First of, the main reason to do it is because those are the rules. If a company doesn't want to release their (perhaps) minor additions to the source then they should use a different license. Typically something under BSD. If they can't be bothered to find software with the required license then they'll just have to develop on their own.
They are making money on other peoples generousity, fuck that. They deserve the lawsuits.
Second, when you say that there is no value in firware you are quite clearly not getting the point of OSS. (Besides, I don't know if I'd call an embedded OS firmware.) One of the mayor reasons why we have GPL in the first place is because Stallman got sick of having printers with poor software which he couldn't correct.
Just because you don't have the imagination to change functionality of an accesspoint (perhaps turn it into a wireless information kiosk?) doesn't mean others can't. Just because there is free doesn't mean it's worthless.
For Gods sakes man, one of the main ideas with OSS is that money isn't value.
As another reply said it depends largely on which college you go to. I bet you can spend a lot of time and money at a "McCollege" and not learn a lot. You can also go to a really good one and not only learn a lot more than on your own but also meet people and "build your network" as the buzzwords go.
Yeah, because at least I learned a lot about VLSI chip construction when I was twelve. I had also full understanding of mathematics supporting such subjects as control theory, information theory, cryptography and computer vision.
I think South Park pointed it out pretty clearly when the boys couldn't understand why a flag was racist since it has 4 white guys hanging a black guy. The boys simply saw it as 4 guys hanging another guy.
If you read a book and find it racist because there are no poeple of a specific ethnic group in the when the book makes no mention of ehnicity then it's just you who are trying to be insulted too much.
While the book has a lot of good points about a facist government, human nature (the book starts off with humans attacking an alien world to make them more willing to negotiate later) and war the movie never gets past the "ohh, look at these big guns and these big breasts" stage.
The news-flashes was good though. Actually it's pretty much the ownly thing in the movie which I thought was in the spirit of book.
Had it been released under another name I probably wouldn't have loathed it so. It's just that I have this thing about movies that completely ruin a good story.
I would think that Will Smith might dominate the movie more than Keanu did though. The movie wouldn't have been better if Neo had come with smart-arse remarks every five minutes.
I believe Dr Calvin as a robot shrink who dealt with various problems which could appear with the robots. The same goes for the "two guys" who worked as a pair, can't remember their names though.
To add to another post which talks about subsurface scattering I'd just like to point to the two other fields which has really given photorealism a shot in the arm.
Image Based Lighting uses a high dynamic range image as a source for lighting a scene. The result is quite stunning.
Photon Mapping is a way to simulate real light. It is used quite effectively combined with techniques like Sub Surface Scattering. Basically it allows you to make global illumination but at a relatively low rendering time. The results are often stunningly beautiful.
Naturally you can combine these techniques as well, not sure if that is done a lot though.
I'd recommend interested people to look into doing a simple renderer. Typically the math isn't very hard, it's just that it takes a lot of time to render the pretty pictures.
Tell me how a cellphone is insecure (They have encryption and cdma is pretty secure by itself.)
GSM phones are very insecure. A lecturer I had in cryptography had implemented a code breaker for GSM phones. Given 4 minutes of recorded conversation you could break the encryption on that particular call. If you place a recorder by a specific GSM base station you can break all calls routed by that cell in just a few seconds. (That requires about a 100 GB or recorded data though.)
Besides, current phone networks only authenticate the phone, the phone newer authenticates the base station. Get yourself your own station, place it in a van outside a company and you now control all mobile phone calls going through there.
If you have the resources you could in some cases reprogram the cell phones over the mobile network to make them "mobile microphones".
These last two would require a lot of resources naturally. But it's not impossible.
Keep in mind that having a display that is visable for the driver is illegal in some states IIRC. And the same goes for parts of Europe. And rightfully so, if you want to do something else while driving take a train or buss and use a Laptop/PocketPC to watch your shows.
The OSI model has a presentation layer that the Internet does not use. I can't remember what it did and I don't think many other people do either.
Sometimes sockets are considered to be part of the presentation layer. Not sure if that's just a after the fact justification for having it, but it makes sense to me.
