nope, ADW is a crime, period. If I light up a cigarette in your presence you can leave, or you can choose not to enter a place that doesn't have no-smoking signs. I fail to see the similarity.
Sure, smoking kills. I know that. Don't go into smokey places. Bitch about smookey places. Go to smoke-free places. Put up 'no smoking' signs outside your place. By all means. But if you're going to tell me that the only reason I can't go to my friend's place and smoke is that he has to grovel to the local government mob (err, liquor licencing board) in order to sell alcohol there and that they've been mandated to not grant him a license if he allows smoking by a bunch of no-good whining fags like yourself who are pissed off that your kinds of places are boring as fuck because nobody wants to go there, then you'd probably be right.
20th amendment? "The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January..."? are you sure? do you know what the fuck you're talking about?
"You check your rights at the door." No, you give up no rights when you enter a private establishment. In fact it would be illegal for someone to require you to. However, the owner of said establishment reserves the right to expel you as they wish (although use of force is a crime, often abused and often overlooked).
This situation is different. It does infringe on your rights as a public citizen and goes far beyond expulsion from private property - it involves expulsion from public life: imprisonment.
Oh, so you're ok if you leave your video camer off during the movie? As far s I can tell you're committing a crime by carrying the camera through the doors before the movie even starts.
The argument "someone will turn a blind eye to you even though you are braking a law" is not a good case for upholding civil rights
The simple extension of this is: everyone is born a criminal and deserves to be locked up. Based on some arbitrary sliding scale, those people who are more criminal than others at any given will actualy be sent to jail.
why would you walk into a theatre with a camcorder if you weren't planning to record the movie?/blockquote>
for no other equally sufficient reason than: I left like it.
This law is implying a thought-crime. I walk though the doors of a cinema and they bust me becuse they believe that I have the intention of comitting a crime. I haven't committed any crime yet, they can just bust me because they believe I want to commit it.
Imagine I walk into a store and pick up some item. Am I a crimianl yet? By extension of this law then yes, I am, because I might have the intent of leaving the store without paying for it. I cannot be, by defnition, a criminal before I have committed the crime. But this law makes me one by doing an otherwise perfect legal thing.
I agree that leaving with a recoding of the movie is a 'crime'.
That's fine. To walk out of theatre with a copy of the therin shown copyrighted media is illegal. Indeed even the act of making acopy of such media is illegal. However, walking into the theatre with a device capable of making such a recording is a completely different thing, and has nothing to do with copyright, it has only to do with civil rights.
It's illegal to posess hands since it has been deduced by a really smart bunch of fuckwits that when used in certain circumstances, hands can be used to kill people.
Not necessarily. What if I lived upstate and I took a rare trip into town to:
do some daytime shopping. Hey cool, new video camera. Just what I want. Thanks. I'll have it.
go see the latest film with my friend while I'm here (carrying new video camera still in box, with receipt in plastic bag).
I'm now committing a crime. What the FUCK's up with that??
Still, if I leave with a camera fill of copyright protect material then yes, I'm breaking the law. But how many rights do we have to forfeit before the MPAA are happy?
No, It should be illegal to take, out of the theatre, a recording that you made during the showing. It should not be a crime to take a recoding device into the cinema because that assumes a precondition that the fact that you're taking such a device into such a place implies that you are going to commit a crime.
What happens if you got off a train in a city, went to a camera store and bought a camera that you couldn't buy in your upstate store and then went to see a film. Are you guilty of anything? No. This law says that you are. If you recorded the film while you were there and left with the media, then yes, you are guilty of copyright theft, but the law should not suppose criminality on otherwise legal behaviour (by definition).
Streaming highly compressed (mpeg4) video over wireless is stretching it. The idea that you can stream uncompressed (or poorly compressed, eg lzw/jpeg) video frames over a wireless connection is just foolish. Anyone that expects such a thing to work well over a wireless connection just isn't using their brain. It has little to do with the protocol.
The only way to do this effectively would be to put hooks in the media player to divert the original compressed stream over the network and allow the decompression to occur on the screen.
