It's been a while, but as I remember the iMac has essentially 2 fairly distinct parts. The Monitor/shell part and the computer part. The computer (well motherboard at least) part can be unscrewed from the bottem and taken out (lots of scews, in bad places). The bottem of the monitor half is shielded. And damn, those things are a bitch to put back together. 20 different sized screws. I'd love to see the manufacturing process for one of those thigns.
Although I'm not as paranoid about the WTO meeting as others are I do think many countries will try to hurt the US in the technology sector. They always do, after all the has become WTO more about the little guys banding together against the more powerful countries for the sake of trade (unofficially of course), and the bigger countries take part because they're scared about the little guys cutting off the flow of cheap labor. The big guys I'm talking about are the EU, Japan and the US. Everyone has something to gain if the US's technology exports are limited, except the US of course. The US may go along with it because we can't stand to not get our Nikes from Taiwan at $1.50 a pair. Remember, the US has delegates there too. Some of them even try to protect US industries. (those that don't get campaign money from china, that is)
The biggest problem the US has at this meeting is over that of intellectual property. Over the last 30 years or so the US has become less of the industrial powerhouse it once was, relying more on sales of ideas. Or at least improved copies of things. The problem there is that the WTO hasn't really dealt with this yet (as much as they should at least) and the little guys find it as another way to get what they want from the big guys... mainly the US. The EU and Japan are against the US here too, because their tech industries would like a shove right now.
Some delegates to the WTO want incredibly broad rights to intellectual property. Of course they do, patents = money. Who doesn't want money?
One of the best and most appealing aspects of the web is it's anonymity and ease of access. These "licenses" hinder both of those aspects. First, you will never be able to visit your favorite pr0n site again without *somebody* knowing about it, and secondly, you will have to have the darn thing with you when ever you use the web... if they implement it in a way that's effective for it's purpose. Talk about a pain!
Personally, I don't think it will happen in the near or mid-range future... people don't like to fix things that aren't broken, and a system like this would require _allot_ of expensive work, some of which could create incompatibilities. People are only willing to do this if the gains outweigh the means, something I personally don't see from such a system.
I think allot of people will vote for either "free speech" or "my coffee cup is empty". Why? Because you have to be very close minded to say simply "ACs on a message board is bad." There are way too many variables, and every situation is different.
Yes, it is good to allow anonymous posts to protect free speech, but at the same time it can degrade the quality of a forum. People are lazy, and if they want to know how to use the chmod command, which is easier... take 2 minutes to find it on the web, or 30 seconds to post it to a help forum? Add 2 minutes of hassle to register, and they won't bother the people on the help forum that are (hopefully) discussing something a little more time-worthy.
As for a community aspect, registration is both good and bad. It insures that a defined community is there, but it discourages the passerby from jumping in and possibly becoming a regular.
In a very political and/or controversial forum, requiring registration can be very bad. Many people want to get their point across, but not be hassled by people who don't think they're exactly politically correct.
Seriously though, yes, I'd both love and hate to be/.'d. Love because of all the attention and page views, but I'd hate it because my site runs off a virtual account... my ISP would be pretty pissed when my site makes the other 249 on that server sleepy molasses. Besides, they'd probably call me and say I need to pay more money for a bigger account. 'Tis hard to do when you're a student with no money and a site without banner ads.
Ok, I must be tired... I'm rambling. If you want to/. my site (just went online last night) it's here. It's a web directory for linux related sites- I need submissions.
I already have a patent on this income generating process, you can check it out: patent number 3455785158581. Anyone who attempts to use this method must pay the patent owner a royalty of $25000. Thank you.
Is that C|Net appears to be serious. Both in the way they display their content and the way it is written. If the article "The Top 10 Technology Terrors" were named something along the lines of "Ten Technologies That Can Be Used Against You" it would not draw nearly as much flak.
The proplem many computer experts have with the likes of C|Net, Ziff-Davis, CMP, etc. is that they claim to be Really Smart Computer Experts, but write as if they just figured out that "hehe, linux is cool. hehe. snort." instead of "netBSD benefits from excellent network effeciency and speed because of a well developed networking subsystem."
When I worked as a tech at Best Buy and a custy brought in a computer and a hard/floppy/cd/-drive that needed to be installed into a computer which required rails, we always gave them the option of ordering the $30 rails or letting us be creative. Of course we made them sign that they agreed we could use unorthodox methods, but it was always interesting what some of us hacked up. Usually it involved large amounts of duct tape and prayers.
especially if you consider the limited time and extream stress put on the people that came up with the solutions. These kinds of people are amazing. If only I had that type of intellect...
