More likely the exact opposite. As a corporate entity, you avoid the reliance on GPL licensed code at the core of your product if you're not 100% sure you're not going to need to hack the software up.
The BSD choice, I'd hazard a guess, is explicitly because they needed to. or believe they'll need to, hack up the OS and didn't want the IP baggage that comes from needing to do that with a GPL-based system.
What kind of nonsense are you spouting? Copyleft vs permissive has nothing whatsoever with your right to hack up the OS, only with Sony's obligation to provide the changes on request to whoever receives the binaries. IOW, this has nothing to do with Sony's needs, and everything to do with Sony's desire to conceal from users exactly what code they are running on the device they thought they owned.
I think my statement is pretty clear, and yours just supported it, albeit from a far left position with regard to intellectual property. Your opinion on it is precisely why Sony needs to avoid the GPL... because regardless of your desire to know what's on there, they're under no obligation to do so and may consider it a competitive or business advantage to not do so.
When you decide to build a billion dollar business, you can choose to handle your IP the way you choose, just as they can. As a consumer, you can choose to buy or not buy. But, thankfully, your position is in the extreme minority.
Sony grows up and decides not to hack up their own crappy OS any more, finally entering the 21st century. However in a nod back the PHB nest that traditionally comes up with their PHB strategies, they decide to go with the second best free kernel out there because it allows more scope for doing evil. Nice one Sony.
Oh well, it could be worse. The other guys have to use Windows.
More likely the exact opposite. As a corporate entity, you avoid the reliance on GPL licensed code at the core of your product if you're not 100% sure you're not going to need to hack the software up.
The BSD choice, I'd hazard a guess, is explicitly because they needed to. or believe they'll need to, hack up the OS and didn't want the IP baggage that comes from needing to do that with a GPL-based system.
That and GM is not a brand I really have much interest in. Not sure I could ever trust them again.
Keep talking like that and I'll have to take you off my foes list!:p
High MPG hybrids are the main reason update of electric cars will be slow - they don't add that much value over a high MPG car.
*shrug*
Even with the way-above-average driving I do daily, I still average 160mpg in mine. And, unlike a "high mileage hybrid", its smooth, quiet, powerful and quick.
Before my current gig, I was going almost 2000 miles on an 8 gallon tank. I averaged about 250mpg for the first 6000 miles for the cost equivalent of about 40 gallons of gas. (150mpg cost-equivalent) And those figures were only because of taking it on a few road trips.
When I bought mine, it and the CT200h were the only "green" cars on my list of things I was considering -- and it was by a long shot the cheapest on my list. Still bought it, not because of the savings, but because it was the best of the cars I drove. The "green" was just a perk. YMMV.
Yeah, slashdot has a lot of liars. Also a surprising amount of luddites.
I can't wait for an affordable electric car. I looked at the leaf, but still just too much for me. Getting ~50mpg in a my current ride is also limiting my desire. As a second car a subcompact/compact like the Leaf would be perfect if it was just a little cheaper. I know it is just a matter of time.
Lease a Volt. Its a far nicer car than the Leaf or Focus EV, the lease rate is dirt cheap, its quiet, comfortable, and if you're one of the Slashdot liars who drives 7 hours in a row without a stop, it has the generator on-board just-in-case. And a couple cup holders in the back you can stick the bottle of urine into, given that you just drove seven hours without a stop.
They're pricey when bought outright, but because the federal tax credit comes off the lease amount, the lease rates are really very low. I bought mine, rather than leasing it, but if I'd leased mine I'd actually be saving money -- I am saving $100/wk in gas, and the leases tend to run about $350/month with my amount of driving. They're currently $280ish a month for a 36month/36k mile lease. Even if you only save $50 a week in gas, you're basically getting a Cadillac quality EV for a Corolla price.
And that's the trick: storing large quantities of electrical energy and having this available quickly is not possible with current technology. You can't take a tank of electricity like you take a tank of gasoline.
