No, you disturbed a dragon. Leave the cave quietly and pray he doesn't wake up. He might never win in court but that doesn't mean you'll have to have six mortgages on your house before he's done with you.
How are the costs of legal actions payed in the US? AFAIK, each side pays his/her own bills. This seems quite silly, because in a case such as this, the rich player can simply drown the poor player in legal fees. I see this as a major flaw of the US legal system.
At least here in Finland, generally the losing side pays both side's expenses (unless decided otherwise by the judge - so nobody has to pay ridiculous expenses). This way nobody can drown the other player out for a silly matter such as this. Of course, this adds risk to filing a suit, which could limit the small man's willingness to sue, but I'd say that on the whole it's a better system. What's your take on it?
This is more damning that the threat of VCRs and audio tapes that nearly destroyed our industry in the 1980's. Then consumers could watch television whenever they wanted and fast-forward over commercials. They could watch these shows again and again without new revenue being generated with each play.
I think this comparison (very common though it is) misses two points which distinguish copying in the '80s from the copying of today:
With tapes and VCRs, you need a physical medium to copy the music/video, hence cost for copying (not to mention the tape-tax). Nowadays you can copy content on the 'Net for free (or at maximum for what the ISP charges you).
There is no loss of quality when copying digital content. In the '80s you could copy infinitely, but the quality was very soon too poor to be the least bit satisfactory (at least with common consumer devices).
As much as I hate DRM schemes, I think this comparison is very unfair. Does anybody have any better comparisions to suggest?
... the GPL policy [which I understand to be, if you modify the code, your modifications have to be open source and GPLed and anyone should be allowed to use them]
Slight correction, which is often forgotten: If you modify the code and distribute the resulting program, you have to make it GPL. If you don't distribute the stuff, there's no requirement to make the changes available. I believe this is actually a requirement of the Free Software and/or Open Source definition (though I'm not absolutely sure).
Quite ironic you should say that. While most of central Europe is battling floods, the first drops of rain to southern Finland for at least four weeks came yesterday. It's been around 25 degrees Celcius the whole month, probably a bit more inlands.
In a newspaper here in Finland it said it fell at her feet, not that it actually hit her. I'd say it's quite probable it didn't hit her, but the reporter streched the story a bit to give it a better twing. When you read the article, it very quickly gets over the point of it actually hitting her.
Also (as mentioned in another comment) the point of it being from Mars is totally bogus. Probably the "expert" they interviewed mentioned that some meteorites can come from Mars, and the reporter immediately picked it up, saying "The stone may have come from Mars."
1. Lock the developers in a large auditorium. 2. Hire a fat, bald man to charge onto the stage and chant "DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS" nonstop for 20 minutes, or until one of the following occurs:
* he collapses from exhaustion
* the pulsing vein in this temple bursts 3. Introduce your product/service/ideology.
Releasing the affected code under the GPL is lip service? No, it's exactly what is supposed to happen.
They are probably referring to other things than the actual release. They don't give any credit to XVID. From the press release:
"We are pleased to provide the development community with an open source MPEG-4 CODEC, and anticipate that this will accelerate technical improvements and enhance the proliferation of MPEG-4 content," stated Ken Lowe, Sigma Designs' vice president of business development. (emphasis mine)
It makes you think they did all the work. The download page acknowledges that they "had utilized some routines posted by XVID as open source," but the tone is that they did all the hard work. Which isn't what I came to understand when reading the evindence.
Of course, now we have the source, it'll be interesting to make a more detailed study on how much code was copied.
Huge. So huge that this has absolutely no statistical meaning whatsoever. He gives some reasoning to the numbers, but as far as I can tell, he just threw those user counts from his head. He says there are 40 million Linux users today. The Linux counter fellow estimates it at 18 million.
Of course, the only thing really shown here is that if I am allowed to pick any number, and multiply by any factor I want to, I can get any number I want to get!
(I'd bet there are either infinitely many such numbers or none...)
Actually, given a little thought, that's quite trivial to prove:
Suppose there is an integer N that doesn't become palindrome. Then every integer in its calculation sequence is also an integer that doesn't become palindrome. So either there are no such integers, or there are infinitely many. Duh!
But the question forms out whether there are infinitely many base numbers: I'd bet that there are either no Lychrel numbers, or there are infinitely many "base" Lychrel numbers.
