To my eyes, blurry as they may be for this hour, the quote appears to suggest that media streams may be delivered in varying qualities, dependent upon the user's available bandwidth. It does not seem to suggest that users should pay "extra" fees on top of their standard ISP charges to watch higher quality media, as some here seem to have interpreted.
Does this come as a surprise to anyone here? If there's a law that governs "resistance to new things", it seems it's finally getting to it's next stage or development...
"The illegal downloading of motion pictures robs thousands of honest, hard-working people of their livelihood, and stifles creativity."
I would like to argue that stifling creativity is exactly what the MPAA are doing, as their recent behaviour has made me feel that there ought to be a mass boycotting of the very concept of Creativity if the proliferation into the minds of humanity of one's creations is going to be controlled in such a militant manner. (And if not a mass boycotting, I at the very least no longer wish to make anything for any MPAA affiliated houses)
The spirit of creation, I feel, is that something is created because it has to be (well, one part of it at least), not because the Creator expects some huge reward. Frequently praise is more than gratifying enough.
Warning: Rant ahead Given that there are about 6,842,907 patents currently in place from 1790 to the present day (if i searched correctly on uspto.gov), is it even possible for the patent office to check that what is described in each new patent doesn't contravene any of the other patents? My basic understanding is that each patent is essentially a set of terms and conditions, and as a part of the patent process, each application is compared and contrasted to all previous patents. Surely there's no single person in the patent office who has all that data in their heads, so I'd like to know what criteria they use to identify what is a unique piece. As an example, within some of the recent granted applications there seems to be one for determining when a threaded process has died ( 6,842,901)...it was filed in 1999, yet offhand I would have thought that this kind of "invention" has been in play since way before that. I suppose this comes back down to the idea of software patents: Design patents, at least, have traditionally been used to document a manufacturing procedure - can software be considered a manufactured product? I can see the grounds for "invention" being a valid term to use when relating to software, but in my experience there are certain things that a developer will be forced to "invent" in the process of any project (regardless of their knowledge or lack thereof about existing processes), simply because there's a connection that needs to be made between 2 concepts to get the whole thing working - why should that developer, or the company they are working for, be considered to be trespassing on "someone else's" invention?
Maybe the source of funds makes the proposition seem a little unsavoury..... Or it could be that some people view accepting the settlement money implies that they endorse that settled state...rather than refusing the settlement, and pushing the court action.
It looks to me like the course outline is something almost anyone could sling together in 20 mins. I mean: "study Gaim source"...
Am I missing something here, or do diplomas actually mean nothing.
Science Museum, London
on
Dry Quicksand
·
· Score: 1
I don't know how many of you have ever been to the Science Museum in London, but years ago in the "Launchpad" area they had a little box of sand with air puffed through it to demonstrate exactly the principal that's discussed here. I dunno about the resting state dynamics bit, but definately the general air-quicksand concept's not new to us Limeys. I have no idea if it's still set up.
I'm about to go off on one, for which I apologise in advance...Please correct me if I'm incorrect, which I'm certain will be done wether I ask for it or not.
The way I see it is, this argument boils down to the Needs of the One (the Company) vs. the Needs of the Many (Everyone).
"Closed" products seem to have a rather egoistic nature - they are structured to inflate the coffers of a particular Company without regard for the general populace.
"Open" products seem to have a generally altruistic nature - they are structured to inflate the body of knowledge available to all.
How exactly does one go about convincing someone selfish to be selfless?
Can an idea truly be 100% owned? I mean, we are referring to codified ideas, at the end of the day, and usually ideas are developed from other ideas - if one were to reveal where all of their ideas were generated from, and those ideas had generated revenue, should not various proportions of that revenue be directed towards the generators of all precursor ideas? If we use a word in our code, and that code makes cold hard cash, shouldn't the creator of the word be given a proportion of said dosh?
-- sig1: Apologies for anything off-topic, I didn't bother reading the speeches. -- sig2: Anyone reading this automatically waives their right to think or exist. -- sig3: Anyone reading this doesn't have to. -- sig4: Please don't invoice me for the use of your brain cells. -- sig5: Fook Money -- sig6: I don't know what I'm talking about.
Well reviewed, my good man/woman/thing... It's good to see a seemingly well thought out book on the topic of detection and removal of "malware". The majority of tech calls I get from family and friends involve something malicious or just downright irritating landing on someone's computer (strangely, usually a Win32 box...well, not that strange, considering...), which I end up having to track down and de-couple...which can sometimes be a rather lengthy process, especially where the offending piece has been based on some of the older, smarter virii which spread themselves all over the place just to make sure it takes you a clean floppy or about 4 reboots to remove (re-deleting each re-replaced thing each time). *remember to breath, gazz*
I've longed for a return to the days when I used to only find a blown PSU.....like, 1996....
Good to see chapters on general system "hardening" as well as some more in-depth stuff.
Saying all that, it can be great fun cleaning out a "scr00d" system.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, just discard that desktop metaphor.
My current reading, Flare ( http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/067172133X ), contains a scenario remarkably similar to that dipped into in the article.
To my eyes, blurry as they may be for this hour, the quote appears to suggest that media streams may be delivered in varying qualities, dependent upon the user's available bandwidth. It does not seem to suggest that users should pay "extra" fees on top of their standard ISP charges to watch higher quality media, as some here seem to have interpreted.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Don't you mean Wii..?
Does this come as a surprise to anyone here?