How do you think Tesla is doing it with their charging stations? Exactly that way.
Its not rocket science... but even if it was, I hear they've got someone there who has some experience in rocket science, too.
Really? We can get this for cars but many of our latest phones and laptops don't have accessible or replaceable batteries?
All of mine do.
And in either case, feigned indignation aside, if you wanted your car to be a quarter inch thick, stylish slab of aluminum or polycarbonate, it wouldn't be removable either. If for style purposes a designer, say, wanted to have an almost entirely glass vehicle and needed to hide the batteries in the various A,B, and C pillars, you wouldn't have them removable either -- because the design decision was a higher priority.
If you took a photo of a person in a perfect camoflauge suit, they will stand out like a beacon with this camera mod.
It will work great for detecting non living organic things in camo easily.
Depends on the material. Some printed inks are transparent to IR, and you'll get basically solid white, some inks aren't and you'll still get the patterns. This "trick" depends on the fact that the chlorophyll in plants is extremely IR reflective, that's all.
Is this better/worse/ or just the same as using a infra-red lens filter for (D)SLR cameras?
Those are the opposite. IR filters remove the IR.
Digital sensors in cameras essentially always have a UV/IR filter built in (UV/IR filters for DSLRs are really just lens protectors).
Its easy to remove the IR/UV filters in a camera and shoot photos that go pretty far into the IR and into the UV ranges. With the right filters, you can do all sorts of "sciency" photography like this, or "artsy" IR photography like you'd get with Kodak's B&W IR film.
The top-level post is right, though -- there's nothing new, fancy, creative or whatever about this. There are literally a hundred sites about doing digital camera conversions and all the stuff you can do with full spectrum cameras.
The GP was being a pedantic twat by picking a definition of generation that was a) clearly not what the article was talking about and b) incorrect based on his/her own choice of definition.
And you're an ignorant twat not only by creating a definition out of thin air that has no bearing on or relation to the actual definitions, but by also by being clueless and thick headed enough to not recognize the difference when they're pointed out to you.
Except that you, and he, are incorrect about the generally approved definition of generation, and the average age of procreation, neither of which are 30 years.
I know this may be hard for you to follow but:
1) The definition of generation that you posted is structurally correct but factually incorrect because "30" is not the number that is standardly used by anyone. It may be used by some people who don't know better, but it is *not* the definition, because there is nowhere in the world where the average generation gap is 30 years. The average in most of the western world is around 25, and globally is about 21. 2) The article is clearly talking about employees, and thus the generation it is referring to is obviously not a biological or sociological generation.
In virtually all cases, generations are pegged at 20 years. The common "Gen X", "Gen Y", etc are all 20 year spans. In fact, virtually every named "generation" of the last century were equal or slightly less than 20 years.
You're confusing two different things, which isn't surprising since they more or less use the same word.
"Generation", used standalone, is a noun and describes a measure of time expressed in a fraction of human lifetimes and is generally pegged at around 30 years. ("Three generations ago we did this thing or that thing.")
"Generation ___" is a proper noun and a descriptive term for a generational cohort or a social generation. ("Millennials are all this social trait or that social trait.")
No, actually I'm not. The GP was being a pedantic twat by picking a definition of generation that was a) clearly not what the article was talking about and b) incorrect based on his/her own choice of definition.
I'm not the least bit confused about the GP's twatness, the definition of "generation", or the obvious intent of the author of the story in using the word.
Oh, I though they were looking for people to program a new assembler.
Considering most of the PDP-11 coding I did, my fingers, a pencil and some paper was the only assembler... there was definitely a time I would've been in support of programming an assembler.
So? A "generation" is commonly held to be 30 years; the average child (note: not first-born) being born when the parents are approximately 30. Secondly, TFA specifies two generations "coming and going", which means two ENTIRE generations pass; not just one passing and the second one beginning.
