And this goes to show? IMO, it shows that humans are simply not designed to comprehend something that can explode with that kind of magnitude. I'm not saying no one here is smart, but this sort of thing just isn't on the radar of our day to day lives.
Some of the comments I read, offering options of super massive black hole imploding to our universe bumped into another universe are interesting. Both things we've never seen before, so would not know what they look like. Speaking of that, there are a LOT of things we've never seen before, so I'm sure there are more out there and perhaps this one is something that happens quite a bit more often than we would imagine. Despite the LHC jokes here, this is one reason to justify the efforts that they are laboring with at the LHC. Understanding these things needs a complete understanding of matter and how the universe works. There are a lot of reasons for wanting to know. Our fuel source for the 23rd century might actually be mined from the outer planets... once we get the space travel/survival thing down a bit better.
What exactly happens when you spill a big barrel of anit-matter in the lab?
The first rule of picking up girls: No matter how hot she is, wait for her to speak. If you don't want to hear that at breakfast, toss her to the curb.
Me? I'm certain I don't want to hear Sarah Palin over breakfast... unless she is congratulating someone else on winning the election instead of her. No matter who is qualified and who is not, the very unfortunate state of the matter is that McSame/Pallid and Obama/whatshisname are the two main contenders. For me, I think they would all ruin a good meal if allowed to talk.
The problem at hand in this post is the response to technical questions. The only technical question Palin will get right perhaps is what type of gun is best for hunting wolves from a plane.
I've been reading the comparison at http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=42 and to be very honest, I'd like to send them a bunch more questions aimed at taking the "and how would you accomplish that in view of xyz" out of their answers. Both sets of answers sound nice but I cannot help but think that since their public appearances do not seem to hold this type of concise informed speech, these answers are typed up by lobbyists and mean absolutely nothing. One thing left out is how they get such actions passed through both houses to make good on their claims? At best, this is political gerrymandering, and at worst it complete bullshit. In either case I have no confidence that either party will pull these rabbits out of the hat.
I really don't think this will surprise anyone in the IT industry. It's not even really news. Most data remains secure/not-stolen simply by accident.
That is just how things are. To secure data, it will not be pretty, comfortable, or cheap. In the current economic environment nobody is all set to start spending with an increase in IT budge of 250% and so insecure it will remain.
Nicely played... here's the thing though, I don't believe in the afterlife thing. I'm not worried, the universe sends us enough particles crashing through the earth every day to dismiss any fear that the LHC will create a black hole that swallows the planet. We've even had gamma rays blasted right at us (more or less) and survived. There is evidence to show that particle bombardment is what actually causes lightning strikes. This shit happens ALL the time, but in uncontrolled circumstances. The LHC is just doing it in laboratory conditions, and that is a GoodThing!(TM)
The people who are afraid seem to mostly be those that should be glad to finally meet their maker. This is why I'm cynical about the whole thing. Your proposition, as good as it sounds, is one I will have to turn down. I'll just wager you that another 2 people kill themselves worrying about the LHC causing the end of life as we know it (jim).
I'm with you on the nomenclature issue. Such an important experiment and mankind in general offers far too many whack jobs who want to shut it down.
The logic of the 'we're all gonna die' crowd eludes me. If nothing happens, all is good. If the world ends, doesn't matter anyway. All those that think they will go to meet their maker should be happy either way, right? WTF?
"failing to rat out on you" is actually a damned good feature that consumer electronics should all have... FTROOY ? Failing To Rat You Out ? Either one is better then WYSIWYG.
I think that gadget pundits should be including this feature in their reviews and comparisons. ZDNET? Are you listening? That should put F/OSS (and hardware) closer to the top of the class listing.
We might even call it a 5th Ammendment feature? I think I like that even better. Kind of makes it sound official and like it's a iGoodThing!(TM)
Here is to seeing 5A compliance features listed on the back of the packaging?
Absolutely right. Are we supposed to be emo biased because we don't like the makeup? When we see emo makeup, should we stop and evaluate each person personally, or simply assume they are emo? Cultural bias is natural, and in fact there is evidence that biologically, we choose mates based on it. When someone falls outside our 'culture' we are biased against them. That is how life is, socially, biologically, realistically! period.
Yes, when you go looking for bias, you will find it, and if you look for bias against French people, you can find it, or trailer trash whites. The online culture is not the same as real life. Close, but not an exact match. This study, along with others, is both clever and revealing, but you have to understand that bias is part of life, and that very fact skews the study. But wait, are you saying that such things cannot be studied? No, they can, but for any group you query about such things, you limit your exposure to the wide variety of life. How many black inner-city youths do you imagine use the Internet? How many do you imagine get on line with virtual worlds? How much bias did you just show?
While the point of such studies might be good, honest, and in good faith, they rarely ever take into account the bias they add by just having the survey. In picking virtual worlds, they picked a biased community to study. Sure, there is bias there, as there is everywhere in life. duh!
