He starts off talking about the rating, then about an article, followed by "my analysis follows." Of what? One of two things: either an analysis of the rating or of the article.
He does neither. Instead he rants about why we shouldn't eat meat and spends only the most brief amount of time trying to tie the two together.
If he wanted to talk about why to be a vegan, then talk about that, but don't try to bring it into a discussion because of a single sentence in a still otherwise shitty article to boot.
Yes, you're a vegan. Good for you. Your leadin sure made it sound like you were going to be discussing game violence, when in reality it was a rant against the meat industry. Shame on you.
C'T was spending the money to get the highest quality listening devices possible for two reasons: 1) eliminate playback variances and 2) make sure the listeners could hear the minute differences.
However, I personally hate hearing distortions from my MP3s which is why I use 128-bit VBR and -V 1.
Frankly, I'm more than a little confused why people think crappy speakers will show the difference more than good speakers. It just don't happen. You need better speakers (and eventually extremely high quality headphones) to tell the difference between MP3 and CD, because otherwise the difference is lost in the improper frequency response of the speakers.
From www.r3mix.net: This is something to always keep in mind, and most users that still use 128kbit/s forget that one day they might want to listen to their music on something else than their $10 pc speakers or their walkman.
However, let's take a peek at some C'T tests using $10,000 headphones and a $15,000 audio station, total cost of $25,000 and at the time the highest quality system possible to assemble.
A constant bit rate (CBR) encoder at 128Kbps (immaterial of the encoder) will leave audible differences on high end equipment, as 90% of the samples were picked out by the 300 testers.
A CBR of 256kbps encoded by Lame or some of the Fraunhauffer encoders was never picked out.
LAME, running in 128-kbps Variable Bit Rate (VBR) mode (and using -V 1), gave indestinguishable from CD tests in a less formal test. Since 256-kbps CBR is CD-perfect for frequency loss, nothing will exceed that, and running in -V 0 is going to cost you quite a bit of space as it jumps up to 220-kbps or more at times.
So what that Linux runs on a trash bucket PC, that doesn't mean you put critical stuff on that box.
If you throw absolute shit at the kernel, it might keep it running, but it'll probably crash. Try running a VAX (cluster) with flakey CPU(s) and see how far you get (clue: not very).
Obviously not. So, to sum up: RAMBUS hits a maximum of 1.6 Gigs per second across a 400-Mhz bus (or, what is being called 800-Mhz RDRAM). DDR-SDRAM can hit 2.1 Gigs per second RIGHT NOW on a 133-Mhz FSB. Some of the upcoming SDRAM technologies will hit over 6 Gigs per second.
The problem isn't even the damn bandwidth, but the latency. RAMBUS RAM is slower than all crap to get started, and that absolutely kills it. Right now, the fastest RAMBUS RAM is actually SLOWER than a 133 MHZ FSB will get you out of SDRAM, and so long as RAMBUS maintains high burst rate, high latency, it will continue to get worse.
Why don't you go look it up? Just plop "RAMBUS" in his search engine.
I hate Anonomous Cowards. It's next to impossible to tell if they're being serious or sarcastic.
No big surprise here, as their gnunix procuct contains so many reverse-engineered drivers and utilities. And the point is? Until recently, the notion of reverse engineering being "wrong" was considered abhorrent.
If hardware manufacturers want RedHat to have drivers, then they would write drivers for Linux. Why? Writing drivers is a loss for hardware companies. Each programmer they pay to write drivers is $50-$100K per year they lose, just so people can use their hardware.
Reverse engineering deprives manufacturers of revenue for innovation. How?
Many standard features of RedHat and other gnunix distributions are reverse-engineered unix(tm) utilities or MIcrosoft Windows(R) interfaces. So? There's also a smattering of Plan 9 and several other systems as well as a few unique ideas.
For example, Gnome and Kde desktops ripoffs of the Windows interface. And Windows ripped off the Macintosh interface. BeOS' GUI is virtually identical to most other GUIs. I'm not quite sure what your point is.
Software piracy and reverse engineering are illegal. Software piracy is. Reverse engineering hasn't been until the DMCA, and most people feel that the DMCA should be considered "unconstitutional" and that it's a violation of basic rights.
Manufacters have a right to protect their intellectual property rights with features which thwart attempts to reverse engineer or to copy without authorization. Yep. And others have the right to attempt to thwart procedures that prevent their ability to reverse engineer or make legally allowed personal copies for backup.
Yes, we know that you can't really comment, but taking the time to explain the situation is incredibly beneficial to your audience, even if you couldn't say anything we really didn't know before hand.
And I stand by my statement. None of the Perl books (including Learning Perl) is any good for anything other than a reference when you compare it to Perl Black Book. And Perl Black Book is substantially better as a reference book than any of the others. Perl Cookbook is OK for canned solutions, but it's not terribly useful if you fall out of its area of coverage.
