Incorrect. The current version of the hosts file spec, given in RFC 952, was issued in 1985. The first version of Windows to actually utilize a hosts file was Windows 3.1, released in 1992. Unix-like systems had been using/etc/hosts for many years by that point. For what it's worth, RFC 952 obsoleted an older form of the hosts file specification, that dates all the way back to 1974... somewhat before *ANY* version of Windows had been written or even imagined. Both Mac and Linux currently utilize/etc/hosts.
Actually, the chief difference between the two is that the free software license just specifically outlines what a person is permitted to do with the work, typically relatively freely copy it, where otherwise they would not be permitted to copy it at all (fair use provisions notwithstanding) without obtaining explicit permission from the copyright holder, even if they *did* have access to the source code. Essentially, the free software license acts as "written permission" from the copyright holder for people to do the things that it permits, and that you otherwise would not be able to do without infringing on copyright.
I was pissed when I had to agree to that to use my Xbox, especially since a) half of the Xbox experience doesn't work if not on a XBL Gold account, and b) MS didn't offer a "mail a letter to opt out" like Sony did.
All you need to do is simulate the four wheels, and add a rigid body that can be approximated to a box for the main chasis. If you want to get fancy, you can use a polygonal mesh. Then you can use any old physics engine, and presto... you have a buggy.
It's writing the code for the horses that's a real bitch. There's AI and stuff, and figuring out how the horse should react emotionally to various situations... THAT'S one hell of a challenge.
I don't want to get into the whole "copyright infringement is not theft" debate, but I'd like to point out that infringing on the copyright of any artist is stupid... at least if one has any respect for anyone's copyright at all, because infringing on one person's copyright damages the value of copyright in general for *ALL* artists, and does not just reduce the theoretical value of the work being infringed. Copyright is, after all, a legally recognized social contract - the artist has (or is supposed to have) limited duration exclusivity on the work, and the general public has an obligation to respect that exclusivity for the copyright's duration. When that exclusivity is compromised by somebody copying any copyrighted work without permission, the social contract is weakened slightly, and it reduces value that copyright offers artists (arguably being an incentive for them to resort to other means, such as DRM, but that's another matter). In exchange for offering the artist his limited exclusivity, the work actually can get widely published and distributed, where the only way the artist could have otherwise kept any exclusivity on control of the work would be to not publish it at all, or to release it only to very select people. That's why copyright infringement is actually illegal and not just a civil matter, because the value that it offers general public is being harmed by it.
When you have 15 to 20 of them, the cost of those drives is going to add up. While your data is backed up and fine, if the drives themselves fail too quickly before you were actually intending to replace them anyways, you must bear all of that cost if they are not still under warranty. Shortening the warranty to only 1 year from 5 is going to make that situation dramatically more likely to happen.
We lose touch with the real cost of war... and with the importance of what, in the end, might be attained by it.
In the end, I believe that the only things that justify going to war against another are things that one is prepared to sacrifice their life for so that future generations might be able have it. And in the end, our appreciation for whatever might be gained because of a past war is only amplified by the value of the sacrifice that went along with it.
I see the GPL as doing nothing but dilineating the terms under which one can obtain permission to copy the work for purposes that aren't already exempt from copyright infringement.
You know how you will often see, with a copyright notice, something to the effect of "this work may not be copied, in whole or in part, without written permission from the publisher", or that sort of thing? Well, that's actually implied by the very concept of copyright anyways. People have no default permission to copy a copyrighted work without any explicit permission do so, barring copying situations that are, for whatever reason, explicitly exempted from copyright infringement.
The GPL does nothing different or new from that... it simply outlines the terms under which a person can be granted permission, and then takes the position that so long as you abide by the license, you actually *do* have permission to copy the work. It's no different than any other form of written permission from the publisher that you might otherwise have to arrange special licensing arrangements to obtain. Ultimately, however, GPL software is still copyrighted, and thus still fully protected by copyright law.
Ultimately, the only significant place that the BSD and GPL *really* differ is that the the BSD license explicitly disavows any jurisdiction on derived works, which under ordinary copyright law would be subject to obtaining permission from the original copyright holder, whereas the GPL does not actually do anything out of the ordinary in that regard. This is ironic, IMO, because the biggest complaint that people have about the GPL is it's alleged "viral" nature, whereas if you take ordinary copyright as the baseline, it is arguable that the BSD license can produce more viral effects... since once the BSD has been stripped from a derived work, it cannot be applied to a further derived work by another party that might have obtained a source code license. The GPL, at least, keeps the main work and its derivatives under the umbrella of the copyright on the original work, which is how, outside of the domain of free software, copyright is ordinarily used.
