from you and you're fine, you say, "Thank God"; you're basically saying "Thanks Chaos." If some church-goer had this view of God, praying would be about the same as blowing on the dice, which is pretty silly, but I suppose that sort of ritualism is somewhat ingrained in out psyche. I don't know if you're were trying to make the initial post sound silly, but that's exactly what I was getting at. Thanking chance for good things, but not blaming chance for the bad.
From dictionary.com; God- A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
The term "being" is extremely hard to pin down in this case. As far as I understand it, at the scale of the Universe, there is only one place for a God-like being to exist. Taking the multiverse interpretation, would could envision God as a sort of processor which condenses the Multiverse into the single, continuous Time-Space we as humans experience.
Alternatively, picture all particles as units of information, when quantum interaction occurs, God could be envisioned as the force which determines the outcome of the interaction. True, these interactions follow certain statistical measures, but at the same time we also know that under certain extremely unlikely conditions they can lead to what a human observer would rightly call a miracle (Elephants floating up into the air, all of the particle in your body spreading in different directions at once, that sort of thing). I'm not saying this is what most Christians think of when they visualize God. But perhaps some of those scientists could be following the same sort of reasoning. God deciding the outcomes of all particle interactions in the Universe or God as a processor churning through the infromation that makes up the Universe and outputting a path which all of us in the Universe follow.
[I'd just like to point out that I'm just throwing the idea out there for debate. I wrote this very quickly and didn't spell check.]
From dictionary.com;
God-
A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
The term "being" is extremely hard to pin down in this case. As far as I understand it, at the scale of the Universe, there is only one place for a God-like being to exist. Taking the multiverse interpretation, would could envision God as a sort of processor which condenses the Multiverse into the single, continuous Time-Space we as humans experience. Alternatively, picture all particles as units of information, when quantum interaction occurs, God could be envisioned as the force which determines the outcome of the interaction. True, these interactions follow certain statistical measures, but at the same time we also know that under certain extremely unlikely conditions they can lead to what a human observer would rightly call a miracle (Elephants floating up into the air, all of the particle in your body spreading in different directions at once, that sort of thing).
I'm not saying this is what most Christians think of when they visualize God. But perhaps some of those scientists could be following the same sort of reasoning. God deciding the outcomes of all particle interactions in the Universe or God as a processor churning through the infromation that makes up the Universe and outputting a path which all of us in the Universe follow.
[I'd just like to point out that I'm just throwing the idea out there for debate. I wrote this very quickly and didn't spell check.]
Some of them are still in early development, but I've seen at least two of those in very widespread use here in Korea. The cell-phone based purchase verification system is probably used for >50% of Internet purchases here.
I have personally overseen the patenting of at least 75% of these ideas. Considering that's just within my own firm, and without a reviews of the prior art, any firms attempting to implement these concepts will probably be faced with serious legal obstacles.
Slashdot Mirror
The Dell 3007WFP still doesn't have LED backlighting and runs $1600. LED backlighting makes a huge difference when you are watching video with darkly-lit scenes. The ability to dim specific regions of the backlight means you don't end up with those washed-out greyish looking blacks that you get on CCFL backlit LCDs.
The title stipulates "cruise missile," while the V2 was a ballistic missile.
I have a 2.2ghz Core2Duo MBP from Early '08 with 4GB of RAM that is incapable of playing back 1080p x264 without stuttering. I've tried everything - MPlayer, VLC, numerous Boxee release. I can get close to normal playback if there are absolutely no other applications running, but the CPU still maxes out and stutters during rapid-motion scenes. It seems there is absolutely no hardware acceleration available for the mac, unless you have a new MBP with a 9400m and are playing back in Quicktime. Even more frustrating, if I boot into Windows with BootCamp I can play back 1080p video flawlessly with no stuttering as the Windows side supports GPU acceleration. So much for the wonders of OpenCL in Snow Leopard.
Depraved videos of people being brutally murdered, see "3guys1hammer" for example, are not illegal and they depict the most heinous of acts. I am sure a depraved sociopath or two has masturbated to such videos before as well. Yet, while these videos are legal and a certain segment of the population with extremely violent tendencies may experience sexual pleasure from them, having them legal has not increased the incidence of people making murder/rape videos on a for profit basis. The whole thing has devolved into pure insanity. People being thrown in jail for pictures of the Simpsons having sex, people being framed, the FBI posting links on sites purporting to be child porn, then storing the IP of anyone who visits that URL without verifying in any way that they were in fact referred from the site where the link was posted. So long as the underlying act is kept illegal, legalizing possession of data depicting such acts does nothing to boost crime rates. I would also imagine it would be even easier to locate and prosecute actual pedophiles if such images were legal.
