I guess you should take it as a compliment then, I took them seriously otherwise. I wouldn't discount the ideas too much, some might be feasible in a limited sense in the not too distant future.
They put a public link on a public site and agreed to pay money when members of the public click on the public link on the public site. Clicking on the links manually each day is definitely legal. Writing a bot to click them 10,000,000 times a day probably is not legal, only because that may actually degrade their site in a computer related way, which is illegal.
I'd think it would have to hamper the service in a malicious and technical way to qualify as a DoS attack. Just making the spammers go broke cannot be called a DoS attack, they agreed contractually to pay those sums to the search engine.
The point is that you can send the video without sending the application that generated it.
You could still do that, I believe the original poster was saying you could capture the instructions to the card rather than the output from the card. It's still a capture, but it's a little more hardware dependent. Of course hardware implementations of DirectX and OpenGL help a lot there.
Are there any "metamovie" file formats out there that can do this?
rather they have to wait for you to contact them at your convienence.
Heh, that is a really interesting flip-flop from the way it used to be. Maybe just being able to be different is the real status symbol. Being strong enough not to do something just because everyone else is, maybe that is the base of it all.
Yeah, that is a little more questionable when you start talking about opportunity cost, but when you get down to the basics, there are a lot of useless pursuits that waste resources but make people happy in some way.
Car audio springs to mind. Think of all the gasoline wasted by burning an extra 500 watts all the time. Unless you are going to go facist on people and tell them they can't waste their time and money with things that don't really benefit society, then you really can't say much about something like this.
Well, I guess this falls into one of those, "I couldn't hurt anything, and if they enjoy doing it, then so what?"
Who knows, maybe someone will think of an application for it. Base two wasn't particularly relevant before binary computers came about, stuff like that.
This little naming issue gets worse as sizes get bigger too. I built several multiterabyte RAIDs and it really becomes apparent then. 1TB in hard disks are really only 931 GiB. Each order of magnitude higher we go, the bigger the error gets.
Several hundred books and short stories out of the millions of things copyrighted in the last century? I wouldn't call that very rich. A copyright should not equal a lifetime meal ticket, that does no motivate creation of new works, that motivates lawyers and lawsuits.
It is slower on certain tests, but more importantly, it is slower per Mhz than the P3, the P3 gets you more bang for each cycle in almost all applications. It's like Intel coming out with the Pentium 60, and then later on coming out with a 133 Mhz 486 and calling it the Pentium II, as far as net effects go.
Indeed. I'm currently waiting for the suit against the major hard disk manufacturers for collusion. It is apparent that the market is no longer driving the choices in hard disks, or we would see a 10k ATA drive, and much cheaper SCSI drives.
So give people 5 or 10 years protection on fonts. The current laws are unreasonable. The lack of a rich public domain is evidence of the laws not accomplishing their original intent.
What IRC network doens't imagine themselves becoming the central hub of all other IRC networks?
This sounds like wishful thinking. It sounds like lilo would love to make this his full time job and is pissed he might have to actually go do real work.
Yes, I sort of addressed that by saying that the book does not only deny speciation, but all of evolution, which is a much larger claim. It is a lot easier to argue that natural speciation has not occured, but there is mounting evidence of observed speciation.
If you gave specific examples of erroneous data or conclusions, I'd be interested
The whole book is erroneous. It's blantly obvious that evolution happens, no intelligent creationist denies that. To deny that evoultion exists is to deny that the last two thousand years of selective breeding in agriculture and livestock had any effect at all, which is obviously irrational.
They don't argue that spontaneous speciation doesn't happen, they deny evolution in general.
To satisy your Christian mind, however, I will quote parts of the book and make my arguement more specific.
The book is "Earth Science for Christian Schools"
The theme basically is to discredit science. It was written in 1979.
Quotes
"Erosion is wearing away the continents -- an example of degeneration in nature"
"Even the most powerful electron microscope are unable to let us see the inside of an atom. What scientist would pass up an opportunity to look inside a neutron or electron? However there is presently no way to see these things, and many doubt there ever will be"
"Through a rapid series of miracles, God created a mature, fully-functioning earth ready for man's use."
"The probability that the world happened by chance is less than the probability of Webster's Unabridged Dictionary forming from an explosion of a print shop"
"Evolution did not develop from modern science. Evolutionary philosophy can be traced back to the Greeks of the Sixth Century"
"Comets break up to form meteors, an example of degeneration in nature"
"A store that loses money to some of it's customers and breaks even on the rest can never nake a profit. Similarly natural processes of conservation and degeneration cannot combine to produce an improvement"
The next interesting section is on Geology.
