You forgot all the talk about the moat cleaning expenses? That is quite well known even outside of England.
If that bit was interesting enough for the huge amount of discussion that came from it, you can bet right this minute there are lots of people and media organizations trying to find something juicy in there.
He said making tank gun rounds. That was pretty common during the war, the US had Rosie the Riveter as propaganda of that kind of role.
In the USSR they served in combat, too. It was accepted somewhat reluctantly, but quite a few volunteered, and initial losses gave a reason for giving it a try. They turned out to make really awesome snipers.
Actually, you can't store anything in the extra pointer bits. If you try to do some bit twiddling, the CPU will raise an exception. This is to make sure that when more than 256TB of address space is needed, the CPU can be expanded without running into trouble with programs that "cleverly" decided to use the extra space.
Cell phones with ARM CPUs and 512MB RAM already exist. That's a pretty big chunk of the 32 bit address space, so it seems to make a lot of sense to be ready for when it's exhausted.
A lot of people don't understand how a database really works, so they do it horribly wrong. As a result, it's dreadfully slow. So they go and use some key/value lookup system because "they're fast". There you often get one of two things:
They still don't understand the problem, so they recreate it yet again. If you don't understand what's wrong with reading an entire table with a million records, and discarding all but 5 of them client-side, then replacing the SQL DB with a key/value system just isn't going to make things better.
Or, they improve performance, but since they don't understand what ACID is for, they eventually end up with weird inconsistencies. In some cases this might be acceptable, but you really don't want to see it happening in an order tracking system.
The sickening feeling people get is not because it's a competitor. In a large part it isn't a competitor, but a different class of system with different tradeoffs. The sickening feeling comes from seeing people not understand what they're doing, and then run towards the latest technology because it's what $BIG_COMPANY uses without understanding it any better, and generally making an even bigger mess.
The performance of specialized solutions like key/value systems doesn't come from magic. They're not really new, and don't use anything very groundbreaking. They simply use different tradeoffs at the cost of sacrificing quite a lot of what is present in a RDBMS. It's important to understand first whether you can really afford to discard those things, because if you can't, it's either not going to work right, or you'll have to graft all that you removed on top of it anyway.
I wouldn't really mind. If buried, it's going to rot in short order anyway, and if used for science it can be easily cleaned (I figure they probably clean it anyway, I bet a lot of people die in less than pristine conditions). The outcome of any of those things is considerably more disgusting than just a body with some pee on it, but interestingly that doesn't seem to bother you.
If your password is "password", no hash is going to save you from that. The cracker takes "password", feeds it to the hash, then compares the result to every line in the hashed password file, to check if it matches anybody's.
Hashing itself has to be fast, since not only passwords get hashed. Sometimes you need to hash a DVD.iso, would you want that to take a week?
Now, you can do things like making the encoding be hash(hash(hash...(password))) with such a depth that it takes a second for a single check. You can't make it much longer than that because then the users will get tired of waiting. But even then it won't save you if you're dumb enough to have "password" or your username for the password. If the attacker has 10000 accounts, it takes about 3 hours worst case (with salting) to check if any of them use "password". And with that many, chances are pretty good that at least one is. So it's still not a license to use a crappy password. That's if they're not determined enough to get a botnet to work on it.
This article gives me a very mixed feeling. On one hand, holy crap, that's one clever and dedicated guy. I'm not sure about how good is his output, but from the sounds of it, it could be pretty decent, and he takes the job very seriously. I think if he applied that towards some other endeavour he'd be worth his weight in gold. There's got to be a place somewhere that could use his skills for a better end.
What is really a pity is that what he uses the talent for is for unfairly advancing dribbling morons that shouldn't have passed high school.
The others can laugh all they want, but the point of a diplomatic conference is negotiating agreements between parties. If you keep laughing at one of the parties it may well decide not to give you what you want.
