It's really a shame that it took over a decade for a music producer to provide what people have been asking for instead of trying to force their own solution down their customers throats.
Having nearly completely forgotten about Open Watcom since I first heard about it years ago I was quite eager to see how far the project had come. Unfortunately, even though I did find a page with developer documentation for different processors, I had trouble discerning which architectures the compiler currently supports. The few pdfs I downloaded seem to indicate that it is pretty much limited to 16 and 32 bit x86. Is this actually the case?
So, is a general purpose computer "particular" enough when loaded with specific software, or not? That would be a very interesting question for the SCOTUS to answer.
Logically one would think a general purpose computer would become "particular" enough when the loaded software made it only suitable for the specific task. In other words, a dedicated mp3 playing machine would be particular because it is designed for only the purpose of playing mp3s.
you should read the first point of this article [viemu.com]. You should read the rest too, probably, but that's the relevant part.
I'm not the OP, but even after 10+ years of using Linux I still have not been able to force myself to learn either vi or emacs, and this extract from your linked article...
Correct-conception #1: steep learning curve
There is one thing which is a commonly held piece of knowledge, and which is true as well. It is shown on this page to the best effect. It's the fact that learning vi/vim is an activity that will take a long time (weeks to months), and that the first experience is not pleasant. I take it this is the main reason why vi/vim editing isn't, and will never be, a popular thing.
...is why. It simply should not take weeks or months to learn to use a friggin editor. For most of my editing tasks I use mcedit. It has a nice and very intuitive interface and can be used either as a standalone app or from within midnight commander.
Seriously, why should Apple even have the right to restrict what people do, see, read, or hear on the hardware that they purchased from them? Once money has changed hands their ownership to the metal has ended.
And let's assume you're honest (and that your advertisers are too), and that your ads aren't malicious and in fact serve a normal purpose: to advertise a legitimate product.
Most people don't block ads based on their legitimacy, they block them because they pop up, or move, or take up more than 10% of the page.
If I wanted to see ads... I wouldn't block them. This feature seems redundant.
To be honest I was never bothered by the old static banner ads, even clicked on one every now and then if it was for a product I was interested in. But then came "Punch the Monkey".
I bought 3 different versions of their Turbo C++ products and Turbo Assembler in the 90's, and had a great time with them learning to program. But then came along C++ Builder, which ended the affair. I gave Kylix a try after I switched to Linux to see if I couldn't rekindle the flame but that was like pouring a bucket of water on smoldering embers.
This is why I'm taking the time to learn openbox. I loved being able to configure KDE to my liking and was quite upset that 4.* forced Plasma and the likes on me.
However, I'm big on the concept of a fair deal. I'm not going to put something out there to get screwed over. It's not part of my set of ethics. I'm OK with putting it into a safe-deposit box. I've already done the creative work, it's fine by me.
You really should consider the GPL. Being able to distribute millions of lines of other peoples code in exchange for few lines of your own is a really fantastic deal.
The proper response to a law that you disagree with is not to disobey the law.
If a law is obeyed there is no reason to change it. It took millions of people drinking illegally for years to get Prohibition rescinded. Otherwise we would have people murdering others out of principle.
That's the fourth box. Content providers are probably safe at least until the people exhaust the soap, ballot, and jury boxes. If you disagree with the laws about downloading material, then you should just not listen to the music period.
Listening to music does not violate even the current draconian copyright laws.
1. i think we should abolish the electoral college, since, as 2000 demonstrates, you can lose the popular vote and still win the election (and hasn't the last 8 years proven that to be a mistake)
Going to disagree with you here. The EC exists because it is the States that elect the person to preside over them, not the people. It really is the only way for a union of varying sized states to exist without the larger members dictating their wills to the smaller. I do think, though, that the EC should be tweaked so that each state must divvy up its electors by the percentage voted for by its citizens.
No, he called him one for wanting to increase taxes on people who do pay taxes and then write checks to people who don't. And he properly identified calling such a maneuver a "rebate" as being a deceitful bit of lying spin.
Sounds a bit like the Earned Income Tax Credit. Wasn't that brought about by those infamous commies Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan?
Something like seeking the picture in flip book or spinnng a zoetrope to find the right page?. Seriously now, how else would you pull meaningful information out a pipe if the data wasn't "framed" in a structure of some sort. Televisions have been deinterlacing video signals for more than half a century now.
There is nothing new or non-obvious in TiVo's "invention" as far as handling of the stream. Sucking data in and putting it temporary storage so that it can be used more effeciently has been around forever. Hell, you could even compare it a resovoir or a granary.
like if you are running FFWD and hit play it will rewind just a bit to take care of overshoot. Not an obvious feature but a VERY nice one and I'm pretty sure patented.
