the shorthand is inappropriate in an academic environment as are alot of other slangy things..but outside, they are fine. If it is understood, good. The point of writing is to convey, not to look pretty. So no, older generations won't know the internet slang..but generation now does and now will lead the future, not generation dead. tyvm, have a nice day.
Yeah, and in the process they'll learn a variety of bad habits which will make them poor writers in the future. They'll forget how to use proper punctuation and neglect even basic things like capitalization. Sounds wonderful to me. </sarcasm>
Seriously, how difficult is it to write proper, grammatically correct sentences? And yes, I realize this very sentence is probably full of grammatical errors... at the same time, it's likely head and shoulders above your average IM.
because it was renegotiated to go more to the lower end of the income scale it's essentially $350 million flushed down the giant hole that is our trade deficit.
Yeah, 'cuz giving the money to the massively rich will REALLY stimulate the economy. Really, where the heck do you get this from? The rich don't need more money. They're rich! A tax cut won't stimulate them to spend more money or hire more people! They'll pocket it is pure profit, since your average corporation is focused primarily on the bottom line, to produce the greatest wealth for their stock holders, NOT their employees! All a tax cut for the rich will do is widen the already massive wealth gap which exists in American society.
Now, providing relief for the people who are actually spending money and driving the economy, THAT makes some sort of sense. But shovelling more cash at the top 1% of American society is absolutely senseless.
You're comparing apples and oranges here. Cramming has to do with sleezy telemarketers fast-talking people into "agreeing" to pay them "fees" for their "service". This is FAR different from phone companies screwing their customers with hidden charges, etc, in order to generate additional revenue.
Analog recording/playback is done via a continuous stream of 'data' while digital recording/playback consists of 'bits' of data. During playback, the ear is stressed by the 'break' between each 'bit' in a digitally reproduced recording,
Sorry, but this theory of yours is totally wrong. The whole point of a DA converter is to take a digital signal and convert it into a SMOOTH analog signal. There is no "break", as you describe it, because the DAs whole job is to reproduce a smooth waveform by interpolating between samples to generate the final signal. So, in the end, what you hear is a digitally reproduced "stream of 'data'", as you put it, which attempts to be a very close approximation of the original signal.
Why do people assume it's either one or the other? This is not theory XOR practicality here, folks. What they're doing is combining the two, teaching the theory but placing it in a practical framework so students understand what they're learning AND why. How can this possibly be a bad thing? The way it's done now is like teaching CS without having students write programs, or teaching chemistry without doing lab experiments... it's ridiculous!
Well, this sounds great and all for the production of folks with "practical" knowledge, but I would worry that the theory is taking a back seat. I mean this kinda sounds like the high school electronics courses I took where we would build electronic circuit boards without really knowing the theory.
OR, the point is to teach theory in the context of practical application. You know, kinda like using lab experiments to help teach physics or chemistry. After all, theory is all well and good, but at an introductory level, there's nothing quite like practical application to help demonstrate the theory (not to mention make the course material more interesting so students will be motivated to continue in the program).
Besides, the higher-level courses will still require an understanding of theory, so if there are students who get by at the intro level without this understanding, they'll get weeded out in later years (kinda like the way it works today... usually:).
their recordings sure, but not mine. once a band allows concertgoers to tape the show, the recorded sound is copyright of the recorder not the band making all the ticket revenue.
Sorry, but you're absolutely wrong here. The difference between a band which allows taping and a band which doesn't is in the decision to enforce their copyright, not the ownership of the copyright itself.
Here's an example to illustrate this further. Band A decides they don't like tapers, thus it is illegal to record or distribute recordings of their live performances. This is because they own the copyright on these performances and can enforce these rights (I'm sure we agree here).
Now, Band B says they don't mind tapers. However, Band B still holds the copyright on the performance... they simply choose not to enforce that copyright. An extension of this is Band C... they decide that they like tapers, but they only want the work distributed by certain mechanisms (e.g., no websites). They have every legal right to do this, because they own the copyright to the work and can selectively enforce said copyright as they see fit.
The point is the copyright is on the performance itself, not the recording, and the ownership of that copyright is always in the hands of the artist.
out of the other half of their mouths preach that only the government can be trusted with stewardship of the media.
Umm, that's not what the poster said at all... quit building strawmen. The poster said it's possible for a government-run media outlet to still be an independant, viable news outlet without being biased (and is, arguably, more likely to, since they must try so hard to shirk the stigma of being government owned and operated). They did NOT say that ONLY the government can be trusted to run an unbiased media outlet.