1. Atheism is the lack of a belief. You don't really "believe in it", in the sense that there's no dogma, holy book, prophet or anything of the sort. Atheists can argue on things like what is the highest calling and where morality comes from precisely because none of that is defined anywhere.
2. It is not necessary at all to think the highest purpose is reproduction. IMO there really isn't any. There's no godless version of the mandate "be fruitful and multiply", it's just that reproducing is how species survive in this world. An individual within any species is perfectly free to disagree, though. In fact there's the theory of that homosexuality helps species survive by freeing individuals from having to deal with their own progeny, and allowing them to take a support role.
No, if you try to make a commercial spin of that open software, you don't get the protection. But people usually don't sell GPL software. They sell support for GPL software.
That's tricker than it seems. My TV has Linux based firmware in it. I paid for the TV, so I was sold all that came in the box. I think it's reasonable to conclude that the firmware was paid for as well. There's lots of hardware with Linux on it these days.
On top of that, the Mono team fully owns the copyright to the Mono code and released it as GPLv3.
Sure, you own what you write, but that doesn't change patent issues.
If Microsoft wanted to assert patent rights, they would have had to do so immediately. By letting the Mono project ship with a GPLv3 license and not objecting, Microsoft basically gave them their blessing.
I see what you're getting at, but let me remind you of the GIF issue some time back. That it had been used for a long time didn't stop Unisys from asking and getting license money from some people.
In fact, Microsoft explicitly gave them their blessing by working with the Mono team.
That's for the court to decide. It's not a "You blessed them, you lose the lawsuit before it starts" deal in my understanding. It's a conclusion that may be reached after months or years of fighting in court.
What jury is going to listen to that trial and side with Microsoft that Microsoft was somehow wronged by people using Mono software?
What jury is going to listen to the trial? The jury that's selected for that trial, of course.
I agree that the way you say is how it SHOULD work if it goes to court, but reality is that if it goes to court the outcome is not 100% certain. Weirdness is possible, as well as out of court settlements. It may well drag on for years, while many people will be in a very uncomfortable situation meanwhile.
You've not really read that page, have you? Let me quote some bits:
If You engage in the commercial distribution or importation of software derived from an open source project or if You make or use such software outside the scope of creating such software code, You do not benefit from this promise for such distribution or for these other activities.
Meaning, if you distribute, or are doing it for money, it doesn't apply to you.
This promise is not an assurance either (i) that any of the Microsoft-issued patent claims cover a Covered Implementation or are enforceable or (ii) that a Covered Implementation would not infringe on patents or other intellectual property rights of any third party. No other rights except those expressly stated in this promise shall be deemed granted, waived, or received by implication, exhaustion, estoppel, or otherwise.
This is to be expected of course, but MS has an easy way out: sell the patents and have somebody else enforce them.
Stop being an attention whoring second rate electronics kit seller for third rate geeks and build your own damn hardware. You have a moderately bright staff and you're wasting resources on tacky PR.
Why?
To me you seem to be espousing a very ridiculous notion: that there's something wrong with buying somebody's hardware and doing something with it. And Adafruit is offering to pay somebody for the documentation.
So, if their evil plan succeeds, horror of horrors, people might buy a Kinect to do something with it.
Actually it seems it can be done without having that much special hardware.
I've seen reports of people fixing BGA chips by simply remelting the solder. Apparently this is not a very good solution, but it seems to actually work for at least some people. I've seen solutions as low tech as placing a container of burning fuel on top of the chip.
Going as far as reballing the CPU by hand seems to be doable as well, though tedious and difficult. The process seems to be:
1. Apply heat to met the solder and remove the chip, protecting the components around with something as simple as aluminium foil 2. Clean the CPU and board of solder completely, by first melting and sliding off solder with an iron, then absorbing with copper braid, then applying a liquid cleaner. 3. Reball the CPU by using a kit composed of solder balls and a grid. Heat it enough for the balls to attach to the CPU 4. Carefully position CPU on the board, and apply even heat to solder.