You can only patent things to your entity's name that you can be prove were first created in the name of that entity. ie: you can create a patent in your name of something you created, or a company can create a patent of something one of its employees made while on company time. Since Berkely already announced the invention, there is no way some one can insist that they had it first (unless the genuinely did, which must be proved).
In a related story, the New Post reports that the Free Software Foundation has released the text of version one of the Hardware GPL.
Seriously though, while it is an excellent advancement to create a transistor this tiny, I believe the most significant part is that it's not patented. I wish we could see more of this kind of behavior by educational establishments.
I'm not sure which company(ies) is was, but I remember reading that Be Inc. offered a major computer maker lisences free to be preloaded on that companies machines. This was in the day when that particular company was scared shitless of M, and therefore declined the offer. A good lawyer could make a case that all the customers of that particular company could sue for the full OEM cost of Windows, because M used it's monopoly power to raise the price exactly that much.
let b= cost of Be OS; w= cost of windows OEM; s= $ amout customers got screwed because of M' monopoly
b = 0 s = w - b therefore, w = s q.e.d.
Of course, you need to take into account the cost difference of all of windows' nice little features.
And how would these arms you talk about be attached to the body in a way that would not limit movement like bending your joints while still supporting your weight? And it would be a pain to hook up. And I would not want to debug it.
My point is not wether the organization is trying to help someone or not, but rather that such a plan as you have implimented is only feasible in america. (which, btw, is a rather generic phrase. of course it's not feasible only in the US, but only most probable.) If you want to give something, just give it! This is just one more step in the direction started by corporations that give money just so they can advertise that they gave. For instance, does anyone believe for an instant that Shell really cares about the environment? If they did, they would spend all their profits in developing alternatives to polluting substances such as oil. Shell has only one meaning for it's existance, to sell oil. Yet it claims to want to clean up the environment. Yeah right.
My point, if these companies that are supporting your project are truely doing it because they care, why arn't they just giving the money without having someone intervine (ie: click)?? Scrap the middleman, just give the stuff.
Is to create a contraption with a number of mechanical "arms" attached to various parts of the body such as to the feet, knees, hips, hands, elbows, shoulders and head. The person would be suspended in the air by these arms, and they would be used to simulate forces such as gravity, friction and barriers. This way the user could do any number of things in a virtual world, such as run, walk, climb, crouch, etc. etc. etc.
The experience would be farily realistic, but still, the users movements would be only somewhat limited. ie. you can't "roll on the ground" very easily with such a device (possible, but adds to the complexity of the device. the device would have to be attached to a double set of "slideable" controlled axis, one outside the other.). I believe such a device is feasible, but quite an engineering/computational feat. You would need a computer system that can control all the "arms" in real time, taking into consideration a wide range of physics laws and how they relate to the virtual world the user is in. For more realism you could add more "arms" to other parts of the body, but this adds even more complexity as you must keep the arms from interfearing with each other. For still more realism I think we need to look at neural interceptors and transmitters, which is quite a while into the future.
I was talking about your.sig, not your post. Only in america (well, the organization is american anyway) can you make a donation without actually giving something. God are we lazy.
Violent games are sold and enjoyed everywhere. I'm in germany right now (as an exchange student) and the students i know play quake and half life more than my friends in america. LAN parties are everywhere. (of course, this is germany... so the fun is greatly improved with alcohol)
If the game had said, "Say goodbye to Ho Chi Minh. The MiG-17 bids farewell to your F-8 Crusader over a rice paddy." and "Welcome to America, plenty of desert and all the hamburgers you can eat." would that be racism?
Of course not. Why not? Because some poor little activist trying to defend to the rights of those who couldn't care less if you say 'rice' and 'humid' would have trouble making a case that americans are being descriminated against. If they say something about us, it normal. If we say something about them it's discrimination.
Slashdot Mirror
yeah but that kinda misses the point. what point? um..
nevermind.
-----
It's been a while, but as I remember the iMac has essentially 2 fairly distinct parts. The Monitor/shell part and the computer part. The computer (well motherboard at least) part can be unscrewed from the bottem and taken out (lots of scews, in bad places). The bottem of the monitor half is shielded. And damn, those things are a bitch to put back together. 20 different sized screws. I'd love to see the manufacturing process for one of those thigns.
