Seriously, I can't believe this misconception still exists. You would think 30 years of sex-ed and women's lib literature would have clued you all in by now. Rape is about power, anger, and violence. It has nothing to do with sex.
The BBC story talks about only the Antarctic ozone hole, which is larger than in previous years (though it's rate of growth has slowed). The CNN story talks about the average thickness of the ozone layer globally, which has shown some slight improvement and stabilisation. These two facts are not contradictory. RTFA.
The relevance is to the bit about shooting your eye out. As in, "You'll shoot your eye out, kid!". See link for details if you haven't seen this movie.
Tax cuts are equivalent to government spending *when the government has already spent that money*. The US government has financial obligations, and taxes are the means by which those obligations are met. Cutting taxes is fine, if it is at the expense of FUTURE expenses to which you have not yet committed. But you cannot cut taxes just because you don't want to foot the bill on things for which you have already paid via deficit spending. That would be like refusing to pay your credit card bill for money you owe. The social security treasury fund is a lump of money against which the government has borrowed and is obligated to pay back, just as you would be if you had borrowed from a private lender.
You miss the point. Your editor would make the code easily legible and comprehensive to humans. Your editor would understand the specific XML markup, and display the program to you in the same way that you see source code now. In fact, because of the markup, your editor could display the code to you in an even simpler and more intuitive form. This is no different than what your editor does now, which is to take a string of bits and turn them into ASCII characters -- it is simply another level of abstraction.
Uh, just because WinAmp is nice enough to put out a patch that will protect you from IE's vulnerable behavior does not mean it's their fault in the first place. Kinda like the whole Mozilla thing.
You're thinking about traditional broadband uses -- things that are done with broadband because of the deployment pattern of broadband.
Think about something far more interesting; for example, what if every singe person in that rural Montana community could get a regular yearly physical with a real physician sitting thousands of miles away. How much would this kind of regular preventative care provided without brick-and-mortar costs reduce insurance rates?
Or what if that remote community could get a network-operated robotic medical/surgical unit. Instead of a risky eight hour life-flight to the nearest major urban center, a patient could get local surgery and care. This could be just as much a life-saver as the 9-1-1 phone call was for previous generations.
Why don't we already have these kinds of things? Well, aside from all the other obvious technical challenges (all surmountable, given the incentive), one huge hurdle is simply, "why bother"? The only places that have the necessary broadband connections to support something like this are probably urban centers that already have perfectly good hospitals and clinics. It's a chicken and egg problem -- there are lots of potentially great uses for broadband outside of gaming that don't exist yet because the deployment pattern of broadband is not conducive to them.
Or think of it this way -- what came first, the phone system or 9-1-1? The phone system didn't provide all these great benefits at first either -- all of the great benefits came about because the phone system was installed and people started thinking about ways to use it more effectively.
Something glossed over by the article (and Rambus), but very important, is that this isn't anything even remotely like the end of the FTC investigation into this.
"Today's ruling came after a three-month evidentiary hearing and is subject to potential further review by the full Commission and review by a United States Court of Appeal."
and
"The Judge's initial decision is subject to review by the full Commission, either on its own motion or at the request of either party."
Basically one judge threw out the preliminary suit brought by a small commitee of the FTC. The case will now almost certainly go before the full FTC and, unlike an appeals process, this will involve a complete reexamination of the body of evidence. Essentially there will be a second, independent judgement by the FTC again on this matter, with potentially (and hopefully) differing results.
Cancel cable. Works great to eliminate one of the major distractions you probably have. I still watch movies aplenty, but those are finite, well-defined beasts that have a clear ending point, at which time I get up and do something else. Anything else. No more frittering away the hours in front of the tube channel-surfing. Just remember, pretty much ANYthing is more productive than sitting on your couch watching TV. It may not be the productive thing you wanted to do, but I guarantee you'll still be better off at the end than if you had watched TV the whole time. Even if it was just to clip your toenails instead. Remember, good hygeine is important too.