I remember seeing a video of that somewhere. It looks like it takes practice and a lot of care and precision, but it seems very doable without using industrial robots or anything of the sort. All the tools and materials seem affordable.
I never got the razor and blade model. To me it doesn't seem to work like that.
When I buy a razor, the blade is what I'm really interested in and really paying for. It's where the real functionality is and what makes all the difference from one maker or model to another. The handle is just a cheap piece of plastic or metal. They don't even have to sell it at a loss, it costs a few cents anyway.
Now with printers, it's different. The printer itself is what has the real funcionality and what defines the quality, speed and other aspects of the output. The ink on the other hand is relatively unimportant. So long it's up to spec and doesn't clog the heads or smudge, any ink is as good as any other.
People and companies behave oddly, very unlike what they're supposed to according the economic theory.
For instance, the inventor of novocaine is reported to have tried to stop its usage for dentistry, because he thought that it was too mundane of an use and wanted it used for grand surgery. People seem to have this idea that they decide what their invention is good for, and not the people who pay for it.
Nah, not offended at all. But I know quite a few furries and nobody agrees on what a "furry" is. It depends a lot on who you ask. Some people say that all it takes is being a fan of something like the Lion King or Bugs Bunny. Others will say it requires being a member of the fandom, or waiting for the day when you can finally graft a tail to yourself;-) There's a lot of range in there.
Overall it's a very fuzzy (heh!) and inclusive label. It's kind of like "geek". Geeks include people as different as Bill Gates and Richard Stallman. Vin Diesel is apparently a geek too.
Depending on which definition you use I might or not be one. I don't really care either way.
There's nothing wrong with furries. I just wouldn't want my daughter to marry one.
Well, if there's nothing wrong with them, then why?
Like a said I know quite a few and there's a lot of variety in there, from people who just appreciate the artwork to the batshit crazy. But the same thing goes for the rest of the world population.
Wrong. I eat very normal food at home (steak, mashed potatoes, etc), and go to restaurants (mostly whatever is nearest and non-smoking). I haven't eaten at McDonald's or any other fast food establishment in years and only consider it when I travel and want food right now, and it's what happens to be closest. I don't watch TV, at all.
What you mean here is a CNC machine. They can be bought at prices normal people who really want one could afford.
The problem is that lots of things have different kinds of materials inside. You can 3D print a salt shaker no problem. You can make a door knob with a CNC mill. But to make a computer mouse you have to make the electronics, and it's unlikely you'll be able to print a capacitor from parts unless we get to the point of molecular assembly, so you'll run into limits pretty fast.
But still, even going half the way is going to be awesome. Imagine that you can open your mouse, scan the casing in a 3D scanner, load into Blender, tweak to your liking and print yourself a customized one.
No, your logic is incorrect. You cannot take an aspect of a feature and say it still applies. For example "My car is not fast enough to break 300mph. My stereo is part of my car so my stereo is preventing me from breaking 300mph"
It's not an aspect. It's a subset of. If you say "Any vehicle can go at 300 mph", I can disprove it by plugging every kind of vehicle in place of the world "vehicle" and seeing that for some it doesn't hold. For example, a M4 Sherman tank. So I'm doing the same thing here.
Yes region locking is part of DRM
Good
But no it is not illegal to bypass region locking as long as you are not breaking DRM. So since I can bypass region locking, it doesn't apply.
If it's not illegal, then that sentence is false.
So my statement that the only thing DRM is doing is preventing you from breaking the law is correct.
Nope. Your statement is: "The only thing DRM is preventing you from is breaking the law"
I interpet it this way: "For each $KIND_OF_DRM in @ALL_POSSIBLE_KINDS_OF_DRM, it holds true that the limits $KIND_OF_DRM imposes only forbid something that is illegal".
The set @ALL_POSSIBLE_KINDS_OF_DRM includes many things. It includes duplication limits, region limits, play limits, download limits, etc. For the sentence to hold true, each and every one of those limits must correspond exactly to something that is illegal.
