This is all well and good, but it sounds like he's gone to an awful lot of work to solve a problem that could have been more easily remedied just by installing reCAPTCHA. I run a large forum, and the use of reCAPTCHA (plus a few other minor tricks, like changing the name of the registration script) has eliminated 100% of automated spam. I now only have to deal with the fairly small trickle of manually-registered accounts, which is quite a bit more manageable.
No, it isn't. It's algorithms. It occasionally involves math, sometimes a lot of math, even. But to say that programming is math is to miss the real point of programming.
Much of the USA believes that everything in the Bible is literally true. It doesn't matter if they're not intimately familiar with everything in it; they believe it all.
That 1931 color gamut is misleading because it overempasizes greens.
Yeah, but there's a reason for that. Our eyes are particularly sensitive to green. The CIE 1931 color space was based on some extensive experiments with human vision, and it's been a reasonably good model over the years for color representation. So overemphasized? No. I would say appropriate emphasized.
Apple has you in some sort of hypnosis that is causing you to go gaga over closed up commercial productions that you think you need to own.
Would you like to explain the technical process by which they managed to cause everyone to go gaga? I think a more likely explanation is that some people like it. The fact that you don't has no bearing on that.
Wow. I didn't expect to get modded +5 Insightful for snarkiness. So let's see if I can justify my karma with some minimal substance.
Jaron Lanier has spent much of the last couple of decades since his flame-out telling everyone else they're doing it wrong. This would be perfectly acceptable if Jaron was actually doing it right, but the fact is that he has done essentially nothing since those early days of hype and promise. I would even argue that he's yet to contribute anything useful to the field of technology.
I just smashed my Mac Mini. I hit it with a hammer until it was in pieces.
See, now that was a dumb thing to do. If you had sold it, your actions would have had an impact on the company (however small) by denying them a sale from the person who bought your used Mini. By smashing it, you've guaranteed that Apple has made their profit and that it will never appear on the used market. Nice going!
So, if you do not add sufficient new creativity to the original work, then you are home free. But if you do add something new, then you are screwed.
Which is totally against the intent of copyright in the first place - to promote the progress of science and the useful arts.
You (and many others in this discussion) seem to be deliberately sidestepping the the main point: creating a derivative work and then selling multiple copies of it without the copyright holder's permission is the point. Not selling an owned copy (first sale) and not creating a derivative work (fair use). It's the selling of multiple copies of that derivative work that distinguishes what Psystar is doing from ordinary first sale / fair use scenarios.
In other words, you can't profit from someone else's hard work. What's so hard to understand about that?
(Also I have to complain. 90% of the discussion here is computards arguing Apple sucks/Apple rules/I like my iPod, and ignoring the issues at hand. Slashdot is really full of knuckledraggers nowdays.)
Palm is doing what is necessary to provide compatibility. If Apple and USB Interoperability Forum have worked to make the system deliberately incompatible, Palm has the legal right to circumvent that, and to sue Apple and USB-IF if they continue the cat-and-mouse game.
This indicates, Bruce, that you have a very tenuous grasp on the fundamental rules that USB devices must follow.
USB devices have both a device ID and a vendor ID. The device ID tells what interface the device has, so the software can correctly connect to it. The vendor ID is merely informational, telling who manufactured it.
Nobody who has ever worked with USB refers to what you are referring to as a "device ID". It is a product ID, and it is only unique within the scope of a specific vendor ID. Thus, two devices from different manufacturers could legitimately share the same 16-bit product ID. The fact that they have different vendor IDs is the thing that differentiates one manufacturer's product ID from another manufacturer's potentially identical product ID.
Product IDs are assigned by the manufacturer. They have the 16-bit range to do with as they please. Vendor IDs are assigned by the USB-IF, and a given company has only one of these. Any validation of a device identity always always always consists of a check of the vendor ID and the product ID, without exception.
If someone wrote, for instance, a driver that only loaded against a specific product ID, without checking the vendor ID, the driver could accidentally load against some other device that had nothing whatsoever to do with the device being sought. Hilarity, I suspect, would undoubtedly ensue.
The answer is, is that it's because the IT staff obviously were not on top of the maintenance of the computers. Rolling out Windows Updates is not a difficult task, computers can be set to do it themselves, or you can use a centralized roll-out system like WSUS.
You've failed to address one of main reasons why "big shops" don't get updates out in a timely manner: The need for updates must be carefully balanced against the likelihood that updates are going to disrupt mission critical systems.
