Why the hell would you use Winamp on Wine instead of straight up XMMS? XMMS is much much better than Winamp. A specific example: XMMS's random function actually works. With Winamp, even if you have hundreds of songs in the playlist, with randomize you get the same 10 or so over and over.
Re:This is what has made Linux successful,
on
Linus on DRM
·
· Score: 1
The subtle distinction that your parent is making, and you are missing, is that the GPL tells you exactly what you can and can't do with the source of the software. What you actually do with the software itself is completely outside of the GPL's jurisdiction, as his quote states.
I don't understand this whole translucent windows thing. Other than looking "kick-ass", what is the real benefit? Seems like all it does is make the windowing system more complicated and potentially slower. The only reason this would be helpful is if you could save screen real estate by overlaying windows and using both of them at once. But guess what: you can't. The human brain can't focus on two distinct tasks at once, and it definitely can't separate two sets of overlayed text. Besides, you can already lay one window over another and just switch between them for the real estate gain. I wish people would spend more time producing features that are actually useful as opposed to things that just look good.
And anyway, you can only hold a trademark for a given industry. I would think automobiles and web browsers would be different enough that there would be no brand confusion among customers.
You also missed another key payment choice he mentioned: LOANS. You take out loans to pay for almost everything else (house, car, maybe even a computer), why not for school? Millions of college students use loans to pay for their schooling, and then use the nice job they get from graduating to pay them off. Sure it's nice to come out of school with no debt, but sometimes it's nicer to have the debt and have a much better chance at a higher standard of living.
Then why will you still get pulled over if you do something "unexpected" when there isn't anyone else around to affect? (Except the policeman hiding safely behind a building.)
That will probably happen when someone comes up with a way to make registers physically alter their size to fit whatever dynamic number of bits you want. So if you can imagine how often that's happened...
Oh please. "Enhancing the photo so it prints well" is changing how it looks. Can you deny that? It changes the physical presentation of the photo.
Yes, it is editorializing. But everything is editorializing, because people aren't objective. The way you interpret the world and how things happen is purely subjective, and you can't escape that. Nor can you escape the subjectivity with which others will interpret what you try to tell them. There is no objectivity. Everything is editorialized.
I think you're missing my point, which is that any photograph is like a quote taken out of context, because it is out of context. You can't put all of the required context into a picture, you can only get the photographer's pictoral opinion of the scene.
When you show a picture, people believe what they are seeing happened as they see it.
What I'm saying is that although this is usually true, it's ridiculous. People shouldn't simply believe that what they see in a picture happened as it depicts. That's very close to saying that you should simply believe anything someone tells you, especially in times like these when altering a photograph is only slightly more difficult than telling a lie.
If you take that away, then you have taken away the integrity of photography as a medium for reporting.
Only to the extent that the written (or spoken) word has no integrity as a reporting medium because it is written (or spoken) by people. Photography is really no different than either of these. It is a form of communication, and that communication can and is altered to suit the communicator's agenda.
Actually it doesn't matter where you draw the line, because you're already past it. A photograph is inherently deceptive because it can't contain 100% context. The photographer can essentially doctor a photo in any of dozens of ways without doing any actual "editing", just by the way he frames it: the angel, the view, the zoom, etc.
But who are you to say which one was more "correct"? Maybe he actually was more menacing, in which case the other picture was altered to put a more positive spin on things. In short, you can't say, because everything is subjective. Two people experiencing the exact same thing can interpret it in wildly different ways. There is no such thing as "objective journalism" because no journalist can be objective, and, on the flip side, no consumer of news can interpret things objectively. Objectivity is myth. The better you learn that, the better decisions you'll be able to make based on what are ultimately the subjective opinions of others.
"If we just change how it looks, but not what it means, we'll be okay."
Careful, you're getting into speculative territory. What something means to you may be completely different from what it means to me. And if you "just change how it looks", it might not change the meaning for you, but it might for me. Frankly it annoys me that I haven't seen more comments with common sense for this story. Every photo is basically doctored anyway by the angle chosen, the amount of view included, even the shutter speed and type of film used. And that's before it even gets to the editing room where they do the "enhancments" like sharpening, cropping, zooming, etc. I don't dispute that he should have gotten fired if he broke policy, but everyone putting up such a big deal is a little tiresome. Any written story is really just the interpretation of the writer, an interpretation that some would probably deem "incorrect" or even "purposefully skewed" regardless of how "objective" it tried to be.
Everyone expects that a photo in the LA Times is accurate and unaltered
I suppose if you're completely naive, you do. You do realize that no photo can be compeletely accurate, right? To do that, it would need to not only convey a pictoral representation, but also the exact mental, emotional, and physical state of the scene, and everything in the scene, not just one angle. And even that probably isn't enough since it only captures a small instant of time; you'd need some temporal reference too. The fact is that any kind of "news" can only be taken at face value. It can never contain every aspect needed to put it in correct context. Someone is making the decisions of what to leave out, and that introduces bias. Every photo is essentially doctored, and every story essentially spun.