If there's a law that governs "resistance to new things", it seems it's finally getting to it's next stage or development...
using an IDE or one of the vi chosen
Using an IDE?? I Am an IDE.
And vi is my faithful servant (Unless I wanna play with Emacs.)
Bravo to Mr Edgar David Villanueva Nuñez
"The illegal downloading of motion pictures robs thousands of honest, hard-working people of their livelihood, and stifles creativity."
I would like to argue that stifling creativity is exactly what the MPAA are doing, as their recent behaviour has made me feel that there ought to be a mass boycotting of the very concept of Creativity if the proliferation into the minds of humanity of one's creations is going to be controlled in such a militant manner. (And if not a mass boycotting, I at the very least no longer wish to make anything for any MPAA affiliated houses)
The spirit of creation, I feel, is that something is created because it has to be (well, one part of it at least), not because the Creator expects some huge reward. Frequently praise is more than gratifying enough.
oh yes!.....13000 :D
I think i can safetly stop now....
...I've scored 7000....and counting :D
Warning: Rant ahead
Given that there are about 6,842,907 patents currently in place from 1790 to the present day (if i searched correctly on uspto.gov), is it even possible for the patent office to check that what is described in each new patent doesn't contravene any of the other patents?
My basic understanding is that each patent is essentially a set of terms and conditions, and as a part of the patent process, each application is compared and contrasted to all previous patents. Surely there's no single person in the patent office who has all that data in their heads, so I'd like to know what criteria they use to identify what is a unique piece.
As an example, within some of the recent granted applications there seems to be one for determining when a threaded process has died ( 6,842,901)...it was filed in 1999, yet offhand I would have thought that this kind of "invention" has been in play since way before that.
I suppose this comes back down to the idea of software patents: Design patents, at least, have traditionally been used to document a manufacturing procedure - can software be considered a manufactured product? I can see the grounds for "invention" being a valid term to use when relating to software, but in my experience there are certain things that a developer will be forced to "invent" in the process of any project (regardless of their knowledge or lack thereof about existing processes), simply because there's a connection that needs to be made between 2 concepts to get the whole thing working - why should that developer, or the company they are working for, be considered to be trespassing on "someone else's" invention?
Did any of that make any sense?
End of Rant
Maybe the source of funds makes the proposition seem a little unsavoury.....
Or it could be that some people view accepting the settlement money implies that they endorse that settled state...rather than refusing the settlement, and pushing the court action.
It looks to me like the course outline is something almost anyone could sling together in 20 mins. I mean: "study Gaim source"...
Am I missing something here, or do diplomas actually mean nothing.
I don't know how many of you have ever been to the Science Museum in London, but years ago in the "Launchpad" area they had a little box of sand with air puffed through it to demonstrate exactly the principal that's discussed here. I dunno about the resting state dynamics bit, but definately the general air-quicksand concept's not new to us Limeys.
:D
I have no idea if it's still set up.
It was fun
We ARE holograms...
I'm about to go off on one, for which I apologise in advance...Please correct me if I'm incorrect, which I'm certain will be done wether I ask for it or not.
The way I see it is, this argument boils down to the Needs of the One (the Company) vs. the Needs of the Many (Everyone).
"Closed" products seem to have a rather egoistic nature - they are structured to inflate the coffers of a particular Company without regard for the general populace.
"Open" products seem to have a generally altruistic nature - they are structured to inflate the body of knowledge available to all.
How exactly does one go about convincing someone selfish to be selfless?
Can an idea truly be 100% owned? I mean, we are referring to codified ideas, at the end of the day, and usually ideas are developed from other ideas - if one were to reveal where all of their ideas were generated from, and those ideas had generated revenue, should not various proportions of that revenue be directed towards the generators of all precursor ideas? If we use a word in our code, and that code makes cold hard cash, shouldn't the creator of the word be given a proportion of said dosh?
--
sig1: Apologies for anything off-topic, I didn't bother reading the speeches.
--
sig2: Anyone reading this automatically waives their right to think or exist.
--
sig3: Anyone reading this doesn't have to.
--
sig4: Please don't invoice me for the use of your brain cells.
--
sig5: Fook Money
--
sig6: I don't know what I'm talking about.
ahh, I guess I should have specified my Perl addiction....
Do you mean:
s/breath/$&e/
?
3.5: Sell Rosebuds as merchandise
if they learned immediately, there'd be no job for the IT guy. :D
umm,
s/(breath)/$1e/;
Well reviewed, my good man/woman/thing...
It's good to see a seemingly well thought out book on the topic of detection and removal of "malware".
The majority of tech calls I get from family and friends involve something malicious or just downright irritating landing on someone's computer (strangely, usually a Win32 box...well, not that strange, considering...), which I end up having to track down and de-couple...which can sometimes be a rather lengthy process, especially where the offending piece has been based on some of the older, smarter virii which spread themselves all over the place just to make sure it takes you a clean floppy or about 4 reboots to remove (re-deleting each re-replaced thing each time). *remember to breath, gazz*
I've longed for a return to the days when I used to only find a blown PSU.....like, 1996....
Good to see chapters on general system "hardening" as well as some more in-depth stuff.
Saying all that, it can be great fun cleaning out a "scr00d" system.
4hh, 1f j00 w3r3 l337 3nuff j00d alr3dy b3 0n h3r m4ch1n3 4nd br0w51ng h3r ph070 a18um....
Yeah. And Wot? :P
....he could mount it on a car's steering wheel, fire up GTA, and try some Reality Morphing....
or not
...Ouroboros