It sounds like they are working on a replacement for the Nagle algorithm. Nagle works well on clean connections, even if badly tuned slow-start gets annoying when you have gigabit connection and it still takes a minute to ramp up to full speed on an ISO download. Where "fast tcp" would really help is on a dirty connection. I had to connect to a supercomputer a few years ago over a 100Mbps link that corrupted or lost 30% of all packets and I had to use my own streaming on top of UDP to avoid getting hammered by shrinking windows (I still needed congestion control.) On this type of connection I'd expect their "fast tcp" might give a 10x speedup. On a normal non-noisy and relatively slow DSL connection, like I have at home, I'd be surprised by a 10% speedup.
In other words the story is all wrong, but what they are doing is actually worthwhile. You sometimes have noisy networks, especially when they are wireless or in an industrial environment. The big long haul telecoms lines are better off doing error correction on line, but in the last mile you never really know the noise characteristics so this should be handled better on the TCP level. I would probably do something like FEC with the number of recoverable errors per packet and per lost packet per logical block, tuned to the error characteristics of the network. Then call it TCP2 and release an RFC and some BSD licensed source code.. (I thought of doing this as part of building an ISP friendly P2P protocol but decided I didn't have the time..) Their solution has the advantage that it works just great with regular old TCP implementations.
As it currently stands, most musicians have the option of buying out their own recording masters after 30 years built into their contract, right?
hehehe
Actually, book authors usually get their copyrights after the book has been out of print for a certain time. But this is changing since publishers can keep a book in print forever by just using print on demand. In the old days you had to make large print runs so the book was out of print as soon as you sold the last copy and didn't print another run. Musicians have been screewed from day one, while there used to be hundreds of book printers, there have always been just a handful of recording labels. Also, musicians as on average have been younger and more foolish than the average book author.
wow, that's definately a handfull of interesting information and certainly furthers my impression that the current IP/copyright laws have gone to the waste and really makes a moral case for p2p file trading, black market dvd's, etc etc. I had the same thought after I wrote it, I knew it all before but when I look at the whole puzzle together it's not exactly pretty.
one point you made was regarding an individual's human right to privacy. while i do think that the US constitution indirectly grants a right to privacy, i think that right is very limited. i think that right is nearly absolute on your own property, and diminishes greatly as you yourself enter a public domain.
I think of privacy as a right, but one you often trade away explicitly or implicitly for some other benefit. You implicitly trade some of it away for power or to further your view of the public interest when you enter politics. You explicitly trade it away when you buy land; and, implicitly when you engage in practically any commercial transaction. It's because we implicitly trade away some of our privacy hundreds of times a day that privacy is such a hard thing to get one's head around. The courts in the USA have dealt with this by applying a reasonableness test. The EPA can't make a surpise visit to your fenced in private forest without some good reason to think you are doing something horrible, but they can make an appointment with you to make an inspection and hold you to it. Any reasonableness test is problematic because it's a subjective test like the community standards test for illegal smut. You basically get as much privacy as the community thinks you should. This wouldn't be so bad if you just got less privacy when at a midwestern commune than in an ethnic Japanese community, but it's the police and the broader community that define your right to privacy, so it's ripe for abuse by racist and otherwise bigoted definitions. (Their definition of your right to privacy, not our right to privacy.)
Rights have to be balanced when they conflict, "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happyness" but you can't kill other people for body parts to continue living, nor can you enslave others to buy your liberty. There is some thought that by pursuit of happyness the founders actually meant the pursuit of power to influence the development of the society, i.e. political power. I don't know if I buy that, but even if that's what they meant you still can't assume that power by killing all your rivals. You can hurt other people in the excercise of your freedoms but there is has to be reasonable, you can destroy someone's livelyhood for your political ambitions, but only by convincing others not to deal with him while respecting his right to privacy, to life, etc. Another simpler example might be fraud, you can say what you like, you can lie to your hearts content, but you can't lie to get someone else's money, there is an expectation of a certain level of honest dealings. Even the much maligned car salesman is expected to tell the truth if not the whole truth. If you ask if the car has been in a major accident they will tell you No, not that I know of but are not expected to tell you they didn't check or say, Hey did you notice the frame is bent, the tires are all bald, and that clutch feels like it will break before the end of the year...
the only thing that i can think of to compare to is paparizzi photos of celebrities. if i snap a shot of a celeb, or grab them on tape, or on video/audio, whatever, i own the copyright to that material.
