I have been using my current email address (posted right up here in my user info) for more than 5 years as well.
I switched it (and my other addresses) to forwarding to gmail, and use gmail as my primary mail interface, for about a month now.
Gmail's spam filtering is good enough that I am barely troubled by spam.
I really like gmail a lot.
Before gmail, I was hosting all my email myself, off of my home linux machine, using fetchmail to pull down out of POPs and secure IMAP to access it (from anywhere).
The main problem was spam filtering... Like you mention, it's difficult to tune a spam filter which receives so much stuff.
Bogofilter worked super well for me a few years ago (this was when I was hosting my email at another shell account ISP)... When I switched to hosting myself, and got the latest bogofilter, it wasn't nearly so good (up to 50 spams getting through per day). I briefly looked at other spam solutions, and they all looked like a PITA to set up properly.
(I will admit, that one problem, is that I do like to receive email from one "kind of" spammy source. Basically, it's a "how to hit on women" list, and gmail flagged it as spam, so maybe it was making my bogofilter too lenient on all those penis and other "male enhancement" spams).
Breaking compatibility would allow them the flexibility of changing their controller as well.
They could change the controller while keeping compatibility, without too much trouble, imo. When playing a PS1 game on a PS2, you need a PS1 memory card. Also, I could be wrong, but I think the PS2 controller's functionality is a superset of the PS1 controller's: The buttons are analog. (I could be wrong because the Dual Shock controllers for the PS1 had analog sticks, but I don't think they had analog buttons).
They could just require XBox1 controllers for XBox1 games, or have a different XBox2 controller, possibly with a user-specified per-game button mapping.
There is a lot more to low carb diets like the Atkins than just buying a wrap from a fucking Subway sandwich shop.
I agree with you 100%. People really need to read about the diet and the theory behind it, before just buying Atkins-labelled products.
And most chains' ideas of "low carb" are just stupid. Listen up Subway: I could make up a low carb diet too, just don't eat anything! Cuts your carb intake to 0! They advertise that their low carb wraps "have less than 10g of carbohydrate" (or whatever), but that seems to be because there is like 12g of food there.
Diets like that have no lasting effects because people do not learn the CONCEPTS before they implement. They hear "Atkins sez: Don't eat bread, eat meat!" so they go eat 2 lbs of ground beef wrapped in cheese and covered with bacon. "It's cool", they say. "...No BREAD!".
The Atkins diet is a lot more than just jazz, because it works. (It's weird, because every diet scam always says this, but there is overwhelming evidence that low carb diets work).
If you only ever ate "2 lbs of ground beef wrapped in cheese and covered in bacon", you would probably lose weight. (For a couple of weeks anyway, before you died of a heart attack).
The Atkins proponents are *not* saying that it's a balanced diet. The whole point is that it *is* unbalanced, and it needs to be, because you have been eating a different sort of unbalanced diet for years. After you get your weight back to what it should, you can return to a balanced diet.
Although I have not tried it, the "South Beach" diet is apparently a low carbohydrate diet which is more geared to being healthy, rather than just losing weight.
It's not really the case that Microsoft's software is trusting the hardware. I think it will pretty much always be the case that software will trust the hardware. If it doesn't, it's too easy to fake (like you've described).
The issue is that the hardware will trust the software. A DRM-based motherboard/bios will refuse to load an OS that isn't signed by the proper entity. It is very easy (technology-wise) to make this work. It relatively easy (policy-wise) for a careful company to keep the signing keys secret.
So, you will have a bunch of hardware, which will only choose to work when trusted software is being run. Sound cards will refuse to output digital signal. CD burners will refuse to burn unless a trusted piece of software is telling them to, and this software will refuse to burn copyrighted music.
No, you're absolutely wrong. The person who made the copy FOR you had to agree to the GPL in order to copy the software. But there is absolutely nothing that you must agree to in order to use that copy that was distributed to you. At your option, you can reject the terms of the GPL, and you have the same copying rights that default copyright law gives you - the right to make one backup copy for personal use only.
Sorry, but I think you are wrong here... If a friend of mine burns a copy of Windows XP, he has violated copyright to do so, and MS could pursue him for copyright infringement.
But, under your argument, I might say that I am allowed to use this copy of Windows XP, and make a backup copy.