Here is the thing, do you remember all those stories about the NSA working with OS vendors to secure them? Some thought that was good, others (like me) thought it a bit dubious. Well, all that work was for nothing, as evidenced here in this story. No matter what they did, no federal governmental department did anything to secure our IT infrastructure. Now, I'm not going to mention 9/11 conspiracies, but you can just imagine how all this plays out. can't you?
They have those systems connected to the Internet because of several factors: 1 - They don't know how to secure their network 2 - Nobody in the govmint told them to do different 3 - No business covers their mistakes until they are exposed by being p0wn3d
It costs money to do those security things and our IT guy says it isn't necessary because we have a Cisco firewall.
This, my friends and freaks, is the true cost of outsourcing IT functions. Get used to it.
Yes, I just included as many tin foil hat ideals as I could... is it working for you?
Indeed! Better than that is the fact that a nod from NASA has to be the clincher in some fund raising deals. Florida is a good place to launch from for obvious reasons, I'm glad they will get to use the facilities there... saving quite a bit of money in the process.
Perhaps this is also a nod toward a corporate stratum that might well avoid the problems that have plagued the NASA program for over a decade? Sort of like in the movies when the good cops turn the other way and let vigilantes do the work that they are hindered from doing because of the laws and such?
There is a common axiom that should be in play here IMO, if a quorum of recognized physicists agree that a topic should be covered for a specific level of understanding, then it should be covered.
A wiki would work if it could be voted on, and topic frozen for a year once voted and approved, or that subject page moved to a reference site which could be used as the text for one or more years.
Physics 101 typically covers certain topics, more advanced classes cover more and more in depth. The trick is making that material available and flexible as they say. There are no great arguments about creationism in physics classes that I know of, but creationism is a religious principle and should be covered in theology class. NOTE to self: that page should be a redirect to bible.com.
If actual physicists and hobbyists can agree on material, then you have more intelligence working on the problem than currently being used to select texts... more or less.
You should try this just to watch what happens. When one of those people that wants your time visits your cube, and while they are talking the phone rings, ignore it while they look at you like they are waiting for you to answer it. I treat the phone like email in that regard. If it's important, they'll leave a message and I'll get to them when MY schedule permits. Depending on caller ID, I might answer, might not. It's not the medium that is distracting, it is whether a person will let themselves be distracted or not. At work, I often wear headphones so that I don't have to listen to other people talking, or the phone ringing.
Email has notifiers to let me know, voicemail has notifiers to let me know, IM has notifiers to let me know. I don't have to check. A quick perusal of my task/status bar tells me all I need to know.... when I want to know.
If people seriously don't want to be interrupted, it's possible.
I'm glad someone got that out there. If the RIAA themselves had collected the information it would be good... well, if they could prove anything with it. That's the second part at issue IMO. Once they 'think' they have evidence, they issue those bogus letters as a fishing expedition. I find that questionable in the first instance. Let me use a car analogy:
When my car was broken in to and the radio stolen along with some other minor stuff, I know who did it. Yes, it was at least one of those people at the car parts yard. Do you think the police were interested in trying to figure out which one(s)... even if there were big grease based perfect finger prints on my window? No, they were not in the least interested in going to any trouble for john q public. If I had 4 billion dollars and was investing in a new football stadium for the city, they would have beat the guy who did it and claimed he fell down some steps before hanging himself in the cell overnight.
This brings me to the point: The **AA are pushing the limits of their friendship with politicians at this point. Politicians have an influence in places where lawyers and judges have political ambition, thus the two groups mix on the golf course and other nefarious and expensive places. In an election year that is as controversial as this one, I think we might see some interesting decisions if the **AA can't keep themselves out of court for the next six months. Yes, that is a bit tin foil hattish, but so be it.
Legally, and logically, the **AA has very little evidence, and have worn out their welcome in various courts. Schools are fighting back, citizens too. What has hindered a good result is that the courts are not sure where to look for guidance over things like this modern communications network called the Internet. There are few lawyers savvy enough to deal with it. Groklaw has been awesome, but she is alone.. more or less. While ISP's struggle to have content provider powers yet keep carrier status in the courts, politically burrowing into that mess from the bottom side (as the **AA cases are doing) is just not the done thing. Political and financial ties hold together till the threads on this little quit knitting session start to break somewhere.
I'm not about to say that there are no people that should be prosecuted for sharing files. There are a few that probably do deserve a slap on the wrist. Fines that have been levied thus far are preposterous in dimension and scope. The legal circles have not yet decided how to deal with all this and their political ties are holding them back from being brave about it.
When you consider that theft is one thing, copying for personal use is not the same. The law does not define this at all, and copyright does not cover this well either, except in the case of copying for resale and profit... in which case, the person who copies for profit is wrong, and deserves punishment. It's entirely different when presented with a case (and penalties in the 100s of thousands) against a grandma or nine year old. The law is simply not clear enough on this, and in the back of every lawyer and judges' mind is the fact that any law that DOES cover this is absolutely unenforceable on any scale at all. In fact, all of them swapped cassette tapes or CD copies in school too.
