No, it means you don't get to listen to the music if you don't buy. If I don't like the price the movie theater is charging, does that mean I get to sneak into the theater and sit in the aisle? After all, I wasn't going to buy the ticket anyway and I'm not "stealing" a seat, right?
No, you wait six months for it to show up on Showtime, or if you're really cheap, two years for it to show up on the movie-of-the-day on one of the big three networks.
Consequently, if you don't like the price of music, you wait three years for it to be available through Columbia House, or if you're really cheap, you wait a hundred years for it to be public domain.:-p
Most of the ones I've seen so far have been reasonable bits of the song. I have no idea where the previews came from, though, i.e. whether they were derived with a formulaic method to determine what chunk to use or were hand-picked. I'd guess it probably depends on the track in question, but when you're cranking through 200,000 songs, it really isn't surprising that some of the previews could be chosen better.:-)
If you find a song where the 30 seconds is mostly crowd noise (and if the whole song isn't mostly crowd noise, of course), you should send feedback and let them know. Certainly can't hurt.
More accurate to say that there is not a color 30fps video format (although I'm not 100% certain about PAL-M). Black and white video cameras could still output 30fps if they wanted to. Most TV sets just dutifully sync right up in my experience.
You're both right and wrong. 1920 is the horizontal resolution, 1080 is the vertical resolution. Horizontal resolution means the number of distinctly visible pixels in a single scan line from left to right. So since 1920 > 1080, that would be 1920 dots from left to right (the longer width of the screen) and 1080 lines counted from top to bottom (the shorter height of the screen).
It's kind of confusing because the vertical resolution is the number of scan lines, which are horizontal in orientation, while the horizontal resolution is basically the number of vertical slots in the aperture grille. So there are 1080 horizontal lines on the screen, which is the vertical resolution of the display.
However, it is a bad idea to talk about horizontal "lines" of resolution, for two reasons. First, it is confusing, since it could mean the number of horizontal lines drawn (the vertical resolution), but it is also commonly used by people with sloppy terminology to mean horizontal resolution. Since the raster is row-major order (left to right first, then down one line), there aren't really any horizontal lines anyway. Thus, it's better to say "horizontal resolution", or even "pixels across" so that there's no confusion.
Wow. It's a lot cheaper than my estimates a few years ago. That's an order of magnitude cheaper, in fact. Has the price gone down, or were my sources for ends just really really overpriced?
Needless to say, I shot that project on mini-DV. The whole 35mm thing... the estimated quarter million in film and development, plus effects, plus editing, plus, plus, plus.... It just didn't make sense. In hindsight, I must have added at least one zero in there somewhere, and probably two. Oh well.
No, the manager did absolutely the minimum amount of customer service allowable under the law. There's a big difference between that and actually doing "what was right".
The right thing would be to compensate the person for all the unnecessary time the person had to spend due to the company's incompetence (or the incompetence of a processing firm under contract to same). A few companies have the guts to do that, but not many.
Umm... what you describe is, AFAIK, highly illegal. I've never seen a store policy that refused to accept defective merchandise for swap without a UPC code. The policy typically reads something like "products without a UPC code cannot be returned for a refund", which is not the same thing.
Bear in mind that if it is truly defective by design, you have all sorts of additional consumer protection rights that vary from state to state, plus the added fun of being able to return them almost indefinitely to the store of purchase, at least under certain circumstances.
Nope. PPPoE works just fine through a hub. I haven't done it myself, but back a few years ago when MkLinux was still popular, a lot of folks used it on hardware with only one ethernet connection. If you wanted them to have access to a LAN and the outside world, you'd have to run PPPoE on the primary interface to connect upstream, then create alias interfaces for your LAN, all through a hub.
Not that I'm recommending this, of course. If your ISP does any MAC address sniffing, they could decide to cut your connection off just for spite. And there's the possibility that your traffic would be leaking into the ATM network. To avoid that, it would be better to use a switch instead, and avoid the 10.x.x.x network for your internal network.
Yeah, and I think they were the ones who did that wonderful piece on country music---you know, the one that said that children exposed to country music tend to end up being slower learners, etc. I think the title was something like "Country Music Rots Your Brain" or something.
Exactly. The definition of high-end depends on who you are.
For average audio users, companies like Kenwood and Pioneer are seen as (relatively) high-end.
For audio engineers and other people with discerning ears, Denon, Marantz, Nakamichi, etc. are seen as high-end.
For the folks who blindly believe that they can hear the difference between 48 KHz and 96 KHz audio or between a $5 cable and a $1500 cable, there are plenty of even more expensive brands that are considered high-end....
For people with good ears, Denon and Marantz are high-end. For the rest of you, there's Mastercard.
