Sounds too complicated. I think a lot of people miss a big point with the electronic security. There is need to make security uncompromisable. Once they simply make things too difficult, no one will bother. If it took getting two reviewer's copies and doing hours of digital editing to remove the watermark, as well as the hours of physically recording (as opposed to ripping) the DVDs, you're gonna lose a lot of potential copiers, simply because it is too much work, which ultimately stymies the interest in piracy, since it is harder to download and there is less choice among potential qualities and formats.
See, I thought they mined it as magnesium oxide, than refined it and took the oxygen out. That's what they do with a lot of metals, right? If that's the case, then they are inaccurately implying that they are performing a vital industrial function in doing this in the cars instead of factories.
I filed for the patent for all patent-related jokes on Slashdot, you owe me $5, or a bacon cheeseburger (still warm). So we're going on the Honor System here, everyone who used one in the last week or so needs to email me to get directions as to where to send the money...
I don't get it... What does a built in vacuuem have to do with fuel?
remove the used magnesium oxide. Essentially, the waste is contained in the car instead of spewed out, and I think there is a use for magnesium oxide. Also they need to change the water. Since they have to take stuff out of the tank, refueling is a bit more complicated.
Also, as I remember my high school AP Chem class, water breaks normally into OH- and H+, doesn't it? I mean, I know there is a way to get H2 and O with electricity, but isn't that counterproductive?
I suppose it is technically possible, but they have to heat the water to high temperatures to do this. So, according to the Article, they should need something to get the water hot. But I see nothing that does that.
No, I get that they are problematic, but they still need to be in Wikipedia, for the simple reason that you and I both can recognize them. I would like a current source of all knowledge to try to include personalities. I don't think either of them have a positive influence, but perhaps that's why we need them in the encyclopedia. I haven't read the rest of the Michael Moore article, and don't intend to, but I don't think his presence in Wikipedia should be problematic.
None of that information is biased towards Michael Moore. It's just that he has a fan who did a lot of research on him. Why don't you do a lot of research on Pat Robertson's or Rush Limbaugh's family, and see if something interesting turns up. If you discover that Rush Limbaugh's uncle was semi-important in an area, then try to get it into the article.
So are they going to be regretting moving away from that? I mean, that would have an appeal in a low to middle end laptop that can run for 12 hours or something. I'd certainly pay for it. I'm impressed with my iBook battery as it is, but it is just shy of being able to cover all my needs in a day. Or at least, usually have to think about charging it. An 8 hour laptop would be great for people on the move, like students, or amateur filmmakers.
I use gmail like 20 times a day, and I honestly never notice the text based ads. It should be possible to make unobtrusive ads, or even ads that are benficial. Let's say that I look up a movie on Wikipedia. Maybe I'll get an ad from a store selling the DVD for cheap? They already have external links to websites involved in an article. Maybe if those sites pay to get the ad, it'll help wikipedia.
That'd give undue influence to out of date pages. There are a lot of pages on some topics that are obsolete and basically abandoned. They'd cause their own problem. Ideally, you want to get sites that have been around for a while, but are regularly updated.
Very true. The only sort of self-sustaining colony would be on a green planet. If the colonists can't hunt for their own food/water, they'll just die slower. Unless they can fly back to Earth and recolonize it before supplies run out (within a year at latest), they'll starve to death without a place to farm. And even then, can they land without mission control? If they land in the ocean, 15 miles from land, can they swim back?
Dude, you want older stats? I got them right here.::Reaches into coat, pulls out a cool-looking book:: This is the sacred wikipedia. It draws on the learning of thousands of bright people, and changes with the times. Use it well.
There is also the RSS issue as well. One of my browsers somewhere (I have 9, 10 if you count AOL, which I don't) has an RSS feed to BBC. I don't use it much, I read CNN, but I imagine RSS helps people avoid going through the front page.
Slashdot is very large, but the second statistical requirement is that it draw from the same population. In this case, it draws from a sub-population that is disproportionately computer literate and/or involved in computing. The difference is that a/. user is more likely to go to the trouble of using a non-default browser. This means that/. data can't be used for this reliably. Large, common sites like CNN or BBC are good, because they are visited by everyone equally (sort of), and thus will reflect the overall numbers roughly.