This policy change is many months old, maybe even over a year.
When I saw the article, I thought that maybe there were even more changes, but I saw nothing new that I did not know since at least the first quarter of this year. I'd have to go rifle through my email archive to know for sure exactly when I first heard about this change.
Of course they don't... they wear make-up to compete with other women. The thing is that they are doing it without even necessarily realizing that they are doing it... and in circumstances where it is not logically necessary, because how physically attractive a woman might be to others can be entirely irrelevant.
I see this as completely different from practicing good hygiene and realizing what sort of clothing may be appropriate for a particular occasion.
You are being pedantic. Nonetheless, I did not say that a photo shows what a human eye would see... I said it was a normal expectation that this was the case... or at least approximately so. You are welcome to dispute this point, if you wish, but bear in mind that the fact you would point out the assorted technical deviations that a picture has from what you normally would see with your own eyes strongly suggests that you might not exactly be within a tolerable sigma of what most people think in the first place when they look at a photo. Heck... if it weren't the case, that people expect photos to look like what they would actually see, why do you think this should have ever even been an issue?
Even women in highly devoted and monogomous relationships will put on makeup when going to events where they know that there will be other attractive women present. While in such a relationship, there is no need to gain the attention of other men, so the behaviour is irrational.
It's just an extension of the instinctive aspect of grooming.
Uh... no. It's not about taking advantage of men, per se, it's about an evolutionary drive to compete for men's attention. It's not about manipulating men, it's about competing with other women in an endeavor to appear more attractive, or distinctive, or otherwise noteworthy. Is it irrational? Of course it is... but it's still an evolutionary drive nonetheless, not some part of a hidden agenda to exploit other people.
And in my observation, when they feel like they are unable to compete with other women, it tends to impact their self-esteem quite badly. In the end, I think that it's better to let them make themselves up in the way that they want to. Of course, it doesn't hurt to complement them when they aren't wearing any makeup either... and can probably help a woman feel like she doesn't need makeup to be attractive or to compete.
I agree with you, personally, but most people that I have found who criticize this type of research are under the impression that scientists can ultimately accomplish the same ends without actually testing it on living creatures... that they can study the effects of such things on paper and through actual experimentation, as well as computer simulation, and that those processes will reflect what goes on inside of a living body. They have mistakenly adopted the view that the differences between theory and practice are of no real significance.
First of all, you can't generally declare yourself a Jedi knight. You are appointed the title by the Jedi council. Until then, you are a padawan learner. Luke Skywalker was the single noteworthy exception, being the first of a new generation of Jedi.
Secondly, the author of Star Wars has never made any pretense of trying to convince people that the story he told ever really happened. It is, and has always been presented as fiction, entirely for entertainment purposes, not as some sort of historic tale about how people supposedly lived a long time ago in a galaxy far away.
It's possible, however, in a few hundred years, if the origins behind the term should get lost, that Jedi might become a real world religion.
While I certainly agree it shows information that is otherwise invisible, the problem is that it presents an image that doesn't reflect what people expect when they see a photo - which is a duplicate of what they would see if they could see it with their own eyes.
That's more or less my understanding. The hubble sees far more of the EM spectrum than we can with our own eyes... and so they take the invisible frequencies and assign them to colors in the visible spectrum to produce a visually pleasing image, whereas if you were to actually see it with your own eyes, instead of the vibrant colors that you saw in the photo, it would probably look very dull and grey.
Full stop, right there. I don't care what the technical reasons that are going on are... louder is louder... and the fact that I have to turn the volume down during commercials is sufficient reason for it to be bothersome.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that the colorful photos that you see from the Hubble are only pretty because it's been 'shopped like nobody's business. Sure what you're seeing is really out there, but it doesn't actually look like that... and if you were to be at a point in space such that your normal field of vision only envelops roughly the same area as what the photo contains, you would surely see similarities... probably enough to even make a strong connection between them... but not the vibrant colors that space photos so often contain. It is like the difference between a decorated christmas tree, and a decorated christmas tree with many hundreds of lights.
