OK, fine, I am guilty of using the term "arena" to refer to a specific kind of show that I personally don't like. I didn't actually mention popularity in my post, which I suppose makes you guilty of a similar kind of prejudice. But I will still stand behind what I said, rephrased so it pushes fewer buttons:
I imagine the kind of show where these devices are used are essentially scripted to the point of being stage musicals. (For one thing, the sound guy has to enter the key of the song so that it can do the adjustments for you appropriately!) I have seen such shows. Personally, I don't find there's much musicianship in them---ridiculous rehersal to the point of being a robot just doesn't appeal to me.
But, there are plenty of people who like this kind of precision. For those people, I can't imagine why they'd care if the precision comes from hours of practice or from a DSP chip. There are some artists who pride themselves on their technical accomplishments, like how Jackie Chan does all his own stunts with real knives or whatever. Those people would be crazy to use an autotuner, so that's not an issue. There are also plenty of people who just like to go to concerts because their friends or their radio likes the songs, and I imagine this device is great for them, too.
If you dont go to a concert to "see a display of musicianship" then you're seeing the wrong musicians.
Exactly, which is why I said arena show, which is where I imagine these devices are used. I go to see concerts all the time, ones with a couple dozen attendees, and I go for the music and for the musicianship. But the rare times I've been to one of these giant laser light shows with explosions and shit, it's like just watching a movie. Everyone seems like an actor playing out a carefully rehearsed script. So who cares if there's a little "movie magic" thrown in?
No!! 1/3 is exactly.33333..., repeating infinitely. Are you saying that the rationals aren't embedded in the reals? Did you ever take a discrete math course?
"...akin to cheating at solitaire, a source of false accomplishment and just one more instance of the fraying in society's moral fabric."
ahahah, yeah, right. Games are really just about entertainment. Someone else has already beaten that boss, and seen the ending. Nothing in the real world actually happens when you kill Mother Brain. For sure you can make an argument that cheating is pointless because it makes the games less entertaining (perhaps true), but there's no moral issue here. Nobody is hurt if you cheat. Nobody is hurt if you don't bother finishing the game because it was too hard. Nobody is ever hurt because ultimately there is no point to games other than to amuse you.
> The current stuff is clean, of course. But stealing someone else's code and claiming it as your own work can be hard to live down.
Also, taking the joke name (Remember it was "DivX;-)", apparently poking fun at circuit-city's defunct DIVX stupidity) from a pirated release as your own in order to co-opt its popularity among the pirated movie crowd for your own commercial product, well, that's a little shady too.
Actually, I disagree with you. One of the things nice about static typing is that it gives you error messages BEFORE you run your program. Have you ever written a "run-once" perl script that messes everything up because of a runtime error? I have (well, not perl, but elisp), and I think that my bugs would have been caught by SML's static typing.
I think that perl and python's main offerings are a convenient syntax and easy access to library functions that do the right thing most of the time. SML doesn't have the latter, but it could be added easily. I don't really see the importance of dynamic typing in the way that people use scripting languages.
Copying comments would certainly be infringement if the expression is significant enough to qualify for copyright protection (which is likely). But anyway, I think they are implying that the code that follows is also copied.
Re:ACLU apply their standards *very* unevenly
on
Joining the ACLU?
·
· Score: 1
The only reasoning which could lead one to believe that a change of location (from inside a uterus to inside a nappy) includes a change of status from non-human "bunch of cells" to full humanity
While the abortion issue is a tough one and one of the ones that I don't totally agree with the ACLU about, I don't follow your "proof" here at all. In fact, I see a clear distinction that could be used, and that is that before birth, the fetus is dependent on the mother to sustain its life, and after birth it is living on its own. (Of course, in practice, the mom usually takes care of the baby after birth, too!) Why can't this be the defining moment of humanity? Personally, since a premature child can usually survive, I prefer slightly earlier standard (perhaps, "capable of surviving outside the womb"). But we need to make that distinction somewhere. Pre-conception is hopeless, as we'd surely not condemn a woman's period or a man's wasted sperm (at most one makes it, even in good ol' fashion unprotected catholic sex!), and conception seems like a poor time as well since we understand that moment well biologically and know it to be really just cells dividing. Indeed, post-conception the division sometimes results in twins, which seems to be difficult for the "conception defines life" position to explain. In any case, you should not assume your choice (whatever that is) is obvious and incontrovertible, as you seem to in your post!