But it's true that a lot of the stuff in the OSI model is severely broken by the way the internet is implemented in order to actually make it work. (IIRC fragmentation of packets is a good example of where the OSI model doesn't quite work.)
I heard that Al Gore wasn't even on the radar screen as a politician when the original ARPA plans were being made. And according to this Wired article it seems correct.
In 1969, the Defense Department commissioned the ARPANET. Gore was 21-years-old at the time. He wasn't even done with law school at Vanderbilt University. It would be eight more years before Gore would be elected to the US House of Representatives as a freshman Democrat with scant experience in passing legislation, let alone ambitious proposals.
But it also seems like there is a kernel of truth of the matter. At least if you look at the Salong article the parent quoted.
"In the early days of the Web," says Hallam-Baker, who was there, "he was a believer, not after the fact when our success was already established -- he gave us help when it counted. He got us the funding to set up at MIT after we got kicked out of CERN for being too successful.
So it seems like it's both right and wrong. Al Gore probably did have a big role in the later stages of WWW development, and let's face it that's a very big part of the internet today. And considering that even tech-journals tend to be confused with the tidbit that "The WWW is not the Internet" it's not strange that the facts got muddled along the way.
It does after all seem like the Salon article doesn't reflect over the distinction between the Internet and the WWW. The WWW certainly has become an extremely efficient way of spreading data. For better or worse the WWW was one of the key technologies which moved the Internet from the universities to the people.
So credit were it's due: Al Gore significantly helped in the initial stages of moving the Internet and WWW to the 'common man'. Also known as the final stages of the development of the first WWW technologies. He didn't exactly revise the ARP specifications though.
You may want to look up on the MIT RAW project which uses FPGAs so make a grid of computational cells. There is also the newer Cellular Neural Networks which work on a similar basis. CNNs are typically used for image processing though.
The immideate problem which I see is that it might get very hard to program it in any reasonable way. For CNNs there is quite a lot of research into producing the templates which control the CNNs behaviour.
I put my USB cam on the TV and used the video overlay to get the screen from the other user on the TV. With a 32" screen it feels just like Star Trek. Now if I just could get it to do this with the voice command "On screen"...
Because a computer has one really big advantage to most other tools around you. It has the capacity to tell you how to use it. Since it has that capacity at least IMHO it should be used.
An idea I've been playing with (as a mental experiment) is to have a system were the user gains access to new commands as he completes tasks with the computer. A kind of a experience / level system if you like.
Having a large online (computer online not necessarily requiring internet) cookbook of how to do things with your computer. And it should have a lot of examples in order to be useful. Naturally doing a project like that is probabl quite a bit more time consuming than a lot of the more fun programming projects you can do instead.
OTOH you can do a quick calculation about how much it costs you (relative to how much money you get per month) and compare that with how much enjoyment you'll get out of the movie. A friend of mine has bought all the theatrical DVDs and then sold them as the extended are released. He paid a bit more than the price of a single rental to own it for a few months, not a particularly bad deal.
Besides I buy the boxes for the content. Not because it says "the complete edition" on the side.
Re:You have never tried encoding a CD to vorbis...
on
Real's Reality
·
· Score: 1
Ask some hardware manufacturers if they think that no license fees are a waste of time. There are also some issues with the MP3 standard in regards to efficient implementation in software and particularly for hardware. (I has 18 internal frequency channels instead of a power of 2.) Not sure if ogg actually beats it in this regard though.
Ogg can also do (at least theoretically) bit-shaving which allows you to lower the bitrate without reencoding. Really good for putting it on Flash-based music players.
In any case I don't care if you find Ogg useful or not. I don't care if you consider wiping yourself with sandpaper is quite sufficient. But please save the rest of us from you telling us how we don't understand the situation when you're not capable of installing a new codec.
New mainboards can often boot from USB. The point is however that a CF is pretty much a standard IDE connector. You can typically buy a CF->IDE converter for some $20 or so. You should make sure that you don't write too much to it though since they wear out faster. (For Linux there is a Flash File System you can use which optimizes storage for this.)
OTOH I hear you can destroy a microdrive pretty easily if you press on the top and buttom surfaces. While it's not a problem while mounted permanently inside a iPod or similar it's a problem if you have it in a camera.