Incidentally, another datapoint which supports this theory (in contrast to your assertion that "Government subsidized means catering to the people who control the purse string in government") is the CBC in Canada. It is, technically, a crown corporation (i.e., government run). However, it also happens to be one of the highest quality news outlets I've come across. Even-handed, unbiased, and generally quite intelligent.
access to the shows has become even easier thanks to an amalgamation between archive.org [archive.org] and etree.org [etree.org], we now have the etree.org audio archive [archive.org].
Actually, regarding DMB, the band has made it policy that traders may no longer post their recordings on websites for mass, anonymous download. The rationale (whether you agree with it or not) is that the trading community is there to connect people... ie, they wish to emphasize the "community" bit. Thus, the arguement continues that these websites break that community down, since there is no longer any person-to-person contact. As a result, websites like archive.org have been asked to take down their DMB collections. Of course, not all websites have complied (e.g., I think antsmarching still has their collection up), but this is now against band policy.
Back to the discussion, I would assume that the policy change would also apply to.torrents, or any other mass-distribution mechanism (although, interestingly, I believe their policy on P2P trading is less restrictive).
Now that would be interesting, round windows. Would be difficult to read text in lol.
Actually, this is no different than XFree86's SHAPE extension which is used by a LOT of applications (mplayer, xine, xmms, many window managers, etc) to create oddly shaped windows.
I don't understand what the rest of the world fears from this
In a word, destabilization. Prior to this change in US policy, the world, while not a pretty place, was at least somewhat stable. Now, actions by the US (deposing regimes they don't like, developing a North American missile defense system, etc) are severly changing the balance of power... worse yet, I get the distinct impression that the US administration doesn't understand HOW they're changing the balance of power. As a result, we may be entering a new age of international chaos the likes of which we haven't seen since the cold war, and I, for one, am frightened by this development.
more closely resembles circuit switching (in the good ways) than any kind of IP connection.
You haven't heard of MPLS I take it? It's pretty cool technology. Basically, if you set up an IP cloud with MPLS-aware routers, then you can use this network for standard packet-switched communication, or you can establish (in real-time) "virtual circuits" through the network for high speed, low-latency communication. Thus, you get the best of both the packet switch and circuit switched worlds.
I won't bother debunking your assumption that telcos aren't using IP for their backhaul network, since there are enough comments in this forum to disprove that erroneous assumption.
I presume the insertion of "IP" in the title of this article was a mistake or assumption made by a naeive author? You don't use IP to carry telephone calls on a phone network. Ever.
Umm... no. Many telephone companies are moving AWAY from circuit switched networks to packet switched ones (whether that be IP or some other protocol). Why? First, it's cheaper (you can use more commodity hardware, especially if you're using IP). Second, it can be more efficient, since traffic can be re-routed to make better use of your network resources (ie, real-time QoS and traffic engineering). Third, a packet-switched network can be more reliable, since there are no single points of failure... if a node goes down, just route around it (which also means less need for incredibly expensive, massively redundant network nodes). Fourth, since data (as opposed to voice) is becoming more and more important, a packet switched network makes it FAR easier to move data AND voice through the same backhaul network. Fifth, if there really are scenarious where you want a "circuit-switched-style" transport (for whatever reason... perhaps to provide a guaranteed pipe for, say, telesurgery), you can achieve this using things like MPLS, meaning you can get the best of both worlds.
Yeah but publishing linux for years even after this lawsuit constitutes as authorization for it doesn't it?
No, it doesn't. If SCO didn't explicitely choose to include the code in Linux (it really is stolen, as they claim), then SCO also didn't explicitely choose to license the code under the GPL. And if that's the case, then the GPL doesn't apply to their code, and it reverts to the standard Berne Convention rules.
Actually, I believe the point of this argument is that, because SCO itself didn't choose to license the "unmentioned code" under the GPL (as they are the copyright holder), then the GPL does not apply, as per a couple clauses in the GPL itself.
Nope, their claim is this: We are the copyright holders of the pirated code. The code was stolen without our knowledge and placed in the Linux kernel. Therefore, the attempt to license said code under the GPL was done without our permission. Thus, since they did not have the authority to place our code under the GPL, the license does not apply (as per a clause in the GPL itself).
Slashdot Mirror
Never with any form of recognizable handwriting. :)
the shorthand is inappropriate in an academic environment as are alot of other slangy things..but outside, they are fine. If it is understood, good. The point of writing is to convey, not to look pretty. So no, older generations won't know the internet slang..but generation now does and now will lead the future, not generation dead. tyvm, have a nice day.