Well, that depends on how a web browser brings in its dough. Since all of the major ones are free (or, I downloaded the 8 or 9 big ones everyone mentions for Mac without charge), it seems to me that they must make money through some sort system dependent on page views. If someone could elaborate, I'd appreciate it.
If that is the case, then Firefox is in fact making 9.5% of the "sales" - whatever brings in the money, and it's usage base is the same number. So to sum it up, market share = usage share in this case (if I understand the browser business model). Don't think that something that is free doesn't make money - look at Google.
I don't believe there is anything magical about the brain, and I believe it can be reproduced in a man-made form. But I think it is far far more complex than we yet realize. Even the most advanced neural nets of today are nowheres near the level of complexity of even a rodent brain
When I said shortly, I meant within two decades or so, which may be optimistic. But in regards to your comment, don't forget that compared to some earlier humans, we have smaller brains. The reason is that much of the brain has to work on coordination and muscle/organ control. A computer needs to do only the reasoning parts.
In regards to the updating thing, it sort of ticks me off that they re-release very similar material and it is profitable. Yes, they had the free crib sheet of the changes, but it is unrealistic to imagine a person to be able to meld a 3 page crib sheet and a 200 page book, times like 10 books. So in the end, we wind up buying every new copy, and most of it is just the same stuff. Really, I think tabletop is going to die out when computer RPGs get more and more open-ended. And I think that an MMORPG that allows private networks and DMing tools would be incredibly useful. It was heinously hard to get my friends all together at once for 4-5 hours, and when we were all together, we didn't always want to play DnD. Many a campaign died because we went 2 or 3 months without playing.
How does this affect the contractual part of it? If I change it, don't agree, then mail the changes back to MS, what would they do? Would they even notice? I'd be inclined to do it 10 times or so, just to make their lawyers read the damn thing over and over.
Re:Only a matter of time
on
The Los Alamos Bug
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
We are certainly moving towards artificial intelligence. We actually have programs that can write themselves to a limited degree. And so we'll probably have artifical intelligence shortly. But making a new biological species with our level of intelligence sounds tough because of our limited knowledge of the brain.
I'd recommend you read things by Ray Kurzweil on this topic. In particular, "The Singularity" seems relevant. Apparently there is a short collection of essays by him online, but I don't know if it'll have what you're looking for.
Yes, I understand that, but "British scientists at the University of Manchester were apparently bored and decided to find out, once and for all, if the Velociraptor was as mean as Jurassic Park would like everyone to think." doesn't really do it as a motivation to do research for me. Obviously, this was a joke, and shouldn't be taken seriously, just like my post.
Not to mention, it's sort of hard to say what a real raptor did by using a robotic model based on what we assume is the correct muscle structure based off of bones. In seriousness, I've been reading about robotic models and AIs, and they tend to come up with "unique" solutions to problems (which is good in my opinion). In this case, I'm not going to fund (if I had money) something that seems overly hypothetical. I mean, if they cloned a dinosaur to find out...
Not gonna lie. "Bored Scientists" isn't quite as interesting as "Bored Sorority Girls" or whatever. Seriously, why would anyone do this? I mean, if I donated to their organization, I'd stop the checks. Go cure cancer or something.
That'll drive more people to piracy. I consider a big plus of iTunes the fact that I can get most songs individually. And no, I don't just buy the singles you hear on the radio. Several of my favorite songs were "deeper" in the albums.
I run Technical Video Rental, and I've had - literally - dozens of legal threats over the simple fact that I buy DVDs, then rent them out. Despite the fact that this is deeply settled case law
Not only is it deeply settled case law, but haven't these lawyers ever been to a video store? I really want to know how anyone, anywhere, could actually even think they could win that lawsuit?
