those damn krauts deserve to be hit by an earthquake tsunami for nuking pearl harbor
No significant number of living Japanese had a thing to do with nuking pearl harbor.
The Japanese don't "deserve" any earthquake or tsunami.
The US did a hell of a lot more damage to Japan than Japan did to the US.
Hell; the US evaporated the prefectures of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with real nukes.
You don't have infinite resolution in any analog medium... it's just a different limit. In digital, you think of resolution in terms of bitrate, sampling rate and resolution, etc. In analog, the limits are bandwidth and noise floor.
Eh? bandwidth and noise floor are not unique to analog; just because you passed the signal through an AD/DA converter
to sample the analog waveform, does not mean there is suddenly no longer a bandwidth limit or noise floor for the digital
signals; the digital signals do not have an advantage in this regard.
The straight analog signal has an inifinite "resolution" or "sampling" rate, because it has not been sampled.
That doesn't mean the "quality" is infinite, but that is a characteristic of the quality.
The AD/DA process of converting the analog signal to a digital one limits the resolution of the signal and introduces noise,
aliasing/harmonic distortion, and clipping, due to the conversion process -- and there not being enough sampled
bits to quantize the full dynamic range, and yet more noise will be introduced when converting from digital back to analog.
Noise that results in degradation that is more perceptible to the human ear.
The fact the signal had to be converted to digital at all, was itself a step that reduced quality.
Bandwidth of the digitally sampled signal is limited by the frequency that you sample;
and the the number of bits per sample.
The Frequency response of LPs is more reliable, and has important influences on how pleasing the sound is to a human.
As long as the steps to put the analog media on LP don't introduce too much more problematic noise than the steps
to put the digital media on a CD, the LP will sound better.
A slightly lower noise floor alone does not allow CDs to win any competition.
CD sound is compressed and leaves out "unneeded" bits of audio because it had to be processed by very early and cheap computers. You might as well say MP3 quality. Lossless copies of a lossy media are NOT the holy grail of HiFi.
No. That is incorrect. CD sound is uncompressed PCM; no bits are "discarded" except signal bits that were never sampled in the first place, due to the finite sampling rate, OR bits that were aliased due to distortion; all conversions to digital from analog require sampling. A frequency called the Nyquist frequency is defined to be half the sampling frequency of the digitally processed signal. It can be mathematically proven that aliasing can be avoided if the Nyquist frequency is greater than the maximum component frequency of the signal being sampled..
CD audio 16-bit 44.1kHz; which should be lossless up to the Nyquist frequency of 22.05kHz -- for most humans, the audible frequency
range is 0 to 20 kHz, so the only audible difference should be the possibility of certain audio artifacts; not due to any 'compression' or 'removal' of information.
CD audio is not as good as the best possible DVD audio (24-bit 182 kHz)
CD audio is also not as good as LP audio; where the LP playback is done with a high quality pickup cartridge, and the playback is pristine (no record scratches, dust, vibration, hum, incorrect turntable setup, etc).
"We have plenty of HDD space and broadband internet. Why don't we demand full CD quality audio in an accessible format from online music stores?
I can tell the difference between CDs and records; the CDs have distortion.
I don't want crappy 48khz 16-bit CD quality audio.
I want 96khz 24-bit digital audio (or better).
Storage is cheap now. I don't understand why we are going backwards, and why the manufacturers have trouble getting back to or acknowledging that CD quality just isn't good enough. And lossy compressed audio is grossly unacceptable.
The GPLv3 states that. GPLv2 only states that you make the source code available.
FALSE
The GPLv2 states very clearly:
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
The GPL v2 already prohibits adding restrictions. The GPL v3 merely elaborates and explicitly identifies DRM and crypto techniques as introducing restrictions that are prohibited by the GPL, for purposes of clarification; they are not mentioned specifically by the GPL v2, but that does not mean it is allowed to impose additional restrictions when distributing GPL v2 licensed software.
It's called TiVoization after TiVo, Inc., did that by releasing full source code to the LInux they run, but you cannot run anything you built from that code on an unmodified TiVo.
What TiVo did would be a GPL violation in regards to the Linux kernel, had they not been very clever and implemented all their software and custom filesystem in user space.
Even if the Linux kernel had been released under the GPLv3, they could still accomplish TiVoization without a GPL violation.
