People could just use ogg for their new stuff. It doesn't have to take over the world all at once. If what you say were true, we'd all still be listening to music on wax cylinders.
Personally, I think one of the main incentives is not for the listeners, but for people who sell anything with an encoder in it: they won't have to pay Fraunhoffer. Once mp3 players are no longer maintained, the listeners will switch, just as they did with previous media changes.
Thanks for the confirmation. I wonder, could you ask the rsync guys for a hard-link friendly "--unlink-for-all-changes" option that would guarantee the semantics you need?
I just found the answer looking through Mike Rubel's source code:
# step 4: rsync from the system into the latest snapshot (notice that # rsync behaves like cp --remove-destination by default, so the destination # is unlinked first. If it were not so, this would copy over the other # snapshot(s) too!
I wonder how he discovered this? I can't find it in the man page.
I'm wondering what happens to the hard links when rsync decides it only needs to update part of a file. If it is guaranteed to write a brand-new file with the merged changes, that's good. If, on the other hand, it changes the backup file in-place, then all the older backups that are only hard links will also see those changes, and that's a Bad Thing.
Anyone know anything about this issue? I can't find the necessary info in the rsync docs.
Judging by the fact that this technique does seem to work, I presume that rsync never modifies a file in-place, but I wonder if that's a guarantee, or just the current behaviour?
(Also, I am aware of the --whole-files command-line argument, but that's an orthogonal issue.)
Yep. I think everyone's development habits have an implicit minimum maintenance effort to which they eventually converge. If that minimum is not zero, you either need to (a) put a limit on how many projects you do during a lifetime, or (b) keep actively maintaining each project until it has no more users. Neither is all that appealing.
I don't know about him, but I'll say that. I just tried it RH7.3 + GNOME for the first time, and that is one messed up GUI, especially when it comes to configuration. I'll take yast2 any day. I have only used it two or three times, yet I have no trouble at all making it do what I want.
(I can't believe I just fell victim to the KDE vs. GNOME debate...)
I interviewed for a job at NRL, and one of their experimental projects was work on 3-D displays for battlefield viewing/planning. Elevations, positions of air cover, etc. are important tactical and strategic considerations.
Good point. That actually sounds pretty reasonable. If you could set this thing up in a tent in the desert and view the battlefield in 3D, that could be useful.
I think I disagree with practically everything you said. (I totally missed your point regarding robots and laser range finders, so forgive me if I don't address that one.)
Why would the military be interested in a cheap cart-mounted projection system? Are they going to run out to the battlefield with one of these in tow? And what does a projection system have to do with stereoscopic aircraft vision? Answer: nothing. These applications are far better suited to head-mounted displays.
And for games, why would you think you'd get rid of your monitor? That's just dumb. You don't sit the thing on your desk; you mount it anywhere you want, to project onto your wall of choice. Plus, all your points regarding gaming totally contradict your very first sentence.
I could go on, but I have this terrible sinking feeling that I'm responding to the most finely-crafted troll I have ever seen.
Excellent point. What about insulating suits that radiate heat only through the soles of the boots? I suppose that would leave glowing footprints...
Well, perhaps the short-term answer is that this technology is not well-suited for people who want to hide themselves from well-equipped military forces. I think that still leaves a lot of possibilities.
What you say makes no sense. Forgive me, but you seem like someone who prefers to find problems than solutions.
I discussed fairly trivial solutions to all your supposed show-stopping problems. Did you even read them?
If "everything is solvable" then how can you say this implementation is not practical?
Who is this "we" in "we care only about the implementation"? Are you a professional in this area, or are you just pluralizing yourself to make your opinions seem more important?
Of course it should be patentable. Just because it has been mentioned in fiction doesn't mean anything. Would you deny patents on warp engines or teleportation devices?
Now, if there were a work of sci-fi that described how to implement this device in detail, then that might be prior art.
For looking straight at the object: just coat the whole thing in emitters and detectors. That's not a big fundamental problem. You don't want light reflecting off the object anyway; might as well have detectors that absorb it.
