Sorry, I understand; I didn't state myself well. I really meant that it would presumably be in violation of trading standard to sell a device which purports to follow one standard, but instead acts in a way which breaks part of it - much as people have suggested that the recent copy-protected CDs should not be labelled as CDs, because they do not conform to the standard. I hope that clears it up (of course, I still could be way off. Ah well).
"there are DVD players out there that won't play unencrypted video"
Are you serious? What about all of the *legal* films (and other multimedia whatevers) which are on unencrypted DVDs? I personally own an unencrypted DVD - it came with Diablo 2 and contains all the cinematic sequences, plus a lot of other stuff. Are there companies that make DVD players which *intentionally* won't play my DVD, simply because they can't distinguish it from one that *might* be pirated? What happens when people start burning home video to DVD, without encrypting it? Tough luck? If this is true, and especially if the players are not advertised as having this `feature' (which must surely be illegal, as it would be unable to play a disc conforming to the DVD standard), I fail to see how the manufacturers would justify it. The purpose may be reasonable, but taking away a person's right to use something they legally own is most definitely not.
Wait a minute, that argument seems vaguely familiar...
Perhaps I'm in a minority of one, but I would not shoot first.
As for the innocent civilians in the WTC, that is the *point*. There is a disturbing parallel here. Revenge is *always* *wrong*. Justice is not killing anyone who may have connections to those resonsible; it's ot attacking anybody who happens to follow the same religion; it is finding out the culprit and punishing them appropriately. The original post was *not* talxking about hostile terrorists, but people who no more "deserve" to be slaughtered than those in the WTC.
As for the bully, I know from bitter experience that retaliating will *always* make things worse. But otherwise, they will eventually go away.
An eye for an eye, and the world goes blind.
And I think that you are a fucking cunt and should have your family hunted down and shot, but you don't see me doing it. Why? Because attacking innocent civilians simply because you disagree with them, is *wrong*. There have been American terrorists in the past. Should every other nation in the world attack all of the landmarks in the US because of this? Wait a minute...
The point is, you're thinking like a terrorist.
An act of murder? Yes. Apalling? Yes. Horrifying? Yes. Cowardly? Not to anyone who knows what the word means. No matter what atrocity is committed, no matter how senselessly violent, a kamikaze attack is not the work of a coward. Giving your life for a cause you believe in is about as far from cowardly as it is possible to get.
Well, I just randomly picked an article from a couple of days ago (Loki speaks up on chapter 11). I'm on dialup, so it took several seconds to download (~15-20ish seconds). Opera then rendered it in less than a second. Mozilla started rendering it as it downloaded, so it was hard to compare, but reloading from cache was marginally slower in Mozilla. I only recently upgraded my machine however, from a 166/32. On that, Mozilla was almost unusable becaause of the RAM shortage, though the processor was easily fast enough to do the actual rendering at perfectly acceptable speeds. The 0.9.x releases were usable under Win95, as I didn't have the vast amount of RAM used by X to worry about; slow to load, but not bad when in use. Basically, the Gecko engine is *sweet*, but Mozilla itself usues to much RAM for sub-low-end machines. Opera OTOH, is a different story. Even on antique hardware it runs incredibly fast and renders like a wild thing. It is also a tiny app compared to other graphical web browsers. Basically amazing; if I hadn't upgraded my machine shortly after, I would have paid for the no-ads version, because it is obviously a wonderfully written piece of software. As it is, I've taken to running Mozilla (0.9.3 at the moment) as I find it faster, stabler, less ugly, and more accurate than NS4.7x. The biggest problem with both of these is too strong standards-compliance, given that most web pages contain errors, often because they are designed to render properly in broken browsers.
Molf
Under current copyright law, a work is copyrighted automatically upon creation.
This post copyrighted by me, (C)2001. It is held as a sequence of binary digits, rather than human-readable physical text; anyone attempting to circumvent this method of content protection by converting these digits into readable text must do so only with my explicit allowance. Any anauthorised reading of this post is a crime in the US under the Digital Millanium Copyright Act, and will be treated as such.
Have a nice day.
...is just as featured. In fact I believe it holds more information (possibly no more than id3v2 though). I ripped a cd to oggs using Grip a few days ago, and it inserted all the data from the cddb quite happily. Check your setup?