Modified GPL kernels don't get you very far, when all the system drivers, filesystems, hardware I/O devices are controlled in user space.
I'm trying to see how Apple could relax those restrictions without iOS being slammed with malware. If anyone other than Apple can sign an app for general use, iOS will be slammed. If you can sign an app for only your account, it's hardly better than the current situation.
They need to allow a way to load an App with no signing at all; to avoid the GPLv3 requirement that secret keys be published.
They can print all the warnings they want to dissuade non-technical users from using the facility to install malicious software on the phone.
They can bury the option and require typing something or popping the cover off the phone and flipping a switch.
My point is... they can satisfy the GPL requirements and allow users to tinker: all without risking that a clueless user will naively activate 'unsigned code installation' and shoot themself in the foot, with the tinkerers' GPL-compliance backdoor.
So, anyone can sign up to be an iOS developer [apple.com] for $99 a year, and then test their modified version [apple.com] to their heart's content.
If Apple modified maters so anyone could be an iOS developer without paying extra to Apple, without contacting Apple,
without signing up or executing another agreement with Apple, then the software could be GPL compliant.
The GPL does not allow additional restrictions to be added to compliant software (for example, a requirement that you contact the software author and ask for permission before you can modify and load modified code, would make the software GPL-incompatible).
the incompatibility between the App Store's (and Windows Marketplace's) terms of service on one hand and GPLv2 on the other is a problem in need of a fix.'"
No, the app store model does not need a fix, because it's not inherently incompatible. Source code can still be provided, with download instructions.
What's in need of a fix are the fact that phones are locked down to prevent the user from modifying and installing any application they want, without crypto signing and the manufacturer's approval.
App store providers can fix it if they insert a clause in their license terms requiring the user be allowed to modify, compile, and install any application they want
on their own, without requiring any crypto signatures.
Without the "cannot install your own app restrictions"; the app store is just a convenient installation program.
Many GPL software applications use proprietary installers, such as InstallShield or MSI based installers, without source code provided to the installer;
without GPL-violating DRM on the phone, the app store is just a fancy installer program that can install files directly from an URL or remote location.
The are displaying the content on older browsers, but hide it on newer ones./em>
Hm... so why does Google put up with this?
I know many of their employees would be technical people who would be using their own search engine to look up the type of things Experts-Exchange has high-ranked search results about...
It's not like Google could exactly claim ignorance about it the abuse.
Is it possible they are business partners with Google?
Few employers are going to let you come in late to avoid having your circadian rhythm disrupted.
If you can prove you have this problem... for example, you can prove you will have a heart attack if you have to come in an hour earlier, then by law (the ADA) the employer would have no choice, they have to make reasonable accomadations.
The problem is... well.. how are you going to prove it?
A healthy person won't have a heart attack because they had to get up an hour earlier.
And in the wild.... predators/violent animals/other threats won't respect your circadium rythm.
On the plus side.... the medication is cheap.
Just buy enough crates of bananas from various sources; you're almost certain to get a few of the spiders.
Once you've got a few... treat your spiders well, and they'll last a lifetime, especially if you breed them, they'll probably live longer than you will, no more $20 per dose.
Seems like it should be really easy to write a lynx/wget script to get the answer to any arbitrary question.
Or write a piece of software/greasemonkey snippet to do it. While stripping out their advertising.
As I understand it, they use your user agent to determine whether you are a search engine or not. If you are a search engine, they give you all the answers (this is probably how they get so high in search rankings).. otherwise.. you get the "pay here" page. Essentially your user agent is weird enough that it thinks you are a search engine and is giving you your answers.
That would be a violation of Google's rule against cloaking.
Google Quality guidelines - basic principles
Make pages primarily for users, not for search engines. Don't deceive your users or present different content to search engines than you display to users, which is commonly referred to as "cloaking."
Why is it everyone has to be a sarcastic prick just because they can't see the bigger picture - or too lazy to think "into" the statement rather than demand extremely verbose and tedious language which is usually not required in the least.
Isn't it obvious? Clearly there was a selection bias in the form of females/males preferring partners who were "sarcastic pricks"
On a Boeing Business Jet fitted with in-flight connectivity, for instance, there is a note in the log book that says Phase 3 DUs are not to be installed, but that "version 4 is fine and version 2 is fine", says a source.