Actually, I think this was a partial success for Wal-Mart (from their point of view). With the threat of the DMCA, they got the prices removed so their competitors could not undercut them. They then backed down AFTER the post-Thanksgiving sale, costing them little to nothing to do so, and avoided the cost of actually having to pursue the lawsuit. Other than the relatively small press-coverage on/. and the single blurb on WSJ, they take almost no bad press over the whole affair. I'd say they accomplished exactly what they set out to do.
That is the industry standard definition of the term.
If it's the industry standard, why don't HD companies use it to mean 2^20 instead of 10^6 so that there would be no confusion? Then every reference to megabyte would always mean 2^20 and we'd be happy. As it is, I think your standard needs work...
I suppose it really depends on your school, but the primary difference I've seen between CS and CompE is the focus of the math. At my university, where I've switched back and forth between CompE and CS several times, the distinction seems pretty clear.
In CompE, you will probably never be asked to prove that a problem is np-complete, or need to determine the order of a sorting algorithm. These are high-level analytical techniques that relate to programming concepts in general that you really only learn in CS.
On the flip-side, a CS student is never going to be asked how to solve a field equation, apply Gauss' laws, or prove that the transient response of a steady-state circuit can be effectively ignored.
Really, both of these things come down to the types of advanced mathematics you end up learning. Most of what made CompE different at my school was Electrical Engineering coursework; and most of that is deep into the land of differential equations, complex number planes, and all sorts of high level calculus. On the other hand, the CS coursework that really matters is the study of algorithms and of the theory of computing in general; doing proofs, using deductive logic techniques, and other types of analytical math.
As for programming and hardware, there is no difference generally in what you learn. Even the most simple of electronics typically requires at least some code to do anything useful. And even the most abstract programming techniques ultimately will run on a real machine with real, physical considerations. Chances are you will learn everything you wanted to know about architecture and programming in either course. It's really about whether you want to understand more fundamentally the properties of electrons or the properties of numbers.
Taking the logic behind this concept to the absurd extreme, we will soon be taxing paper as "blank media" and pens as a "component that can be used in copying". Makes perfect sense to me...
But the key invention will not be the electronic book--at least not the gray boxes on exhibit at e-Book World. Instead, it will be a development that not a single speaker at the conference addressed--a product that not one of the companies in the exhibit displayed. Although the collective imagination of the publishing industry has been captured by the current generation of electronic books, the technology that is most likely to transform reading and writing will be electronic paper.
THAT was the main theme of the article. The first 4 paragraphs discussed the conference and intro'd the above point. The next 23 disucussed the past and present of e-paper.
You should probably read the article before making a comment on it. The whole point is exactly to overcome your issues: e-PAPER will enable e-books. Material that is as flexible, portable, and cheap as paper, but that displays information based on electronic input rather than static ink.
It's no small wonder that companies and individuals alike don't behave politely in circumstances like this. Mr. Ylonen tried to accomodate the wide use of the SSH name, hoped that it wouldn't interfere with his own business, and when it finally proved to confuse users of his own product, asked nicely that people help him resolve the situation. And for the most part, what do we do? Turn him into a villain. You all need a few more holes drilled in your heads to get out the idiot vapors. You bitch and whine about the corporate lawyers and their complete and utter lack of common sense and common courtesy, but yet refuse to be responsible and mature when someone comes along and behaves EXACTLY like we've all hoped people would regarding copyright and trademark issues. Up until now, we could always blame the lack of cooperation and openness on the mark holders and their stupid demands. This time, it's your fault. Shame on you...
lizrd got the first point, which is that someone coming in and fucking up your data, "sensitive" or not, is a serious pain, even if you have comprehensive backups.
The second point is that while you may not be a criminal, leaving your box open to something like this makes you criminally stupid. Some script kiddie may jump in and start setting up IRC servers and using your machine to help in some DDOS attacks. Try proving to your local authorities that just because the logs say the attacks came from YOUR IP that it wasn't YOUR fault and that, please officer, can I have my computer back now?
The simple fact is to duplicate a book you need a bunch of real world stuff.
Uh oh... I suppose in a few months we will hear about a new paper tax, requiring a portion of the profit from all blank paper media sold to go to publishing companies to help recoup their losses from all of those copyright violations. In related news, Congress will outlaw pens, ruling them as circumenvention technology under the provisions of the DCMA. Then we'll all be safe from those evil pirates...
