Reminds me of the "thousand monkeys at a thousand typewriters" thought experiment.
As a side note, I think that this confirms my pet theory concerning time travel: any attempt to do it will change the past, which changes the conditions of the travel slightly, which changes the past, and so on, until the travel never occurs and the past stops changing. In other words, a spacetime where time travel happens is unstable and decays into one where it won't. Quantum uncertainty would, in this interpretation, be there to allow causality to "stretch" enough to allow such decay; a hypothethical universe without quantum uncertainty but with sentience and time travel (which is an inevitable outcome of the Theory of Relativity, which in turn is an inevitable outcome from the laws of physics being the same for all observers) would tear itself apart. You can thus deduct the Uncertainty Principle from the Anthropic Principle (we are here, so this universe must be able to support sentient life).
I wonder if you could calculate the minimum required amount of uncertainty for spacetime to stay consistent, and how it would relate to observed/otherwise calculated values? Assume that the first singularity formed at t=0, and has been moving infinitely close to lightspeed ever since, and connects to every other time period through a wormhole, and go from there. The math is beyond me, does anyone else care to try?
Give me a break. I guess you don't want your web browser to keep bookmarks of your favorite sites, because you can easily keep a small notebook on your desk and write down your favorite sites, then type the address in each time you want to visit them?
Safari uses a standard text box provided by Apple's Cocoa API, and one of the abilities of that text box is to check your spelling. You can turn it off if you don't like it.
Isn't this stating the obvious? Of course you could do this to speed games up, but all of these factors require longer development time.
With the rushed nature of game development, I don't think game companies are that worried about this. It raises development costs without paying out much- most gamers keep up with the latest video card, processor, etc., and won't benefit from this.
The type of computer user that doesn't upgrade their system very often is the same user that doesn't buy very many games.
If these games were open source projects, these sorts of enhancements could be possible. Since the code is open and shared, some guy with a low-end machine wants better performance, so he writes simpler algorithms to emulate the real ones. When you build your own copy, you just pick which optimization level you want to be at.
Music sharing may be legal in US too! 17 USC 1008
on
Burnt Coffee and Burnt CDs
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
There is currently alot of controversy around the "sharing" of
digital music files over the objections of the copyright holders
(RIAA for short). Some users feel guilt (occasionally shown as
defiance) over having received something valuable so cheaply.
I'd like to calm the rhetoric. Sure, common sense would indicate
the RIAA's copyrights have been violated. But copyright has been
heavily legislated over the past century to the point that
common sense or common law is nearly absent. It has such things
as compulsory licences and device royalties. Morality should be
confined to governing personal actions and advocating revisions
to intellectual property law. It is disingenuous for the RIAA to
invoke morality when if anything they have had excessive influence
in crafting legislation.
IANAL but lets look at the law. Once you know the tokens,
legalese is not usually harder to parse than APL:) Apologies for a
US-centric viewpoint but I believe a statutory situation exists in
all other common-law countries with different details. There's an
excellent copy of the United States Code, Title 17 - Copyrights at Cornell.
Chapter 10 covers DIGITAL AUDIO RECORDING DEVICES AND MEDIA .
Particularly interesting is:
Sec. 1008. - Prohibition on certain infringement actions...
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of
copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution
of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording
medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium,
or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device
or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical
recordings
Simply breathtaking! The words "this title" mean Title 17,
which contains all of US copyright law. The first "based on"
means these things are not actionable as contributory negligence
("burglars tools"). The second "based on" means non-commercial
use of these things does not violate copyright. Wow!
The definitions in Sec.1001 would seem to include computers.
They sure are designed, advertised and used that way amongst others.
But all is not [Guns'N'] roses. The manufacturers of these recording
devices would seem to owe a device tax that gets paid through the
Librarian-of-Congress (of all people!) to the RIAA as specified.
There are also requirements related to the Serial Copy Management
System. I trust that RIAA have settled this with their long-standing
antagonists, appliance manufacturers, now including Dell, HP, et al.
But even if not, how does it affect me?
The term "noncommercial use" would almost certainly cover receiving
music files to make recordings on a hard-disk. Offering to
transmit music files might not be covered and fall under
the exceptionally byzantine Sec.114 as an "interactive service".
But a lawyer specialising in Copyright law should be able to
give a better interpretation including case precedents. The
Diamond Rio MP3 player case is probably relevant. Is there a lawyer
in the house?
Come on, editors- this is news? We have already researched laser technology, so SDI defense is available. It should only take 2 or 3 turns to equip all of our cities with this technology.
I really enjoy using PHP for web development. I find that you can't beat scripting languages for ease of maintenance, quick turnaround time, and tweakability.
One of the big reasons I chose PHP was the availability of "LAMP": Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP. I know these technologies have been around for years and will be around for many more years, so it's an easy sell to management. There's plenty of talk on the newgroups if you ever get stuck and PHP's online documentation with user comments is priceless. I think more documentation should follow this example.
That aside, the pure performance and reliability of the above is excellent. These technologies were made to work together, and from what I hear the teams even collaborate to make sure their stuff stays working together. It really shows.
Years ago I worked on ASP/SQL Server solutions and where you had to go with native code for high-performance with ASP, I find that with PHP it is high performance on its own.
Great job to everyone who has helped put together these technology solutions. A shining example of the high quality that can come out of the collaborative efforts of many.
Sorry, I should have been more clear, I guess. I do Linux development at work, and Mac development at home in my spare time. I do know about those development tools you mentioned, because it is my full time job to use them.
Yes, there are many libraries available on Linux. However, none of them offer as much functionality as Cocoa does. They just don't. Furthermore, since there are dozens of difference choices, people develop apps using all of them, which leads to dozens of different behaviors among applications. On the Mac, a text box in one application will behave 99% the same way every other text box behaves.