Yeah, and in the process they'll learn a variety of bad habits which will make them poor writers in the future. They'll forget how to use proper punctuation and neglect even basic things like capitalization. Sounds wonderful to me. </sarcasm>
Seriously, how difficult is it to write proper, grammatically correct sentences? And yes, I realize this very sentence is probably full of grammatical errors... at the same time, it's likely head and shoulders above your average IM.
because it was renegotiated to go more to the lower end of the income scale it's essentially $350 million flushed down the giant hole that is our trade deficit.
Yeah, 'cuz giving the money to the massively rich will REALLY stimulate the economy. Really, where the heck do you get this from? The rich don't need more money. They're rich! A tax cut won't stimulate them to spend more money or hire more people! They'll pocket it is pure profit, since your average corporation is focused primarily on the bottom line, to produce the greatest wealth for their stock holders, NOT their employees! All a tax cut for the rich will do is widen the already massive wealth gap which exists in American society.
Now, providing relief for the people who are actually spending money and driving the economy, THAT makes some sort of sense. But shovelling more cash at the top 1% of American society is absolutely senseless.
Anyway, with the the money (my own money) that I get to keep, I will be buying things and stimulating the economy.
Well it sure seems to be working so fa... no, wait, the American economy is in a massive slump the likes of which we haven't seen the the 70's.
You're comparing apples and oranges here. Cramming has to do with sleezy telemarketers fast-talking people into "agreeing" to pay them "fees" for their "service". This is FAR different from phone companies screwing their customers with hidden charges, etc, in order to generate additional revenue.
Queue rabid righties who whine about their rights being violated in order to prop up the poor who should be able to help themselves, the lazy slobs.
Please, note, this is NOT a backlight! I repeat, NOT a backlight! The GBA SP has a FRONT light, just like the Afterburner.
Analog recording/playback is done via a continuous stream of 'data' while digital recording/playback consists of 'bits' of data. During playback, the ear is stressed by the 'break' between each 'bit' in a digitally reproduced recording,
Sorry, but this theory of yours is totally wrong. The whole point of a DA converter is to take a digital signal and convert it into a SMOOTH analog signal. There is no "break", as you describe it, because the DAs whole job is to reproduce a smooth waveform by interpolating between samples to generate the final signal. So, in the end, what you hear is a digitally reproduced "stream of 'data'", as you put it, which attempts to be a very close approximation of the original signal.
Why do people assume it's either one or the other? This is not theory XOR practicality here, folks. What they're doing is combining the two, teaching the theory but placing it in a practical framework so students understand what they're learning AND why. How can this possibly be a bad thing? The way it's done now is like teaching CS without having students write programs, or teaching chemistry without doing lab experiments... it's ridiculous!
Well, this sounds great and all for the production of folks with "practical" knowledge, but I would worry that the theory is taking a back seat. I mean this kinda sounds like the high school electronics courses I took where we would build electronic circuit boards without really knowing the theory.
:).
OR, the point is to teach theory in the context of practical application. You know, kinda like using lab experiments to help teach physics or chemistry. After all, theory is all well and good, but at an introductory level, there's nothing quite like practical application to help demonstrate the theory (not to mention make the course material more interesting so students will be motivated to continue in the program).
Besides, the higher-level courses will still require an understanding of theory, so if there are students who get by at the intro level without this understanding, they'll get weeded out in later years (kinda like the way it works today... usually
their recordings sure, but not mine. once a band allows concertgoers to tape the show, the recorded sound is copyright of the recorder not the band making all the ticket revenue.
Sorry, but you're absolutely wrong here. The difference between a band which allows taping and a band which doesn't is in the decision to enforce their copyright, not the ownership of the copyright itself.
Here's an example to illustrate this further. Band A decides they don't like tapers, thus it is illegal to record or distribute recordings of their live performances. This is because they own the copyright on these performances and can enforce these rights (I'm sure we agree here).
Now, Band B says they don't mind tapers. However, Band B still holds the copyright on the performance... they simply choose not to enforce that copyright. An extension of this is Band C... they decide that they like tapers, but they only want the work distributed by certain mechanisms (e.g., no websites). They have every legal right to do this, because they own the copyright to the work and can selectively enforce said copyright as they see fit.
The point is the copyright is on the performance itself, not the recording, and the ownership of that copyright is always in the hands of the artist.
and it's not censorship if the government isn't doing it.
I really hope this was sarcastic... you can't be so foolish as to actually believe this, right?
out of the other half of their mouths preach that only the government can be trusted with stewardship of the media.
Umm, that's not what the poster said at all... quit building strawmen. The poster said it's possible for a government-run media outlet to still be an independant, viable news outlet without being biased (and is, arguably, more likely to, since they must try so hard to shirk the stigma of being government owned and operated). They did NOT say that ONLY the government can be trusted to run an unbiased media outlet.