Yes, but you can only use it in certain ways, you can use it for art, for a news publication, for a tell all book about them or for a book on your life taking pictures of celebrities. But you can't use it on a promotional poster or in a movie or entertainment program on television. If you take a picture of me (definately a non-celebrity) the use is even more restricted, basically to an art installation or news if I'm an actor or a bystander wherever the news is unfolding. You might get away with using it in an art book, but you might be hit hard if I win a lawsuit since you had the opportunity to contact me and get my permission. The law for using my image is different than the one for celebrities. For me the judge balances my right to privacy against your first amendment rights, for a celebrity/politician they have lost much of their privacy rights so unless you do something truely rotten to get the picture the judge balances their commercial rights and moral rights to their image against your first amendment rights. So the celebrity sorta trades away their privacy for some extra rights. They aren't human rights like speech, thought and privacy, etc. Hence they are usually weak when compared to your political/expressive/reportage speech rights, but often beat your commercial speech rights. I have a friend working at one of the big media companies (hint, they were in violation of the FCC 35% rule before today) that gets permission for everything that goes on their technology news program because it is considered entertainment programming. Scary, huh?
my point is that regardless of the law, if i create it it's mine. mine to license, or not license, mine to copyright as i choose, perhaps some freebsd sytle license if i choose...
Actually, in any of the 150+ WTO countries it's always copyrighted unless you explicitly donate it into the public domain. You may forfeit some rights if you post it on USENET, but not if I post it for you (unless I did so with your consent, or it was a trade secret that you were careless with.) And the "if I create it, it's mine" will just get you in heaps of trouble if your political bribes are still in the low billions. You can bribe a circuit judge, but good luck with the Supreme Court, you've got to hire theirs sons and buy a president for that kind of influence. (PS Anybody notice how cheap those Brooklyn judges were? A few hundred $$$ saves you a million on your divorce settlement, I guess it isn't just paranoia that prevents me from voting for judges when they are all on both the Republican and Democrat tickets.)
what if i record from 1/2 a mile away and get a crappy sound, but still get some noise from the show. who ownz that recording?you dothe right to copy it?those rights belong to you, the performer[s] and the songwriter[s] acting in together or under compulsory licensing regimes.the right to distribute it?same as copying, it is presumed that copying is for distribution unless it is a small number of copies for backup, or a transfer to another media, in which case any of you and others may be able to do it under fair use rights. (being a library helps if you're in the others category)what if i fly overhead and record video of the concert, who ownz my video recording?this is completely immaterial to copyright, see first three answershow about my video recording of shot over some farm land in iowa?also immaterial to copyright, if there is a creative work in the picture created in the last 25 years, it is copyrighted, you can only use the video under fair right rules (i.e. it is incidental to your art, or your reporting news, etc.).
The fair use rights are current rights for the US only. Other countries may have fair use under the TRIPS agreement, but on
The point is the copyright is on the performance itself, not the recording, and the ownership of that copyright is always in the hands of the artist.
You're still off. The recording is owned by whoever did the recording, the DMB can not make copies of your recording without paying you. BUT 1/2 The performers do get protection in all WTO countries from you broadcasting the performance. BUT 2/2 The song itself may be copyrighted, in which case you or DMB must pay the songs copyright owner for any performance, distribution or broadcast.
Most popular songs are not owned by the performers, just like most popular movies are not directed by the screenwriter. You might argue most good songs/movies are, but there is still a mine-field of law to deal with the other stuff.
Happyness shouldn't be a goal. If you spend your life trying to figure out how to make the world a better place and doing whatever you think will help transform the place then you'll probably be happy. When you discover that something you did with the best of intentions actually made things worse you will feel bad, but you won't make the same mistake and you'll try figure out how to tell others you see making the same mistake about it. Before long you'll feel good again. Is it some kind of revelation that being a good person makes you feel good?
Seriously, you know you only exist in the blink of an eye in the cosmic scheme of things so you try to build things that will last. Whether you speak the insight or idea, or do something that will reduce the rate of entropy per insight really doesn't matter.
Happyness may be a side effect of doing good or believing things are getting better, but it's got other causes, or you may be simply deluding yourself.
The lawyers are merely employees who then move on to do work for new
IANAL obviously, but aren't there criminal sanctions for helping someone with a frivalous lawsuit? I would think 20 minutes with google would tell a lawyer SCO doesn't have much to stand on. If there aren't criminal sanctions available to a judge dealing with this type of lawyer, can they not at least disbar the lawyers with direct involvement in the case?
