"Fraudulent Copyright Notice. -- Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500. "
Also, if you can develop FTL travel, I'm pretty sure the food issue would be more easily solved.
How would it be solved? The population cannot continue to expand without atoms, since living things are made of atoms. Thus, more atoms are required. Unless they can take star matter and turn it directly into matter they can consume, they'll be limited to more "conventional" sorts of foods (i.e. they don't replicate everything out of energy collected from stars). In that case, any species which wants to grow arbitrarily large will simply have to consume matter from other sources.
Just because you're using C++ doesn't mean you need to write some glorious object-oriented dynamically-dispatched exception-throwing operator-overloading dynamically-dispatching self-reflecting monstrosity. C++ provides several very fundamental features which make it hugely superior to C: inline functions, better const semantics, reference types, and templates. If you don't want to write enterprisey crap, don't. But don't chuck out the baby with the bath water.
Libel is not a crime, and you are not presumed innocent in a civil disagreement. My wife was sued a couple of years ago for defamation for some statement she made in a formal complaint she filed against a certification board. The details are unimportant and probably not wise to discuss. The point is, my wife's statements were true, and caused some level of harm to this other person. She sued my wife, and won, because there was no way to prove one way or the other the actual truth of those statements. Regardless, in the jury's mind the evidence was apparently on the side of the plaintiff, and my wife lost her case.
This is in spite of the fact that my wife's statements were true. I know they were true, because I was in the room when the precipitating events took place and saw/heard everything. My wife certainly was not guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." The situation was simply murky. If you're a criminal defendent, murky is a good way for things to be, since there is still some possibility that you're innocent. However, this was not a criminal trial and things don't work like that. Luckily, our insurance paid for everything.
On the one hand, I am still very angry at what happened to my wife. On the other hand, I have a more realistic understanding of how bad things can get when adults make serious sorts of accusations about each other. You better be sure you're right about it -- you can completely ruin someone's life if you aren't.
Sounds reasonable to me. You're free to ask questions and to publish any answers you might get in return. The cop is free to ask whether you're a member of a clique of reporters who have a track record of not making the cops look like douchebags, and refuse to talk to you if not. No rights trampled. It's freedom of YOUR speech, not freedom to force other people to talk. They can construct any set of criteria they want to determine who to talk to.
Civil law is based on a preponderance of evidence (who made the better argument). There is no "presumed innocence," there is no "beyond reasonable doubt." Anybody who has ever dealt with the legal system ought to know that. Innocent until proven guilty applies to criminal defendants only.
If you want to test this out, try failing to show up at court after being sued. You lose.
If the FS supports spaces in filenames, then you have broken code if you can't tolerate it. MS wisely put a space in the "Program Files" name when they added long filenames to Windows. That'll put any delusions about being able to ignore it to a direct immediate stop.
If that does happen it's probably because the device itself has some high but not infinite resistance when powered off. Anecdote is not data, but I very commonly find alkaline batteries which work after a decade, and in the most extreme case I found a flashlight stored away in my mother's things which had been sitting there since 1984 and still worked fine. That's 28 years.
If it weren't for government agencies "dictating technological design", we wouldn't have the Internet at at all.
Please identify the laws you are referring to. You are implying there are legal requirements in place dictating the technological underpinnings of the Internet. Was there some "TCP/IP Act" I didn't hear about?
Netflix is crap. It represents an inferior product and inferior quality. A streaming rip is the modern equivalent of two kids on bikes dubbing from one tape deck to another.
The quality sucks because of the transcoding. If we could just get the raw bitstream and save that directly, we wouldn't have degradation from transcoding. Of course, nobody is doing this. Why? Because Netflix has attempted, and succeeded at, making it incredibly difficult to do.
Sony shouldn't be able to tell me that I can't load custom firmware on it with the ability to run Linux, for example.
100% agreed.
I only wish we could get it a step further and actually make it illegal for companies like the phone companies to do what they've done - sure it's "legal" to root your phone, but they keep trying to make it *impossible* by fucking with the shipped/official firmware.
100% disagreed. Any such law would be immediately leveraged to attack open source, in ways that are unpredictable at the moment. We must never, ever have government dictating technological design.
Unless I moved apps to the desktop app, I was unable to have more than 1 onscreen at a time.
*Slams head repeatedly into desk* You realize that was intentional. Right? You think there's some developer up there giggling and saying "Silly me, look I made an oopsie?"
Feynman was talking about understanding the "why" sort of questions of quantum mechanics. It is possible to completely understand quantum mechanics as it currently exists. After all, humans created it. Feynman himself was responsible, along with a handful of others, for buttoning up QED into the most complete and perfect physical theory we have as of yet. When he said "nobody understands this stuff," he meant that nobody understands WHY the world is this way. We understand perfectly well how to use the rules to predict the answer.