As far as microsoft's implementation of RDP being abysmal, it's pretty much the most efficient of its kind out there. But I guess it's all relative to your expectations, right?
can anyone else shed any light into how far the LOLITA project (under Roberto Garigliano) got at Durham Unversity? Yeah, it's a research project, but last I heard (10 years ago) it was able to parse complete texts (for example, newspaper articles) and answer simple questions based on it. I believe ther was also work underway to make it understand/'speak' chinese/russian. There was also supposed to be some kind of 'script' support which would give it contextual information about certian situations (the common example was what contextual knowlegde do you need to know when you go into a restaurant and how can that knowledge help you understand what is said there).
It doesn't have defined interfaces to the rest of the system.
well, a quick link/dump/exports mshtml.dll would show you the following exports:
DllCanUnloadNow
DllEnumClassObjects
DllGetClassObject
DllInstall
DllRegisterServer
DllUnregisterServer
MatchExactGetIDsOfNames
PrintHTML
CreateHTMLPropertyPage
RunHTMLApplication
ShowHTMLDialog
ShowHTMLDialogEx
ShowModalDialog
ShowModelessHTMLDialog
RNIGetCompatibleVersion
com_ms_osp_ospmrshl_classInit
com_ms_osp_ospmrshl_copyToExternal
com_ms_osp_ospmrshl_releaseByValExternal
com_ms_osp_ospmrshl_toJava
exports 8-14 are simple APIs for running HTA applications/dialogs & printing.
exports 15-19 are for java support (15 is defined by Sun).
and the most important ones, 1-6, are COM support routines for exposing the COM classes defined in teh DLL. Most of the interfaces on these objects are well defined and public and they're exactly the interfaces that are used by programs such as MyIE, explorer and for that matter, any program that embeds mshtml.
The reason that testing this functionality is difficult is not that it's tightly bound to the rest of the OS, it's because they are stateful and necessarily complex. It's simple to write a test case that checks the output of a certain method call given a set of inputs, but in most cases the results depend not only on the inputs, but also on the ordered sequence of inputs to previous calls (possibly coming from different clients running asynchronously). Even in theory it's an intractable problem (equivalent to halting) and in practice the combinatorics prevent any kind of exhaustive testing in all but the simplest of scenarios.
A good reson for having lots of functionality in the base system is that when a technology is ubiquitous it becomes a platform that 3rd party ISVs can extend thereby adding value back to the system. Also, when you're looking at $1/GB it's not really much of a problem for most peoeple. If you the kind of person who worries about having an extra few hundred meg disk space, then you're problably the kind of person that knows how to reclaim it.
You're correct, right up until you imply that NT was written to replace 9x. NT shipped before win95, and it existed within MS well before win95 was even conceived. win95 was writen because they wanted to ship win32 to customers and NT didn't run as well as OS/2 or Win3.1 on consumer-level machines.
There was an effort to write a completely new win32-based replacement for win31, cougar was the codename for the 32-bit DOS kernel, and panther was the win32 core, but panther was canned and cougar was merged into chicago (win95).
indeed a binary serialization of the XML infoset would be smaller, and such a thing is certainly within the bound of the w3c spec (remember XML is just an infoset and a serialization, but the two are not inherrantly linked.)
However, the kind of C structure you described is not sufficient to serialize the XML infoset. Specifically: it lacks support for namespaces, child elements and arbitrary atrtibute lists. It's pretty easy to imagine a binary format that does support these, but I doubt it'll be significantly more compact than just gzipping UTF-8.
Slashdot Mirror
nope, ADW is a crime, period. If I light up a cigarette in your presence you can leave, or you can choose not to enter a place that doesn't have no-smoking signs. I fail to see the similarity.
Sure, smoking kills. I know that. Don't go into smokey places. Bitch about smookey places. Go to smoke-free places. Put up 'no smoking' signs outside your place. By all means. But if you're going to tell me that the only reason I can't go to my friend's place and smoke is that he has to grovel to the local government mob (err, liquor licencing board) in order to sell alcohol there and that they've been mandated to not grant him a license if he allows smoking by a bunch of no-good whining fags like yourself who are pissed off that your kinds of places are boring as fuck because nobody wants to go there, then you'd probably be right.
Wow, someone missed out on their humor pills this morning, huh?
"You check your rights at the door." No, you give up no rights when you enter a private establishment. In fact it would be illegal for someone to require you to. However, the owner of said establishment reserves the right to expel you as they wish (although use of force is a crime, often abused and often overlooked).
This situation is different. It does infringe on your rights as a public citizen and goes far beyond expulsion from private property - it involves expulsion from public life: imprisonment.
