Perhaps because it is called DVD Decrypter? If you type dvd decrypter into google.. looking for programs that decrypt dvds... well you see where this is going.
Further, 'character' is pretty specific to alphabetic writing. I wonder if a Chinese idiograph or Egyptian hieroglyph count as a 'character'?
You don't get around religious doctrine on a technicality... you don't say to god "well you didn't say no hieroglyphs!" Besides these are rules these people willingly abide by, and their intent is to abide by the spirit of them. What is the point of following a religion if you just tear it to shreds because it isn't written in legalise?
There is a VERY BIG DIFFERENCE between having your license revoked, and being guilty of a crime. If they want to revoke your license for not submitting to the test... well that's grey area perhaps, but if they pass a law saying if you refuse the test you are automatically guilty of a DUI that is bullshit. That is a crime. It goes on your criminal record. You know.. the one that employers and lendors sometimes like to look at? No trial, no jury, nothing... just guilty.
So I'm wondering. I'm assuming this is in the US, and in the US don't we have the right to trial by jury, or has this turned into yet another right we think we have but don't? I know very little about the law, but I was under the impression this was part of a little known document called the constitution.
Article III, Section 2, Clause 3: "The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."
I disagree. I think it is. To use your flawed car analogy, car makers advertise the cars horsepower new, when it is well known that various things will cause that number to fall over time. Portable electronics are nothing new, and the customer should be expected to understand that rechargeable batteries lose their capacity over time. Anyone who owns a cell phone knows this, and I wonder just how many people involved in this suit owned a cell phone before they did an iPod. I should not be Apple's job to educate them about this.
I don't get it, how is this going to convince the parent to not "blithely dismiss extinction"? Cleverly worded analogies might placate the common folk, but anyone with the tiniest amount of ability to reason will notice quite quickly that you used a lot of words to say nothing of importance. You may be right, but how does that analogy help prove your point? People blindly accepting baseless analogies as explanations because they sound good is the root of many problems in our society. Please back your case up.
You make it sound like there's been a final determination that we just can't have a broadcast flag.
No, you just read that implication into the story. Perhaps the/. editors just don't feel like writing a 4 paragraph summary of how the courts work in the US whenever they post a story about them, and instead prefer to assume the reader already knows? However, there's always somebody just itching for a reason to bitch about something.
OK, Lets assume it takes you 24 hours to travel 24 hours into the past. This is as much an assumption as anything related to time travel is, but it is a reasonable one I think. If you view space and time the way Einstein did, then our foreward movement through time is movement through a dimension. The same as moving in a space dimension. If we go in the reverse direction of time at the same speed time moves foreward then lets assume you are also not moving in any space dimension going backwards through time. More importantly lets assume that if we ARE moving through a space dimension then our backwards march through time is even slower, therefore it would take longer then 24 hours to go back 24 hours. We are also assuming that while you are moving backwards in time relative to your surroundings the theory of relativity still holds, and time is still moving foreward for you.
Then, assuming you are correct that the earth has moved 17,640 miles in 24 hours, then you would have to move 727.5 miles per hour to keep up with your location. This is by no means an extraordinary feat. What messed you up I think is the idea that time travel would be instantaneous. I am not sure how you arrived at this conclusion, but I find it unlikely traveling through time would be any more instantaneous than traveling through space. The trade off would be the faster you are moving through space the slower you will move through time, whether you are traveling foreward or backward through time.
In the end time travel is so highly theoretical that any excuse you can find why it isn't possible can be countered with an equally theoretical reason why that isn't a problem. I guess the real fun is can you find the reason why the excuse you came up with is not a good excuse. You gave up too early I think. You average person would probably come up with next the classic "what if you met yourself and killed yourself" act. There are many ways around that problem. I leave it as an excerise to the reader to either find one of those ways, or come up with a more convincing reason why time travel could not be possible:).
Heh I think you may have missed the point. YOU sign the apps running on YOUR system. You DO NOT have to rely on a 3rd party to sign them. Unless the site wanting to run the ActiveX control has your keys, they cannot sign it. VeriSign cannot do this for them. Just because signing a certificate to verify an identity and signing an app with a private key to allow it to run on your system both use the word signing, doesn't mean they are the same thing.
I'm quite frustrated because I wasted hours trying to compile older code a few weeks ago and constantly hit a wall because of GCC's breakage.