Incidentally, another datapoint which supports this theory (in contrast to your assertion that "Government subsidized means catering to the people who control the purse string in government") is the CBC in Canada. It is, technically, a crown corporation (i.e., government run). However, it also happens to be one of the highest quality news outlets I've come across. Even-handed, unbiased, and generally quite intelligent.
access to the shows has become even easier thanks to an amalgamation between archive.org [archive.org] and etree.org [etree.org], we now have the etree.org audio archive [archive.org].
.torrents, or any other mass-distribution mechanism (although, interestingly, I believe their policy on P2P trading is less restrictive).
Actually, regarding DMB, the band has made it policy that traders may no longer post their recordings on websites for mass, anonymous download. The rationale (whether you agree with it or not) is that the trading community is there to connect people... ie, they wish to emphasize the "community" bit. Thus, the arguement continues that these websites break that community down, since there is no longer any person-to-person contact. As a result, websites like archive.org have been asked to take down their DMB collections. Of course, not all websites have complied (e.g., I think antsmarching still has their collection up), but this is now against band policy.
Back to the discussion, I would assume that the policy change would also apply to
Now that would be interesting, round windows. Would be difficult to read text in lol.
Actually, this is no different than XFree86's SHAPE extension which is used by a LOT of applications (mplayer, xine, xmms, many window managers, etc) to create oddly shaped windows.
Create VPN with freeswan or ppp over ssh, mount remote host from VPN.
Yes, but:
1) This is FAR more difficult than just inserting a kernel module and calling "mount" with the appropriate parameters.
2) It's a total overkill if all you want to do is mount a remote filesystem securely, or through a strict firewall.
it's not illegal [legal-rights.org]
Actually, your information is out of date. Some time ago, the supremes ruled that it was, in fact, illegal for people to "steal" DirectTV...
Well, this is Bush... ;)
I don't understand what the rest of the world fears from this
In a word, destabilization. Prior to this change in US policy, the world, while not a pretty place, was at least somewhat stable. Now, actions by the US (deposing regimes they don't like, developing a North American missile defense system, etc) are severly changing the balance of power... worse yet, I get the distinct impression that the US administration doesn't understand HOW they're changing the balance of power. As a result, we may be entering a new age of international chaos the likes of which we haven't seen since the cold war, and I, for one, am frightened by this development.
more closely resembles circuit switching (in the good ways) than any kind of IP connection.
You haven't heard of MPLS I take it? It's pretty cool technology. Basically, if you set up an IP cloud with MPLS-aware routers, then you can use this network for standard packet-switched communication, or you can establish (in real-time) "virtual circuits" through the network for high speed, low-latency communication. Thus, you get the best of both the packet switch and circuit switched worlds.
I won't bother debunking your assumption that telcos aren't using IP for their backhaul network, since there are enough comments in this forum to disprove that erroneous assumption.
I presume the insertion of "IP" in the title of this article was a mistake or assumption made by a naeive author? You don't use IP to carry telephone calls on a phone network. Ever.
Umm... no. Many telephone companies are moving AWAY from circuit switched networks to packet switched ones (whether that be IP or some other protocol). Why? First, it's cheaper (you can use more commodity hardware, especially if you're using IP). Second, it can be more efficient, since traffic can be re-routed to make better use of your network resources (ie, real-time QoS and traffic engineering). Third, a packet-switched network can be more reliable, since there are no single points of failure... if a node goes down, just route around it (which also means less need for incredibly expensive, massively redundant network nodes). Fourth, since data (as opposed to voice) is becoming more and more important, a packet switched network makes it FAR easier to move data AND voice through the same backhaul network. Fifth, if there really are scenarious where you want a "circuit-switched-style" transport (for whatever reason... perhaps to provide a guaranteed pipe for, say, telesurgery), you can achieve this using things like MPLS, meaning you can get the best of both worlds.
You must be, what, twelve or something?
Yeah but publishing linux for years even after this lawsuit constitutes as authorization for it doesn't it?
No, it doesn't. If SCO didn't explicitely choose to include the code in Linux (it really is stolen, as they claim), then SCO also didn't explicitely choose to license the code under the GPL. And if that's the case, then the GPL doesn't apply to their code, and it reverts to the standard Berne Convention rules.
Actually, I believe the point of this argument is that, because SCO itself didn't choose to license the "unmentioned code" under the GPL (as they are the copyright holder), then the GPL does not apply, as per a couple clauses in the GPL itself.
Nope, their claim is this: We are the copyright holders of the pirated code. The code was stolen without our knowledge and placed in the Linux kernel. Therefore, the attempt to license said code under the GPL was done without our permission. Thus, since they did not have the authority to place our code under the GPL, the license does not apply (as per a clause in the GPL itself).