As an IT guy, you should probably know this. Maybe your systems aren't so critical, and you can afford to believe the absolutist tripe about how it's the IT staff's fault for not getting the update out in time. IME, the real world is rarely so black-and-white, and keyboard badasses that make grand pronouncements are rarely worth listening to.
I expect your shop is 100% Windows precisely because you're too macho to accept the many good reasons why a shop that is 100% anything makes you vulnerable.
I don't have a contract yet I still would be required to pay the full price. I use the go phone plan. I've kept my phone active for nearly every month the phone has been available. This is nearly 24 months. At $100.00 a month that's $2400 for the service and $400 for the phone. That's almost $3,000.
At that price NO ONE should be supporting AT&T nor Apple.
Well, there's an easy solution to that problem, but it involves signing a contract. Apparently, you'd rather whine.
Keep in mind that the first iPhone wasn't subsidized by contract terms. Existing AT&T customers who bought iPhones on day 1 (I was one of them) paid full price, and were not obligated to sign any contract. Instead, I merely used my existing account and continued to pay the (slightly higher) monthly bill.
I've actually been eligible for an upgrade for somewhere around two years now, and today it paid off.
Language is whatever conveys meaning that is mutually understood between the speaker and the listener.
English, in particular, has no governing body that dictates the proper use of the language. I am fairly offended that these people have appointed themselves as some kind quasi-arbiter of our language.
I run a medium-sized forum, and reCAPTCHA has taken spam postings from a many-times-daily occurrence to almost zero. I now get maybe one spam posting per quarter.
That's very convincing. No, I mean it! I mean, in the long and respected history of debate, I don't think anyone has thought of simply saying "No it isn't" to refute an argument. Such a sublime and delicate answer, carrying such immense strength and weight.
Truly, thou art a force to be reckoned with.
The coup de gras of your statement, of course, is the final "...and your analogy sucks", letting the world know what a magnificent judge of the written word you must be.
Slashdot Mirror
Honestly, you've got no business calling anyone else pedantic.
And you appear to have mastered the art of sidestepping the point.
This is all well and good, but it sounds like he's gone to an awful lot of work to solve a problem that could have been more easily remedied just by installing reCAPTCHA. I run a large forum, and the use of reCAPTCHA (plus a few other minor tricks, like changing the name of the registration script) has eliminated 100% of automated spam. I now only have to deal with the fairly small trickle of manually-registered accounts, which is quite a bit more manageable.
The original article is about the SATA cable in an NAS box, on the far side of many feet of CAT5.
So the power supply scenario seems unlikely.
Seconded. Computer programming is math
No, it isn't. It's algorithms. It occasionally involves math, sometimes a lot of math, even. But to say that programming is math is to miss the real point of programming.
Much of the USA believes that everything in the Bible is literally true. It doesn't matter if they're not intimately familiar with everything in it; they believe it all.
Some of the USA. Not most.
That 1931 color gamut is misleading because it overempasizes greens.
Yeah, but there's a reason for that. Our eyes are particularly sensitive to green. The CIE 1931 color space was based on some extensive experiments with human vision, and it's been a reasonably good model over the years for color representation. So overemphasized? No. I would say appropriate emphasized.
Apple has you in some sort of hypnosis that is causing you to go gaga over closed up commercial productions that you think you need to own.
Would you like to explain the technical process by which they managed to cause everyone to go gaga? I think a more likely explanation is that some people like it. The fact that you don't has no bearing on that.
Wow. I didn't expect to get modded +5 Insightful for snarkiness. So let's see if I can justify my karma with some minimal substance.
Jaron Lanier has spent much of the last couple of decades since his flame-out telling everyone else they're doing it wrong. This would be perfectly acceptable if Jaron was actually doing it right, but the fact is that he has done essentially nothing since those early days of hype and promise. I would even argue that he's yet to contribute anything useful to the field of technology.
Jaron whines a lot. I think that's his main contribution to technology.
I just smashed my Mac Mini. I hit it with a hammer until it was in pieces.
See, now that was a dumb thing to do. If you had sold it, your actions would have had an impact on the company (however small) by denying them a sale from the person who bought your used Mini. By smashing it, you've guaranteed that Apple has made their profit and that it will never appear on the used market. Nice going!
Also, you're full of shit.
No, twit. It means you can't make multiple copies of that book and resell them.
Sheesh. The deliberate attempts to sidestep the real issue here is mind boggling.
So, if you do not add sufficient new creativity to the original work, then you are home free. But if you do add something new, then you are screwed.
Which is totally against the intent of copyright in the first place - to promote the progress of science and the useful arts.