Oh, so you're ok if you leave your video camer off during the movie? As far s I can tell you're committing a crime by carrying the camera through the doors before the movie even starts.
It should be noted that every name at the top of this bill is a Democrat.
Oh, wait...
Yeah... fuckers.
Who decides this shit?
Who votes for this shit?
Who votes for people that decide this shit?
Who likes to fuck with other people's lives?
Who votes for people that like to fuck with other people's lives?
I don't know about you, but where I come from that's just about as close as you can come to the definition of evil.
Fuck IDE drives, let's hear it for slavery!
The simple extension of this is: everyone is born a criminal and deserves to be locked up. Based on some arbitrary sliding scale, those people who are more criminal than others at any given will actualy be sent to jail.
That's fine. To walk out of theatre with a copy of the therin shown copyrighted media is illegal. Indeed even the act of making acopy of such media is illegal. However, walking into the theatre with a device capable of making such a recording is a completely different thing, and has nothing to do with copyright, it has only to do with civil rights.
I might be being facetious... or not...
- do some daytime shopping. Hey cool, new video camera. Just what I want. Thanks. I'll have it.
- go see the latest film with my friend while I'm here (carrying new video camera still in box, with receipt in plastic bag).
I'm now committing a crime. What the FUCK's up with that??Still, if I leave with a camera fill of copyright protect material then yes, I'm breaking the law. But how many rights do we have to forfeit before the MPAA are happy?
What happens if you got off a train in a city, went to a camera store and bought a camera that you couldn't buy in your upstate store and then went to see a film. Are you guilty of anything? No. This law says that you are. If you recorded the film while you were there and left with the media, then yes, you are guilty of copyright theft, but the law should not suppose criminality on otherwise legal behaviour (by definition).
commutativity (ie A.B = B.A) is not a requirement for groups, but an abelian group is a group whose elements are also commutative over the relation.
The only way to do this effectively would be to put hooks in the media player to divert the original compressed stream over the network and allow the decompression to occur on the screen.
As far as microsoft's implementation of RDP being abysmal, it's pretty much the most efficient of its kind out there. But I guess it's all relative to your expectations, right?
can anyone else shed any light into how far the LOLITA project (under Roberto Garigliano) got at Durham Unversity? Yeah, it's a research project, but last I heard (10 years ago) it was able to parse complete texts (for example, newspaper articles) and answer simple questions based on it. I believe ther was also work underway to make it understand/'speak' chinese/russian. There was also supposed to be some kind of 'script' support which would give it contextual information about certian situations (the common example was what contextual knowlegde do you need to know when you go into a restaurant and how can that knowledge help you understand what is said there).
exports 15-19 are for java support (15 is defined by Sun). and the most important ones, 1-6, are COM support routines for exposing the COM classes defined in teh DLL. Most of the interfaces on these objects are well defined and public and they're exactly the interfaces that are used by programs such as MyIE, explorer and for that matter, any program that embeds mshtml.
The reason that testing this functionality is difficult is not that it's tightly bound to the rest of the OS, it's because they are stateful and necessarily complex. It's simple to write a test case that checks the output of a certain method call given a set of inputs, but in most cases the results depend not only on the inputs, but also on the ordered sequence of inputs to previous calls (possibly coming from different clients running asynchronously). Even in theory it's an intractable problem (equivalent to halting) and in practice the combinatorics prevent any kind of exhaustive testing in all but the simplest of scenarios.
A good reson for having lots of functionality in the base system is that when a technology is ubiquitous it becomes a platform that 3rd party ISVs can extend thereby adding value back to the system. Also, when you're looking at $1/GB it's not really much of a problem for most peoeple. If you the kind of person who worries about having an extra few hundred meg disk space, then you're problably the kind of person that knows how to reclaim it.
There was an effort to write a completely new win32-based replacement for win31, cougar was the codename for the 32-bit DOS kernel, and panther was the win32 core, but panther was canned and cougar was merged into chicago (win95).
However, the kind of C structure you described is not sufficient to serialize the XML infoset. Specifically: it lacks support for namespaces, child elements and arbitrary atrtibute lists. It's pretty easy to imagine a binary format that does support these, but I doubt it'll be significantly more compact than just gzipping UTF-8.
- validating schema
- versioning
- optional attributes
- child elements
- namespaces
to list but a few.This term was popularized in this context by Bill Gates during his "Internet Day" speech on December 7, 1995.