This is obviously not allowed, here's why:
All of computer software copyright hinges on the concept that copying the software from your permanent storage to your computer memory in order to run it counts as copying the work. Unless you agree to the terms of the GPL, you are not allowed to make this copy, necessary to run the software.
the GPL is not an EULA. GPLed programs never demand the End User to Agree to a License before using the software.
Yes they do. It is called the "GNU Public License", after all...
Before you can use any GPL'ed piece of software, you have to agree to the terms of the GPL. (If you don't, you don't have the right to copy the software, under copyright law).
The terms of the GPL are very "generous", but they are still terms that you must agree to before you are allowed to use the software: you have to agree that if you distribute the software (or derivatives) to others, you will also give them the source code.
Even though you are probably not making and distributing derivatives of the software, does not change the fact that you have agreed to these terms.
And IF the connection exists, the penalty is probably of the order of milliseconds. Unnoticable.
Correct, Incorrect.
The seek time of a drive is measured in milliseconds. The speed of doing I/O is typically dominated by the seek time, rather than the throughput rate.
Consider an average eide hard drive: 10ms seek rate, ata100 interface.
If you need to save a 100kb file, it will take 10ms (1/100th of a second) to seek to the first block, and then, assuming everything is perfect, it will take 100MB/sec / 100kb = 1/1000th of a second to write the file... so, seeking to the start of the file took 10 times as long as writing it!
If your file is fragmented, then it will require multiple seeks when it needs to jump to a new block.
Of course, there will be overhead from OS and such, and cache on the drives/controllers themselves, which would alleviate the numbers here a little bit... But consider that most files on your filesystem are smaller than 100kb, and the numbers would get much worse.
So, keeping files unfragmented is very necessary to filesystem performance.
Whether or not you need to "manually" defragment any more is a different issue. The OS's we use are pretty good at it.
My winxp system is probably a pathological case. I have less than 2% free space on my C drive, mostly because of Office and some other programs that "need" to be on the C drive (or at least, put a ton of stuff there).
And, NTFS is anecdotally relatively good at maintaining a fragment-free FS, until your disk starts filling up, then it's very bad.
Anyway, I'm very full, and I just used the defrag tool to see the state of my system. I recently downloaded the newest half-life 2 movie from E3. It is 700MB, and my drive has 400MB currently free (after grabbing that over)...
The defrag tool says the file has 10,907 fragments...
So, using the numbers I said earlier, it would take 7 seconds at 100MB/sec to read the actual data. But, it will take 10.9 seconds to seek through the fragmented file... And this is on a very large file...
(Admittedly, that's a pathological case, caused by me using up almost all the remaining space on my drive with one very large file)
This is the same arguement that cannabis users often use, "we're not hurting anyone". While this is true it doesn't take into account the fact that the drug dealers/producers may have enslaved or murdered people to supply this drug to some rich kids in the states or Europe
This is not a good argument. People get taken advantage of to one degree or another all the time to provide "civilized" countries with things they desire.
Consider:
The diamond trade. (Probably the most heinous example, and it includes the items you mentioned, slavery and murder).
Basically all of the clothing we wear. (Produced in sweatshops by people suffering in conditions that would literally be criminal in the US.)
(don't feel like listing more, but you could probably come up with a few yourself, these are the obvious ones).
If I want to grow some marijuana on a 10x10 piece of my yard, and then smoke it, how am I harming anyone? What "bigger picture" do I need to look at here? Why will I get thrown in jail if I try this?
Note that I am not a cannabis user. But, I know people who are, and I feel it should be legal.
No, it's just the way that the OpenGL and DirectX API's evolved.
Wrong again... The root cause is that there has never been enough of a need for high-speed transfer from the video card to system memory.
Both DirectX and OpenGL provide means for doing it, and if the underlying hardware supported it, an implementation could be made that transferred output data (say, a screen which has finished rendering) to the system just as fast as input data (texture uploads) to the video card.
With the newer PCI standard coming out, the underlying hardware will support this sort of transfer, and the video card manufacturers will start to add support for it.
I was trying to figure out where your sig is from.
