Maybe the first few minutes of an episode are free (when I had DirecTV, their pay-per-view movies did this). Maybe they only start charging for a series when you watch a second episode. Or maybe they rely on ads and reviews, like movies and video games.
Any monkey can execute a test plan given the tools, but QA writes the plans and makes the tools. They have to know how the pieces of the product fit together just as well as coders do, and know the implementation tools at least well enough to pick the really nasty boundary conditions. Maintaining testing tools (load generators, output analyzers) makes them coders just as much as product developers are. I know I'm about the last person in the world who should be testing my own code (I've already excluded all the flaws I can think of), so I have a lot of respect for QA--if I fuck up but it doesn't get out the door, it's thanks to them.
Having just bought a DVD player (was waiting for a multi-region capable player from a vendor big enough that their CSS key probably won't be revoked), I was considering signing up with them. Then I got spammed by "NetFlix ". I warned them a third party was destroying their good name, but they didn't bother to reply, so I have to assume they're scum.
That's just it, though. You do know how hot your kettle is and so you almost certainly handle it "this could hurt me" carefully (not just "this could stain my shirt" carefully). I can't silently hand you a cup that's almost boiling if I know you're expecting one that's ready to drink out of.
AFAIK frivolous lawsuits are already illegal--I don't see that we need more reform than fully enforcing that. In principle I favor loser-pays, but you have to keep the winner's costs realistic somehow. I think professional legal advice shouldn't be as omnipresent and essential as it is (any law we have to obey should be comprehensible), but when it is it's one of those inelastic goods that you can't fairly ration using a market.
Nobody is capable of drinking 185F coffee. Danger determines what precautions are reasonable--I'm sure she would have handled the cup more carefully (or not at all) had she known some psychopath gave her a weapon instead of the food she requested.
The fair return on developing software is based on the labor and equipment that went into it, just like any other work-for-hire service. There's an amount of money that would be enough incentive for you to get the code written; if you get more than that, the free market has failed to efficiently allocate society's genuinely scarce resources (which could otherwise have been used as incentive to get someone else to do something useful).
That the profession is in such a sorry state is largely because publishers are relying on windfall monopoly rents (so they either get far more than they deserve or go under) instead of seeking commissions, which makes a very strong incentive to control their customers enough to harm competition.
I didn't own any Moxy Früvous until I tried rips of them; now I've bought every CD of theirs I've seen. And then there's the issue of collecting rips of performances that simply aren't for sale....
Licensed trade secrets can't take the place of patents--if I can prove I independently rediscovered the thing you're keeping secret, I can do anything with it you can do. Once a patent is issued, everyone is presumed to be aware of it (which is plainly ridiculous--ever try to read any?).
If "persons of ordinary skill in the art" produce the same invention given the same requirements, it's pretty safe to say the invention was obvious and none of them deserve a patent. This is only a problem because the USPTO isn't meeting the Constitutional requirements for its existence.
IMHO they ought to give some nondisclosed organization a modest budget to produce an invention that does substantially the same thing as the patent application. If they succeed the patent shouldn't be granted (either way their invention was work for hire for the public and should be published).
"On behalf of all contributors"? Does Mono require copyright assignment of all contributions, or did they actually manage to persuade every contributor to subsidize non-Free Mono implementations? Their FAQ still says they'll generally accept GPL'd contributions (which implies they don't insist on the right to relicense).
Found it: On CBS News, Some of What You See Isn't There. They seem to think it's okay as long as they don't replace anything newsworthy (the Astrovision in Times Square obviously doesn't count, probably because NBC is paying for that).
Movies can get away with 24fps because shooting on film provides motion blur automatically. Sharp-edged objects can't move convincingly unless you're actually shown the intermediate steps quickly enough that your own eye blurs them together. There's even been noise for a while about having high-performance video cards render several entire frames just so they can be blended down to your monitor's refresh rate.
Wasn't there some recent televised event where the broadcaster edited the live video to replace a logo on a real billboard with their own or a sponsor's?
