It should be illegal to have complicated and misleading user-agreements in software. Over the course of a day, a consumer might have to agree to several of these, not to mention other contracts, service agreements, etc. they have to sign in their non-computer life. Invariably, these sorts of things are unreadably long and full of Legalese unintelligible to the average Joe. We're bombarded by so many, that it is literally impossible to read and understand them all, let alone send them to our lawyers (as we are "supposed" to do with contracts).
Because of the size, complexity and volume of these things (and the need to usually get past them quickly), I would argue that they amount to coercion (which would invalidate them). The same is true of shrink-wrap software licenses (which you are rarely able to examine until well after you've unwittingly agreed to them). Of course, I doubt a court of law would agree with me. However, I think it would make sense to have a consumer protection law that requires that these sorts of things have a short, concise, easy to read summary at the beginning that gives the user an idea of what they're getting in to (with all the legalese below for completeness). That would prevent companies from creating scumware like this then hiding behind their user-auto-agreements.
This is just another example of poorly thought out bill with a barrel of pork tacked on for good measure. At points it's too narrow to actually suceed in what it attempts, and at others it's too ambiguous or far reaching.
In principle, both ideas have merit. It is already illegal to secretly record audio without a warrant (i.e. bugging or wiretapping). It makes sense for the same rules that apply to audio apply to images and video as well. But, in this bill, it is only illegal if it is for a "lewd or lascivious purpose." What about videotapes that violate your privacy in non-lewd ways? Shouldn't those be illegal too? And it doesn't apply in public places! What about public restrooms? What about "upskirts"? Those are two things they specifically want to stop, and it's not clear at all if those are covered.
Fortunately, this law would not prevent, for example, taping of your babysitter to be sure s/he's not beating your kids (it's not a lewd purpose).
The.prn part is a piggyback bill. It's clearly tacked on to this because the videotape business is (on the surface) quite sensible. In principle, I don't have a problem with having a separate TLD for adult sites (it's far from censorship, and having TLDs mean something in general is a Good Thing), but it has all kinds of problems with praticality. For example, who determines if a site is pornography/hate speech? Lots of "ratings" systems have been tried and are not sucessful, why would TLDs be different? Why.prn? Hate sites are not pornography. Why not.adult? They also don't seem to recognize that the Internet is international. What good does it do to apply this to US sites when sites in the rest of the world can do whatever they want? That doesn't protect anyone. It's clear that noone who had input on the bill had any real technical knowledge of how the Internet works.
This is clearly NOT a privacy bill at all, but simply a porn/speech regulation bill. OK ideas drafted into lousy legislation.
I don't really think it's fair to condem them for one bad line of drives... For those of you with short memories, prior to the Desktar GXP, IBM drives were frequently (most often actually) the first choice for quality. Somehow this fiasco gave all their drives a bad name. They certainly weren't the first manufacturer to have serious problems with a particular line or model of drive (in fact, probalby all of them have been hit at one point or another.)
Years ago my 1.6 Gig Western Digital Caviar drive started to suddenly sprout bad sectors. I gave WD a call and was given an abusive and insulting runaround by the tech I got. I got so mad that I had to smash a few things to calm down before calling back to try to get someone else. The next guy was actually really nice and gave me an RMA# immediately once he realized I knew what I was talking about. After having the replacement several months, I booted up one day and the HD suddenly made the sort of noises you'd expect from a modem. That's when I discovered that the 3 platter 1.6 gig Caviars had been quietly recalled because they were extreemly prone to a variety of failures. I was rather mad, not so much because of the defect (stuff happens), but that the recall was apparently delayed and not well publicized.
IBM could have handled the situation better for sure - a well publicized recall is in the best interest of the customer. However, more often than not, keeping the problem as quiet as possible is in the best interest of the company. IBM apparently tried to keep this one quiet (or was simply blind to the problem for a long time), but they got blasted instead. Sadly, I don't think the loss of this competitor in the HD market is a good thing.
Some of the statements in the article strike me as quite bizzare. They claim that de-integrating Windoze and opening up the APIs would set the computer industry back 20 years... That should be plainly absurd to even to a complete moron. In that era we're talking monochrome greenscreens, IBM PCs (the original), Apple ][, TRS-80, etc. I mean, 1982 is the year TCP/IP was invented.
At the end Sanders claims most server operating systems run on specialized microprocessors... Excuse me? Ever hear of Linux, FreeBSD, BSDI, etc. etc.? I would think that the Linux crowd would be more likely to use an AMD processor than the average Windows user (who would have some pre-built PC sporting a Pentium 3/4 with a big MHz number).