```si`k``s.H``s.e``s.l``s.l``s.o``s.``s.w``s.o`` s. r`` s.l``s.d``s.!``sri``si``si``si``si``si``si``si``si `ki
I am somewhat into programming language theory, and I have seen the pages of alternative languages... It looks to me like the "Hello World" program in one of the languages that just uses the primitive combinators.
But, what is funny: I paste it into google, and it says:
Did you mean: ```si`ks.H``s.e``s.l``s.l``s.o``ss.w``s.o``s. r`` s.l``s.d``s.!``sri``si``si``si``si``si``si``si``si `ki
Heh... did I mean to use somewhat random-looking string of characters A, or did I really want somewhat random-looking string of characters B?
If so, his belief in open source is less than his belief that he should make money selling closed source software, because he's not open sourcing his newest stuff. If open source was his first priority, then the Doom III engine would be on sourceforge where a thousand eyes can help him debug.
Personally, I rather think it would a bad idea financially to write the engine in an open source manner. Think of the hoopla behind the leaked HL2 src, etc... The game engine market is pretty competitive... There are a number of competing current engines: Doom3, HL2, Unreal, Renderware, Crytek...
But, that aside, Carmack has specifically said that he has made the case for open source software before. I think he said he would like to try it for at least 1 engine. But, he is only a 1/3 owner of id software, and it is hard to convince his (non-programmer) co-owners about the merits of open source, when id makes $500k per engine license.
No blatant typos and grammer can't completely suck
Oh, the irony!
Re:Watch out for the licensing issues here
on
Dual User Windows PC
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I remember reading that the original arguments in favor of software licenses was this:
Computer code is protected under copyright, every time you run a program, it is being copied from your hard drive (or other storage medium) into the computer memory. So, you are not allowed to do this (you are not the copyright holder) by default, and by agreeing to the license you are allowed to make the copy (just like the GPL, conceptually).
From the above post:
I know many softwares of mine have claims that only one person may use it on one machine at one time.
It would be interesting to take a similiar literal interpretation of law/agreement to note that on a single processor machine, only one instance of a program is ever running at the same time... The machine is just switching back and forth quite often:)
This is a false example. You described your triangle by 3 points; you therefore describe a triangle containing a cross-section of earth. 180 degrees. Instead of 'triangle,' you have described '1/8 the surface area of a sphere.'
The whole point is that you or I could take any 3 points (say, my ears and my nose), and say "look, you draw your straight lines between these and they make a triangle"...
But, since space is curved, so it wouldn't make a "true" triangle (just like you were arguing about the sphere thing)...
We can take what appears to be a triangle (or, use other shapes), and, using various tests (such as super accurately measuring the angles), determine the actual curvature of our space.
Put another way: He's not really saying that the shape on the sphere is a triangle. But a 2d entity might think it lived on a plane, and would formulate certain rules about its universe (such as, "the universe is a big plane"), based on real-life measurements... and it could develop certain fundamental rules (such as, "the angles of a triangle add up to 180") using logic and mathematics.
But if its universe is actually a sphere (of a very large radius with respect to the entity), then as the entity grew more advanced and developed its measurement techniques further, it would start to notice certain discrepancies (such as the angles of what it perceived to be a triangle not adding up to 180). Since it has proved (via math) that the angles of a triangle add up to 180, and mathematics can't be wrong, it can conclude that its universe is not really a plane like previously thought, and instead some other surface which at sufficiently small intervals (or, just where the entity happens to live) "looks" like a plane.
Generalized again: We can measure things, which should have a certain shape in a true 3d euclidean space. When we measure deviances from the shape, we can then form theories about the actual shape of our universe in higher dimensions.
Godels theorem pretty much says that there are things that you can NEVER know are true or false...
One thing I have always wondered about Godel's theorem, maybe someone here can answer it...
Consider integers. All integers are either positive or negative, with one exception, zero. (It might be that zero is defined to be one or the other, I don't know, but it's not important to this question).
My question: Godel's theorem proves that there are some true statements which can't be proven. But, is there any answer in math as to whether or not only pathological Godel statements fall into this category?
MS had so much cash that they had to get rid of some of it by declaring dividends for the first time ever, not so long ago. I don't think they have a cash problem now or in the foreseeable future.
