The point: progessive scan TiVo output
on
TiVo Basic
·
· Score: 1
I have a HDTV monitor. I can get a pretty good picture with the S-video connector I currently use, but a progressive scan picture would be a great improvement. Now if it would only record HDTV broadcasts.
Generally, intent is not an element of criminal statutes. Where the behavior being proscribed is so broad so that someone might unwittingly violate the law, the laws are writen to require intent or "knowing" violations.
Thus if your Windows PC grabs your neighbor's wireless network instead of your own and you don't notice it, then you don't hit the "knowingly" or intent portion of the law.
But for ordinary crimes such as breaking and entering or burgulary, proving intent is not part of the case.
SUVs are more dangerous *to other vehicles*. The higher momentum is also easily dispersed by the higher mass. There's no downside there unless you happen to be driving a smaller car. Then you're toast.
Automobile companies could promote all they want, but if there isn't a demand for the product, it won't sell.
There is clearly a demand for SUVs. It arises from individual decisions that, if there is to be a collision between a large vehicle and a smaller one, *I* want to be in the *large* vehicle. So, just as the article states, individually "rational" decisions make for collectively "irrational" outcomes.
That's the point of his message this morning. Arguably, no one else has standing to press suit for a copyright violation because such a kernel would only be a derivative of the kernel as a whole and not any individual's contribution to it. THere's another unlitigated GPL legal issue for you.
Re:source to the key in the kernel?
on
Linus on DRM
·
· Score: 1
What am I missing?
Public key cryptography. A vendor can embed a public key in a kernel/in hardware and then only execute binaries/kernels signed with the corresponding private key.
You should write a honeypot that looks like a relay but dosn't forward any but the first message sent to it. Running a few thousand of those will do more to fight spam than generating bad addresses.
AOL caves to the people who own the trademark on Godzilla, but they are willing to step all over a project that uses the exact same name in the same industry?
Surely there's at least a half a dozen bots on this very site ready to submit "Frist Psot!" at the first sign of a/. story. They regularly take in dozens of/. readers.
Isaac Newton was Christian? OK, but this isn't news. Way back in grade school and high school science classes we learned about this. We also learned that the Vatican wasn't entirely impressed with Newton's investigations which doesn't really mean much either.
Not surprising when you sonsider that Newton was an Anglican and quite on the outs with the Vatican. After all look what the Vatican did to Gallileo not that much earlier (Newton was born the year Gallileo died).
The problem that most people have with the combination of religion and science is that religion often tries to impose what appears in the bible over what we have learned through experience and conjecture.
"Often" is rather overstating the case. While there is a vocal minority of Christian Fundamentalists in the US with their crusade against Evolution, the vast majority of Christians worldwide belong to denominations which see no conflict between Science and the Bible.
The astronauts are well aware that with each launch, they have a 50% to 70% chance of being killed.
The true chance of being killed in a space flight is on the order of 1 to 2 per hundred. If it were truely as high as you suggest, we would expect fatalities of half of the flights.
All this brings a chapter in one of Richard Feynman's books where he discusses his role in the Challenger investigation. The engineers who knew the Shuttle thought that the risk of catasctophic accident was about 1 in 100 and perhaps one in 1,000. Management decided that, since human lives were involved, rates of 1 in 100,000 were officially quoted. That management and the engineers had such disparate estimates of the risks demonstrated the lack of communication.
We need to accept that space travel is an inherently risky endeavour and accept that accident rates on the order of 1 per hundred flights are perhaps the best that our technology can achieve right now.
You are welcome to your shortsighted opinion of the stupidity of creationists, but you yourself seem to completely ignore the fact that evolution is a theory, one disputed by a lot of scientific evidence. The laws of thermodynamics for instance.
The second law does not contradict evolution. In fact, there is no large body of factual evidence in conflict with the theory of evolution. There are isolated observations which may be just wrong or which challange a small detail of the current theory,
And, as a theory, it has a tremendous amount of evidence in support of it. You seem to think that the status of being a theory is some small thing as in "Bah, that's only a theory." That's not the case. It is accepted Science by the vast majority of practicing scientists.
Furthermore, it is a fundamental organizing principle of Biology. All Modern Biology is an application of the theory of evolution.
Creationism, on the other hand, is not even a theory because it is not a Science. It's not a science because it's not disprovable.
Intelligent Design theories are among the worst of the lot. Boiled down to their essence, "I can't see how it was done, implies it isn't possible." No, it implies that your imagination isn't up to the task, because it clearly has been done.
And I'm a practicing Christian. I'm just not an anti-rationalist, anti-science drone.
since when do you pay for a service not delivered? why would someone have to pay "even if it doesn't snow?"
I see now that you know nothing about contracting for snow removal.