They do have a (partially) valid point about integration though... While I don't know that it does anyone any good to force Internet Exploder and Media Slayer down everyone's throat, some integration is a Good Thing. Remember having to use Trumpet Winsock in Win 3.1 to use the Internet? Nobody thinks integration of a TCP/IP stack into the OS was a bad thing. I'm not even against the inclusion of M$'s HTML rendering engine (it's one of the better ones - ActiveX and crap aside). Lots of apps seem to be moving away from Windoze help files (which suck) to HTML documentation, and having HTML rendering handled by the OS seems perfectly acceptable (and it doesn't force any particular product on the user).
While it can be expensive in some fields to set yourself up as an amateur scientist, it doesn't have to be.
For example, with relatively inexpensive equipment ($500 or less), you can do lots of useful astronomy. Variable star observation, supernova discovery, comets, asteriods and meteor showers are just a few fields that are augmented (or even completely dominated) by amateurs. If you're handy, it's not all that hard to build a telescope, and you can save a few bucks (while learning a lot). For some activities you can get by on a pair of simple 10x50 or 7x50 binoculars.
For a big list of activities available to amateur astronomers, visit this link.
I love how the Yahoo article explains what the CBDTPA is supposed to do... "a copyright-protection bill that would prevent computers from playing pirated movies and music." More like "a bill that would prevent technology from eating into the profits of large corporations that are slow to adapt."
Anyhow, the CBDTPA is really just an OLURMATOWIRM (an Overly Long, Unwieldy, Redundant and Misleading Acronym That Obfuscates What It Really Means.)
Or perhaps think of the stars, do we KNOW that this star is 8 billion light-year away? Or are we just guessing based on some color-shifting theory that seems to work here on Earth...
I'll just chime in here on the subject of stellar distances, based on my understanding as a (very) amateur astronomer (so if you know more than me, feel free to correct me wherever I make errors).
Stellar distances as calculated by astronomers are based on less "exotic" ideas than the doppler effect. For nearby stars (less than 500 light years away or so), we can use parallax. As the Earth goes from one side of its orbit to the other, we can measure how far one of these nearby stars moves relative to the background stars. Closer stars will appear to move more than more distant ones (the same way roadside objects appear to move much more quickly than a tree or mountain in the background). So unless there is some bizzare undiscovered property of physics that causes parallax to not work in space, we can be pretty sure we have accurate distances for these nearby stars.
Using that information, we can check our other measuring sticks used over longer distances. Main-sequence stars (normal stars such as our Sun and 90% of the stars in the sky) have a color which corresponds directly to their intrinsic brightness. The apparent brightness of a star (how bright it appears to us) is inversely proportional to its distance. So, knowing it's intrinsic brightness (based on color) and its apparent brightness (by looking at it), we can calculate its distance. We can calibrate this color->brightness function by examining nearby stars whose distance can be measured with parallax.
Also, there is a special class of stars called Chepheid variable stars who vary in brightness on a regular period. The length of that period is a function of the intrinsic brightness of the star. Knowing that, and the apparent brightness, we can calculate the distance. Again, we can calibrate our function of period->brightness based on parallax. These stars are all over the place, and we can use them to calculate the distance to galaxies out to a few hundred million light-years (to my understanding). Beyond that, it's not currently possible to pick out individual stars.
That does get far enough out so that doppler shifting becomes measureable, and we can check our doppler->distance function against Chepeid distances.
Re:Google cache version
on
PVR For Linux
·
· Score: 2
It's really too bad that they couldn't have presented a better product. I think some of this guy's gripes aren't too serious. He's probably wrong with Outlook, and he says the keyboard is clumsy without getting specific, then later describes it in his plusses ("well-spaced keys"), and it doesn't sound to me like it's THAT unusably big (so long as I can clip it on my belt, I'd be fine). Since it's running linux, the software issue should not be a problem for long.
The battery life issue seems like a real problem for those who use it frequently. Also, the usability is the most important feature for mainstream acceptance. The fact that it is cluttered and difficult to use only serves to further justify the popular idea that Linux is hard to use and for geeks only (an opinion that is not without merit). The cost of the Zaurus also works against the idea that Linux is cheaper.
It's really a shame that Sharp couldn't have put forward a better, more usable product. As it is, it looks like it will be another black-eye to the public's view of Linux. Could it be that Linux, in its current state is simply too beefy for a lightweight application like a PDA?
I thought of the same thing back in college. Like milk, old code tends to go bad or turn into swiss cheese. All the profs were always pusing "reuse" and "don't reinvent the wheel", but I always thought there was WAY too much reuse. People in co-ops were using their crappy linked-list and sort routines they wrote as freshmen when their coding skills sucked (though I suppose many of them haven't improved much over the years.)