"I have never, honestly, thrown a chair in my life" Yeah, you see a toss is like picking it up to head level, and hurling it. I bet all he could manage was a granny-toss. By the rules of American football, that's an illegal forward pass, and "illegal" is sort of a harsher form of "dishonest", which is, of course, a synonym for Microsoft.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds too complicated. I think a lot of people miss a big point with the electronic security. There is need to make security uncompromisable. Once they simply make things too difficult, no one will bother. If it took getting two reviewer's copies and doing hours of digital editing to remove the watermark, as well as the hours of physically recording (as opposed to ripping) the DVDs, you're gonna lose a lot of potential copiers, simply because it is too much work, which ultimately stymies the interest in piracy, since it is harder to download and there is less choice among potential qualities and formats.
See, I thought they mined it as magnesium oxide, than refined it and took the oxygen out. That's what they do with a lot of metals, right? If that's the case, then they are inaccurately implying that they are performing a vital industrial function in doing this in the cars instead of factories.
I filed for the patent for all patent-related jokes on Slashdot, you owe me $5, or a bacon cheeseburger (still warm). So we're going on the Honor System here, everyone who used one in the last week or so needs to email me to get directions as to where to send the money...
I don't get it... What does a built in vacuuem have to do with fuel?
remove the used magnesium oxide. Essentially, the waste is contained in the car instead of spewed out, and I think there is a use for magnesium oxide. Also they need to change the water. Since they have to take stuff out of the tank, refueling is a bit more complicated.
Also, as I remember my high school AP Chem class, water breaks normally into OH- and H+, doesn't it? I mean, I know there is a way to get H2 and O with electricity, but isn't that counterproductive?
I suppose it is technically possible, but they have to heat the water to high temperatures to do this. So, according to the Article, they should need something to get the water hot. But I see nothing that does that.
No, I get that they are problematic, but they still need to be in Wikipedia, for the simple reason that you and I both can recognize them. I would like a current source of all knowledge to try to include personalities. I don't think either of them have a positive influence, but perhaps that's why we need them in the encyclopedia. I haven't read the rest of the Michael Moore article, and don't intend to, but I don't think his presence in Wikipedia should be problematic.
None of that information is biased towards Michael Moore. It's just that he has a fan who did a lot of research on him. Why don't you do a lot of research on Pat Robertson's or Rush Limbaugh's family, and see if something interesting turns up. If you discover that Rush Limbaugh's uncle was semi-important in an area, then try to get it into the article.
So are they going to be regretting moving away from that? I mean, that would have an appeal in a low to middle end laptop that can run for 12 hours or something. I'd certainly pay for it. I'm impressed with my iBook battery as it is, but it is just shy of being able to cover all my needs in a day. Or at least, usually have to think about charging it. An 8 hour laptop would be great for people on the move, like students, or amateur filmmakers.
I use gmail like 20 times a day, and I honestly never notice the text based ads. It should be possible to make unobtrusive ads, or even ads that are benficial. Let's say that I look up a movie on Wikipedia. Maybe I'll get an ad from a store selling the DVD for cheap? They already have external links to websites involved in an article. Maybe if those sites pay to get the ad, it'll help wikipedia.
That'd give undue influence to out of date pages. There are a lot of pages on some topics that are obsolete and basically abandoned. They'd cause their own problem. Ideally, you want to get sites that have been around for a while, but are regularly updated.
Very true. The only sort of self-sustaining colony would be on a green planet. If the colonists can't hunt for their own food/water, they'll just die slower. Unless they can fly back to Earth and recolonize it before supplies run out (within a year at latest), they'll starve to death without a place to farm. And even then, can they land without mission control? If they land in the ocean, 15 miles from land, can they swim back?
Dude, you want older stats? I got them right here. ::Reaches into coat, pulls out a cool-looking book:: This is the sacred wikipedia. It draws on the learning of thousands of bright people, and changes with the times. Use it well.
r owsers/
Ok, enough silliness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_b
There is also the RSS issue as well. One of my browsers somewhere (I have 9, 10 if you count AOL, which I don't) has an RSS feed to BBC. I don't use it much, I read CNN, but I imagine RSS helps people avoid going through the front page.
Slashdot is very large, but the second statistical requirement is that it draw from the same population. In this case, it draws from a sub-population that is disproportionately computer literate and/or involved in computing. The difference is that a /. user is more likely to go to the trouble of using a non-default browser. This means that /. data can't be used for this reliably. Large, common sites like CNN or BBC are good, because they are visited by everyone equally (sort of), and thus will reflect the overall numbers roughly.