No, they vote for the two parties because of the perception that third-party candidates never hold any significant political office above the state level. And they're about 95% right.
Third-party candidates are a niche player. They provide a proving ground for new ideas that eventually make it out onto the major party tickets, but otherwise it is extremely unlikely for one to get enough votes to hold any national office. This is as true today as it has been throughout history.
The real problem is that the majority of humans are, frankly, idiots. Most of the Americans on this board probably scored 99th percentile on tests. That means 99% of Americans are dumber than they are. It's hard for intellectuals to understand how so many people can be so clueless, but the reality is that you just have to write it off as human nature.
The founding fathers understood this. That's why we don't have the general public directly voting for laws. Our government was created with the notion of making us feel good about ourselves---like we're involved in the lawmaking---without actually giving us enough voice to screw things up.
The real problem is that in the early days, only the most intellligent people could run for office, because the political parties consisted largely of intellectuals. Over the centuries, it has become watered down, and now they're mostly composed of lawyers. Unfortunately, the public as a whole is too clueless to understand that this isn't how it's supposed to be, and thus the situation is difficult if not impossible to change.
The problem, then, becomes the need to set up a third party of intellectuals, but with sufficient charisma to actually win an election. This, sadly, is the big reason most third parties fail. They tend to be a bunch of kooks. Now if there were a third party created by slashdotters, it might be at the very least interesting, so long as onily those with social graces appear in public.
Heh. Chimera. I remember running that on a PowerMac 7600 back in about 1996 under MkLinux.... Oh wait, you mean there was another open source browser named Chimera that runs on the Mac? Sheesh.
It would be more accurate to say that port 548 is AFP (the appletalk filing protocol) over TCP. AppleShare is an old term that refers to the sharing servers that existed prior to personal file sharing, and is basically deprecated. AFP refers to the low-level protocol itself.
AppleTalk historically can refer to either the family of protocols or to DDP (datagram delivery protocol) that is used for non-TCP AppleTalk communication. In the context of pretty much everything but the network pane in Mac OS X, AppleTalk refers to the protocol family. In that single case, it refers to DDP binding to a particular interface, and the less-descriptive use of the word "AppleTalk" is retained for historical reasons to avoid confusion, AFAIK.
Ah, but telling people that there is a flaw and telling people how to exploit the flaw are two different issues entirely. Telling people how to exploit the flaw could mean that people could have illicit access to places where they aren't supposed to be.
A couple of scenarios: some sleazy guy with a rape record finds this exploit and now knows how to fake card access to the freshman women's dorms. Someone gets card access to the gate room for a radio transmitter tower or the roof of a twelve-story dormitory, and suddenly some college kid is standing a hundred feet up looking down on the campus and thinking he can fly. You're potentially putting people's safety at risk.
Based on that, telling people how to exploit this particular security flaw is -not- constitutionally protected speech at all. In fact, it fails that test for the exact same reason that shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater fails the test.
Now I'm not saying that suppressing the information is acceptable, either, as that -also- puts people's safety at risk, possibly more so than making the information publicly available. However, it isn't as cut-and-dry as many of these posts make it out ot be.
But the problems have all been solved already. If the U.S. were the first country considering it, those issues would still be relevant. But since the U.S. is one of the -last- countries with multiple cell carriers to implement it, that excuse just doesn't hold water.
The phrase you're looking for here is "time, place, and manner restrictions". The courts have consistently upheld laws that put reasonable limits on the time, place, and manner of communication.
The laws against spam clearly fall into this category. You can advertise as much and as often as you desire, but you must do so in a manner that does not cost the recipient money.
In a similar vein, laws that forbid selling porn within a certain distance of schools or churches are upheld because they only limit the place of communication, rather than prevent it entirely.
Laws against shouting it in a residential neighborhood at 2 in the morning restrict the time of communication.
Other examples of TPM restrictions include the banning of cigarette ads on TV and radio, junk fax laws, etc.
BTW, it really doesn't have anything to do with ability to receive or whether it regulates only a certain type of content. The basic ways in which prior restraint on speech is legal include laws that prevent imminent danger (temporary holds for national defense, laws against shouting "fire" in a crowded theater if the building is not burning, etc.); time, place, and manner restrictions;
"fighting words doctrine" restrictions (restrictions on speech intended to incite people to break the law), and restrictions on some forms of pornography.
Note that IANAL, I just have some background in media law, so take this with a grain of salt.
It seems to me that if the person posting Mr. Moore's information did so in a way that would potentially incite people to commit acts against him, then it's a legal grey area. It certainly is -not- a clear-cut case. As to whether Mr. Moore's reportedly-fraudulent business activities would come under consideration in this case... that would probably depend on the judge, but legally, it probably shouldn't.