Slashdot Mirror
Incorrect. The current version of the hosts file spec, given in RFC 952, was issued in 1985. The first version of Windows to actually utilize a hosts file was Windows 3.1, released in 1992. Unix-like systems had been using /etc/hosts for many years by that point. For what it's worth, RFC 952 obsoleted an older form of the hosts file specification, that dates all the way back to 1974... somewhat before *ANY* version of Windows had been written or even imagined. Both Mac and Linux currently utilize /etc/hosts.
I would think that a license to use a service would be called a TOS
Actually, the chief difference between the two is that the free software license just specifically outlines what a person is permitted to do with the work, typically relatively freely copy it, where otherwise they would not be permitted to copy it at all (fair use provisions notwithstanding) without obtaining explicit permission from the copyright holder, even if they *did* have access to the source code. Essentially, the free software license acts as "written permission" from the copyright holder for people to do the things that it permits, and that you otherwise would not be able to do without infringing on copyright.
Canadians are smart enough to not volunteer for something like this. [duck]
I would think that a rumor about not getting any christmas bonus is roughly equivalent to a rumor about the sun being brighter than the moon.
In order to qualify as a "rumor", I'm pretty sure that there should remain even an inkling of doubt on its veracity.
All you need to do is simulate the four wheels, and add a rigid body that can be approximated to a box for the main chasis. If you want to get fancy, you can use a polygonal mesh. Then you can use any old physics engine, and presto... you have a buggy.
It's writing the code for the horses that's a real bitch. There's AI and stuff, and figuring out how the horse should react emotionally to various situations... THAT'S one hell of a challenge.
I don't want to get into the whole "copyright infringement is not theft" debate, but I'd like to point out that infringing on the copyright of any artist is stupid... at least if one has any respect for anyone's copyright at all, because infringing on one person's copyright damages the value of copyright in general for *ALL* artists, and does not just reduce the theoretical value of the work being infringed. Copyright is, after all, a legally recognized social contract - the artist has (or is supposed to have) limited duration exclusivity on the work, and the general public has an obligation to respect that exclusivity for the copyright's duration. When that exclusivity is compromised by somebody copying any copyrighted work without permission, the social contract is weakened slightly, and it reduces value that copyright offers artists (arguably being an incentive for them to resort to other means, such as DRM, but that's another matter). In exchange for offering the artist his limited exclusivity, the work actually can get widely published and distributed, where the only way the artist could have otherwise kept any exclusivity on control of the work would be to not publish it at all, or to release it only to very select people. That's why copyright infringement is actually illegal and not just a civil matter, because the value that it offers general public is being harmed by it.
Cite references please... I'm pretty sure they can... just as we have, here.
Sure... if you only have one drive.
When you have 15 to 20 of them, the cost of those drives is going to add up. While your data is backed up and fine, if the drives themselves fail too quickly before you were actually intending to replace them anyways, you must bear all of that cost if they are not still under warranty. Shortening the warranty to only 1 year from 5 is going to make that situation dramatically more likely to happen.
We lose touch with the real cost of war... and with the importance of what, in the end, might be attained by it.
In the end, I believe that the only things that justify going to war against another are things that one is prepared to sacrifice their life for so that future generations might be able have it. And in the end, our appreciation for whatever might be gained because of a past war is only amplified by the value of the sacrifice that went along with it.
I see the GPL as doing nothing but dilineating the terms under which one can obtain permission to copy the work for purposes that aren't already exempt from copyright infringement.
You know how you will often see, with a copyright notice, something to the effect of "this work may not be copied, in whole or in part, without written permission from the publisher", or that sort of thing? Well, that's actually implied by the very concept of copyright anyways. People have no default permission to copy a copyrighted work without any explicit permission do so, barring copying situations that are, for whatever reason, explicitly exempted from copyright infringement.
The GPL does nothing different or new from that... it simply outlines the terms under which a person can be granted permission, and then takes the position that so long as you abide by the license, you actually *do* have permission to copy the work. It's no different than any other form of written permission from the publisher that you might otherwise have to arrange special licensing arrangements to obtain. Ultimately, however, GPL software is still copyrighted, and thus still fully protected by copyright law.
Ultimately, the only significant place that the BSD and GPL *really* differ is that the the BSD license explicitly disavows any jurisdiction on derived works, which under ordinary copyright law would be subject to obtaining permission from the original copyright holder, whereas the GPL does not actually do anything out of the ordinary in that regard. This is ironic, IMO, because the biggest complaint that people have about the GPL is it's alleged "viral" nature, whereas if you take ordinary copyright as the baseline, it is arguable that the BSD license can produce more viral effects... since once the BSD has been stripped from a derived work, it cannot be applied to a further derived work by another party that might have obtained a source code license. The GPL, at least, keeps the main work and its derivatives under the umbrella of the copyright on the original work, which is how, outside of the domain of free software, copyright is ordinarily used.