They basically attempt to assert that the Creation, the Curse, and the Flood happened, and provide "evidence" as such. They point to the existance of "Fossil Graveyards" as proof of the Flood. They also attempt to discredit all methods of dating ancient materials. They admit their science isn't science with one like that sums up the whole book:
"The Bible is the source of truth for Christians"
They start with what the Bible says and then they shape their "science" to fit it. This is not science.
I wouldn't put it past Opera to open source at some time in the future. They already act a lot like Open Source, they have a small team of developers that is directly responsive to support requests, things like that.
I doubt they would ever GPL, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did an AFPL or something sometime in the future when they decide to get rid of the ad-ware. As it is, the banner ad hasn't been paid adverts in a long time, it appears they can't sell banners anymore. I bought Opera since version 4, but I often leave the ad on because I am too lazy to sift through my email to find the reg code, and the banner isn't very intrusive. For example, right now the banner is just a static ad to buy Opera.
The AntiAdBlocker guy is correct in that it's ad views and not click-throughs that are generally the important thing for the webmaster.
He is correct, but it points out a fundamental flaw in the ad based revenue model. I've been pointing the flaw out since way before the dot-com-crash thing, it's so obvious.
If everyone is just paying for click throughs and no one is selling anything, it's just a false economy. It's an incestous system, where the same money flows around and around in circles, and the only new income to the ecosystem comes from the few legitimate sites that are actually selling something other than ads.
This is so common sense and so obvious. An industry can not survive only serving itself, but the internet ad industry seems to think so. I don't know why they persist in thinking so even after the inevitable and rapid contraction when the Ponzi collapsed.
It's not obvious to some people. I bought a "Science for Christian Students" book at the thrift store for laughs.
The book claims that evolution is bogus, and presents evidence that things do not evolve, only devolve. They argue that mutations never are beneficial, only detrimental to the survival of the animal.
As long as we have an ignorant mass of religious people that believes books like this, we will continue to need studies to prove the obvious.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess you should take it as a compliment then, I took them seriously otherwise. I wouldn't discount the ideas too much, some might be feasible in a limited sense in the not too distant future.
You know there is no such thing as a magnetic field that will repel normal iron, right?
They put a public link on a public site and agreed to pay money when members of the public click on the public link on the public site. Clicking on the links manually each day is definitely legal. Writing a bot to click them 10,000,000 times a day probably is not legal, only because that may actually degrade their site in a computer related way, which is illegal.
I'd think it would have to hamper the service in a malicious and technical way to qualify as a DoS attack. Just making the spammers go broke cannot be called a DoS attack, they agreed contractually to pay those sums to the search engine.
The point is that you can send the video without sending the application that generated it.
You could still do that, I believe the original poster was saying you could capture the instructions to the card rather than the output from the card. It's still a capture, but it's a little more hardware dependent. Of course hardware implementations of DirectX and OpenGL help a lot there.
Are there any "metamovie" file formats out there that can do this?
Is that like closing before they close?
Just because it is a term vaguely related to companies in bankruptcy doesn't mean you can throw it around without knowing what it means.
rather they have to wait for you to contact them at your convienence.
Heh, that is a really interesting flip-flop from the way it used to be. Maybe just being able to be different is the real status symbol. Being strong enough not to do something just because everyone else is, maybe that is the base of it all.
It is not recorded how many whiny teens said "so what".
:)
Haha, now with the modern marvel of Slashdot, the "so what" score of any new idea can be qutified and archived for history.
"Slashdot's system of comments is but one of many proofs of ignorance and impatience combined."
Yeah, that is a little more questionable when you start talking about opportunity cost, but when you get down to the basics, there are a lot of useless pursuits that waste resources but make people happy in some way.
Car audio springs to mind. Think of all the gasoline wasted by burning an extra 500 watts all the time. Unless you are going to go facist on people and tell them they can't waste their time and money with things that don't really benefit society, then you really can't say much about something like this.
WTF does that have to do with anything?
1TB is still 931GiB on whatever planet that reply came from.
Well, I guess this falls into one of those, "I couldn't hurt anything, and if they enjoy doing it, then so what?"
Who knows, maybe someone will think of an application for it. Base two wasn't particularly relevant before binary computers came about, stuff like that.
This little naming issue gets worse as sizes get bigger too. I built several multiterabyte RAIDs and it really becomes apparent then. 1TB in hard disks are really only 931 GiB. Each order of magnitude higher we go, the bigger the error gets.
I didn't mean to imply this lawsuit had merit, just commenting on the logic behind it. I personally think it's probably BS.
Several hundred books and short stories out of the millions of things copyrighted in the last century? I wouldn't call that very rich. A copyright should not equal a lifetime meal ticket, that does no motivate creation of new works, that motivates lawyers and lawsuits.
It is slower on certain tests, but more importantly, it is slower per Mhz than the P3, the P3 gets you more bang for each cycle in almost all applications. It's like Intel coming out with the Pentium 60, and then later on coming out with a 133 Mhz 486 and calling it the Pentium II, as far as net effects go.
