I mean, honestly. Freedom of speech and what not. From aside it looks as if they weren't happy they got away so easily last time, so they decided to push their luck further.
I see no use of their service, YouTube isn't exactly repressive and brutally censoring free speech, is it.
Quoting from a movie I saw once. The editor tells the article author how he edited his work:
Editor: "I replaced atom with molecule here and there, atom repeats too much" Author: "But... it's not the same thing at all!" Editor: "Oh come on! Who'll know the difference. Molecule, atom.. same thing to me."
So, in the light of this, particle "spin" isn't about an electron actually spinning, and thus "angular momentum" as seen in the article text, so that's pretty hilarious replacement.
Another thing you may want to know for future articles: quark colors also aren't actual colors.
Requiring signed exe files? As in, Microsoft has to approve of every executable file in existance?
The signature verifies the source company of the exe file. Since SP2, if an exe isn't signed, you get a warning before you can run this file.
Do your own research.
Well, mission accomplished
on
Scotty Scooped Up
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
That is, if mocking an actor's ashes was the mission.
And for some reason everyone keeps calling the guy "Scotty". His name was James Doohan. The people who paid and organized this trip were apparently not the smartest people around.
Re:4 Minutes in Space
on
Scotty Scooped Up
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Of course these last two assume that bodies would be sent into space uncremated, which isn't all that practical I guess, but even cremated remains ought to be hurled out into deep space in my opinion.
It may become practical if the space elevator gets built. And there are some high profile people working hard on it.
It may make space ceremony cheaper than the normal one.
Not happening. You can take control over what I can and cannot do on my machine over my dead body. It's not worth ending spam to end free speech and free software as well.
It'll not end anything, but raise the barrier. Always happens dude.
How the hell can a company that bases it's business on 'sneaky' software installs complain about 'sneaky' software removal. It isn't even sneaky at that, those people put anti-spyware software on their PC to recieve a desired result. In any event, the pot can't call the kettle black.
You're right, the problem is, that neither lawyers, not the legal system operates on common sense. And this is tragically obvious on new matters, such as online activity (in "legal time" the Internet is quite young, lawmakers aren't unfortunately as sharp or as fast as their IT counterparts).
For the same reason censorship and copyright enforcement is hard on the Internet, apparently killing spam, scam, phishing and spyware companies is quite much harder than their "real life" equivalents.
(Internet spanning the whole globe, while the laws aren't, decentralization, anonymity, vague and undetermined terminology and legal status of various online activities etc.)
You gotta know though, this is all going on because the Internet is so young. If the beaurocrats in the various countries get their act together, in 30-40 years such abnormalities as a spyware distirbutor suing antispyware distributor will be for all practical purposes, impossible. But it will also mean we may need to fill a bunch of forms and go through a series of expensive tests before publishing software and sites on the Internet.
The signs of this are already coming from Microsoft where you need to signs your exe files for "authenticity", and "comspulsory" game rating requirement of Vista, and the more expensive "trustworthy" certificates initiative that the major browser makers are engaged into.
but most P2P apps have very high TCP/UDP flows per minute.
I don't really know that, but I suspect Joost will not have that pattern since it has to stream in content sequentially (where normal P2P apps download random bits from many users at once).
Skype uses P2P techniques as well for voice/camera/file transfer and doesn't follow this pattern (it finds nodes and uses them persistently for the duration of the conversation, unless the connection drops or something like this).
TV over the internet will push anyone far over the so-called standard deviation from mean internet usage; HD over the internet, especially high quality HD, will bring the utter wrath of cable modem ISPs... especially if you decide to forego cable TV service as a result.
Also watch out for a huge upsurge in packet prioritizing - as in all but blocking TV-over-internet sources outside your ISP's network.
If a big % of the users start watching TV it'll raise the mean internet usage numbers as well.
But aside from that, Joost uses P2P for content distribution (don't forget those are the same guys who did Kazaa and Skype). Add random ports and encryption, and P2P means random IP-s... And shaping it is suddenly not very easy.
Yea, it reminded me of the argument about Bush's intellect: he is not really be as stupid as he appears to be, instead he is actually just pretending to be stupid so his opponents would misunderestimate him - which in turn would explain how he got elected president. Twice.
I suppose Arnold is really smart too then, and all those terminator quotes are a coverup.
Your feedback would be more effective by ignoring the articles you don't want to read. All you did for Slashdot was give them more page views and a higher comment count, proving the article was worth posting.
Oh yea, solid logic there. DIGG should've kept erasing comments of their users then, that generated quite some traffic to their site.
I never said there isn't just plain ol' incompetence too. It is simply possible that there is more than one explanation for incompetence....