Yes, Bush Minor would probably not want to invite Henry K. round to the whitehouse and have him sit on defense committees if he knew he was the traitor.
The only problem with your K. theory is that man has no morals. He's the purest form of cynisim I've ever witnessed. His presidents may have agreed with all the murders but K. organized the policy and carried it out. He needs American presidents in his pocket to avoid all his arrest warrants. Why would he have any interest in a scandal? He could have been handed over to a foreign court at any point if there were a great need for a media absorbing scapegoat. He might have had lots of embarrasing facts to divulge if it happened, but even presidents can pretend not have known. Remember Iran Contra? There weren't even impeachment hearings.
In a reversal of decades-old wisdom, they argue that burning cardboard, plastics and food leftovers is better for the environment and the economy than recycling. Yes probably, cardboard is recyclable, but is probably better burned or composted, most plastics are easy to recycle, but also relatively easy to make, and are hard to seperate. Food leftovers are better burned.
They dismiss the time-consuming practice - urged on householders by the Government and "green" councils - of separating rubbish for the refuse collectors as a waste of time and money. Yes, the Telegraph does, but taking their advice on the environment is a bit like taking energy saving tips from Exxon. Not on your list was first pulping paper like the stuff that comes out of your printer and from snail mail, also not on your list metal.. Aluminium rich soil is shipped from Australia to energy rich Iceland for processing. Most metals have to be extracted from the ground with a high cost in lives and environmental damage from the chemical leaching processes. It makes all the sense in the world to recycle them.
But as an environmentalist I'm a bit upset with all this talk about how to recycle these things, it's hardly worth it and you have to be living in a dream world if you think recyling is some magic cure all for waste. You would use more resources returning them then you could ever get back in even the most efficient operation. The reason for these things is to displace income from rental shops to the movie studios. The environmental solution would be to just let people download these things in the first place.
I don't think these things will take off anyway, only blockbusters will be available on these discs and people demand choices, even when they chose the blockbuster 90% of the time. And FOX will run a special on how to copy these things, it's perfectly legal; The DMCA explicitly allows copies of material that is about to disintigrate.
Re:KDevelop is not just as good.
on
GCC 3.3 Released
·
· Score: 1
I'm still trying to find a nice GUI-driven debugger, as kdbg seems rather flaky.
Try the gdb tcl/tk debugger it uses the new binary interface to the debugger so it shouldn't be flacky in the same way any debugger that parses the gdb text output can be. You need recent tcl/tk, but otherwise is not very dependency ridden. I'd like to make a few kdbg points though:
1/One guy is doing most of the development 2/He's very receptive to applying patches 3/The code is actually pretty clean. I was able to patch something that annoyed me in an afternoon. He applied most of it within a week, and the rest after I spent another afternoon cleaning it up a little. 4/Try the kdb-devel out of cvs with gdb 5.3, I haven't had any problems, and it's a bit more polished than 1.2.7. I do compile the debug versions without threading most of the time, but that isn't much of a restriction for me.
The trick is to buy the C size (the largest) so you have plenty of room
I think that's the size I had, but I'm also 6'2" with longish legs. If it had been maybe 2-3 inches wider that might have made the difference. Or, as someone suggested the sides had curved down, I have a more conventional HM chair at my current dig and it's pretty comfortable.
I used to lust after those, until they gave me one. The mesh thing is cool, I could ride my bike in and I'd try up pretty quick. But you can't cross your legs in those things, you have to sit "properly." I like to be able to shift around how I'm sitting every 15 mins or so, there are only so many ways you can do this if sitting yoda like hurts your knees... I knew their days were numbered when they stopped stacking up on nurti-grain bars and juice, which in the long run made me happier than the chair.
Cell phone jammers are illegal in the United States, Canada, Britain, Australia, Switzerland, and many other countries.
I think there was some talk of making them legal in lecture halls and movie theaters in the New York City Council. I haven't heard about it in a while, maybe the FCC wouldn't approve it. But they were talking about that Israeli device that acts as your cell phone tower abut doesn't route the calls. Which is IMHO a much better way to do it, you don't risk destroying the cell phone, and it's much easier to tune the device only do work in the theater. And, before anyone talks about doctors missing their pages when they are on call, theaters have checked beepers for doctors for about as long as they've been around. You just tell them where you're sitting and they'll send an usher to get you in an emergency. (I'm pretty sure they'll do it for astronauts and fighter pilots too.)