All comments from before 1999/01/01 have been deleted. The first post on 1999/01/01, still in the archive is; Anonymous Coward on Friday January 01 1999, @05:15PM (#2049871) I agree, that really boiled my blood. I saw the new layout this morning, I thought it was pretty damn cool looking.
Tell me about it. I destroy a few hundred million lives every time I watch porn.
Neum/nim is just a respectful ending, like "Mr." kind of.
No UTF on /.? WTF?
His name in Korean is ë¥ì±ífoe. As mentioned in this article - http://blog.naver.com/PostView.nhn?blogId=ourbelief&logNo=130043884744 That would transliterate as Ryu-Seong-Tae, depending on the transliteration method you use. He may just have decided to transliterate it in his own way, as no one is likely to pronounce it properly anyway unless they can read Korean!
I wonder what percentage of the participants are using an IP blocklist or something even more secure such as Relakks. Do you think persons in the former category are safe? How effective are the blocklists?
Gasoline contains 39MJ/litre, so the capacitor contains the same energy density as 1 gallon of fuel (or 1.2 US gallons for leftpondians).
The capacitor stores 188MJ and weighs 127.7kg. So that's an energy density of 1.47MJ/kg. One litre of gasoline weighs 0.76kg and gasoline has an energy density of 46.4MJ/kg. Of course they don't say how dense it is, so maybe it has a density of 31.5kg/L, which is what it would take for them to be equal in terms of volume. The capacitor would have to be more than twice as dense as lead to compete on a volume basis. As it is, the energy density of this supercapacitor is comparable to a large number of other advanced batteries and fuel-cell storage systems.
There are some states where felons cannot obtain any state license, they even block felons from becoming barbers and plumbers. It's a good way to ensure the recidivism rate among drug distributors stays nice and high. This makes no sense to me.
5 years max., first offense = He's going to be "out custody" which means he'll be at a camp with no fence around it. Food isn't bad, people are relatively sane, as compared to the nutjobs and gang-members who get bumped up to USP level custody, and you can have all the books sent to you that you want. Of course it's loud and you have to work some crappy job, but he's old so they might give him something really easy to do like mopping the library.
I bought an MBP with a Korean keyboard. I can almost touch type in Korean, but I do not need look at the keys from time to time.
I can't see how this guy got caught. If he was running a botnet over IRC, he should have been able to simply log in, issue commands for which target to attack, and disconnect. Or was he posting copy and paste scripts on the chans who then divulged his IP to the feds? Seems like the majority of Anonymous are idiots. Recently, we have the guy using cTunnel to access Palin's email account, when he could have easily used TOR and had essentially 0% chance of being caught, or if that's to hard, at least multiple web-based proxies. Anyway, I'm curious to know how this guy got nailed. Does anyone have any info on how they tracked him down?
Firewire 3 (1394c) provides speeds of up to 3200mbps, over standard ethernet cables no less, and the port can function simultaneously as a 1394c port and an ethernet port. 1394b runs at 800mbps and 1394a at 400mbps. All 3 have different port configurations, although 1394b is backwards compatible with 1394a so long as you have a 1394b port to 1394a port cable. Unfortunately, because it looks like a fantastic standard and has been out for over a year now, 1394c is not available anywhere. I could understand if they had dropped 1394a for 1394b, forcing people to buy compatible cables wouldn't be such a bad thing, but dropping firewire entirely is silly.
I didn't want to overload the /. crowd with too much Korean-speaker-only vocabulary, probably shouldn't have even mentioned hangul now that I think of it. I didn't realize hanmoon was different from hanja though, is it? Most of the hanmoon/hanja in the newspapers is exactly the same in Chinese/Korean/Japanese, is it not?
The only problem I have with Korean net-speak is the funky verb endings, i.e. yeong/saem instead of yeo/nida, with the lack of spaces, with the slang, and with the pure phonetic spelling, i.e. cho-na-hae instead of choen-hwa-hae. The phonetic stuff is easy to get over if you read it out in your head, you get a feel for the spaces after a while, but some of the slang is pretty hard to keep up with. My 40-something Korean coworker didn't know what hueh-mi meant today, which was a slight triumph in my quest to conquer slang. I hope no one mods this up, as it is straying several AUs from the topic at hand.
Point taken, but in order to even read the newspaper you need to understand the basic ~2000-character traditional Chinese set. I suppose my viewpoint is skewed as I spend a lot of time translating Korean legal documents (patents mostly) into English and they are generally a mixture of about 25% traditional Chinese and 75% genuine Korean. The hangul system itself is uniquely Korean, and ingenious at that. The way the characters actually illustrate the tongue's position as used when pronouncing them probably makes Korean among the most ideal language systems, if not the most. I've heard that they don't use hanja in North Korea, which would make North-Korean Korean more unique than South-Korean Korean, as odd as it sounds.