Sure, this sort of thing should be optional for power users, but I wouldn't mind, for example, if RedHat, by default, would periodically check for RPMs and notify the user that they need to install an update to remain secure. Your average idiot really needs updates crammed down their throat, otherwise they never get them. I mean, how many e-mail viruses bank on the fact that there is a huge volume of people out there who never get patches for Outlook? Working in tech support, I was shocked by how many people used truly archaic versions of Internet software or 4 year old copies of virus scanners. To protect everyone, I can see situations where it would be preferable that old versions of software completely die (Windows e-mail clients for example) when they get too old.
I don't know why the author chose to target OS stuff though - closed sourced software is no different (in fact, it's probably worse) in this respect.
Re:Perl isn't unreadable - some Perl programs are
on
Exegesis 4 Out
·
· Score: 2
That's an interesting argument - by being easy to learn, any joker can start hacking out Perl code after learning almost nothing, and it ends up being unreadable because they haven't learned quite enough...
And it is also true that the @$%* stuff can make it difficult to read for those unfamiliar with the language. I would argue that Python goes to far in the other extreme - a dearth of punctuation (esp. curlies, semicolons, etc.) makes it difficult to read. overly rigid enforcement of the use of whitespace makes it (IMO) far too inflexible with respect to grouping related statements for readability.
The complexity of OOP in Perl, strange use of references, writing Perl extensions and weird stuff like typeglobs are admittedly quite bizzare, but most of these things will be fixed up and made all perty in Perl6.
I suppose Perl gives you enough rope to hang yourself with, whereas Python's rope is full of saftey features that make it very difficult to hang yourself, but it just ends up like childproof lighters and aspirin bottles - rather annoying and only marginally safer.
To each his own I suppose.
Re:What about my old perl code?
on
Exegesis 4 Out
·
· Score: 1
No, you won't have to rewrite your old code - there are so many changes and so much Perl5 code out there - it would be impossible. Likely, there will be a separate Perl5 parser/compiler on top of Parrot (largely separate from the Perl6 parser/compiler).
If you are a Perl person, or have any interest at all in Perl, I recommend setting aside some time to read the current 4 (and the future) Apocalypses and Exegesises at dev.perl.org.
Perl isn't unreadable - some Perl programs are
on
Exegesis 4 Out
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Though it is true that by default, Perl does nothing to prevent a person from writing an unreadable program, it is unfair to say that Perl is inherently unreadable. It is quite possible to write unreadable C, or Java, or Javascript, or whatever. Nobody complains that "HTML sucks cause it's unreadable" even though the majority of HTML out there is badly written, unreadable, unmaintainable and full of errors.
It is true that there are lots of unreadable Perl programs out there, but that's the fault of the programmer when they don't make their throw-away script readable when it becomes a mission-critical script.
I've written lots of maintainable, easy to read Perl, and it's easy to do if you simply follow reasonable coding practices (i.e. documentation). If you aren't doing that, you're asking for trouble no matter what language you use.
The RIAA is one of many media cartels that control what we see and hear (e.g. "content") while screwing the artists (content-creators).
Musicians and songwriters get a very small portion of the profits from CDs, royalties etc. They go on tour and push t-shirts and other merchandise because those aren't controlled by the RIAA, and they can make some money that way. Likewise, writers get pennies for each of their books that sells. Big-name actors and actresses do very well (as they have leverage), but other people (perhaps even more important to the film process) like writers make squat. Virtually all the major news outlets in the country are controlled by just a handful of companies. The list goes on...
Of course, these cartels aren't all bad. A writer can't publish a book without a publishing company to edit, revise, print, promote and distribute the book. A new music group wouldn't be able to publish, promote and distribute a CD - they don't have the capital. The record company does take some risk on when signing a new artist, and deserves to be compensated for the service they provide.
However, these companies have unfair leverage because of collusion and lack of traditional competition between cartel members. They take the lion's share of the profits, control and censor what gets distributed to the public and charge as much as they want.
When was the last time you went to the movie's and got to see one cheaper because Tri-star was having a sale to compete with Paramount? This never happens because most movies are produced by one monopolistic entity known as "Hollywood". There is no risk involved for the movie studios because they hardly ever lose money, even on bad movies. As a result, we get crap like Battlefield Earth.
Likewise, the diversity and quality of music has gone way downhill (espescially in recent years). The RIAA controls virtually everything we hear. New acts and new sounds have a very hard time breaking in because the RIAA has a vested interest in keeping up the status quo. I mean, if I hear that damn Linkin' Park song one more time I'm going to spontaneously self-immolate.