There has been NO evidence of what sales were lost, thus NO evidence of damage to the **AA or their member companies. The assumption of damage is wrong, and will be the undoing of this CF in the end.
If I download a Robin Trower MP3 file, prove to me that there was damage? Show me where to fucking buy the CD? go on! show me. The distribution channels for the **AA member companies suck, and that causes half their problem. This has to be weighed in court before it will be settled finally. Until then, as long as the law team can get their bills paid, they'll keep at it. That's what they do.
I'd like to see someone fire back in court and ask for financial analysis to prove the damage claims. I'd like to see the judge do it. They can NOT prove any damage at all, other than the one file on someone's machine that they found out about... if they can prove that that person does not and never had a copy of the CD. There just is no evidence to support what they claim.
Yes, fundamental changes in how IT is run will bring changes.
Telecommuting Lighting changes (as mentioned) Changing current infrastructure out for energy efficient stuff (also mentioned) Improved cooling systems (mentioned) Better power distribution - less point of load conversions Unified cooling schemes throughout the data center as well as tweak and improve existing schemes. Underfloor cabling blocking forced air system balancing etc. There are parts of the world where underground heat exchangers could reduce the over-all cost of standard A/C systems - but that means investment. Compartmentalized data center "closets" - reduce power and cooling needs Upgrade older equipment for newer, cheaper, more capable hardware
As can be seen, nearly all of this comes with investment costs up front. That will not happen without some form of incentive. Spend short term money to save money in the long run doesn't look good on a quarterly report. When Wall Street or Washington are on the bandwagon and supporting or giving incentives... then it will begin to happen. In the mean time, look for more data breaches, service losses, and general poor performance from companies who continue to squeeze IT budget and demand less expense from them.
I think everyone is missing the real cloak and dagger. What would Bush&co's very own DoJ really really really want for christmas? Why, their very own search engine statistics and spying system.... did you hear that? Was that a shoe?
After the Google/Yahoo deal was approved, there is no need for the DoJ to be poking their noses into commercial issues unless there is some proof presented to them that harm is being done.... or, unless you can remember that the DoJ is involved with the Bush&co empire.
Call my tin foil hat type, but I suspect there is something afoot here that is worth impeaching a president over.
One of the things that rubs me wrong about F/OSS or rather complaints against it is that people assume that it takes a long time to learn how to use it, or it doesn't work well or as good as product xyz.
The plain simple truth of the matter, and I have empirical evidence, is that ANY application takes time to learn how to use it well or even at all in the matter of some of the more complex applications.
For all the fanboism over MS Office, I'm willing to bet that less than 10% of the users of that suite know how to use more than 50% of the features. Most people that I've known barely know how to type well, never mind know what setting margins or complex header/footer arrangements are for. Too many people use Excel as a database and Access as a spreadsheet. The point being that what they think they know about one application is just as easy to learn about another application and easier than learning all the features of the application that they know.
Now, I do get the point that you are saying it was probably the easiest for them to use as they got it free when they purchased a Mac. Point taken. Still no need to diss other means of editing video if all you mean is 'that was probably the easiest and cheapest option for that particular group at that particular time'... The idea that F/OSS is difficult or incomplete is both outdated and luddite-ish. In the face of how established applications and suites are used, it makes NO sense to say F/OSS alternatives are not as good or that they are not better than those established applications.
Now, I'll do what I do with all the people I run into who ask about comptuers:
Conclusion: Microsoft Movie Maker for Windows users, and Apple iMovie for MAC users are probably the two easiest to use free video editing software programs available. Both of the products will allow you to do what you want to do with your videos. However, trying out the others, you may find that you are able to add more effects and such to your videos as well. Of all the available programs out there, these are the top five free video editing software programs available.
Also from the link:
Of course, most free software does not include the same level or quality of support that you would expect to find with software that you purchase.
Read that as 12 minutes on hold at $3.49 per minute if you want phone support, where as with F/OSS the level of support on the Internet is huge! I always managed to find someone that has posted about whatever problem I've had.
Yes, I like F/OSS, and for a reason. It has real value. Supporting it requires donations AND fighting against luddite reasoning in the greater computing community. That is not to say that I think you should not use any tool at your disposal when you require a tool. I have no problem with using something that came installed on your system rather than go install something new if you have a job to get done and it will work. I use an editor I paid for, but when needed I'll edit with vi or whatever is on the system if that is what makes the most sense for that task.
I'm guessing that you knew a priori how to drive a car before you were ever trusted to get behind a steering wheel? No? Seriously, it didn't take you weeks to prepare for that moment, did it? (I love car analogies)
More on point, the *point* of open standards is so that we can all write code and applications that work together so that lots of things can be as easy as you think a Mac is, and then every idiot, grandparent, and special olympian can get their point across. (If I left your particular group out and you feel insulted, you're an idiot!... there, feel better?)