Neither was he referring to the various "strange" things that sometimes occur at quantum scales. There is nothing spooky in quantum mechanics, it's all sitting right there in the equations. Equations which were essentially guessed at by men with intuitions the size of Mount Everest, and these guesses were then proven to be correct at ever increasing levels of accuracy. So obviously people are "getting it" on some level. But the deeper sort of "why" questions Feynman relegated to philosophers, and he ridiculed those who wasted their time asking them.
1. Everyone knows that every other release of Windows is good (Win 3.1, 98, XP, 7) and every other one sucks (Win 3.0, 95, ME, Vista.) No enterprise is going to jump on this release.
Oh quit it with this superstitious "every other release" bullshit. The fact is, 3.0, 95, and Vista were all releases which introduced new technology into core parts of the OS. Those releases certainly had major problems because of that. But because of their position in a sequence? Are you for real?
It's Windows Phone - on your desktop. Like who wouldn't want that?
Right. There's no market for larger form-factor, touch based devices with multitudes of self-contained applications. No market at all. We all know how fucking dismal iPad2 sales have been, right?
I once sold a car to somebody, she had it checked out thoroughly and everything was fine, then two weeks later the engine seized. The buyer called me distraught, and part of me wanted to throw down $300 for a new water pump (she had many thousands of dollar in repairs she was looking at), but I was smart enough to realize that if I did that, I would be admitting fault for selling her a car with some kind of problem, so I had to send her packing. I admit no responsibility for it. It was an old car. Old cars can have problems which are hard to detect. She did her due diligence, and I did mine. But sympathizing with her and trying to help her out even in a token way financially, would have been legally very questionable.
In most states, medical doctors are unable to say "I'm sorry" if a medical procedure goes wrong, even just to express sympathy for a family's loss. It's considered an admission of guilt. Admitting guilt will not make your insurance company happy. At all.
Their premiums are definitely going to go up after this accident.
That makes no sense. The only type of insurance I am aware of where your premium will be jacked up after making a claim, is auto insurance. Insurance is supposed to cover the unforeseeable. If we did not expect the unforeseeable to occur, we wouldn't bother insuring against it. So raising a premium because of a claim filed would purely be punitive.
Besides, Mythbuster's insurance probably has a deductible larger than the damage done to the house. I mean, how much damage can you really do with a cannon ball? A hundred thou'? If I were them I'd just pay it out of pocket.
please avoid their streaming models: make it fail, people. the sooner we sink their sales on streaming the sooner they'll return to physical media. physical media is much more freedom-oriented (and the quality is higher, too).
A lot of people such as myself simply have a different view of entertainment media. I don't care if I own it, I just want access to it, and if I only want rare access to it, I don't mind paying per access as long as the price is right. You are concerned with your freedom to own the media itself so you can do what you please with it. That's fine, but there are other people who treat it more like going to a movie in a theater -- you pay for a single experience, then that experience is over. There are very few movies I would want to watch repeatedly, anyway. I could buy a DVD for $25 which I watch once and then file away in my hoarding closet, or I could spend $3 renting it (physically or digitally) and watch it once that way. If it comes down to $25 for viewing a movie vs. $3 for viewing a movie, which one shall I pick?
Not everyone consumes content the same way, and your fantasy is an impossibility.
People who want rips of movies don't need to go with netflix. This is what I don't understand. Netflix shouldn't need to have any kind of DRM, because at the end of the day, it's a terrible way to copy things. If you want to copy something, it's easy enough to just copy it from the DVD or even BluRay original copy.
No, it's simply that ripping from DVD or BluRay is easier than ripping from Netflix. Thus the effort to make ripping from Netflix as difficult as possible. Your argument is basically "People don't do X, because it's far easier to do Y instead," while ignoring the fact that the REASON it's easier to do Y is because X has been deliberately made difficult.
If Netflix was easily ripped, you can bet there would be programs out there that just sit there and rip shit off Netflix all day long. It's unlimited view, you don't pay per rental, just bandwidth. It looks legitimate -- they have no idea you're ripping, for all they know you're just a movie freak who watches ten movies per day -- so it's perfectly safe. It would be vastly preferable to any other type of illegal ripping, if it worked, which it does not. And there's a reason for it.
Slashdot Mirror
"Fraudulent Copyright Notice. -- Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500. "
So what you're saying is it costs $2500 to do it.
Also, if you can develop FTL travel, I'm pretty sure the food issue would be more easily solved.