If you want to hire someone for snow removal, you typically contract with them in the fall, long before the first snowflake forms. You decide what kind of service you want. If you want snow removed in the first 24 hours after the snow stops falling, that's going to cost you less than 12 hour service and more than 48 hour service. Plus you should expect to sign a binding contract which requires you to pay for snow removal for each snow fall the entire season even if you get impatient and shovel yourself out before the guy gets there. You should expect to pay some money upfront just to reserve your place in line. It ain't a contract without consideration.
Also, if you get the right crew, you can make sure the folks that don't pay don't have a clear path from their driveway to the road.
So, not only are you acting as a local government, you're acting as an opressive local government. What comes next, not shoveling out people you don't like and want to move away?
My local government does a terrible job of plowing snow off the roads, particularly in the residential neighborhoods.
Because you've been ducking your taxes.
When your neighborhood pools its funds and hires someone to clear the roads, you're acting like a government. But I seriously doubt that you understand the costs involved. You'll have to pay someone even if it dosn't snow. You at the mercy of those who choose to pool and those who opt out, but still get the benefit of plowed roads.
This anti-government lunacy seems to be contagious.
Imagine all of the opportunities to sell enlargement creams, investments in dead dictator's uncleared bank accounts and printer toner cartridges. All you have to do is a dictionary attack against the known area codes and local exchanges. Wow! Imagine the growth in the US economy!
The recoding of an algorithm even into the same language as origionally expressed is clearly not covered by the GPL. Algorithms are ideas and ideas are not subject to copyright protection. Anyone can read GPLed code, glean the ideas expressed there and recast them in new code which does not infringe the expression while at the same time implemnenting it. It may even turn out that there is only one way of coding (part of) the algorithm and so the noninfringing work may be identifal in parts to the GPLed original. In the terms of copyright law, if idea and expression become merged (so that there is only one way to express the idea) that expression loses its copyright protection because to do otherwise would be to allow copyright to cover ideas and not just expressions.
Because of the assignment, I think that the FSF only has standing to sue in their case. In the Linus as Editor approach, Linus has standing to sue if the compilation copyright has been violated in a way not permitted by the GPL.
In your hypothetical, I think that there would need to be a showing that the copying derived from the version distributed by the claimant, that is, it includes some element from the compilation. If the violation were strictly on your work, then I think that only you have standing to sue.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a HDTV monitor. I can get a pretty good picture with the S-video connector I currently use, but a progressive scan picture would be a great improvement. Now if it would only record HDTV broadcasts.
Generally, intent is not an element of criminal statutes. Where the behavior being proscribed is so broad so that someone might unwittingly violate the law, the laws are writen to require intent or "knowing" violations.
Thus if your Windows PC grabs your neighbor's wireless network instead of your own and you don't notice it, then you don't hit the "knowingly" or intent portion of the law.
But for ordinary crimes such as breaking and entering or burgulary, proving intent is not part of the case.
...Debian GNU/NetBSD?
Can't they take the heat from outraged FreeBDS developers?
SUVs are more dangerous *to other vehicles*. The higher momentum is also easily dispersed by the higher mass. There's no downside there unless you happen to be driving a smaller car. Then you're toast.
Automobile companies could promote all they want, but if there isn't a demand for the product, it won't sell.
There is clearly a demand for SUVs. It arises from individual decisions that, if there is to be a collision between a large vehicle and a smaller one, *I* want to be in the *large* vehicle. So, just as the article states, individually "rational" decisions make for collectively "irrational" outcomes.
That's the point of his message this morning. Arguably, no one else has standing to press suit for a copyright violation because such a kernel would only be a derivative of the kernel as a whole and not any individual's contribution to it. THere's another unlitigated GPL legal issue for you.
What am I missing?
Public key cryptography. A vendor can embed a public key in a kernel/in hardware and then only execute binaries/kernels signed with the corresponding private key.
You should write a honeypot that looks like a relay but dosn't forward any but the first message sent to it. Running a few thousand of those will do more to fight spam than generating bad addresses.
Since the VPN client could obscure both the origin and destination of Internet traffic.
Bad Palm!
AOL caves to the people who own the trademark on Godzilla, but they are willing to step all over a project that uses the exact same name in the same industry?
They really *are* evil.
What? Not "marvelous"?
Surely there's at least a half a dozen bots on this very site ready to submit "Frist Psot!" at the first sign of a /. story. They regularly take in dozens of /. readers.
Isaac Newton was Christian? OK, but this isn't news. Way back in grade school and high school science classes we learned about this. We also learned that the Vatican wasn't entirely impressed with Newton's investigations which doesn't really mean much either.
Not surprising when you sonsider that Newton was an Anglican and quite on the outs with the Vatican. After all look what the Vatican did to Gallileo not that much earlier (Newton was born the year Gallileo died).
The problem that most people have with the combination of religion and science is that religion often tries to impose what appears in the bible over what we have learned through experience and conjecture.
