Yeah, I guess... But with cameras these days you at least have that feeling of "it was only $250!", but with the iPod Mini we're starting out with "holy crap! $250?" before they stick you for the accessories.
I'm as much as an Apple fanatic as most of em; I've got my two Dual G4s, my powerbook, and my 3rd generation 20Gb iPod, and I'd agree with this article completely except for one thing...
It costs an extra $120 to get all the accessories that should come with the damn thing! Why is it so much extra to get the armband, the dock, and the remote? For $250 the should be included.
Perhaps you should consider the validity of the comment before you start having such strong feelings based on a slashdot posting.
The parent was in-fact pulling that out of his ass. There have been many cases where laws have been copyrighted already, and this law isn't relevant in that respect. Plus, there are plenty of bad laws that come out of committee and don't pass; that's why the entire house votes on bills, not just the committee. The world isn't ending.
No, they'd be able to determine the two films that were diffed with each other because the two identifiers that were missing would be traceable. If the identifiers run the entire length of the film in the overscan, or appear repeatedly, it could be shown that it was highly unlikely that exactly the right frames were dropped by mere coincidence.
He's likely lying or leaving a signifigant portion of the story out. There's nothing illegal about a single sided black and white copy of a $5 bill. If there were, then half of all the little kids that ever got left alone with the copier in their public library, a $5 and a few nickles would be in jail by now. If he made it all nice and 2 sided and trimmed it up nice, it would have been illegal, but what respectable elder would call the US secret service on a misguided 14 year old instead of crumpling up and throwing out said fake bill?
we're talking about fair use of the images of currency
The US secret service lists specific guidelines for the use of currency images, which are protected by their own set of laws, and *not* by copyright. Thus fare use clauses do not apply. Essentially, all those things you listed gan go fry, because there is no law protecting such use in general. You can, however, use the images, but they must be either one sided, not in color, or signifigantly smaller or larger than an original bill when printed. Presumably the anti-counterfeting software would be able to take this into account.
Forgetting? If they learned anything from that whole situation, it was to make sure they hold the rediculous patents next time. It's way cheaper to file for a rediculous defensive patent than it is to defend an infringement lawsuit.
I guess every consumer is running Windows media player, or maybe the other 20% of internet users don't consume anything.
Clearly you're not versed in marketing lingo. If you can't see the ad, you're not going to be a consumer, hence the guarantee stands. Remember that next time you hear somebody claiming high user satisfaction!
The Debears cartel keeps the cost of diamonds artificially high by controlling the supply (acquiring and closing every new source found). Advertising does more to create a perception that they are much rarer and therefore worth the cartel's prices.That inflated price is what makes the cost of making artifical copies feasible.
Supply side control of diamond prices collapsed in the early to mid 1990s. Diamonds that cost $50,000 in the eighties can be had for $1500 wholsale now. Retail diamond prices today are kept high though marketing, and lack of buyer education. Diamond buyers who think they are educated typically spout knowledge gained through an industry source. They're too busy worrying about cut, clarity, and color to realize that the retailer has a 2500% markup. Meanwhile, the rest of us who know better can purchase loose gems from local wholsalers at a mere 10% markup, or over the internet and laugh at the suckers that put more money down on a stone they'll be making payments on for 10 years at the local jewlery store than it costs to purchase the stone and have it set how you like.
Oh, the other thing a jeweler won't tell you? You can't get an accurate weight of a stone that's already set. Buyer beware at shopping mall jewlery stores.
Hmm, that's funny... I was always under the impression that Compaq's most notable engineering feat was the clean-room reverse engineering of the IBM PC BIOS to open the door for clone PCs.
Sure, the products of DEC's engineering were more impressive technically, but Compaq's engineering had a much greater impact on the industry as a whole.
I have an Aiwa CDC-MP3 and an iPod in my car. I've noticed that they don't do very well with news, weather or traffic. The DJ isn't very entertaining either.
I was recently looking at some code I wrote my freshman year of college for the senior level computer graphics class I (stupidly) took... It does all those nasty things and more. There isn't a comment to be seen either, just line after line of equations and pointer arithmetic in loops.