Wi-Fi is probably one of MANY things that can interfere with flawwed, improperly shielded electronics.
But Myhrvold and his co-authors insist that the majority of recipes can be made in a conventional home kitchen — with a few recommended, inexpensive extras such as a digital gram scale and water bath for sous vide cooking."
Why the heck is he talking about 'inexpensive extras' after having spent the price of a small car to buy this cookbook?
I guess the idea is after you buy the book, you have no money left.
I don't think this cookbook is exactly the sort of thing you'll be able to check out of the local library, at least not without deposit or first born as collataral.
If the US government continues its trend of get further and further into debt,
monetize that debt, and print more money, 31337 Zimbabwean dollars will be worth more than $31337 USDs before too long.
Isn't first to file REALLY bad? It helps patent trolls doesn't it?
Yes... and perhaps unconstitutional?
The constitution grants congress the power to secure their respective exclusive
rights to authors/inventors of their inventions/discoveries.
The constitution doesn't say anything about giving ANY special rights to anyone on the basis of being the first to send a piece of paper
to a patent office, particularly if the submitter was not the first to "invent" the thing,
or the submitter had just prepared a paper based on someone else's prior invention...
You flag the app, and Google will remove the apps from the android market. Why are Google to blame here? iOS has violations too.
You mean the iOS platform has apps available for it that are allegedly are copyright infringements.
To say "iOS has violations" is confusing. I don't think you can really say the iOS itself does not infringe upon a GPL, but
the link certainly contains nothing to indicate iOS itself would.
then they are most definitely on the hook. The GPL, amongst others, explicitly calls out distributors of software.
Google is not distributing the software, they are merely providing the Marketplace application infrastructure and server storage space used by the distributor of the software to sell and deploy.
Google's entitled to rely on the representation by the developer that the software they upload is legal for the developer to distribute, until Google is informed to the contrary. The DMCA safe harbour says so.
Slashdot Mirror
moving the entire island away from the fault lines
Sounds great, please get right on it :-)
those damn krauts deserve to be hit by an earthquake tsunami for nuking pearl harbor
No significant number of living Japanese had a thing to do with nuking pearl harbor. The Japanese don't "deserve" any earthquake or tsunami.
The US did a hell of a lot more damage to Japan than Japan did to the US. Hell; the US evaporated the prefectures of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with real nukes.
The Japanese did not evaporate any US cities.
You don't have infinite resolution in any analog medium... it's just a different limit. In digital, you think of resolution in terms of bitrate, sampling rate and resolution, etc. In analog, the limits are bandwidth and noise floor.
Eh? bandwidth and noise floor are not unique to analog; just because you passed the signal through an AD/DA converter to sample the analog waveform, does not mean there is suddenly no longer a bandwidth limit or noise floor for the digital signals; the digital signals do not have an advantage in this regard.
The straight analog signal has an inifinite "resolution" or "sampling" rate, because it has not been sampled. That doesn't mean the "quality" is infinite, but that is a characteristic of the quality.
The AD/DA process of converting the analog signal to a digital one limits the resolution of the signal and introduces noise, aliasing/harmonic distortion, and clipping, due to the conversion process -- and there not being enough sampled bits to quantize the full dynamic range, and yet more noise will be introduced when converting from digital back to analog.
Noise that results in degradation that is more perceptible to the human ear.
The fact the signal had to be converted to digital at all, was itself a step that reduced quality.
Bandwidth of the digitally sampled signal is limited by the frequency that you sample; and the the number of bits per sample. The Frequency response of LPs is more reliable, and has important influences on how pleasing the sound is to a human.
As long as the steps to put the analog media on LP don't introduce too much more problematic noise than the steps to put the digital media on a CD, the LP will sound better.
A slightly lower noise floor alone does not allow CDs to win any competition.
CD sound is compressed and leaves out "unneeded" bits of audio because it had to be processed by very early and cheap computers. You might as well say MP3 quality. Lossless copies of a lossy media are NOT the holy grail of HiFi.
No. That is incorrect. CD sound is uncompressed PCM; no bits are "discarded" except signal bits that were never sampled in the first place, due to the finite sampling rate, OR bits that were aliased due to distortion; all conversions to digital from analog require sampling. A frequency called the Nyquist frequency is defined to be half the sampling frequency of the digitally processed signal. It can be mathematically proven that aliasing can be avoided if the Nyquist frequency is greater than the maximum component frequency of the signal being sampled..
