Somehow I don't think telling your Friendly Neighborhood Elected Official (tm) "If you don't award the contract to Diebold, they'll probably sue!" is likely to encourage said FNEO to not award the contract to Diebold...
The parent post is a clear example of failing to RTFA or even its headline on Slashdot. The post was not based on a review of the article, nor was its poster expert in the various institutions with the words "Oregon" and "Science" in their names. In fact, the only criterion for creating the parent post was the ability to type. The post should not resurface in a renewed attempt to undermine reading comprehension.
I'd rather trust the Iraqi minister of propaganda than the Slashdot user UnxMully.
Read a little more carefully next time. Both the Apple Store and the page you linked to say 640MB is the max: 128MB built-in, and up to a 512MB SO-DIMM in the one available slot.
The list only shows one theater in Silicon Valley that's doing the screenings, and two others in the SF Bay Area (Dublin, San Francisco). Get your tickets early, folks...
Actually, yes, it can. Since the altitude of an equilateral triangle is shorter than the edge of the same triangle, a triangular cover could be dropped through the matching triangular hole if: 1) one of the edges of the cover was strictly vertical, 2) the cover itself was vertical, and 3) the cover was dropped near the edge of the hole (the base of the triangle, from whatever orientation). Now, it's possible to make the lip of the hole wide enough that even this doesn't work. But at that point, you're wasting materials - you've got a cover that's much too big (and therefore unwieldy) for the hole it covers. The circular design allows the cover to be fairly close in size to the hole it covers. It's the most efficient solution.
If I remember correctly, the phenomenon was called the "Dirac beep". Off the top of my head, I can't remember any Poul Anderson stories in which it appeared, but there was a story by (I think) James Blish called "The Quincunx of Time" which used it.
I suspect that adopting a different revenue model will have effects outside what would be anticipated at other kinds of websites. If Slashdot were to adopt more intrusive ads and add a subscription-based, "ad-free" version, several things would probably happen:
1) Some of Slashdot's current readers would stop coming to the site. I base this assumption on the somewhat virulent comments I've seen about websites with ads lately.
2) Some of Slashdot's other readers would sign up for the ad-free subscription version. I don't have any idea how many, but some would.
3) Most of the rest of us will grumble; some of us about the new intrusive ads, others about the people grumbling about the new intrusive ads.
The short-term effects therefore appear to be a decrease in readership and an increase on the noise side of the signal to noise ratio on Slashdot.
Having said that, I will freely admit that I have NO idea what the long-term effects would be. They may well be beneficial enough to offset the temporary downer described above. Anyone want to make any predictions?
I'm sorry, I must be missing something. Leaving aside for the moment the (IMO, questionable) accuracy of your statements, how are they relevant to the incident under discussion?
A child performed a basic social science experiment - with the approval of at least one of her parents - and submitted the results for a local science fair. The "powers that be" at the local science fair reacted negatively and had the project removed on arbitrary grounds.
This is not an act of discipline, as there is no indication that the child knowingly did something wrong. There does not appear to have been any attempt to explain to the child WHY her project was removed, so this is not an act of voluntary education. This is merely an act of censorship. This distinction is important, and you ignore it at the peril of your own ability to function in a free society.
Your example is flawed. The situation you propose does not take into account two pieces of information:
1) The person who is making the choice believes that option 3 will not happen even if he/she chooses it. Is that in fact true? Probably. Slashdot contains the only discussions that I have observed this election season where Nader was considered anything more than a crackpot.
2) The person who is making the choice does not regard options 1 and 2 as being as close to equivalent as you do. It's closer to the choice between being executed and knowing that there is a chance that your family might live, and being executed and knowing that your family is also doomed. Personally, I prefer the chance that my family might live - especially because I don't believe that the radical in Green will really rescue me before the execution.