O'reilly has been trumped. *COMPLETELY*.
on
The Perl Black Book
·
· Score: 1
Yes, you read that right. Compared to Perl Black Book, O'reilly has nothing that comes close. Programming Perl can't even manage to get an emulated switch/case to work right.
I'd give it an 10/10 for usefullness, a 7/10 for organization, and an 8/10 for correctness (overall 8/10) as I've never had anything from that book be wrong (contrary to the Programming Perl book), but there is a horrible miss-print in my book where a good portion of the string handling pages are reprinted.
If you must have just one Perl book, this is the one.
I, for one, won't let you get away with this blatant hypocracy. Do you want people trying things like CSS to provide technical remedies for copyright infringement, or do you want them using existing remedies to enforce laws against copyright infringement?
Metallica is absolutely correct here. This isn't a case of a freebie being given away by Metallica for promotion, this is a case of people breaking the absolute letter of the law. You may be able to justify making MP3 copies as "backups," but when you distribute them across Napster, up on FTP sites, whatever, you are breaking the law.
"Napster has consistently refused to remove specific artists' content from its service, noting that it is only a directory for the individuals who are trading the files. But the company has said it would eject users who are specifically identified as copyright violators." -- CNN
So, Metallica would seem to be doing exactly what Napster demands.
"As a condition to your use of the Napster service and browser you agree that you will not: (i) use the Napster service to infringe the intellectual property rights of others in any way;" -- Napster terms of use.
And where's the outrage against people using Napster against Napster's own terms of usage? These people are using Napster to perform illegal acts that are against Napster's terms of usage, and no one seems to care?
Jon, when kids shoplift, we demand that they be punished. Currently, we have copyright laws in existence. Whether you like them or not is a seperate issue. Go ahead and work to get copyright laws changed/whatever, but as stands they do exist, and they do make a great deal of sense given the current economy. You can't exactly sell service to recoup the cost of selling CDs. Yes, the RIAA is massively overcharging for CDs, but that doesn't give you the right to break the law to get them.
Again, this is exactly what we WANT the RIAA to be doing: going after the offenders in a court of law, not doing stupid, ineffective, non-cross-platform technical solutions to a legal problem.
In fact, you ought to be even more upset at Napster: "As a condition to your use of the Napster service and browser you agree that you will not:... (iii) reverse engineer any portion of the Napster service or browser." I thought we didn't like anti-reverse engineering clauses.
Standard, 2 dimensional, 9 square Tic-Tac-Toe, played perfectly by both sides, is a no-win game, and the onus is on black to lose it. If white plays the center, black plays a corner. If white plays anywhere else, black plays the center. Beyond that, it's still codifiable, but it'll take me longer to write up.
The Matrix did NOT deserve to win visual effects at all and Film Editing was a big maybe. The effects done in The Matrix were cool, and even impressive, but TPM had it beat hands down for quality and depth of visual effects.
I've been told that the effects presentations by the TPM crew were some of the best ever and the Matrix crew absolutely hosed theirs, which begs the question "Why did The Matrix win it?" Massive campaigning is all I can guess.
What I'm saying is that DH was the true revolution, that is, DH described the basic notion of Public Key Crypto, and RSA is just an implementation of it, and a rather annoying one, too (for secure calculation of keys over a public channel, it can be done, but not as convenient as DH, which had that built in).
DH also showed a method for generating keys, including the notion of using relative primes.
Simple fact is that the authors of the Constitution intended laws to be understandable by all, not just by those who dedicate their lives to studying law.
One of the rules of law is that each law itself is supposed to be understood by the archtypical "reasonable man."
It's my opinion we have strayed dreadfully far from this path.
I'll also challenge at least one of two notions. The first is that the bar has anything to do with keeping lawyers ethical. The second is that lawyers have reasonable understanding of technology, especially patent lawyers.
Because only one person can be president at one time. The article I recall was talking about more general jobs than that one.:)
It may have been dentists as #2, not surgeons, but I don't recall exactly. However, it's not just suicide, but a combination of suicide, divorce, substance abuse, committment to mental facilities, etc.
Where I used to work, there was a gal who I really didn't mind helping, at all. She was smart, attentive when something was being explained, willing to learn, not obnoxious, and very considerate. Too bad she was married, because she was also quite attractive.
There was also someone there (also very attractive) whom I grew to despise. She refused to learn, demanded attention immediately no matter what her problem (or other problems: server down, she says "this is top priority"), was snotty, and (mostly) took on a "I'm better than thou" attitude. I used to like her, even. Ah well.
Slashdot Mirror
To sum up: he said his analysis of either the article or the rating followed. He said nothing about going off on animal rights, slaughterhouses, etc.
