My prediction is that, contrary to what everybody expects, Google, or one of its descendants, will be the first company to make use of real artificial intelligence, and they might even invent it.
This is Slashdot! We're not supposed to actually read stuff, are we?
I don't really have the ability to read it properly now (I just woke up). It looks interesting, but there are warning bells going off in my head, and I don't know why yet.
FYI: You might want to look at what AmigaOS did with "DataTypes".
``Free software'' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of ``free'' as in ``free speech,'' not as in ``free beer.''
Put into those terms, it's perfectly clear what he means. I think the confusion comes from the way that people appreviate that and talk about "free as in beer". When you put it that way, the first thing that comes to my mind is, "but beer isn't free".
On my machine, I get this, which is the accurate resolution of my monitor:
$ xdpyinfo | grep dots resolution: 97x96 dots per inch
The reason it's accurate is that I bothered to set DisplaySize in the Monitor section of my xorg.conf file. It's nifty, because whenever I buy a new, higher-resolution monitor, most of the text on the screen remains the same physical size (so I can still read it). The exception is xterm.
Do you? All they're saying is, "if you want to have my code, this is what I expect in return". Nothing stops Apple from saying, "no thanks", and writing their own driver. Heck, they can still read the *documentation* and *source code* from Linux-NTFS to help write their driver, thus saving a ton on reverse-engineering costs.
Now, if you were to say that copyright law, which allows these developers to restrict the distribution of their code and derivative works in the first place, was unreasonable, then you'd have a leg to stand on. But in that case, criticising the Linux-NTFS developers while saying nothing about Apple would be inconsistent.
To be absolutely clear about this: Cancer has nothing to do with 'frequency', at least, not in absolute terms. What causes cancer is a wavelength of radiation that goes far enough through the dead skin on your body (can't cause cancer in dead skin) and screws up your DNA once it does so.
An interesting postulate, but unfortunately, it's not correct. As you know, frequency and wavelength of electromagnetic ratiation are inversely related; Higher frequencies correspond to smaller wavelengths. If you have two equal-power beams of light at two different wavelengths, then power *density* of the beam with the smaller wavelength is higher. So, if you shine these two beams on your skin, the beam with the smaller wavelength will not hit as many of your DNA molecules, but the molecules that *do* get hit will receive more energy than they would if the wavelength was lower.
Higher frequency means higher power density, which means a higher probability of ionization, which means a higher probability of cancer.
If it does not do that, it cannot cause cancer. If it does do that, it might cause cancer.
Nobody knows exactly what *cannot* cause cancer. We know of some of the things that *do* cause cancer, but that's about it.
Getting back to wifi, microwaves, and other gigahertz wavelength, which are smaller than visible light,
No, they aren't. Visible light has wavelengths between about 400 and 700 nanometres. 2.4 GHz microwaves are around 125 millimetres, that is, about 180-310 thousand times larger.
This is, contrary to what people think, proof that it is not harming us, because our skin can take a hell of a lot of heating before anything bad happens, and heat cannot cause cancer. (By the time you apply enough heat to screw up DNA, you've already killed the cell. Which is good, because otherwise people would get cancer from burns.)
There are several problems with this:
See my comment above about what "cannot cause cancer".
We know, for example, that exposure to certain chemicals can increase the risk of cancer. This means that radiation is not the only mechanism by which people get cancer, and that changes in the chemical environment of your cells can cause cancer. When you change the temperature of a cell, you have a significant impact on the chemical reactions that occur inside it. These two facts make your assertion that "heat cannot cause cancer" unconvincing.
Cancer is not the only thing that can harm people. Even if heating does not cause cancer, as you claim, it does not follow that the heating of the brain (or the testes!) is not harmful for other reasons.
The current 'theory' about how cell phones mess you up has nothing to do with any of this, it's that EM fields somehow mess with chemical reactions in your body, reactions that are unrelated to DNA. That's magnetic fields, not radiation. When things move through a magnetic field, they generate electricity. (Erm, in essence, although that's a bit simple.) The theory is that cell phones generate a strong enough field that your head moving right there can generate enough power to mess up your head.
Of course, this is completely idiotic
I fail to see how it's "of course...idiotic". It sounds perfectly plausible to me, but before I judge, I'll see how you support your statement:
but whatever.
A very convincing argument, to say the least.
It's basically the exact same claim as the one made living near power lines, which also has no evidence for it. The only place our body uses electricity is our nervous system, and if the minute amounts of electri
Some GSM digital phones DO get well above 1W. The specification in fact has the handsets limited to 2 Watts. And I have one which goes that high. Look a the GSM Wiki entry.
GSM frames are divided into 8 time slots, and a during a call, the full-rate (FR) and enhanced-full-rate (EFR) codecs will occupy one time slot per frame, and the half-rate (HR) codec will occupy a half-frame (1 timesloy every 2 frames). The Wikipedia entry is very vague on the subject, but if we assume that 2W is the maximum transmit power while actually transmitting then with (E)FR and HR, you get a maximum average transmit power of 250 mW and 125 mW respectively. This is quite close to what the parent said.
Furthermore, newer phones/basestations use "discontinuous transmission" (DTX -- where your phone only transmits when you're actually talking) and the "adaptive multi-rate" (AMR) codec, both of which can further reduce your average transmitting power.
I don't know enough to put an actual number on it, but based on what I've just said, 1-5 mW doesn't seem totally unreasonable to me, especially if you're more of a listener than a talker.:)
The only reason I can think of is when sites like CNN open up external links to indicate that you are leaving their domain, and they are not responsible for the external site's content or whatnot. (Its still annoying, but it has a valid reason).