The entire point of the parent post was that this is not an error in GCC. GCC is not breaking old code. It is forcing adherence to standards. The code was broken before GCC refused to compile it. The fact that it did compile at one time was a bug in GCC, and the person that wrote the code was using the bug as if it was a feature. Code should not be written for GCC. It should be written in standard C/C++ so that it may compile on all compilers that follow the standard.
I think a well-written "How to fix things that don't compile" guide would be nice
The changelog for each major revision includes a comprehensive list of every unsupported bug/feature that has become deprecated or fixed/removed. Usually they give a short example of what exactly changed. I do agree that a single guide listing all the major changes in the entire 3.x series with a more comprehensive description and better examples would be a good thing however. This is also the correct attitude to take. The broken code should be changed to adhere to standards instead of GCC remaining broken so it can compile non standard code.
I think this is a general trend with some open source developers; they break code or configuration files without any regard for how much inconvenience they cause end users.
These changes in GCC don't have much of an effect on the typical understanding of what an end user is. Most of the burden is on application developers and packagers. In all honesty most of the problems I've had with FOSS is that way. The most visible end user problem is when you have libraries that change their ABI or command line interface so frequently that frontends or other apps that use them just can't keep up. Take for example avifile or transcode. Many packages use avifile, and it isn't uncommon to need to install many different versions of avifile to accomodate those packages.
Anyways this rant is going off topic. To close, I suppose to many advocates would consider strain on the developers and packagers as less of a problem than strain on the end user. I personally disagree, but I am also in the seemingly unpopular crowd who doesn't really want joe average using linux.
There's a fine line between trolling and joking. I believe the parent post was the later. As a fellow gentoo user who uses gentoo for the same reasons, I implore you not to fall into the debian trap, and learn to take a joke like that in jest. I found it funny at least:)
You do know you can use unzip tools to extract self extracting zip files just like ordinary zip files, and you had other reasons for pointing out that it was a WINDOWS self extracting zip.... right?
While I agree a document written with gpl fonts is not a derivative work, I think you reasoning is a little insane. That'd be like saying the assembly output produced by gcc of a source file under the gpl is NOT covered by the gpl because the source file only has instructions on how to produce the assembly file. I'm afraid others here have come up with much more convicning arguments.
Presume much? The conflict was already there. He didn't have to seek it out at all. If you recall he did this because Best Buy charged him a feee that he claims is not legit.
How long have you worked with a piece of dust or a smudge on the screen before you: a) noticed; b) findlly got irritated enough to do something about it?
Actually while you are right about this as far as I go, but a dead pixel (or worse, a dead sub pixel) I would notice much, much more quickly. A smudge or dust just minorly distorts the light coming from the working pixel behind it, but a pixel, especially on your typical desktop lcd for example, is considerably bugger than a bit of dust, and much more noticeable. A speck of dust also won't turn a white pixel purple, for example, if the green part of a pixel goes out.
My CRT screen right now is a very small chunk taken out of the glass that distorts what is behind it a bit. Usually I don't notice it, but if I do I will see it until I take an extended break from using the PC. That is still not near as annoying as a dead pixel:P. One of the things preventing me from buying a LCD monitor right now is manufacturers don't seem to like to make their warranty info on dead pixels easy to find, and when they do sometimes they are quite vague. I would go out of my mind if I spent $400+ on a really nice lcd only to get a freakin' dead pixel.
And in his situations nobody was hurt, he didn't have to go through the hassle of an insurance claim, and he didn't have to catch the thieves after they had his property. Hmm... ya your method definately sounds better now!
hehe thanks for the tip... I never knew a rake could be so sensual:).
Anyways, I didn't mean to sound so serious.. tho coming back a few hours later to read my comment I realize I sounded quite like a bitch. It was suppose to be a joke:). Some of the comments in the kernel code can be quite funny especially if you grep for "colorful" words.
I do understand the reasons a company would be more interested in keeping language clean than the kernel dev team. I still find it unfortunate that humanity hasn't grown out of the arcane idea of a word being evil or bad. Violence is ok. You can call people all kinds of horrible things w/o using a cuss word. But that's ok, as long as the word isn't there the intent can be as profane as you want.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps because it is called DVD Decrypter? If you type dvd decrypter into google.. looking for programs that decrypt dvds... well you see where this is going.
Further, 'character' is pretty specific to alphabetic writing. I wonder if a Chinese idiograph or Egyptian hieroglyph count as a 'character'?