He starts off talking about the rating, then about an article, followed by "my analysis follows." Of what? One of two things: either an analysis of the rating or of the article.
He does neither. Instead he rants about why we shouldn't eat meat and spends only the most brief amount of time trying to tie the two together.
If he wanted to talk about why to be a vegan, then talk about that, but don't try to bring it into a discussion because of a single sentence in a still otherwise shitty article to boot.
Yes, you're a vegan. Good for you. Your leadin sure made it sound like you were going to be discussing game violence, when in reality it was a rant against the meat industry. Shame on you.
But only if the company had reason to be investigated and if MS' hired investigators acted legally.
C'T was spending the money to get the highest quality listening devices possible for two reasons: 1) eliminate playback variances and 2) make sure the listeners could hear the minute differences.
However, I personally hate hearing distortions from my MP3s which is why I use 128-bit VBR and -V 1.
From www.r3mix.net: This is something to always keep in mind, and most users that still use 128kbit/s forget that one day they might want to listen to their music on something else than their $10 pc speakers or their walkman.
However, let's take a peek at some C'T tests using $10,000 headphones and a $15,000 audio station, total cost of $25,000 and at the time the highest quality system possible to assemble.
A constant bit rate (CBR) encoder at 128Kbps (immaterial of the encoder) will leave audible differences on high end equipment, as 90% of the samples were picked out by the 300 testers.
A CBR of 256kbps encoded by Lame or some of the Fraunhauffer encoders was never picked out.
LAME, running in 128-kbps Variable Bit Rate (VBR) mode (and using -V 1), gave indestinguishable from CD tests in a less formal test. Since 256-kbps CBR is CD-perfect for frequency loss, nothing will exceed that, and running in -V 0 is going to cost you quite a bit of space as it jumps up to 220-kbps or more at times.
So what that Linux runs on a trash bucket PC, that doesn't mean you put critical stuff on that box.
If you throw absolute shit at the kernel, it might keep it running, but it'll probably crash. Try running a VAX (cluster) with flakey CPU(s) and see how far you get (clue: not very).
Obviously not. So, to sum up: RAMBUS hits a maximum of 1.6 Gigs per second across a 400-Mhz bus (or, what is being called 800-Mhz RDRAM). DDR-SDRAM can hit 2.1 Gigs per second RIGHT NOW on a 133-Mhz FSB. Some of the upcoming SDRAM technologies will hit over 6 Gigs per second.
The problem isn't even the damn bandwidth, but the latency. RAMBUS RAM is slower than all crap to get started, and that absolutely kills it. Right now, the fastest RAMBUS RAM is actually SLOWER than a 133 MHZ FSB will get you out of SDRAM, and so long as RAMBUS maintains high burst rate, high latency, it will continue to get worse.
Why don't you go look it up? Just plop "RAMBUS" in his search engine.
No big surprise here, as their gnunix procuct contains so many reverse-engineered drivers and utilities.
And the point is? Until recently, the notion of reverse engineering being "wrong" was considered abhorrent.
If hardware manufacturers want RedHat to have drivers, then they would write drivers for Linux.
Why? Writing drivers is a loss for hardware companies. Each programmer they pay to write drivers is $50-$100K per year they lose, just so people can use their hardware.
Reverse engineering deprives manufacturers of revenue for innovation.
How?
Many standard features of RedHat and other gnunix distributions are reverse-engineered unix(tm) utilities or MIcrosoft Windows(R) interfaces.
So? There's also a smattering of Plan 9 and several other systems as well as a few unique ideas.
For example, Gnome and Kde desktops ripoffs of the Windows interface.
And Windows ripped off the Macintosh interface. BeOS' GUI is virtually identical to most other GUIs. I'm not quite sure what your point is.
Software piracy and reverse engineering are illegal.
Software piracy is. Reverse engineering hasn't been until the DMCA, and most people feel that the DMCA should be considered "unconstitutional" and that it's a violation of basic rights.
Manufacters have a right to protect their intellectual property rights with features which thwart attempts to reverse engineer or to copy without authorization.
Yep. And others have the right to attempt to thwart procedures that prevent their ability to reverse engineer or make legally allowed personal copies for backup.
Yes, we know that you can't really comment, but taking the time to explain the situation is incredibly beneficial to your audience, even if you couldn't say anything we really didn't know before hand.
I wish more companies would do that.
And I stand by my statement. None of the Perl books (including Learning Perl) is any good for anything other than a reference when you compare it to Perl Black Book. And Perl Black Book is substantially better as a reference book than any of the others. Perl Cookbook is OK for canned solutions, but it's not terribly useful if you fall out of its area of coverage.
Yes, you read that right. Compared to Perl Black Book, O'reilly has nothing that comes close. Programming Perl can't even manage to get an emulated switch/case to work right.