Open standards create environments where all software can work well together. Your vote against it because you are unfamiliar with anything but Mac flavored cool aid brand applications is tantamount to you wearing a scarlet M on your forehead so we can all see you coming from a sufficient distance as to allow us time to avoid you.
As for easiest and cheapest? I have some doubts about your ability to count money. I hope that you don't work the register in any store that I patronize.
That is a damned good question. A quick search on Google will show that we've been here before. www.xenu.net Had no end of trouble with this. I think that if they attempt to link all anonymous videos as being from one source it will be MORE than interesting.
FTFA:
YouTube users responded with DMCA counter-notices. At this time, many of the suspended channels have been reinstated and many of the videos are back up. Whether or not American Rights Counsel, LLC represents the notoriously litigious Church of Scientology is unclear, but this would not be the first time that the Church of Scientology has used the DMCA to silence Scientology critics. The Church of Scientology DMCA complaints shut down the YouTube channel of critic Mark Bunker in June, 2008. Bunkerâ(TM)s account, XenuTV, was also among the channels shut down in this latest flurry of takedown notices.
It sounds like Google did what is required of them by law, becoming just the bullets used by both sides to fire at each other in a war that I hope ends up in court. Flagrant misuse of DMCA takedown notices should be punished. CoS is proving once again just exactly why it is they deserve legal status as a church. You know, one of those organizations of compassion and love. hmmmm, then again Tammy Fae Baker wasn't too happy with some of the public comments about her either.
It's kind of a shame there is no particular way to make CoS leaders 'fair game' though I'd like to see someone find a way in court to fair game them there.
nice sarcasm there.... I'm more afraid of what people in the US would do on purpose than I am of what might happen by accident. Can I just mention foreign owned ports inspecting goods from foreign lands... Chinese cat food for dinner anyone?
When farmers and ranchers want to have all their stock inspected they run into government intervention to prevent it.
The way the US government is run in this and many other respects, all I can tell you is that if you wake up tomorrow, call it a good day.
I read a story the other day where it is posited that about 8% of our DNA is retrovirus leftovers.
On the evolution and it not requiring perfection comments, lets look at it this way. Whether we see a reason for it's existence, it is there for a reason. Mother nature is rather good at not creating useless junk everywhere. If it is left over DNA and not actively used at this point in our being, you might think of it as junk in relation to what we require of our DNA right now, or at least as far as we know, but it was there for a reason. That reason might be no more significant than it was required to build the actual DNA that we don't call junk at some point in our past. We do not know enough about it to say that it is not required, or is useless junk.
There is as yet (to my knowledge) no definitive understanding how the junk DNA plays a part in the development of mutations here and there. Much of that 'junk DNA' may well be to prevent certain mutations from happening again. While what we know about DNA is important, what we don't yet know is MORE important. Since we are only just now beginning the business of growing things in the lab, we have a long way to go before we can definitively talk about what DNA is required and what is not. Given that all life on this planet shares a great deal of common DNA it is likely that any small change could affect whether or not we grow to be humans or something else that does not live. A thorough investigation of what the junk DNA does will entail something a bit more difficult than mapping the human genome. So, summary is: junk DNA == a lot of DNA that we know almost nothing about. What we do know is that the DNA we do not call junk DNA is stuff that we know about and understand somewhat.
We all have some leftover parts; Coccyx, appendix, and perhaps a few other things that are not actively being used that we understand. Men have nipples. All of this indicates that mammalian DNA has a common starting point in view of the biology of mammals in general. Do we know with any veracity if the junk DNA is related to non-human mammalian DNA? Is this evidence of a virus that mutated us to humans? Right now, we believe that there is only a very small percentage of difference in DNA between humans and primates etc. What if that junk DNA is part of the stuff that separates us by more than that? What happens to DNA under duress? That is to ask what happens when DNA is attacked by a virus? Does any of the junk DNA turn on? Is it turned off to stop us from being super-humans? Is it turned off because of some virus long ago that stops us from being much better than we are now? That is to question whether our current state is perfect, or as good as it can be? Perhaps unlocking the knowledge of the junk DNA will be the key to living 900 years, or seeing perfectly for life. The trouble is that we don't know what it does, and as humans our first thoughts are if we don't understand it, it must be for nothing, useless, waste material. I like to think differently about Mother Nature and evolution.
Slashdot Mirror
And this goes to show? IMO, it shows that humans are simply not designed to comprehend something that can explode with that kind of magnitude. I'm not saying no one here is smart, but this sort of thing just isn't on the radar of our day to day lives.