Douglas Adams said:
"I don't accept the currently fashionable assertion that any view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and opposite view. My view is that the moon is made of rock. If someone says to me "Well, you haven't been there, have you? You haven't seen it for yourself, so my view that it is made of Norwegian Beaver Cheese is equally valid" - then I can't even be bothered to argue. There is such a thing as the burden of proof, and in the case of god, as in the case of the composition of the moon, this has shifted radically."
How about/. throws up yet another story about potential sales of the iPhone (which is not released yet) and the story will be a hit. I've seen at least 50 stories about projected iPhone sales and current and past iPod, iTunes, and Mac sales along with the Zune as well. Those should be as equally news worthy as Vista sales correct?
Not really. Thing is, I don't think people like reading the same thing over and over on whatever the topic is.
The fact that sites and magazines think recycling Apple and Microsoft news is very interesting, doesn't mean their readers think so.
You see, we care about *new news* from Microsoft and Apple, since those are two big companies with lots of impact in the industry. But we're not retards, we get it the first time it's written about.
Then can I ask you something? Why did you click the Read More link on the front page, read the summary, click Reply, and type out an entire post if you don't fucking care?
I provided "feedback", in the hope it improved Slashdot. If we all just ignore the noise, a point comes where the noise completely masks the useful articles. Then what do we do?
If my memory serves right, this is the 7-th article talking about Vista sales alone. Not Vista bugs, not Vista speed, not Vista features, just Vista's initial sales.
I think I speak for the majority of Slashdot's readers, that we don't fucking care about Vista's sales that much.
They mean nothing and the actual trend will be known in 8-9 months from now (you can be sure Vista will see decent adoption either way, because if it doesn't Microsoft will be forced to address the worst problems in a SP).
So please stop wasting our time with this. We can live on without reading yet again about Vista's sales, in context, or out of it.
Or, if anything, they want your to believe they are incompetent.
Oh nice, denial mixed with conspiracy theories. Or how about, they are normal people, like you and me. They breath air, eat food, go to the toilet, and some of them families, kids and so on trivia.
The idea that they concealed fake info in the history of a Word file which embarasses them, so a tricky hacker could accidentally decode it and spread misinformation about the US intelligence service being idiots, while they are actually super smart..
That kinda strikes me as something I'd read next to articles showing evidence green aliens control earth in some tabloid.
They have no benefit to make their nation or their enemies think they are idiots. On the contrary, they keep teaching their soldiers, that the best weapon is the one that makes your enemy give up the fight. They need to look smart, they need to look scary, they need to look like someone you don't want to play with. Those docs work in the opposite direction.
I've played a little bit with Sony's Reader in the stores. If the technology base is the same, moving images would not be very feasible at all. To refresh the screen on the Sony, it first inverts the ENTIRE screen (possibly to 'unsettle' the ink) then writes new information. I'm pretty sure that any changes, no matter how small, required the entire page to 'flash' and refresh. Even then, there are some 'Etch-A-Sketch' style artifacts left behind. Unless they have a controller that can shake up only a portion of the ink, it will still show ghosting and blurriness.
Technology-wise, there's no need to invert the whole screen, but I suppose it was done for simplicity given the actual purpose of the device. But yea, no video for sure. At best, talking about a slideshow.
Plus interaction. Imagine if you're in a lab class, if you could write on these e-paper then it could be an effective way of passing idea's concept back and forth between your partners, like a private dry erase board that clones itself.
You can't write on it though. It's also not like a touch screen, I suppose the controls will be small spots on the side. Adding full touch-screen capability would mean it becomes more expensive, and thicker.
I think people make those devices more complex in their mind than their are. At this stage, all they can do is download a bunch of pages, and browse them. That's about it.
Here is the reason I've been told, even though I dont agree with it. (Also depends on the school you're going to albeit) It's unfair to those who can't afford laptops..... BTW I'm poor so I'm not flaming for those who can afford laptops, or private tutors, etc. I couldnt have those, but if they are available more power to those who can have them. Just more incentive for me to work harder.
I don't understand however why you couldn't. We're not talking high school here I believe, but higher education. My brother studies in USA and we're by no means rich, but he bought a new laptop from Dell for just below $600.
And there were laptops on eBay for $200. Now I understand this is a lot of money for some people, but you need to spend such an amount monthly just for food, books and such. So I'm not sure I understand this.
Slashdot Mirror
I mean, honestly. Freedom of speech and what not. From aside it looks as if they weren't happy they got away so easily last time, so they decided to push their luck further.
I see no use of their service, YouTube isn't exactly repressive and brutally censoring free speech, is it.