Actually it has been obvious for a few decades now:
$man rewind
int fseek(FILE *stream, long offset, int whence); long ftell(FILE *stream); void rewind(FILE *stream); int fgetpos(FILE *stream, fpos_t *pos); int fsetpos(FILE *stream, fpos_t *pos);
Re:Why Only fitness of purpose?
on
DMCA Exemption Time
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Guess that depends on what you mean by "full access"? One could argue that if it meets it's primary purpose. e.g. Cars go from point A to point B, CD players play music, DVD players play video, etc. Then reasonable access has been provided. The fact that you can use all of the above to cause blunt force damage to others shouldn't be enshrined into law.
I can take my car apart piece by piece if I wanted to and reassemble it to my liking without breaking any laws. Why? Because my car is my property. Having "reasonable access" to something is no where even close to being the same as owning something.
According to exemption 6 on the list only CDs can legally be bypassed. That seems awfully ignorant being that Blu-ray, HD-DVD, and even DVD protections pose far greater threats to computer security. Besides, that restricts an owner from having full access to his hardware should really be ruled unconstitutional as a seizure violation. Sure, it is the media distrubuters implement this, but the DMCA is even worse than Kelo vs. City of New London when it comes to the government making it okay for one person to deprive another of the use of their property.
So you would have no issue if Bush, Blair, Putin or any other government figurehead demanded that companies hand over their source code?
Not only would I have not issue with it, I would think them dolts if they didn't. Computer security has become so vital to a nation's interests that no country should be running any hardware or software without knowing exactly what it does and how it does it.
China is out of control. How can anyone compete if they have cheaper labor and can demand everyone hand over technologies. They can pirate the hardware but reverse engineering the rest is harder. What's next them demanding chip manufacturers hand over chip templates to "make sure they meet China's standards".
Do you think our government should use their chips without making sure they meet U.S. standards? It has never failed to amaze me that any nation would blindly trust software and hardware made in another.
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely. I was pretty impressed by this video that my son created, the music all recorded in his basement.
It's really a shame that it took over a decade for a music producer to provide what people have been asking for instead of trying to force their own solution down their customers throats.
Oh wait...they still want to suspend accounts.
Having nearly completely forgotten about Open Watcom since I first heard about it years ago I was quite eager to see how far the project had come. Unfortunately, even though I did find a page with developer documentation for different processors, I had trouble discerning which architectures the compiler currently supports. The few pdfs I downloaded seem to indicate that it is pretty much limited to 16 and 32 bit x86. Is this actually the case?
So, is a general purpose computer "particular" enough when loaded with specific software, or not? That would be a very interesting question for the SCOTUS to answer.
Logically one would think a general purpose computer would become "particular" enough when the loaded software made it only suitable for the specific task. In other words, a dedicated mp3 playing machine would be particular because it is designed for only the purpose of playing mp3s.
you should read the first point of this article [viemu.com]. You should read the rest too, probably, but that's the relevant part.
I'm not the OP, but even after 10+ years of using Linux I still have not been able to force myself to learn either vi or emacs, and this extract from your linked article...
Correct-conception #1: steep learning curve
There is one thing which is a commonly held piece of knowledge, and which is true as well. It is shown on this page to the best effect. It's the fact that learning vi/vim is an activity that will take a long time (weeks to months), and that the first experience is not pleasant. I take it this is the main reason why vi/vim editing isn't, and will never be, a popular thing.
Seriously, why should Apple even have the right to restrict what people do, see, read, or hear on the hardware that they purchased from them? Once money has changed hands their ownership to the metal has ended.
And let's assume you're honest (and that your advertisers are too), and that your ads aren't malicious and in fact serve a normal purpose: to advertise a legitimate product.
Most people don't block ads based on their legitimacy, they block them because they pop up, or move, or take up more than 10% of the page.
If I wanted to see ads... I wouldn't block them. This feature seems redundant.
To be honest I was never bothered by the old static banner ads, even clicked on one every now and then if it was for a product I was interested in. But then came "Punch the Monkey".
I bought 3 different versions of their Turbo C++ products and Turbo Assembler in the 90's, and had a great time with them learning to program. But then came along C++ Builder, which ended the affair. I gave Kylix a try after I switched to Linux to see if I couldn't rekindle the flame but that was like pouring a bucket of water on smoldering embers.
This is why I'm taking the time to learn openbox. I loved being able to configure KDE to my liking and was quite upset that 4.* forced Plasma and the likes on me.
Another example is Trolltech's Qt, "taxing" the "sin" of producing non-free software.
Somebody has not been keeping upup. Qt is now LGPL.
However, I'm big on the concept of a fair deal. I'm not going to put something out there to get screwed over. It's not part of my set of ethics. I'm OK with putting it into a safe-deposit box. I've already done the creative work, it's fine by me.
You really should consider the GPL. Being able to distribute millions of lines of other peoples code in exchange for few lines of your own is a really fantastic deal.
