If I distributed an HTML document which had references to images or other objects on some website, every user opening that HTML document would cause an access to that web site.
Aihnss.748
net.jokes
utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!mhtsa!eagle!ihnss!karn
Mon Dec 14 12:36:57 1981
How many computer engineers . . .
One to redesign your house wiring.
One to suggest improvements to the design.
One programmer to scoff because light bulbs will be free in the near future.
Weren't the Iridium phones transmitting to a satellite? In fact, since they weren't directed antennae (thus the signal can is strong even outside a narrow beam), wouldn't the FCC have had a greater problem with those than with these?
As to your other point, I would darned well hope that the signals were encrypted or (the dereaded security through obscurity method) were only receivable by special devices.
The ruling, as I read it, did not ask Napster to shut down. It asked Napster to restrict the distribution of copyrighted material. The rest of this argument assumes that the distribution of copyrighted material is illegal - as the judge did.
While technically impossible to do, it is not difficult for Napster to make a reasonable effort to do so. Napster maintains an index of the music. It would not be impossible to set up filters which would work in most cases. Any judge would be lenient with them as long as they appeared to be making a reasonable effort.
But that's not what Napster's about. While they would like to pretend that they exist to support independent artists, etc. the truth of the matter is that Napsters subscribers are there because they like to distribute copyrighted material for free. Napster would lose its entire user base if it were to restrict copyrighted material. That is the reason why the judgement would mean shutting down Napster.
The argument about the Betamax standard is irrelevant because the judge did not outlaw Napster. The judge asked Napster to make reasonable attempts to prevent (and these are not as hard to do as Napster would pretend they are) the distribution of illegal material. Yes, there are several non-illegal uses of Napster and those are NOT being outlawed.
Toshiba's comments were strictly with regards to the usefulness of the technology in x86 Laptops - where they said the power consumption was not such a big deal since a large percentage of the power was spent on the backlight and hard drive.
Microsoft's chip is not x-86 compatible. It is targetted at the "internet appliance" segment. Toshibas comments do not apply to that market segment at all.
Further, just because the Russians wouldn't expect to be able to win a war against the US does not mean they wouldn't design their weapons to at least attempt to inflict some damage on US warships. It would be ridiculous to expect they would simply capitulate in the event of an actual war.
The contents of a Russian sub would also be an excellent indicator as to the existing state of the art among non-NATO forces and as such be of interest to the US navy.
Of course I do think that the notion that the US actually caused this to happen in any way is purely preposterous (there are easier ways to find out - including buying spys) and that the original poster was just trolling.
side note: those digit symbols are Arabic in origin).
No, they are not. It was the Indians who invented the decimal number system. The Arabs who traded with the Indians were the ones who brought that over to Europe. That's why they are called Arabic numerals. They are not Arabic in origin, though.
The reference to working at room temperature refers to the fact that this stuff was previously only demonstrated at very cold temperatures (60 K or -350F). This is a significant achievement towards getting it stable at even higher temperatures. Not quite unlike not so long ago when computers had to be placed in air-conditioned rooms.
given how fast conventional processors are accelerating (Moore's Law and all), do we even need molecular computing?
Moore's law says nothing about the actual technology used to achieve the gains. This might very well be what we need in order to keep with Moore's law once the current theoretical limits on conventional technology are neared.
Wasn't this discussion about what would be the best thing you'd like? Anyway, I point you to my original comment that the only advantage cubicles had was cost. Also, the fact that my employer has implemented this implies that the cost is not some gargantuan unfathomable amount of money but a very realistic one indeed.
Hehe, actually I work for a company with tens of thousands of employees - all with the same workspaces - so yes, it does scale provided you throw enough money at it.
Cubicles are a good idea for only one reason. They are cheap.
I like my workspace the way it is, thank you. Everyone gets an office with a real door. You're free to play games, surf p0rn or have long conversations with your girlfriend or sex therapist on the phone if you please. It's your damn business as long as you're doing the work you're supposed to.
With my own office, I can choose my lighting. If I didn't like the fluorescent panels in my office I could always order a halogen lamp or a desk lamp or whatever on my expense account.
There are plenty of meeting rooms around if you want to meet with a lot of people. You can always have people in your office too. Discussions get too loud? Close the door. Your neighbor annoy you when he screams at his computer? Ask him to close his door.
The coffee bar (along with the soda dispensers and arcade games) is in a room by itself. Feel free to be noisy in there.
In my current setup I have two walls covered with whiteboards and the third has a corkboard. And any changes I want made to this are just an email to services away. One of these whiteboards has my current task list. The others are usually covered with pictures of the architecture of the latest thing I'm working on or schematics of the accident my friend had with his truck and boat trailer on the freeway.