The content of the article might be interesting enough to have it posted on Slashdot, but I think the reaction here was a little more extreme than necessary. The RIAA and the MPAA are not scared of file sharing in general, they're scared of piracy of material that would otherwise be immensely profitable for them. So they will go after any tool which they think specifically aids such piracy, regardless of whether or not that is the intent of the tool. Does Napster qualify? Sure. DeCSS? Not really, but they think it does. FTP in general? No. The crucial difference is the word "specifically". MiniDiscs, to take another example, are superior in sound quality to MP3s, but noone's going after MiniDisc player manufacturers. Why? Because noone thinks it specifically aids piracy. Now. Do I think it's possible that at some future point organizations like the RIAA are going to go after anything which aids piracy in any fashion? Sure, it's possible. Do I think they'll succeed? Not a chance in hell. Napster has limited appeal. File transfer has much broader appeal, and so anyone who tries to take that away is going to find a much larger set of opponents than the RIAA is finding in its attempts to suppress tools like Napster.
That is, which of the following would you consider to be legitimate and which would be piracy?
1) Beavis owns all of your CDs, and converts them into MP3s so that he can play them on his computer.
2) Beavis has downloaded MP3 versions of songs he already owns on CD from the Net, either via Napster or through other means.
3) Beavis has recordings of one or more of your live shows and/or demoes, and has converted those songs which you have never made available for purchase (i.e., cover songs not on Garage Inc., or songs for which no commercially available live version exists) into MP3 format for distribution.
4) Beavis has downloaded MP3 versions of songs he does NOT already have CDs of, because those songs have never been made available for purchase.
My primary point (as expressed in the subject line) is fairly clear; currently these are grey areas. We already know how you feel about people downloading MP3s of songs they could buy, without actually buying them. We (well, I) want to know exactly where you think fair use ends and privacy begins.
I don't think it will be too difficult, actually. When I found out that there was going to be a movie I went back and read the book again (it's been about 10 years since I read it last). Several things were immediately apparent:
1) Most of the last 500 pages or so of the book are entirely superfluous, as they deal with stuff after the "climactic event" (sounds dumb, but I'm trying to avoid spoilers) that simply has no business being in a film. It's a lot of "people" sitting around talking. So it's an adaptation of 500 pages into a 2 hour movie.
2) A significant portion of the first 500 pages is descriptive in nature. This will almost entirely translate to visuals. I'll be conservative, say 50 pages. So we're down to 450 pages into a 2 hour movie.
3) L Ron Hubbard (or whoever actually wrote this book) uses more words than he needs to. Period. If Heinlein had written this story (before he got old and started to ramble), it would have been 400 pages, tops, even including the extra crap at the end. Any decent writer who wasn't overly sensitive about being paid by the word, maybe 600 pages. So take the remaining 450 pages, multiply by.6, we have a 270 page novel to adapt into a 2 hour movie.
Bottom line: It is possible to adapt a 1000 page novel into a 2 hour movie. All you need is a 1000 page novel where 700 pages are extraneous and someone competent to do the adaptation. Of course, this doesn't mean the movie's going to be any good. (The story itself is pretty silly.) It's just not as unlikely as it initially seems.
Scientific hype: "If the trend of increasing performance continues, a quantum computer that triples today's fastest computers could be built in five years [...]" Reality: If the trend of increasing performance continues according to Moore's law, a personal computer that octuples today's fastest computers could be built in five years.
I don't think you and the person you quote necessarily mean the same thing when you say "today's fastest computers". If I understand the implications of the technology correctly, quantum computing has the potential (in five years) to be three times as fast as any computer currently on the planet. While personal computers will be eight times as fast five years from now as they are today, they won't be eight times as fast as the current high end supercomputers.
Slashdot Mirror
Not necessarily, he could be a monkey.
You mean orangutan. NEVER call him a monkey.
Somehow I don't think telling your Friendly Neighborhood Elected Official (tm) "If you don't award the contract to Diebold, they'll probably sue!" is likely to encourage said FNEO to not award the contract to Diebold...
Mainstream media, no. Idiots on morning radio shows, yes.