You don't get around religious doctrine on a technicality... you don't say to god "well you didn't say no hieroglyphs!" Besides these are rules these people willingly abide by, and their intent is to abide by the spirit of them. What is the point of following a religion if you just tear it to shreds because it isn't written in legalise?
There is a VERY BIG DIFFERENCE between having your license revoked, and being guilty of a crime. If they want to revoke your license for not submitting to the test... well that's grey area perhaps, but if they pass a law saying if you refuse the test you are automatically guilty of a DUI that is bullshit. That is a crime. It goes on your criminal record. You know.. the one that employers and lendors sometimes like to look at? No trial, no jury, nothing... just guilty.
So I'm wondering. I'm assuming this is in the US, and in the US don't we have the right to trial by jury, or has this turned into yet another right we think we have but don't? I know very little about the law, but I was under the impression this was part of a little known document called the constitution.
m l
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.ht
Article III, Section 2, Clause 3:
"The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."
Is this only applicable to federal crimes?
Those lcd's usually aren't 4:3. They are typically 5:4. They still have square pixels.
I disagree. I think it is. To use your flawed car analogy, car makers advertise the cars horsepower new, when it is well known that various things will cause that number to fall over time. Portable electronics are nothing new, and the customer should be expected to understand that rechargeable batteries lose their capacity over time. Anyone who owns a cell phone knows this, and I wonder just how many people involved in this suit owned a cell phone before they did an iPod. I should not be Apple's job to educate them about this.
Would it satisy your pedantic ass if they said "communicate effectively"?
I don't get it, how is this going to convince the parent to not "blithely dismiss extinction"? Cleverly worded analogies might placate the common folk, but anyone with the tiniest amount of ability to reason will notice quite quickly that you used a lot of words to say nothing of importance. You may be right, but how does that analogy help prove your point? People blindly accepting baseless analogies as explanations because they sound good is the root of many problems in our society. Please back your case up.
You make it sound like there's been a final determination that we just can't have a broadcast flag.
/. editors just don't feel like writing a 4 paragraph summary of how the courts work in the US whenever they post a story about them, and instead prefer to assume the reader already knows? However, there's always somebody just itching for a reason to bitch about something.
No, you just read that implication into the story. Perhaps the
OK, Lets assume it takes you 24 hours to travel 24 hours into the past. This is as much an assumption as anything related to time travel is, but it is a reasonable one I think. If you view space and time the way Einstein did, then our foreward movement through time is movement through a dimension. The same as moving in a space dimension. If we go in the reverse direction of time at the same speed time moves foreward then lets assume you are also not moving in any space dimension going backwards through time. More importantly lets assume that if we ARE moving through a space dimension then our backwards march through time is even slower, therefore it would take longer then 24 hours to go back 24 hours. We are also assuming that while you are moving backwards in time relative to your surroundings the theory of relativity still holds, and time is still moving foreward for you.
:).
Then, assuming you are correct that the earth has moved 17,640 miles in 24 hours, then you would have to move 727.5 miles per hour to keep up with your location. This is by no means an extraordinary feat. What messed you up I think is the idea that time travel would be instantaneous. I am not sure how you arrived at this conclusion, but I find it unlikely traveling through time would be any more instantaneous than traveling through space. The trade off would be the faster you are moving through space the slower you will move through time, whether you are traveling foreward or backward through time.
In the end time travel is so highly theoretical that any excuse you can find why it isn't possible can be countered with an equally theoretical reason why that isn't a problem. I guess the real fun is can you find the reason why the excuse you came up with is not a good excuse. You gave up too early I think. You average person would probably come up with next the classic "what if you met yourself and killed yourself" act. There are many ways around that problem. I leave it as an excerise to the reader to either find one of those ways, or come up with a more convincing reason why time travel could not be possible
Heh I think you may have missed the point. YOU sign the apps running on YOUR system. You DO NOT have to rely on a 3rd party to sign them. Unless the site wanting to run the ActiveX control has your keys, they cannot sign it. VeriSign cannot do this for them. Just because signing a certificate to verify an identity and signing an app with a private key to allow it to run on your system both use the word signing, doesn't mean they are the same thing.
Hint: it has something to do with their size...
I'm quite frustrated because I wasted hours trying to compile older code a few weeks ago and constantly hit a wall because of GCC's breakage.