There are Cocoa classes for all of the things you mentioned that wxWindows can do (networking, images, html, sound, OpenGL, ODBC, databases,...). I was sticking to text windows, since that's what the original poster was talking about in the part I quoted.
One biggie is that text windows work much better on linux.
Have you noticed that any application developed with the Cocoa framework gets all of the following for free, in any text window: multiple undo support, optional spell checking, keybindings, printing, unicode support, etc...
On Linux, you would have to implement every one of those things yourself, if you were writing an application with text windows.
I ask one question, could this rock not have come from the same source as the billions of rocks that litter the martian surface? I.E. somewhere other than Mars.
Two reasons for suspecting they originated on Mars:
Martian meteorites come in a range of ages - some as young as a billion years old. By comparison, most meteorites hang out around the 4.6 billion years old mark - the point when small planetary bodies were forming in the Solar System.
For rocks to be much younger than 4.6 billion they have to come from a body that was evolving - that was hot, partially molten and volcanically active. Such a body would have to be big - a planet. Mars is the most obvious candidate, it shows clear signs of tectonism until relatively recently - new rock was being formed on Mars within the last billion years.
The second reason for suspecting these are Martian rocks is so clever it borders on magical. Some meteorites have been analysed in the lab. They contain vesicles - tiny bubbles of gas trapped in the molten rock. When the rock cooled and froze, the gas was trapped.
When these bubbles are cracked open, the gas inside can be analysed. The ratios of the inert gases (gases such as neon, argon and krypton) precisely match the ratios in the Martian atmosphere measured by American and Soviet probes.
I've no idea if the Egyptian dog-killer has been analysed though.
It gives a thorough description of how to use Python; which is indeed easy to learn if you already know another language. But when the authors say that not having to compile Python programs means that development time is speeded up, perhaps they are overstating. For most programmers who use compiled languages like C or C++, the biggest time is taken up in finding a method that solves a problem, coding it and subsequent debugging. These days, compilers on recent hardware are fast enough that link/compile times are simply not a bottleneck to development productivity. So it is a bit of a straw dummy that the authors put forth.
However, they are absolutely spot on when comparing this to Perl or Tcl. Perl is powerful, but its code looks like assembler. Perl gurus tend to shrug when you point this out, usually saying they understand it, with the not-so-implicit suggestion that if you can't, it is your fault. But this leads to a real maintenance problem and a barrier to entry to others. The cleaner Python syntax can show coding intent far clearer. Plus, and more importantly, the object oriented nature of Python lets you scale up to much larger programs. This has always been a problem with scripting languages, all the way back to the various unix shell scripts and DOS bat files. Often, the most those ever gave you in terms of modular capabilities was the equivalent of subroutines. Which is strictly procedural and not OO.
By the way, there is a small contradiction between the above claim that Python is more understandable than Perl and the claim that it has an advantage over C++ or Java because it is not as verbose as those. Typically, in increasing amount of source code, you have Perl -> Python -> (C++,Java). If you think that Python is more understandable than Perl, then by that same logic, we could conclude that C++ or Java is more understandable than Python.
So if you are using Perl or Tcl and want something better, Python is a good choice. A good upgrade path.
But if you are currently using C or C++, with maybe X for graphics, or Java, then I suggest you stay with those. All three languages, with their graphics, give you a far richer toolset. Python would be a retrograde choice.
Moderators are selected from the Slashdot community, and
so have the same biases.
Six months ago I would have said that the Slashdot
BSD section had a trolling problem.
I think it's pretty clear now that Slashdot itself is
a good part of the problem.
Slashdot has taken the
attitude that the BSD community is responsible for
cleaning up the problem via moderation, and failure to
do so means that the community doesn't care.
Since the community doesn't care enough, the reasoning goes,
BSD really is, in some sense, dying and not worth saving.
But this makes two assumptions that are easily shown to
be false:
If the BSD community
(or other small community within Slashdot) cares to
use it, moderation can effectively
clean up the trolls, crap floods,
and so forth.
This ignores the asymmetry of the situation.
A crapflooder with a dialup connection and an idle
hour or two can post dozens of messages.
For this, several community members have to use up
all of their weekly (if they're lucky) mod points,
knowing full well
that the same misfit can come back and do it again
minutes later.
There aren't that many more trolls or crap flooders in
the more popular sections but there are a lot more
moderators, so no one has to blow their entire
allotment of mod points dealing with miscreants.
(And I might note that all the complaints about
trolls and crapflooding here indicate a community
that would deal with the situation if it had the mod
points to do it.)
Moderation is self-regulating.
The fallacy of this belief was brought home to
me not long ago when I was metamoderated "unfair"
twice in succession for down-moderating obvious trolls in
the BSD section.
And, as many of us have noted lately, there are
an increasing number of irrelevant postings and even
blatant trolls getting positive mods.
Once again, the supposed self-correcting nature of
moderation fails for lower-trafficked sections.
This is actually just the tip of an iceberg which
threatens to smash Slashdot into a chaotic free-for-all;
I don't think the BSD section is likely to be an
isolated case for long (if this is even the case now).
Just skim through the postings on nearly any technophile
(i.e. geeky) subject, and see how little interest there
is for true "News for Nerds" any more.
At least the half the posts will be "Who the hell thinks
this is interesting enough for an article?" or
"Hasn't this been done before?"
There is little moderation and it can take some time before
the trolls and crapfloods get mopped up.
On the other hand, each tidbit from the SCO or RIAA affairs
gets many hundreds
of highly-moderated "Ain't it awful" posts, and at least
for the first several hours obvious
trolls get squashed in minutes.
(This despite the fact that very little is
newly Insightful or Informative any more
on thse subjects, or even much left that is
Interesting.)
I'm sure that Slashdot gets loads of ad impressions when
they run these stories, however, and perhaps the cynics
who claim that this is the reason Slashdot runs
them are right.