The parent poster, little-known Slashdot user UnxMully, tried to beguile unsuspecting readers into believe that the experiment originated at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, both by posting a quote about the OISM and ignoring the fact that TFA not only clearly states that the experiment is being conducted at the Oregon Health & Science University, specifically at the Oregon National Primate Research Center, but was even *originally published on the OHSU website*.
The parent post is a clear example of failing to RTFA or even its headline on Slashdot. The post was not based on a review of the article, nor was its poster expert in the various institutions with the words "Oregon" and "Science" in their names. In fact, the only criterion for creating the parent post was the ability to type. The post should not resurface in a renewed attempt to undermine reading comprehension.
I'd rather trust the Iraqi minister of propaganda than the Slashdot user UnxMully.
I'm sorry, remind me why this would be news?
I don't think the Curse of the Odd was reset, I just think it was superseded by a more powerful curse: The Curse of Fives.
Anything Trek movie or series that is divisible by five shall suck mightily.
"Obviously I would be a fool to do that..."
If this is a very subtle troll, I salute you.
If it isn't, figure out the anagram BEFORE attempting to order next time. It will still annoy you, but at least you won't be surprised.
On a slightly more obscure note, I had the same reaction upon finding the word "nacirema".
I guess Carly got the HP folks to Think Different about Innovation the HP Way...
(rimshot)
As explained here: If you want to become a Force ghost, die while Luke is watching you.
Read a little more carefully next time. Both the Apple Store and the page you linked to say 640MB is the max: 128MB built-in, and up to a 512MB SO-DIMM in the one available slot.
The list only shows one theater in Silicon Valley that's doing the screenings, and two others in the SF Bay Area (Dublin, San Francisco). Get your tickets early, folks...
Actually, yes, it can. Since the altitude of an equilateral triangle is shorter than the edge of the same triangle, a triangular cover could be dropped through the matching triangular hole if:
1) one of the edges of the cover was strictly vertical,
2) the cover itself was vertical, and
3) the cover was dropped near the edge of the hole (the base of the triangle, from whatever orientation).
Now, it's possible to make the lip of the hole wide enough that even this doesn't work. But at that point, you're wasting materials - you've got a cover that's much too big (and therefore unwieldy) for the hole it covers. The circular design allows the cover to be fairly close in size to the hole it covers. It's the most efficient solution.
If I remember correctly, the phenomenon was called the "Dirac beep". Off the top of my head, I can't remember any Poul Anderson stories in which it appeared, but there was a story by (I think) James Blish called "The Quincunx of Time" which used it.
I suspect that adopting a different revenue model will have effects outside what would be anticipated at other kinds of websites. If Slashdot were to adopt more intrusive ads and add a subscription-based, "ad-free" version, several things would probably happen:
1) Some of Slashdot's current readers would stop coming to the site. I base this assumption on the somewhat virulent comments I've seen about websites with ads lately.
2) Some of Slashdot's other readers would sign up for the ad-free subscription version. I don't have any idea how many, but some would.
3) Most of the rest of us will grumble; some of us about the new intrusive ads, others about the people grumbling about the new intrusive ads.
The short-term effects therefore appear to be a decrease in readership and an increase on the noise side of the signal to noise ratio on Slashdot.
Having said that, I will freely admit that I have NO idea what the long-term effects would be. They may well be beneficial enough to offset the temporary downer described above. Anyone want to make any predictions?
I'm sorry, I must be missing something. Leaving aside for the moment the (IMO, questionable) accuracy of your statements, how are they relevant to the incident under discussion?
A child performed a basic social science experiment - with the approval of at least one of her parents - and submitted the results for a local science fair. The "powers that be" at the local science fair reacted negatively and had the project removed on arbitrary grounds.
This is not an act of discipline, as there is no indication that the child knowingly did something wrong. There does not appear to have been any attempt to explain to the child WHY her project was removed, so this is not an act of voluntary education. This is merely an act of censorship. This distinction is important, and you ignore it at the peril of your own ability to function in a free society.
It's been hackable for quite a while now. We just call them extensions rather than hacks. But thanks for the BSD layer.