-----
Although I'm not as paranoid about the WTO meeting as others are I do think many countries will try to hurt the US in the technology sector. They always do, after all the has become WTO more about the little guys banding together against the more powerful countries for the sake of trade (unofficially of course), and the bigger countries take part because they're scared about the little guys cutting off the flow of cheap labor. The big guys I'm talking about are the EU, Japan and the US. Everyone has something to gain if the US's technology exports are limited, except the US of course. The US may go along with it because we can't stand to not get our Nikes from Taiwan at $1.50 a pair. Remember, the US has delegates there too. Some of them even try to protect US industries. (those that don't get campaign money from china, that is)
The biggest problem the US has at this meeting is over that of intellectual property. Over the last 30 years or so the US has become less of the industrial powerhouse it once was, relying more on sales of ideas. Or at least improved copies of things. The problem there is that the WTO hasn't really dealt with this yet (as much as they should at least) and the little guys find it as another way to get what they want from the big guys... mainly the US. The EU and Japan are against the US here too, because their tech industries would like a shove right now.
Some delegates to the WTO want incredibly broad rights to intellectual property. Of course they do, patents = money. Who doesn't want money?
-----
well yeah, but you might... talk to someone! how will echelon track you???? it may not be able to!!!! *gasp*
-----
"One of the best and most appealing aspects of the web is it's anonymity and ease of access."
hmm. let me rephrase that...
"Two of the best and most appealing aspects of the web are it's anonymity and ease of access."
There, that's better. Imagine, my english sucks and here I am in germany trying to learn a second language.
-----
One of the best and most appealing aspects of the web is it's anonymity and ease of access. These "licenses" hinder both of those aspects. First, you will never be able to visit your favorite pr0n site again without *somebody* knowing about it, and secondly, you will have to have the darn thing with you when ever you use the web... if they implement it in a way that's effective for it's purpose. Talk about a pain!
Personally, I don't think it will happen in the near or mid-range future... people don't like to fix things that aren't broken, and a system like this would require _allot_ of expensive work, some of which could create incompatibilities. People are only willing to do this if the gains outweigh the means, something I personally don't see from such a system.
-----
I think allot of people will vote for either "free speech" or "my coffee cup is empty". Why? Because you have to be very close minded to say simply "ACs on a message board is bad." There are way too many variables, and every situation is different.
Yes, it is good to allow anonymous posts to protect free speech, but at the same time it can degrade the quality of a forum. People are lazy, and if they want to know how to use the chmod command, which is easier... take 2 minutes to find it on the web, or 30 seconds to post it to a help forum? Add 2 minutes of hassle to register, and they won't bother the people on the help forum that are (hopefully) discussing something a little more time-worthy.
As for a community aspect, registration is both good and bad. It insures that a defined community is there, but it discourages the passerby from jumping in and possibly becoming a regular.
In a very political and/or controversial forum, requiring registration can be very bad. Many people want to get their point across, but not be hassled by people who don't think they're exactly politically correct.
I'll be right back, my coffee cup is empty.
-----
I don't know if it'd be faster than NT.... :)
/.'d. Love because of all the attention and page views, but I'd hate it because my site runs off a virtual account... my ISP would be pretty pissed when my site makes the other 249 on that server sleepy molasses. Besides, they'd probably call me and say I need to pay more money for a bigger account. 'Tis hard to do when you're a student with no money and a site without banner ads.
/. my site (just went online last night) it's here. It's a web directory for linux related sites- I need submissions.
Seriously though, yes, I'd both love and hate to be
Ok, I must be tired... I'm rambling. If you want to
-----
I already have a patent on this income generating process, you can check it out: patent number 3455785158581. Anyone who attempts to use this method must pay the patent owner a royalty of $25000. Thank you.
-----
"The hackers wrote of their own "rooting" exploits
So does that mean that the hackers worked at M and Windholes is that way for a reason?
ps. this is an attempt at humor, not troll. humor. laugh.
-----
Is that C|Net appears to be serious. Both in the way they display their content and the way it is written. If the article "The Top 10 Technology Terrors" were named something along the lines of "Ten Technologies That Can Be Used Against You" it would not draw nearly as much flak.
The proplem many computer experts have with the likes of C|Net, Ziff-Davis, CMP, etc. is that they claim to be Really Smart Computer Experts, but write as if they just figured out that "hehe, linux is cool. hehe. snort." instead of "netBSD benefits from excellent network effeciency and speed because of a well developed networking subsystem."
-----
hmm.. I guess this counts
When I worked as a tech at Best Buy and a custy brought in a computer and a hard/floppy/cd/-drive that needed to be installed into a computer which required rails, we always gave them the option of ordering the $30 rails or letting us be creative. Of course we made them sign that they agreed we could use unorthodox methods, but it was always interesting what some of us hacked up. Usually it involved large amounts of duct tape and prayers.
