You have not read the article. Nobody is asking you to give away the source code for free, but to include it with the binary. If I pay for something you spend 400 hours writing, I want the source to that as well. The source is part of the product. The article says nothing about giving it away for free.
Ralsky agreed to this interview and the tour of his operation only if I promised not to print the address of his new home, which I found in Oakland County real estate records.
Allright. Soo... I promised not to print his new address, but If someone were to check this place out.....
I mean, its not like the information is not publically available. It is all PERFECTLY LEGAL;-)
Am I the only one who feels that this one posting just about made my day? I feel your love man. We will reach out and touch someone. We will give them our warmth (at least as much as the cpu's can handle before turning into a puddle of guey mess).
I know this will not work very well for the spammers who forge their return e-mail addy, but.... Is it possible to make a list of spam messages and spammers and send a professional letter to the ISP saying that one of their user sent X number of messages in the last week (possibly attach the message as well)?
If an ISP gets one complaint from a user - that's one thing. If the ISP gets a messge saying that 23,000 spam messages were sent out in the last week by one of their customers - that's another.
In general that is true. In this case it only takes one "nut" (and I use this term in the nicest possible way) to copy the CD and give it away for free. Once the CD is broken ONCE! it can travel all over the world in a blink of an eye.
The problem is that only ONE person needs to go through all this trouble. Then ANYONE can play it.
10% of an FTE. Someone would have to spend 10% of their time (full time job) just to read a mailing list? That's a LOT of time. Assuming 7 hour days - that's 42 minutes spent every day just reading the mailing list. Wow.
What about a slightly more sporadic use pattern? For example: 1) IF you have a problem - post it on the newsgroup (or to the mailing list). Then the next morning see if you have any replies.
2) If you have a person that is fluent with some aspect of the software - have them spend half an hour a WEEK to glance through most recent mailings and see if they can answer any of them. (Optional step - but it's nice to give back to the community).
3) See if the mailing list has a cache of old messages. That way you can check if your question has allready been answered in the past week/month/year. If not, perhaps arrange to have your own locan cache - that can be as easy as a new e-mail account with a large quota and a decent e-mail client that allows you to search it.
No. You cannot download degrees. However, for 49.95 we will mail you your very own, degree from an accredited university. Act Now and you will receive masters at half price!
Quote from one of the above posts:
Also, they're a Pandora's Box: once you've let all the troubles out into the world, you can't put them back in. Why are there countries that will allow such dangerous crops to be forced into human food?
Aaah. You see what I mean about social implications? It includes religion, patents, and a whole slew of other things. I have a few friends in genetics. Genetically modified crops are quite safe. People are still affraid of them.
The Age of Spiritual Machines.
on
Downloading The Mind
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I actually read about half of the book. I could not finish it as I was unable to read cause I was laughing too hard. I am not saying he's TOTALLY wrong. There may be a time when we will have computers that will be smarter than we are. When we will be able to download our minds into the computer. All of that is fine, his timeline is totally unrealistic.
A couple of points: 1. The estimates as to how much processing power is in an average human brain vary quite a bit. Is each neuron a bit? It can have multiple inputs - maybe it's something closer to a byte or a word? How and where is memory stored? Just haveing the raw processing power does not mean we will have the knowledge to USE it. We are seriously lacking in the knowledge departament. 2. Social implications. How many good technologies are set back, or even stopped because the people are not ready for it? Do you really think that an average person will simply accept and approve of the ability to live forever in a computer? All the religions of the world are going to have a field day with that. Don't think so? We've had genetically modified crops for a while now. They're safe and far more efficient. Why are there still countries that will not allow such crops to be used for human consumption?
In the end it reminds me of a story I've heard of a long time ago. I'm going from memory so you'll have to forgive me if I get the details wrong.
It happens during the height of Artificial Intelligence (when a lot of people thought we will have talking, seeing, thinking computers in just a few decades;-) ). There was a conference, where one of the scientists started making wild predictions. Something like Kurzweil. Computers are supposed to be able to see (image recognition) as well as humans in 20 years, think in 30, etc. One of the other scientists has asked that guy:
"Why are you saying this? All of those problems are quite hard. It is unlikely anyone will achieve those things in that time."
The first scientist answered:
"True, but notice that every date I've given is AFTER my retirement."
What a way to generate funding, eh? This kind of things simply hurt the field in general.
And that's my gripe for this week. I feel a LOT better now, thank you!
I was talking about the first article where they create a real hologram in some material (I forget now what that was - some kind of plastic?). THAT technology is cool.
That's exactly what I meant. There is no single HD that can handle that kind of bandwidth. All other solutions require raid type with multiple HD's. When you are talking about eventually haveing 11 cameras, buying extra 44 Hd's is not insignificant.
There are a lot of limits when it comes to cameras connected to PC's. I've worked in a lab where we used cameras that generated 640x480x4 (32 bit color) frames at 60 Hz. Guess what. You can't even buy a HD that can sustain that kind of transfer rate for any period of time. Good thing those computers had about a gig of ram each;-)
There is actually a few limitations. Bandwidth is the most important one. Here you're looking at the connection between camera and the computer. We used special frame grabber boards, fireware or USB - well... nothing that I know of can handle 12,000 Hz. Next, somewhat smaller limitation is the bandwidth to memory. When you're talking about 12,000 Hz - that will become a factor. And of course - unless you've got about 40 Gigs of Ram (at least) you would want to save the stream. There are Video Vaults which are basically raid arrays, but again - they can't handle this kind of data stream.
