I can't imagine making it a film camera really has much more in the way of security for the integrity of the image.... I suppose you could come up with some way to MD5 hash the incoming data stream and digitally sign the hash or something....
This sounds very much like it actually delivers what Creating Applications With Mozilla promised. After reading CAwM first 3 chapters, having them completely confuse all the various issues in my mind, a wrote this review. To give Boswell credit, he emailed me with some pointers to resources that helped get me over the hump, but that doesn't excuse O'Reilly's editorship from their usually excellent job of encouraging authors to make their work accessable as well as detailed.
I disagree. Read your local newspaper. And I mean LOCAL. E.G. I live in Chicago, but the Trib is not my local paper, the paper for the suburbs I live in is my local paper. Issues that will affect you WILL come up there, and you OUGHT to be aware of them. If you're lucky, the village might tell you about those issues, but most local governments seem to do a poor job of communicating.....
You should be fair and point out that there are plenty on the left who are as zealous as anything the dittoheads come up with when it comes to ignoring inconvenient facts. I realize you didn't say otherwise, but while Rush does make a good archetype, using him alone makes it sound like you may think the right is more prone to this, and I don't believe it is (even though I'm more left than right myself).
Perhaps we're confused about what law we're talking about. It's illegal to copy films. The article is about using night vision goggles to detect videotapers. The law I was referring to WAS the copyright law. And if you turn your camera off and put it away during the screening, it's not going to be detectable with night vision goggles, and won't be violating copyright.
Oh, come ON. What *possible* justification is there to take a video camera into a movie theater and have it turned on and pointed at the screen?
Does that include MLK and Ghandi?
Yes it does. And guess what? They were prepared, and did do the time. Which is part of why they command such respect.
The Law's the Law taken to its absolute end is pretty foolish, but there must be a significant amount of respect for the law, or else you don't have "rule of law" and everything devolves to chaos and anarchy. Are there wrong laws? Yes. Is this particular law wrong? I don't think so, and you had better make a better argument that it is than simply "some (drug) laws are wrong, so this law is wrong".
Its also no wonder that Bill Joy left the company.
Yeah, 'cos you can read Bill Joy's mind at a distance. Give me a BREAK. Bill Joy wanted to do something different and left Sun with no animosity. I dare you to prove different. Idle speculation is not proof, BTW.
RMS's "definition" of Free, is hardly *distinct* from all other definitions of the word.
As you say, this is tied up in a difference of opinion. While his definition of free IS indeed included within the broader, more commonly used meanings, he goes to great lengths to pin down and define what exactly is and is not within the purview of his definition. One might argue that he is very restrictive in his definition of free, regardless of the nature of that freedom he's defining. One can say "free as in liberty", but if this were such a common and clearly applicable term in the software world, why then are so many people so hung up on repeating the definition over and over and over again and attacking anything that remotely "infringes" on their concept of this freedom?
You migh try using your own references to their full advantage. In particular, definition 2 (see previous comment "as in unique"). Did I mention offenssensetivity?
Well excuse me if I believe the former situation is better for society and the developer Mr. Gosling.
And excuse ME if I don't think your particular brand of communism is any more practical that the more totalitarian political versions. Most people have to put food on the table as their FIRST priority, not after all this "for the good of society" stuff, which is admirable but not very filling.
The very inevitable bleakness of such conclusion suggests there is a flaw in the argument (as most science is usually neutral whenever emotions are concerned).
You contradict yourself. Either science is neutral "whenver emotions are concerned" or "inevitable bleakness" of a given POV somehow invalidates an argument. You may argue all you like that the First Law does not apply to software, but this is a pretty poor way to do that.
Let's see. My first exposure to RMS was being told as an undergrad that if I wanted to, I could go log into his accounts at MIT because he didn't bother to keep a password. He has proceeded to rant and rave and rail against anything that is not his pure community of software technicians giving their every line for the greater good.
RMS is essentially a kook.
I couldn't have said it better myself. He has certainly done many great things with his efforts, but in the general scheme of things, he's a kook. If you weren't so hung up on taking the observation personally and finding people to label "Anti Free" perhaps you'd be better able to accept this.
Finally, and to the point, Gosling doesn't call him a kook; he comments that RMS has a peculiar (as in unique) definition of "Free". Some of his comments about GPL are less charitable, but they don't involve whether RMS is a kook or not.
Feel free to fit a minivan into my tiny garage. And quite honestly, if there were a station wagon on the market that I liked better than the VUE, I'd have bought it. I'm not as insecure about my "manly"ness as someone who has to post anonymously to protect themselves.
