I agree with you that the 'pictures in the rocks' images are just chance configurations being interpreted by human observers.
Some of the other features (the ones described as 'tubes' and 'roads' look like interesting enough anomolies to be worth investigation.
I think one of the problems with this sort of field is that the 'believers' get carried away and end up obscuring interesting phenomena with wild claims and theories. This drives more balanced investigators away as they are scared of being associated with discredited theories.
The pictures of the 'tubes' certainly look like interesting features. Whether they are artifacts of some alien civilisation or natural formations, they are surely worth a closer look.
If you ever see such a message on spam, DO NOT reply to the message. If the return address does exist, it is more likely that a reply will elad to mroe spam than less. This is because many spam senders use replies to build a database of active email addresses. The fact that you reply confirms that there is a real person using that address, making it more of a target for spam.
About the only realistic things you can do are blocking the sender and emailing their ISP to complain.
As far as I know, all the CDDB operators use the same system to hash the CDs. This does lead to clashes in the (quite rare) cases where more than one CD has the same number of tracks at the same lengths.
I suppose you could add some sort of analysis of part of the data within the tracks to make the likelyhood of clashes much less. For instance, you could look at the lengths of the tracks plus the first five seconds of the first track.
So if their business model stops them from being able to profitably use GPLed components in their software... they shouldn't use GPLed components in their software.
If they want their software to be closed, they should develop it themselves. If they want to take advantage of GPLed open source software they can - they just have to play by the rules.
Re:releasing source later than executable
on
Sony Violating GPL?
·
· Score: 1
If you look at the thread I was posting in, you will (I hope) quickly realise that I was simply trying to provide a reason why they might not have released the source yet even though they intend to soon. Surely releasing the source shortly after the binary is better than not releasing it at all...
Try reading posts in the context of the threads they are in and you might not find yourself getting abusive for no reason.
As you no doubt know, the license does not require the source to be distributed with the binary - just for it to be available if anyone asks for it. Have you asked for it?
While source code is obviously required to compile an executable, the source might not neccessarily be ready for public viewing immediatly after the executable was compiled.
I've known developers put all sorts of stuff in comments that a company would not want the public to see. They might just want to clean all the non code related comments out before they release it.
Who knows, they might even be spending time adding comments to make the released code extra readable and easy to adapt...:)
Country codes dont mean an awful lot nowerdays anyway. Many of the small countries have sold the rights to their domains to domain name registartion companies.
What is the poinbt of country coes if sites under them are nothing to do with the country in question?
While using this technology to 'enhance' gameplaying seems a little counterproductive (distracting the players attention from the screen and thus the game), it could perhaps be better used by linking it to a sound system.
If the music being played in a room were passed to a processor (like a Winamp visualization plugin) which controlled LEDs, the amibient lighting of the room could be changed to match the mood of the music.
Even better - feed a mic in the room into the processor and the lighting could change to match the tone of conversation.:-)
You can use fake email addresses on Usenet but in olden times people didnt take such steps to avoid spam nearly as much as we do today. Their email addresses may be publicised on thsi archive.
Lets hope Google has some sort of system in place to stop the messages being read and parsed for email addresses en masse.
Did they violate the terms though? The paragraph you included seems to be saying that they would be helping other people violate the terms - not that they are violating them themselves.
I'm sure if there was a specific clause about publishing methods, surely it would have been mentioned.
What a great way to publicise the findings of this paper. Without the threat of legal action, its presentation would probably have been largely unnoticed outside its field.
Now that free speech is involved however...
When will large organisations learn that trying to suppress information just leads to its wider distribution?
Yeah, sorry , I did oversimply things a bit. I wasnt trying to deliberatly change the argument.
I stil think that AOL is going to have to integrate with other services at some point so it might as well be sooner rather than later. I thought that was what they were doing when they opened up part of their functionality.
I suppose it does all come down to what functionality is considered neccessary for the system to work.
I'll ignore the overall tone of your posts and assume that we simply have is a misunderstanding here.
If you look at my posts, you will notice that I am not disagreeing with your points so there is no need to start a flame war. (not every reply in/. is in opposition to a post)
I was merely making the point that AOLs attitude will not be sustainable forever. Sorry if there was confusion about what I was saying.
You will find no bitching coming from me. I have no axes to grind. I'm just interested in an emerging communication medium.
I stand by my intended point. If I started a phone company, other companies would be required to allow me to connect to their systems and would not be suprised by my desire to do so. This makes the phone system more useful than having a bunch of separate systems.
My point about whether you would choose a phone company that "closed its doors" was simply to illustate that such a company would not be viable in the long term.
So if I set up a new phone company, I should not allow my customers to connect to those of any other company?
For a communication medium like phones, email or instant messaging to be globally useful, users of different providers must be able to connect to each other.
While AOL are within their legal rights to make it difficult for other IM systems to link to theirs, they are are being shortsighted. At some point, there will be a global IM system, possibly a network that allows users to connect accross different systems. By keeping itself to itself, AOL is in danager of being left out of this system.
Would you use a phone company that didnt allow you to speak to the majority of other phone users while other companies did?
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with you that the 'pictures in the rocks' images are just chance configurations being interpreted by human observers.
Some of the other features (the ones described as 'tubes' and 'roads' look like interesting enough anomolies to be worth investigation.
I think one of the problems with this sort of field is that the 'believers' get carried away and end up obscuring interesting phenomena with wild claims and theories. This drives more balanced investigators away as they are scared of being associated with discredited theories.