I don't see why this is a problem for you to understand except your own biases against DRM.
It is a problem because I'm arguing with that sentence and that sentence only, based on the logical statement contained in it. Anything external to it is irrelevant. My opinion of DRM isn't relevant. The sentence is either true or false on its logical merits, regardless of my or your opinion about anything.
I think it would work pretty much like with normal printers. You can print books on your inkjet/laser but it's slow, expensive, and you get loose leaf out of it.
So same for a 3D printer. It'll be slow, require materials to print with and have an inferior in quality. It will be really cool, even though it won't obsolete mass manufacturing.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, explain why everybody went crazy about the iPad before anybody even knew what it was.
That was some damned good marketing.
You forgot all the talk about the moat cleaning expenses? That is quite well known even outside of England.
If that bit was interesting enough for the huge amount of discussion that came from it, you can bet right this minute there are lots of people and media organizations trying to find something juicy in there.
He said making tank gun rounds. That was pretty common during the war, the US had Rosie the Riveter as propaganda of that kind of role.
In the USSR they served in combat, too. It was accepted somewhat reluctantly, but quite a few volunteered, and initial losses gave a reason for giving it a try. They turned out to make really awesome snipers.
Actually, you can't store anything in the extra pointer bits. If you try to do some bit twiddling, the CPU will raise an exception. This is to make sure that when more than 256TB of address space is needed, the CPU can be expanded without running into trouble with programs that "cleverly" decided to use the extra space.
Cell phones with ARM CPUs and 512MB RAM already exist. That's a pretty big chunk of the 32 bit address space, so it seems to make a lot of sense to be ready for when it's exhausted.
No, the normal car battery is lead-acid. NiMH has more than 3 times the energy density.
The reason they use lead acid in car batteries is that they're cheap and can provide a lot of power instantly.
A lot of people don't understand how a database really works, so they do it horribly wrong. As a result, it's dreadfully slow. So they go and use some key/value lookup system because "they're fast". There you often get one of two things:
They still don't understand the problem, so they recreate it yet again. If you don't understand what's wrong with reading an entire table with a million records, and discarding all but 5 of them client-side, then replacing the SQL DB with a key/value system just isn't going to make things better.
Or, they improve performance, but since they don't understand what ACID is for, they eventually end up with weird inconsistencies. In some cases this might be acceptable, but you really don't want to see it happening in an order tracking system.
The sickening feeling people get is not because it's a competitor. In a large part it isn't a competitor, but a different class of system with different tradeoffs. The sickening feeling comes from seeing people not understand what they're doing, and then run towards the latest technology because it's what $BIG_COMPANY uses without understanding it any better, and generally making an even bigger mess.
The performance of specialized solutions like key/value systems doesn't come from magic. They're not really new, and don't use anything very groundbreaking. They simply use different tradeoffs at the cost of sacrificing quite a lot of what is present in a RDBMS. It's important to understand first whether you can really afford to discard those things, because if you can't, it's either not going to work right, or you'll have to graft all that you removed on top of it anyway.
I wouldn't really mind. If buried, it's going to rot in short order anyway, and if used for science it can be easily cleaned (I figure they probably clean it anyway, I bet a lot of people die in less than pristine conditions). The outcome of any of those things is considerably more disgusting than just a body with some pee on it, but interestingly that doesn't seem to bother you.
No, it qualifies as weakness of the passwords.
If your password is "password", no hash is going to save you from that. The cracker takes "password", feeds it to the hash, then compares the result to every line in the hashed password file, to check if it matches anybody's.
Hashing itself has to be fast, since not only passwords get hashed. Sometimes you need to hash a DVD .iso, would you want that to take a week?
Now, you can do things like making the encoding be hash(hash(hash...(password))) with such a depth that it takes a second for a single check. You can't make it much longer than that because then the users will get tired of waiting. But even then it won't save you if you're dumb enough to have "password" or your username for the password. If the attacker has 10000 accounts, it takes about 3 hours worst case (with salting) to check if any of them use "password". And with that many, chances are pretty good that at least one is. So it's still not a license to use a crappy password. That's if they're not determined enough to get a botnet to work on it.