The entire point of the parent post was that this is not an error in GCC. GCC is not breaking old code. It is forcing adherence to standards. The code was broken before GCC refused to compile it. The fact that it did compile at one time was a bug in GCC, and the person that wrote the code was using the bug as if it was a feature. Code should not be written for GCC. It should be written in standard C/C++ so that it may compile on all compilers that follow the standard.
I think a well-written "How to fix things that don't compile" guide would be nice
The changelog for each major revision includes a comprehensive list of every unsupported bug/feature that has become deprecated or fixed/removed. Usually they give a short example of what exactly changed. I do agree that a single guide listing all the major changes in the entire 3.x series with a more comprehensive description and better examples would be a good thing however. This is also the correct attitude to take. The broken code should be changed to adhere to standards instead of GCC remaining broken so it can compile non standard code.
I think this is a general trend with some open source developers; they break code or configuration files without any regard for how much inconvenience they cause end users.
These changes in GCC don't have much of an effect on the typical understanding of what an end user is. Most of the burden is on application developers and packagers. In all honesty most of the problems I've had with FOSS is that way. The most visible end user problem is when you have libraries that change their ABI or command line interface so frequently that frontends or other apps that use them just can't keep up. Take for example avifile or transcode. Many packages use avifile, and it isn't uncommon to need to install many different versions of avifile to accomodate those packages.
Anyways this rant is going off topic. To close, I suppose to many advocates would consider strain on the developers and packagers as less of a problem than strain on the end user. I personally disagree, but I am also in the seemingly unpopular crowd who doesn't really want joe average using linux.
There's a fine line between trolling and joking. I believe the parent post was the later. As a fellow gentoo user who uses gentoo for the same reasons, I implore you not to fall into the debian trap, and learn to take a joke like that in jest. I found it funny at least :)
You do know you can use unzip tools to extract self extracting zip files just like ordinary zip files, and you had other reasons for pointing out that it was a WINDOWS self extracting zip.... right?
While I agree a document written with gpl fonts is not a derivative work, I think you reasoning is a little insane. That'd be like saying the assembly output produced by gcc of a source file under the gpl is NOT covered by the gpl because the source file only has instructions on how to produce the assembly file. I'm afraid others here have come up with much more convicning arguments.
Presume much? The conflict was already there. He didn't have to seek it out at all. If you recall he did this because Best Buy charged him a feee that he claims is not legit.
Or perhaps a bunch of linux users that want to use webcam video with the MSN using friends? Just maybe...
And what good is the gpl if evertime someone abuses it we ignore them?
Also keep in mind you can use hydroponics to grow the stuff and expand upward as well as outward.
What walls?
How long have you worked with a piece of dust or a smudge on the screen before you: a) noticed; b) findlly got irritated enough to do something about it?
:P. One of the things preventing me from buying a LCD monitor right now is manufacturers don't seem to like to make their warranty info on dead pixels easy to find, and when they do sometimes they are quite vague. I would go out of my mind if I spent $400+ on a really nice lcd only to get a freakin' dead pixel.
Actually while you are right about this as far as I go, but a dead pixel (or worse, a dead sub pixel) I would notice much, much more quickly. A smudge or dust just minorly distorts the light coming from the working pixel behind it, but a pixel, especially on your typical desktop lcd for example, is considerably bugger than a bit of dust, and much more noticeable. A speck of dust also won't turn a white pixel purple, for example, if the green part of a pixel goes out.
My CRT screen right now is a very small chunk taken out of the glass that distorts what is behind it a bit. Usually I don't notice it, but if I do I will see it until I take an extended break from using the PC. That is still not near as annoying as a dead pixel
They'd probably grab your foot and break it off.
Did you mean to imply that their balls would do the grabbing and the breaking? O_o
And in his situations nobody was hurt, he didn't have to go through the hassle of an insurance claim, and he didn't have to catch the thieves after they had his property. Hmm... ya your method definately sounds better now!
hehe thanks for the tip... I never knew a rake could be so sensual :).
:). Some of the comments in the kernel code can be quite funny especially if you grep for "colorful" words.
Anyways, I didn't mean to sound so serious.. tho coming back a few hours later to read my comment I realize I sounded quite like a bitch. It was suppose to be a joke
I do understand the reasons a company would be more interested in keeping language clean than the kernel dev team. I still find it unfortunate that humanity hasn't grown out of the arcane idea of a word being evil or bad. Violence is ok. You can call people all kinds of horrible things w/o using a cuss word. But that's ok, as long as the word isn't there the intent can be as profane as you want.