-----
especially if you consider the limited time and extream stress put on the people that came up with the solutions. These kinds of people are amazing. If only I had that type of intellect...
-----
Or at least voice recognition doesn't give the user CTS.
-----
I don't have time to prove this for all integers (that involves mathematical induction and is left as an exercise for the reader)
-----
You can only patent things to your entity's name that you can be prove were first created in the name of that entity. ie: you can create a patent in your name of something you created, or a company can create a patent of something one of its employees made while on company time. Since Berkely already announced the invention, there is no way some one can insist that they had it first (unless the genuinely did, which must be proved).
-----
In a related story, the New Post reports that the Free Software Foundation has released the text of version one of the Hardware GPL.
Seriously though, while it is an excellent advancement to create a transistor this tiny, I believe the most significant part is that it's not patented. I wish we could see more of this kind of behavior by educational establishments.
-----
I'm not sure which company(ies) is was, but I remember reading that Be Inc. offered a major computer maker lisences free to be preloaded on that companies machines. This was in the day when that particular company was scared shitless of M, and therefore declined the offer. A good lawyer could make a case that all the customers of that particular company could sue for the full OEM cost of Windows, because M used it's monopoly power to raise the price exactly that much.
let b= cost of Be OS; w= cost of windows OEM; s= $ amout customers got screwed because of M' monopoly
b = 0
s = w - b
therefore, w = s
q.e.d.
Of course, you need to take into account the cost difference of all of windows' nice little features.
-----
/. isn't liable because of common carrier status. But they were take down this post, then they would be liable for all simular future posts.
-----
And how would these arms you talk about be attached to the body in a way that would not limit movement like bending your joints while still supporting your weight? And it would be a pain to hook up. And I would not want to debug it.
That's the fun part...
-----
My point is not wether the organization is trying to help someone or not, but rather that such a plan as you have implimented is only feasible in america. (which, btw, is a rather generic phrase. of course it's not feasible only in the US, but only most probable.) If you want to give something, just give it! This is just one more step in the direction started by corporations that give money just so they can advertise that they gave. For instance, does anyone believe for an instant that Shell really cares about the environment? If they did, they would spend all their profits in developing alternatives to polluting substances such as oil. Shell has only one meaning for it's existance, to sell oil. Yet it claims to want to clean up the environment. Yeah right.
My point, if these companies that are supporting your project are truely doing it because they care, why arn't they just giving the money without having someone intervine (ie: click)?? Scrap the middleman, just give the stuff.
-----
Is to create a contraption with a number of mechanical "arms" attached to various parts of the body such as to the feet, knees, hips, hands, elbows, shoulders and head. The person would be suspended in the air by these arms, and they would be used to simulate forces such as gravity, friction and barriers. This way the user could do any number of things in a virtual world, such as run, walk, climb, crouch, etc. etc. etc.
The experience would be farily realistic, but still, the users movements would be only somewhat limited. ie. you can't "roll on the ground" very easily with such a device (possible, but adds to the complexity of the device. the device would have to be attached to a double set of "slideable" controlled axis, one outside the other.). I believe such a device is feasible, but quite an engineering/computational feat. You would need a computer system that can control all the "arms" in real time, taking into consideration a wide range of physics laws and how they relate to the virtual world the user is in. For more realism you could add more "arms" to other parts of the body, but this adds even more complexity as you must keep the arms from interfearing with each other. For still more realism I think we need to look at neural interceptors and transmitters, which is quite a while into the future.
-----
I was talking about your .sig, not your post. Only in america (well, the organization is american anyway) can you make a donation without actually giving something. God are we lazy.
Violent games are sold and enjoyed everywhere. I'm in germany right now (as an exchange student) and the students i know play quake and half life more than my friends in america. LAN parties are everywhere. (of course, this is germany... so the fun is greatly improved with alcohol)
-----
i need to use preview more often.
-----
If the game had said, "Say goodbye to Ho Chi Minh. The MiG-17 bids farewell to your F-8 Crusader over a rice paddy." and "Welcome to America, plenty of desert and all the hamburgers you can eat." would that be racism?
Of course not. Why not? Because some poor little activist trying to defend to the rights of those who couldn't care less if you say 'rice' and 'humid' would have trouble making a case that americans are being descriminated against. If they say something about us, it normal. If we say something about them it's discrimination.
I'm sick of it.
-----