I never believe a rumour until I begin hearing a counter-rumour anyway. Like the last time there were rumours of a re-org at work, I didn't believe them until someone started rumours that there wouldn't be a re-org. That's when I knew a re-org was inevitable and sure enough it came through the week after.
Why would an interest group do this?
on
Voteauction.com
·
· Score: 1
So what's to prevent me from offering my vote up for sale, taking the money and then voting any damn way I please? I'm not a US citizen but in my country elections are by a secret ballot. If I'm unscrupulous enough to sell my vote, I'm probably unscrupulous enough to be disloyal to the money I've just taken.
What advantage does an interest group have in buying votes from citizens who vote for representatives anyway? Isn't it a lot more reliable to just buy the damn representatives?
What a refreshing idea. Lock up criminals. Can I start with the politicians? I don't know of a single one that couldn't be so catagorized?
You need to get out more then. While it's popular to jokingly accuse all politicians of being criminals, if you honestly believe each one of them is a criminal you need to get your head examined. Find a politician and prove he is guilty of a crime for which someone is imprisoned and I guarantee you'll find him there. Of course if the judge, jury and executor is all in your head, don't expect others to consider that proof of guilt.
But why didn't they prosecute the WTO reps? That was clearly the will of the people.
Who said anything about prosecuting someone based on the "will of the people"? Anyway, it's only the lunatic fringe of anarchists who believe the WTO reps should be prosecuted. What crime are you considering prosecuting them under? The crime of not being able to explain their function to the stupid?
The WTO plays a very important role. Unlike what some people like to believe, it's an organization of countries. Countries, not corporations. The reps at the WTO represent their countries interests at the meet. There are no corporations represented at the WTO. If your countrys reps end up representing corporations instead of their people, that's a beef you should take up with your politicians, not the WTO or the reps of other countries.
as is their right. It's called 'self-defense', and it's fundamental. They same applies in Philly. If the law won't protect us from the politicians, we must protect ourselves
Are you smoking crack? How the hell does being there have to do anything with self-defence? Look up the dictionary definition of self-defence.
Someone has to administer the law. We choose the police to do that. You have the right to go where you want to. However, if you commit a crime, that right is taken away and you are put in prison. Similarly, you have the right to free assembly. However, if you abuse that right and use it to block traffic, hinder the movement of others, etc. I have no problem with the police removing you from the scene.
The police showed admirable restraint in Seattle. In fact, the police allowed the protesters to assemble even after it was clear they were hindering the movement of the WTO delegates and were there for the sole purpose of hindering such movement. There were virtually no talks between the delegates for the first couple of days because of the carnival surrounding the event. If you read the newspapers in many other countries they accused the US of intentionally encouraging protests and dealing insufficiently with them because the US wanted to hinder talks at that point in time.
You have a right to assembly. The delegates at the WTO had a right to assembly too. I have the right to use the streets to go where I want to. If you try to hinder other peoples rights to assembly, I have no problem with your rights being taken away at that point.
The natural idea is that ideas should be free, since by copying them I have taken nothing from you. You still have the idea in a complete and undiminished form. What is worth paying for are the *services* and *items* that add value to the idea.
Fine, look at the music as a service then. The artists have recorded it as a service. You are free to pay for it or not. Your choice.
It is not logical that the author of an idea should get anything other than what people feel that idea is worth. If they think your music should be free, then you are entitled to nothing.
That's such a ridiculous argument. There's a difference between what someone says they think it's worth and what it's actually worth. On the one hand you have a bunch of kiddies who think music should be free but then you have a whole bunch of other people who think the music is worth what they charge for it and are willing to pay that. That's the reason the record industry is not out of business right now: the fact that people are willing to pay for it - obviously that means they think it's worth it, right?
If that causes you to stop making music, fine. There will be plenty of others who will fill your shoes. Either that, or fewer and fewer people will produce music. But if people really want to hear music, they will probably start paying artists they like in order to ensure they keep making music.
People are already doing that. People do pay for music. That has nothing to do with the people who steal the music. Your entire argument boils down to saying that the fact that because stealing music is so easy relative to paying for it that a significant people choose to steal it means prices are inflated. I'm not saying prices are not overinflated - the fact that people are stealing it not proof, though.
Slashdot Mirror
If I distributed an HTML document which had references to images or other objects on some website, every user opening that HTML document would cause an access to that web site.
Aihnss.748
net.jokes
utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!mhtsa!eagle!ihnss!karn
Mon Dec 14 12:36:57 1981
How many computer engineers . . .
One to redesign your house wiring.
One to suggest improvements to the design.
