Yet it would be trivial for them to implement a link at the top of such pages that said 'show the live version', rather than restricting such access to some cabal.
Hopefully they are at least storing these edits in the version history of the pages, rather than simply discarding them, if they are discarding them, if gives the highly motivated, tiresome busybodies a great avenue to inflict their control fantasies.
A lot of the mpeg patents should have expired by then, so FFMPEG (and all the projects that utilize it...VLC, mplayer, etc.) should be going strong. If that is the case, the encoding of the video probably isn't all that important, it will likely be supported.
You can assume electrical outlets won't change in 16 years. If you aren't prepared to assume that, you can assume that adapters will be available. Maybe not if you are negotiating a peace treaty with the ants, but for a family time capsule, those assumptions are perfectly safe.
Consumer grade storage that will last that long is a different trick (I would probably put in some burned DVDs and a USB drive, and then, in a horrible clever trick, maintain a copy of the data outside of the time capsule, to provide when the media fails).
I don't know, I (anonymously) made a minor revision about a week ago and have been following it since then, and no one has reverted it (I change something that referred back to 'a' and 'b' as the former and latter to just repeating 'a' and 'b'). I just looked, and the previous 3 or 4 reverts, going back 4 months, were all troll edits (i.e., Chuck Norris crap, or whatever).
Unfortunately, machines keep getting smarter (or rather, the programs they are running keep getting more clever, and the cost of CPU time continues to plummet), so there is some reason to pay attention to what the law says the agencies are allowed to do, and also to how closely they follow those laws.
Well, you don't have to pay Apple money to develop for Android, and you don't have to get Apple's permission to distribute your app to users. Those are probably pluses even if you experiencing full-on reality distortion.
Apple may still be providing a more attractive program though, simply by bothering to market their phones.
If you want the first amendment to apply to Google, someone has to enforce that (probably the government). If the government isn't enforcing it, then you are asking Google to step in front of anyone who takes them up on their offer for free hosting, which I doubt they have any interest in doing.
You are muddling things just as much as I am, though I happen to mostly be doing it in response.
I'd love to see it but for the moment it's just numbers on a slide. About a gazzilion dollars in research are needed to get to those dimensions.
I don't pretend to be able to meaningfully comment on how likely they are to make it, but that is a fair description of Intel's business model over the last 30 years.
Sure. The notion that the government should expend resources protecting party a is just as much force as the notion that the government shouldn't bother doing anything to protect party a from party b.
Frankly, I'm glad that there is no legality that requires Google to enforce your morality (or anyone else's for that matter).
The availability of rather strong anonymous mechanisms (post AC to Slashdot from a public library, they won't find you; there are lots more) makes your whimpering about the spirit of this and that and corrosive effects rather tiresome.
The Constitution largely works by restricting the powers of the government. I'm not well versed in the myriad specifics, but it generally does not place requirements upon private individuals or organizations (I'm sure there are exceptions to this, but restricting the powers of government was certainly a core design goal of the framers). So I'm not sure that offering to host content for free brings with it a responsibility to fight for the first amendment rights of anyone who takes you up on the offer (in fact, I'm pretty sure it doesn't).
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe. Probably even. But I don't think there is much actual case law surrounding the GPL, or is there?
It certainly isn't perfect (which is perhaps an understatement).
Maybe, but it isn't as entertaining.
Yet it would be trivial for them to implement a link at the top of such pages that said 'show the live version', rather than restricting such access to some cabal.
Hopefully they are at least storing these edits in the version history of the pages, rather than simply discarding them, if they are discarding them, if gives the highly motivated, tiresome busybodies a great avenue to inflict their control fantasies.
A lot of the mpeg patents should have expired by then, so FFMPEG (and all the projects that utilize it...VLC, mplayer, etc.) should be going strong. If that is the case, the encoding of the video probably isn't all that important, it will likely be supported.
Faith is dangerous stuff, keep a tight grip on it.
I know quite a few people who were 6 feet tall and pretty much done growing when they turned 14 or 15.
I guess it would also make some people cry, as they watched themselves balloon up to fatness.
That contest is already running up here:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1346203&cid=29183897
Currently at 3 digits...
It is already there:
http://web.archive.org/web/20071211102442/http://www.ollydbg.de/Paperbak/Paperbak.zip
You can assume electrical outlets won't change in 16 years. If you aren't prepared to assume that, you can assume that adapters will be available. Maybe not if you are negotiating a peace treaty with the ants, but for a family time capsule, those assumptions are perfectly safe.
Consumer grade storage that will last that long is a different trick (I would probably put in some burned DVDs and a USB drive, and then, in a horrible clever trick, maintain a copy of the data outside of the time capsule, to provide when the media fails).
I don't know, I (anonymously) made a minor revision about a week ago and have been following it since then, and no one has reverted it (I change something that referred back to 'a' and 'b' as the former and latter to just repeating 'a' and 'b'). I just looked, and the previous 3 or 4 reverts, going back 4 months, were all troll edits (i.e., Chuck Norris crap, or whatever).
They are editing edits before they go live, and only some people can do that.
Unfortunately, machines keep getting smarter (or rather, the programs they are running keep getting more clever, and the cost of CPU time continues to plummet), so there is some reason to pay attention to what the law says the agencies are allowed to do, and also to how closely they follow those laws.
Tell that to my Levi's.
I think the real problem is either that Apple's accountants have a stovepipe up their ass, or it is a convenient fiction.
Well, you don't have to pay Apple money to develop for Android, and you don't have to get Apple's permission to distribute your app to users. Those are probably pluses even if you experiencing full-on reality distortion.
Apple may still be providing a more attractive program though, simply by bothering to market their phones.
You did what I can only call a spectacular job of not reading the post that you replied to.
If you want the first amendment to apply to Google, someone has to enforce that (probably the government). If the government isn't enforcing it, then you are asking Google to step in front of anyone who takes them up on their offer for free hosting, which I doubt they have any interest in doing.
You are muddling things just as much as I am, though I happen to mostly be doing it in response.
I'd love to see it but for the moment it's just numbers on a slide. About a gazzilion dollars in research are needed to get to those dimensions.
I don't pretend to be able to meaningfully comment on how likely they are to make it, but that is a fair description of Intel's business model over the last 30 years.
Plus, Frito-Lay.
The Abyss or Terminator would have been more reasonable.
Ooh, glitzy Sci-fi with a questionable story, directed by James Cameron, it's sure to suck!
Sure. The notion that the government should expend resources protecting party a is just as much force as the notion that the government shouldn't bother doing anything to protect party a from party b.
Dell and HP both offer products with built in 3g.
Frankly, I'm glad that there is no legality that requires Google to enforce your morality (or anyone else's for that matter).
The availability of rather strong anonymous mechanisms (post AC to Slashdot from a public library, they won't find you; there are lots more) makes your whimpering about the spirit of this and that and corrosive effects rather tiresome.
The Constitution largely works by restricting the powers of the government. I'm not well versed in the myriad specifics, but it generally does not place requirements upon private individuals or organizations (I'm sure there are exceptions to this, but restricting the powers of government was certainly a core design goal of the framers). So I'm not sure that offering to host content for free brings with it a responsibility to fight for the first amendment rights of anyone who takes you up on the offer (in fact, I'm pretty sure it doesn't).