Some of the comments I read, offering options of super massive black hole imploding to our universe bumped into another universe are interesting. Both things we've never seen before, so would not know what they look like. Speaking of that, there are a LOT of things we've never seen before, so I'm sure there are more out there and perhaps this one is something that happens quite a bit more often than we would imagine. Despite the LHC jokes here, this is one reason to justify the efforts that they are laboring with at the LHC. Understanding these things needs a complete understanding of matter and how the universe works. There are a lot of reasons for wanting to know. Our fuel source for the 23rd century might actually be mined from the outer planets... once we get the space travel/survival thing down a bit better.
What exactly happens when you spill a big barrel of anit-matter in the lab?
The first rule of picking up girls: No matter how hot she is, wait for her to speak. If you don't want to hear that at breakfast, toss her to the curb.
Me? I'm certain I don't want to hear Sarah Palin over breakfast... unless she is congratulating someone else on winning the election instead of her. No matter who is qualified and who is not, the very unfortunate state of the matter is that McSame/Pallid and Obama/whatshisname are the two main contenders. For me, I think they would all ruin a good meal if allowed to talk.
The problem at hand in this post is the response to technical questions. The only technical question Palin will get right perhaps is what type of gun is best for hunting wolves from a plane.
I've been reading the comparison at http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=42 and to be very honest, I'd like to send them a bunch more questions aimed at taking the "and how would you accomplish that in view of xyz" out of their answers. Both sets of answers sound nice but I cannot help but think that since their public appearances do not seem to hold this type of concise informed speech, these answers are typed up by lobbyists and mean absolutely nothing. One thing left out is how they get such actions passed through both houses to make good on their claims? At best, this is political gerrymandering, and at worst it complete bullshit. In either case I have no confidence that either party will pull these rabbits out of the hat.
I really don't think this will surprise anyone in the IT industry. It's not even really news. Most data remains secure/not-stolen simply by accident.
That is just how things are. To secure data, it will not be pretty, comfortable, or cheap. In the current economic environment nobody is all set to start spending with an increase in IT budge of 250% and so insecure it will remain.
Nicely played... here's the thing though, I don't believe in the afterlife thing. I'm not worried, the universe sends us enough particles crashing through the earth every day to dismiss any fear that the LHC will create a black hole that swallows the planet. We've even had gamma rays blasted right at us (more or less) and survived. There is evidence to show that particle bombardment is what actually causes lightning strikes. This shit happens ALL the time, but in uncontrolled circumstances. The LHC is just doing it in laboratory conditions, and that is a GoodThing!(TM)
The people who are afraid seem to mostly be those that should be glad to finally meet their maker. This is why I'm cynical about the whole thing. Your proposition, as good as it sounds, is one I will have to turn down. I'll just wager you that another 2 people kill themselves worrying about the LHC causing the end of life as we know it (jim).
I'm with you on the nomenclature issue. Such an important experiment and mankind in general offers far too many whack jobs who want to shut it down.
The logic of the 'we're all gonna die' crowd eludes me. If nothing happens, all is good. If the world ends, doesn't matter anyway. All those that think they will go to meet their maker should be happy either way, right? WTF?
"failing to rat out on you" is actually a damned good feature that consumer electronics should all have... FTROOY ? Failing To Rat You Out ? Either one is better then WYSIWYG.
I think that gadget pundits should be including this feature in their reviews and comparisons. ZDNET? Are you listening? That should put F/OSS (and hardware) closer to the top of the class listing.
We might even call it a 5th Ammendment feature? I think I like that even better. Kind of makes it sound official and like it's a iGoodThing!(TM)
Here is to seeing 5A compliance features listed on the back of the packaging?
I have no mod points.. but I hope someone mods you insightful... well done
Can he break those pedaling records with only one testicle?
Absolutely right. Are we supposed to be emo biased because we don't like the makeup? When we see emo makeup, should we stop and evaluate each person personally, or simply assume they are emo? Cultural bias is natural, and in fact there is evidence that biologically, we choose mates based on it. When someone falls outside our 'culture' we are biased against them. That is how life is, socially, biologically, realistically! period.
Yes, when you go looking for bias, you will find it, and if you look for bias against French people, you can find it, or trailer trash whites. The online culture is not the same as real life. Close, but not an exact match. This study, along with others, is both clever and revealing, but you have to understand that bias is part of life, and that very fact skews the study. But wait, are you saying that such things cannot be studied? No, they can, but for any group you query about such things, you limit your exposure to the wide variety of life. How many black inner-city youths do you imagine use the Internet? How many do you imagine get on line with virtual worlds? How much bias did you just show?
While the point of such studies might be good, honest, and in good faith, they rarely ever take into account the bias they add by just having the survey. In picking virtual worlds, they picked a biased community to study. Sure, there is bias there, as there is everywhere in life. duh!
Here is the thing, do you remember all those stories about the NSA working with OS vendors to secure them? Some thought that was good, others (like me) thought it a bit dubious. Well, all that work was for nothing, as evidenced here in this story. No matter what they did, no federal governmental department did anything to secure our IT infrastructure. Now, I'm not going to mention 9/11 conspiracies, but you can just imagine how all this plays out. can't you?