His code could just as easily be an example of of inexperience in working with others and in writing reliable code as from a decompiler.... Actually, it's cleaner then most decompiler code I've seen.
The lack of well named variables probably comes from a lack of true understanding of why it does exactly what it does. It's structure *is* probably derived from him looking at the disassembly.
You must have a totally different definition of medium to low quality for speakers than the rest of us. Either that or you're listneing to something that was crapily encoded dispite the high bitrate.
Sure, it's easy to tell with headphones, but unless you're spending over $300 on your computer speakers and listening in a real quite room, or you encoded at 256k with a totally shitty encoder from 8 years ago, you shouldn't be able to tell the difference between encoding artifacts and shitty speakers...
It's also not being said enough that updates for local root exploits are practically pointless on single user systems. If you're the only one with access to your system, you don't need to apply this update, and in fact if somebody did manage to get access to such a single user system there are probably far easier ways for the attacker to gain privliges.... Like if you're in the sudoers file for example.
The recent patches are only really important if you run a multi-user system and don't trust your users.
I call it crap because it seems to me that it was designed by the marketing department. I'm sure it all works fine, so it's not crap from that perspective, but since they don't really care to tell anybody how to actually use all of it (like they do with their other processors) and it's so tightly integrated that platform flexability is practically out of the question, I called it "crap".
The low power stuff they have in there seems pretty nice though.
Re:Stop looking for "programming" jobs
on
Exporting Myself?
·
· Score: 1
I find few people more dangerous than self-styled architects who consider themselves too good for coding.
Hmm... Where did I say that he shouldn't code? There's as much difference between mindlessly writing what somebody else designed, and writing what "you" (it's usually a group) designed, as there is between writing what you design, and farming all the coding for your design out.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I guess... But with cameras these days you at least have that feeling of "it was only $250!", but with the iPod Mini we're starting out with "holy crap! $250?" before they stick you for the accessories.
I'm as much as an Apple fanatic as most of em; I've got my two Dual G4s, my powerbook, and my 3rd generation 20Gb iPod, and I'd agree with this article completely except for one thing...
It costs an extra $120 to get all the accessories that should come with the damn thing! Why is it so much extra to get the armband, the dock, and the remote? For $250 the should be included.
Slow down there turbo....
Perhaps you should consider the validity of the comment before you start having such strong feelings based on a slashdot posting.
The parent was in-fact pulling that out of his ass. There have been many cases where laws have been copyrighted already, and this law isn't relevant in that respect. Plus, there are plenty of bad laws that come out of committee and don't pass; that's why the entire house votes on bills, not just the committee. The world isn't ending.
No, they'd be able to determine the two films that were diffed with each other because the two identifiers that were missing would be traceable. If the identifiers run the entire length of the film in the overscan, or appear repeatedly, it could be shown that it was highly unlikely that exactly the right frames were dropped by mere coincidence.
What if the protection is something that is in every copy but one?
Pay a wire service $3500. If it's properly formatted, anybody can do it.
He's likely lying or leaving a signifigant portion of the story out. There's nothing illegal about a single sided black and white copy of a $5 bill. If there were, then half of all the little kids that ever got left alone with the copier in their public library, a $5 and a few nickles would be in jail by now. If he made it all nice and 2 sided and trimmed it up nice, it would have been illegal, but what respectable elder would call the US secret service on a misguided 14 year old instead of crumpling up and throwing out said fake bill?
we're talking about fair use of the images of currency
The US secret service lists specific guidelines for the use of currency images, which are protected by their own set of laws, and *not* by copyright. Thus fare use clauses do not apply. Essentially, all those things you listed gan go fry, because there is no law protecting such use in general. You can, however, use the images, but they must be either one sided, not in color, or signifigantly smaller or larger than an original bill when printed. Presumably the anti-counterfeting software would be able to take this into account.
I suppose the business world is very forgetting.
Forgetting? If they learned anything from that whole situation, it was to make sure they hold the rediculous patents next time. It's way cheaper to file for a rediculous defensive patent than it is to defend an infringement lawsuit.
I guess every consumer is running Windows media player, or maybe the other 20% of internet users don't consume anything.