VC 6.0, icc & gcc, mostly. VC is the worst of the bunch, I'm hoping to port some of those apps to icc or at least VC 7.0 when I have the time. I've never met a compiler that wasn't buggy though, it's just a matter of how much you stress it. And the bug reporting policies, VC 6.0 is probably so crappy because they've made it so much more difficult to report bugs, back in the day you could call them up on an 1800 number and talk with the developer the next day, now...
Because the compiler, unlike the programmer, never makes mistakes
Yeah, I was very puzzled by this too. As a compiler _user_ I sometimes think the compiler makes more mistakes than I do. That's not actually true, but I do spend more debugging time on compiler issues than my own bugs. I can see my own bugs by reading the code, compile time "internal compiler error" bugs usually have to solved by rearranging the function order (which from a programmer perspective is just illogical), and the code generation errors are often almost impossible to fix.
it says nothing about your rights of free speech or the press concerning publishing in a dead-tree format.
I used to think so too. But then 2600 got blocked from publishing decss, and then even linking to pages publishing decss. There was a reason the new york times spoke up for the magazine, I assume it's the same reason they no longer link to related sites in their stories, but instead inconveniently write out the URL as if it were text. The DMCA ended 'free' speech in the USA. The party is over, all consumers please return to your assigned duties, we've got a war with the Canadian aggressors to organize.
However, there is a very important caveat. Consider Mickey Mouse: the original Mickey Mouse from the 1928 shorts (Steamboat Willy, The Galloping Gaucho, and Plane Crazy) looks and acts and talks differently than the 'modern' Mickey.
I think you could already do a derivative of Steamboat Willy, since it's just a cartoon version of Buster Keaton's Steamboat Bill Jr. which must have expired by now. Just call your version "Steamboat Billy... the mouse cartoon"
It's not just 'free' that concerns me - that he's in a key position that demands a level of integrity that he does not posses.
I think this is exactly why he was chosen. Remember these are the same people demanded less accurate felon information so they could eliminate at least 50,000 legal black voters from the rolls in Florida, the same people who deployed the same voting machines to white and mixed districts but programmed the ones in 95%+ white counties to return a spoiled vote to the voter, and to trash the spoiled votes in the 25%+ black counties. They asked for more innacurate felon information to the point where less than 5% of those kicked off the rolls were actually inelligable to vote, they kicked off a judge, an senior election official, and a shitload of ministers for heavens sake. Do you think they WANT an honest man directing the office of domestic contro-- err, surveillance?
You get a vague idea that what the authors really favour is the old Lisp Machines - like the kind RMS used to hack on before starting GNU.
Yup, actually the only part I could read today was the preface, which contained an e-mail complaining about not having symbols compiled into system libraries and not having it hooked up to the source. By that standard I think BSD & Linux would compare favorably to Windows, eh? Just install from ports or portage and add -g3... or er, take over a large nation pro-US nation and sign over your soul for "Shared Source."
Re:Great Leap forward but still falsl short
on
First HDTV Camcorder
·
· Score: 1
It's surprisingly cheap to scan film btw, like $13 for 8 minutes of B&W film
Umm...no. If that's the quote from your local photo shop they're probably just taping off the wall or running it through one of those little gadgets you get at best buy. Scanning film is much more expensive.
Actually, it's from the film maker next door. I think I implied she's getting a special deal. Maybe she has a friend do it, I don't know. I do know she got me to help her set up a wireless network with a bottle of wine. I can't imagine that a cash strapped student is paying full list either. I know lab seems to have an unending supply of ppl using our Avid, who then turn around and edit our videos pro-bono.
If that's the way you think, then the guy who thought the patent office should be closed because he thought everything has already been invented was right.
Who was that, maybe he wasn't the fool we thought he was. Remember we eventually warmed up to the other big plunders in our history, the Luisiana and Alaska purchases..
Editing MPEG - especially if you cut it into small chunks, is going to considerably degrade the quality each time you mess with it.
I haven't edited in a few years.. But the last time I did you recoded everything into jpeg frames then edited that. Then for the final cut you stuck the Beta or DV original and final tapes into the deck and the system re-retrieved the frames and recoded them to the final tape. There is no progressive loss from recoding because recoding is done just once to final.