Frankly, if I were in that position, I'd do what someone suggested a couple of weeks ago---take down the site and replace it with links to places where people could search for the guy's information instead. That way, Mr. Uy could reasonably say that he was providing general pointers to search services. By doing so, Mr. Moore would have a much harder time convincing a judge that Mr. Uy was inciting people to commit illegal acts against him. As to whether that would impact Mr. Uy's liability for previous actions, I wouldn't even begin to guess.
to have such a low sense of ethics that you would sue anyone and everyone in desperation just to keep above the red line?
to realize that your repeated buyouts, mergers, lay-offs, etc. have left you without anything worth buying and that extortion is your only chance of making a profit?
Sure, you have some software that was cool once---a long time ago. What have you done lately?
This has nothing to do with trademarks. SCO doesn't own the UNIX trademark. The Open Group does. SCO owns a bunch of decrepit pieces of AT&T UNIX code and the patent rights thereon.
It seems likely that everything they own has been reimplemented by at least two or three different groups by now. Most of it was reimplemented better than the original. The whole situation strikes of sour grapes---they're bitter that open source projects written by a bunch of people they'd never heard of came and wiped the floor with them....:-)
You forgot the 486 Gaussian Blur gag.
on
Apple Fools Day
·
· Score: 1
Slashdot Mirror
No, you wait six months for it to show up on Showtime, or if you're really cheap, two years for it to show up on the movie-of-the-day on one of the big three networks.
Consequently, if you don't like the price of music, you wait three years for it to be available through Columbia House, or if you're really cheap, you wait a hundred years for it to be public domain. :-p
If you find a song where the 30 seconds is mostly crowd noise (and if the whole song isn't mostly crowd noise, of course), you should send feedback and let them know. Certainly can't hurt.
It's kind of confusing because the vertical resolution is the number of scan lines, which are horizontal in orientation, while the horizontal resolution is basically the number of vertical slots in the aperture grille. So there are 1080 horizontal lines on the screen, which is the vertical resolution of the display.
However, it is a bad idea to talk about horizontal "lines" of resolution, for two reasons. First, it is confusing, since it could mean the number of horizontal lines drawn (the vertical resolution), but it is also commonly used by people with sloppy terminology to mean horizontal resolution. Since the raster is row-major order (left to right first, then down one line), there aren't really any horizontal lines anyway. Thus, it's better to say "horizontal resolution", or even "pixels across" so that there's no confusion.
Needless to say, I shot that project on mini-DV. The whole 35mm thing... the estimated quarter million in film and development, plus effects, plus editing, plus, plus, plus.... It just didn't make sense. In hindsight, I must have added at least one zero in there somewhere, and probably two. Oh well.
In the beginning, there was imp, and imp begat... no, wait.
The right thing would be to compensate the person for all the unnecessary time the person had to spend due to the company's incompetence (or the incompetence of a processing firm under contract to same). A few companies have the guts to do that, but not many.
Bear in mind that if it is truly defective by design, you have all sorts of additional consumer protection rights that vary from state to state, plus the added fun of being able to return them almost indefinitely to the store of purchase, at least under certain circumstances.
Not that I'm recommending this, of course. If your ISP does any MAC address sniffing, they could decide to cut your connection off just for spite. And there's the possibility that your traffic would be leaking into the ATM network. To avoid that, it would be better to use a switch instead, and avoid the 10.x.x.x network for your internal network.
For average audio users, companies like Kenwood and Pioneer are seen as (relatively) high-end.
For audio engineers and other people with discerning ears, Denon, Marantz, Nakamichi, etc. are seen as high-end.
For the folks who blindly believe that they can hear the difference between 48 KHz and 96 KHz audio or between a $5 cable and a $1500 cable, there are plenty of even more expensive brands that are considered high-end....
For people with good ears, Denon and Marantz are high-end. For the rest of you, there's Mastercard.
Third-party candidates are a niche player. They provide a proving ground for new ideas that eventually make it out onto the major party tickets, but otherwise it is extremely unlikely for one to get enough votes to hold any national office. This is as true today as it has been throughout history.
The real problem is that the majority of humans are, frankly, idiots. Most of the Americans on this board probably scored 99th percentile on tests. That means 99% of Americans are dumber than they are. It's hard for intellectuals to understand how so many people can be so clueless, but the reality is that you just have to write it off as human nature.
The founding fathers understood this. That's why we don't have the general public directly voting for laws. Our government was created with the notion of making us feel good about ourselves---like we're involved in the lawmaking---without actually giving us enough voice to screw things up.
The real problem is that in the early days, only the most intellligent people could run for office, because the political parties consisted largely of intellectuals. Over the centuries, it has become watered down, and now they're mostly composed of lawyers. Unfortunately, the public as a whole is too clueless to understand that this isn't how it's supposed to be, and thus the situation is difficult if not impossible to change.