The pictures of the 'tubes' certainly look like interesting features. Whether they are artifacts of some alien civilisation or natural formations, they are surely worth a closer look.
Could be bad when the Earth gets into litigation with the sun for sending unsolicited spammers...
If you ever see such a message on spam, DO NOT reply to the message. If the return address does exist, it is more likely that a reply will elad to mroe spam than less. This is because many spam senders use replies to build a database of active email addresses. The fact that you reply confirms that there is a real person using that address, making it more of a target for spam.
About the only realistic things you can do are blocking the sender and emailing their ISP to complain.
As far as I know, all the CDDB operators use the same system to hash the CDs. This does lead to clashes in the (quite rare) cases where more than one CD has the same number of tracks at the same lengths.
I suppose you could add some sort of analysis of part of the data within the tracks to make the likelyhood of clashes much less. For instance, you could look at the lengths of the tracks plus the first five seconds of the first track.
I dont quite understand what your problem was with these two words. They are both used in their correct contexts and with their correct meanings.
Is the use of unusal words to be frowned upon? Should we all refrain from using interesting words lest we be accused of trying to appear "smart"?
What makes you think he was uncomfortable with the words he used?
So if their business model stops them from being able to profitably use GPLed components in their software... they shouldn't use GPLed components in their software.
If they want their software to be closed, they should develop it themselves. If they want to take advantage of GPLed open source software they can - they just have to play by the rules.
If you look at the thread I was posting in, you will (I hope) quickly realise that I was simply trying to provide a reason why they might not have released the source yet even though they intend to soon. Surely releasing the source shortly after the binary is better than not releasing it at all...
Try reading posts in the context of the threads they are in and you might not find yourself getting abusive for no reason.
As you no doubt know, the license does not require the source to be distributed with the binary - just for it to be available if anyone asks for it. Have you asked for it?
While source code is obviously required to compile an executable, the source might not neccessarily be ready for public viewing immediatly after the executable was compiled.
:)
I've known developers put all sorts of stuff in comments that a company would not want the public to see. They might just want to clean all the non code related comments out before they release it.
Who knows, they might even be spending time adding comments to make the released code extra readable and easy to adapt...
A DOS attack could also involve taking over 1000 pigeon lofts and sending 10,000 pigeons to an unfortuante recipient.
Or they'll install doors at the end stations which only allow Microsoft pigeons through
Country codes dont mean an awful lot nowerdays anyway. Many of the small countries have sold the rights to their domains to domain name registartion companies.
What is the poinbt of country coes if sites under them are nothing to do with the country in question?
While using this technology to 'enhance' gameplaying seems a little counterproductive (distracting the players attention from the screen and thus the game), it could perhaps be better used by linking it to a sound system.
:-)
If the music being played in a room were passed to a processor (like a Winamp visualization plugin) which controlled LEDs, the amibient lighting of the room could be changed to match the mood of the music.
Even better - feed a mic in the room into the processor and the lighting could change to match the tone of conversation.
You can use fake email addresses on Usenet but in olden times people didnt take such steps to avoid spam nearly as much as we do today. Their email addresses may be publicised on thsi archive. Lets hope Google has some sort of system in place to stop the messages being read and parsed for email addresses en masse.
Went off in search after asking the question...
This one has articles from 1981 - 1982:
Does anybody know how far back it would be possible to take an archive of usenet?
This one goes back to 1995 but are there any offline archives that go back further?
If I read the paper and have the knowledge it contains, does that make ME an illegal circumvention device?
Did they violate the terms though? The paragraph you included seems to be saying that they would be helping other people violate the terms - not that they are violating them themselves.
I'm sure if there was a specific clause about publishing methods, surely it would have been mentioned.
What a great way to publicise the findings of this paper. Without the threat of legal action, its presentation would probably have been largely unnoticed outside its field.
Now that free speech is involved however...
When will large organisations learn that trying to suppress information just leads to its wider distribution?
I think Star Trek should invalidate a later patent for doors which slide open automatically - by featuring them, they make the idea obvious.
If, however, someone came up with a novel way of achieving the door opening effect, that technology would be patentable.
Yeah, sorry , I did oversimply things a bit. I wasnt trying to deliberatly change the argument.
I stil think that AOL is going to have to integrate with other services at some point so it might as well be sooner rather than later. I thought that was what they were doing when they opened up part of their functionality.
I suppose it does all come down to what functionality is considered neccessary for the system to work.
I'll ignore the overall tone of your posts and assume that we simply have is a misunderstanding here.
/. is in opposition to a post)
If you look at my posts, you will notice that I am not disagreeing with your points so there is no need to start a flame war. (not every reply in
I was merely making the point that AOLs attitude will not be sustainable forever. Sorry if there was confusion about what I was saying.
You will find no bitching coming from me. I have no axes to grind. I'm just interested in an emerging communication medium.
I stand by my intended point. If I started a phone company, other companies would be required to allow me to connect to their systems and would not be suprised by my desire to do so. This makes the phone system more useful than having a bunch of separate systems.
My point about whether you would choose a phone company that "closed its doors" was simply to illustate that such a company would not be viable in the long term.
So if I set up a new phone company, I should not allow my customers to connect to those of any other company? For a communication medium like phones, email or instant messaging to be globally useful, users of different providers must be able to connect to each other. While AOL are within their legal rights to make it difficult for other IM systems to link to theirs, they are are being shortsighted. At some point, there will be a global IM system, possibly a network that allows users to connect accross different systems. By keeping itself to itself, AOL is in danager of being left out of this system. Would you use a phone company that didnt allow you to speak to the majority of other phone users while other companies did?