The resolution problem can be addressed simply by increasing the resolution until it's small enough not to be noticable. Regardless, even at low resolution, it's better than normal camouflage, isn't it? (Ever seen Predator?)
The infrared problem can be solved the same way the visible light problem is solved. Just have IR detectors and emitters. You can even to a variety of frequencies (just as with visible light) to fool various enemy equipment.
To me, a big problem would be to counter an active detection system that shines light on the object and looks for reflections. The emitters will be subject to a design trade-off between emission and absorption, and it might be hard to find a technology that does both well enough.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry.
Personally, I think one of the main incentives is not for the listeners, but for people who sell anything with an encoder in it: they won't have to pay Fraunhoffer. Once mp3 players are no longer maintained, the listeners will switch, just as they did with previous media changes.
Am I stupid? I don't see the difference.
Besically, all your problems come down to inertia. Remember: inertia doesn't prevent acceleration--it merely slows it.
If it's the latter, that's quite naive.
However, the linked article combines rsync with cp -al to get the effect you want. Have another look.
Thanks for the confirmation. I wonder, could you ask the rsync guys for a hard-link friendly "--unlink-for-all-changes" option that would guarantee the semantics you need?
Want to know why so complex? READ THE ARTICLE. It's explained quite clearly.
Anyone know anything about this issue? I can't find the necessary info in the rsync docs.
Judging by the fact that this technique does seem to work, I presume that rsync never modifies a file in-place, but I wonder if that's a guarantee, or just the current behaviour?
(Also, I am aware of the --whole-files command-line argument, but that's an orthogonal issue.)
Yep. I think everyone's development habits have an implicit minimum maintenance effort to which they eventually converge. If that minimum is not zero, you either need to (a) put a limit on how many projects you do during a lifetime, or (b) keep actively maintaining each project until it has no more users. Neither is all that appealing.
(I can't believe I just fell victim to the KDE vs. GNOME debate...)
(I have nothing more to say at this time.)
This system doesn't use a monitor, and it has nothing to do with two-eyed robots.
Why would the military be interested in a cheap cart-mounted projection system? Are they going to run out to the battlefield with one of these in tow? And what does a projection system have to do with stereoscopic aircraft vision? Answer: nothing. These applications are far better suited to head-mounted displays.
And for games, why would you think you'd get rid of your monitor? That's just dumb. You don't sit the thing on your desk; you mount it anywhere you want, to project onto your wall of choice. Plus, all your points regarding gaming totally contradict your very first sentence.
I could go on, but I have this terrible sinking feeling that I'm responding to the most finely-crafted troll I have ever seen.
Perhaps, but that doesn't explain why they claim there had been only 7 drops.
I'd better get rid of my polarized sunglasses before they come after me for DMCA violations...
In fact, another page confirms that the 8th drop fell in November 2000, so it is indeed the 9th drop forming.
Well, perhaps the short-term answer is that this technology is not well-suited for people who want to hide themselves from well-equipped military forces. I think that still leaves a lot of possibilities.
-
I discussed fairly trivial solutions to all your supposed show-stopping problems. Did you even read them?
-
If "everything is solvable" then how can you say this implementation is not practical?
-
Who is this "we" in "we care only about the implementation"? Are you a professional in this area, or are you just pluralizing yourself to make your opinions seem more important?
I smell a karma whore.Now, if there were a work of sci-fi that described how to implement this device in detail, then that might be prior art.
-
For looking straight at the object: just coat the whole thing in emitters and detectors. That's not a big fundamental problem. You don't want light reflecting off the object anyway; might as well have detectors that absorb it.
-
The resolution problem can be addressed simply by increasing the resolution until it's small enough not to be noticable. Regardless, even at low resolution, it's better than normal camouflage, isn't it? (Ever seen Predator?)
-
The infrared problem can be solved the same way the visible light problem is solved. Just have IR detectors and emitters. You can even to a variety of frequencies (just as with visible light) to fool various enemy equipment.
To me, a big problem would be to counter an active detection system that shines light on the object and looks for reflections. The emitters will be subject to a design trade-off between emission and absorption, and it might be hard to find a technology that does both well enough.