This policy change is many months old, maybe even over a year.
When I saw the article, I thought that maybe there were even more changes, but I saw nothing new that I did not know since at least the first quarter of this year. I'd have to go rifle through my email archive to know for sure exactly when I first heard about this change.
... considering that the wii is not even capable of hi-def video, I find it surprising that it would be used for video streaming.
Of course they don't... they wear make-up to compete with other women. The thing is that they are doing it without even necessarily realizing that they are doing it... and in circumstances where it is not logically necessary, because how physically attractive a woman might be to others can be entirely irrelevant.
I see this as completely different from practicing good hygiene and realizing what sort of clothing may be appropriate for a particular occasion.
You are being pedantic. Nonetheless, I did not say that a photo shows what a human eye would see... I said it was a normal expectation that this was the case... or at least approximately so. You are welcome to dispute this point, if you wish, but bear in mind that the fact you would point out the assorted technical deviations that a picture has from what you normally would see with your own eyes strongly suggests that you might not exactly be within a tolerable sigma of what most people think in the first place when they look at a photo. Heck... if it weren't the case, that people expect photos to look like what they would actually see, why do you think this should have ever even been an issue?
My own experience suggests that it is irrational.
Even women in highly devoted and monogomous relationships will put on makeup when going to events where they know that there will be other attractive women present. While in such a relationship, there is no need to gain the attention of other men, so the behaviour is irrational.
It's just an extension of the instinctive aspect of grooming.
Uh... no. It's not about taking advantage of men, per se, it's about an evolutionary drive to compete for men's attention. It's not about manipulating men, it's about competing with other women in an endeavor to appear more attractive, or distinctive, or otherwise noteworthy. Is it irrational? Of course it is... but it's still an evolutionary drive nonetheless, not some part of a hidden agenda to exploit other people.
And in my observation, when they feel like they are unable to compete with other women, it tends to impact their self-esteem quite badly. In the end, I think that it's better to let them make themselves up in the way that they want to. Of course, it doesn't hurt to complement them when they aren't wearing any makeup either... and can probably help a woman feel like she doesn't need makeup to be attractive or to compete.
I agree with you, personally, but most people that I have found who criticize this type of research are under the impression that scientists can ultimately accomplish the same ends without actually testing it on living creatures... that they can study the effects of such things on paper and through actual experimentation, as well as computer simulation, and that those processes will reflect what goes on inside of a living body. They have mistakenly adopted the view that the differences between theory and practice are of no real significance.
First of all, you can't generally declare yourself a Jedi knight. You are appointed the title by the Jedi council. Until then, you are a padawan learner. Luke Skywalker was the single noteworthy exception, being the first of a new generation of Jedi.
Secondly, the author of Star Wars has never made any pretense of trying to convince people that the story he told ever really happened. It is, and has always been presented as fiction, entirely for entertainment purposes, not as some sort of historic tale about how people supposedly lived a long time ago in a galaxy far away.
It's possible, however, in a few hundred years, if the origins behind the term should get lost, that Jedi might become a real world religion.
While I certainly agree it shows information that is otherwise invisible, the problem is that it presents an image that doesn't reflect what people expect when they see a photo - which is a duplicate of what they would see if they could see it with their own eyes.
Not particularly... but pictures that stunning always seem like false advertising to me.
That's more or less my understanding. The hubble sees far more of the EM spectrum than we can with our own eyes... and so they take the invisible frequencies and assign them to colors in the visible spectrum to produce a visually pleasing image, whereas if you were to actually see it with your own eyes, instead of the vibrant colors that you saw in the photo, it would probably look very dull and grey.
Full stop, right there. I don't care what the technical reasons that are going on are... louder is louder... and the fact that I have to turn the volume down during commercials is sufficient reason for it to be bothersome.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that the colorful photos that you see from the Hubble are only pretty because it's been 'shopped like nobody's business. Sure what you're seeing is really out there, but it doesn't actually look like that... and if you were to be at a point in space such that your normal field of vision only envelops roughly the same area as what the photo contains, you would surely see similarities... probably enough to even make a strong connection between them... but not the vibrant colors that space photos so often contain. It is like the difference between a decorated christmas tree, and a decorated christmas tree with many hundreds of lights.