This article is saying that for the thousands of numbers tested, every one except 196 has exhibited this property.
Wrong, 196 is though to be the smallest integer with this property. Check the integer sequence referenced. It gives 45 integers which are thought to have this property, starting with 196, 295, 394, 493, 592, 689, 691,...
(I'd bet there are either infinitely many such numbers or none...)
A soul in tension that's learning to fly Condition grounded but determined to try Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies Tongue-tied and twisted just an earth-bound misfit, I
...isn't evolution based on genes mutating? Why is this such a surprise?
Not necessarily. Most evolution happens by survival of the strongest (or fittest). The best individuals survive and pass on their genes.
Gene mutations are random events. They add something new, something unexpected to the gene pool. Most of the time, the mutation is harmful, the individual dies, and the mutation is not handed on to the next generation. But sometimes, something good will result, making the gene pool stronger.
Humans might have developed their speech skills just by slow development (the ape that grunts loudest gets to pick its mate or something). This study suggests that there was a great leap in evolution, due to the mutation, and that relatively few genes control a major part of the throat muscles.
Is there anywhere on earth with NO light pollution?
Yes, there are, but those places are far and wide apart. Luckily, however, somebody is doing something about it. I just wish more countries had legislation like this.
I was searching for info about CD prices, as a local newspaper said they were on the verge of dropping significantly. I came across the RIAA explanation why a CD cost so much. In typical Slashdot manner, I haven't actually read any RIAA stuff before.
Read it and weep. That should convince you what double-faced bullshit the RIAA is spurring about. A few extracts:
Then come marketing and promotion costs -- perhaps the most expensive part of the music business today.
So they tell us that a major part of the cost comes from advertising to us, which has no value for us? Great... (Okay, this is a bit beside the point.)
For example, when you hear a song played on the radio -- that didn't just happen! Labels make investments in artists by paying for both the production and the promotion of the album, and promotion is very expensive. New technology such as the Internet offers new ways for artists to reach music fans, but it still requires that some entity, whether it is a traditional label or another kind of company, market and promote that artist so that fans are aware of new releases.
Are they saying they pay the radio stations to play and promote their music? A bit of a contradiction I'd say...
Between 1983 and 1996, the average price of a CD fell by more than 40%. Over this same period of time, consumer prices (measured by the Consumer Price Index, or CPI) rose nearly 60%. If CD prices had risen at the same rate as consumer prices over this period, the average retail price of a CD in 1996 would have been $33.86 instead of $12.75.
The CD was invented in 1980. They're comparing the production price of a three-year-old technology to its price 13 years later? Oh, give me a break...
... 20 years ago, (ye gads). It is OK, but not anything special. About the only special feature it has is the builtin COMPLEX type. Beyond that, you're in just another procedural language, and an old one at that.
Why not? GNU prides itself in being "not Unix" and has been known to write code with identifiers like POSIX_ME_HARDER. Why can't glibc help make the world a better place by dropping dangerous functions, such as gets(), sprintf(), strcpy(), strcat(), etc. Safer alternatives to these functions exist and their use should be forcefully encouraged.
Actually, they warn about it for some functions. When compiling the following code:
/tmp/cceHZ8M1.o: In function `main': /tmp/cceHZ8M1.o(.text+0x14): the `gets' function is dangerous and should not be used.
even without the -Wall flag. It compiles, so it doesn't break anything, but warns that you're doing something stupid.
I guess the reason this isn't done for sprintf is that you can use that safely, as long as you make sure the buffer is long enough not to be able to overflow. gets() on the other hand is always dangerous.
I'm not sure whether there is any option to make it warn about sprintf also, but it would be simple to make a header that makes it impossible to use such functions. Of course, the coder must include that header/option to use the protection.
(Note: phi(n) is the number of primes less than n (Euler's totient function, I believe). phi(p) = p - 1 for prime p, and phi(pq) = phi(p)phi(q) for p relatively prime to q (note, this step breaks if p or q aren't prime))
A slight error: phi(n) is the number of positive integers less than n, which are relatively prime to n (ie. gcd(n,x)=1). Therefore, if p is a prime, it is also relatively prime to all smaller integers, so phi(p)=p-1.
The function that tells the number of primes smaller than n is pi(n), the prime counting function.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a LOT of processors.
And running on an OS originally designed for a 386...