CD audio 16-bit 44.1kHz; which should be lossless up to the Nyquist frequency of 22.05kHz -- for most humans, the audible frequency range is 0 to 20 kHz, so the only audible difference should be the possibility of certain audio artifacts; not due to any 'compression' or 'removal' of information.
CD audio is not as good as the best possible DVD audio (24-bit 182 kHz)
CD audio is also not as good as LP audio; where the LP playback is done with a high quality pickup cartridge, and the playback is pristine (no record scratches, dust, vibration, hum, incorrect turntable setup, etc).
"We have plenty of HDD space and broadband internet. Why don't we demand full CD quality audio in an accessible format from online music stores?
I can tell the difference between CDs and records; the CDs have distortion. I don't want crappy 48khz 16-bit CD quality audio.
I want 96khz 24-bit digital audio (or better).
Storage is cheap now. I don't understand why we are going backwards, and why the manufacturers have trouble getting back to or acknowledging that CD quality just isn't good enough. And lossy compressed audio is grossly unacceptable.
The GPLv3 states that. GPLv2 only states that you make the source code available.
FALSE
The GPLv2 states very clearly:
The GPL v2 already prohibits adding restrictions. The GPL v3 merely elaborates and explicitly identifies DRM and crypto techniques as introducing restrictions that are prohibited by the GPL, for purposes of clarification; they are not mentioned specifically by the GPL v2, but that does not mean it is allowed to impose additional restrictions when distributing GPL v2 licensed software.
It's called TiVoization after TiVo, Inc., did that by releasing full source code to the LInux they run, but you cannot run anything you built from that code on an unmodified TiVo.
What TiVo did would be a GPL violation in regards to the Linux kernel, had they not been very clever and implemented all their software and custom filesystem in user space.
Even if the Linux kernel had been released under the GPLv3, they could still accomplish TiVoization without a GPL violation. Modified GPL kernels don't get you very far, when all the system drivers, filesystems, hardware I/O devices are controlled in user space.
I'm trying to see how Apple could relax those restrictions without iOS being slammed with malware. If anyone other than Apple can sign an app for general use, iOS will be slammed. If you can sign an app for only your account, it's hardly better than the current situation.
They need to allow a way to load an App with no signing at all; to avoid the GPLv3 requirement that secret keys be published.
They can print all the warnings they want to dissuade non-technical users from using the facility to install malicious software on the phone.
They can bury the option and require typing something or popping the cover off the phone and flipping a switch.
My point is... they can satisfy the GPL requirements and allow users to tinker: all without risking that a clueless user will naively activate 'unsigned code installation' and shoot themself in the foot, with the tinkerers' GPL-compliance backdoor.
So, anyone can sign up to be an iOS developer [apple.com] for $99 a year, and then test their modified version [apple.com] to their heart's content.
If Apple modified maters so anyone could be an iOS developer without paying extra to Apple, without contacting Apple, without signing up or executing another agreement with Apple, then the software could be GPL compliant.
The GPL does not allow additional restrictions to be added to compliant software (for example, a requirement that you contact the software author and ask for permission before you can modify and load modified code, would make the software GPL-incompatible).
the incompatibility between the App Store's (and Windows Marketplace's) terms of service on one hand and GPLv2 on the other is a problem in need of a fix.'"
No, the app store model does not need a fix, because it's not inherently incompatible. Source code can still be provided, with download instructions.
What's in need of a fix are the fact that phones are locked down to prevent the user from modifying and installing any application they want, without crypto signing and the manufacturer's approval.
App store providers can fix it if they insert a clause in their license terms requiring the user be allowed to modify, compile, and install any application they want on their own, without requiring any crypto signatures.
Without the "cannot install your own app restrictions"; the app store is just a convenient installation program. Many GPL software applications use proprietary installers, such as InstallShield or MSI based installers, without source code provided to the installer; without GPL-violating DRM on the phone, the app store is just a fancy installer program that can install files directly from an URL or remote location.
The are displaying the content on older browsers, but hide it on newer ones./em>
Hm... so why does Google put up with this?
I know many of their employees would be technical people who would be using their own search engine to look up the type of things Experts-Exchange has high-ranked search results about...
It's not like Google could exactly claim ignorance about it the abuse. Is it possible they are business partners with Google?