Slashdot Mirror
First of, the main reason to do it is because those are the rules. If a company doesn't want to release their (perhaps) minor additions to the source then they should use a different license. Typically something under BSD. If they can't be bothered to find software with the required license then they'll just have to develop on their own.
They are making money on other peoples generousity, fuck that. They deserve the lawsuits.
Second, when you say that there is no value in firware you are quite clearly not getting the point of OSS. (Besides, I don't know if I'd call an embedded OS firmware.) One of the mayor reasons why we have GPL in the first place is because Stallman got sick of having printers with poor software which he couldn't correct.
Just because you don't have the imagination to change functionality of an accesspoint (perhaps turn it into a wireless information kiosk?) doesn't mean others can't. Just because there is free doesn't mean it's worthless.
For Gods sakes man, one of the main ideas with OSS is that money isn't value.
Damn, I've just been trolled.
No, that is trademarks.
I don't know. I always feel that putting a ball of snot into my clothes is a bit stupid. Seems to me like the best is to have tissues.
Though it's a good point that you shouldn't wipe your nose unecessarily. Damn, I just got an itch writing that.... Arghhhhhh.
As another reply said it depends largely on which college you go to. I bet you can spend a lot of time and money at a "McCollege" and not learn a lot. You can also go to a really good one and not only learn a lot more than on your own but also meet people and "build your network" as the buzzwords go.
Yeah, because at least I learned a lot about VLSI chip construction when I was twelve. I had also full understanding of mathematics supporting such subjects as control theory, information theory, cryptography and computer vision.
Nice hack. But I think coding their own FPGA is a bit too much work even for the average Slashdotter.
I think South Park pointed it out pretty clearly when the boys couldn't understand why a flag was racist since it has 4 white guys hanging a black guy. The boys simply saw it as 4 guys hanging another guy.
If you read a book and find it racist because there are no poeple of a specific ethnic group in the when the book makes no mention of ehnicity then it's just you who are trying to be insulted too much.
It was frigging Beverly Hills in space.
While the book has a lot of good points about a facist government, human nature (the book starts off with humans attacking an alien world to make them more willing to negotiate later) and war the movie never gets past the "ohh, look at these big guns and these big breasts" stage.
The news-flashes was good though. Actually it's pretty much the ownly thing in the movie which I thought was in the spirit of book.
Had it been released under another name I probably wouldn't have loathed it so. It's just that I have this thing about movies that completely ruin a good story.
I would think that Will Smith might dominate the movie more than Keanu did though. The movie wouldn't have been better if Neo had come with smart-arse remarks every five minutes.
I believe Dr Calvin as a robot shrink who dealt with various problems which could appear with the robots. The same goes for the "two guys" who worked as a pair, can't remember their names though.
To add to another post which talks about subsurface scattering I'd just like to point to the two other fields which has really given photorealism a shot in the arm.
Image Based Lighting uses a high dynamic range image as a source for lighting a scene. The result is quite stunning.
Photon Mapping is a way to simulate real light. It is used quite effectively combined with techniques like Sub Surface Scattering. Basically it allows you to make global illumination but at a relatively low rendering time. The results are often stunningly beautiful.
Naturally you can combine these techniques as well, not sure if that is done a lot though.
I'd recommend interested people to look into doing a simple renderer. Typically the math isn't very hard, it's just that it takes a lot of time to render the pretty pictures.
GSM phones are very insecure. A lecturer I had in cryptography had implemented a code breaker for GSM phones. Given 4 minutes of recorded conversation you could break the encryption on that particular call. If you place a recorder by a specific GSM base station you can break all calls routed by that cell in just a few seconds. (That requires about a 100 GB or recorded data though.)
Besides, current phone networks only authenticate the phone, the phone newer authenticates the base station. Get yourself your own station, place it in a van outside a company and you now control all mobile phone calls going through there.
If you have the resources you could in some cases reprogram the cell phones over the mobile network to make them "mobile microphones".
These last two would require a lot of resources naturally. But it's not impossible.