They also leverage their monopolistic control over their "intellectual property" to extort profits from everyone they can. It can be argued that radio stations ought to get paid for promoting their products, but instead, they usually end up paying royalties. The arrangement benefits both sides - the profits shouldn't be so one sided.
Both the consumer and the artist would benefit from the breakup of these cartels. Competition would force record companies to compete on prices, and compete for acts (e.g. fair contracts). They would sometimes be willing to take on a risky new act on the chance that it could be big. Different companies would try to establish themselves in various market niches, creating diversity. Record companies would look to take advantage of new technologies to compete against others, rather than try to ban them (as they are competition from outside they cartel). News products, movies, books, etc. would also be cheaper, more interesting and more diverse.
If by detect, you mean directly observe the planets themselves, then this is true. However, there have been a number of Jupiter-sized and even significantly smaller planets detected by their gravitational influence on their parent star.
The reduction in the amount of time people are spending online is likely because they're getting more done in less time. More web sites are "one stop shopping", web searchers are getting better, internet connections are getting faster, users are becoming more savvy about how to find stuff. Everyone has a certain set of sites they visit all the time and they don't have to spend time finding new things. Once something becomes routine, it can be done much more quickly.
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - On March 28th, the RIAA filed suit in Federal court demanding an injunction against software giant Microsoft for alleged distribution of software which allows the copying of music and other protected recordings.
An unnamed RIAA source tells Reuters "Shockingly, the ability to copy these files is built right into their Windows(tm) operating system!"
Though Microsoft claims the "built-in" programs have legitimate uses, the RIAA has doubts. "Really, what other use could there possibly be for programs like 'copy' and 'xcopy'. I mean, the one has 'x' in the name! It must be designed purely for stealing our profits."
The recording industry contends that it's not simply the ability to copy and listen to music that makes this software dangerous, but the fact that it is so easy for any pirate to do. "They can just drag and drop the files onto a disk and give them to their friends. They even have software which allows people to listen to music. If they simply insert a CD they purchased into their CD-ROM drive, Windows will play it automatically. It does this without charging the user or providing us with any personal information."
Our source even claimed that the software in question allows sharing over a network or the Internet. "Another apparent 'feature' of this operating system is the ability to share files over a network. They even make software available that allows users to create and host Internet sites where files can be downloaded by anyone in the world. These 'ftp sites' and 'web sites' are clearly meant only to violate our copyrights."
Microsoft contends that they have no control over their user's actions. "We are very serious about piracy, and do all we can to protect ourselves against it. However, the RIAA is going about it all wrong. They should really consider product bundling - it's been quite sucessful in protecting and expanding our own monopoly, it would surely work for theirs."
The MPAA actually "sells" Motion Pictures, whereas it is the RIAA that sells Recordings. The confusion is to be expected though, being that the quality of the two products is remarkably similar... Every time I turn on the radio these days I feel like I'm hearing the musical reincarnation of Battlefield Earth.
I can't wait until some of Jackson's earlier work (also from NZ) is released on DVD (if it ever is)... "Bad Taste" and "Dead Alive" are two I would definately own... I did glance a Bad Taste DVD at a video store but it seemed to be of the "Hong Kong" variety.
Heh, four hours doesn't come close to doing the books justice. The book is an epic adventure through wide spaces, dozens of side stories, meetings with all sorts of interesting people, etc... Heck like half a year passes in the first book. The movie is like "gotta go, gotta go, move move move move move, not enough time, lets skip a few chapters, go go go, action action action, go go go, skip some more, go go go go go, fight some baddies, go go go..." The movie makes it seem like the whole war of the rings took place in 3 days. A movie that actually represented the first book would alone take like 12+ hours, even if some of the more expendable side stories (like Tom Bombadil) were cut.
If it weren't that mini-series were always so poorly made, it would be better served in that format... Except it would be like 3 seasons long... So, maybe a regular TV show where the entire series is written and shot before it airs... But the first season would have a lot of episodes with no action, so nobody would watch it... Maybe if they took the story and put it in a series of books... Oh, wait...
Of course, it's an obvious point that this will really piss off Microsoft, and they may have some legal ground to kick around on. They may be able to say, for example, that such software facilitates piracy and allows people to weasel out of the Windows license requirement in their Office (or whichever) license agreement.
OTOH, maybe the Justice Department might find that requiring a MS Windows installation when it is unecessary on a technological level is some sort of reverse bundling (i.e. forcing users to buy a copy of Windows, even though it is technically possible to use Office without it). Explotation of their (near) monopoly on office suites to sell more copies of Windows!