That is 60 years, not 37 years. TFS, if not TFA, which I didn't read, is officially stupid.
Commonly by who?
In virtually all cases, generations are pegged at 20 years. The common "Gen X", "Gen Y", etc are all 20 year spans. In fact, virtually every named "generation" of the last century were equal or slightly less than 20 years.
Even if you go by the average age of first birth, in virtually all of the "1st world", its right around 25. The peak averages are barely 30, and globally its in the low 20's, depending on the source.
So by either definition, there's definitely time for two generations... and if you're talking about the average time in a given position (which is a more meaningful generation when speaking about engineers), you're looking at more like 15 years -- or time for three.
That's not the problem. Just tell people what you're doing. Make sure that it's legal and ethical. Don't be shy of what you're doing. Then we might accept it.
Well, to be fair, telling people what you're doing makes doing it pretty useless when "what you're doing" is covert surveillance.
Something similar has been available for YEARS- all you need do is ask the phone company to invalidate the IMEI number.and/or activate the memory wipe software built into Android, iOS, and Windows phones.
There's still no nationwide database in the US of all stolen IMEI numbers. Even if you tell your carrier that your phone was stolen and they bother to invalidate the number, AFAIK there's nothing stopping the theif from using the phone on a different carrier (assuming the phone is compatible, obviously.)
Well *clearly* this is why networked locked phones are in the public's best interest!
Its a lot like speaking a second language you're not that familiar with. Your natural flow and grammar doesn't always work and the response you get back isn't always what you expect. It just takes your brain more attention to handle it.
The brain also tends to have a greater problem following dis-embodied conversation. It takes less effort to talk to someone you can see than someone you can't.
There are nuances to how the brain processes things that tend to be a surprise the more we collectively learn about it.
NH unemployment is the lowest in the New England, if not the East coast, and has been for the last decade.
I'm not sure if you mean rate or amount... it is, in fact, the lowest amount. Well below the cost of living.
I suspect that's why the rate is so low -- you can't live on unemployment, so you won't get many people on it very long. People will either under employ themselves to get by, or will move out of state.
They almost certainly started the program with the idea of preventing terrorists setting off truck bombs at shopping malls, and other sorts of terrorist attacks. Could you spell out why that is a misguided policy goal?
If you want to portray it as a form of oppression, then I think you also need to account for the IRS scandal. The IRS has been caught in actually political oppression of groups in opposition to the current administration.
Um, the IRS's job is to make sure that political groups opposed or in support of the current administration doesn't get tax-exempt status under that program.
The issue isn't that the IRS did that to the right-leaning organizations, but that it may not have with the left leaning organizations.
And given that the majority of the names of the organizations in question made it clear just with their name that their primary purpose was politics, the IRS didn't do anything wrong in calling them out for further investigation.
And, from your reply and clear bias in the off topic IRS issue, its clear you don't have an ability to think or reason independently, but I figure its worth pointing out that I didn't, in fact, say it was a misguided policy goal. I simply said the issue isn't either of the parties.
Guess you didn't RTFA. He was going to blow the whistle but held off when Obama got elected because he hoped things would change, instead, they only got worse. Please understand that the "left vs right" thing is just a distraction. Both parties are happily taking our liberties away.
More specifically, the people involved in creating programs like this transcend any particular election cycle.
Its not the parties doing it, on either side. Its the inertia of huge organizations following misguided policies stacked on policies, most likely created by people who really believed it was the best thing for the country.
"Do less" isn't an idea that creates a motivation for change, so time will always trend these sort of things into doing more and more.
Slashdot Mirror
If you'd like to know more about these worlds before you die, then we should be launching a specialized telescope, not exploratory robots.
Or investing in either cryogenics or machine digitization of human consciousness.
Because without one of the two, its just plain not going to happen.
More likely the exact opposite. As a corporate entity, you avoid the reliance on GPL licensed code at the core of your product if you're not 100% sure you're not going to need to hack the software up.