But that's irrelevant; the fact is that as a result of
these stories Slashdot's
content is getting softer and softer, and therefore
the average Slashdotter is more likely to be only a camp
follower of
the technophile community, driven by peer influence
rather than an actual passion for computers and technology.
This is all grossly off-topic (except in the sense that
Slashdot is a proper topic for a posting on Slashdot),
and I expect some Offtopic moderations as a result.
But over the years I've seen Slashdot becoming a bloated
caricature of its former self, and this seemed as good
a time as any to speak up.
You're assuming by "copying" he means "cut and paste." Not at all. Copying could be somebody who read the JBoss code (which is open, and pretty good. I read quite a bit of it myself trying to decide whether it was a viable alternative to the ghastly expensive BEA WebSphere) writing identical functions for Geronimo. A bit like aspiring artists copying a famous painting, only much more illegal. Alternatively, it could be some well meaning developer thinking that "clean room" just means he has to retype it.
I've seen a lot of aspiring programmers retype what's "in the book" and consider it their own work. It's entirely possible a contributor to Geronimo did the exact same thing.
I have about 20Gb of MP3s. They're all mine. Ripped from CD's I own. Occasionally my CD was too badly damaged to get a good rip, so I've gotten a copy of a rip from a friend who owns the same album. Legal nit-picking aside, I think I have every legal right to do that.
I've never bothered with Napster, Kazaa, Gnutella or their like. I make intellectual property for a living, and I believe artists and creators ought to get paid for their work. (A discussion as to whether they actually _do_ get paid anything by the music publishers is beyond the scope of this rant.)
I want to buy more MP3s, legally. But I'm not going to bother with these half-assed more-expensive, more-restricted offerings. Sooner or later, they'll realize they have to offer equivalent or greater value to the consumer to win their business.
I want to listen to my newly-purchased songs in WinAmp, right along side my existing rips that I legally own. And if I want to put them on my laptop and listen to them while traveling, so be it. And MP3 players, while cycling. And maybe burn some to a CD to listen to in my car. It's my music, I can do what I want with it. Anything less is unacceptible.
Buying an entire album one song at a time and ending up paying _more_ than that album costs down the street at a bricks & mortar store? And getting a crippled, compressed, proprietary format that locks you to one CPU (what if it dies?) and only certain players? Who thought that was a clever idea?
The end of insane music publishing margins and selling the same music multiple times to a consumer (vinyl, tape, CD, DVD-Audio, MP3, etc) is here. The industry needs to learn to trim the fat like everyone else, and actually deliver value. And, to treat their customers like customers, not criminals.
I want to buy music. A lot of it. I'd probably drop $300 the first week such a reasonable system were available. And that's just the start. But lose this stupid business and operational model that they keep coming up with. Nobody wants less for more.
OK this may be a little controversial but I think that in the future a 'bandwidth tax' or some such thing may not be a bad idea. We supposedly moving into an age of the information economy. Some people through the Internet have more access to information than others, this information makes their life better. They can look for better jobs, be better informed on what is going on in the world and make more productive decisions accordingly. This situation will get worse as more and more services move exclusively online. The info poor will have fewer opportunities.
If you see tax as a way of re distributing wealth to help the less well off then you could conceivably charge a bandwidth tax and put the money into public net access. I know not everyone sees tax this way but it dosn't seem like that bad an idea to me
It could also be used to help fund Internet monitoring, which I know no one likes but the government is going to do it anyway so why shouldn't people who use more bandwidth pay a greater share of the cost?
this 'nigerian spam' idea has appeared in other forms as well.
i'm trying to sell my car and posted it on a few free car sales websites. so far, i've received 4 of emails exactly like this:
"We have a client who is interested in purchasing your ( 2000 vw gti vr6 glx ) for the price of $( 14,500 ).Please forward me your final asking price "
of course, i then reply with the price confirmation, but then i get this:
"Hello,
Thanks a lot for your mail and the information, also for all your efforts towards making this transaction a success, i really love it and wish to buy as soon as possible. Anyway, this is how we are going to seal this transaction there is an associate of mine in the US who is owing me $19,800 i am going to instruct him to send you a cashier's check for that amount,and when it clears your bank you can now send my balance by Westernunion. Although i know that the value of the check is more than the price of the 2000 VW GTI VR6 GLX, but i am willing to trust you with my balance So if this offer is acceptable to you,let me have your contact information so that i can instruct my associate to send you a check,that is your name,address and phone number Please get back to me as soon as soon as you get this mail so that i can know your decision regards this transaction. I am banking on my balance so that i will be able to settle my shippers here in there local office because it is cheaper and faster.My regards to the family
Banks"
so this scam basically falls upon the same principle. obviously we all know where this is going, but i decide to play along anyway and sent him a bogus PO box to send the check to.
the next email was this: "Thanks so much for the mail and the rightful information. Anyway, i just want you to know that what is required is your physical address and phone number, so as to deliver the payment to you in person. So, do well to let me have your Full name, physical address and phone number, in order to get the payment to you as soon as possible. And what do you mean by "terrifc deal"?. Waiting to hear back from you soon. Thank you and God bless.
Regards
Banks"
my question: why does he need my physical address and phone number? it's obvious at this point he will let me know about some snag and that i need to send him some money for whatever reason.
After sifting and sorting through the myriad of posts pointing out that this site is running IIS 5 and how the govt. is so hypocritical for doing so, I've come to the conclusion that some if not most slashdotter's are too riled by minor details. It conveys a serious lack of intelligence on our part. But I digress...
While going through some of the PDF docs on the site, mostly pertaining to court judgements, I noticed that many of these documents reference the Sherman Anti-trust Act.