This article gives me a very mixed feeling. On one hand, holy crap, that's one clever and dedicated guy. I'm not sure about how good is his output, but from the sounds of it, it could be pretty decent, and he takes the job very seriously. I think if he applied that towards some other endeavour he'd be worth his weight in gold. There's got to be a place somewhere that could use his skills for a better end.
What is really a pity is that what he uses the talent for is for unfairly advancing dribbling morons that shouldn't have passed high school.
The others can laugh all they want, but the point of a diplomatic conference is negotiating agreements between parties. If you keep laughing at one of the parties it may well decide not to give you what you want.
Ok, but do you really want to wait for a decade or two until it happens?
And if it's going to happen, and it's right for it to happen, then why delay it and have things be suboptimal meanwhile?
Two things:
1. Atheism is the lack of a belief. You don't really "believe in it", in the sense that there's no dogma, holy book, prophet or anything of the sort. Atheists can argue on things like what is the highest calling and where morality comes from precisely because none of that is defined anywhere.
2. It is not necessary at all to think the highest purpose is reproduction. IMO there really isn't any. There's no godless version of the mandate "be fruitful and multiply", it's just that reproducing is how species survive in this world. An individual within any species is perfectly free to disagree, though. In fact there's the theory of that homosexuality helps species survive by freeing individuals from having to deal with their own progeny, and allowing them to take a support role.
That's tricker than it seems. My TV has Linux based firmware in it. I paid for the TV, so I was sold all that came in the box. I think it's reasonable to conclude that the firmware was paid for as well. There's lots of hardware with Linux on it these days.
Sure, you own what you write, but that doesn't change patent issues.
I see what you're getting at, but let me remind you of the GIF issue some time back. That it had been used for a long time didn't stop Unisys from asking and getting license money from some people.
That's for the court to decide. It's not a "You blessed them, you lose the lawsuit before it starts" deal in my understanding. It's a conclusion that may be reached after months or years of fighting in court.
What jury is going to listen to the trial? The jury that's selected for that trial, of course.
I agree that the way you say is how it SHOULD work if it goes to court, but reality is that if it goes to court the outcome is not 100% certain. Weirdness is possible, as well as out of court settlements. It may well drag on for years, while many people will be in a very uncomfortable situation meanwhile.
You've not really read that page, have you? Let me quote some bits:
Meaning, if you distribute, or are doing it for money, it doesn't apply to you.
This is to be expected of course, but MS has an easy way out: sell the patents and have somebody else enforce them.
Here's another opinion
Why?
To me you seem to be espousing a very ridiculous notion: that there's something wrong with buying somebody's hardware and doing something with it. And Adafruit is offering to pay somebody for the documentation.
So, if their evil plan succeeds, horror of horrors, people might buy a Kinect to do something with it.
Actually it seems it can be done without having that much special hardware.
I've seen reports of people fixing BGA chips by simply remelting the solder. Apparently this is not a very good solution, but it seems to actually work for at least some people. I've seen solutions as low tech as placing a container of burning fuel on top of the chip.
Going as far as reballing the CPU by hand seems to be doable as well, though tedious and difficult. The process seems to be:
1. Apply heat to met the solder and remove the chip, protecting the components around with something as simple as aluminium foil
2. Clean the CPU and board of solder completely, by first melting and sliding off solder with an iron, then absorbing with copper braid, then applying a liquid cleaner.
3. Reball the CPU by using a kit composed of solder balls and a grid. Heat it enough for the balls to attach to the CPU
4. Carefully position CPU on the board, and apply even heat to solder.
I remember seeing a video of that somewhere. It looks like it takes practice and a lot of care and precision, but it seems very doable without using industrial robots or anything of the sort. All the tools and materials seem affordable.
I never got the razor and blade model. To me it doesn't seem to work like that.