They have those systems connected to the Internet because of several factors:
1 - They don't know how to secure their network
2 - Nobody in the govmint told them to do different
3 - No business covers their mistakes until they are exposed by being p0wn3d
It costs money to do those security things and our IT guy says it isn't necessary because we have a Cisco firewall.
This, my friends and freaks, is the true cost of outsourcing IT functions. Get used to it.
Yes, I just included as many tin foil hat ideals as I could... is it working for you?
Indeed! Better than that is the fact that a nod from NASA has to be the clincher in some fund raising deals. Florida is a good place to launch from for obvious reasons, I'm glad they will get to use the facilities there... saving quite a bit of money in the process.
Perhaps this is also a nod toward a corporate stratum that might well avoid the problems that have plagued the NASA program for over a decade? Sort of like in the movies when the good cops turn the other way and let vigilantes do the work that they are hindered from doing because of the laws and such?
There is a common axiom that should be in play here IMO, if a quorum of recognized physicists agree that a topic should be covered for a specific level of understanding, then it should be covered.
A wiki would work if it could be voted on, and topic frozen for a year once voted and approved, or that subject page moved to a reference site which could be used as the text for one or more years.
Physics 101 typically covers certain topics, more advanced classes cover more and more in depth. The trick is making that material available and flexible as they say. There are no great arguments about creationism in physics classes that I know of, but creationism is a religious principle and should be covered in theology class. NOTE to self: that page should be a redirect to bible.com.
If actual physicists and hobbyists can agree on material, then you have more intelligence working on the problem than currently being used to select texts... more or less.
It's about time, can't wait to see the result and more of the same for other subjects. Education for everyone, free-ish. This is how it should be.
You should try this just to watch what happens. When one of those people that wants your time visits your cube, and while they are talking the phone rings, ignore it while they look at you like they are waiting for you to answer it. I treat the phone like email in that regard. If it's important, they'll leave a message and I'll get to them when MY schedule permits. Depending on caller ID, I might answer, might not. It's not the medium that is distracting, it is whether a person will let themselves be distracted or not. At work, I often wear headphones so that I don't have to listen to other people talking, or the phone ringing.
Email has notifiers to let me know, voicemail has notifiers to let me know, IM has notifiers to let me know. I don't have to check. A quick perusal of my task/status bar tells me all I need to know.... when I want to know.
If people seriously don't want to be interrupted, it's possible.
I'm glad someone got that out there. If the RIAA themselves had collected the information it would be good... well, if they could prove anything with it. That's the second part at issue IMO. Once they 'think' they have evidence, they issue those bogus letters as a fishing expedition. I find that questionable in the first instance. Let me use a car analogy:
When my car was broken in to and the radio stolen along with some other minor stuff, I know who did it. Yes, it was at least one of those people at the car parts yard. Do you think the police were interested in trying to figure out which one(s)... even if there were big grease based perfect finger prints on my window? No, they were not in the least interested in going to any trouble for john q public. If I had 4 billion dollars and was investing in a new football stadium for the city, they would have beat the guy who did it and claimed he fell down some steps before hanging himself in the cell overnight.
This brings me to the point: The **AA are pushing the limits of their friendship with politicians at this point. Politicians have an influence in places where lawyers and judges have political ambition, thus the two groups mix on the golf course and other nefarious and expensive places. In an election year that is as controversial as this one, I think we might see some interesting decisions if the **AA can't keep themselves out of court for the next six months. Yes, that is a bit tin foil hattish, but so be it.
Legally, and logically, the **AA has very little evidence, and have worn out their welcome in various courts. Schools are fighting back, citizens too. What has hindered a good result is that the courts are not sure where to look for guidance over things like this modern communications network called the Internet. There are few lawyers savvy enough to deal with it. Groklaw has been awesome, but she is alone.. more or less. While ISP's struggle to have content provider powers yet keep carrier status in the courts, politically burrowing into that mess from the bottom side (as the **AA cases are doing) is just not the done thing. Political and financial ties hold together till the threads on this little quit knitting session start to break somewhere.
I'm not about to say that there are no people that should be prosecuted for sharing files. There are a few that probably do deserve a slap on the wrist. Fines that have been levied thus far are preposterous in dimension and scope. The legal circles have not yet decided how to deal with all this and their political ties are holding them back from being brave about it.
When you consider that theft is one thing, copying for personal use is not the same. The law does not define this at all, and copyright does not cover this well either, except in the case of copying for resale and profit... in which case, the person who copies for profit is wrong, and deserves punishment. It's entirely different when presented with a case (and penalties in the 100s of thousands) against a grandma or nine year old. The law is simply not clear enough on this, and in the back of every lawyer and judges' mind is the fact that any law that DOES cover this is absolutely unenforceable on any scale at all. In fact, all of them swapped cassette tapes or CD copies in school too.