They said "the device covers those microedits[...] seamlessly" and "we take all that into account", but I want to know how. If they play all the audio more quickly and drop a frame every so often to catch up, don't they spend a lot of time with the audio nearing half a frame out of sync? Is that enough to leave the viewer feeling like it's been badly dubbed?
How do you make audio at the same pitch go faster, anyway? Cut out waveforms and splice their neighbors together? Go into the frequency domain and start and stop energy in every band sooner?
Yeesh, next they'll stop doing 3:2 pulldown in telecine (spread 24 film frames across triples and pairs of 60 NTSC interlace fields) and just run film at 30fps. That'd shorten a two-hour film by 24 minutes, and progressive displays wouldn't need a comb filter. How noticeable would it be when all the sound is shifted up about four semitones?
I have to wonder how they cover the discontinuities if they cut whole frames' worth of audio, or how close they can sync with the video if they cut more opportunistically.
That debate continues, but there's an important line here between patented products and patented standards. IMHO recommending communication standards that anyone has a legal right to prevent anyone else from implementing absolutely undermines the W3C's long-term goal of universal access.
Re:For what it's worth, I bought a Loki game today
on
Last Word on Loki
·
· Score: 1
My doctor doesn't own a share of my body, and my plumber doesn't charge me based on how much water I use. Find people who need problems solved and who have the resources to support you while you find their solution.
The key seems to be for the condenser/heat sink to be above the evaporators, so the gas flows up and the liquid flows down. Not having one, I can't tell whether the condenser would work sideways (facing the top of a desktop case, rather than the side of a tower).
IMHO a home theater box that can't capture NTSC and encode to MPEG-2 (or maybe Ogg Tarkin) is going to be obsolete pretty quickly. Of course, I still have to swap quieter fans into my Athlon; right now it's entirely too loud even in a open-back shelf enclosure.
It looks like each evaporator has to be below the condenser for their no-pump convection to work. They're cooling the power supply, CPU, chipset, and video chip. Is a little extra heat for the other components going to matter in an aluminum case?
Heh. They're not using water, but some refrigerant that evaporates at a convenient temperature. They don't say what its freezing point is (probably because Korea is in a habitable climate), but mixing antifreeze into it is probably a Bad Idea.
Fan noise comes from turbulence (sharp edges moving fast through air), they can't be enclosed, and you have to move a lot more air than liquid coolant (air's low density doesn't carry away much heat).
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe the first few minutes of an episode are free (when I had DirecTV, their pay-per-view movies did this). Maybe they only start charging for a series when you watch a second episode. Or maybe they rely on ads and reviews, like movies and video games.
Any monkey can execute a test plan given the tools, but QA writes the plans and makes the tools. They have to know how the pieces of the product fit together just as well as coders do, and know the implementation tools at least well enough to pick the really nasty boundary conditions. Maintaining testing tools (load generators, output analyzers) makes them coders just as much as product developers are. I know I'm about the last person in the world who should be testing my own code (I've already excluded all the flaws I can think of), so I have a lot of respect for QA--if I fuck up but it doesn't get out the door, it's thanks to them.
Having just bought a DVD player (was waiting for a multi-region capable player from a vendor big enough that their CSS key probably won't be revoked), I was considering signing up with them. Then I got spammed by "NetFlix ". I warned them a third party was destroying their good name, but they didn't bother to reply, so I have to assume they're scum.
That's just it, though. You do know how hot your kettle is and so you almost certainly handle it "this could hurt me" carefully (not just "this could stain my shirt" carefully). I can't silently hand you a cup that's almost boiling if I know you're expecting one that's ready to drink out of.
AFAIK frivolous lawsuits are already illegal--I don't see that we need more reform than fully enforcing that. In principle I favor loser-pays, but you have to keep the winner's costs realistic somehow. I think professional legal advice shouldn't be as omnipresent and essential as it is (any law we have to obey should be comprehensible), but when it is it's one of those inelastic goods that you can't fairly ration using a market.
Nobody is capable of drinking 185F coffee. Danger determines what precautions are reasonable--I'm sure she would have handled the cup more carefully (or not at all) had she known some psychopath gave her a weapon instead of the food she requested.
Not every macro argument is an evaluable sexpr. Macros also let you invent domain-specific syntax.