2 Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 2
Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty
Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court
For those that don't know, this is Section 2 of the Sherman act, which Microsoft was found in violation of. I see the fine of $10,000,000 as a maximum to be completely impotent against a company with a financial foundation such as microsoft's. There should be some sort of percentage of profits reaped from the anti-competitive behavior that should be taken away. $10,000,000 is a drop in the bucket for microsoft. The penalty should be stiffer.
I'd be interested in filing a complaint regarding their procedures regarding the computer sales market, how pretty much all PCs come with their product and their "tax" regardless of whether or not you want it. THAT is a complaint worth filing. I am being FORCED to pay for a PRODUCT that I NEVER asked for nor implied that I wanted.
The article writer obviously has a reason to say DARPA should only accept 20 entries, as opposed to a hundred, but I can't figure it out.
I don't think it has to do with the number of entries, but rather the course. Maybe only 20 vehicles can compete on the course at the same time, and all vehicles have to compete simultaneously.
The first posters here don't have a clue as to the effects and circumstances of this. The purpose is not Autonomous Kill Vehicles though it might occur. Cruise Missiles etc already do this as does the Predator to one degree or another. The purpose here is to reduce the overhead cost on the army dramatically in hauling supplies etc over long distances with or without roads. To do this you need vehicles than can bypass disabled vehicles and overcome obstacles. They need to be free of drivers who get tired and eat up supplies.
The real effect here will be civilian. The project which like it or not will happen regardless of DARPA someday soon, is going to very nearly completely alter how we live.
To illustrate: suppose you are old blind and unable to drive. (It happens to the best of us) Now you will be able to go where you want without somebody driving you. Suppose you want to go to work but don't want to own a car? Mass Transit? No! you just get on your cell phone and call for a car. It arrives shortly and takes you where you want to go and without a driver. Freight? No more Truck Drivers and the wreaks from them being too tired. No more Taxi Drivers. Close most of the Hospitals because wreaks are not filling them up. Kids will not need parents to drive them somewhere.
There is very nearly nothing more profound than this race! It will reorganize our world. The issue here is how will we adapt. This isn't an esoteric question. We had better face it now.
For the Luddites amung us, give it up. Stopping DARPA will only give the technological edge to China. They will do the work. This is a very high amplification Technology. It Amplifies People a LOT. The issue as always will be the morals of those being Amplified, and will we allow this to cause others to be lost in the "noise."
By becoming public, google loses the ability to continue with constant steady growth and innovative R&D. These things will invariably lead to short sighted planning by the management to "make the numbers" for the next quarter, 6 months, or year. "Growth" will be expected year after year - the innovative ideas that have made google so successful will give way.
No, I won't bid on a share. I would hope that the IPO never happens, as google is still a quality company. I would hate to see that all change.
(With the disclaimer that I only am licensed to practice law in California, and although I am in the process of starting a solo practice, I am chained to a law firm for the next month or so and thus can't initiate my own cases. and this is not legal advice, yadda yadda - see sig)
Some of the aspects of this story sound legally questionable. For example, a credit card company's acceptance of an unsigned credit card application, in general. But also, since there was no signature, your wife (although extremely careless and naive for throwing her personal information in a public trash can) never consented to the "fine print" which was the ostensible hook for the company to distribute her info to spammers, telemarketers, other vermin. True, if someone fished her info out of the trash and used it for spamming, she might not have much of a remedy - although some states have put anti-spamming laws into effect, they typically only give a remedy against the spammer, and they make themselves hard to find and identify - who do you sue? But it sounds, from your account, like you can prove the unsigned application was actually submitted to VISA, and may be able to prove that VISA sold her info to the pond scum with knowledge that she had not consented. If that were so, you might have some kind of remedy against VISA or the bank that issued the VISA. If you are in a jurisdiction like California which has a privacy right incorporated in its state constitution, your position might be even stronger.
I would recommend consulting a lawyer who is licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. If you don't know a lawyer, try contacting law schools in your area or your State Bar Association to ask if there are any referral services they would recommend to look at a case of potential privacy violation. This is better than picking up the phone book at random.
It's not that hard to take down a spammer who causes you problems beyond just sending you unwanted email... I had one friend who had a spammer run a couple hundred thousand emails thru his system (a bug had made it into an open relay). It took one stern call to the ISP hosting the advertised websites to get his hosting and DNS cut off at the knees.
This is more than just sending off a single email to a scantly watched abuse email.. This means getting hold of a real person and explaining, realistisay, what sort of legal liabilities they might be open to if they continue to support the spammer's actions. (Hacking laws, aiding and abetting, Trademark infringement and vicarious liability) often fit in there.
If more people would do this, life would get a lot harder for spammers.
I believe p2p is the future. Copyright issues aside, I doubt I'm the only one that's noticed that there are some downloads that are getting extremely large. Maybe it's a game demo, a movie trailer, or a software upgrade. How often has it happened that some thing comes out like, say, a Matrix trailer or a new game mod and people swamp the main server and mirrors alike to download it? Why else would recent Slashdot articles on popular downloads be linking.torrent files?
The problem is further escalated by the fact that the ranks of broadband users are growning every day. I hear that Verizon is wanting to dump somewhere around 11 billion dollars into their network to ensure that all of their customers are able to get DSL, and they have lowered their prices across the board...You can now get 1.5 down/128 up for a flat $30/mo, similar to what SBC's been offering. With all this broadband around, popular web sites will not be able to keep up, expecially if they have downloadable goodies. The answer is distributed computing. p2p represents the infancy of the inevitibility of distributed storage, processing, and bandwidth.
This has nothing to do with anything remotely Slashdot related, but I need to do something before my head explodes...
As I type this, my roomate and my best friend/recent lover are fucking in the next room over. WHAT THE FUCK. After 10 years of friendship and built-up sexual tension, we finally hooked up and now less than a week later she's banging my roomate. I am so fucking incensed right now I can't think straight. I wouldn't mind if they went to a hotel or otherwise didn't make it known, but she just FUCKING WALKED PAST MY ROOM TOPLESS AND SHUT THE DOOR IN MY FUCKING FACE. How fucking insensitive can you be?!