There has been NO evidence of what sales were lost, thus NO evidence of damage to the **AA or their member companies. The assumption of damage is wrong, and will be the undoing of this CF in the end.
If I download a Robin Trower MP3 file, prove to me that there was damage? Show me where to fucking buy the CD? go on! show me. The distribution channels for the **AA member companies suck, and that causes half their problem. This has to be weighed in court before it will be settled finally. Until then, as long as the law team can get their bills paid, they'll keep at it. That's what they do.
I'd like to see someone fire back in court and ask for financial analysis to prove the damage claims. I'd like to see the judge do it. They can NOT prove any damage at all, other than the one file on someone's machine that they found out about... if they can prove that that person does not and never had a copy of the CD. There just is no evidence to support what they claim.
They might be changed into something that could terraform Earth 2.0 ?
Lifeforms here on Earth are unlikely to be suitable for such. This could be quite interesting actually IMO.
Yes, fundamental changes in how IT is run will bring changes.
Telecommuting
Lighting changes (as mentioned)
Changing current infrastructure out for energy efficient stuff (also mentioned)
Improved cooling systems (mentioned)
Better power distribution - less point of load conversions
Unified cooling schemes throughout the data center as well as tweak and improve existing schemes. Underfloor cabling blocking forced air system balancing etc.
There are parts of the world where underground heat exchangers could reduce the over-all cost of standard A/C systems - but that means investment.
Compartmentalized data center "closets" - reduce power and cooling needs
Upgrade older equipment for newer, cheaper, more capable hardware
As can be seen, nearly all of this comes with investment costs up front. That will not happen without some form of incentive. Spend short term money to save money in the long run doesn't look good on a quarterly report. When Wall Street or Washington are on the bandwagon and supporting or giving incentives... then it will begin to happen. In the mean time, look for more data breaches, service losses, and general poor performance from companies who continue to squeeze IT budget and demand less expense from them.
I think everyone is missing the real cloak and dagger. What would Bush&co's very own DoJ really really really want for christmas? Why, their very own search engine statistics and spying system.... did you hear that? Was that a shoe?
After the Google/Yahoo deal was approved, there is no need for the DoJ to be poking their noses into commercial issues unless there is some proof presented to them that harm is being done.... or, unless you can remember that the DoJ is involved with the Bush&co empire.
Call my tin foil hat type, but I suspect there is something afoot here that is worth impeaching a president over.
hmmm
One of the things that rubs me wrong about F/OSS or rather complaints against it is that people assume that it takes a long time to learn how to use it, or it doesn't work well or as good as product xyz.
The plain simple truth of the matter, and I have empirical evidence, is that ANY application takes time to learn how to use it well or even at all in the matter of some of the more complex applications.
For all the fanboism over MS Office, I'm willing to bet that less than 10% of the users of that suite know how to use more than 50% of the features. Most people that I've known barely know how to type well, never mind know what setting margins or complex header/footer arrangements are for. Too many people use Excel as a database and Access as a spreadsheet. The point being that what they think they know about one application is just as easy to learn about another application and easier than learning all the features of the application that they know.
Now, I do get the point that you are saying it was probably the easiest for them to use as they got it free when they purchased a Mac. Point taken. Still no need to diss other means of editing video if all you mean is 'that was probably the easiest and cheapest option for that particular group at that particular time' ... The idea that F/OSS is difficult or incomplete is both outdated and luddite-ish. In the face of how established applications and suites are used, it makes NO sense to say F/OSS alternatives are not as good or that they are not better than those established applications.
Now, I'll do what I do with all the people I run into who ask about comptuers:
Try http://www.desktop-video-guide.com/top-5-free-video-editing-software-review.html or search on Google for free video editing software.
From the link:
Conclusion:
Microsoft Movie Maker for Windows users, and Apple iMovie for MAC users are probably the two easiest to use free video editing software programs available. Both of the products will allow you to do what you want to do with your videos. However, trying out the others, you may find that you are able to add more effects and such to your videos as well. Of all the available programs out there, these are the top five free video editing software programs available.
Also from the link:
Of course, most free software does not include the same level or quality of support that you would expect to find with software that you purchase.
Read that as 12 minutes on hold at $3.49 per minute if you want phone support, where as with F/OSS the level of support on the Internet is huge! I always managed to find someone that has posted about whatever problem I've had.
Yes, I like F/OSS, and for a reason. It has real value. Supporting it requires donations AND fighting against luddite reasoning in the greater computing community. That is not to say that I think you should not use any tool at your disposal when you require a tool. I have no problem with using something that came installed on your system rather than go install something new if you have a job to get done and it will work. I use an editor I paid for, but when needed I'll edit with vi or whatever is on the system if that is what makes the most sense for that task.