They didn't "have to get rid of it" because they had too much cash. They issued dividends for the first time because of the inane tax cut on dividends. So, MS could issue millions/billions worth of dividends (which certainly made large holders (ie the people in charge of this decision) a ton of money) basically tax-free.
But, I agree with your second statement. I don't think they have a cash problem either.
Bunk. Most people don't even see the 1/24th second flash unless they've practiced at it.
I don't know about that... In the movie "Fight Club" I found out what those "cigarette burns" (to use fight club's words) mean... I had noticed them long before.
And, although it would be flattering to think of myself as "quick", my reflexes are pretty normal... I remember mentioning them to several of my friends and they saw them too.
Although I will admit that I play a lot of FPS's, so maybe I have "trained" myself to see fast images like these.
A side note: I saw Fight Club twice in the theater, and the flashes of Tyler seemed to be much faster than when watching the DVD on a TV.
I wouldn't expect this, since I thought movies are 24FPS and TVs are like just under 30 FPS?
Maybe the phosphor glows, causing the image to appear longer? Or they doctored the DVD transfer a bit to make sure they were noticeable?
Or, I just thought of this one:
I've heard that movies are 24 FPS, but that each frame gets shown twice, so there are 48 flashes per second of the light onto the screen. Perhaps the original movie only showed the image for 1/48th instead of 1/24th of a second.
I've never handled a movie reel, so I don't know if it advances a frame, flashes twice, and advances another frame, or whether it advances a frame, flashes once, then advances again, and movies are just doubled up.
(Actually, it seems silly to imagine that the movies are doubled up, in that case you would just run at 48FPS for a better overall quality)
I certainly hope you tried contacting the manufacturer, reporting the problem, and requesting a fix first.
Why do you "certainly hope" this?
The poster was not doing anything wrong. If our laws are so draconian that he is breaking one of them, then the laws should be changed.
Re:Asteroid Mining
on
The Wrong Stuff
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
(from original moronic guy) Good arguing tactic... I wonder what you call that?
I don't know what a years income in 1850 was, but lets ssay 10 grand, to keep the math simple. So, over 150 years, the cost has gone down about 50 fold, roughly.
My grandfather, when he was 15, bought a used car for $10. But, this is really apples and oranges. "Gone down 50 fold" has very little meaning. Today, anybody with a minimum wage job can journey cross country for much less than 1 week's wages. (Greyhound "anywhere ticket" for $20-$50, plus food, etc)...
then we have to find the (high ore content) asteroids and get them back to the surface. since they are far away, we have to apply nuclear propulsion to accellerate them to get them to the earth in less then decades
There's nothing wrong with taking a decade to get a rock back to earth... The time really doesn't matter too much. We don't need the "nuclear propulsion" you are talking about (controlled bombs for massive acceleration), an ion drive with a nuclear power supply would work fine. And, although the distance is vast and the acceleration is small, constant acceleration covers distance exponentially...
If there were a few crews of people flying around at "reasonable" accelerations (ie, maybe the nuke drive), or a fleet of many robots flying around at ion-drive accelerations, we could have a constant influx of asteroids to strip of their raw materials.
And, the payoff is, in fact, huge. There are asteroids large enough that capturing 10 of them could yield the same amount of minerals as *the combined output of all our mining of these minerals* (badly phrased, but say we (as a race) have mined a total of 100 billion tons of platinum, we could double that number easily after capturing just a few of the right asteroids)
(I use platinum as an example because in addition to being a metal valuable for its rarity, it is very useful as well, certain industries (such as fuel cells) are hurt by its rarity)
I know I'll be flamed to death and modded down, but the government should have nothing to do with outsourcing and restricting those companies who do.
The government already does have everything to do with "the outsourcing problem".
The amount of taxes our government levies, and the restrictions placed on companies (environmental regulations, labor laws, etc), are why it's cheaper to outsource jobs overseas.
Nobody in America could possibly afford to work for $0.80 an hour. But, even if they could, it's illegal to pay people less than $5.65 or so (whatever minimum wage is now).
I am not sure whether or not I would say we have too many restrictions of this nature or whatever. But the fact remains that it is literally impossible for US workers to compete with the workers of other countries. And it is impossible because our government makes it illegal to compete on even ground.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm no mac user either.