Slashdot Mirror
It sounds like they are working on a replacement for the Nagle algorithm. Nagle works well on clean connections, even if badly tuned slow-start gets annoying when you have gigabit connection and it still takes a minute to ramp up to full speed on an ISO download. Where "fast tcp" would really help is on a dirty connection. I had to connect to a supercomputer a few years ago over a 100Mbps link that corrupted or lost 30% of all packets and I had to use my own streaming on top of UDP to avoid getting hammered by shrinking windows (I still needed congestion control.) On this type of connection I'd expect their "fast tcp" might give a 10x speedup. On a normal non-noisy and relatively slow DSL connection, like I have at home, I'd be surprised by a 10% speedup.
In other words the story is all wrong, but what they are doing is actually worthwhile. You sometimes have noisy networks, especially when they are wireless or in an industrial environment. The big long haul telecoms lines are better off doing error correction on line, but in the last mile you never really know the noise characteristics so this should be handled better on the TCP level. I would probably do something like FEC with the number of recoverable errors per packet and per lost packet per logical block, tuned to the error characteristics of the network. Then call it TCP2 and release an RFC and some BSD licensed source code.. (I thought of doing this as part of building an ISP friendly P2P protocol but decided I didn't have the time..) Their solution has the advantage that it works just great with regular old TCP implementations.
As it currently stands, most musicians have the option of buying out their own recording masters after 30 years built into their contract, right?
hehehe
Actually, book authors usually get their copyrights after the book has been out of print for a certain time. But this is changing since publishers can keep a book in print forever by just using print on demand. In the old days you had to make large print runs so the book was out of print as soon as you sold the last copy and didn't print another run. Musicians have been screewed from day one, while there used to be hundreds of book printers, there have always been just a handful of recording labels. Also, musicians as on average have been younger and more foolish than the average book author.
wow, that's definately a handfull of interesting information and certainly furthers my impression that the current IP/copyright laws have gone to the waste and really makes a moral case for p2p file trading, black market dvd's, etc etc.
I had the same thought after I wrote it, I knew it all before but when I look at the whole puzzle together it's not exactly pretty.
one point you made was regarding an individual's human right to privacy. while i do think that the US constitution indirectly grants a right to privacy, i think that right is very limited. i think that right is nearly absolute on your own property, and diminishes greatly as you yourself enter a public domain.
I think of privacy as a right, but one you often trade away explicitly or implicitly for some other benefit. You implicitly trade some of it away for power or to further your view of the public interest when you enter politics. You explicitly trade it away when you buy land; and, implicitly when you engage in practically any commercial transaction. It's because we implicitly trade away some of our privacy hundreds of times a day that privacy is such a hard thing to get one's head around. The courts in the USA have dealt with this by applying a reasonableness test. The EPA can't make a surpise visit to your fenced in private forest without some good reason to think you are doing something horrible, but they can make an appointment with you to make an inspection and hold you to it. Any reasonableness test is problematic because it's a subjective test like the community standards test for illegal smut. You basically get as much privacy as the community thinks you should. This wouldn't be so bad if you just got less privacy when at a midwestern commune than in an ethnic Japanese community, but it's the police and the broader community that define your right to privacy, so it's ripe for abuse by racist and otherwise bigoted definitions. (Their definition of your right to privacy, not our right to privacy.)
Rights have to be balanced when they conflict, "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happyness" but you can't kill other people for body parts to continue living, nor can you enslave others to buy your liberty. There is some thought that by pursuit of happyness the founders actually meant the pursuit of power to influence the development of the society, i.e. political power. I don't know if I buy that, but even if that's what they meant you still can't assume that power by killing all your rivals. You can hurt other people in the excercise of your freedoms but there is has to be reasonable, you can destroy someone's livelyhood for your political ambitions, but only by convincing others not to deal with him while respecting his right to privacy, to life, etc. Another simpler example might be fraud, you can say what you like, you can lie to your hearts content, but you can't lie to get someone else's money, there is an expectation of a certain level of honest dealings. Even the much maligned car salesman is expected to tell the truth if not the whole truth. If you ask if the car has been in a major accident they will tell you No, not that I know of but are not expected to tell you they didn't check or say, Hey did you notice the frame is bent, the tires are all bald, and that clutch feels like it will break before the end of the year...
the only thing that i can think of to compare to is paparizzi photos of celebrities. if i snap a shot of a celeb, or grab them on tape, or on video/audio, whatever, i own the copyright to that material.