Television in the UK is not made up of perpetual reruns of something that was shown last week, and the week before, etc. Some programs (such as this in fact) are repeated once within a week, and then you've missed your chance to watch it for ages, if ever. I'm sure this is not why it was pulled as that would make no sense at all. If you want to see it though, one word: Gnutella
Surely it's completely impossible for a CD to cantain an ultrasonic component? They only sample at 44kHz (approx, 44.2 maybe?). The highest recreatable frequency component is half of that (Nyquist's sampling theorem). Traditionally, anything above a certain frequency is filtered out. I believe this is 20kHz, but it has to be some frequency thereabouts. In theory they could choose to leave this in, but that would be insane as there is a good reason this is filtered - rather than simply not being recreatable, these frequencies cause aliasing (spurious low frequencies) which is obviously a Bad Thing. Since human hearing range is nominally about 20Hz-20kHz, nothing can be recorded onto a CD at ultrasonic frequencies (plus I personally can hear well into "ultrasound" and it doesn't seem that uncommon to have a pretty large hearing range, so a lot of people would be a little miffed at the inclusion of sounds we supposedly shouldn't be able to hear.) Tell me if I've missed the point:-)
Molf
Uh, I don't know if this is because you're using a different version, or maybe this is some obscure joke I'm not getting, but so far as I'm concerned it *is* on the taskbar (and the default is to pose as IE5)
Molf
Oh come on. Are you really so egocentric as to presume that you can take some figures taken over a geologically insignificant period of time, look at them, and conclude that - because you are a scientist afterall, and therefore better than anyone else - what you think is indeniably proven. And then flame someone with a different viewpoint, which can be no way be proven any less valid than your own. This really looks like you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the idea of `scientific proof'. Just thank god you're not a mathematician. (3 and 5 are prime, so all odd numbers must be too...)
Molf
ps. you do realise I hope that the world was a much hotter place (and periodically a much colder place) aeons before humans even crawled out of the evolutionary soup...
Essentially there's no difference between the elderly as a specific group learning computers than any other
group. Teach them not to fear the computer, show them a few cool things, and then let them loose. That's how I
learned computers, I'm betting that's how you learned computers, and that's probably the best way they can
learn them too. This isn't strictly true. As a person ages (gains experience) the brain forms an ever increasing number of dendritic connections. For a young brain this is easy, but aging causes less and less connections to be made, as there is already a staggering number formed by past experiences. It literally does become harder for the brain to learn something new.
This needn't be a problem, if the person in question is willing to put in the time and really *wants* to learn, however < sweeping statement > most people, particularly the elderly it seems to me, really can't be bothered; they want to be able to send and receive e-mail, and type the occasional letter - and scan large images without compression so they can send unsuspecting relatives 30meg bitmaps that they didn't want and then complain about how slow it all is (maybe that's just my grandmother) </sweeping statement >
Molf
This can't be the whole story. If the only reason is the sensitivity of the human eye, then red light would not be acceptable when developing photographic film, any more than (say) blue light. I have no doubt that what you say is correct (okay *some* doubt but not a significant amount), but I feel sure that the lower energy level contributes to the effect. Molf
The problem is the amount of information they could sell. Advertising is certainly a valid source of revenue, and even on/. I don't think *too* many people would mind the idea of generalised/demographic information being sold. Amazon's `people who bought x also bought y' thing could be useful for example. There is however, very little legitimate and non privacy-invading excuse for some of it:
`Such personal information includes names, shipping and billing addresses, credit card numbers and e-mail addresses. It can also include employers, gift wish lists, Social Security numbers and photographs for customers who taken advantage of special personalization features'.
This is about as private as it could get. The fact that there is no longer an option to opt out adds salt to the wound; the fact that anyone who's *ever* given their information to Amazon adds caustic soda.
Also, as an aside and with regards to advertising funded television, I live in England and there is of course the BBC. This is paid for by the television licence, and is severel orders of magnitude better than the ad funded channels. Coincidence? Nah..
Molf
Given how many people seem to have interpreted `pos', I think I like this line:
"Retailers typically stay with their POS systems for years because of the costs that can be involved in upgrading thousands of terminal devices to a new environment." Suddenly the reason for using Windows becomes obvious...
Molf
That's true, but it's not the point. Wine really *doesn't* emulate Windows at all. It emulates the API, which is an entirely different chestnut. This is why Wine should eventually be able to run Windows apps faster than Windows itself - you *always* need an interface between the app and the OS, this simply acts like the one Windows apps know how to speak to. In theory it should be no different than a `native' API, or running Windows app natively under Windows - except for apps which try to access Windows directly. These won't work properly, because Wine Is Not an Emulator.
Molf
Re:What worries me most...
on
Tito In Space
·
· Score: 1
rich people get benefits and enjoy luxuries that the poor don't. And yes, that is indepedent of
capitialism (eg: ruling class in the communist USSR).