Slashdot Mirror
It should be illegal to have complicated and misleading user-agreements in software. Over the course of a day, a consumer might have to agree to several of these, not to mention other contracts, service agreements, etc. they have to sign in their non-computer life. Invariably, these sorts of things are unreadably long and full of Legalese unintelligible to the average Joe. We're bombarded by so many, that it is literally impossible to read and understand them all, let alone send them to our lawyers (as we are "supposed" to do with contracts).
Because of the size, complexity and volume of these things (and the need to usually get past them quickly), I would argue that they amount to coercion (which would invalidate them). The same is true of shrink-wrap software licenses (which you are rarely able to examine until well after you've unwittingly agreed to them). Of course, I doubt a court of law would agree with me. However, I think it would make sense to have a consumer protection law that requires that these sorts of things have a short, concise, easy to read summary at the beginning that gives the user an idea of what they're getting in to (with all the legalese below for completeness). That would prevent companies from creating scumware like this then hiding behind their user-auto-agreements.
It would be great if they made all the adult sites .prn because I could easily filter out all the annoying kid-safe content when I'm browsing for pr0n!
This is just another example of poorly thought out bill with a barrel of pork tacked on for good measure. At points it's too narrow to actually suceed in what it attempts, and at others it's too ambiguous or far reaching.
.prn part is a piggyback bill. It's clearly tacked on to this because the videotape business is (on the surface) quite sensible. In principle, I don't have a problem with having a separate TLD for adult sites (it's far from censorship, and having TLDs mean something in general is a Good Thing), but it has all kinds of problems with praticality. For example, who determines if a site is pornography/hate speech? Lots of "ratings" systems have been tried and are not sucessful, why would TLDs be different? Why .prn? Hate sites are not pornography. Why not .adult? They also don't seem to recognize that the Internet is international. What good does it do to apply this to US sites when sites in the rest of the world can do whatever they want? That doesn't protect anyone. It's clear that noone who had input on the bill had any real technical knowledge of how the Internet works.
In principle, both ideas have merit. It is already illegal to secretly record audio without a warrant (i.e. bugging or wiretapping). It makes sense for the same rules that apply to audio apply to images and video as well. But, in this bill, it is only illegal if it is for a "lewd or lascivious purpose." What about videotapes that violate your privacy in non-lewd ways? Shouldn't those be illegal too? And it doesn't apply in public places! What about public restrooms? What about "upskirts"? Those are two things they specifically want to stop, and it's not clear at all if those are covered.
Fortunately, this law would not prevent, for example, taping of your babysitter to be sure s/he's not beating your kids (it's not a lewd purpose).
The
This is clearly NOT a privacy bill at all, but simply a porn/speech regulation bill. OK ideas drafted into lousy legislation.
I don't really think it's fair to condem them for one bad line of drives... For those of you with short memories, prior to the Desktar GXP, IBM drives were frequently (most often actually) the first choice for quality. Somehow this fiasco gave all their drives a bad name. They certainly weren't the first manufacturer to have serious problems with a particular line or model of drive (in fact, probalby all of them have been hit at one point or another.)
Years ago my 1.6 Gig Western Digital Caviar drive started to suddenly sprout bad sectors. I gave WD a call and was given an abusive and insulting runaround by the tech I got. I got so mad that I had to smash a few things to calm down before calling back to try to get someone else. The next guy was actually really nice and gave me an RMA# immediately once he realized I knew what I was talking about. After having the replacement several months, I booted up one day and the HD suddenly made the sort of noises you'd expect from a modem. That's when I discovered that the 3 platter 1.6 gig Caviars had been quietly recalled because they were extreemly prone to a variety of failures. I was rather mad, not so much because of the defect (stuff happens), but that the recall was apparently delayed and not well publicized.
IBM could have handled the situation better for sure - a well publicized recall is in the best interest of the customer. However, more often than not, keeping the problem as quiet as possible is in the best interest of the company. IBM apparently tried to keep this one quiet (or was simply blind to the problem for a long time), but they got blasted instead. Sadly, I don't think the loss of this competitor in the HD market is a good thing.
Some of the statements in the article strike me as quite bizzare. They claim that de-integrating Windoze and opening up the APIs would set the computer industry back 20 years... That should be plainly absurd to even to a complete moron. In that era we're talking monochrome greenscreens, IBM PCs (the original), Apple ][, TRS-80, etc. I mean, 1982 is the year TCP/IP was invented.