This sucks. It's 3AM and I'm telling strangers (GEEK strangers, no less) about my personal problems. I am a big pussy and will most likely not say anything to either one of them so I expect this to go on for a while. Fuck.
Feeling low? There's someone else out there that's having a worse day than you. Trust me.
Slashdot Mirror
Reminds me of the "thousand monkeys at a thousand typewriters" thought experiment.
As a side note, I think that this confirms my pet theory concerning time travel: any attempt to do it will change the past, which changes the conditions of the travel slightly, which changes the past, and so on, until the travel never occurs and the past stops changing. In other words, a spacetime where time travel happens is unstable and decays into one where it won't. Quantum uncertainty would, in this interpretation, be there to allow causality to "stretch" enough to allow such decay; a hypothethical universe without quantum uncertainty but with sentience and time travel (which is an inevitable outcome of the Theory of Relativity, which in turn is an inevitable outcome from the laws of physics being the same for all observers) would tear itself apart. You can thus deduct the Uncertainty Principle from the Anthropic Principle (we are here, so this universe must be able to support sentient life).
I wonder if you could calculate the minimum required amount of uncertainty for spacetime to stay consistent, and how it would relate to observed/otherwise calculated values? Assume that the first singularity formed at t=0, and has been moving infinitely close to lightspeed ever since, and connects to every other time period through a wormhole, and go from there. The math is beyond me, does anyone else care to try?
Give me a break. I guess you don't want your web browser to keep bookmarks of your favorite sites, because you can easily keep a small notebook on your desk and write down your favorite sites, then type the address in each time you want to visit them?
Safari uses a standard text box provided by Apple's Cocoa API, and one of the abilities of that text box is to check your spelling. You can turn it off if you don't like it.
Isn't this stating the obvious? Of course you could do this to speed games up, but all of these factors require longer development time.
With the rushed nature of game development, I don't think game companies are that worried about this. It raises development costs without paying out much- most gamers keep up with the latest video card, processor, etc., and won't benefit from this.
The type of computer user that doesn't upgrade their system very often is the same user that doesn't buy very many games.
If these games were open source projects, these sorts of enhancements could be possible. Since the code is open and shared, some guy with a low-end machine wants better performance, so he writes simpler algorithms to emulate the real ones. When you build your own copy, you just pick which optimization level you want to be at.
I'd like to calm the rhetoric. Sure, common sense would indicate the RIAA's copyrights have been violated. But copyright has been heavily legislated over the past century to the point that common sense or common law is nearly absent. It has such things as compulsory licences and device royalties. Morality should be confined to governing personal actions and advocating revisions to intellectual property law. It is disingenuous for the RIAA to invoke morality when if anything they have had excessive influence in crafting legislation.
IANAL but lets look at the law. Once you know the tokens, legalese is not usually harder to parse than APL :) Apologies for a
US-centric viewpoint but I believe a statutory situation exists in
all other common-law countries with different details. There's an
excellent copy of the United States Code, Title 17 - Copyrights at Cornell.
Chapter 10 covers DIGITAL AUDIO RECORDING DEVICES AND MEDIA .
Particularly interesting is:
Sec. 1008. - Prohibition on certain infringement actions... No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings
Simply breathtaking! The words "this title" mean Title 17, which contains all of US copyright law. The first "based on" means these things are not actionable as contributory negligence ("burglars tools"). The second "based on" means non-commercial use of these things does not violate copyright. Wow!
The definitions in Sec.1001 would seem to include computers. They sure are designed, advertised and used that way amongst others. But all is not [Guns'N'] roses. The manufacturers of these recording devices would seem to owe a device tax that gets paid through the Librarian-of-Congress (of all people!) to the RIAA as specified. There are also requirements related to the Serial Copy Management System. I trust that RIAA have settled this with their long-standing antagonists, appliance manufacturers, now including Dell, HP, et al. But even if not, how does it affect me?
The term "noncommercial use" would almost certainly cover receiving music files to make recordings on a hard-disk. Offering to transmit music files might not be covered and fall under the exceptionally byzantine Sec.114 as an "interactive service". But a lawyer specialising in Copyright law should be able to give a better interpretation including case precedents. The Diamond Rio MP3 player case is probably relevant. Is there a lawyer in the house?
Come on, editors- this is news? We have already researched laser technology, so SDI defense is available. It should only take 2 or 3 turns to equip all of our cities with this technology.
I really enjoy using PHP for web development. I find that you can't beat scripting languages for ease of maintenance, quick turnaround time, and tweakability.
One of the big reasons I chose PHP was the availability of "LAMP": Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP. I know these technologies have been around for years and will be around for many more years, so it's an easy sell to management. There's plenty of talk on the newgroups if you ever get stuck and PHP's online documentation with user comments is priceless. I think more documentation should follow this example.
That aside, the pure performance and reliability of the above is excellent. These technologies were made to work together, and from what I hear the teams even collaborate to make sure their stuff stays working together. It really shows.
Years ago I worked on ASP/SQL Server solutions and where you had to go with native code for high-performance with ASP, I find that with PHP it is high performance on its own.
Great job to everyone who has helped put together these technology solutions. A shining example of the high quality that can come out of the collaborative efforts of many.
Sorry, I should have been more clear, I guess. I do Linux development at work, and Mac development at home in my spare time. I do know about those development tools you mentioned, because it is my full time job to use them.
Yes, there are many libraries available on Linux. However, none of them offer as much functionality as Cocoa does. They just don't. Furthermore, since there are dozens of difference choices, people develop apps using all of them, which leads to dozens of different behaviors among applications. On the Mac, a text box in one application will behave 99% the same way every other text box behaves.