Most Koreans can't understand anything babelfish says. It's complete unintelligible gibberish to them. Korean->English can be equally nightmarish. Most Koreans don't follow traditional rules for word separation, so the system can't figure out where the words end. In addition, hangul uses a very limited range of pronunciation whereas as its parent language, Chinese, has a variety of different inflections. As such, each Korean character has up to 50 or 60 different meanings. I can get by with most stuff, even technical documents, but talking to a University age student on the Internet is excruciatingly painful. It's like they all use some hyper-evolved form of leet-speak where you can't use spaces.
I think you've confused what I was saying. I wasn't trying to say that there was a person/being/entity in any form that we could conceive of guiding the universe, more that chaos guides the universe through particle interaction and people just like to call the chaos "God." So when some good fortune falls upon them they say "Thank God", etc. I wasn't trying to make God some sort of testable concept, more to say that people just use it as a comfortable term for the chaos they see about them. I think when most people use the term "God" in common parlance that is essentially what it boils down to.
i.e.;
God be With You = Good Luck
Thank God = Thank Chance
What God Has Given Us = What Luck Has Given Us
God Loves Man = We're Lucky to be Here
God Damnit = What Luck!
etc.
Just because some scientist likes to use the term "God" to refer to chance doesn't mean he's not a real scientist. I mean, if he starts believing in long haired hippie dudes walking across water, making water into wine, and coming back to life or what have you, yeah he's a little nuts. However, thanking chance for the good and not blaming it for the bad doesn't make the guy a nut case. It's just a comforting thought to keep in their mind. They like to think that maybe chance is looking out for us, essentially they're just hoping we as humans are lucky, or that chaos is looking out for us in a sense. Really the term God in and of itself is so vague that it could reasonably be assigned to something like chance, probability, chaos or what have you. If you want to argue that probability doesn't exist, knock yourself out.
[I'm an atheist]
Basically, taking God in that sort of context, people who go to Church would essentially be praying to chance. A lighting bolt strikes 10-feet from you and you're fine, you say, "Thank God"; you're basically saying "Thanks Chaos." If some church-goer had this view of God, praying would be about the same as blowing on the dice, which is pretty silly, but I suppose that sort of ritualism is somewhat ingrained in out psyche. I don't know if you're were trying to make the initial post sound silly, but that's exactly what I was getting at. Thanking chance for good things, but not blaming chance for the bad.
Preview is my friend;
From dictionary.com; God- A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
The term "being" is extremely hard to pin down in this case. As far as I understand it, at the scale of the Universe, there is only one place for a God-like being to exist. Taking the multiverse interpretation, would could envision God as a sort of processor which condenses the Multiverse into the single, continuous Time-Space we as humans experience.
Alternatively, picture all particles as units of information, when quantum interaction occurs, God could be envisioned as the force which determines the outcome of the interaction. True, these interactions follow certain statistical measures, but at the same time we also know that under certain extremely unlikely conditions they can lead to what a human observer would rightly call a miracle (Elephants floating up into the air, all of the particle in your body spreading in different directions at once, that sort of thing). I'm not saying this is what most Christians think of when they visualize God. But perhaps some of those scientists could be following the same sort of reasoning. God deciding the outcomes of all particle interactions in the Universe or God as a processor churning through the infromation that makes up the Universe and outputting a path which all of us in the Universe follow.
[I'd just like to point out that I'm just throwing the idea out there for debate. I wrote this very quickly and didn't spell check.]
From dictionary.com; God- A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. The term "being" is extremely hard to pin down in this case. As far as I understand it, at the scale of the Universe, there is only one place for a God-like being to exist. Taking the multiverse interpretation, would could envision God as a sort of processor which condenses the Multiverse into the single, continuous Time-Space we as humans experience. Alternatively, picture all particles as units of information, when quantum interaction occurs, God could be envisioned as the force which determines the outcome of the interaction. True, these interactions follow certain statistical measures, but at the same time we also know that under certain extremely unlikely conditions they can lead to what a human observer would rightly call a miracle (Elephants floating up into the air, all of the particle in your body spreading in different directions at once, that sort of thing). I'm not saying this is what most Christians think of when they visualize God. But perhaps some of those scientists could be following the same sort of reasoning. God deciding the outcomes of all particle interactions in the Universe or God as a processor churning through the infromation that makes up the Universe and outputting a path which all of us in the Universe follow. [I'd just like to point out that I'm just throwing the idea out there for debate. I wrote this very quickly and didn't spell check.]
Some of them are still in early development, but I've seen at least two of those in very widespread use here in Korea. The cell-phone based purchase verification system is probably used for >50% of Internet purchases here.
I have personally overseen the patenting of at least 75% of these ideas. Considering that's just within my own firm, and without a reviews of the prior art, any firms attempting to implement these concepts will probably be faced with serious legal obstacles.