Because, by and large, no one gets killed when commercial software crashes.
In those cases where it does; e.g. medical/aviation software, usually embedded people take the time. If aviation software designers cut the same corners (w.r.t. bugs vs. features) that office software designers do, planes would fall out of the air and people would die. So they write well engineered software, in well engineered, fault tolerant languages (lika Ada). (Yes, yes, Ariane, but thats the exception that proves the rule)
The real reason buggy software is shipped, is because buggy software is accepted by the market, and people will keep buying it, and continue to roll their eyes when it crashes, because they're completely inured to it, and many of them have reached the conclusion that its literally impossible to write robust, stable software.
It's not, but the profit margins are narrow, and no-one seems to mind (or rather they mind, but keep forking over their money anyway). So no-one bothers to.
As I said, one of the possible supported formats is lossless, so it makes no sense to say it "JPEG2000 is worse than "regular" JPG for images that have a lot of texture detail." How can a lossles format be worse than regular JPG?
JPEG2000 has a great many tunable parameters that can make it both suitable and unsuitable for anything and everything.
If used by an idiot (for example, you) what you say might well be the case.
"Apple to stop selling iPods, as we know them, until they completely redesign the interface," business only comes into play if Apple loses the case and refuses to pay Creative its licensing fees.
Nope. Completely and utterly dead wrong.
Creative (or any other patent holder) aren't constrained to license their technology if they don't want to, they are not constrained to offer that license at a reasonable price, nor can they be so constrained by a court. They can merely insist that Apple stop producing infringing technology.
Tell me what I said. Don't tell me what you inferred. Don't tell me what Tell me what I said.
Now tell me how I "weasled out" of it. You invent meanings that simply aren't there and then accuse me of backing down on those opinions. That's completely fucking retarded. You're accusing me of being a weasle, because your bigotry and stereotyping won't allow you to see past your completely incorrect first impression, and actually read the words I write, or your chronic stupidity and social maladjustment, simply won't allow you to admit you made an incorrect inference.
You, Sir, are a fucking moron, a partisan hack, you don't listen. And you're possibly the least intellectually honest person I've ever had the great, great misfortune to converse with.
Oh, and you're really, really brave sat behind a computer, wheras in fact you're just another cowardly college kid. Go fuck yourself, I'm through here.
Ok. You indicate where I used the word "equivalent", or a synonym, or implied equivalence, and I'll concede your point.
Incidentally, I for one, hold governments to a higher standard of behaviour than murderers, and I'm not going to apologise for that. If we can't fight our enemies without losing the thing that differentiates us from them (a belief in the value of human life), what's the point?
Anyway, I thought Americans were so big on freedom of speech.
If this is a Freedom of Speech issue, the only people who's freedom is being challenged is Google. Google aren't trying to change the content of these blogs, but these blogs are trying to change the content of Google, by insisting that they link.
If the blogs had an MSN search button, and Google demanded it be changed, then Google would be the infringer, rather than the infringee.
And the whole Mohammed had a nine-year-old wife thing is ridiculous. It may be true, but the Old Testament recommends giving up your daughter to be gang-raped, in order to appease a rampaging mob. What does any of that prove, except that male-female relations were seriously fucked up 1400+ years ago?
the reaction of the moslem haters is as predictable as allways, crying about censorship, but frankly, everyone just thinks you're a bunch of whiners.
Fundamentally, Google is not a government department. They can link to what ever the hell they want.
Furthermore, the neo-feudalist/libertarians who run WND should know that better than anyone; but that doesn't stop them whinging when their "principles" clash with their desire to belittle liberals.
But linear instabilities cause symmetry breaking all the time. And, usually, the eigenvalue of the most-unstable mode tells us the shape of the first "wavy" . Since the azimuthal wave number must be an integer, it seems likely that this is just the excitement of an unstable, low wavenumber mode, whose growth is then damped by nonlinear effects. You can see similar thing in the core of cylindrical pipe: as the flow speed increase, the stable symmetric flow transitions into asymmetric unsteady flow, and then onto turbulence/chaos.
Sure, you can make it look like a good decision by pulling settlement figures out of your ass.
Thing is, if Apple lose, Creative won't take a cash settlement, they'll injunctively force Apple to stop selling iPods, as we know them, until they completely redesign the interface.
First, you only settle when you clearly expect to lose.
Well, that's just wrong. If the downside of losing is much bigger than the upside of winning, you settle even if you think you'll win. Its not smart to risk a big defeat to gain a narrow victory, if you're 80%+ certain you'll win.
Apple are smart enough to understand rudimentary game theory.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why I said "robust" and "stable" rather than bug-free.
They're not perfect, but they're much better than commercial office software is.
Because, by and large, no one gets killed when commercial software crashes.