One programmer to scoff because light bulbs will be free in the near future.
Weren't the Iridium phones transmitting to a satellite? In fact, since they weren't directed antennae (thus the signal can is strong even outside a narrow beam), wouldn't the FCC have had a greater problem with those than with these?
As to your other point, I would darned well hope that the signals were encrypted or (the dereaded security through obscurity method) were only receivable by special devices.
The ruling, as I read it, did not ask Napster to shut down. It asked Napster to restrict the distribution of copyrighted material. The rest of this argument assumes that the distribution of copyrighted material is illegal - as the judge did.
While technically impossible to do, it is not difficult for Napster to make a reasonable effort to do so. Napster maintains an index of the music. It would not be impossible to set up filters which would work in most cases. Any judge would be lenient with them as long as they appeared to be making a reasonable effort.
But that's not what Napster's about. While they would like to pretend that they exist to support independent artists, etc. the truth of the matter is that Napsters subscribers are there because they like to distribute copyrighted material for free. Napster would lose its entire user base if it were to restrict copyrighted material. That is the reason why the judgement would mean shutting down Napster.
The argument about the Betamax standard is irrelevant because the judge did not outlaw Napster. The judge asked Napster to make reasonable attempts to prevent (and these are not as hard to do as Napster would pretend they are) the distribution of illegal material. Yes, there are several non-illegal uses of Napster and those are NOT being outlawed.
The two chips are not even in the same market.
Please read the article.
Toshiba's comments were strictly with regards to the usefulness of the technology in x86 Laptops - where they said the power consumption was not such a big deal since a large percentage of the power was spent on the backlight and hard drive.
Microsoft's chip is not x-86 compatible. It is targetted at the "internet appliance" segment. Toshibas comments do not apply to that market segment at all.
Umm.. and give them my name and address so they can send me junk mail? No thanks.
Further, just because the Russians wouldn't expect to be able to win a war against the US does not mean they wouldn't design their weapons to at least attempt to inflict some damage on US warships. It would be ridiculous to expect they would simply capitulate in the event of an actual war.
The contents of a Russian sub would also be an excellent indicator as to the existing state of the art among non-NATO forces and as such be of interest to the US navy.
Of course I do think that the notion that the US actually caused this to happen in any way is purely preposterous (there are easier ways to find out - including buying spys) and that the original poster was just trolling.
side note: those digit symbols are Arabic in origin).
No, they are not. It was the Indians who invented the decimal number system. The Arabs who traded with the Indians were the ones who brought that over to Europe. That's why they are called Arabic numerals. They are not Arabic in origin, though.
The reference to working at room temperature refers to the fact that this stuff was previously only demonstrated at very cold temperatures (60 K or -350F). This is a significant achievement towards getting it stable at even higher temperatures. Not quite unlike not so long ago when computers had to be placed in air-conditioned rooms.
given how fast conventional processors are accelerating (Moore's Law and all), do we even need molecular computing?
Moore's law says nothing about the actual technology used to achieve the gains. This might very well be what we need in order to keep with Moore's law once the current theoretical limits on conventional technology are neared.
Wasn't this discussion about what would be the best thing you'd like? Anyway, I point you to my original comment that the only advantage cubicles had was cost. Also, the fact that my employer has implemented this implies that the cost is not some gargantuan unfathomable amount of money but a very realistic one indeed.
Hehe, actually I work for a company with tens of thousands of employees - all with the same workspaces - so yes, it does scale provided you throw enough money at it.
Cubicles are a good idea for only one reason. They are cheap.
:P
I like my workspace the way it is, thank you. Everyone gets an office with a real door. You're free to play games, surf p0rn or have long conversations with your girlfriend or sex therapist on the phone if you please. It's your damn business as long as you're doing the work you're supposed to.
With my own office, I can choose my lighting. If I didn't like the fluorescent panels in my office I could always order a halogen lamp or a desk lamp or whatever on my expense account.
There are plenty of meeting rooms around if you want to meet with a lot of people. You can always have people in your office too. Discussions get too loud? Close the door. Your neighbor annoy you when he screams at his computer? Ask him to close his door.
The coffee bar (along with the soda dispensers and arcade games) is in a room by itself. Feel free to be noisy in there.
In my current setup I have two walls covered with whiteboards and the third has a corkboard. And any changes I want made to this are just an email to services away. One of these whiteboards has my current task list. The others are usually covered with pictures of the architecture of the latest thing I'm working on or schematics of the accident my friend had with his truck and boat trailer on the freeway.
Oh and my office and desk are very messy
I never believe a rumour until I begin hearing a counter-rumour anyway. Like the last time there were rumours of a re-org at work, I didn't believe them until someone started rumours that there wouldn't be a re-org. That's when I knew a re-org was inevitable and sure enough it came through the week after.