I agree about DST, though I don't see the point in being a half-hour out of synch with GMT. It just makes the mental math harder.
So adjust GMT as well, by having 30 leap-minutes one year.
Few employers are going to let you come in late to avoid having your circadian rhythm disrupted.
If you can prove you have this problem... for example, you can prove you will have a heart attack if you have to come in an hour earlier, then by law (the ADA) the employer would have no choice, they have to make reasonable accomadations.
The problem is... well.. how are you going to prove it?
A healthy person won't have a heart attack because they had to get up an hour earlier. And in the wild.... predators/violent animals/other threats won't respect your circadium rythm.
Cart before the horse.... so what, we can detect and make some guesses about Tsunami propagating.
This is like saying we can predict the propagation of radiation fallout.
What about the 500 pound gorilla in the room? Earthquakes?
A lot of good Tsunami modelling did for the folks living near the coast of Japan
On the plus side.... the medication is cheap. Just buy enough crates of bananas from various sources; you're almost certain to get a few of the spiders.
Once you've got a few... treat your spiders well, and they'll last a lifetime, especially if you breed them, they'll probably live longer than you will, no more $20 per dose.
Sure, but doesn't mean they don't do it!
Seems like it should be really easy to write a lynx/wget script to get the answer to any arbitrary question. Or write a piece of software/greasemonkey snippet to do it. While stripping out their advertising.
As I understand it, they use your user agent to determine whether you are a search engine or not. If you are a search engine, they give you all the answers (this is probably how they get so high in search rankings).. otherwise.. you get the "pay here" page. Essentially your user agent is weird enough that it thinks you are a search engine and is giving you your answers.
That would be a violation of Google's rule against cloaking.
Real men don't need anything north of 30 MHz! That's where you find the radios made of iron and glowing tubes!
But do they run Linux?
God wanted the male to not have any spines, because they were an evil mark of the beast, so he caused a mutation to occur.
Then put the man and wife on an ark with a bunch of animals, and flooded out the rest of the human species that had the sinful spines.
The potential explanations are infinite.
Why is it everyone has to be a sarcastic prick just because they can't see the bigger picture - or too lazy to think "into" the statement rather than demand extremely verbose and tedious language which is usually not required in the least.
Isn't it obvious? Clearly there was a selection bias in the form of females/males preferring partners who were "sarcastic pricks"
Obviously. The Phase 3 DUs are flawwed.
Wi-Fi is probably one of MANY things that can interfere with flawwed, improperly shielded electronics.
But Myhrvold and his co-authors insist that the majority of recipes can be made in a conventional home kitchen — with a few recommended, inexpensive extras such as a digital gram scale and water bath for sous vide cooking."
Why the heck is he talking about 'inexpensive extras' after having spent the price of a small car to buy this cookbook?
I guess the idea is after you buy the book, you have no money left.
I don't think this cookbook is exactly the sort of thing you'll be able to check out of the local library, at least not without deposit or first born as collataral.
Zimbabwean dollars ok?
If the US government continues its trend of get further and further into debt, monetize that debt, and print more money, 31337 Zimbabwean dollars will be worth more than $31337 USDs before too long.
Isn't first to file REALLY bad? It helps patent trolls doesn't it?
Yes... and perhaps unconstitutional?
The constitution grants congress the power to secure their respective exclusive rights to authors/inventors of their inventions/discoveries.
The constitution doesn't say anything about giving ANY special rights to anyone on the basis of being the first to send a piece of paper to a patent office, particularly if the submitter was not the first to "invent" the thing, or the submitter had just prepared a paper based on someone else's prior invention...
You flag the app, and Google will remove the apps from the android market. Why are Google to blame here? iOS has violations too.
You mean the iOS platform has apps available for it that are allegedly are copyright infringements.
To say "iOS has violations" is confusing. I don't think you can really say the iOS itself does not infringe upon a GPL, but the link certainly contains nothing to indicate iOS itself would.
then they are most definitely on the hook. The GPL, amongst others, explicitly calls out distributors of software.
Google is not distributing the software, they are merely providing the Marketplace application infrastructure and server storage space used by the distributor of the software to sell and deploy.
Google's entitled to rely on the representation by the developer that the software they upload is legal for the developer to distribute, until Google is informed to the contrary. The DMCA safe harbour says so.