Clearly you're not versed in marketing lingo. If you can't see the ad, you're not going to be a consumer, hence the guarantee stands. Remember that next time you hear somebody claiming high user satisfaction!
The Debears cartel keeps the cost of diamonds artificially high by controlling the supply (acquiring and closing every new source found). Advertising does more to create a perception that they are much rarer and therefore worth the cartel's prices.That inflated price is what makes the cost of making artifical copies feasible.
Supply side control of diamond prices collapsed in the early to mid 1990s. Diamonds that cost $50,000 in the eighties can be had for $1500 wholsale now. Retail diamond prices today are kept high though marketing, and lack of buyer education. Diamond buyers who think they are educated typically spout knowledge gained through an industry source. They're too busy worrying about cut, clarity, and color to realize that the retailer has a 2500% markup. Meanwhile, the rest of us who know better can purchase loose gems from local wholsalers at a mere 10% markup, or over the internet and laugh at the suckers that put more money down on a stone they'll be making payments on for 10 years at the local jewlery store than it costs to purchase the stone and have it set how you like.
Oh, the other thing a jeweler won't tell you? You can't get an accurate weight of a stone that's already set. Buyer beware at shopping mall jewlery stores.
More features means more users
Really? Are you sure about that?
Hmm, that's funny... I was always under the impression that Compaq's most notable engineering feat was the clean-room reverse engineering of the IBM PC BIOS to open the door for clone PCs.
Sure, the products of DEC's engineering were more impressive technically, but Compaq's engineering had a much greater impact on the industry as a whole.
Whatever you do, don't think about the theme song to "Charles In Charge"!
'Break' the patent, find a workaround with the same functionality which isn't covered by the patent
That doesn't get them off the hook for damages on units they've already sold.
I'd be happy if digital cellular calls sounded as good as a 64Kb stream could sound. As it is it sounds more like 5-8Kb/sec.
I have an Aiwa CDC-MP3 and an iPod in my car. I've noticed that they don't do very well with news, weather or traffic. The DJ isn't very entertaining either.
Crap. Replying to myself...
I *don't* write code like that anymore! Just wanted to throw that out there...
I was recently looking at some code I wrote my freshman year of college for the senior level computer graphics class I (stupidly) took... It does all those nasty things and more. There isn't a comment to be seen either, just line after line of equations and pointer arithmetic in loops.
His code could just as easily be an example of of inexperience in working with others and in writing reliable code as from a decompiler.... Actually, it's cleaner then most decompiler code I've seen.
The lack of well named variables probably comes from a lack of true understanding of why it does exactly what it does. It's structure *is* probably derived from him looking at the disassembly.
You must have a totally different definition of medium to low quality for speakers than the rest of us. Either that or you're listneing to something that was crapily encoded dispite the high bitrate.
Sure, it's easy to tell with headphones, but unless you're spending over $300 on your computer speakers and listening in a real quite room, or you encoded at 256k with a totally shitty encoder from 8 years ago, you shouldn't be able to tell the difference between encoding artifacts and shitty speakers...
You can hire a programmer though.
I've tried something similar. The answer too often turned out to be the power cord.
/' as serious incentive to get out of bed, but I don't have the balls.
I've heard of people who set a cron job with 'rm -rf
It's also not being said enough that updates for local root exploits are practically pointless on single user systems. If you're the only one with access to your system, you don't need to apply this update, and in fact if somebody did manage to get access to such a single user system there are probably far easier ways for the attacker to gain privliges.... Like if you're in the sudoers file for example.
The recent patches are only really important if you run a multi-user system and don't trust your users.
I call it crap because it seems to me that it was designed by the marketing department. I'm sure it all works fine, so it's not crap from that perspective, but since they don't really care to tell anybody how to actually use all of it (like they do with their other processors) and it's so tightly integrated that platform flexability is practically out of the question, I called it "crap".
The low power stuff they have in there seems pretty nice though.
I find few people more dangerous than self-styled architects who consider themselves too good for coding.
Hmm... Where did I say that he shouldn't code? There's as much difference between mindlessly writing what somebody else designed, and writing what "you" (it's usually a group) designed, as there is between writing what you design, and farming all the coding for your design out.
I agree with the rest of your post.