How much do you think Viacom will be paying to distribute its commercials to Time-Warner subscribers?
The MAFIAA's lobbyists seem to have a knack for convincing legislators to turn fiction into fact.
The proper response to a law that you disagree with is not to disobey the law.
If a law is obeyed there is no reason to change it. It took millions of people drinking illegally for years to get Prohibition rescinded.
Otherwise we would have people murdering others out of principle.
That's the fourth box. Content providers are probably safe at least until the people exhaust the soap, ballot, and jury boxes.
If you disagree with the laws about downloading material, then you should just not listen to the music period.
Listening to music does not violate even the current draconian copyright laws.
1. i think we should abolish the electoral college, since, as 2000 demonstrates, you can lose the popular vote and still win the election (and hasn't the last 8 years proven that to be a mistake)
Going to disagree with you here. The EC exists because it is the States that elect the person to preside over them, not the people. It really is the only way for a union of varying sized states to exist without the larger members dictating their wills to the smaller. I do think, though, that the EC should be tweaked so that each state must divvy up its electors by the percentage voted for by its citizens.
No, he called him one for wanting to increase taxes on people who do pay taxes and then write checks to people who don't. And he properly identified calling such a maneuver a "rebate" as being a deceitful bit of lying spin.
Sounds a bit like the Earned Income Tax Credit. Wasn't that brought about by those infamous commies Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan?
Unlike bytes, which by definition are length 1 in C, MPEG video frames are not fixed in length.
struct ured
{
data in
}c;
if(only);
Something like seeking the picture in flip book or spinnng a zoetrope to find the right page?. Seriously now, how else would you pull meaningful information out a pipe if the data wasn't "framed" in a structure of some sort. Televisions have been deinterlacing video signals for more than half a century now.
There is nothing new or non-obvious in TiVo's "invention" as far as handling of the stream. Sucking data in and putting it temporary storage so that it can be used more effeciently has been around forever. Hell, you could even compare it a resovoir or a granary.
like if you are running FFWD and hit play it will rewind just a bit to take care of overshoot. Not an obvious feature but a VERY nice one and I'm pretty sure patented.
Actually it has been obvious for a few decades now:
$man rewind
int fseek(FILE *stream, long offset, int whence);
long ftell(FILE *stream);
void rewind(FILE *stream);
int fgetpos(FILE *stream, fpos_t *pos);
int fsetpos(FILE *stream, fpos_t *pos);
Guess that depends on what you mean by "full access"? One could argue that if it meets it's primary purpose. e.g. Cars go from point A to point B, CD players play music, DVD players play video, etc. Then reasonable access has been provided. The fact that you can use all of the above to cause blunt force damage to others shouldn't be enshrined into law.
I can take my car apart piece by piece if I wanted to and reassemble it to my liking without breaking any laws. Why? Because my car is my property. Having "reasonable access" to something is no where even close to being the same as owning something.
According to exemption 6 on the list only CDs can legally be bypassed. That seems awfully ignorant being that Blu-ray, HD-DVD, and even DVD protections pose far greater threats to computer security. Besides, that restricts an owner from having full access to his hardware should really be ruled unconstitutional as a seizure violation. Sure, it is the media distrubuters implement this, but the DMCA is even worse than Kelo vs. City of New London when it comes to the government making it okay for one person to deprive another of the use of their property.
So you would have no issue if Bush, Blair, Putin or any other government figurehead demanded that companies hand over their source code?
Not only would I have not issue with it, I would think them dolts if they didn't. Computer security has become so vital to a nation's interests that no country should be running any hardware or software without knowing exactly what it does and how it does it.
China is out of control. How can anyone compete if they have cheaper labor and can demand everyone hand over technologies. They can pirate the hardware but reverse engineering the rest is harder. What's next them demanding chip manufacturers hand over chip templates to "make sure they meet China's standards".
Do you think our government should use their chips without making sure they meet U.S. standards? It has never failed to amaze me that any nation would blindly trust software and hardware made in another.
Such A Groovy Guy, It's All About The Pentiums. Headline News. Everything You Know Is Wrong!
Living With A Hernia, Doctor? Like A Surgeon, Dare To Be Stupid! Don't Wear Shoes. Smells Like Nirvana.
School Cafeteria: My Bologna, Eat It. Girls Just Want To Have Lunch. Fat, Fatter, Livin' In The Fridge.
Jerry Springer, Confessions Part III, Trash Day, Weasel Stomping Day, Toothless People, Addicted To Spuds.
The Checks In The Mail, Slime Creatures From Outer Space, Stop Draggin' My Car Around.
I Can't Watch This, I Lost On Jeopardy. Stuck In The Closet With Vanna White, Cavity Search. I Need A Nap.
Do I Creep You Out? I Think I'm A Clone Now. Callin' In Sick. I'll Be Mellow When I'm Dead.