Neither one of you's wrong, because you're talking about different things. Yes, copying an image onto your desktop from a website is currently considered fair use, but the first post was saying fair use is being eroded to the point that this will become illegal.
This is a development kernel. It's not beta. Beta generally means "feature-complete, but not fully tested". It's not alpha, because alpha usually means "mostly complete". Development means "not complete at all".
Our company just started on the next release of our software, so I feel a bit "in tune" with where the kernel developers are at.
The beginning of a new release should be the place where you make all the hard choices and break things. Then you start putting the pieces together, and if you broke the right stuff for the right reasons, it will be better (but probably less stable) than before. Gradually, you add more and more features, but they don't tend to break things as badly. Finally, you stop adding features, and work on polish.
This is a development kernel, and things are broken because smart people decided to break them. Don't think it's beta. It's not.
Heh. You got that straight out of Stroustrup's book, didn't you? I'm reading his chapter on design right now.
Well, here's a clue. Sometimes a mess is a bunch of bugfixes. And sometimes a mess is just a mess.
If you start out with a bad design, and you fix the code instead of the design when problems arise, you get messes like that. I have no problem with rewriting large sections of my code once I have a better understanding, and hence, a better design.
Or sometimes, I clean it up without changing how it works at all, by breaking one big function into several smaller ones, or replacing calculations with pre-calculated variables, or turning a function into an object.
Sure, wanton "cleaning" is dangerous, but there is a time an a place for reprogramming. Especially when there's a payoff in reliability or flexibility.
I don't know how an ISP would accomplish this, but when a user sets it up, it's easy: filter your mailing lists first.
THEN filter the remaining mail.
The remaining mail SHOULD NOT contain any mailing lists, or other generic mail, just personal stuff.
Wait-- here's how an ISP sets it up: don't delete the suspected spam, just add a header. The user's client can filter it, hopefully after it handles mailing-list mail.
Yes. Because artists are expendable.
Your smart meat celebrities, however, should be getting full-body scans so that they can look the same way 40 years from now, if they choose.
It's bad enough that the fear of jail time prevents people from publishing, as happened in the main article. Next it'll stop them from researching this. . .
.Info proves nothing. Our company just registered some.biz and.info domains, and I've advised against using them for anything important.
.info and.biz basically turn into blackmail, of the form: "What if someone typed in your domain name, and they didn't get your site? It could happen to you, if they type in acme.biz and someone else has registered it. So pay us money and it won't happen." The domains themselves are fairly worthless, because you get funny looks if you use a.info or.biz tld.
Web addresses should be memorable names. "yahoo" is easier to remember than "www.yahoo.org". And with www.*.com names, all people do remember is is "yahoo". The rest quickly becomes standard.
For humans, "yahoo", "cnet" and "amazon" are all top-level domains..info just makes things harder to remember. And a lot of the.info names are the same as their.com equivalents.
Instead of creating new tlds that are mostly duplicates of existing tlds, we should be restricting domain ownership, so no legal person can own more than one domain. That should prevent people and companies from spamming DNS, so that good names remain available.
I don't think the difference between game and app is a qualitative difference-- it's a quantitative difference. There's *more* innovation in games, but there *are* innovative apps. (We're not still writing everything in ed or edlin, right?) Remember how strange and cool WSYIWYG was when that paradigm was new?
To me, it seems that computer graphics can definitely be art. But programming is more of a craft. It's about making something well. And just like a well-executed piece of furniture, a program's internal beauty is irrelevant to the users-- it's how it looks and how it works that matters to the people who use it.
Sure, computer games contain art. Their music and images often have artistic worth. But we want computer games that are well designed and skillfully executed, not artistic statements.
I'm a programmer, and I've got a lot of respect for the creativity and hard work that goes into computer games. But I see them as a craft, not an art.
Anyone know why this is a story instead of a poll?
Re:Stop using the phrase Copy Protection...
on
More Copy Protected CDs?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I think better terms are "copy control" or "usage restriction". The point is that they want to control how you use what you buy.
What's wrong with http? If you're going to use a protocol, it doesn't hurt to use one that's widely implemented and understood.
And it doesn't require human intervention, either. It's not like they're doing a Turing test.
You could probably whip up a PERL client in an afternoon. Because one of the places http is implemented is in a PERL library.
In the end, I'm not calling the Athlon or P6 "RISC," but I'm also not calling them "CISC" either. The same goes for the G3 and G4, in reverse. Indeed, in light of what we now know about the the historical development of RISC and CISC, and the problems that each approach tried to solve, it should now be apparent that both terms are equally nonsensical when applied to the G3, G4, MIPS, P6, or K7."
Of course I know that current x86 CPUs have a RISC-like core. They're still the heirs of the 8086, and that's what's ironic.
Of course there's another explanation-- namely, it's not Jobs who's sitting on his thumbs-- it's Motorola. (Ouch-- can you imagine Motorola sitting on Jobs' thumbs?)
Furthermore, Motorola isn't sitting on their collective thumbs-- they're simply targetting a market whose requirements are different from Apple's. The embedded market.
This is all hugely ironic, because the RISC architecture was s'posed to result in chips that could cycle faster but did less per cycle. Instead, it's the CISC chips that are cycling faster and doing less per cycle.
His indifference to Microsoft and Windows is inspiring to me. If only all Linux supporters were so confident in Linux that they didn't bother to attack Windows. . .
Slashdot Mirror
Neither one of you's wrong, because you're talking about different things. Yes, copying an image onto your desktop from a website is currently considered fair use, but the first post was saying fair use is being eroded to the point that this will become illegal.
Dude, Netscape 4.77 is non-free.
There isn't a "mark all fair" button because in metamod it's better to get "no data" than an accidental "fair".