But, the iPod has certainly neither "saved" Apple, nor is it "keeping it alive".
It has definitely made Apple stronger, but that's completely different from what you're saying.
I have been using my current email address (posted right up here in my user info) for more than 5 years as well.
I switched it (and my other addresses) to forwarding to gmail, and use gmail as my primary mail interface, for about a month now.
Gmail's spam filtering is good enough that I am barely troubled by spam.
I really like gmail a lot.
Before gmail, I was hosting all my email myself, off of my home linux machine, using fetchmail to pull down out of POPs and secure IMAP to access it (from anywhere).
The main problem was spam filtering... Like you mention, it's difficult to tune a spam filter which receives so much stuff.
Bogofilter worked super well for me a few years ago (this was when I was hosting my email at another shell account ISP)... When I switched to hosting myself, and got the latest bogofilter, it wasn't nearly so good (up to 50 spams getting through per day). I briefly looked at other spam solutions, and they all looked like a PITA to set up properly.
(I will admit, that one problem, is that I do like to receive email from one "kind of" spammy source. Basically, it's a "how to hit on women" list, and gmail flagged it as spam, so maybe it was making my bogofilter too lenient on all those penis and other "male enhancement" spams).
Breaking compatibility would allow them the flexibility of changing their controller as well.
They could change the controller while keeping compatibility, without too much trouble, imo. When playing a PS1 game on a PS2, you need a PS1 memory card. Also, I could be wrong, but I think the PS2 controller's functionality is a superset of the PS1 controller's: The buttons are analog. (I could be wrong because the Dual Shock controllers for the PS1 had analog sticks, but I don't think they had analog buttons).
They could just require XBox1 controllers for XBox1 games, or have a different XBox2 controller, possibly with a user-specified per-game button mapping.
*whooosh* (the sound of the joke flying right over your head)
:)
Re-read his post
There is a lot more to low carb diets like the Atkins than just buying a wrap from a fucking Subway sandwich shop.
I agree with you 100%. People really need to read about the diet and the theory behind it, before just buying Atkins-labelled products.
And most chains' ideas of "low carb" are just stupid. Listen up Subway: I could make up a low carb diet too, just don't eat anything! Cuts your carb intake to 0! They advertise that their low carb wraps "have less than 10g of carbohydrate" (or whatever), but that seems to be because there is like 12g of food there.
Diets like that have no lasting effects because people do not learn the CONCEPTS before they implement. They hear "Atkins sez: Don't eat bread, eat meat!" so they go eat 2 lbs of ground beef wrapped in cheese and covered with bacon. "It's cool", they say. "...No BREAD!".
The Atkins diet is a lot more than just jazz, because it works. (It's weird, because every diet scam always says this, but there is overwhelming evidence that low carb diets work).
If you only ever ate "2 lbs of ground beef wrapped in cheese and covered in bacon", you would probably lose weight. (For a couple of weeks anyway, before you died of a heart attack).
The Atkins proponents are *not* saying that it's a balanced diet. The whole point is that it *is* unbalanced, and it needs to be, because you have been eating a different sort of unbalanced diet for years. After you get your weight back to what it should, you can return to a balanced diet.
Although I have not tried it, the "South Beach" diet is apparently a low carbohydrate diet which is more geared to being healthy, rather than just losing weight.
You've got it backwards, I think...
It's not really the case that Microsoft's software is trusting the hardware. I think it will pretty much always be the case that software will trust the hardware. If it doesn't, it's too easy to fake (like you've described).
The issue is that the hardware will trust the software. A DRM-based motherboard/bios will refuse to load an OS that isn't signed by the proper entity. It is very easy (technology-wise) to make this work. It relatively easy (policy-wise) for a careful company to keep the signing keys secret.
So, you will have a bunch of hardware, which will only choose to work when trusted software is being run. Sound cards will refuse to output digital signal. CD burners will refuse to burn unless a trusted piece of software is telling them to, and this software will refuse to burn copyrighted music.
I have nightmares about badgers & mushrooms now.
I've had nightmares about badgers and mushrooms for years, ever since my trip to Amsterdam.
Now, what's this website you're talking about?