You (and many others in this discussion) seem to be deliberately sidestepping the the main point: creating a derivative work and then selling multiple copies of it without the copyright holder's permission is the point. Not selling an owned copy (first sale) and not creating a derivative work (fair use). It's the selling of multiple copies of that derivative work that distinguishes what Psystar is doing from ordinary first sale / fair use scenarios.
In other words, you can't profit from someone else's hard work. What's so hard to understand about that?
(Also I have to complain. 90% of the discussion here is computards arguing Apple sucks/Apple rules/I like my iPod, and ignoring the issues at hand. Slashdot is really full of knuckledraggers nowdays.)
You must be new here.
Palm is doing what is necessary to provide compatibility. If Apple and USB Interoperability Forum have worked to make the system deliberately incompatible, Palm has the legal right to circumvent that, and to sue Apple and USB-IF if they continue the cat-and-mouse game.
This indicates, Bruce, that you have a very tenuous grasp on the fundamental rules that USB devices must follow.
USB devices have both a device ID and a vendor ID. The device ID tells what interface the device has, so the software can correctly connect to it. The vendor ID is merely informational, telling who manufactured it.
Nobody who has ever worked with USB refers to what you are referring to as a "device ID". It is a product ID, and it is only unique within the scope of a specific vendor ID. Thus, two devices from different manufacturers could legitimately share the same 16-bit product ID. The fact that they have different vendor IDs is the thing that differentiates one manufacturer's product ID from another manufacturer's potentially identical product ID.
Product IDs are assigned by the manufacturer. They have the 16-bit range to do with as they please. Vendor IDs are assigned by the USB-IF, and a given company has only one of these. Any validation of a device identity always always always consists of a check of the vendor ID and the product ID, without exception.
If someone wrote, for instance, a driver that only loaded against a specific product ID, without checking the vendor ID, the driver could accidentally load against some other device that had nothing whatsoever to do with the device being sought. Hilarity, I suspect, would undoubtedly ensue.
Version numbers guys, use them!
Yes, because humans are much better at remembering numbers than symbolic names.
The answer is, is that it's because the IT staff obviously were not on top of the maintenance of the computers. Rolling out Windows Updates is not a difficult task, computers can be set to do it themselves, or you can use a centralized roll-out system like WSUS.
You've failed to address one of main reasons why "big shops" don't get updates out in a timely manner: The need for updates must be carefully balanced against the likelihood that updates are going to disrupt mission critical systems.
As an IT guy, you should probably know this. Maybe your systems aren't so critical, and you can afford to believe the absolutist tripe about how it's the IT staff's fault for not getting the update out in time. IME, the real world is rarely so black-and-white, and keyboard badasses that make grand pronouncements are rarely worth listening to.
I expect your shop is 100% Windows precisely because you're too macho to accept the many good reasons why a shop that is 100% anything makes you vulnerable.
Your arrogance will be your downfall.
If it's private Apple should have said 'no comment'.
They did. Repeatedly. The press hounded them until they felt compelled to say something.
Portions of VGA and DVI are encumbered by patents. They can hardly be called "open".
I don't have a contract yet I still would be required to pay the full price. I use the go phone plan. I've kept my phone active for nearly every month the phone has been available. This is nearly 24 months. At $100.00 a month that's $2400 for the service and $400 for the phone. That's almost $3,000.
At that price NO ONE should be supporting AT&T nor Apple.
Well, there's an easy solution to that problem, but it involves signing a contract. Apparently, you'd rather whine.
Keep in mind that the first iPhone wasn't subsidized by contract terms. Existing AT&T customers who bought iPhones on day 1 (I was one of them) paid full price, and were not obligated to sign any contract. Instead, I merely used my existing account and continued to pay the (slightly higher) monthly bill.
I've actually been eligible for an upgrade for somewhere around two years now, and today it paid off.
Language is whatever conveys meaning that is mutually understood between the speaker and the listener.
English, in particular, has no governing body that dictates the proper use of the language. I am fairly offended that these people have appointed themselves as some kind quasi-arbiter of our language.
I run a medium-sized forum, and reCAPTCHA has taken spam postings from a many-times-daily occurrence to almost zero. I now get maybe one spam posting per quarter.
That's pretty damn effective.
No it isn't and your analogy sucks.
That's very convincing. No, I mean it! I mean, in the long and respected history of debate, I don't think anyone has thought of simply saying "No it isn't" to refute an argument. Such a sublime and delicate answer, carrying such immense strength and weight.
Truly, thou art a force to be reckoned with.
The coup de gras of your statement, of course, is the final "...and your analogy sucks", letting the world know what a magnificent judge of the written word you must be.
A masterwork. Truly.