So what's to prevent me from offering my vote up for sale, taking the money and then voting any damn way I please? I'm not a US citizen but in my country elections are by a secret ballot. If I'm unscrupulous enough to sell my vote, I'm probably unscrupulous enough to be disloyal to the money I've just taken.
What advantage does an interest group have in buying votes from citizens who vote for representatives anyway? Isn't it a lot more reliable to just buy the damn representatives?
You are also paying for the hundreds of unnamed artists who recorded and were promoted but failed utterly on the market.
What a refreshing idea. Lock up criminals. Can I start with the politicians? I don't know of a single one that couldn't be so catagorized?
You need to get out more then. While it's popular to jokingly accuse all politicians of being criminals, if you honestly believe each one of them is a criminal you need to get your head examined. Find a politician and prove he is guilty of a crime for which someone is imprisoned and I guarantee you'll find him there. Of course if the judge, jury and executor is all in your head, don't expect others to consider that proof of guilt.
But why didn't they prosecute the WTO reps? That was clearly the will of the people.
Who said anything about prosecuting someone based on the "will of the people"? Anyway, it's only the lunatic fringe of anarchists who believe the WTO reps should be prosecuted. What crime are you considering prosecuting them under? The crime of not being able to explain their function to the stupid?
The WTO plays a very important role. Unlike what some people like to believe, it's an organization of countries. Countries, not corporations. The reps at the WTO represent their countries interests at the meet. There are no corporations represented at the WTO. If your countrys reps end up representing corporations instead of their people, that's a beef you should take up with your politicians, not the WTO or the reps of other countries.
as is their right. It's called 'self-defense', and it's fundamental. They same applies in Philly. If the law won't protect us from the politicians, we must protect ourselves
Are you smoking crack? How the hell does being there have to do anything with self-defence? Look up the dictionary definition of self-defence.
Someone has to administer the law. We choose the police to do that. You have the right to go where you want to. However, if you commit a crime, that right is taken away and you are put in prison. Similarly, you have the right to free assembly. However, if you abuse that right and use it to block traffic, hinder the movement of others, etc. I have no problem with the police removing you from the scene.
The police showed admirable restraint in Seattle. In fact, the police allowed the protesters to assemble even after it was clear they were hindering the movement of the WTO delegates and were there for the sole purpose of hindering such movement. There were virtually no talks between the delegates for the first couple of days because of the carnival surrounding the event. If you read the newspapers in many other countries they accused the US of intentionally encouraging protests and dealing insufficiently with them because the US wanted to hinder talks at that point in time.
You have a right to assembly. The delegates at the WTO had a right to assembly too. I have the right to use the streets to go where I want to. If you try to hinder other peoples rights to assembly, I have no problem with your rights being taken away at that point.
The natural idea is that ideas should be free, since by copying them I have taken nothing from you. You still have the idea in a complete and undiminished form. What is worth paying for are the *services* and *items* that add value to the idea.
Fine, look at the music as a service then. The artists have recorded it as a service. You are free to pay for it or not. Your choice.
It is not logical that the author of an idea should get anything other than what people feel that idea is worth. If they think your music should be free, then you are entitled to nothing.
That's such a ridiculous argument. There's a difference between what someone says they think it's worth and what it's actually worth. On the one hand you have a bunch of kiddies who think music should be free but then you have a whole bunch of other people who think the music is worth what they charge for it and are willing to pay that. That's the reason the record industry is not out of business right now: the fact that people are willing to pay for it - obviously that means they think it's worth it, right?
If that causes you to stop making music, fine. There will be plenty of others who will fill your shoes. Either that, or fewer and fewer people will produce music. But if people really want to hear music, they will probably start paying artists they like in order to ensure they keep making music.
People are already doing that. People do pay for music. That has nothing to do with the people who steal the music. Your entire argument boils down to saying that the fact that because stealing music is so easy relative to paying for it that a significant people choose to steal it means prices are inflated. I'm not saying prices are not overinflated - the fact that people are stealing it not proof, though.
Uh.. uh.. uhhh
Damn, I wish Beavis & Butthead came back!
It's HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Command Processor\\CompletionChar (No Windows under Microsoft) on my machine.
You mean as opposed to CmdrTaco's willingness to editorialize during news reports?
This post is anything but Flamebait. It makes me angry to see morons like this with moderation power.
Most crashes on Windows are because of faulty drivers. The XBox has ONE hardware configuration. Much harder to crash.
Yes, but you can't buy both tickets in your name and take your wife along with you on the plane.