Come on people, doesn't ANYONE know how MTBF numbers are computed? They do statistical analysis of failure rates under simulated load for a measurable period of time. That then gives enough data to project what the likely MTBF characteristics are if the product follows a standard "bathtub curve" lifecycle (early life failures, long stable life of low failure rates, end of life failures).
That's why they say "estimated", and everyone knows (click) that estimates (click) are sometimes wrong (click).
One suspects that you're falling prey to the "I can't see any use for such things in my life, so no one else must need them" fallacy.
Given that the handling is so different (actually, it's not really that different, unless maybe you're talking an H2 class SUV), what good does experience driving something else actually buy you? First time I drove a truly big truck (i.e. not my Saturn VUE), none of my previous experience except knowing how to use a clutch really came into play.
As for the comparison to buses & semis, have you ever driven one of those? They're nothing like any of the "standard" SUV's. Waaaay more different than cars and SUV's. Requiring me to get some kind of equivalent to a chauffer's license to drive a light truck seems pretty silly. And puts U-Haul out of business too, as an unintended side effect (can't very well require all renters to have the extended license, and the bigger of those trucks DO come closer to the bus/semi analogy).
had to divert to Dan Brown before I passed out with boredom.
So you're saying you don't give a damn if the facts are straight, as long as it's a page turner? Bah. Anyone who can confuse the theory of public key cryptography with the mechanics of how PGP works (see digital fortress, somewhere in the first couple chapters, 'cos that's all I could stomach) needs to do more homework. You can argue quite plausibly that Stephenson needs to be edited, but don't compare him to Brown, please.
'Cos we all know Chickens are completely intuitive to use. Cough. Choke.
From zero, it would take me just as long to train someone to USE a proprietary OS (whatever runs on Cray) as it would to train them to USE Linux. From experience, the same holds. Perhaps I couldn't train them to do HARDWARE MAINTENANCE on such a beast, but damn, I can just buy a contract with Cray for that, right?
Get rid of "road tanks" (SUVs) that make people think they're invulnerable.
Unless you define that to mean the very top end of the class, you can just bite me:-). I need my SUV to cart around materials to fix my house (large sheet goods etc.) DON'T get me started on the idiots (Menards/Home Depot in this area) who let you "rent their truck" to take stuff home, when the damn truck is never there and you can't just sign your name to a waiting list, you have to waste your day HOPING that the previous fool returns it on time. You think that if I need to work on my house I have time to spend sitting in Home Depot waiting for Godot?
Yes there are morons out there who buy SUV's for stupid reasons like thinking they'll be invulnerable, but there are plenty of us who have practical reasons not to want a pickup (did I mention that the pickup has the same "invulnerable" problem?) and not able to settle for a "regular" car.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't imagine making it a film camera really has much more in the way of security for the integrity of the image.... I suppose you could come up with some way to MD5 hash the incoming data stream and digitally sign the hash or something....
This sounds very much like it actually delivers what Creating Applications With Mozilla promised. After reading CAwM first 3 chapters, having them completely confuse all the various issues in my mind, a wrote this review. To give Boswell credit, he emailed me with some pointers to resources that helped get me over the hump, but that doesn't excuse O'Reilly's editorship from their usually excellent job of encouraging authors to make their work accessable as well as detailed.
I disagree. Read your local newspaper. And I mean LOCAL. E.G. I live in Chicago, but the Trib is not my local paper, the paper for the suburbs I live in is my local paper. Issues that will affect you WILL come up there, and you OUGHT to be aware of them. If you're lucky, the village might tell you about those issues, but most local governments seem to do a poor job of communicating.....
You should be fair and point out that there are plenty on the left who are as zealous as anything the dittoheads come up with when it comes to ignoring inconvenient facts. I realize you didn't say otherwise, but while Rush does make a good archetype, using him alone makes it sound like you may think the right is more prone to this, and I don't believe it is (even though I'm more left than right myself).
Methinks you're too subtle for some of the zealots around here to quite gather.
Even flies hum at Bb!!
Perhaps we're confused about what law we're talking about. It's illegal to copy films. The article is about using night vision goggles to detect videotapers. The law I was referring to WAS the copyright law. And if you turn your camera off and put it away during the screening, it's not going to be detectable with night vision goggles, and won't be violating copyright.
Does that include MLK and Ghandi?
Yes it does. And guess what? They were prepared, and did do the time. Which is part of why they command such respect.
The Law's the Law taken to its absolute end is pretty foolish, but there must be a significant amount of respect for the law, or else you don't have "rule of law" and everything devolves to chaos and anarchy. Are there wrong laws? Yes. Is this particular law wrong? I don't think so, and you had better make a better argument that it is than simply "some (drug) laws are wrong, so this law is wrong".