In Colonial times "arms" usually meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not.
Well, if we're going to take a time machine back to interpret this wording, what do we do about hand-held weapons that weren't invented when the constitution was drafted? Assault rifles with armor-piercing explosive bullets? Zip-lock bags filled with sarin gas?
Though I agree the constitution does guarantee the right to bear arms, I don't agree that the definition of "arms" can't be interpreted in a modern context to exclude weapons that fall outside the spirit of the amendment. (I'm not sure if this is what you're arguing, but it is what some people argue!)
The ACLU is one of the few organizations that you see, repeatedly in the news, and repeatedly winning cases. They really do make a difference, and that is why I am a member.
I suppose there are some issues where I don't totally agree with them -- but that's ok, because I don't expect them to succeed on every front. In that sense I think they are appropriate for even fairly moderate leftists like are found in great numbers on slashdot. Like RMS, they represent an important (and rational) extreme position that answers to the current climate.
Basically, it's like this: Whenever I go to "Am I Hot Or Not?", I only give "1" or "10" ratings based on whether I think the person is going to be over- or under-rated. Why would I want my vote to count for less in the final result? Similarly, I don't donate to the organization that shares my views most exactly; rather, I estimate where we live in relation to that position and then choose the most extreme view that gets us there. (Of course, sometimes there is an issue of whether that organization can be taken seriously and make real impact, but for sure the ACLU passes that test!)
No, it's not. The l should not need serifs if the stems of the other letters don't have 'em. I can't say for sure if the O is a zero without seeing a real O or 0 for comparison (though it does look squarish in the way you'd expect the O to look), but that l is definitely a 1.
I always dislike the new iD game when it first comes out (doom, then quake, then quake 2, then quake 3, and then probably doom 3), but after giving it a shot I come around (except maybe q2, perhaps!). In my opinion, Quake I and Quake III are their best.
Well, I'm not a tech, but one way you can benefit society is to put your skills to work and write a free replacement for some needed piece of software. It's the kind of thing that not many people can do, and, since your work can be copied by millions of people once it's written without much extra work, it has the potential to have a great impact.
If you're interested in helping society at a different level, you could volunteer to make or maintain a web page for some community organization that you support.
heh, heh... well, I am very generous with my 'foe' button!
> It's illegal to manipulate your stock like they have done. Making announcements with the sole purpose of jacking up your > stock price is illegal, big time.
From what I understand, the only relevant regulation for the SEC to invoke has to do with insider trading. What reason do we have to believe that there's insider trading? If I had stock, I'd sure be selling it. Heck, even the article says that short interest is up tenfold.
Well, we haven't seen the purported infringing code, so there is at least some chance that (parts of) the suit are reasonable. Certainly it's not illegal to make truthful or even speculative announcements that jack up your stock price, since companies do this all the time ("Sony will be releasing its Playstation 3 in Q3 2005," or whatever.) There may be a fraud issue if they are totally lying (but that's not up to the SEC to pursue), and there may be an insider trading issue if they all know that they're lying about the code, but that seems somewhat unlikely.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, fine, I am guilty of using the term "arena" to refer to a specific kind of show that I personally don't like. I didn't actually mention popularity in my post, which I suppose makes you guilty of a similar kind of prejudice. But I will still stand behind what I said, rephrased so it pushes fewer buttons:
I imagine the kind of show where these devices are used are essentially scripted to the point of being stage musicals. (For one thing, the sound guy has to enter the key of the song so that it can do the adjustments for you appropriately!) I have seen such shows. Personally, I don't find there's much musicianship in them---ridiculous rehersal to the point of being a robot just doesn't appeal to me.