I'd give it an 10/10 for usefullness, a 7/10 for organization, and an 8/10 for correctness (overall 8/10) as I've never had anything from that book be wrong (contrary to the Programming Perl book), but there is a horrible miss-print in my book where a good portion of the string handling pages are reprinted.
If you must have just one Perl book, this is the one.
I, for one, won't let you get away with this blatant hypocracy. Do you want people trying things like CSS to provide technical remedies for copyright infringement, or do you want them using existing remedies to enforce laws against copyright infringement?
Metallica is absolutely correct here. This isn't a case of a freebie being given away by Metallica for promotion, this is a case of people breaking the absolute letter of the law. You may be able to justify making MP3 copies as "backups," but when you distribute them across Napster, up on FTP sites, whatever, you are breaking the law.
"Napster has consistently refused to remove specific artists' content from its service, noting that it is only a directory for the individuals who are trading the files. But the company has said it would eject users who are specifically identified as copyright violators." -- CNN
So, Metallica would seem to be doing exactly what Napster demands.
"As a condition to your use of the Napster service and browser you agree that you will not: (i) use the Napster service to infringe the intellectual property rights of others in any way;" -- Napster terms of use.
And where's the outrage against people using Napster against Napster's own terms of usage? These people are using Napster to perform illegal acts that are against Napster's terms of usage, and no one seems to care?
Jon, when kids shoplift, we demand that they be punished. Currently, we have copyright laws in existence. Whether you like them or not is a seperate issue. Go ahead and work to get copyright laws changed/whatever, but as stands they do exist, and they do make a great deal of sense given the current economy. You can't exactly sell service to recoup the cost of selling CDs. Yes, the RIAA is massively overcharging for CDs, but that doesn't give you the right to break the law to get them.
Again, this is exactly what we WANT the RIAA to be doing: going after the offenders in a court of law, not doing stupid, ineffective, non-cross-platform technical solutions to a legal problem.
In fact, you ought to be even more upset at Napster: "As a condition to your use of the Napster service and browser you agree that you will not: ... (iii) reverse engineer any portion of the Napster service or browser." I thought we didn't like anti-reverse engineering clauses.
Standard, 2 dimensional, 9 square Tic-Tac-Toe, played perfectly by both sides, is a no-win game, and the onus is on black to lose it. If white plays the center, black plays a corner. If white plays anywhere else, black plays the center. Beyond that, it's still codifiable, but it'll take me longer to write up.
The Matrix did NOT deserve to win visual effects at all and Film Editing was a big maybe. The effects done in The Matrix were cool, and even impressive, but TPM had it beat hands down for quality and depth of visual effects.
I've been told that the effects presentations by the TPM crew were some of the best ever and the Matrix crew absolutely hosed theirs, which begs the question "Why did The Matrix win it?" Massive campaigning is all I can guess.
I like the outfit, but Moore's cuter.
BTW, Ben, I will enjoy it, thank you. :)
What I'm saying is that DH was the true revolution, that is, DH described the basic notion of Public Key Crypto, and RSA is just an implementation of it, and a rather annoying one, too (for secure calculation of keys over a public channel, it can be done, but not as convenient as DH, which had that built in).
DH also showed a method for generating keys, including the notion of using relative primes.
DH was the first public implementation of public key cryptography, *NOT* RSA, and it covered all the important stuff. (Source: Applied Cryptography)
Yer so damn cool, I want to kneel at your feet and prostrate myself in adulation.
I don't know about other areas.
Of course, I'll refrain from commenting on any legal abilities they may have, as I know precicely zero about Uruguayan law.
PC Technical Support.
However, stress was measured by several catagories, including suicide, time spent in a mental institution, divorce rate, substance abuse, etc.
Simple fact is that the authors of the Constitution intended laws to be understandable by all, not just by those who dedicate their lives to studying law.
One of the rules of law is that each law itself is supposed to be understood by the archtypical "reasonable man."
It's my opinion we have strayed dreadfully far from this path.
I'll also challenge at least one of two notions. The first is that the bar has anything to do with keeping lawyers ethical. The second is that lawyers have reasonable understanding of technology, especially patent lawyers.
Because only one person can be president at one time. The article I recall was talking about more general jobs than that one. :)
It may have been dentists as #2, not surgeons, but I don't recall exactly. However, it's not just suicide, but a combination of suicide, divorce, substance abuse, committment to mental facilities, etc.
Where I used to work, there was a gal who I really didn't mind helping, at all. She was smart, attentive when something was being explained, willing to learn, not obnoxious, and very considerate. Too bad she was married, because she was also quite attractive.
There was also someone there (also very attractive) whom I grew to despise. She refused to learn, demanded attention immediately no matter what her problem (or other problems: server down, she says "this is top priority"), was snotty, and (mostly) took on a "I'm better than thou" attitude. I used to like her, even. Ah well.