Unfortunately, the "hilarious" joke is on you, since spin actually does refer to angular momentum.
Well, I admit defeat, but at least now we all collectively have something to laugh about.
And we're happy he's home and mildly amused by his journey, as he probably would've been.
Right, pathos is stronger than logic, every time. Thanks for proving that.
Quoting from a movie I saw once. The editor tells the article author how he edited his work:
Editor: "I replaced atom with molecule here and there, atom repeats too much"
Author: "But... it's not the same thing at all!"
Editor: "Oh come on! Who'll know the difference. Molecule, atom.. same thing to me."
So, in the light of this, particle "spin" isn't about an electron actually spinning, and thus "angular momentum" as seen in the article text, so that's pretty hilarious replacement.
Another thing you may want to know for future articles: quark colors also aren't actual colors.
Requiring signed exe files? As in, Microsoft has to approve of every executable file in existance?
The signature verifies the source company of the exe file. Since SP2, if an exe isn't signed, you get a warning before you can run this file.
Do your own research.
That is, if mocking an actor's ashes was the mission.
And for some reason everyone keeps calling the guy "Scotty". His name was James Doohan. The people who paid and organized this trip were apparently not the smartest people around.
Of course these last two assume that bodies would be sent into space uncremated, which isn't all that practical I guess, but even cremated remains ought to be hurled out into deep space in my opinion.
It may become practical if the space elevator gets built. And there are some high profile people working hard on it.
It may make space ceremony cheaper than the normal one.
Not happening. You can take control over what I can and cannot do on my machine over my dead body. It's not worth ending spam to end free speech and free software as well.
It'll not end anything, but raise the barrier. Always happens dude.
That we're currently in the beginning of 2007 year.
Talking in past tense for an year that hasn't come yet though, tops my list of silly speculations on Slashdot.
How the hell can a company that bases it's business on 'sneaky' software installs complain about 'sneaky' software removal. It isn't even sneaky at that, those people put anti-spyware software on their PC to recieve a desired result. In any event, the pot can't call the kettle black.
You're right, the problem is, that neither lawyers, not the legal system operates on common sense. And this is tragically obvious on new matters, such as online activity (in "legal time" the Internet is quite young, lawmakers aren't unfortunately as sharp or as fast as their IT counterparts).
For the same reason censorship and copyright enforcement is hard on the Internet, apparently killing spam, scam, phishing and spyware companies is quite much harder than their "real life" equivalents.
(Internet spanning the whole globe, while the laws aren't, decentralization, anonymity, vague and undetermined terminology and legal status of various online activities etc.)
You gotta know though, this is all going on because the Internet is so young. If the beaurocrats in the various countries get their act together, in 30-40 years such abnormalities as a spyware distirbutor suing antispyware distributor will be for all practical purposes, impossible. But it will also mean we may need to fill a bunch of forms and go through a series of expensive tests before publishing software and sites on the Internet.
The signs of this are already coming from Microsoft where you need to signs your exe files for "authenticity", and "comspulsory" game rating requirement of Vista, and the more expensive "trustworthy" certificates initiative that the major browser makers are engaged into.
but most P2P apps have very high TCP/UDP flows per minute.
I don't really know that, but I suspect Joost will not have that pattern since it has to stream in content sequentially (where normal P2P apps download random bits from many users at once).
Skype uses P2P techniques as well for voice/camera/file transfer and doesn't follow this pattern (it finds nodes and uses them persistently for the duration of the conversation, unless the connection drops or something like this).
TV over the internet will push anyone far over the so-called standard deviation from mean internet usage; HD over the internet, especially high quality HD, will bring the utter wrath of cable modem ISPs... especially if you decide to forego cable TV service as a result.
Also watch out for a huge upsurge in packet prioritizing - as in all but blocking TV-over-internet sources outside your ISP's network.
If a big % of the users start watching TV it'll raise the mean internet usage numbers as well.
But aside from that, Joost uses P2P for content distribution (don't forget those are the same guys who did Kazaa and Skype). Add random ports and encryption, and P2P means random IP-s... And shaping it is suddenly not very easy.
Looking silly and incompetent makes them more sympathetic in the eyes of the normal population;
You know, no offense, but did you pull this one from one of the documents too?
Yea, it reminded me of the argument about Bush's intellect: he is not really be as stupid as he appears to be, instead he is actually just pretending to be stupid so his opponents would misunderestimate him - which in turn would explain how he got elected president. Twice.
I suppose Arnold is really smart too then, and all those terminator quotes are a coverup.
Check this video for the details of a fascinating technology of tommorow, that could save Jesus.