There are Cocoa classes for all of the things you mentioned that wxWindows can do (networking, images, html, sound, OpenGL, ODBC, databases, ...). I was sticking to text windows, since that's what the original poster was talking about in the part I quoted.
One biggie is that text windows work much better on linux.
Have you noticed that any application developed with the Cocoa framework gets all of the following for free, in any text window: multiple undo support, optional spell checking, keybindings, printing, unicode support, etc...
On Linux, you would have to implement every one of those things yourself, if you were writing an application with text windows.
I ask one question, could this rock not have come from the same source as the billions of rocks that litter the martian surface? I.E. somewhere other than Mars.
Two reasons for suspecting they originated on Mars:
Martian meteorites come in a range of ages - some as young as a billion years old. By comparison, most meteorites hang out around the 4.6 billion years old mark - the point when small planetary bodies were forming in the Solar System.
For rocks to be much younger than 4.6 billion they have to come from a body that was evolving - that was hot, partially molten and volcanically active. Such a body would have to be big - a planet. Mars is the most obvious candidate, it shows clear signs of tectonism until relatively recently - new rock was being formed on Mars within the last billion years.
The second reason for suspecting these are Martian rocks is so clever it borders on magical. Some meteorites have been analysed in the lab. They contain vesicles - tiny bubbles of gas trapped in the molten rock. When the rock cooled and froze, the gas was trapped.
When these bubbles are cracked open, the gas inside can be analysed. The ratios of the inert gases (gases such as neon, argon and krypton) precisely match the ratios in the Martian atmosphere measured by American and Soviet probes.
I've no idea if the Egyptian dog-killer has been analysed though.
Best wishes,
Mike.
As regards portable music playback devices, don't compare apples and ogg ranges.
It gives a thorough description of how to use Python; which is indeed easy to learn if you already know another language. But when the authors say that not having to compile Python programs means that development time is speeded up, perhaps they are overstating. For most programmers who use compiled languages like C or C++, the biggest time is taken up in finding a method that solves a problem, coding it and subsequent debugging. These days, compilers on recent hardware are fast enough that link/compile times are simply not a bottleneck to development productivity. So it is a bit of a straw dummy that the authors put forth.
However, they are absolutely spot on when comparing this to Perl or Tcl. Perl is powerful, but its code looks like assembler. Perl gurus tend to shrug when you point this out, usually saying they understand it, with the not-so-implicit suggestion that if you can't, it is your fault. But this leads to a real maintenance problem and a barrier to entry to others. The cleaner Python syntax can show coding intent far clearer. Plus, and more importantly, the object oriented nature of Python lets you scale up to much larger programs. This has always been a problem with scripting languages, all the way back to the various unix shell scripts and DOS bat files. Often, the most those ever gave you in terms of modular capabilities was the equivalent of subroutines. Which is strictly procedural and not OO.
By the way, there is a small contradiction between the above claim that Python is more understandable than Perl and the claim that it has an advantage over C++ or Java because it is not as verbose as those. Typically, in increasing amount of source code, you have Perl -> Python -> (C++,Java). If you think that Python is more understandable than Perl, then by that same logic, we could conclude that C++ or Java is more understandable than Python.
So if you are using Perl or Tcl and want something better, Python is a good choice. A good upgrade path.
But if you are currently using C or C++, with maybe X for graphics, or Java, then I suggest you stay with those. All three languages, with their graphics, give you a far richer toolset. Python would be a retrograde choice.
Moderators are selected from the Slashdot community, and so have the same biases. Six months ago I would have said that the Slashdot BSD section had a trolling problem. I think it's pretty clear now that Slashdot itself is a good part of the problem.
Slashdot has taken the attitude that the BSD community is responsible for cleaning up the problem via moderation, and failure to do so means that the community doesn't care. Since the community doesn't care enough, the reasoning goes, BSD really is, in some sense, dying and not worth saving. But this makes two assumptions that are easily shown to be false:
This ignores the asymmetry of the situation. A crapflooder with a dialup connection and an idle hour or two can post dozens of messages. For this, several community members have to use up all of their weekly (if they're lucky) mod points, knowing full well that the same misfit can come back and do it again minutes later.
There aren't that many more trolls or crap flooders in the more popular sections but there are a lot more moderators, so no one has to blow their entire allotment of mod points dealing with miscreants. (And I might note that all the complaints about trolls and crapflooding here indicate a community that would deal with the situation if it had the mod points to do it.)
The fallacy of this belief was brought home to me not long ago when I was metamoderated "unfair" twice in succession for down-moderating obvious trolls in the BSD section. And, as many of us have noted lately, there are an increasing number of irrelevant postings and even blatant trolls getting positive mods. Once again, the supposed self-correcting nature of moderation fails for lower-trafficked sections.
This is actually just the tip of an iceberg which threatens to smash Slashdot into a chaotic free-for-all; I don't think the BSD section is likely to be an isolated case for long (if this is even the case now). Just skim through the postings on nearly any technophile (i.e. geeky) subject, and see how little interest there is for true "News for Nerds" any more. At least the half the posts will be "Who the hell thinks this is interesting enough for an article?" or "Hasn't this been done before?" There is little moderation and it can take some time before the trolls and crapfloods get mopped up.
On the other hand, each tidbit from the SCO or RIAA affairs gets many hundreds of highly-moderated "Ain't it awful" posts, and at least for the first several hours obvious trolls get squashed in minutes. (This despite the fact that very little is newly Insightful or Informative any more on thse subjects, or even much left that is Interesting.) I'm sure that Slashdot gets loads of ad impressions when they run these stories, however, and perhaps the cynics who claim that this is the reason Slashdot runs them are right. But that's irrelevant; the fact is that as a result of these stories Slashdot's content is getting softer and softer, and therefore the average Slashdotter is more likely to be only a camp follower of the technophile community, driven by peer influence rather than an actual passion for computers and technology.