How would it be solved? The population cannot continue to expand without atoms, since living things are made of atoms. Thus, more atoms are required. Unless they can take star matter and turn it directly into matter they can consume, they'll be limited to more "conventional" sorts of foods (i.e. they don't replicate everything out of energy collected from stars). In that case, any species which wants to grow arbitrarily large will simply have to consume matter from other sources.
I suspect it's significantly LESS than one per galaxy, so that when life does arise it's almost certainly all alone in its home galaxy.
If other life is so intelligent, why would it have anything to do with us?
Because we are edible?
For system-level native tasks, C is better.
Just because you're using C++ doesn't mean you need to write some glorious object-oriented dynamically-dispatched exception-throwing operator-overloading dynamically-dispatching self-reflecting monstrosity. C++ provides several very fundamental features which make it hugely superior to C: inline functions, better const semantics, reference types, and templates. If you don't want to write enterprisey crap, don't. But don't chuck out the baby with the bath water.
no self-respecting Air Force would fly an aircraft that color, would they???
That color seems like it would blend in with the ground reasonably well, when seen from above.
Libel is not a crime, and you are not presumed innocent in a civil disagreement. My wife was sued a couple of years ago for defamation for some statement she made in a formal complaint she filed against a certification board. The details are unimportant and probably not wise to discuss. The point is, my wife's statements were true, and caused some level of harm to this other person. She sued my wife, and won, because there was no way to prove one way or the other the actual truth of those statements. Regardless, in the jury's mind the evidence was apparently on the side of the plaintiff, and my wife lost her case.
This is in spite of the fact that my wife's statements were true. I know they were true, because I was in the room when the precipitating events took place and saw/heard everything. My wife certainly was not guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." The situation was simply murky. If you're a criminal defendent, murky is a good way for things to be, since there is still some possibility that you're innocent. However, this was not a criminal trial and things don't work like that. Luckily, our insurance paid for everything.
On the one hand, I am still very angry at what happened to my wife. On the other hand, I have a more realistic understanding of how bad things can get when adults make serious sorts of accusations about each other. You better be sure you're right about it -- you can completely ruin someone's life if you aren't.
Sounds reasonable to me. You're free to ask questions and to publish any answers you might get in return. The cop is free to ask whether you're a member of a clique of reporters who have a track record of not making the cops look like douchebags, and refuse to talk to you if not. No rights trampled. It's freedom of YOUR speech, not freedom to force other people to talk. They can construct any set of criteria they want to determine who to talk to.
What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Civil law is based on a preponderance of evidence (who made the better argument). There is no "presumed innocence," there is no "beyond reasonable doubt." Anybody who has ever dealt with the legal system ought to know that. Innocent until proven guilty applies to criminal defendants only.
If you want to test this out, try failing to show up at court after being sued. You lose.
If the FS supports spaces in filenames, then you have broken code if you can't tolerate it. MS wisely put a space in the "Program Files" name when they added long filenames to Windows. That'll put any delusions about being able to ignore it to a direct immediate stop.
The argument appears to be about how to treat people with respect to accusations of libel, which is a very special case.
I already have an iPad2, and I also have the MS BUILD tablet (the thing with Windows 8 on it), but the low price is tempting. Should I get one?
If that does happen it's probably because the device itself has some high but not infinite resistance when powered off. Anecdote is not data, but I very commonly find alkaline batteries which work after a decade, and in the most extreme case I found a flashlight stored away in my mother's things which had been sitting there since 1984 and still worked fine. That's 28 years.
Seriously? On a scale of 1 to "bomb the shit out of Iran", I'd rank a verbal scolding from the White House a solid 1.
If it weren't for government agencies "dictating technological design", we wouldn't have the Internet at at all.
Please identify the laws you are referring to. You are implying there are legal requirements in place dictating the technological underpinnings of the Internet. Was there some "TCP/IP Act" I didn't hear about?
Netflix is crap. It represents an inferior product and inferior quality. A streaming rip is the modern equivalent of two kids on bikes dubbing from one tape deck to another.
The quality sucks because of the transcoding. If we could just get the raw bitstream and save that directly, we wouldn't have degradation from transcoding. Of course, nobody is doing this. Why? Because Netflix has attempted, and succeeded at, making it incredibly difficult to do.
Sony shouldn't be able to tell me that I can't load custom firmware on it with the ability to run Linux, for example.
100% agreed.
I only wish we could get it a step further and actually make it illegal for companies like the phone companies to do what they've done - sure it's "legal" to root your phone, but they keep trying to make it *impossible* by fucking with the shipped/official firmware.
100% disagreed. Any such law would be immediately leveraged to attack open source, in ways that are unpredictable at the moment. We must never, ever have government dictating technological design.
Unless I moved apps to the desktop app, I was unable to have more than 1 onscreen at a time.