This is a development kernel. It's not beta. Beta generally means "feature-complete, but not fully tested". It's not alpha, because alpha usually means "mostly complete". Development means "not complete at all".
Our company just started on the next release of our software, so I feel a bit "in tune" with where the kernel developers are at.
The beginning of a new release should be the place where you make all the hard choices and break things. Then you start putting the pieces together, and if you broke the right stuff for the right reasons, it will be better (but probably less stable) than before. Gradually, you add more and more features, but they don't tend to break things as badly. Finally, you stop adding features, and work on polish.
This is a development kernel, and things are broken because smart people decided to break them. Don't think it's beta. It's not.
I believe Michael's talking about OpenCola's Swarmcast.
Heh. You got that straight out of Stroustrup's book, didn't you? I'm reading his chapter on design right now.
Well, here's a clue. Sometimes a mess is a bunch of bugfixes. And sometimes a mess is just a mess.
If you start out with a bad design, and you fix the code instead of the design when problems arise, you get messes like that. I have no problem with rewriting large sections of my code once I have a better understanding, and hence, a better design.
Or sometimes, I clean it up without changing how it works at all, by breaking one big function into several smaller ones, or replacing calculations with pre-calculated variables, or turning a function into an object.
Sure, wanton "cleaning" is dangerous, but there is a time an a place for reprogramming. Especially when there's a payoff in reliability or flexibility.
WordPerfect does it. WordPerfect 10 files are compatible with the last version of WordPerfect for DOS.
They say love is related to obsession.d _4 07000/407125.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsi
Really? Does it say This page was generated by a Cadre of Rabid Bruins for Webmonger (24302). for you too?
I don't know how an ISP would accomplish this, but when a user sets it up, it's easy: filter your mailing lists first.
THEN filter the remaining mail.
The remaining mail SHOULD NOT contain any mailing lists, or other generic mail, just personal stuff.
Wait-- here's how an ISP sets it up: don't delete the suspected spam, just add a header. The user's client can filter it, hopefully after it handles mailing-list mail.
Yes. Because artists are expendable.
Your smart meat celebrities, however, should be getting full-body scans so that they can look the same way 40 years from now, if they choose.
Are you perhaps unaware that the X-Box uses DirectX 8?
Umm, I don't think that's how it happens. I think Google indexes the page and THEN the idiots put on the password protection.
If Google accessed it via a special link, then Google would store that link, and you'd use that link, and you'd see it yourself.
(another form of not-secret link:
http://user:password@domain/path/file)
It's bad enough that the fear of jail time prevents people from publishing, as happened in the main article. Next it'll stop them from researching this. . .
I dunno about "practical" use. Unless you're a vet who specializes in mice. . .
Yeah, I guess I should have been more clear that a coporation is a legal person.
.Info proves nothing. Our company just registered some .biz and .info domains, and I've advised against using them for anything important.
.biz basically turn into blackmail, of the form: "What if someone typed in your domain name, and they didn't get your site? It could happen to you, if they type in acme.biz and someone else has registered it. So pay us money and it won't happen." The domains themselves are fairly worthless, because you get funny looks if you use a .info or .biz tld.
.info just makes things harder to remember. And a lot of the .info names are the same as their .com equivalents.
.info and
Web addresses should be memorable names. "yahoo" is easier to remember than "www.yahoo.org". And with www.*.com names, all people do remember is is "yahoo". The rest quickly becomes standard.
For humans, "yahoo", "cnet" and "amazon" are all top-level domains.
Instead of creating new tlds that are mostly duplicates of existing tlds, we should be restricting domain ownership, so no legal person can own more than one domain. That should prevent people and companies from spamming DNS, so that good names remain available.
What about the parallel port?
I don't think the difference between game and app is a qualitative difference-- it's a quantitative difference. There's *more* innovation in games, but there *are* innovative apps. (We're not still writing everything in ed or edlin, right?) Remember how strange and cool WSYIWYG was when that paradigm was new?
To me, it seems that computer graphics can definitely be art. But programming is more of a craft. It's about making something well. And just like a well-executed piece of furniture, a program's internal beauty is irrelevant to the users-- it's how it looks and how it works that matters to the people who use it.
Sure, computer games contain art. Their music and images often have artistic worth. But we want computer games that are well designed and skillfully executed, not artistic statements.
I'm a programmer, and I've got a lot of respect for the creativity and hard work that goes into computer games. But I see them as a craft, not an art.
Anyone know why this is a story instead of a poll?
I think better terms are "copy control" or "usage restriction". The point is that they want to control how you use what you buy.
What's wrong with http? If you're going to use a protocol, it doesn't hurt to use one that's widely implemented and understood.
And it doesn't require human intervention, either. It's not like they're doing a Turing test.
You could probably whip up a PERL client in an afternoon. Because one of the places http is implemented is in a PERL library.
Sorry, try again:
Of course I know that current x86 CPUs have a RISC-like core. They're still the heirs of the 8086, and that's what's ironic.
Of course there's another explanation-- namely, it's not Jobs who's sitting on his thumbs-- it's Motorola. (Ouch-- can you imagine Motorola sitting on Jobs' thumbs?)
Furthermore, Motorola isn't sitting on their collective thumbs-- they're simply targetting a market whose requirements are different from Apple's. The embedded market.
This is all hugely ironic, because the RISC architecture was s'posed to result in chips that could cycle faster but did less per cycle. Instead, it's the CISC chips that are cycling faster and doing less per cycle.
Actually, it really depends how you look at it.
His indifference to Microsoft and Windows is inspiring to me. If only all Linux supporters were so confident in Linux that they didn't bother to attack Windows. . .