We cannot know what the court would have done had it been asked to enjoin a purely English narrative of the DeCSS source, but the note strongly suggests the court's willingness to do so. It is
unfathomable that English prose could be a circumvention measure under the terms of DMCA, yet the court intimated that it might have so found. And if DMCA could be read to proscribe
English as a circumvention measure, the Constitutional ramifications come into even sharper focus.
The brief in general culminates to this point, which is essentially that the Court enjoined speech to protect the interests of corporate money. Now even the most Republican judge will stop and pause before letting THAT slide. Despite the Republicans and the corporate leaders being age old bedfellows, they still have to face a certain degree of public review. And even the most average Joe Schmoe who couldn't understand the cake recipe, let alone a Perl program, will be able to understand that point. No American, no matter how Republican or right-wing (or Liberal or left-wing) is going to accept a courts decision to enjoin anything on the grounds of protecting corporate money. Ever. It's probably the one thing you can count on Americans to get angry about, actually. As long as the case continues to be presented in this light, the public support will ultimately fall on "our" side.
Don't forget to pick up an OpenDVD T-Shirt from Copyleft too! $4 of each purchase goes to the EFF. Support the boys in the trenches and use that walking ad space to express your opinion, all in one fell swoop.
...people went to University specifically to be challenged, offended, and otherwise exposed to the ideas of others?
There's a lot of quibbling over whether or not a University administration has the right to restrict free-speech in certain areas. Who cares if they have the right? The scary part is that they're trying to impose restrictions at all. Universities were once the strongholds of revolutions -- doesn't it frighten anybody that the these long-held bastions have finally been overrun? Even if the policies restricting speech are overruled, the basic fact that they are being attempted means we are starting to lose University campuses as safe-houses.
The 60's as a whole is probably rolling over in its grave.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.openvotingconsortium.org/
or raping somone to get your sexual satisfaction
Seriously, I can't believe this misconception still exists. You would think 30 years of sex-ed and women's lib literature would have clued you all in by now. Rape is about power, anger, and violence. It has nothing to do with sex.
The BBC story talks about only the Antarctic ozone hole, which is larger than in previous years (though it's rate of growth has slowed). The CNN story talks about the average thickness of the ozone layer globally, which has shown some slight improvement and stabilisation. These two facts are not contradictory. RTFA.
By these criteria, shouldn't it be called "Planet Infinium Phantom"?
The relevance is to the bit about shooting your eye out. As in, "You'll shoot your eye out, kid!". See link for details if you haven't seen this movie.
_ bb _gun.htm
http://www.flicklives.com/Glossary/red_ryder/gl
Tax cuts are equivalent to government spending *when the government has already spent that money*. The US government has financial obligations, and taxes are the means by which those obligations are met. Cutting taxes is fine, if it is at the expense of FUTURE expenses to which you have not yet committed. But you cannot cut taxes just because you don't want to foot the bill on things for which you have already paid via deficit spending. That would be like refusing to pay your credit card bill for money you owe. The social security treasury fund is a lump of money against which the government has borrowed and is obligated to pay back, just as you would be if you had borrowed from a private lender.
You miss the point. Your editor would make the code easily legible and comprehensive to humans. Your editor would understand the specific XML markup, and display the program to you in the same way that you see source code now. In fact, because of the markup, your editor could display the code to you in an even simpler and more intuitive form. This is no different than what your editor does now, which is to take a string of bits and turn them into ASCII characters -- it is simply another level of abstraction.
Uh, just because WinAmp is nice enough to put out a patch that will protect you from IE's vulnerable behavior does not mean it's their fault in the first place. Kinda like the whole Mozilla thing.
You're thinking about traditional broadband uses -- things that are done with broadband because of the deployment pattern of broadband.
Think about something far more interesting; for example, what if every singe person in that rural Montana community could get a regular yearly physical with a real physician sitting thousands of miles away. How much would this kind of regular preventative care provided without brick-and-mortar costs reduce insurance rates?