How is streaming significantly different than just letting the employees access the music directly? You could still copy the stream, and then you're back at the same place.
It won't be long until we can all afford 3 monitors and a multi-display adapter
Forget that. I wouldn't be surprised if someone starts marketing a long, curved LCD (or OLED if you prefer) monitor that would wrap partly around you. You could turn your head and not have to deal with the split between monitors. Besides being nice for gaming, think of how much more screen real estate you'd get. Then eventually it would start to curve up as well, a little above your head. That would give you just about full visual immersion. Combined with a great sound system it'd be faboo.
How many people do you know that want to wait for their computer to boot to make a phone call? How many do you know that want to have a phone call interrupted because little Johnny just crashed the computer? Sure, things can be combined. Why not make every appliance and piece of furniture into one thing? A big stove/fridge/phone/sink/couch/television/radio/gar den hose/snowblower/car/house/computer. Because there's no need to, people like things the way they're used to them, and because it would get ridiculous. Emacs notwithstanding, most people like things to be separate because it makes them more accessible, easier to manage, more flexible, and more reliable. Just think of how much more it takes to get one of those TVs with a built-in VCR fixed than it does to get just a regular VCR fixed and you'll see why modular (separate) is better.
A crude example, sound waves travel through walls pretty easily. Shining a flashlight doesn't work too well.
So crude an example that you forgot that sound waves are concussion waves which act on actual atoms to propagate, whereas light is a type of electromagnetic radiation. Try this: setup a one inch thick vacuum and try shining a light through it. Now try playing a sound through it. Which works?
A better example would have been that low frequencies like radio waves can travel through walls and things, while higher frequencies like light cannot. However, I think I'd be more worried about using high frequencies because when you get much higher than light, it becomes dangerous to humans. Think microwaves (Hey, why is the server room so hot?) or even gamma rays (Hey, why am I dead all of the sudden?).
You can't take a device, and patent its application to a new situation.
Oh, you mean like taking a device such as, say communication (about an item for sale, maybe), and patenting its application on a computer network? Hmm, I think you may have a point there.
And before you get all uppity about the definition of device, here's one:
1. A contrivance or an invention serving a particular purpose which I certainly think that communication falls under.
Slashdot Mirror
Why the hell would you use Winamp on Wine instead of straight up XMMS? XMMS is much much better than Winamp. A specific example: XMMS's random function actually works. With Winamp, even if you have hundreds of songs in the playlist, with randomize you get the same 10 or so over and over.
The subtle distinction that your parent is making, and you are missing, is that the GPL tells you exactly what you can and can't do with the source of the software. What you actually do with the software itself is completely outside of the GPL's jurisdiction, as his quote states.
I don't understand this whole translucent windows thing. Other than looking "kick-ass", what is the real benefit? Seems like all it does is make the windowing system more complicated and potentially slower. The only reason this would be helpful is if you could save screen real estate by overlaying windows and using both of them at once. But guess what: you can't. The human brain can't focus on two distinct tasks at once, and it definitely can't separate two sets of overlayed text. Besides, you can already lay one window over another and just switch between them for the real estate gain. I wish people would spend more time producing features that are actually useful as opposed to things that just look good.
And anyway, you can only hold a trademark for a given industry. I would think automobiles and web browsers would be different enough that there would be no brand confusion among customers.
You also missed another key payment choice he mentioned: LOANS. You take out loans to pay for almost everything else (house, car, maybe even a computer), why not for school? Millions of college students use loans to pay for their schooling, and then use the nice job they get from graduating to pay them off. Sure it's nice to come out of school with no debt, but sometimes it's nicer to have the debt and have a much better chance at a higher standard of living.
Then why will you still get pulled over if you do something "unexpected" when there isn't anyone else around to affect? (Except the policeman hiding safely behind a building.)
That will probably happen when someone comes up with a way to make registers physically alter their size to fit whatever dynamic number of bits you want. So if you can imagine how often that's happened...
Oh please. "Enhancing the photo so it prints well" is changing how it looks. Can you deny that? It changes the physical presentation of the photo.
Yes, it is editorializing. But everything is editorializing, because people aren't objective. The way you interpret the world and how things happen is purely subjective, and you can't escape that. Nor can you escape the subjectivity with which others will interpret what you try to tell them. There is no objectivity. Everything is editorialized.
I think you're missing my point, which is that any photograph is like a quote taken out of context, because it is out of context. You can't put all of the required context into a picture, you can only get the photographer's pictoral opinion of the scene.
When you show a picture, people believe what they are seeing happened as they see it.
What I'm saying is that although this is usually true, it's ridiculous. People shouldn't simply believe that what they see in a picture happened as it depicts. That's very close to saying that you should simply believe anything someone tells you, especially in times like these when altering a photograph is only slightly more difficult than telling a lie.
If you take that away, then you have taken away the integrity of photography as a medium for reporting.
Only to the extent that the written (or spoken) word has no integrity as a reporting medium because it is written (or spoken) by people. Photography is really no different than either of these. It is a form of communication, and that communication can and is altered to suit the communicator's agenda.