The fair return on developing software is based on the labor and equipment that went into it, just like any other work-for-hire service. There's an amount of money that would be enough incentive for you to get the code written; if you get more than that, the free market has failed to efficiently allocate society's genuinely scarce resources (which could otherwise have been used as incentive to get someone else to do something useful).
That the profession is in such a sorry state is largely because publishers are relying on windfall monopoly rents (so they either get far more than they deserve or go under) instead of seeking commissions, which makes a very strong incentive to control their customers enough to harm competition.
I didn't own any Moxy Früvous until I tried rips of them; now I've bought every CD of theirs I've seen. And then there's the issue of collecting rips of performances that simply aren't for sale....
Licensed trade secrets can't take the place of patents--if I can prove I independently rediscovered the thing you're keeping secret, I can do anything with it you can do. Once a patent is issued, everyone is presumed to be aware of it (which is plainly ridiculous--ever try to read any?).
IMHO they ought to give some nondisclosed organization a modest budget to produce an invention that does substantially the same thing as the patent application. If they succeed the patent shouldn't be granted (either way their invention was work for hire for the public and should be published).
"On behalf of all contributors"? Does Mono require copyright assignment of all contributions, or did they actually manage to persuade every contributor to subsidize non-Free Mono implementations? Their FAQ still says they'll generally accept GPL'd contributions (which implies they don't insist on the right to relicense).
Found it: On CBS News, Some of What You See Isn't There. They seem to think it's okay as long as they don't replace anything newsworthy (the Astrovision in Times Square obviously doesn't count, probably because NBC is paying for that).
Movies can get away with 24fps because shooting on film provides motion blur automatically. Sharp-edged objects can't move convincingly unless you're actually shown the intermediate steps quickly enough that your own eye blurs them together. There's even been noise for a while about having high-performance video cards render several entire frames just so they can be blended down to your monitor's refresh rate.
Wasn't there some recent televised event where the broadcaster edited the live video to replace a logo on a real billboard with their own or a sponsor's?
They said "the device covers those microedits[...] seamlessly" and "we take all that into account", but I want to know how. If they play all the audio more quickly and drop a frame every so often to catch up, don't they spend a lot of time with the audio nearing half a frame out of sync? Is that enough to leave the viewer feeling like it's been badly dubbed?
How do you make audio at the same pitch go faster, anyway? Cut out waveforms and splice their neighbors together? Go into the frequency domain and start and stop energy in every band sooner?
I have to wonder how they cover the discontinuities if they cut whole frames' worth of audio, or how close they can sync with the video if they cut more opportunistically.
That debate continues, but there's an important line here between patented products and patented standards. IMHO recommending communication standards that anyone has a legal right to prevent anyone else from implementing absolutely undermines the W3C's long-term goal of universal access.
My doctor doesn't own a share of my body, and my plumber doesn't charge me based on how much water I use. Find people who need problems solved and who have the resources to support you while you find their solution.
If your customers are spread all across the country (as retail stores are), it makes more sense to have your plant close to your suppliers.
He was a hypocrite, but what he said is true no matter how much he believed it.
The key seems to be for the condenser/heat sink to be above the evaporators, so the gas flows up and the liquid flows down. Not having one, I can't tell whether the condenser would work sideways (facing the top of a desktop case, rather than the side of a tower).
IMHO a home theater box that can't capture NTSC and encode to MPEG-2 (or maybe Ogg Tarkin) is going to be obsolete pretty quickly. Of course, I still have to swap quieter fans into my Athlon; right now it's entirely too loud even in a open-back shelf enclosure.
It looks like each evaporator has to be below the condenser for their no-pump convection to work. They're cooling the power supply, CPU, chipset, and video chip. Is a little extra heat for the other components going to matter in an aluminum case?
Heh. They're not using water, but some refrigerant that evaporates at a convenient temperature. They don't say what its freezing point is (probably because Korea is in a habitable climate), but mixing antifreeze into it is probably a Bad Idea.
Fan noise comes from turbulence (sharp edges moving fast through air), they can't be enclosed, and you have to move a lot more air than liquid coolant (air's low density doesn't carry away much heat).