This is all grossly off-topic (except in the sense that Slashdot is a proper topic for a posting on Slashdot), and I expect some Offtopic moderations as a result. But over the years I've seen Slashdot becoming a bloated caricature of its former self, and this seemed as good a time as any to speak up.
You're assuming by "copying" he means "cut and paste." Not at all. Copying could be somebody who read the JBoss code (which is open, and pretty good. I read quite a bit of it myself trying to decide whether it was a viable alternative to the ghastly expensive BEA WebSphere) writing identical functions for Geronimo. A bit like aspiring artists copying a famous painting, only much more illegal. Alternatively, it could be some well meaning developer thinking that "clean room" just means he has to retype it.
I've seen a lot of aspiring programmers retype what's "in the book" and consider it their own work. It's entirely possible a contributor to Geronimo did the exact same thing.
But only on reasonable terms.
I have about 20Gb of MP3s. They're all mine. Ripped from CD's I own. Occasionally my CD was too badly damaged to get a good rip, so I've gotten a copy of a rip from a friend who owns the same album. Legal nit-picking aside, I think I have every legal right to do that.
I've never bothered with Napster, Kazaa, Gnutella or their like. I make intellectual property for a living, and I believe artists and creators ought to get paid for their work. (A discussion as to whether they actually _do_ get paid anything by the music publishers is beyond the scope of this rant.)
I want to buy more MP3s, legally. But I'm not going to bother with these half-assed more-expensive, more-restricted offerings. Sooner or later, they'll realize they have to offer equivalent or greater value to the consumer to win their business.
I want to listen to my newly-purchased songs in WinAmp, right along side my existing rips that I legally own. And if I want to put them on my laptop and listen to them while traveling, so be it. And MP3 players, while cycling. And maybe burn some to a CD to listen to in my car. It's my music, I can do what I want with it. Anything less is unacceptible.
Buying an entire album one song at a time and ending up paying _more_ than that album costs down the street at a bricks & mortar store? And getting a crippled, compressed, proprietary format that locks you to one CPU (what if it dies?) and only certain players? Who thought that was a clever idea?
The end of insane music publishing margins and selling the same music multiple times to a consumer (vinyl, tape, CD, DVD-Audio, MP3, etc) is here. The industry needs to learn to trim the fat like everyone else, and actually deliver value. And, to treat their customers like customers, not criminals.
I want to buy music. A lot of it. I'd probably drop $300 the first week such a reasonable system were available. And that's just the start. But lose this stupid business and operational model that they keep coming up with. Nobody wants less for more.
OK this may be a little controversial but I think that in the future a 'bandwidth tax' or some such thing may not be a bad idea. We supposedly moving into an age of the information economy. Some people through the Internet have more access to information than others, this information makes their life better. They can look for better jobs, be better informed on what is going on in the world and make more productive decisions accordingly. This situation will get worse as more and more services move exclusively online. The info poor will have fewer opportunities.
If you see tax as a way of re distributing wealth to help the less well off then you could conceivably charge a bandwidth tax and put the money into public net access. I know not everyone sees tax this way but it dosn't seem like that bad an idea to me
It could also be used to help fund Internet monitoring, which I know no one likes but the government is going to do it anyway so why shouldn't people who use more bandwidth pay a greater share of the cost?
Way to take a stand. I'm sure these companies will decide to reject all that ad revenue in favor of the money they'll make off the one router you buy.
this 'nigerian spam' idea has appeared in other forms as well.
i'm trying to sell my car and posted it on a few free car sales websites. so far, i've received 4 of emails exactly like this:
"We have a client who is interested in purchasing
your ( 2000 vw gti vr6 glx ) for the price of $( 14,500 ).Please forward me your final asking price "
of course, i then reply with the price confirmation, but then i get this:
"Hello,
Thanks a lot for your mail and the information, also for all your efforts towards making this transaction a success, i really love it and wish to buy as soon as possible. Anyway, this is how we are going to seal this transaction there is an associate of mine in the US who is owing me $19,800 i am going to instruct him to send you a cashier's check for that amount,and when it clears your bank you can now send my balance by Westernunion. Although i know that the value of the check is more than the price of the 2000 VW GTI VR6 GLX, but i am willing to trust you with my balance So if this offer is acceptable to you,let me have your contact information so that i can instruct my associate to send you a check,that is your name,address and phone number Please get back to me as soon as soon as you get this mail so that i can know your decision regards this transaction. I am banking on my balance so that i will be able to settle my shippers here in there local office because it is cheaper and faster.My regards to the family
Banks"
so this scam basically falls upon the same principle. obviously we all know where this is going, but i decide to play along anyway and sent him a bogus PO box to send the check to.
the next email was this:
"Thanks so much for the mail and the rightful information. Anyway, i just want you to know that what is required is your physical address and phone number, so as to deliver the payment to you in person. So, do well to let me have your Full name, physical address and phone number, in order to get the payment to you as soon as possible. And what do you mean by "terrifc deal"?. Waiting to hear back from you soon. Thank you and God bless.
Regards
Banks"
my question: why does he need my physical address and phone number? it's obvious at this point he will let me know about some snag and that i need to send him some money for whatever reason.
on a side note, i am selling my Volkswagen GTI VR6 GLX if anyone is interested.
so, people selling their autos online, be wary of this scam.
After sifting and sorting through the myriad of posts pointing out that this site is running IIS 5 and how the govt. is so hypocritical for doing so, I've come to the conclusion that some if not most slashdotter's are too riled by minor details. It conveys a serious lack of intelligence on our part. But I digress...
While going through some of the PDF docs on the site, mostly pertaining to court judgements, I noticed that many of these documents reference the Sherman Anti-trust Act.