(end rant)
I'm guessing that you knew a priori how to drive a car before you were ever trusted to get behind a steering wheel? No? Seriously, it didn't take you weeks to prepare for that moment, did it? (I love car analogies)
More on point, the *point* of open standards is so that we can all write code and applications that work together so that lots of things can be as easy as you think a Mac is, and then every idiot, grandparent, and special olympian can get their point across. (If I left your particular group out and you feel insulted, you're an idiot!... there, feel better?)
Open standards create environments where all software can work well together. Your vote against it because you are unfamiliar with anything but Mac flavored cool aid brand applications is tantamount to you wearing a scarlet M on your forehead so we can all see you coming from a sufficient distance as to allow us time to avoid you.
As for easiest and cheapest? I have some doubts about your ability to count money. I hope that you don't work the register in any store that I patronize.
Yes, indeed. I was hoping to find an explanation in comments... I don't have TIME to read the articles... sigh
no, probably not. More like corporation of scams
That is a damned good question. A quick search on Google will show that we've been here before. www.xenu.net Had no end of trouble with this. I think that if they attempt to link all anonymous videos as being from one source it will be MORE than interesting.
FTFA:
YouTube users responded with DMCA counter-notices. At this time, many of the suspended channels have been reinstated and many of the videos are back up. Whether or not American Rights Counsel, LLC represents the notoriously litigious Church of Scientology is unclear, but this would not be the first time that the Church of Scientology has used the DMCA to silence Scientology critics. The Church of Scientology DMCA complaints shut down the YouTube channel of critic Mark Bunker in June, 2008. Bunkerâ(TM)s account, XenuTV, was also among the channels shut down in this latest flurry of takedown notices.
It sounds like Google did what is required of them by law, becoming just the bullets used by both sides to fire at each other in a war that I hope ends up in court. Flagrant misuse of DMCA takedown notices should be punished. CoS is proving once again just exactly why it is they deserve legal status as a church. You know, one of those organizations of compassion and love. hmmmm, then again Tammy Fae Baker wasn't too happy with some of the public comments about her either.
It's kind of a shame there is no particular way to make CoS leaders 'fair game' though I'd like to see someone find a way in court to fair game them there.
nice sarcasm there....
I'm more afraid of what people in the US would do on purpose than I am of what might happen by accident. Can I just mention foreign owned ports inspecting goods from foreign lands... Chinese cat food for dinner anyone?
When farmers and ranchers want to have all their stock inspected they run into government intervention to prevent it.
The way the US government is run in this and many other respects, all I can tell you is that if you wake up tomorrow, call it a good day.
Yeah, no links... Google for it
I read a story the other day where it is posited that about 8% of our DNA is retrovirus leftovers.
On the evolution and it not requiring perfection comments, lets look at it this way. Whether we see a reason for it's existence, it is there for a reason. Mother nature is rather good at not creating useless junk everywhere. If it is left over DNA and not actively used at this point in our being, you might think of it as junk in relation to what we require of our DNA right now, or at least as far as we know, but it was there for a reason. That reason might be no more significant than it was required to build the actual DNA that we don't call junk at some point in our past. We do not know enough about it to say that it is not required, or is useless junk.
There is as yet (to my knowledge) no definitive understanding how the junk DNA plays a part in the development of mutations here and there. Much of that 'junk DNA' may well be to prevent certain mutations from happening again. While what we know about DNA is important, what we don't yet know is MORE important. Since we are only just now beginning the business of growing things in the lab, we have a long way to go before we can definitively talk about what DNA is required and what is not. Given that all life on this planet shares a great deal of common DNA it is likely that any small change could affect whether or not we grow to be humans or something else that does not live. A thorough investigation of what the junk DNA does will entail something a bit more difficult than mapping the human genome. So, summary is: junk DNA == a lot of DNA that we know almost nothing about. What we do know is that the DNA we do not call junk DNA is stuff that we know about and understand somewhat.
We all have some leftover parts; Coccyx, appendix, and perhaps a few other things that are not actively being used that we understand. Men have nipples. All of this indicates that mammalian DNA has a common starting point in view of the biology of mammals in general. Do we know with any veracity if the junk DNA is related to non-human mammalian DNA? Is this evidence of a virus that mutated us to humans? Right now, we believe that there is only a very small percentage of difference in DNA between humans and primates etc. What if that junk DNA is part of the stuff that separates us by more than that? What happens to DNA under duress? That is to ask what happens when DNA is attacked by a virus? Does any of the junk DNA turn on? Is it turned off to stop us from being super-humans? Is it turned off because of some virus long ago that stops us from being much better than we are now? That is to question whether our current state is perfect, or as good as it can be? Perhaps unlocking the knowledge of the junk DNA will be the key to living 900 years, or seeing perfectly for life. The trouble is that we don't know what it does, and as humans our first thoughts are if we don't understand it, it must be for nothing, useless, waste material. I like to think differently about Mother Nature and evolution.
Sorry about the rambling.