*Slams head repeatedly into desk* You realize that was intentional. Right? You think there's some developer up there giggling and saying "Silly me, look I made an oopsie?"
Feynman was talking about understanding the "why" sort of questions of quantum mechanics. It is possible to completely understand quantum mechanics as it currently exists. After all, humans created it. Feynman himself was responsible, along with a handful of others, for buttoning up QED into the most complete and perfect physical theory we have as of yet. When he said "nobody understands this stuff," he meant that nobody understands WHY the world is this way. We understand perfectly well how to use the rules to predict the answer.
Neither was he referring to the various "strange" things that sometimes occur at quantum scales. There is nothing spooky in quantum mechanics, it's all sitting right there in the equations. Equations which were essentially guessed at by men with intuitions the size of Mount Everest, and these guesses were then proven to be correct at ever increasing levels of accuracy. So obviously people are "getting it" on some level. But the deeper sort of "why" questions Feynman relegated to philosophers, and he ridiculed those who wasted their time asking them.
1. Everyone knows that every other release of Windows is good (Win 3.1, 98, XP, 7) and every other one sucks (Win 3.0, 95, ME, Vista.) No enterprise is going to jump on this release.
Oh quit it with this superstitious "every other release" bullshit. The fact is, 3.0, 95, and Vista were all releases which introduced new technology into core parts of the OS. Those releases certainly had major problems because of that. But because of their position in a sequence? Are you for real?
It's Windows Phone - on your desktop. Like who wouldn't want that?
Right. There's no market for larger form-factor, touch based devices with multitudes of self-contained applications. No market at all. We all know how fucking dismal iPad2 sales have been, right?
I once sold a car to somebody, she had it checked out thoroughly and everything was fine, then two weeks later the engine seized. The buyer called me distraught, and part of me wanted to throw down $300 for a new water pump (she had many thousands of dollar in repairs she was looking at), but I was smart enough to realize that if I did that, I would be admitting fault for selling her a car with some kind of problem, so I had to send her packing. I admit no responsibility for it. It was an old car. Old cars can have problems which are hard to detect. She did her due diligence, and I did mine. But sympathizing with her and trying to help her out even in a token way financially, would have been legally very questionable.
In most states, medical doctors are unable to say "I'm sorry" if a medical procedure goes wrong, even just to express sympathy for a family's loss. It's considered an admission of guilt. Admitting guilt will not make your insurance company happy. At all.
Their premiums are definitely going to go up after this accident.
That makes no sense. The only type of insurance I am aware of where your premium will be jacked up after making a claim, is auto insurance. Insurance is supposed to cover the unforeseeable. If we did not expect the unforeseeable to occur, we wouldn't bother insuring against it. So raising a premium because of a claim filed would purely be punitive.
Besides, Mythbuster's insurance probably has a deductible larger than the damage done to the house. I mean, how much damage can you really do with a cannon ball? A hundred thou'? If I were them I'd just pay it out of pocket.
please avoid their streaming models: make it fail, people. the sooner we sink their sales on streaming the sooner they'll return to physical media. physical media is much more freedom-oriented (and the quality is higher, too).
A lot of people such as myself simply have a different view of entertainment media. I don't care if I own it, I just want access to it, and if I only want rare access to it, I don't mind paying per access as long as the price is right. You are concerned with your freedom to own the media itself so you can do what you please with it. That's fine, but there are other people who treat it more like going to a movie in a theater -- you pay for a single experience, then that experience is over. There are very few movies I would want to watch repeatedly, anyway. I could buy a DVD for $25 which I watch once and then file away in my hoarding closet, or I could spend $3 renting it (physically or digitally) and watch it once that way. If it comes down to $25 for viewing a movie vs. $3 for viewing a movie, which one shall I pick?
Not everyone consumes content the same way, and your fantasy is an impossibility.
People who want rips of movies don't need to go with netflix. This is what I don't understand. Netflix shouldn't need to have any kind of DRM, because at the end of the day, it's a terrible way to copy things. If you want to copy something, it's easy enough to just copy it from the DVD or even BluRay original copy.
No, it's simply that ripping from DVD or BluRay is easier than ripping from Netflix. Thus the effort to make ripping from Netflix as difficult as possible. Your argument is basically "People don't do X, because it's far easier to do Y instead," while ignoring the fact that the REASON it's easier to do Y is because X has been deliberately made difficult.
If Netflix was easily ripped, you can bet there would be programs out there that just sit there and rip shit off Netflix all day long. It's unlimited view, you don't pay per rental, just bandwidth. It looks legitimate -- they have no idea you're ripping, for all they know you're just a movie freak who watches ten movies per day -- so it's perfectly safe. It would be vastly preferable to any other type of illegal ripping, if it worked, which it does not. And there's a reason for it.