The problem, then, becomes the need to set up a third party of intellectuals, but with sufficient charisma to actually win an election. This, sadly, is the big reason most third parties fail. They tend to be a bunch of kooks. Now if there were a third party created by slashdotters, it might be at the very least interesting, so long as onily those with social graces appear in public.
Thoughts?
AppleTalk historically can refer to either the family of protocols or to DDP (datagram delivery protocol) that is used for non-TCP AppleTalk communication. In the context of pretty much everything but the network pane in Mac OS X, AppleTalk refers to the protocol family. In that single case, it refers to DDP binding to a particular interface, and the less-descriptive use of the word "AppleTalk" is retained for historical reasons to avoid confusion, AFAIK.
In other words, you're both right, kind-of.
A couple of scenarios: some sleazy guy with a rape record finds this exploit and now knows how to fake card access to the freshman women's dorms. Someone gets card access to the gate room for a radio transmitter tower or the roof of a twelve-story dormitory, and suddenly some college kid is standing a hundred feet up looking down on the campus and thinking he can fly. You're potentially putting people's safety at risk.
Based on that, telling people how to exploit this particular security flaw is -not- constitutionally protected speech at all. In fact, it fails that test for the exact same reason that shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater fails the test.
Now I'm not saying that suppressing the information is acceptable, either, as that -also- puts people's safety at risk, possibly more so than making the information publicly available. However, it isn't as cut-and-dry as many of these posts make it out ot be.
You mean like this?
But the problems have all been solved already. If the U.S. were the first country considering it, those issues would still be relevant. But since the U.S. is one of the -last- countries with multiple cell carriers to implement it, that excuse just doesn't hold water.
In other words, just don't tell 'em what you were doing when you downloaded those MP3s and you'll be okay.... :-)
The laws against spam clearly fall into this category. You can advertise as much and as often as you desire, but you must do so in a manner that does not cost the recipient money.
In a similar vein, laws that forbid selling porn within a certain distance of schools or churches are upheld because they only limit the place of communication, rather than prevent it entirely.
Laws against shouting it in a residential neighborhood at 2 in the morning restrict the time of communication.
Other examples of TPM restrictions include the banning of cigarette ads on TV and radio, junk fax laws, etc.
BTW, it really doesn't have anything to do with ability to receive or whether it regulates only a certain type of content. The basic ways in which prior restraint on speech is legal include laws that prevent imminent danger (temporary holds for national defense, laws against shouting "fire" in a crowded theater if the building is not burning, etc.); time, place, and manner restrictions; "fighting words doctrine" restrictions (restrictions on speech intended to incite people to break the law), and restrictions on some forms of pornography.
Note that IANAL, I just have some background in media law, so take this with a grain of salt.
It seems to me that if the person posting Mr. Moore's information did so in a way that would potentially incite people to commit acts against him, then it's a legal grey area. It certainly is -not- a clear-cut case. As to whether Mr. Moore's reportedly-fraudulent business activities would come under consideration in this case... that would probably depend on the judge, but legally, it probably shouldn't.
Frankly, if I were in that position, I'd do what someone suggested a couple of weeks ago---take down the site and replace it with links to places where people could search for the guy's information instead. That way, Mr. Uy could reasonably say that he was providing general pointers to search services. By doing so, Mr. Moore would have a much harder time convincing a judge that Mr. Uy was inciting people to commit illegal acts against him. As to whether that would impact Mr. Uy's liability for previous actions, I wouldn't even begin to guess.
Again, emphasis on me not being a lawyer, though.
to be the Worst Linux distribution?
to have filed the worst linux lawsuit?
to be the worst enemy of open source?
to have such a low sense of ethics that you would sue anyone and everyone in desperation just to keep above the red line?
to realize that your repeated buyouts, mergers, lay-offs, etc. have left you without anything worth buying and that extortion is your only chance of making a profit?
Sure, you have some software that was cool once---a long time ago. What have you done lately?
You had three bosses? Did you put the right cover letter on your TPS report?
This has nothing to do with trademarks. SCO doesn't own the UNIX trademark. The Open Group does. SCO owns a bunch of decrepit pieces of AT&T UNIX code and the patent rights thereon.
:-)
It seems likely that everything they own has been reimplemented by at least two or three different groups by now. Most of it was reimplemented better than the original. The whole situation strikes of sour grapes---they're bitter that open source projects written by a bunch of people they'd never heard of came and wiped the floor with them....
Could be worse, though. I thought about saying that Apple would team up with Microsoft (MSN) and Dell and create an ISP called the
Dell
Apple
Microsoft
Network for
Information
Technology
but I figured too few people would catch the joke. :-)