In those cases where it does; e.g. medical/aviation software, usually embedded people take the time. If aviation software designers cut the same corners (w.r.t. bugs vs. features) that office software designers do, planes would fall out of the air and people would die. So they write well engineered software, in well engineered, fault tolerant languages (lika Ada). (Yes, yes, Ariane, but thats the exception that proves the rule)
The real reason buggy software is shipped, is because buggy software is accepted by the market, and people will keep buying it, and continue to roll their eyes when it crashes, because they're completely inured to it, and many of them have reached the conclusion that its literally impossible to write robust, stable software.
It's not, but the profit margins are narrow, and no-one seems to mind (or rather they mind, but keep forking over their money anyway). So no-one bothers to.
Face if folks, we're enablers.
JPEG2000 isn't a single format.
As I said, one of the possible supported formats is lossless, so it makes no sense to say it "JPEG2000 is worse than "regular" JPG for images that have a lot of texture detail." How can a lossles format be worse than regular JPG?
JPEG2000 has a great many tunable parameters that can make it both suitable and unsuitable for anything and everything.
If used by an idiot (for example, you) what you say might well be the case.
It's not. Lizardtech finally ran out of routes for appeal earlier this year.
So does ImageMagick, FWIW. And there's an extension for firefox that supports it, too.
But, still. That's not going to butter any parsnips.
Jpeg2000 supports both lossy and lossless compression, and a variety of wavelet-based compression schemes that work better than normal JPEG.
Unfortunately, no-one supports Jpeg2000.
Creative (or any other patent holder) aren't constrained to license their technology if they don't want to, they are not constrained to offer that license at a reasonable price, nor can they be so constrained by a court. They can merely insist that Apple stop producing infringing technology.
Now tell me how I "weasled out" of it.
You invent meanings that simply aren't there and then accuse me of backing down on those opinions. That's completely fucking retarded. You're accusing me of being a weasle, because your bigotry and stereotyping won't allow you to see past your completely incorrect first impression, and actually read the words I write, or your chronic stupidity and social maladjustment, simply won't allow you to admit you made an incorrect inference.
You, Sir, are a fucking moron, a partisan hack, you don't listen. And you're possibly the least intellectually honest person I've ever had the great, great misfortune to converse with.
Oh, and you're really, really brave sat behind a computer, wheras in fact you're just another cowardly college kid. Go fuck yourself, I'm through here.
Read what I said. Tell me what I backed down on?
Be a sentient being, and don't slag me off for failing to fit your cretinous stereotype.
Ok. You indicate where I used the word "equivalent", or a synonym, or implied equivalence, and I'll concede your point.
Incidentally, I for one, hold governments to a higher standard of behaviour than murderers, and I'm not going to apologise for that. If we can't fight our enemies without losing the thing that differentiates us from them (a belief in the value of human life), what's the point?
Does your webpage link to these blogs?
Then you're a censor too!
What's special about Google?
What? They're not? They're completely free to spread their particular poison as much as they like?
Oh. That simple fact does rather piss all over your argument.
If the blogs had an MSN search button, and Google demanded it be changed, then Google would be the infringer, rather than the infringee.
And the whole Mohammed had a nine-year-old wife thing is ridiculous. It may be true, but the Old Testament recommends giving up your daughter to be gang-raped, in order to appease a rampaging mob. What does any of that prove, except that male-female relations were seriously fucked up 1400+ years ago?
Furthermore, the neo-feudalist/libertarians who run WND should know that better than anyone; but that doesn't stop them whinging when their "principles" clash with their desire to belittle liberals.
World Net Daily pushing for accurate and unsensational news reporting.
I like it. I've used commercial AV before, but the free AVG is as good, or better than those. And it can be set to auto-update and auto-scan.
I haven't used the other free ones; AVG has never given me a need to switch.
I think the problem is that they're exactly as skilled in writing english as they are in writing PERL.
My computer's bugged. It keeps regurgitating the same information over and over again.
But linear instabilities cause symmetry breaking all the time. And, usually, the eigenvalue of the most-unstable mode tells us the shape of the first "wavy" . Since the azimuthal wave number must be an integer, it seems likely that this is just the excitement of an unstable, low wavenumber mode, whose growth is then damped by nonlinear effects. You can see similar thing in the core of cylindrical pipe: as the flow speed increase, the stable symmetric flow transitions into asymmetric unsteady flow, and then onto turbulence/chaos.
Sure, you can make it look like a good decision by pulling settlement figures out of your ass.
Thing is, if Apple lose, Creative won't take a cash settlement, they'll injunctively force Apple to stop selling iPods, as we know them, until they completely redesign the interface.
What's the cash value of that downside?
Now run the numbers.
Apple are smart enough to understand rudimentary game theory.
You