At the end Sanders claims most server operating systems run on specialized microprocessors... Excuse me? Ever hear of Linux, FreeBSD, BSDI, etc. etc.? I would think that the Linux crowd would be more likely to use an AMD processor than the average Windows user (who would have some pre-built PC sporting a Pentium 3/4 with a big MHz number).
They do have a (partially) valid point about integration though... While I don't know that it does anyone any good to force Internet Exploder and Media Slayer down everyone's throat, some integration is a Good Thing. Remember having to use Trumpet Winsock in Win 3.1 to use the Internet? Nobody thinks integration of a TCP/IP stack into the OS was a bad thing. I'm not even against the inclusion of M$'s HTML rendering engine (it's one of the better ones - ActiveX and crap aside). Lots of apps seem to be moving away from Windoze help files (which suck) to HTML documentation, and having HTML rendering handled by the OS seems perfectly acceptable (and it doesn't force any particular product on the user).
For example, with relatively inexpensive equipment ($500 or less), you can do lots of useful astronomy. Variable star observation, supernova discovery, comets, asteriods and meteor showers are just a few fields that are augmented (or even completely dominated) by amateurs. If you're handy, it's not all that hard to build a telescope, and you can save a few bucks (while learning a lot). For some activities you can get by on a pair of simple 10x50 or 7x50 binoculars.
For a big list of activities available to amateur astronomers, visit this link.
I love how the Yahoo article explains what the CBDTPA is supposed to do... "a copyright-protection bill that would
prevent computers from playing pirated movies and music." More like "a bill that would prevent technology from eating into the profits of large corporations that are slow to adapt."
Anyhow, the CBDTPA is really just an OLURMATOWIRM (an Overly Long, Unwieldy, Redundant and Misleading Acronym That Obfuscates What It Really Means.)
I'll just chime in here on the subject of stellar distances, based on my understanding as a (very) amateur astronomer (so if you know more than me, feel free to correct me wherever I make errors).
Stellar distances as calculated by astronomers are based on less "exotic" ideas than the doppler effect. For nearby stars (less than 500 light years away or so), we can use parallax. As the Earth goes from one side of its orbit to the other, we can measure how far one of these nearby stars moves relative to the background stars. Closer stars will appear to move more than more distant ones (the same way roadside objects appear to move much more quickly than a tree or mountain in the background). So unless there is some bizzare undiscovered property of physics that causes parallax to not work in space, we can be pretty sure we have accurate distances for these nearby stars.
Using that information, we can check our other measuring sticks used over longer distances. Main-sequence stars (normal stars such as our Sun and 90% of the stars in the sky) have a color which corresponds directly to their intrinsic brightness. The apparent brightness of a star (how bright it appears to us) is inversely proportional to its distance. So, knowing it's intrinsic brightness (based on color) and its apparent brightness (by looking at it), we can calculate its distance. We can calibrate this color->brightness function by examining nearby stars whose distance can be measured with parallax.
Also, there is a special class of stars called Chepheid variable stars who vary in brightness on a regular period. The length of that period is a function of the intrinsic brightness of the star. Knowing that, and the apparent brightness, we can calculate the distance. Again, we can calibrate our function of period->brightness based on parallax. These stars are all over the place, and we can use them to calculate the distance to galaxies out to a few hundred million light-years (to my understanding). Beyond that, it's not currently possible to pick out individual stars.
That does get far enough out so that doppler shifting becomes measureable, and we can check our doppler->distance function against Chepeid distances.
Also, here are Google's cached versions of some of the more interesting subpages:
Hardware
Software
Remote Control
Links
Here's google's cache of the page since it looks slashdotted.
It's really too bad that they couldn't have presented a better product. I think some of this guy's gripes aren't too serious. He's probably wrong with Outlook, and he says the keyboard is clumsy without getting specific, then later describes it in his plusses ("well-spaced keys"), and it doesn't sound to me like it's THAT unusably big (so long as I can clip it on my belt, I'd be fine). Since it's running linux, the software issue should not be a problem for long.
The battery life issue seems like a real problem for those who use it frequently. Also, the usability is the most important feature for mainstream acceptance. The fact that it is cluttered and difficult to use only serves to further justify the popular idea that Linux is hard to use and for geeks only (an opinion that is not without merit). The cost of the Zaurus also works against the idea that Linux is cheaper.
It's really a shame that Sharp couldn't have put forward a better, more usable product. As it is, it looks like it will be another black-eye to the public's view of Linux. Could it be that Linux, in its current state is simply too beefy for a lightweight application like a PDA?