Well, that depends on how a web browser brings in its dough. Since all of the major ones are free (or, I downloaded the 8 or 9 big ones everyone mentions for Mac without charge), it seems to me that they must make money through some sort system dependent on page views. If someone could elaborate, I'd appreciate it.
If that is the case, then Firefox is in fact making 9.5% of the "sales" - whatever brings in the money, and it's usage base is the same number. So to sum it up, market share = usage share in this case (if I understand the browser business model). Don't think that something that is free doesn't make money - look at Google.
I don't believe there is anything magical about the brain, and I believe it can be reproduced in a man-made form. But I think it is far far more complex than we yet realize. Even the most advanced neural nets of today are nowheres near the level of complexity of even a rodent brain
When I said shortly, I meant within two decades or so, which may be optimistic. But in regards to your comment, don't forget that compared to some earlier humans, we have smaller brains. The reason is that much of the brain has to work on coordination and muscle/organ control. A computer needs to do only the reasoning parts.
In regards to the updating thing, it sort of ticks me off that they re-release very similar material and it is profitable. Yes, they had the free crib sheet of the changes, but it is unrealistic to imagine a person to be able to meld a 3 page crib sheet and a 200 page book, times like 10 books. So in the end, we wind up buying every new copy, and most of it is just the same stuff. Really, I think tabletop is going to die out when computer RPGs get more and more open-ended. And I think that an MMORPG that allows private networks and DMing tools would be incredibly useful. It was heinously hard to get my friends all together at once for 4-5 hours, and when we were all together, we didn't always want to play DnD. Many a campaign died because we went 2 or 3 months without playing.
How does this affect the contractual part of it? If I change it, don't agree, then mail the changes back to MS, what would they do? Would they even notice? I'd be inclined to do it 10 times or so, just to make their lawyers read the damn thing over and over.
We are certainly moving towards artificial intelligence. We actually have programs that can write themselves to a limited degree. And so we'll probably have artifical intelligence shortly. But making a new biological species with our level of intelligence sounds tough because of our limited knowledge of the brain.
I'd recommend you read things by Ray Kurzweil on this topic. In particular, "The Singularity" seems relevant. Apparently there is a short collection of essays by him online, but I don't know if it'll have what you're looking for.
Yes, I understand that, but "British scientists at the University of Manchester were apparently bored and decided to find out, once and for all, if the Velociraptor was as mean as Jurassic Park would like everyone to think." doesn't really do it as a motivation to do research for me. Obviously, this was a joke, and shouldn't be taken seriously, just like my post.
Not to mention, it's sort of hard to say what a real raptor did by using a robotic model based on what we assume is the correct muscle structure based off of bones. In seriousness, I've been reading about robotic models and AIs, and they tend to come up with "unique" solutions to problems (which is good in my opinion). In this case, I'm not going to fund (if I had money) something that seems overly hypothetical. I mean, if they cloned a dinosaur to find out...
Not gonna lie. "Bored Scientists" isn't quite as interesting as "Bored Sorority Girls" or whatever. Seriously, why would anyone do this? I mean, if I donated to their organization, I'd stop the checks. Go cure cancer or something.
**Wild mood swing brought on by caffeine**
That'll drive more people to piracy. I consider a big plus of iTunes the fact that I can get most songs individually. And no, I don't just buy the singles you hear on the radio. Several of my favorite songs were "deeper" in the albums.
I run Technical Video Rental, and I've had - literally - dozens of legal threats over the simple fact that I buy DVDs, then rent them out. Despite the fact that this is deeply settled case law
Not only is it deeply settled case law, but haven't these lawyers ever been to a video store? I really want to know how anyone, anywhere, could actually even think they could win that lawsuit?
"I have never, honestly, thrown a chair in my life"
Yeah, you see a toss is like picking it up to head level, and hurling it. I bet all he could manage was a granny-toss. By the rules of American football, that's an illegal forward pass, and "illegal" is sort of a harsher form of "dishonest", which is, of course, a synonym for Microsoft.