No, you're absolutely wrong. The person who made the copy FOR you had to agree to the GPL in order to copy the software. But there is absolutely nothing that you must agree to in order to use that copy that was distributed to you. At your option, you can reject the terms of the GPL, and you have the same copying rights that default copyright law gives you - the right to make one backup copy for personal use only.
Sorry, but I think you are wrong here... If a friend of mine burns a copy of Windows XP, he has violated copyright to do so, and MS could pursue him for copyright infringement.
But, under your argument, I might say that I am allowed to use this copy of Windows XP, and make a backup copy.
This is obviously not allowed, here's why:
All of computer software copyright hinges on the concept that copying the software from your permanent storage to your computer memory in order to run it counts as copying the work. Unless you agree to the terms of the GPL, you are not allowed to make this copy, necessary to run the software.
(link) (link) (link) (link)
For the last time, moron
Wow, that's a great way to talk to people.
the GPL is not an EULA.
GPLed programs never demand the End User to Agree to a License before using the software.
Yes they do. It is called the "GNU Public License", after all...
Before you can use any GPL'ed piece of software, you have to agree to the terms of the GPL. (If you don't, you don't have the right to copy the software, under copyright law).
The terms of the GPL are very "generous", but they are still terms that you must agree to before you are allowed to use the software: you have to agree that if you distribute the software (or derivatives) to others, you will also give them the source code.
Even though you are probably not making and distributing derivatives of the software, does not change the fact that you have agreed to these terms.
And IF the connection exists, the penalty is probably of the order of milliseconds. Unnoticable.
Correct, Incorrect.
The seek time of a drive is measured in milliseconds. The speed of doing I/O is typically dominated by the seek time, rather than the throughput rate.
Consider an average eide hard drive: 10ms seek rate, ata100 interface.
If you need to save a 100kb file, it will take 10ms (1/100th of a second) to seek to the first block, and then, assuming everything is perfect, it will take 100MB/sec / 100kb = 1/1000th of a second to write the file... so, seeking to the start of the file took 10 times as long as writing it!
If your file is fragmented, then it will require multiple seeks when it needs to jump to a new block.
Of course, there will be overhead from OS and such, and cache on the drives/controllers themselves, which would alleviate the numbers here a little bit... But consider that most files on your filesystem are smaller than 100kb, and the numbers would get much worse.
So, keeping files unfragmented is very necessary to filesystem performance.
Whether or not you need to "manually" defragment any more is a different issue. The OS's we use are pretty good at it.
My winxp system is probably a pathological case. I have less than 2% free space on my C drive, mostly because of Office and some other programs that "need" to be on the C drive (or at least, put a ton of stuff there).
And, NTFS is anecdotally relatively good at maintaining a fragment-free FS, until your disk starts filling up, then it's very bad.
Anyway, I'm very full, and I just used the defrag tool to see the state of my system. I recently downloaded the newest half-life 2 movie from E3. It is 700MB, and my drive has 400MB currently free (after grabbing that over)...
The defrag tool says the file has 10,907 fragments...
So, using the numbers I said earlier, it would take 7 seconds at 100MB/sec to read the actual data. But, it will take 10.9 seconds to seek through the fragmented file... And this is on a very large file...
(Admittedly, that's a pathological case, caused by me using up almost all the remaining space on my drive with one very large file)
This is the same arguement that cannabis users often use, "we're not hurting anyone". While this is true it doesn't take into account the fact that the drug dealers/producers may have enslaved or murdered people to supply this drug to some rich kids in the states or Europe
This is not a good argument. People get taken advantage of to one degree or another all the time to provide "civilized" countries with things they desire.
Consider:
The diamond trade. (Probably the most heinous example, and it includes the items you mentioned, slavery and murder).
Basically all of the clothing we wear. (Produced in sweatshops by people suffering in conditions that would literally be criminal in the US.)
(don't feel like listing more, but you could probably come up with a few yourself, these are the obvious ones).
If I want to grow some marijuana on a 10x10 piece of my yard, and then smoke it, how am I harming anyone? What "bigger picture" do I need to look at here? Why will I get thrown in jail if I try this?
Note that I am not a cannabis user. But, I know people who are, and I feel it should be legal.
No, it's just the way that the OpenGL and DirectX API's evolved.
Wrong again... The root cause is that there has never been enough of a need for high-speed transfer from the video card to system memory.