I thought of the same thing back in college. Like milk, old code tends to go bad or turn into swiss cheese. All the profs were always pusing "reuse" and "don't reinvent the wheel", but I always thought there was WAY too much reuse. People in co-ops were using their crappy linked-list and sort routines they wrote as freshmen when their coding skills sucked (though I suppose many of them haven't improved much over the years.)
Sure, this sort of thing should be optional for power users, but I wouldn't mind, for example, if RedHat, by default, would periodically check for RPMs and notify the user that they need to install an update to remain secure. Your average idiot really needs updates crammed down their throat, otherwise they never get them. I mean, how many e-mail viruses bank on the fact that there is a huge volume of people out there who never get patches for Outlook? Working in tech support, I was shocked by how many people used truly archaic versions of Internet software or 4 year old copies of virus scanners. To protect everyone, I can see situations where it would be preferable that old versions of software completely die (Windows e-mail clients for example) when they get too old.
I don't know why the author chose to target OS stuff though - closed sourced software is no different (in fact, it's probably worse) in this respect.
That's an interesting argument - by being easy to learn, any joker can start hacking out Perl code after learning almost nothing, and it ends up being unreadable because they haven't learned quite enough...
And it is also true that the @$%* stuff can make it difficult to read for those unfamiliar with the language. I would argue that Python goes to far in the other extreme - a dearth of punctuation (esp. curlies, semicolons, etc.) makes it difficult to read. overly rigid enforcement of the use of whitespace makes it (IMO) far too inflexible with respect to grouping related statements for readability.
The complexity of OOP in Perl, strange use of references, writing Perl extensions and weird stuff like typeglobs are admittedly quite bizzare, but most of these things will be fixed up and made all perty in Perl6.
I suppose Perl gives you enough rope to hang yourself with, whereas Python's rope is full of saftey features that make it very difficult to hang yourself, but it just ends up like childproof lighters and aspirin bottles - rather annoying and only marginally safer.
To each his own I suppose.
If you are a Perl person, or have any interest at all in Perl, I recommend setting aside some time to read the current 4 (and the future) Apocalypses and Exegesises at dev.perl.org.
Though it is true that by default, Perl does nothing to prevent a person from writing an unreadable program, it is unfair to say that Perl is inherently unreadable. It is quite possible to write unreadable C, or Java, or Javascript, or whatever. Nobody complains that "HTML sucks cause it's unreadable" even though the majority of HTML out there is badly written, unreadable, unmaintainable and full of errors.
It is true that there are lots of unreadable Perl programs out there, but that's the fault of the programmer when they don't make their throw-away script readable when it becomes a mission-critical script.
I've written lots of maintainable, easy to read Perl, and it's easy to do if you simply follow reasonable coding practices (i.e. documentation). If you aren't doing that, you're asking for trouble no matter what language you use.
The RIAA is one of many media cartels that control what we see and hear (e.g. "content") while screwing the artists (content-creators).
Musicians and songwriters get a very small portion of the profits from CDs, royalties etc. They go on tour and push t-shirts and other merchandise because those aren't controlled by the RIAA, and they can make some money that way. Likewise, writers get pennies for each of their books that sells. Big-name actors and actresses do very well (as they have leverage), but other people (perhaps even more important to the film process) like writers make squat. Virtually all the major news outlets in the country are controlled by just a handful of companies. The list goes on...
Of course, these cartels aren't all bad. A writer can't publish a book without a publishing company to edit, revise, print, promote and distribute the book. A new music group wouldn't be able to publish, promote and distribute a CD - they don't have the capital. The record company does take some risk on when signing a new artist, and deserves to be compensated for the service they provide.
However, these companies have unfair leverage because of collusion and lack of traditional competition between cartel members. They take the lion's share of the profits, control and censor what gets distributed to the public and charge as much as they want.
When was the last time you went to the movie's and got to see one cheaper because Tri-star was having a sale to compete with Paramount? This never happens because most movies are produced by one monopolistic entity known as "Hollywood". There is no risk involved for the movie studios because they hardly ever lose money, even on bad movies. As a result, we get crap like Battlefield Earth.
Likewise, the diversity and quality of music has gone way downhill (espescially in recent years). The RIAA controls virtually everything we hear. New acts and new sounds have a very hard time breaking in because the RIAA has a vested interest in keeping up the status quo. I mean, if I hear that damn Linkin' Park song one more time I'm going to spontaneously self-immolate.
They also leverage their monopolistic control over their "intellectual property" to extort profits from everyone they can. It can be argued that radio stations ought to get paid for promoting their products, but instead, they usually end up paying royalties. The arrangement benefits both sides - the profits shouldn't be so one sided.