Your example is flawed. The situation you propose does not take into account two pieces of information:
1) The person who is making the choice believes that option 3 will not happen even if he/she chooses it. Is that in fact true? Probably. Slashdot contains the only discussions that I have observed this election season where Nader was considered anything more than a crackpot.
2) The person who is making the choice does not regard options 1 and 2 as being as close to equivalent as you do. It's closer to the choice between being executed and knowing that there is a chance that your family might live, and being executed and knowing that your family is also doomed. Personally, I prefer the chance that my family might live - especially because I don't believe that the radical in Green will really rescue me before the execution.
The content of the article might be interesting enough to have it posted on Slashdot, but I think the reaction here was a little more extreme than necessary. The RIAA and the MPAA are not scared of file sharing in general, they're scared of piracy of material that would otherwise be immensely profitable for them. So they will go after any tool which they think specifically aids such piracy, regardless of whether or not that is the intent of the tool. Does Napster qualify? Sure. DeCSS? Not really, but they think it does. FTP in general? No. The crucial difference is the word "specifically". MiniDiscs, to take another example, are superior in sound quality to MP3s, but noone's going after MiniDisc player manufacturers. Why? Because noone thinks it specifically aids piracy. Now. Do I think it's possible that at some future point organizations like the RIAA are going to go after anything which aids piracy in any fashion? Sure, it's possible. Do I think they'll succeed? Not a chance in hell. Napster has limited appeal. File transfer has much broader appeal, and so anyone who tries to take that away is going to find a much larger set of opponents than the RIAA is finding in its attempts to suppress tools like Napster.
That is, which of the following would you consider to be legitimate and which would be piracy?
1) Beavis owns all of your CDs, and converts them into MP3s so that he can play them on his computer.
2) Beavis has downloaded MP3 versions of songs he already owns on CD from the Net, either via Napster or through other means.
3) Beavis has recordings of one or more of your live shows and/or demoes, and has converted those songs which you have never made available for purchase (i.e., cover songs not on Garage Inc., or songs for which no commercially available live version exists) into MP3 format for distribution.
4) Beavis has downloaded MP3 versions of songs he does NOT already have CDs of, because those songs have never been made available for purchase.
My primary point (as expressed in the subject line) is fairly clear; currently these are grey areas. We already know how you feel about people downloading MP3s of songs they could buy, without actually buying them. We (well, I) want to know exactly where you think fair use ends and privacy begins.
I don't think it will be too difficult, actually. When I found out that there was going to be a movie I went back and read the book again (it's been about 10 years since I read it last). Several things were immediately apparent:
.6, we have a 270 page novel to adapt into a 2 hour movie.
1) Most of the last 500 pages or so of the book are entirely superfluous, as they deal with stuff after the "climactic event" (sounds dumb, but I'm trying to avoid spoilers) that simply has no business being in a film. It's a lot of "people" sitting around talking. So it's an adaptation of 500 pages into a 2 hour movie.
2) A significant portion of the first 500 pages is descriptive in nature. This will almost entirely translate to visuals. I'll be conservative, say 50 pages. So we're down to 450 pages into a 2 hour movie.
3) L Ron Hubbard (or whoever actually wrote this book) uses more words than he needs to. Period. If Heinlein had written this story (before he got old and started to ramble), it would have been 400 pages, tops, even including the extra crap at the end. Any decent writer who wasn't overly sensitive about being paid by the word, maybe 600 pages. So take the remaining 450 pages, multiply by
Bottom line: It is possible to adapt a 1000 page novel into a 2 hour movie. All you need is a 1000 page novel where 700 pages are extraneous and someone competent to do the adaptation. Of course, this doesn't mean the movie's going to be any good. (The story itself is pretty silly.) It's just not as unlikely as it initially seems.
I don't think you and the person you quote necessarily mean the same thing when you say "today's fastest computers". If I understand the implications of the technology correctly, quantum computing has the potential (in five years) to be three times as fast as any computer currently on the planet. While personal computers will be eight times as fast five years from now as they are today, they won't be eight times as fast as the current high end supercomputers.