But, there are plenty of people who like this kind of precision. For those people, I can't imagine why they'd care if the precision comes from hours of practice or from a DSP chip. There are some artists who pride themselves on their technical accomplishments, like how Jackie Chan does all his own stunts with real knives or whatever. Those people would be crazy to use an autotuner, so that's not an issue. There are also plenty of people who just like to go to concerts because their friends or their radio likes the songs, and I imagine this device is great for them, too.
If you dont go to a concert to "see a display of musicianship" then you're seeing the wrong musicians.
Exactly, which is why I said arena show, which is where I imagine these devices are used. I go to see concerts all the time, ones with a couple dozen attendees, and I go for the music and for the musicianship. But the rare times I've been to one of these giant laser light shows with explosions and shit, it's like just watching a movie. Everyone seems like an actor playing out a carefully rehearsed script. So who cares if there's a little "movie magic" thrown in?
If you're going to an arena show to see a display of musicianship, expect to be disappointed.
If you just want to turn off your brain and have fun, then you will be right at home, because this is exactly what that kind of music is crafted for.
No!! 1/3 is exactly .33333..., repeating infinitely. Are you saying that the rationals aren't embedded in the reals? Did you ever take a discrete math course?
Wrong. There are several proofs of this here. It's counter-intuitive, but it's what you get when you accept things like infinite decimal expansions.
No, it's true. 0.9999999... = 1.
"...akin to cheating at solitaire, a source of false accomplishment and just one more instance of the fraying in society's moral fabric."
ahahah, yeah, right. Games are really just about entertainment. Someone else has already beaten that boss, and seen the ending. Nothing in the real world actually happens when you kill Mother Brain. For sure you can make an argument that cheating is pointless because it makes the games less entertaining (perhaps true), but there's no moral issue here. Nobody is hurt if you cheat. Nobody is hurt if you don't bother finishing the game because it was too hard. Nobody is ever hurt because ultimately there is no point to games other than to amuse you.
> Does it just keep other doctors away? Do you explode?
Maybe you end up as the one who shaves the barber .
Well, ok, I was in CS, not Comp Eng, but I can vouch that I recruited chicks and graduated.
The link is right in the article. Too much Polybius?? ;)
> The current stuff is clean, of course. But stealing someone else's code and claiming it as your own work can be hard to live down.
;-)", apparently poking fun at circuit-city's defunct DIVX stupidity) from a pirated release as your own in order to co-opt its popularity among the pirated movie crowd for your own commercial product, well, that's a little shady too.
Also, taking the joke name (Remember it was "DivX
Actually, I disagree with you. One of the things nice about static typing is that it gives you error messages BEFORE you run your program. Have you ever written a "run-once" perl script that messes everything up because of a runtime error? I have (well, not perl, but elisp), and I think that my bugs would have been caught by SML's static typing.
I think that perl and python's main offerings are a convenient syntax and easy access to library functions that do the right thing most of the time. SML doesn't have the latter, but it could be added easily. I don't really see the importance of dynamic typing in the way that people use scripting languages.
Copying comments would certainly be infringement if the expression is significant enough to qualify for copyright protection (which is likely). But anyway, I think they are implying that the code that follows is also copied.
Damn, I posted almost exactly the same thing before reading the replies. ;)
That's just because they didn't show the header file, which has:
The only reasoning which could lead one to believe that a change of location (from inside a uterus to inside a nappy) includes a change of status from non-human "bunch of cells" to full humanity
While the abortion issue is a tough one and one of the ones that I don't totally agree with the ACLU about, I don't follow your "proof" here at all. In fact, I see a clear distinction that could be used, and that is that before birth, the fetus is dependent on the mother to sustain its life, and after birth it is living on its own. (Of course, in practice, the mom usually takes care of the baby after birth, too!) Why can't this be the defining moment of humanity? Personally, since a premature child can usually survive, I prefer slightly earlier standard (perhaps, "capable of surviving outside the womb"). But we need to make that distinction somewhere. Pre-conception is hopeless, as we'd surely not condemn a woman's period or a man's wasted sperm (at most one makes it, even in good ol' fashion unprotected catholic sex!), and conception seems like a poor time as well since we understand that moment well biologically and know it to be really just cells dividing. Indeed, post-conception the division sometimes results in twins, which seems to be difficult for the "conception defines life" position to explain. In any case, you should not assume your choice (whatever that is) is obvious and incontrovertible, as you seem to in your post!