Both the consumer and the artist would benefit from the breakup of these cartels. Competition would force record companies to compete on prices, and compete for acts (e.g. fair contracts). They would sometimes be willing to take on a risky new act on the chance that it could be big. Different companies would try to establish themselves in various market niches, creating diversity. Record companies would look to take advantage of new technologies to compete against others, rather than try to ban them (as they are competition from outside they cartel). News products, movies, books, etc. would also be cheaper, more interesting and more diverse.
Anyhow, that's my take.
If by detect, you mean directly observe the planets themselves, then this is true. However, there have been a number of Jupiter-sized and even significantly smaller planets detected by their gravitational influence on their parent star.
http://www.obspm.fr/encycl/catalog.html
I bet the gotse.cx guy could fit all your hot grits, Natalie Portman and your whole beowolf cluster...
And I just bought a newtonian key distribution system! The vendor told me quantum mechanics was nonsense.
The reduction in the amount of time people are spending online is likely because they're getting more done in less time. More web sites are "one stop shopping", web searchers are getting better, internet connections are getting faster, users are becoming more savvy about how to find stuff. Everyone has a certain set of sites they visit all the time and they don't have to spend time finding new things. Once something becomes routine, it can be done much more quickly.
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - On March 28th, the RIAA filed suit in Federal court demanding an injunction against software giant Microsoft for alleged distribution of software which allows the copying of music and other protected recordings.
An unnamed RIAA source tells Reuters "Shockingly, the ability to copy these files is built right into their Windows(tm) operating system!"
Though Microsoft claims the "built-in" programs have legitimate uses, the RIAA has doubts. "Really, what other use could there possibly be for programs like 'copy' and 'xcopy'. I mean, the one has 'x' in the name! It must be designed purely for stealing our profits."
The recording industry contends that it's not simply the ability to copy and listen to music that makes this software dangerous, but the fact that it is so easy for any pirate to do. "They can just drag and drop the files onto a disk and give them to their friends. They even have software which allows people to listen to music. If they simply insert a CD they purchased into their CD-ROM drive, Windows will play it automatically. It does this without charging the user or providing us with any personal information."
Our source even claimed that the software in question allows sharing over a network or the Internet. "Another apparent 'feature' of this operating system is the ability to share files over a network. They even make software available that allows users to create and host Internet sites where files can be downloaded by anyone in the world. These 'ftp sites' and 'web sites' are clearly meant only to violate our copyrights."
Microsoft contends that they have no control over their user's actions. "We are very serious about piracy, and do all we can to protect ourselves against it. However, the RIAA is going about it all wrong. They should really consider product bundling - it's been quite sucessful in protecting and expanding our own monopoly, it would surely work for theirs."
The MPAA actually "sells" Motion Pictures, whereas it is the RIAA that sells Recordings. The confusion is to be expected though, being that the quality of the two products is remarkably similar... Every time I turn on the radio these days I feel like I'm hearing the musical reincarnation of Battlefield Earth.
I can't wait until some of Jackson's earlier work (also from NZ) is released on DVD (if it ever is)... "Bad Taste" and "Dead Alive" are two I would definately own... I did glance a Bad Taste DVD at a video store but it seemed to be of the "Hong Kong" variety.
-- "I kick ass for the Lord."
Heh, four hours doesn't come close to doing the books justice. The book is an epic adventure through wide spaces, dozens of side stories, meetings with all sorts of interesting people, etc... Heck like half a year passes in the first book. The movie is like "gotta go, gotta go, move move move move move, not enough time, lets skip a few chapters, go go go, action action action, go go go, skip some more, go go go go go, fight some baddies, go go go..." The movie makes it seem like the whole war of the rings took place in 3 days. A movie that actually represented the first book would alone take like 12+ hours, even if some of the more expendable side stories (like Tom Bombadil) were cut.
If it weren't that mini-series were always so poorly made, it would be better served in that format... Except it would be like 3 seasons long... So, maybe a regular TV show where the entire series is written and shot before it airs... But the first season would have a lot of episodes with no action, so nobody would watch it... Maybe if they took the story and put it in a series of books... Oh, wait...
Of course, it's an obvious point that this will really piss off Microsoft, and they may have some legal ground to kick around on. They may be able to say, for example, that such software facilitates piracy and allows people to weasel out of the Windows license requirement in their Office (or whichever) license agreement.
OTOH, maybe the Justice Department might find that requiring a MS Windows installation when it is unecessary on a technological level is some sort of reverse bundling (i.e. forcing users to buy a copy of Windows, even though it is technically possible to use Office without it). Explotation of their (near) monopoly on office suites to sell more copies of Windows!