2 Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 2
Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty
Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court
For those that don't know, this is Section 2 of the Sherman act, which Microsoft was found in violation of. I see the fine of $10,000,000 as a maximum to be completely impotent against a company with a financial foundation such as microsoft's. There should be some sort of percentage of profits reaped from the anti-competitive behavior that should be taken away. $10,000,000 is a drop in the bucket for microsoft. The penalty should be stiffer.
I'd be interested in filing a complaint regarding their procedures regarding the computer sales market, how pretty much all PCs come with their product and their "tax" regardless of whether or not you want it. THAT is a complaint worth filing. I am being FORCED to pay for a PRODUCT that I NEVER asked for nor implied that I wanted.
I don't think it has to do with the number of entries, but rather the course. Maybe only 20 vehicles can compete on the course at the same time, and all vehicles have to compete simultaneously.
The first posters here don't have a clue as to the effects and circumstances of this. The purpose is not Autonomous Kill Vehicles though it might occur. Cruise Missiles etc already do this as does the Predator to one degree or another. The purpose here is to reduce the overhead cost on the army dramatically in hauling supplies etc over long distances with or without roads. To do this you need vehicles than can bypass disabled vehicles and overcome obstacles. They need to be free of drivers who get tired and eat up supplies.
The real effect here will be civilian. The project which like it or not will happen regardless of DARPA someday soon, is going to very nearly completely alter how we live.
To illustrate: suppose you are old blind and unable to drive. (It happens to the best of us) Now you will be able to go where you want without somebody driving you. Suppose you want to go to work but don't want to own a car? Mass Transit? No! you just get on your cell phone and call for a car. It arrives shortly and takes you where you want to go and without a driver. Freight? No more Truck Drivers and the wreaks from them being too tired. No more Taxi Drivers. Close most of the Hospitals because wreaks are not filling them up. Kids will not need parents to drive them somewhere.
There is very nearly nothing more profound than this race! It will reorganize our world. The issue here is how will we adapt. This isn't an esoteric question. We had better face it now.
For the Luddites amung us, give it up. Stopping DARPA will only give the technological edge to China. They will do the work. This is a very high amplification Technology. It Amplifies People a LOT. The issue as always will be the morals of those being Amplified, and will we allow this to cause others to be lost in the "noise."
By becoming public, google loses the ability to continue with constant steady growth and innovative R&D. These things will invariably lead to short sighted planning by the management to "make the numbers" for the next quarter, 6 months, or year. "Growth" will be expected year after year - the innovative ideas that have made google so successful will give way.
No, I won't bid on a share. I would hope that the IPO never happens, as google is still a quality company. I would hate to see that all change.
Some of the aspects of this story sound legally questionable. For example, a credit card company's acceptance of an unsigned credit card application, in general. But also, since there was no signature, your wife (although extremely careless and naive for throwing her personal information in a public trash can) never consented to the "fine print" which was the ostensible hook for the company to distribute her info to spammers, telemarketers, other vermin. True, if someone fished her info out of the trash and used it for spamming, she might not have much of a remedy - although some states have put anti-spamming laws into effect, they typically only give a remedy against the spammer, and they make themselves hard to find and identify - who do you sue? But it sounds, from your account, like you can prove the unsigned application was actually submitted to VISA, and may be able to prove that VISA sold her info to the pond scum with knowledge that she had not consented. If that were so, you might have some kind of remedy against VISA or the bank that issued the VISA. If you are in a jurisdiction like California which has a privacy right incorporated in its state constitution, your position might be even stronger.
I would recommend consulting a lawyer who is licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. If you don't know a lawyer, try contacting law schools in your area or your State Bar Association to ask if there are any referral services they would recommend to look at a case of potential privacy violation. This is better than picking up the phone book at random.
This is more than just sending off a single email to a scantly watched abuse email.. This means getting hold of a real person and explaining, realistisay, what sort of legal liabilities they might be open to if they continue to support the spammer's actions.
(Hacking laws, aiding and abetting, Trademark infringement and vicarious liability) often fit in there.
If more people would do this, life would get a lot harder for spammers.
I believe p2p is the future. Copyright issues aside, I doubt I'm the only one that's noticed that there are some downloads that are getting extremely large. Maybe it's a game demo, a movie trailer, or a software upgrade. How often has it happened that some thing comes out like, say, a Matrix trailer or a new game mod and people swamp the main server and mirrors alike to download it? Why else would recent Slashdot articles on popular downloads be linking .torrent files?
The problem is further escalated by the fact that the ranks of broadband users are growning every day. I hear that Verizon is wanting to dump somewhere around 11 billion dollars into their network to ensure that all of their customers are able to get DSL, and they have lowered their prices across the board...You can now get 1.5 down/128 up for a flat $30/mo, similar to what SBC's been offering. With all this broadband around, popular web sites will not be able to keep up, expecially if they have downloadable goodies. The answer is distributed computing. p2p represents the infancy of the inevitibility of distributed storage, processing, and bandwidth.
This has nothing to do with anything remotely Slashdot related, but I need to do something before my head explodes...
As I type this, my roomate and my best friend/recent lover are fucking in the next room over. WHAT THE FUCK. After 10 years of friendship and built-up sexual tension, we finally hooked up and now less than a week later she's banging my roomate. I am so fucking incensed right now I can't think straight. I wouldn't mind if they went to a hotel or otherwise didn't make it known, but she just FUCKING WALKED PAST MY ROOM TOPLESS AND SHUT THE DOOR IN MY FUCKING FACE. How fucking insensitive can you be?!
This sucks. It's 3AM and I'm telling strangers (GEEK strangers, no less) about my personal problems. I am a big pussy and will most likely not say anything to either one of them so I expect this to go on for a while. Fuck.
Feeling low? There's someone else out there that's having a worse day than you. Trust me.