Your feedback would be more effective by ignoring the articles you don't want to read. All you did for Slashdot was give them more page views and a higher comment count, proving the article was worth posting.
Oh yea, solid logic there. DIGG should've kept erasing comments of their users then, that generated quite some traffic to their site.
I never said there isn't just plain ol' incompetence too. It is simply possible that there is more than one explanation for incompetence....
Douglas Adams said:
"I don't accept the currently fashionable assertion that any view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and opposite view. My view is that the moon is made of rock. If someone says to me "Well, you haven't been there, have you? You haven't seen it for yourself, so my view that it is made of Norwegian Beaver Cheese is equally valid" - then I can't even be bothered to argue. There is such a thing as the burden of proof, and in the case of god, as in the case of the composition of the moon, this has shifted radically."
How about /. throws up yet another story about potential sales of the iPhone (which is not released yet) and the story will be a hit. I've seen at least 50 stories about projected iPhone sales and current and past iPod, iTunes, and Mac sales along with the Zune as well. Those should be as equally news worthy as Vista sales correct?
Not really. Thing is, I don't think people like reading the same thing over and over on whatever the topic is.
The fact that sites and magazines think recycling Apple and Microsoft news is very interesting, doesn't mean their readers think so.
You see, we care about *new news* from Microsoft and Apple, since those are two big companies with lots of impact in the industry. But we're not retards, we get it the first time it's written about.
Then can I ask you something? Why did you click the Read More link on the front page, read the summary, click Reply, and type out an entire post if you don't fucking care?
I provided "feedback", in the hope it improved Slashdot. If we all just ignore the noise, a point comes where the noise completely masks the useful articles. Then what do we do?
If my memory serves right, this is the 7-th article talking about Vista sales alone. Not Vista bugs, not Vista speed, not Vista features, just Vista's initial sales.
I think I speak for the majority of Slashdot's readers, that we don't fucking care about Vista's sales that much.
They mean nothing and the actual trend will be known in 8-9 months from now (you can be sure Vista will see decent adoption either way, because if it doesn't Microsoft will be forced to address the worst problems in a SP).
So please stop wasting our time with this. We can live on without reading yet again about Vista's sales, in context, or out of it.
Or, if anything, they want your to believe they are incompetent.
Oh nice, denial mixed with conspiracy theories. Or how about, they are normal people, like you and me. They breath air, eat food, go to the toilet, and some of them families, kids and so on trivia.
The idea that they concealed fake info in the history of a Word file which embarasses them, so a tricky hacker could accidentally decode it and spread misinformation about the US intelligence service being idiots, while they are actually super smart..
That kinda strikes me as something I'd read next to articles showing evidence green aliens control earth in some tabloid.
They have no benefit to make their nation or their enemies think they are idiots. On the contrary, they keep teaching their soldiers, that the best weapon is the one that makes your enemy give up the fight. They need to look smart, they need to look scary, they need to look like someone you don't want to play with. Those docs work in the opposite direction.
I've played a little bit with Sony's Reader in the stores. If the technology base is the same, moving images would not be very feasible at all. To refresh the screen on the Sony, it first inverts the ENTIRE screen (possibly to 'unsettle' the ink) then writes new information. I'm pretty sure that any changes, no matter how small, required the entire page to 'flash' and refresh. Even then, there are some 'Etch-A-Sketch' style artifacts left behind. Unless they have a controller that can shake up only a portion of the ink, it will still show ghosting and blurriness.
Technology-wise, there's no need to invert the whole screen, but I suppose it was done for simplicity given the actual purpose of the device. But yea, no video for sure. At best, talking about a slideshow.
Plus interaction. Imagine if you're in a lab class, if you could write on these e-paper then it could be an effective way of passing idea's concept back and forth between your partners, like a private dry erase board that clones itself.
You can't write on it though. It's also not like a touch screen, I suppose the controls will be small spots on the side. Adding full touch-screen capability would mean it becomes more expensive, and thicker.
I think people make those devices more complex in their mind than their are. At this stage, all they can do is download a bunch of pages, and browse them. That's about it.
Here is the reason I've been told, even though I dont agree with it. (Also depends on the school you're going to albeit) It's unfair to those who can't afford laptops. .... BTW I'm poor so I'm not flaming for those who can afford laptops, or private tutors, etc. I couldnt have those, but if they are available more power to those who can have them. Just more incentive for me to work harder.
I don't understand however why you couldn't. We're not talking high school here I believe, but higher education. My brother studies in USA and we're by no means rich, but he bought a new laptop from Dell for just below $600.
And there were laptops on eBay for $200. Now I understand this is a lot of money for some people, but you need to spend such an amount monthly just for food, books and such. So I'm not sure I understand this.