The BSD choice, I'd hazard a guess, is explicitly because they needed to. or believe they'll need to, hack up the OS and didn't want the IP baggage that comes from needing to do that with a GPL-based system.
What kind of nonsense are you spouting? Copyleft vs permissive has nothing whatsoever with your right to hack up the OS, only with Sony's obligation to provide the changes on request to whoever receives the binaries. IOW, this has nothing to do with Sony's needs, and everything to do with Sony's desire to conceal from users exactly what code they are running on the device they thought they owned.
I think my statement is pretty clear, and yours just supported it, albeit from a far left position with regard to intellectual property. Your opinion on it is precisely why Sony needs to avoid the GPL ... because regardless of your desire to know what's on there, they're under no obligation to do so and may consider it a competitive or business advantage to not do so.
When you decide to build a billion dollar business, you can choose to handle your IP the way you choose, just as they can. As a consumer, you can choose to buy or not buy. But, thankfully, your position is in the extreme minority.
they are now reporting that there is no record of a US citizen with that name
At the risk of feeding a troll, being wooshed, or having the black helicopters come find me, I have some middle school yearbooks which say otherwise.
*woosh*
If the media really is reporting that Edward Snowden is a made up person, please, provide a citation.
I blame some sort of PRISM intercept for that *woosh* ending up in the wrong place.
they are now reporting that there is no record of a US citizen with that name
At the risk of feeding a troll, being wooshed, or having the black helicopters come find me, I have some middle school yearbooks which say otherwise.
*woosh*
If the media really is reporting that Edward Snowden is a made up person, please, provide a citation.
Sony grows up and decides not to hack up their own crappy OS any more, finally entering the 21st century. However in a nod back the PHB nest that traditionally comes up with their PHB strategies, they decide to go with the second best free kernel out there because it allows more scope for doing evil. Nice one Sony.
Oh well, it could be worse. The other guys have to use Windows.
More likely the exact opposite. As a corporate entity, you avoid the reliance on GPL licensed code at the core of your product if you're not 100% sure you're not going to need to hack the software up.
The BSD choice, I'd hazard a guess, is explicitly because they needed to. or believe they'll need to, hack up the OS and didn't want the IP baggage that comes from needing to do that with a GPL-based system.
That and GM is not a brand I really have much interest in. Not sure I could ever trust them again.
Keep talking like that and I'll have to take you off my foes list! :p
High MPG hybrids are the main reason update of electric cars will be slow - they don't add that much value over a high MPG car.
*shrug*
Even with the way-above-average driving I do daily, I still average 160mpg in mine. And, unlike a "high mileage hybrid", its smooth, quiet, powerful and quick.
Before my current gig, I was going almost 2000 miles on an 8 gallon tank. I averaged about 250mpg for the first 6000 miles for the cost equivalent of about 40 gallons of gas. (150mpg cost-equivalent) And those figures were only because of taking it on a few road trips.
When I bought mine, it and the CT200h were the only "green" cars on my list of things I was considering -- and it was by a long shot the cheapest on my list. Still bought it, not because of the savings, but because it was the best of the cars I drove. The "green" was just a perk. YMMV.
Yeah, slashdot has a lot of liars. Also a surprising amount of luddites.
I can't wait for an affordable electric car. I looked at the leaf, but still just too much for me. Getting ~50mpg in a my current ride is also limiting my desire. As a second car a subcompact/compact like the Leaf would be perfect if it was just a little cheaper. I know it is just a matter of time.
Lease a Volt. Its a far nicer car than the Leaf or Focus EV, the lease rate is dirt cheap, its quiet, comfortable, and if you're one of the Slashdot liars who drives 7 hours in a row without a stop, it has the generator on-board just-in-case. And a couple cup holders in the back you can stick the bottle of urine into, given that you just drove seven hours without a stop.