Yes, but you can only use it in certain ways, you can use it for art, for a news publication, for a tell all book about them or for a book on your life taking pictures of celebrities. But you can't use it on a promotional poster or in a movie or entertainment program on television. If you take a picture of me (definately a non-celebrity) the use is even more restricted, basically to an art installation or news if I'm an actor or a bystander wherever the news is unfolding. You might get away with using it in an art book, but you might be hit hard if I win a lawsuit since you had the opportunity to contact me and get my permission. The law for using my image is different than the one for celebrities. For me the judge balances my right to privacy against your first amendment rights, for a celebrity/politician they have lost much of their privacy rights so unless you do something truely rotten to get the picture the judge balances their commercial rights and moral rights to their image against your first amendment rights. So the celebrity sorta trades away their privacy for some extra rights. They aren't human rights like speech, thought and privacy, etc. Hence they are usually weak when compared to your political/expressive/reportage speech rights, but often beat your commercial speech rights. I have a friend working at one of the big media companies (hint, they were in violation of the FCC 35% rule before today) that gets permission for everything that goes on their technology news program because it is considered entertainment programming. Scary, huh?
my point is that regardless of the law, if i create it it's mine. mine to license, or not license, mine to copyright as i choose, perhaps some freebsd sytle license if i choose...
Actually, in any of the 150+ WTO countries it's always copyrighted unless you explicitly donate it into the public domain. You may forfeit some rights if you post it on USENET, but not if I post it for you (unless I did so with your consent, or it was a trade secret that you were careless with.) And the "if I create it, it's mine" will just get you in heaps of trouble if your political bribes are still in the low billions. You can bribe a circuit judge, but good luck with the Supreme Court, you've got to hire theirs sons and buy a president for that kind of influence. (PS Anybody notice how cheap those Brooklyn judges were? A few hundred $$$ saves you a million on your divorce settlement, I guess it isn't just paranoia that prevents me from voting for judges when they are all on both the Republican and Democrat tickets.)
what if i record from 1/2 a mile away and get a crappy sound, but still get some noise from the show. who ownz that recording? you do the right to copy it? those rights belong to you, the performer[s] and the songwriter[s] acting in together or under compulsory licensing regimes. the right to distribute it? same as copying, it is presumed that copying is for distribution unless it is a small number of copies for backup, or a transfer to another media, in which case any of you and others may be able to do it under fair use rights. (being a library helps if you're in the others category) what if i fly overhead and record video of the concert, who ownz my video recording? this is completely immaterial to copyright, see first three answers how about my video recording of shot over some farm land in iowa? also immaterial to copyright, if there is a creative work in the picture created in the last 25 years, it is copyrighted, you can only use the video under fair right rules (i.e. it is incidental to your art, or your reporting news, etc.).
The fair use rights are current rights for the US only. Other countries may have fair use under the TRIPS agreement, but on
The point is the copyright is on the performance itself, not the recording, and the ownership of that copyright is always in the hands of the artist.
You're still off. The recording is owned by whoever did the recording, the DMB can not make copies of your recording without paying you. BUT 1/2 The performers do get protection in all WTO countries from you broadcasting the performance. BUT 2/2 The song itself may be copyrighted, in which case you or DMB must pay the songs copyright owner for any performance, distribution or broadcast.
Most popular songs are not owned by the performers, just like most popular movies are not directed by the screenwriter. You might argue most good songs/movies are, but there is still a mine-field of law to deal with the other stuff.
Happyness shouldn't be a goal. If you spend your life trying to figure out how to make the world a better place and doing whatever you think will help transform the place then you'll probably be happy. When you discover that something you did with the best of intentions actually made things worse you will feel bad, but you won't make the same mistake and you'll try figure out how to tell others you see making the same mistake about it. Before long you'll feel good again. Is it some kind of revelation that being a good person makes you feel good?
Seriously, you know you only exist in the blink of an eye in the cosmic scheme of things so you try to build things that will last. Whether you speak the insight or idea, or do something that will reduce the rate of entropy per insight really doesn't matter.
Happyness may be a side effect of doing good or believing things are getting better, but it's got other causes, or you may be simply deluding yourself.
The lawyers are merely employees who then move on to do work for new
IANAL obviously, but aren't there criminal sanctions for helping someone with a frivalous lawsuit? I would think 20 minutes with google would tell a lawyer SCO doesn't have much to stand on. If there aren't criminal sanctions available to a judge dealing with this type of lawyer, can they not at least disbar the lawyers with direct involvement in the case?