Building a computer, to tell you how to build another, larger, more complex computer. Hrmmm..
"Yes! I shall design this computer for you. And I shall name it also unto you. And it shall be called... The Earth!"
No, you disturbed a dragon. Leave the cave quietly and pray he doesn't wake up. He might never win in court but that doesn't mean you'll have to have six mortgages on your house before he's done with you.
How are the costs of legal actions payed in the US? AFAIK, each side pays his/her own bills. This seems quite silly, because in a case such as this, the rich player can simply drown the poor player in legal fees. I see this as a major flaw of the US legal system.
At least here in Finland, generally the losing side pays both side's expenses (unless decided otherwise by the judge - so nobody has to pay ridiculous expenses). This way nobody can drown the other player out for a silly matter such as this. Of course, this adds risk to filing a suit, which could limit the small man's willingness to sue, but I'd say that on the whole it's a better system. What's your take on it?
I think this comparison (very common though it is) misses two points which distinguish copying in the '80s from the copying of today:
As much as I hate DRM schemes, I think this comparison is very unfair. Does anybody have any better comparisions to suggest?
... the GPL policy [which I understand to be, if you modify the code, your modifications have to be open source and GPLed and anyone should be allowed to use them]
Slight correction, which is often forgotten: If you modify the code and distribute the resulting program, you have to make it GPL. If you don't distribute the stuff, there's no requirement to make the changes available. I believe this is actually a requirement of the Free Software and/or Open Source definition (though I'm not absolutely sure).
Why not just keep the processor outside :-)
Quite ironic you should say that. While most of central Europe is battling floods, the first drops of rain to southern Finland for at least four weeks came yesterday. It's been around 25 degrees Celcius the whole month, probably a bit more inlands.
In a newspaper here in Finland it said it fell at her feet, not that it actually hit her. I'd say it's quite probable it didn't hit her, but the reporter streched the story a bit to give it a better twing. When you read the article, it very quickly gets over the point of it actually hitting her.
Also (as mentioned in another comment) the point of it being from Mars is totally bogus. Probably the "expert" they interviewed mentioned that some meteorites can come from Mars, and the reporter immediately picked it up, saying "The stone may have come from Mars."
Damn ... this one is never old !!!
;-)
Yes it is. But it's a great way of getting karma!
1. Lock the developers in a large auditorium.
2. Hire a fat, bald man to charge onto the stage and chant "DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS" nonstop for 20 minutes, or until one of the following occurs:
* he collapses from exhaustion
* the pulsing vein in this temple bursts
3. Introduce your product/service/ideology.
4. ???
5. Profit!
Who else is getting a deja-vu from this?
Releasing the affected code under the GPL is lip service?
No, it's exactly what is supposed to happen.
They are probably referring to other things than the actual release. They don't give any credit to XVID. From the press release:
"We are pleased to provide the development community with an open source MPEG-4 CODEC, and anticipate that this will accelerate technical improvements and enhance the proliferation of MPEG-4 content," stated Ken Lowe, Sigma Designs' vice president of business development. (emphasis mine)
It makes you think they did all the work. The download page acknowledges that they "had utilized some routines posted by XVID as open source," but the tone is that they did all the hard work. Which isn't what I came to understand when reading the evindence.
Of course, now we have the source, it'll be interesting to make a more detailed study on how much code was copied.
...and public radio is reporting that the RIAA will drop their suit against listen4ever.com, since it's, uh, gone.
Well, of course it's gone. It appeared on Slashdot's front page, didn't it?
Except for prime numbers :-P
Who says the factor has to be integer?
(OK, this is getting way off-topic...)
I wonder whether they used perl...
Favorite quote: "The Quantum::Entanglement module attempts to port some of the functionality of the universe into Perl."
Huge. So huge that this has absolutely no statistical meaning whatsoever. He gives some reasoning to the numbers, but as far as I can tell, he just threw those user counts from his head. He says there are 40 million Linux users today. The Linux counter fellow estimates it at 18 million.
As he says on the estimates page:
(I'd bet there are either infinitely many such numbers or none...)
Actually, given a little thought, that's quite trivial to prove:
Suppose there is an integer N that doesn't become palindrome. Then every integer in its calculation sequence is also an integer that doesn't become palindrome. So either there are no such integers, or there are infinitely many. Duh!