They're pricey when bought outright, but because the federal tax credit comes off the lease amount, the lease rates are really very low. I bought mine, rather than leasing it, but if I'd leased mine I'd actually be saving money -- I am saving $100/wk in gas, and the leases tend to run about $350/month with my amount of driving. They're currently $280ish a month for a 36month/36k mile lease. Even if you only save $50 a week in gas, you're basically getting a Cadillac quality EV for a Corolla price.
And that's the trick: storing large quantities of electrical energy and having this available quickly is not possible with current technology. You can't take a tank of electricity like you take a tank of gasoline.
How do you think Tesla is doing it with their charging stations? Exactly that way.
Its not rocket science... but even if it was, I hear they've got someone there who has some experience in rocket science, too.
Really? We can get this for cars but many of our latest phones and laptops don't have accessible or replaceable batteries?
All of mine do.
And in either case, feigned indignation aside, if you wanted your car to be a quarter inch thick, stylish slab of aluminum or polycarbonate, it wouldn't be removable either. If for style purposes a designer, say, wanted to have an almost entirely glass vehicle and needed to hide the batteries in the various A,B, and C pillars, you wouldn't have them removable either -- because the design decision was a higher priority.
If you took a photo of a person in a perfect camoflauge suit, they will stand out like a beacon with this camera mod.
It will work great for detecting non living organic things in camo easily.
Depends on the material. Some printed inks are transparent to IR, and you'll get basically solid white, some inks aren't and you'll still get the patterns. This "trick" depends on the fact that the chlorophyll in plants is extremely IR reflective, that's all.
Is this better/worse/ or just the same as using a infra-red lens filter for (D)SLR cameras?
Those are the opposite. IR filters remove the IR.
Digital sensors in cameras essentially always have a UV/IR filter built in (UV/IR filters for DSLRs are really just lens protectors).
Its easy to remove the IR/UV filters in a camera and shoot photos that go pretty far into the IR and into the UV ranges. With the right filters, you can do all sorts of "sciency" photography like this, or "artsy" IR photography like you'd get with Kodak's B&W IR film.
The top-level post is right, though -- there's nothing new, fancy, creative or whatever about this. There are literally a hundred sites about doing digital camera conversions and all the stuff you can do with full spectrum cameras.
Yes, actually, you are.
And you're an ignorant twat not only by creating a definition out of thin air that has no bearing on or relation to the actual definitions, but by also by being clueless and thick headed enough to not recognize the difference when they're pointed out to you.
Except that you, and he, are incorrect about the generally approved definition of generation, and the average age of procreation, neither of which are 30 years.
I know this may be hard for you to follow but:
1) The definition of generation that you posted is structurally correct but factually incorrect because "30" is not the number that is standardly used by anyone. It may be used by some people who don't know better, but it is *not* the definition, because there is nowhere in the world where the average generation gap is 30 years. The average in most of the western world is around 25, and globally is about 21.
2) The article is clearly talking about employees, and thus the generation it is referring to is obviously not a biological or sociological generation.
You're confusing two different things, which isn't surprising since they more or less use the same word.
No, actually I'm not. The GP was being a pedantic twat by picking a definition of generation that was a) clearly not what the article was talking about and b) incorrect based on his/her own choice of definition.
I'm not the least bit confused about the GP's twatness, the definition of "generation", or the obvious intent of the author of the story in using the word.
Oh, I though they were looking for people to program a new assembler.
Considering most of the PDP-11 coding I did, my fingers, a pencil and some paper was the only assembler ... there was definitely a time I would've been in support of programming an assembler.
So? A "generation" is commonly held to be 30 years; the average child (note: not first-born) being born when the parents are approximately 30. Secondly, TFA specifies two generations "coming and going", which means two ENTIRE generations pass; not just one passing and the second one beginning.
That is 60 years, not 37 years. TFS, if not TFA, which I didn't read, is officially stupid.