Any lawyers, judges out there?
Yes, Bush Minor would probably not want to invite Henry K. round to the whitehouse and have him sit on defense committees if he knew he was the traitor.
The only problem with your K. theory is that man has no morals. He's the purest form of cynisim I've ever witnessed. His presidents may have agreed with all the murders but K. organized the policy and carried it out. He needs American presidents in his pocket to avoid all his arrest warrants. Why would he have any interest in a scandal? He could have been handed over to a foreign court at any point if there were a great need for a media absorbing scapegoat. He might have had lots of embarrasing facts to divulge if it happened, but even presidents can pretend not have known. Remember Iran Contra? There weren't even impeachment hearings.
someone not washing their hands after leaving the bathroom
yep, you're coworkers not washing their hands could kill you. Them looking at pictures is in a completely different category all together.
In a reversal of decades-old wisdom, they argue that burning cardboard, plastics and food leftovers is better for the environment and the economy than recycling.
Yes probably, cardboard is recyclable, but is probably better burned or composted, most plastics are easy to recycle, but also relatively easy to make, and are hard to seperate. Food leftovers are better burned.
They dismiss the time-consuming practice - urged on householders by the Government and "green" councils - of separating rubbish for the refuse collectors as a waste of time and money.
Yes, the Telegraph does, but taking their advice on the environment is a bit like taking energy saving tips from Exxon. Not on your list was first pulping paper like the stuff that comes out of your printer and from snail mail, also not on your list metal.. Aluminium rich soil is shipped from Australia to energy rich Iceland for processing. Most metals have to be extracted from the ground with a high cost in lives and environmental damage from the chemical leaching processes. It makes all the sense in the world to recycle them.
But as an environmentalist I'm a bit upset with all this talk about how to recycle these things, it's hardly worth it and you have to be living in a dream world if you think recyling is some magic cure all for waste. You would use more resources returning them then you could ever get back in even the most efficient operation. The reason for these things is to displace income from rental shops to the movie studios. The environmental solution would be to just let people download these things in the first place.
I don't think these things will take off anyway, only blockbusters will be available on these discs and people demand choices, even when they chose the blockbuster 90% of the time. And FOX will run a special on how to copy these things, it's perfectly legal; The DMCA explicitly allows copies of material that is about to disintigrate.
I'm still trying to find a nice GUI-driven debugger, as kdbg seems rather flaky.
Try the gdb tcl/tk debugger it uses the new binary interface to the debugger so it shouldn't be flacky in the same way any debugger that parses the gdb text output can be. You need recent tcl/tk, but otherwise is not very dependency ridden. I'd like to make a few kdbg points though:
1/One guy is doing most of the development
2/He's very receptive to applying patches
3/The code is actually pretty clean. I was able to patch something that annoyed me in an afternoon. He applied most of it within a week, and the rest after I spent another afternoon cleaning it up a little.
4/Try the kdb-devel out of cvs with gdb 5.3, I haven't had any problems, and it's a bit more polished than 1.2.7. I do compile the debug versions without threading most of the time, but that isn't much of a restriction for me.
The trick is to buy the C size (the largest) so you have plenty of room
I think that's the size I had, but I'm also 6'2" with longish legs. If it had been maybe 2-3 inches wider that might have made the difference. Or, as someone suggested the sides had curved down, I have a more conventional HM chair at my current dig and it's pretty comfortable.
I used to lust after those, until they gave me one. The mesh thing is cool, I could ride my bike in and I'd try up pretty quick. But you can't cross your legs in those things, you have to sit "properly." I like to be able to shift around how I'm sitting every 15 mins or so, there are only so many ways you can do this if sitting yoda like hurts your knees... I knew their days were numbered when they stopped stacking up on nurti-grain bars and juice, which in the long run made me happier than the chair.
Cell phone jammers are illegal in the United States, Canada, Britain, Australia, Switzerland, and many other countries.
I think there was some talk of making them legal in lecture halls and movie theaters in the New York City Council. I haven't heard about it in a while, maybe the FCC wouldn't approve it. But they were talking about that Israeli device that acts as your cell phone tower abut doesn't route the calls. Which is IMHO a much better way to do it, you don't risk destroying the cell phone, and it's much easier to tune the device only do work in the theater. And, before anyone talks about doctors missing their pages when they are on call, theaters have checked beepers for doctors for about as long as they've been around. You just tell them where you're sitting and they'll send an usher to get you in an emergency. (I'm pretty sure they'll do it for astronauts and fighter pilots too.)