Or what if that remote community could get a network-operated robotic medical/surgical unit. Instead of a risky eight hour life-flight to the nearest major urban center, a patient could get local surgery and care. This could be just as much a life-saver as the 9-1-1 phone call was for previous generations.
Why don't we already have these kinds of things? Well, aside from all the other obvious technical challenges (all surmountable, given the incentive), one huge hurdle is simply, "why bother"? The only places that have the necessary broadband connections to support something like this are probably urban centers that already have perfectly good hospitals and clinics. It's a chicken and egg problem -- there are lots of potentially great uses for broadband outside of gaming that don't exist yet because the deployment pattern of broadband is not conducive to them.
Or think of it this way -- what came first, the phone system or 9-1-1? The phone system didn't provide all these great benefits at first either -- all of the great benefits came about because the phone system was installed and people started thinking about ways to use it more effectively.
My Neuros MP3/OGG player has been able to do this for a year.
Something glossed over by the article (and Rambus), but very important, is that this isn't anything even remotely like the end of the FTC investigation into this.
"Today's ruling came after a three-month evidentiary hearing and is subject to potential further review by the full Commission and review by a United States Court of Appeal."
and
"The Judge's initial decision is subject to review by the full Commission, either on its own motion or at the request of either party."
Basically one judge threw out the preliminary suit brought by a small commitee of the FTC. The case will now almost certainly go before the full FTC and, unlike an appeals process, this will involve a complete reexamination of the body of evidence. Essentially there will be a second, independent judgement by the FTC again on this matter, with potentially (and hopefully) differing results.
Cancel cable. Works great to eliminate one of the major distractions you probably have. I still watch movies aplenty, but those are finite, well-defined beasts that have a clear ending point, at which time I get up and do something else. Anything else. No more frittering away the hours in front of the tube channel-surfing. Just remember, pretty much ANYthing is more productive than sitting on your couch watching TV. It may not be the productive thing you wanted to do, but I guarantee you'll still be better off at the end than if you had watched TV the whole time. Even if it was just to clip your toenails instead. Remember, good hygeine is important too.
Actually, I think this was a partial success for Wal-Mart (from their point of view). With the threat of the DMCA, they got the prices removed so their competitors could not undercut them. They then backed down AFTER the post-Thanksgiving sale, costing them little to nothing to do so, and avoided the cost of actually having to pursue the lawsuit. Other than the relatively small press-coverage on /. and the single blurb on WSJ, they take almost no bad press over the whole affair. I'd say they accomplished exactly what they set out to do.
That is the industry standard definition of the term.
If it's the industry standard, why don't HD companies use it to mean 2^20 instead of 10^6 so that there would be no confusion? Then every reference to megabyte would always mean 2^20 and we'd be happy. As it is, I think your standard needs work...
I suppose it really depends on your school, but the primary difference I've seen between CS and CompE is the focus of the math. At my university, where I've switched back and forth between CompE and CS several times, the distinction seems pretty clear.
In CompE, you will probably never be asked to prove that a problem is np-complete, or need to determine the order of a sorting algorithm. These are high-level analytical techniques that relate to programming concepts in general that you really only learn in CS.
On the flip-side, a CS student is never going to be asked how to solve a field equation, apply Gauss' laws, or prove that the transient response of a steady-state circuit can be effectively ignored.
Really, both of these things come down to the types of advanced mathematics you end up learning. Most of what made CompE different at my school was Electrical Engineering coursework; and most of that is deep into the land of differential equations, complex number planes, and all sorts of high level calculus. On the other hand, the CS coursework that really matters is the study of algorithms and of the theory of computing in general; doing proofs, using deductive logic techniques, and other types of analytical math.
As for programming and hardware, there is no difference generally in what you learn. Even the most simple of electronics typically requires at least some code to do anything useful. And even the most abstract programming techniques ultimately will run on a real machine with real, physical considerations. Chances are you will learn everything you wanted to know about architecture and programming in either course. It's really about whether you want to understand more fundamentally the properties of electrons or the properties of numbers.
Taking the logic behind this concept to the absurd extreme, we will soon be taxing paper as "blank media" and pens as a "component that can be used in copying". Makes perfect sense to me...