Except that the `communist' USSR wasn't really communist at all. You've just demonstrated the fact.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, I understand; I didn't state myself well. I really meant that it would presumably be in violation of trading standard to sell a device which purports to follow one standard, but instead acts in a way which breaks part of it - much as people have suggested that the recent copy-protected CDs should not be labelled as CDs, because they do not conform to the standard. I hope that clears it up (of course, I still could be way off. Ah well).
"there are DVD players out there that won't play unencrypted video"
Are you serious? What about all of the *legal* films (and other multimedia whatevers) which are on unencrypted DVDs? I personally own an unencrypted DVD - it came with Diablo 2 and contains all the cinematic sequences, plus a lot of other stuff. Are there companies that make DVD players which *intentionally* won't play my DVD, simply because they can't distinguish it from one that *might* be pirated? What happens when people start burning home video to DVD, without encrypting it? Tough luck? If this is true, and especially if the players are not advertised as having this `feature' (which must surely be illegal, as it would be unable to play a disc conforming to the DVD standard), I fail to see how the manufacturers would justify it. The purpose may be reasonable, but taking away a person's right to use something they legally own is most definitely not.
Wait a minute, that argument seems vaguely familiar...
What you are saying is: The strong should prey on the weak.
Having realised that you are merely a troll, I shall no longer bother to respond.
Perhaps I'm in a minority of one, but I would not shoot first.
As for the innocent civilians in the WTC, that is the *point*. There is a disturbing parallel here. Revenge is *always* *wrong*. Justice is not killing anyone who may have connections to those resonsible; it's ot attacking anybody who happens to follow the same religion; it is finding out the culprit and punishing them appropriately. The original post was *not* talxking about hostile terrorists, but people who no more "deserve" to be slaughtered than those in the WTC.
As for the bully, I know from bitter experience that retaliating will *always* make things worse. But otherwise, they will eventually go away.
An eye for an eye, and the world goes blind.
And I think that you are a fucking cunt and should have your family hunted down and shot, but you don't see me doing it. Why? Because attacking innocent civilians simply because you disagree with them, is *wrong*. There have been American terrorists in the past. Should every other nation in the world attack all of the landmarks in the US because of this? Wait a minute...
The point is, you're thinking like a terrorist.
An act of murder? Yes. Apalling? Yes. Horrifying? Yes. Cowardly? Not to anyone who knows what the word means. No matter what atrocity is committed, no matter how senselessly violent, a kamikaze attack is not the work of a coward. Giving your life for a cause you believe in is about as far from cowardly as it is possible to get.
I think you need to, because you obviously don't understand the idea behind humour.
Well, I just randomly picked an article from a couple of days ago (Loki speaks up on chapter 11). I'm on dialup, so it took several seconds to download (~15-20ish seconds). Opera then rendered it in less than a second. Mozilla started rendering it as it downloaded, so it was hard to compare, but reloading from cache was marginally slower in Mozilla. I only recently upgraded my machine however, from a 166/32. On that, Mozilla was almost unusable becaause of the RAM shortage, though the processor was easily fast enough to do the actual rendering at perfectly acceptable speeds. The 0.9.x releases were usable under Win95, as I didn't have the vast amount of RAM used by X to worry about; slow to load, but not bad when in use. Basically, the Gecko engine is *sweet*, but Mozilla itself usues to much RAM for sub-low-end machines. Opera OTOH, is a different story. Even on antique hardware it runs incredibly fast and renders like a wild thing. It is also a tiny app compared to other graphical web browsers. Basically amazing; if I hadn't upgraded my machine shortly after, I would have paid for the no-ads version, because it is obviously a wonderfully written piece of software. As it is, I've taken to running Mozilla (0.9.3 at the moment) as I find it faster, stabler, less ugly, and more accurate than NS4.7x. The biggest problem with both of these is too strong standards-compliance, given that most web pages contain errors, often because they are designed to render properly in broken browsers.
Molf
This post copyrighted by me, (C)2001. It is held as a sequence of binary digits, rather than human-readable physical text; anyone attempting to circumvent this method of content protection by converting these digits into readable text must do so only with my explicit allowance. Any anauthorised reading of this post is a crime in the US under the Digital Millanium Copyright Act, and will be treated as such.
Have a nice day.
...is just as featured. In fact I believe it holds more information (possibly no more than id3v2 though). I ripped a cd to oggs using Grip a few days ago, and it inserted all the data from the cddb quite happily. Check your setup?
Television in the UK is not made up of perpetual reruns of something that was shown last week, and the week before, etc. Some programs (such as this in fact) are repeated once within a week, and then you've missed your chance to watch it for ages, if ever. I'm sure this is not why it was pulled as that would make no sense at all. If you want to see it though, one word: Gnutella
Diablo II runs fabulously and damn near bug-free under Wine nowadays.