When I buy a razor, the blade is what I'm really interested in and really paying for. It's where the real functionality is and what makes all the difference from one maker or model to another. The handle is just a cheap piece of plastic or metal. They don't even have to sell it at a loss, it costs a few cents anyway.
Now with printers, it's different. The printer itself is what has the real funcionality and what defines the quality, speed and other aspects of the output. The ink on the other hand is relatively unimportant. So long it's up to spec and doesn't clog the heads or smudge, any ink is as good as any other.
People and companies behave oddly, very unlike what they're supposed to according the economic theory.
For instance, the inventor of novocaine is reported to have tried to stop its usage for dentistry, because he thought that it was too mundane of an use and wanted it used for grand surgery. People seem to have this idea that they decide what their invention is good for, and not the people who pay for it.
Nah, not offended at all. But I know quite a few furries and nobody agrees on what a "furry" is. It depends a lot on who you ask. Some people say that all it takes is being a fan of something like the Lion King or Bugs Bunny. Others will say it requires being a member of the fandom, or waiting for the day when you can finally graft a tail to yourself ;-) There's a lot of range in there.
Overall it's a very fuzzy (heh!) and inclusive label. It's kind of like "geek". Geeks include people as different as Bill Gates and Richard Stallman. Vin Diesel is apparently a geek too.
Depending on which definition you use I might or not be one. I don't really care either way.
Well, if there's nothing wrong with them, then why?
Like a said I know quite a few and there's a lot of variety in there, from people who just appreciate the artwork to the batshit crazy. But the same thing goes for the rest of the world population.
I'm not sure. Even furries themselves don't agree on what it means. But if you think so, sure. It's just a label anyway, it makes no difference.
If I was hiding something I wouldn't be posting links to it, heh.
Wrong. I eat very normal food at home (steak, mashed potatoes, etc), and go to restaurants (mostly whatever is nearest and non-smoking). I haven't eaten at McDonald's or any other fast food establishment in years and only consider it when I travel and want food right now, and it's what happens to be closest. I don't watch TV, at all.
What you mean here is a CNC machine. They can be bought at prices normal people who really want one could afford.
The problem is that lots of things have different kinds of materials inside. You can 3D print a salt shaker no problem. You can make a door knob with a CNC mill. But to make a computer mouse you have to make the electronics, and it's unlikely you'll be able to print a capacitor from parts unless we get to the point of molecular assembly, so you'll run into limits pretty fast.
But still, even going half the way is going to be awesome. Imagine that you can open your mouse, scan the casing in a 3D scanner, load into Blender, tweak to your liking and print yourself a customized one.
It's not an aspect. It's a subset of. If you say "Any vehicle can go at 300 mph", I can disprove it by plugging every kind of vehicle in place of the world "vehicle" and seeing that for some it doesn't hold. For example, a M4 Sherman tank. So I'm doing the same thing here.
Good
If it's not illegal, then that sentence is false.
Nope. Your statement is: "The only thing DRM is preventing you from is breaking the law"
I interpet it this way: "For each $KIND_OF_DRM in @ALL_POSSIBLE_KINDS_OF_DRM, it holds true that the limits $KIND_OF_DRM imposes only forbid something that is illegal".
The set @ALL_POSSIBLE_KINDS_OF_DRM includes many things. It includes duplication limits, region limits, play limits, download limits, etc. For the sentence to hold true, each and every one of those limits must correspond exactly to something that is illegal.
It is a problem because I'm arguing with that sentence and that sentence only, based on the logical statement contained in it. Anything external to it is irrelevant. My opinion of DRM isn't relevant. The sentence is either true or false on its logical merits, regardless of my or your opinion about anything.
I think it would work pretty much like with normal printers. You can print books on your inkjet/laser but it's slow, expensive, and you get loose leaf out of it.
So same for a 3D printer. It'll be slow, require materials to print with and have an inferior in quality. It will be really cool, even though it won't obsolete mass manufacturing.