But the question forms out whether there are infinitely many base numbers: I'd bet that there are either no Lychrel numbers, or there are infinitely many "base" Lychrel numbers.
This article is saying that for the thousands of numbers tested, every one except 196 has exhibited this property.
Wrong, 196 is though to be the smallest integer with this property. Check the integer sequence referenced. It gives 45 integers which are thought to have this property, starting with 196, 295, 394, 493, 592, 689, 691,...
(I'd bet there are either infinitely many such numbers or none...)
A soul in tension that's learning to fly
Condition grounded but determined to try
Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies
Tongue-tied and twisted just an earth-bound misfit, I
(Pink Floyd)
...isn't evolution based on genes mutating? Why is this such a surprise?
Not necessarily. Most evolution happens by survival of the strongest (or fittest). The best individuals survive and pass on their genes.
Gene mutations are random events. They add something new, something unexpected to the gene pool. Most of the time, the mutation is harmful, the individual dies, and the mutation is not handed on to the next generation. But sometimes, something good will result, making the gene pool stronger.
Humans might have developed their speech skills just by slow development (the ape that grunts loudest gets to pick its mate or something). This study suggests that there was a great leap in evolution, due to the mutation, and that relatively few genes control a major part of the throat muscles.
Is there anywhere on earth with NO light pollution?
Yes, there are, but those places are far and wide apart. Luckily, however, somebody is doing something about it. I just wish more countries had legislation like this.
I was searching for info about CD prices, as a local newspaper said they were on the verge of dropping significantly. I came across the RIAA explanation why a CD cost so much. In typical Slashdot manner, I haven't actually read any RIAA stuff before.
Read it and weep. That should convince you what double-faced bullshit the RIAA is spurring about. A few extracts:
Then come marketing and promotion costs -- perhaps the most expensive part of the music business today.
So they tell us that a major part of the cost comes from advertising to us, which has no value for us? Great... (Okay, this is a bit beside the point.)
For example, when you hear a song played on the radio -- that didn't just happen! Labels make investments in artists by paying for both the production and the promotion of the album, and promotion is very expensive. New technology such as the Internet offers new ways for artists to reach music fans, but it still requires that some entity, whether it is a traditional label or another kind of company, market and promote that artist so that fans are aware of new releases.
Are they saying they pay the radio stations to play and promote their music? A bit of a contradiction I'd say...
Between 1983 and 1996, the average price of a CD fell by more than 40%. Over this same period of time, consumer prices (measured by the Consumer Price Index, or CPI) rose nearly 60%. If CD prices had risen at the same rate as consumer prices over this period, the average retail price of a CD in 1996 would have been $33.86 instead of $12.75.
The CD was invented in 1980. They're comparing the production price of a three-year-old technology to its price 13 years later? Oh, give me a break...
C now has a built-in complex data type. For example:However, I'm not sure how widely these C99 extensions are supported on some other compilers.
So, you want to Meet the Spammers?
The beginning of the story is a bit dull, but it gets better near the end. Skip to the middle if you're too impatient.
Basically, this guy/gal conned a spammer to have a meeting in Amsterdam, and was able to get the spammer on a webcam! The photos are at the end.
(Yeah, slightly off-topic, but what the hell...)
Actually, they warn about it for some functions. When compiling the following code: you get the warning even without the -Wall flag. It compiles, so it doesn't break anything, but warns that you're doing something stupid.
I guess the reason this isn't done for sprintf is that you can use that safely, as long as you make sure the buffer is long enough not to be able to overflow. gets() on the other hand is always dangerous.
I'm not sure whether there is any option to make it warn about sprintf also, but it would be simple to make a header that makes it impossible to use such functions. Of course, the coder must include that header/option to use the protection.
(Note: phi(n) is the number of primes less than n (Euler's totient function, I believe). phi(p) = p - 1 for prime p, and phi(pq) = phi(p)phi(q) for p relatively prime to q (note, this step breaks if p or q aren't prime))
A slight error: phi(n) is the number of positive integers less than n, which are relatively prime to n (ie. gcd(n,x)=1). Therefore, if p is a prime, it is also relatively prime to all smaller integers, so phi(p)=p-1.
The function that tells the number of primes smaller than n is pi(n), the prime counting function.
Refs: Totient Function Prime Counting Function (MathWorld's luckily back online!)