Keep in mind that having a display that is visable for the driver is illegal in some states IIRC. And the same goes for parts of Europe. And rightfully so, if you want to do something else while driving take a train or buss and use a Laptop/PocketPC to watch your shows.
Sometimes sockets are considered to be part of the presentation layer. Not sure if that's just a after the fact justification for having it, but it makes sense to me.
But it's true that a lot of the stuff in the OSI model is severely broken by the way the internet is implemented in order to actually make it work. (IIRC fragmentation of packets is a good example of where the OSI model doesn't quite work.)
But it also seems like there is a kernel of truth of the matter. At least if you look at the Salong article the parent quoted.
So it seems like it's both right and wrong. Al Gore probably did have a big role in the later stages of WWW development, and let's face it that's a very big part of the internet today. And considering that even tech-journals tend to be confused with the tidbit that "The WWW is not the Internet" it's not strange that the facts got muddled along the way.
It does after all seem like the Salon article doesn't reflect over the distinction between the Internet and the WWW. The WWW certainly has become an extremely efficient way of spreading data. For better or worse the WWW was one of the key technologies which moved the Internet from the universities to the people.
So credit were it's due: Al Gore significantly helped in the initial stages of moving the Internet and WWW to the 'common man'. Also known as the final stages of the development of the first WWW technologies. He didn't exactly revise the ARP specifications though.
The idea is often proposed in cognition as well. I think an entire chapter in Godel Escher Bach dedicated to it.
You may want to look up on the MIT RAW project which uses FPGAs so make a grid of computational cells. There is also the newer Cellular Neural Networks which work on a similar basis. CNNs are typically used for image processing though.
The immideate problem which I see is that it might get very hard to program it in any reasonable way. For CNNs there is quite a lot of research into producing the templates which control the CNNs behaviour.
Oh that's easy, I just got my new printer.
How much do you want? And do you want it in ones or is it ok if I just print one and set the total on it?
I put my USB cam on the TV and used the video overlay to get the screen from the other user on the TV. With a 32" screen it feels just like Star Trek. Now if I just could get it to do this with the voice command "On screen"...
I got quite a lot of tips on that, I'll just send you some emails about it.
Because a computer has one really big advantage to most other tools around you. It has the capacity to tell you how to use it. Since it has that capacity at least IMHO it should be used.
An idea I've been playing with (as a mental experiment) is to have a system were the user gains access to new commands as he completes tasks with the computer. A kind of a experience / level system if you like.
Having a large online (computer online not necessarily requiring internet) cookbook of how to do things with your computer. And it should have a lot of examples in order to be useful. Naturally doing a project like that is probabl quite a bit more time consuming than a lot of the more fun programming projects you can do instead.
OTOH you can do a quick calculation about how much it costs you (relative to how much money you get per month) and compare that with how much enjoyment you'll get out of the movie. A friend of mine has bought all the theatrical DVDs and then sold them as the extended are released. He paid a bit more than the price of a single rental to own it for a few months, not a particularly bad deal.
Besides I buy the boxes for the content. Not because it says "the complete edition" on the side.
Ask some hardware manufacturers if they think that no license fees are a waste of time. There are also some issues with the MP3 standard in regards to efficient implementation in software and particularly for hardware. (I has 18 internal frequency channels instead of a power of 2.) Not sure if ogg actually beats it in this regard though.
Ogg can also do (at least theoretically) bit-shaving which allows you to lower the bitrate without reencoding. Really good for putting it on Flash-based music players.
In any case I don't care if you find Ogg useful or not. I don't care if you consider wiping yourself with sandpaper is quite sufficient. But please save the rest of us from you telling us how we don't understand the situation when you're not capable of installing a new codec.
New mainboards can often boot from USB. The point is however that a CF is pretty much a standard IDE connector. You can typically buy a CF->IDE converter for some $20 or so. You should make sure that you don't write too much to it though since they wear out faster. (For Linux there is a Flash File System you can use which optimizes storage for this.)
Real nice if you want a quite computer.
OTOH I hear you can destroy a microdrive pretty easily if you press on the top and buttom surfaces. While it's not a problem while mounted permanently inside a iPod or similar it's a problem if you have it in a camera.