In Colonial times "arms" usually meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not.
Well, if we're going to take a time machine back to interpret this wording, what do we do about hand-held weapons that weren't invented when the constitution was drafted? Assault rifles with armor-piercing explosive bullets? Zip-lock bags filled with sarin gas?
Though I agree the constitution does guarantee the right to bear arms, I don't agree that the definition of "arms" can't be interpreted in a modern context to exclude weapons that fall outside the spirit of the amendment. (I'm not sure if this is what you're arguing, but it is what some people argue!)
The ACLU is one of the few organizations that you see, repeatedly in the news, and repeatedly winning cases. They really do make a difference, and that is why I am a member.
I suppose there are some issues where I don't totally agree with them -- but that's ok, because I don't expect them to succeed on every front. In that sense I think they are appropriate for even fairly moderate leftists like are found in great numbers on slashdot. Like RMS, they represent an important (and rational) extreme position that answers to the current climate.
Basically, it's like this: Whenever I go to "Am I Hot Or Not?", I only give "1" or "10" ratings based on whether I think the person is going to be over- or under-rated. Why would I want my vote to count for less in the final result? Similarly, I don't donate to the organization that shares my views most exactly; rather, I estimate where we live in relation to that position and then choose the most extreme view that gets us there. (Of course, sometimes there is an issue of whether that organization can be taken seriously and make real impact, but for sure the ACLU passes that test!)
No, it's not. The l should not need serifs if the stems of the other letters don't have 'em. I can't say for sure if the O is a zero without seeing a real O or 0 for comparison (though it does look squarish in the way you'd expect the O to look), but that l is definitely a 1.
PS. This name change is stupid.
No. The free software movement does not have "products."
The pavement is simply asphalt with some mixed in rubber.
Well, then won't there be more rubber touching the road??
Hey, I thought loom was pretty good. If there was a worse disappointment, it was Monkey Island 4!
I always dislike the new iD game when it first comes out (doom, then quake, then quake 2, then quake 3, and then probably doom 3), but after giving it a shot I come around (except maybe q2, perhaps!). In my opinion, Quake I and Quake III are their best.
Well, I'm not a tech, but one way you can benefit society is to put your skills to work and write a free replacement for some needed piece of software. It's the kind of thing that not many people can do, and, since your work can be copied by millions of people once it's written without much extra work, it has the potential to have a great impact.
If you're interested in helping society at a different level, you could volunteer to make or maintain a web page for some community organization that you support.
> Hi Tom, my one and only freak! :D
heh, heh... well, I am very generous with my 'foe' button!
> It's illegal to manipulate your stock like they have done. Making announcements with the sole purpose of jacking up your
> stock price is illegal, big time.
From what I understand, the only relevant regulation for the SEC to invoke has to do with insider trading. What reason do we have to believe that there's insider trading? If I had stock, I'd sure be selling it. Heck, even the article says that short interest is up tenfold.
Well, we haven't seen the purported infringing code, so there is at least some chance that (parts of) the suit are reasonable. Certainly it's not illegal to make truthful or even speculative announcements that jack up your stock price, since companies do this all the time ("Sony will be releasing its Playstation 3 in Q3 2005," or whatever.) There may be a fraud issue if they are totally lying (but that's not up to the SEC to pursue), and there may be an insider trading issue if they all know that they're lying about the code, but that seems somewhat unlikely.