Both DirectX and OpenGL provide means for doing it, and if the underlying hardware supported it, an implementation could be made that transferred output data (say, a screen which has finished rendering) to the system just as fast as input data (texture uploads) to the video card.
With the newer PCI standard coming out, the underlying hardware will support this sort of transfer, and the video card manufacturers will start to add support for it.
I am somewhat into programming language theory, and I have seen the pages of alternative languages... It looks to me like the "Hello World" program in one of the languages that just uses the primitive combinators.
But, what is funny: I paste it into google, and it says:
Heh... did I mean to use somewhat random-looking string of characters A, or did I really want somewhat random-looking string of characters B?
If so, his belief in open source is less than his belief that he should make money selling closed source software, because he's not open sourcing his newest stuff. If open source was his first priority, then the Doom III engine would be on sourceforge where a thousand eyes can help him debug.
Personally, I rather think it would a bad idea financially to write the engine in an open source manner. Think of the hoopla behind the leaked HL2 src, etc... The game engine market is pretty competitive... There are a number of competing current engines: Doom3, HL2, Unreal, Renderware, Crytek...
But, that aside, Carmack has specifically said that he has made the case for open source software before. I think he said he would like to try it for at least 1 engine. But, he is only a 1/3 owner of id software, and it is hard to convince his (non-programmer) co-owners about the merits of open source, when id makes $500k per engine license.
No blatant typos and grammer can't completely suck
Oh, the irony!
I remember reading that the original arguments in favor of software licenses was this:
:)
Computer code is protected under copyright, every time you run a program, it is being copied from your hard drive (or other storage medium) into the computer memory. So, you are not allowed to do this (you are not the copyright holder) by default, and by agreeing to the license you are allowed to make the copy (just like the GPL, conceptually).
From the above post:
I know many softwares of mine have claims that only one person may use it on one machine at one time.
It would be interesting to take a similiar literal interpretation of law/agreement to note that on a single processor machine, only one instance of a program is ever running at the same time... The machine is just switching back and forth quite often
This is a false example. You described your triangle by 3 points; you therefore describe a triangle containing a cross-section of earth. 180 degrees. Instead of 'triangle,' you have described '1/8 the surface area of a sphere.'
The whole point is that you or I could take any 3 points (say, my ears and my nose), and say "look, you draw your straight lines between these and they make a triangle"...
But, since space is curved, so it wouldn't make a "true" triangle (just like you were arguing about the sphere thing)...
We can take what appears to be a triangle (or, use other shapes), and, using various tests (such as super accurately measuring the angles), determine the actual curvature of our space.
Put another way:
He's not really saying that the shape on the sphere is a triangle. But a 2d entity might think it lived on a plane, and would formulate certain rules about its universe (such as, "the universe is a big plane"), based on real-life measurements... and it could develop certain fundamental rules (such as, "the angles of a triangle add up to 180") using logic and mathematics.
But if its universe is actually a sphere (of a very large radius with respect to the entity), then as the entity grew more advanced and developed its measurement techniques further, it would start to notice certain discrepancies (such as the angles of what it perceived to be a triangle not adding up to 180). Since it has proved (via math) that the angles of a triangle add up to 180, and mathematics can't be wrong, it can conclude that its universe is not really a plane like previously thought, and instead some other surface which at sufficiently small intervals (or, just where the entity happens to live) "looks" like a plane.
Generalized again:
We can measure things, which should have a certain shape in a true 3d euclidean space. When we measure deviances from the shape, we can then form theories about the actual shape of our universe in higher dimensions.
No longer vapor, but a true 3D-embedded engine...
Since when has OpenGL been vapor?
Godels theorem pretty much says that there are things that you can NEVER know are true or false...
One thing I have always wondered about Godel's theorem, maybe someone here can answer it...
Consider integers. All integers are either positive or negative, with one exception, zero. (It might be that zero is defined to be one or the other, I don't know, but it's not important to this question).
My question:
Godel's theorem proves that there are some true statements which can't be proven. But, is there any answer in math as to whether or not only pathological Godel statements fall into this category?
MS had so much cash that they had to get rid of some of it by declaring dividends for the first time ever, not so long ago. I don't think they have a cash problem now or in the foreseeable future.