Molf
Surely it's completely impossible for a CD to cantain an ultrasonic component? They only sample at 44kHz (approx, 44.2 maybe?). The highest recreatable frequency component is half of that (Nyquist's sampling theorem). Traditionally, anything above a certain frequency is filtered out. I believe this is 20kHz, but it has to be some frequency thereabouts. In theory they could choose to leave this in, but that would be insane as there is a good reason this is filtered - rather than simply not being recreatable, these frequencies cause aliasing (spurious low frequencies) which is obviously a Bad Thing. Since human hearing range is nominally about 20Hz-20kHz, nothing can be recorded onto a CD at ultrasonic frequencies (plus I personally can hear well into "ultrasound" and it doesn't seem that uncommon to have a pretty large hearing range, so a lot of people would be a little miffed at the inclusion of sounds we supposedly shouldn't be able to hear.) Tell me if I've missed the point:-)
Molf
Uh, I don't know if this is because you're using a different version, or maybe this is some obscure joke I'm not getting, but so far as I'm concerned it *is* on the taskbar (and the default is to pose as IE5)
Molf
Oh come on. Are you really so egocentric as to presume that you can take some figures taken over a geologically insignificant period of time, look at them, and conclude that - because you are a scientist afterall, and therefore better than anyone else - what you think is indeniably proven. And then flame someone with a different viewpoint, which can be no way be proven any less valid than your own. This really looks like you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the idea of `scientific proof'. Just thank god you're not a mathematician. (3 and 5 are prime, so all odd numbers must be too...)
Molf
ps. you do realise I hope that the world was a much hotter place (and periodically a much colder place) aeons before humans even crawled out of the evolutionary soup...
Essentially there's no difference between the elderly as a specific group learning computers than any other group. Teach them not to fear the computer, show them a few cool things, and then let them loose. That's how I learned computers, I'm betting that's how you learned computers, and that's probably the best way they can learn them too.
This isn't strictly true. As a person ages (gains experience) the brain forms an ever increasing number of dendritic connections. For a young brain this is easy, but aging causes less and less connections to be made, as there is already a staggering number formed by past experiences. It literally does become harder for the brain to learn something new.
This needn't be a problem, if the person in question is willing to put in the time and really *wants* to learn, however < sweeping statement > most people, particularly the elderly it seems to me, really can't be bothered; they want to be able to send and receive e-mail, and type the occasional letter - and scan large images without compression so they can send unsuspecting relatives 30meg bitmaps that they didn't want and then complain about how slow it all is (maybe that's just my grandmother) </sweeping statement >
Molf
This can't be the whole story. If the only reason is the sensitivity of the human eye, then red light would not be acceptable when developing photographic film, any more than (say) blue light. I have no doubt that what you say is correct (okay *some* doubt but not a significant amount), but I feel sure that the lower energy level contributes to the effect.
Molf
The problem is the amount of information they could sell. Advertising is certainly a valid source of revenue, and even on /. I don't think *too* many people would mind the idea of generalised/demographic information being sold. Amazon's `people who bought x also bought y' thing could be useful for example. There is however, very little legitimate and non privacy-invading excuse for some of it:
`Such personal information includes names, shipping and billing addresses, credit card numbers and e-mail addresses. It can also include employers, gift wish lists, Social Security numbers and photographs for customers who taken advantage of special personalization features'.
This is about as private as it could get. The fact that there is no longer an option to opt out adds salt to the wound; the fact that anyone who's *ever* given their information to Amazon adds caustic soda.
Also, as an aside and with regards to advertising funded television, I live in England and there is of course the BBC. This is paid for by the television licence, and is severel orders of magnitude better than the ad funded channels. Coincidence? Nah..
Molf
Given how many people seem to have interpreted `pos', I think I like this line:
"Retailers typically stay with their POS systems for years because of the costs that can be involved in upgrading thousands of terminal devices to a new environment." Suddenly the reason for using Windows becomes obvious...
Molf
That's true, but it's not the point. Wine really *doesn't* emulate Windows at all. It emulates the API, which is an entirely different chestnut. This is why Wine should eventually be able to run Windows apps faster than Windows itself - you *always* need an interface between the app and the OS, this simply acts like the one Windows apps know how to speak to. In theory it should be no different than a `native' API, or running Windows app natively under Windows - except for apps which try to access Windows directly. These won't work properly, because Wine Is Not an Emulator.
Molf
Except that the `communist' USSR wasn't really communist at all. You've just demonstrated the fact.
Molf