"Often" is rather overstating the case. While there is a vocal minority of Christian Fundamentalists in the US with their crusade against Evolution, the vast majority of Christians worldwide belong to denominations which see no conflict between Science and the Bible.
...is almost as disturbing as that of the Fundamentalists.
Most of what you have to say makes good sense.
The astronauts are well aware that with each launch, they have a 50% to 70% chance of being killed.
The true chance of being killed in a space flight is on the order of 1 to 2 per hundred. If it were truely as high as you suggest, we would expect fatalities of half of the flights.
All this brings a chapter in one of Richard Feynman's books where he discusses his role in the Challenger investigation. The engineers who knew the Shuttle thought that the risk of catasctophic accident was about 1 in 100 and perhaps one in 1,000. Management decided that, since human lives were involved, rates of 1 in 100,000 were officially quoted. That management and the engineers had such disparate estimates of the risks demonstrated the lack of communication.
We need to accept that space travel is an inherently risky endeavour and accept that accident rates on the order of 1 per hundred flights are perhaps the best that our technology can achieve right now.
that was said before the Hubble Telescope.
You are welcome to your shortsighted opinion of the stupidity of creationists, but you yourself seem to completely ignore the fact that evolution is a theory, one disputed by a lot of scientific evidence. The laws of thermodynamics for instance.
The second law does not contradict evolution. In fact, there is no large body of factual evidence in conflict with the theory of evolution. There are isolated observations which may be just wrong or which challange a small detail of the current theory,
And, as a theory, it has a tremendous amount of evidence in support of it. You seem to think that the status of being a theory is some small thing as in "Bah, that's only a theory." That's not the case. It is accepted Science by the vast majority of practicing scientists.
Furthermore, it is a fundamental organizing principle of Biology. All Modern Biology is an application of the theory of evolution.
Creationism, on the other hand, is not even a theory because it is not a Science. It's not a science because it's not disprovable.
Intelligent Design theories are among the worst of the lot. Boiled down to their essence, "I can't see how it was done, implies it isn't possible." No, it implies that your imagination isn't up to the task, because it clearly has been done.
And I'm a practicing Christian. I'm just not an anti-rationalist, anti-science drone.
That new species can form is a fact. It's been observed. Get used to it.
since when do you pay for a service not delivered? why would someone have to pay "even if it doesn't snow?"
I see now that you know nothing about contracting for snow removal.
If you want to hire someone for snow removal, you typically contract with them in the fall, long before the first snowflake forms. You decide what kind of service you want. If you want snow removed in the first 24 hours after the snow stops falling, that's going to cost you less than 12 hour service and more than 48 hour service. Plus you should expect to sign a binding contract which requires you to pay for snow removal for each snow fall the entire season even if you get impatient and shovel yourself out before the guy gets there. You should expect to pay some money upfront just to reserve your place in line. It ain't a contract without consideration.
Also, if you get the right crew, you can make sure the folks that don't pay don't have a clear path from their driveway to the road.
So, not only are you acting as a local government, you're acting as an opressive local government. What comes next, not shoveling out people you don't like and want to move away?
My local government does a terrible job of plowing snow off the roads, particularly in the residential neighborhoods.
Because you've been ducking your taxes.
When your neighborhood pools its funds and hires someone to clear the roads, you're acting like a government. But I seriously doubt that you understand the costs involved. You'll have to pay someone even if it dosn't snow. You at the mercy of those who choose to pool and those who opt out, but still get the benefit of plowed roads.
This anti-government lunacy seems to be contagious.
I don't think my employees should be treated like schoolchildren. They should be treated like adults and *fired* if they use p2p software at work.
Imagine all of the opportunities to sell enlargement creams, investments in dead dictator's uncleared bank accounts and printer toner cartridges. All you have to do is a dictionary attack against the known area codes and local exchanges. Wow! Imagine the growth in the US economy!
I've been on the NYS DNC Registry since day 1.
So, will this Federal DNC Registry supercede the NYS Registry so that I'll have to reregister?
The recoding of an algorithm even into the same language as origionally expressed is clearly not covered by the GPL. Algorithms are ideas and ideas are not subject to copyright protection. Anyone can read GPLed code, glean the ideas expressed there and recast them in new code which does not infringe the expression while at the same time implemnenting it. It may even turn out that there is only one way of coding (part of) the algorithm and so the noninfringing work may be identifal in parts to the GPLed original. In the terms of copyright law, if idea and expression become merged (so that there is only one way to express the idea) that expression loses its copyright protection because to do otherwise would be to allow copyright to cover ideas and not just expressions.
Because of the assignment, I think that the FSF only has standing to sue in their case. In the Linus as Editor approach, Linus has standing to sue if the compilation copyright has been violated in a way not permitted by the GPL.
In your hypothetical, I think that there would need to be a showing that the copying derived from the version distributed by the claimant, that is, it includes some element from the compilation. If the violation were strictly on your work, then I think that only you have standing to sue.