No, it's not a valid reason. It's wrong. Every browser's *address bar* is good enough at indicating that you are leaving some domain, and this does it create a usability nightmare for visitors to the site.
I know what you're saying, but I think this kind of behaviour attempts to solve a problem that just isn't there, and creates a mess in the process.
You keep referring to my "arguments". I never made any arguments.
If upgrades suddenly went away, the cost of "full" versions of software would likely be lowered in order maintain sales volume and mindshare. If you think most mass-market consumer software is sold at near-cost, you're mistaken.
Your assertion that I'm a someone who doesn't buy software is unfounded, wrong, and ad hominem.
So let me get this straight: In the beginning, removing an item from a store without paying for it was considered "stealing". Then, simple copyright infringement became "stealing". Now, Apple is saying that if I go to the store, buy Mac OS X, and get it to work on my computer, I'm "stealing"? WTF?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but the assembler has to be loaded into RAM using DIP switches, and there is no hard disk.
You heard it here first!
Unix mbox format is obsolete. You should be using Maildirs.
Of course no one listens. You don't understand their goals, so why should they listen to you?
The 'T' stands for Trademark.
This is Slashdot! We're not supposed to actually read stuff, are we?
I don't really have the ability to read it properly now (I just woke up). It looks interesting, but there are warning bells going off in my head, and I don't know why yet.
FYI: You might want to look at what AmigaOS did with "DataTypes".
Cheers!
You think people will actually go for having their filesystem drivers written in Java? Cute.
Put into those terms, it's perfectly clear what he means. I think the confusion comes from the way that people appreviate that and talk about "free as in beer". When you put it that way, the first thing that comes to my mind is, "but beer isn't free".
On my machine, I get this, which is the accurate resolution of my monitor:
The reason it's accurate is that I bothered to set DisplaySize in the Monitor section of my xorg.conf file. It's nifty, because whenever I buy a new, higher-resolution monitor, most of the text on the screen remains the same physical size (so I can still read it). The exception is xterm.
Do you? All they're saying is, "if you want to have my code, this is what I expect in return". Nothing stops Apple from saying, "no thanks", and writing their own driver. Heck, they can still read the *documentation* and *source code* from Linux-NTFS to help write their driver, thus saving a ton on reverse-engineering costs.
Now, if you were to say that copyright law, which allows these developers to restrict the distribution of their code and derivative works in the first place, was unreasonable, then you'd have a leg to stand on. But in that case, criticising the Linux-NTFS developers while saying nothing about Apple would be inconsistent.
An interesting postulate, but unfortunately, it's not correct. As you know, frequency and wavelength of electromagnetic ratiation are inversely related; Higher frequencies correspond to smaller wavelengths. If you have two equal-power beams of light at two different wavelengths, then power *density* of the beam with the smaller wavelength is higher. So, if you shine these two beams on your skin, the beam with the smaller wavelength will not hit as many of your DNA molecules, but the molecules that *do* get hit will receive more energy than they would if the wavelength was lower.
Higher frequency means higher power density, which means a higher probability of ionization, which means a higher probability of cancer.
Nobody knows exactly what *cannot* cause cancer. We know of some of the things that *do* cause cancer, but that's about it.
No, they aren't. Visible light has wavelengths between about 400 and 700 nanometres. 2.4 GHz microwaves are around 125 millimetres, that is, about 180-310 thousand times larger.
There are several problems with this:
I fail to see how it's "of course...idiotic". It sounds perfectly plausible to me, but before I judge, I'll see how you support your statement:
A very convincing argument, to say the least.
Quantum meruit , I think (though I could be wrong).
You're also ignoring the concept of ultraviolet radiation, to which these cancers are attributed.
Oops; That should read:
GSM frames are divided into 8 time slots, and a during a call, the full-rate (FR) and enhanced-full-rate (EFR) codecs will occupy one time slot per frame, and the half-rate (HR) codec will occupy a half-frame (1 timesloy every 2 frames). The Wikipedia entry is very vague on the subject, but if we assume that 2W is the maximum transmit power while actually transmitting then with (E)FR and HR, you get a maximum average transmit power of 250 mW and 125 mW respectively. This is quite close to what the parent said.
Furthermore, newer phones/basestations use "discontinuous transmission" (DTX -- where your phone only transmits when you're actually talking) and the "adaptive multi-rate" (AMR) codec, both of which can further reduce your average transmitting power.
I don't know enough to put an actual number on it, but based on what I've just said, 1-5 mW doesn't seem totally unreasonable to me, especially if you're more of a listener than a talker. :)
Do you have any examples of where the lack of distinction between "less" and "fewer" creates ambiguity?
Does it support encrypted swap space?
Clearly, Tom Cruise is "most people".
Because most Linux systems are based on GNU, and GNU's Not Unix! ;-P
ZIP FILES are a way to store a complete web page as just one file!
No, it's not a valid reason. It's wrong. Every browser's *address bar* is good enough at indicating that you are leaving some domain, and this does it create a usability nightmare for visitors to the site.
I know what you're saying, but I think this kind of behaviour attempts to solve a problem that just isn't there, and creates a mess in the process.
That's a pretty serious accusation. Got any references?
From Google?
So let me get this straight: In the beginning, removing an item from a store without paying for it was considered "stealing". Then, simple copyright infringement became "stealing". Now, Apple is saying that if I go to the store, buy Mac OS X, and get it to work on my computer, I'm "stealing"? WTF?