I call bullshit. Link to the legislation, provide a bill number, or shut up.
Yeah, 'cos you can read Bill Joy's mind at a distance. Give me a BREAK. Bill Joy wanted to do something different and left Sun with no animosity. I dare you to prove different. Idle speculation is not proof, BTW.
Why not get a USB hub and USB CDROM drive and keep it out there with you? Oh yeah, the CDROM does whir an awful lot, doesn't it?
As you say, this is tied up in a difference of opinion. While his definition of free IS indeed included within the broader, more commonly used meanings, he goes to great lengths to pin down and define what exactly is and is not within the purview of his definition. One might argue that he is very restrictive in his definition of free, regardless of the nature of that freedom he's defining. One can say "free as in liberty", but if this were such a common and clearly applicable term in the software world, why then are so many people so hung up on repeating the definition over and over and over again and attacking anything that remotely "infringes" on their concept of this freedom?
Well excuse me if I believe the former situation is better for society and the developer Mr. Gosling.
And excuse ME if I don't think your particular brand of communism is any more practical that the more totalitarian political versions. Most people have to put food on the table as their FIRST priority, not after all this "for the good of society" stuff, which is admirable but not very filling.
You contradict yourself. Either science is neutral "whenver emotions are concerned" or "inevitable bleakness" of a given POV somehow invalidates an argument. You may argue all you like that the First Law does not apply to software, but this is a pretty poor way to do that.
Shut up and go watch the hypno toad some more.
Let's see. My first exposure to RMS was being told as an undergrad that if I wanted to, I could go log into his accounts at MIT because he didn't bother to keep a password. He has proceeded to rant and rave and rail against anything that is not his pure community of software technicians giving their every line for the greater good.
RMS is essentially a kook.
I couldn't have said it better myself. He has certainly done many great things with his efforts, but in the general scheme of things, he's a kook. If you weren't so hung up on taking the observation personally and finding people to label "Anti Free" perhaps you'd be better able to accept this.
Finally, and to the point, Gosling doesn't call him a kook; he comments that RMS has a peculiar (as in unique) definition of "Free". Some of his comments about GPL are less charitable, but they don't involve whether RMS is a kook or not.
Feel free to fit a minivan into my tiny garage. And quite honestly, if there were a station wagon on the market that I liked better than the VUE, I'd have bought it. I'm not as insecure about my "manly"ness as someone who has to post anonymously to protect themselves.
That's not something that's going to be fixed with a heavyweight solution like requiring high level licensure for low level vehicles.
That's why they say "estimated", and everyone knows (click) that estimates (click) are sometimes wrong (click).
Given that the handling is so different (actually, it's not really that different, unless maybe you're talking an H2 class SUV), what good does experience driving something else actually buy you? First time I drove a truly big truck (i.e. not my Saturn VUE), none of my previous experience except knowing how to use a clutch really came into play.
As for the comparison to buses & semis, have you ever driven one of those? They're nothing like any of the "standard" SUV's. Waaaay more different than cars and SUV's. Requiring me to get some kind of equivalent to a chauffer's license to drive a light truck seems pretty silly. And puts U-Haul out of business too, as an unintended side effect (can't very well require all renters to have the extended license, and the bigger of those trucks DO come closer to the bus/semi analogy).
So you're saying you don't give a damn if the facts are straight, as long as it's a page turner? Bah. Anyone who can confuse the theory of public key cryptography with the mechanics of how PGP works (see digital fortress, somewhere in the first couple chapters, 'cos that's all I could stomach) needs to do more homework. You can argue quite plausibly that Stephenson needs to be edited, but don't compare him to Brown, please.
From zero, it would take me just as long to train someone to USE a proprietary OS (whatever runs on Cray) as it would to train them to USE Linux. From experience, the same holds. Perhaps I couldn't train them to do HARDWARE MAINTENANCE on such a beast, but damn, I can just buy a contract with Cray for that, right?
Yeah, cos we know THEY'RE cleaning up.
Unless you define that to mean the very top end of the class, you can just bite me :-). I need my SUV to cart around materials to fix my house (large sheet goods etc.) DON'T get me started on the idiots (Menards/Home Depot in this area) who let you "rent their truck" to take stuff home, when the damn truck is never there and you can't just sign your name to a waiting list, you have to waste your day HOPING that the previous fool returns it on time. You think that if I need to work on my house I have time to spend sitting in Home Depot waiting for Godot?
Yes there are morons out there who buy SUV's for stupid reasons like thinking they'll be invulnerable, but there are plenty of us who have practical reasons not to want a pickup (did I mention that the pickup has the same "invulnerable" problem?) and not able to settle for a "regular" car.
Oh fine :-). Fair enough.