But the key invention will not be the electronic book--at least not the gray boxes on exhibit at e-Book World. Instead, it will be a development that not a single speaker at the conference addressed--a product that not one of the companies in the exhibit displayed. Although the collective imagination of the publishing industry has been captured by the current generation of electronic books, the technology that is most likely to transform reading and writing will be electronic paper.
THAT was the main theme of the article. The first 4 paragraphs discussed the conference and intro'd the above point. The next 23 disucussed the past and present of e-paper.
You should probably read the article before making a comment on it. The whole point is exactly to overcome your issues: e-PAPER will enable e-books. Material that is as flexible, portable, and cheap as paper, but that displays information based on electronic input rather than static ink.
It's no small wonder that companies and individuals alike don't behave politely in circumstances like this. Mr. Ylonen tried to accomodate the wide use of the SSH name, hoped that it wouldn't interfere with his own business, and when it finally proved to confuse users of his own product, asked nicely that people help him resolve the situation. And for the most part, what do we do? Turn him into a villain. You all need a few more holes drilled in your heads to get out the idiot vapors. You bitch and whine about the corporate lawyers and their complete and utter lack of common sense and common courtesy, but yet refuse to be responsible and mature when someone comes along and behaves EXACTLY like we've all hoped people would regarding copyright and trademark issues. Up until now, we could always blame the lack of cooperation and openness on the mark holders and their stupid demands. This time, it's your fault. Shame on you...
Unforuntately having to state the obvious, the whole point of having an URL named slashdot is negated by putting www in front of it.
lizrd got the first point, which is that someone coming in and fucking up your data, "sensitive" or not, is a serious pain, even if you have comprehensive backups.
The second point is that while you may not be a criminal, leaving your box open to something like this makes you criminally stupid. Some script kiddie may jump in and start setting up IRC servers and using your machine to help in some DDOS attacks. Try proving to your local authorities that just because the logs say the attacks came from YOUR IP that it wasn't YOUR fault and that, please officer, can I have my computer back now?
The simple fact is to duplicate a book you need a bunch of real world stuff.
Uh oh... I suppose in a few months we will hear about a new paper tax, requiring a portion of the profit from all blank paper media sold to go to publishing companies to help recoup their losses from all of those copyright violations. In related news, Congress will outlaw pens, ruling them as circumenvention technology under the provisions of the DCMA. Then we'll all be safe from those evil pirates...
We cannot know what the court would have done had it been asked to enjoin a purely English narrative of the DeCSS source, but the note strongly suggests the court's willingness to do so. It is unfathomable that English prose could be a circumvention measure under the terms of DMCA, yet the court intimated that it might have so found. And if DMCA could be read to proscribe English as a circumvention measure, the Constitutional ramifications come into even sharper focus.
The brief in general culminates to this point, which is essentially that the Court enjoined speech to protect the interests of corporate money. Now even the most Republican judge will stop and pause before letting THAT slide. Despite the Republicans and the corporate leaders being age old bedfellows, they still have to face a certain degree of public review. And even the most average Joe Schmoe who couldn't understand the cake recipe, let alone a Perl program, will be able to understand that point. No American, no matter how Republican or right-wing (or Liberal or left-wing) is going to accept a courts decision to enjoin anything on the grounds of protecting corporate money. Ever. It's probably the one thing you can count on Americans to get angry about, actually. As long as the case continues to be presented in this light, the public support will ultimately fall on "our" side.
Don't forget to pick up an OpenDVD T-Shirt from Copyleft too! $4 of each purchase goes to the EFF. Support the boys in the trenches and use that walking ad space to express your opinion, all in one fell swoop.
...people went to University specifically to be challenged, offended, and otherwise exposed to the ideas of others?
There's a lot of quibbling over whether or not a University administration has the right to restrict free-speech in certain areas. Who cares if they have the right? The scary part is that they're trying to impose restrictions at all. Universities were once the strongholds of revolutions -- doesn't it frighten anybody that the these long-held bastions have finally been overrun? Even if the policies restricting speech are overruled, the basic fact that they are being attempted means we are starting to lose University campuses as safe-houses.
The 60's as a whole is probably rolling over in its grave.