Commonly by who?
In virtually all cases, generations are pegged at 20 years. The common "Gen X", "Gen Y", etc are all 20 year spans. In fact, virtually every named "generation" of the last century were equal or slightly less than 20 years.
Even if you go by the average age of first birth, in virtually all of the "1st world", its right around 25. The peak averages are barely 30, and globally its in the low 20's, depending on the source.
So by either definition, there's definitely time for two generations ... and if you're talking about the average time in a given position (which is a more meaningful generation when speaking about engineers), you're looking at more like 15 years -- or time for three.
That's not the problem. Just tell people what you're doing. Make sure that it's legal and ethical. Don't be shy of what you're doing. Then we might accept it.
Well, to be fair, telling people what you're doing makes doing it pretty useless when "what you're doing" is covert surveillance.
There's still no nationwide database in the US of all stolen IMEI numbers. Even if you tell your carrier that your phone was stolen and they bother to invalidate the number, AFAIK there's nothing stopping the theif from using the phone on a different carrier (assuming the phone is compatible, obviously.)
Well *clearly* this is why networked locked phones are in the public's best interest!
did the weak ai write the summary and the perl packages?
It's still superior to the "slashdot_editors" package.
Its a lot like speaking a second language you're not that familiar with. Your natural flow and grammar doesn't always work and the response you get back isn't always what you expect. It just takes your brain more attention to handle it.
The brain also tends to have a greater problem following dis-embodied conversation. It takes less effort to talk to someone you can see than someone you can't.
There are nuances to how the brain processes things that tend to be a surprise the more we collectively learn about it.
Apple was fighting jailbreaking since iOS 1.0 because they knew in iOS 7 they were going to roll out an anti-theft measure.
NH unemployment is the lowest in the New England, if not the East coast, and has been for the last decade.
I'm not sure if you mean rate or amount... it is, in fact, the lowest amount. Well below the cost of living.
I suspect that's why the rate is so low -- you can't live on unemployment, so you won't get many people on it very long. People will either under employ themselves to get by, or will move out of state.
They almost certainly started the program with the idea of preventing terrorists setting off truck bombs at shopping malls, and other sorts of terrorist attacks. Could you spell out why that is a misguided policy goal?
If you want to portray it as a form of oppression, then I think you also need to account for the IRS scandal. The IRS has been caught in actually political oppression of groups in opposition to the current administration.
Um, the IRS's job is to make sure that political groups opposed or in support of the current administration doesn't get tax-exempt status under that program.
The issue isn't that the IRS did that to the right-leaning organizations, but that it may not have with the left leaning organizations.
And given that the majority of the names of the organizations in question made it clear just with their name that their primary purpose was politics, the IRS didn't do anything wrong in calling them out for further investigation.
And, from your reply and clear bias in the off topic IRS issue, its clear you don't have an ability to think or reason independently, but I figure its worth pointing out that I didn't, in fact, say it was a misguided policy goal. I simply said the issue isn't either of the parties.
I've been asked to do something as part of my job, have no idea how to do it, can you help me?
Sounds to me like the dimwit submitter is just as incompetent at doing what he's been asked to do as the IT manager.
Which given that and the presupposed IT manager's incompetence suggests its actually the CEO that is the issue at the company.
B players hire C players.
Guess you didn't RTFA. He was going to blow the whistle but held off when Obama got elected because he hoped things would change, instead, they only got worse. Please understand that the "left vs right" thing is just a distraction. Both parties are happily taking our liberties away.
More specifically, the people involved in creating programs like this transcend any particular election cycle.
Its not the parties doing it, on either side. Its the inertia of huge organizations following misguided policies stacked on policies, most likely created by people who really believed it was the best thing for the country.
"Do less" isn't an idea that creates a motivation for change, so time will always trend these sort of things into doing more and more.
If copyright law is anything like patent law, then he has a case.
Its not.