VC 6.0, icc & gcc, mostly. VC is the worst of the bunch, I'm hoping to port some of those apps to icc or at least VC 7.0 when I have the time. I've never met a compiler that wasn't buggy though, it's just a matter of how much you stress it. And the bug reporting policies, VC 6.0 is probably so crappy because they've made it so much more difficult to report bugs, back in the day you could call them up on an 1800 number and talk with the developer the next day, now...
Because the compiler, unlike the programmer, never makes mistakes
Yeah, I was very puzzled by this too. As a compiler _user_ I sometimes think the compiler makes more mistakes than I do. That's not actually true, but I do spend more debugging time on compiler issues than my own bugs. I can see my own bugs by reading the code, compile time "internal compiler error" bugs usually have to solved by rearranging the function order (which from a programmer perspective is just illogical), and the code generation errors are often almost impossible to fix.
it says nothing about your rights of free speech or the press concerning publishing in a dead-tree format.
I used to think so too. But then 2600 got blocked from publishing decss, and then even linking to pages publishing decss. There was a reason the new york times spoke up for the magazine, I assume it's the same reason they no longer link to related sites in their stories, but instead inconveniently write out the URL as if it were text. The DMCA ended 'free' speech in the USA. The party is over, all consumers please return to your assigned duties, we've got a war with the Canadian aggressors to organize.
However, there is a very important caveat. Consider Mickey Mouse: the original Mickey Mouse from the 1928 shorts (Steamboat Willy, The Galloping Gaucho, and Plane Crazy) looks and acts and talks differently than the 'modern' Mickey.
I think you could already do a derivative of Steamboat Willy, since it's just a cartoon version of Buster Keaton's Steamboat Bill Jr. which must have expired by now. Just call your version "Steamboat Billy... the mouse cartoon"
It's not just 'free' that concerns me - that he's in a key position that demands a level of integrity that he does not posses.
I think this is exactly why he was chosen. Remember these are the same people demanded less accurate felon information so they could eliminate at least 50,000 legal black voters from the rolls in Florida, the same people who deployed the same voting machines to white and mixed districts but programmed the ones in 95%+ white counties to return a spoiled vote to the voter, and to trash the spoiled votes in the 25%+ black counties. They asked for more innacurate felon information to the point where less than 5% of those kicked off the rolls were actually inelligable to vote, they kicked off a judge, an senior election official, and a shitload of ministers for heavens sake. Do you think they WANT an honest man directing the office of domestic contro-- err, surveillance?
On the other hand, I'd love to have a microwave power supply for my laptop :-)
:)
I think you may have just discovered the elusive male birth control pill
So what if it isn't in pill form, I think a comfy laptop is just as convenient.
You get a vague idea that what the authors really favour is the old Lisp Machines - like the kind RMS used to hack on before starting GNU.
Yup, actually the only part I could read today was the preface, which contained an e-mail complaining about not having symbols compiled into system libraries and not having it hooked up to the source. By that standard I think BSD & Linux would compare favorably to Windows, eh? Just install from ports or portage and add -g3... or er, take over a large nation pro-US nation and sign over your soul for "Shared Source."
Anthrax
It's surprisingly cheap to scan film btw, like $13 for 8 minutes of B&W film
Umm...no. If that's the quote from your local photo shop they're probably just taping off the wall or running it through one of those little gadgets you get at best buy. Scanning film is much more expensive.
Actually, it's from the film maker next door. I think I implied she's getting a special deal. Maybe she has a friend do it, I don't know. I do know she got me to help her set up a wireless network with a bottle of wine. I can't imagine that a cash strapped student is paying full list either. I know lab seems to have an unending supply of ppl using our Avid, who then turn around and edit our videos pro-bono.
If that's the way you think, then the guy who thought the patent office should be closed because he thought everything has already been invented was right.
Who was that, maybe he wasn't the fool we thought he was. Remember we eventually warmed up to the other big plunders in our history, the Luisiana and Alaska purchases..
Editing MPEG - especially if you cut it into small chunks, is going to considerably degrade the quality each time you mess with it.
I haven't edited in a few years.. But the last time I did you recoded everything into jpeg frames then edited that. Then for the final cut you stuck the Beta or DV original and final tapes into the deck and the system re-retrieved the frames and recoded them to the final tape. There is no progressive loss from recoding because recoding is done just once to final.