They didn't "have to get rid of it" because they had too much cash. They issued dividends for the first time because of the inane tax cut on dividends. So, MS could issue millions/billions worth of dividends (which certainly made large holders (ie the people in charge of this decision) a ton of money) basically tax-free.
But, I agree with your second statement. I don't think they have a cash problem either.
Bunk. Most people don't even see the 1/24th second flash unless they've practiced at it.
I don't know about that... In the movie "Fight Club" I found out what those "cigarette burns" (to use fight club's words) mean... I had noticed them long before.
And, although it would be flattering to think of myself as "quick", my reflexes are pretty normal... I remember mentioning them to several of my friends and they saw them too.
Although I will admit that I play a lot of FPS's, so maybe I have "trained" myself to see fast images like these.
A side note: I saw Fight Club twice in the theater, and the flashes of Tyler seemed to be much faster than when watching the DVD on a TV.
I wouldn't expect this, since I thought movies are 24FPS and TVs are like just under 30 FPS?
Maybe the phosphor glows, causing the image to appear longer? Or they doctored the DVD transfer a bit to make sure they were noticeable?
Or, I just thought of this one:
I've heard that movies are 24 FPS, but that each frame gets shown twice, so there are 48 flashes per second of the light onto the screen. Perhaps the original movie only showed the image for 1/48th instead of 1/24th of a second.
I've never handled a movie reel, so I don't know if it advances a frame, flashes twice, and advances another frame, or whether it advances a frame, flashes once, then advances again, and movies are just doubled up.
(Actually, it seems silly to imagine that the movies are doubled up, in that case you would just run at 48FPS for a better overall quality)
I certainly hope you tried contacting the manufacturer, reporting the problem, and requesting a fix first.
Why do you "certainly hope" this?
The poster was not doing anything wrong. If our laws are so draconian that he is breaking one of them, then the laws should be changed.
(from original moronic guy)
Good arguing tactic... I wonder what you call that?
I don't know what a years income in 1850 was, but lets ssay 10 grand, to keep the math simple. So, over 150 years, the cost has gone down about 50 fold, roughly.
My grandfather, when he was 15, bought a used car for $10. But, this is really apples and oranges. "Gone down 50 fold" has very little meaning. Today, anybody with a minimum wage job can journey cross country for much less than 1 week's wages. (Greyhound "anywhere ticket" for $20-$50, plus food, etc)...
then we have to find the (high ore content) asteroids and get them back to the surface. since they are far away, we have to apply nuclear propulsion to accellerate them to get them to the earth in less then decades
There's nothing wrong with taking a decade to get a rock back to earth... The time really doesn't matter too much. We don't need the "nuclear propulsion" you are talking about (controlled bombs for massive acceleration), an ion drive with a nuclear power supply would work fine. And, although the distance is vast and the acceleration is small, constant acceleration covers distance exponentially...
If there were a few crews of people flying around at "reasonable" accelerations (ie, maybe the nuke drive), or a fleet of many robots flying around at ion-drive accelerations, we could have a constant influx of asteroids to strip of their raw materials.
And, the payoff is, in fact, huge. There are asteroids large enough that capturing 10 of them could yield the same amount of minerals as *the combined output of all our mining of these minerals* (badly phrased, but say we (as a race) have mined a total of 100 billion tons of platinum, we could double that number easily after capturing just a few of the right asteroids)
(I use platinum as an example because in addition to being a metal valuable for its rarity, it is very useful as well, certain industries (such as fuel cells) are hurt by its rarity)
I know I'll be flamed to death and modded down, but the government should have nothing to do with outsourcing and restricting those companies who do.
The government already does have everything to do with "the outsourcing problem".
The amount of taxes our government levies, and the restrictions placed on companies (environmental regulations, labor laws, etc), are why it's cheaper to outsource jobs overseas.
Nobody in America could possibly afford to work for $0.80 an hour. But, even if they could, it's illegal to pay people less than $5.65 or so (whatever minimum wage is now).
I am not sure whether or not I would say we have too many restrictions of this nature or whatever. But the fact remains that it is literally impossible for US workers to compete with the workers of other countries. And it is impossible because our government makes it illegal to compete on even ground.