(a 486 133 is faster than a Pentium 60)
"It's the DRIVES, stupid!" :)
Indeed. I'm currently waiting for the suit against the major hard disk manufacturers for collusion. It is apparent that the market is no longer driving the choices in hard disks, or we would see a 10k ATA drive, and much cheaper SCSI drives.
So give people 5 or 10 years protection on fonts. The current laws are unreasonable. The lack of a rich public domain is evidence of the laws not accomplishing their original intent.
What IRC network doens't imagine themselves becoming the central hub of all other IRC networks?
This sounds like wishful thinking. It sounds like lilo would love to make this his full time job and is pissed he might have to actually go do real work.
The incessant whining and stupid politics is driving many channels away.
Most are heading to Open and Free Technology Community irc.oftc.net, that is where kernelnewbies has gone and some others.
Time and a half for 5 cents an hour is 7.5 cents an hour. I'm sure they appreciate the overtime.
ou usually want to build your product for the biggest market first.
If this is any indication of actual OS distribution, then XP is no where near the largest market.
Win98 43%
Win2000 20%
XP 17%
Yes, I sort of addressed that by saying that the book does not only deny speciation, but all of evolution, which is a much larger claim. It is a lot easier to argue that natural speciation has not occured, but there is mounting evidence of observed speciation.
If you gave specific examples of erroneous data or conclusions, I'd be interested
The whole book is erroneous. It's blantly obvious that evolution happens, no intelligent creationist denies that. To deny that evoultion exists is to deny that the last two thousand years of selective breeding in agriculture and livestock had any effect at all, which is obviously irrational.
They don't argue that spontaneous speciation doesn't happen, they deny evolution in general.
To satisy your Christian mind, however, I will quote parts of the book and make my arguement more specific.
The book is "Earth Science for Christian Schools"
The theme basically is to discredit science. It was written in 1979.
Quotes
"Erosion is wearing away the continents -- an example of degeneration in nature"
"Even the most powerful electron microscope are unable to let us see the inside of an atom. What scientist would pass up an opportunity to look inside a neutron or electron? However there is presently no way to see these things, and many doubt there ever will be"
"Through a rapid series of miracles, God created a mature, fully-functioning earth ready for man's use."
"The probability that the world happened by chance is less than the probability of Webster's Unabridged Dictionary forming from an explosion of a print shop"
"Evolution did not develop from modern science. Evolutionary philosophy can be traced back to the Greeks of the Sixth Century"
"Comets break up to form meteors, an example of degeneration in nature"
"A store that loses money to some of it's customers and breaks even on the rest can never nake a profit. Similarly natural processes of conservation and degeneration cannot combine to produce an improvement"
The next interesting section is on Geology.
They basically attempt to assert that the Creation, the Curse, and the Flood happened, and provide "evidence" as such. They point to the existance of "Fossil Graveyards" as proof of the Flood. They also attempt to discredit all methods of dating ancient materials. They admit their science isn't science with one like that sums up the whole book:
"The Bible is the source of truth for Christians"
They start with what the Bible says and then they shape their "science" to fit it. This is not science.
I wouldn't put it past Opera to open source at some time in the future. They already act a lot like Open Source, they have a small team of developers that is directly responsive to support requests, things like that.
I doubt they would ever GPL, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did an AFPL or something sometime in the future when they decide to get rid of the ad-ware. As it is, the banner ad hasn't been paid adverts in a long time, it appears they can't sell banners anymore.
I bought Opera since version 4, but I often leave the ad on because I am too lazy to sift through my email to find the reg code, and the banner isn't very intrusive. For example, right now the banner is just a static ad to buy Opera.
The AntiAdBlocker guy is correct in that it's ad views and not click-throughs that are generally the important thing for the webmaster.
He is correct, but it points out a fundamental flaw in the ad based revenue model. I've been pointing the flaw out since way before the dot-com-crash thing, it's so obvious.
If everyone is just paying for click throughs and no one is selling anything, it's just a false economy. It's an incestous system, where the same money flows around and around in circles, and the only new income to the ecosystem comes from the few legitimate sites that are actually selling something other than ads.
This is so common sense and so obvious. An industry can not survive only serving itself, but the internet ad industry seems to think so. I don't know why they persist in thinking so even after the inevitable and rapid contraction when the Ponzi collapsed.
It's not obvious to some people. I bought a "Science for Christian Students" book at the thrift store for laughs.
The book claims that evolution is bogus, and presents evidence that things do not evolve, only devolve. They argue that mutations never are beneficial, only detrimental to the survival of the animal.
As long as we have an ignorant mass of religious people that believes books like this, we will continue to need studies to prove the obvious.