Actually it doesn't matter where you draw the line, because you're already past it. A photograph is inherently deceptive because it can't contain 100% context. The photographer can essentially doctor a photo in any of dozens of ways without doing any actual "editing", just by the way he frames it: the angel, the view, the zoom, etc.
But who are you to say which one was more "correct"? Maybe he actually was more menacing, in which case the other picture was altered to put a more positive spin on things. In short, you can't say, because everything is subjective. Two people experiencing the exact same thing can interpret it in wildly different ways. There is no such thing as "objective journalism" because no journalist can be objective, and, on the flip side, no consumer of news can interpret things objectively. Objectivity is myth. The better you learn that, the better decisions you'll be able to make based on what are ultimately the subjective opinions of others.
"If we just change how it looks, but not what it means, we'll be okay."
Careful, you're getting into speculative territory. What something means to you may be completely different from what it means to me. And if you "just change how it looks", it might not change the meaning for you, but it might for me. Frankly it annoys me that I haven't seen more comments with common sense for this story. Every photo is basically doctored anyway by the angle chosen, the amount of view included, even the shutter speed and type of film used. And that's before it even gets to the editing room where they do the "enhancments" like sharpening, cropping, zooming, etc. I don't dispute that he should have gotten fired if he broke policy, but everyone putting up such a big deal is a little tiresome. Any written story is really just the interpretation of the writer, an interpretation that some would probably deem "incorrect" or even "purposefully skewed" regardless of how "objective" it tried to be.
Everyone expects that a photo in the LA Times is accurate and unaltered
I suppose if you're completely naive, you do. You do realize that no photo can be compeletely accurate, right? To do that, it would need to not only convey a pictoral representation, but also the exact mental, emotional, and physical state of the scene, and everything in the scene, not just one angle. And even that probably isn't enough since it only captures a small instant of time; you'd need some temporal reference too. The fact is that any kind of "news" can only be taken at face value. It can never contain every aspect needed to put it in correct context. Someone is making the decisions of what to leave out, and that introduces bias. Every photo is essentially doctored, and every story essentially spun.
Unfortunately, Apple has already applied for this patent.
How is streaming significantly different than just letting the employees access the music directly? You could still copy the stream, and then you're back at the same place.
It won't be long until we can all afford 3 monitors and a multi-display adapter
Forget that. I wouldn't be surprised if someone starts marketing a long, curved LCD (or OLED if you prefer) monitor that would wrap partly around you. You could turn your head and not have to deal with the split between monitors. Besides being nice for gaming, think of how much more screen real estate you'd get. Then eventually it would start to curve up as well, a little above your head. That would give you just about full visual immersion. Combined with a great sound system it'd be faboo.
However, how many people do you know do that?
r den hose/snowblower/car/house/computer. Because there's no need to, people like things the way they're used to them, and because it would get ridiculous. Emacs notwithstanding, most people like things to be separate because it makes them more accessible, easier to manage, more flexible, and more reliable. Just think of how much more it takes to get one of those TVs with a built-in VCR fixed than it does to get just a regular VCR fixed and you'll see why modular (separate) is better.
How many people do you know that want to wait for their computer to boot to make a phone call? How many do you know that want to have a phone call interrupted because little Johnny just crashed the computer? Sure, things can be combined. Why not make every appliance and piece of furniture into one thing? A big stove/fridge/phone/sink/couch/television/radio/ga
Remember what Perl stands for?
Actually, it doesn't stand for anything. Perl is not an acronym. See the last sentence of the this frequently asked question from perlfaq1.
I think he means a 10x speed improvement over Perl 5.
I heard that they put code in Windows XP that will drink your last beer, leave the toilet seat up, and sleep with your wife while you are at work.
I wonder if it's related to the Good Times Virus.
A crude example, sound waves travel through walls pretty easily. Shining a flashlight doesn't work too well.
So crude an example that you forgot that sound waves are concussion waves which act on actual atoms to propagate, whereas light is a type of electromagnetic radiation. Try this: setup a one inch thick vacuum and try shining a light through it. Now try playing a sound through it. Which works?
A better example would have been that low frequencies like radio waves can travel through walls and things, while higher frequencies like light cannot. However, I think I'd be more worried about using high frequencies because when you get much higher than light, it becomes dangerous to humans. Think microwaves (Hey, why is the server room so hot?) or even gamma rays (Hey, why am I dead all of the sudden?).
It would be so helpful now to have that hearing, especially when my boss walks to my cubicle ;)
That's when you get one of these.
You can't take a device, and patent its application to a new situation.
Oh, you mean like taking a device such as, say communication (about an item for sale, maybe), and patenting its application on a computer network? Hmm, I think you may have a point there.
And before you get all uppity about the definition of device, here's one:
1. A contrivance or an invention serving a particular purpose
which I certainly think that communication falls under.
Perhaps you'd like to know that the plural of crisis is crises, pronounced kry-seez.
Perl is not an acronym. See the last sentence of the perlfaq1 question: What's the difference between perl and Perl?