Technology is coming along though. The new CMOS based cameras can have fairly high frame rates. You can actually select between resolution and framerate. Last time I checked the fastest they could go was about 500fps (at low resolution), the limit being again the link between the camera and PC. I believe the theoretical limit of the CMOS type camera is at either 5000 or 8000 fps (I don't really remember which - sorry).
Personally I have no problem with buying software. There is nothing wrong with making a product and profiting from it. What I do have a problem with is when a company sells a product that, in may ways, is inferior to something a few guys wrote in their spare time. Now, if the same company refuses to acknowledge/fix problems with their software... well.. they get what they deserve.
I've got a few images in that format stored on my hd. Inside each tiff image there is one byte storing the version number. That single byte holds THE ANSWER. I think it's worth a LOT.
I do not agree. I actually know how to program. I wrote a few viruses (school assignment. No, really;-) ). There are fundamental differences between the two OS's. When I am running Linux at home, I do not feel hindered in any way. Only when I need to install something, or tinker with the settings do I need root. Even then it's only an xterm, su, and "make install" (if it works;-) ).
There are root exploits for linux/linux programs. Fair enough. Compare that, and their difficulty with an OS that I can crash with a simple printf statement! (that bug has existed since NT3.5 I believe. It also exists in WinXP). Don't believe me? If you're running a windows box other than 9x, ME or 3.1;-), try this little program:
int main() {
for (int i=0; i1000; i++)
{
printf("\t\b\b\b\b\b");
}
return 0; }
Compile it in Visual C++ as a console program. Similar thing will work in most programming languages. I haven't tried a java applet yet;-)
Ummm wave particle duality? Seriously. You can mathematically derive that everything has to be particle based at the quantum level. Its been done and done often. However this is not the case experimentally. So the particle nature of the electron is "relaxed" (i.e. fudged) using wave particle duality so that the experiments work right.
You can do a lot of things mathematically that are not necessairly true. That particular statement (everything has to be particle at the quantum level) simply does not agree with some basic physics experiments. Here is a simple one.
If you're in a room with fluorescent lighting (does not work with normal lightbulbs). Hold two of your fingers so that they're just, almost touching. Look at that light through those fingers. If you do it right you will see diffraction of the light (little colored rings). That's quantum mechanics at work. That's also something that CANNOT be done by a particle. You can also search the web for descriptions of single and double slit experiments. If you've heard of tunneling (which is used in electronics) that is again, only possible if the particle has wave-like properties.
As for your other comment. Well. I can't really disprove it without knowing what it is. Given your choice of sources...
Note also that for hunreds of years all the respectable scientists believed in the four aristotlean elements, impetus theory, and phlogiston theory, too.
Please note that the Greeks did not really belive in the scientific method. All of their "discoveries" where made by purely thinking about the problem. No experiments were preformed (in fact thay had no way of preforming those kinds of experiments). Still, I think they came up with things that are amazingly close to what we belive in right now. None of the "revolutions" in physics really changed things all that much. Just because we have Einstein's Relativity, that does not mean that Sir. Newton was wrong. Sir Isaac's formulas are still good enough to get us to the moon. That's not bad in my book.
Going back to the greeks for a while. The world would be a better place if people would stop and THINK on what they're going to say, BEFORE they say it.
A) Please note that I was refering to Quantum Mechinics in particular. That theory is about century old.
B) Just like special relativity was not meant to work with gravity, so QM is not really ment to work with it. Within its bounds it is absolute (as far as I know). It may not be the absolute/true view of the universe. However, in its own realm it holds true very nicely. For you information, it also breaks down when you approach the speed of light - that's when relativistic effects become too large to ignore.
I see a small problem here. What is described as hydrino violates some of the basic principles of quantum mechanics. There is nothing especially wrong with that except: A) For nearly a century pople have been looking at and working with the QM. B) Can you guess how many experiments disagree with QM? Anyone? That's right. ZERO. In almost a century we have been unable to find a single experiment that does not follow QM. Einstein spend a lot of energy (pun intended) trying to disprove QM. In that regard QM is the most successful theory in history of human race (so far). Even General Relativity is an approximation (Order beta^2 if I remember properly, where beta = v/c).
I'm just graduating from Computing Science. I guess I do not know a lot about the "REAL WORLD". Isn't it a mark of a good design when a system is modular? I mean, if one component needs to be replaced/rewritter you just rewrite that one component and be done with it. I can't even think that a project the size of Windows, IE, Media Plaer combined as a spaghetti code could even run. Is it just me, or does it seem tha Microsoft is PROUD of the fact that they do not have a design?
Slashdot Mirror
You have not read the article. Nobody is asking you to give away the source code for free, but to include it with the binary. If I pay for something you spend 400 hours writing, I want the source to that as well. The source is part of the product.
The article says nothing about giving it away for free.
Ralsky agreed to this interview and the tour of his operation only if I promised not to print the address of his new home, which I found in Oakland County real estate records.
;-)
Allright. Soo... I promised not to print his new address, but If someone were to check this place out..... I mean, its not like the information is not publically available. It is all PERFECTLY LEGAL
Am I the only one who feels that this one posting just about made my day? I feel your love man. We will reach out and touch someone. We will give them our warmth (at least as much as the cpu's can handle before turning into a puddle of guey mess).
I can't type anymore. I've got tears in my eyes.
Rock On!
I know this will not work very well for the spammers who forge their return e-mail addy, but.... Is it possible to make a list of spam messages and spammers and send a professional letter to the ISP saying that one of their user sent X number of messages in the last week (possibly attach the message as well)?
If an ISP gets one complaint from a user - that's one thing. If the ISP gets a messge saying that 23,000 spam messages were sent out in the last week by one of their customers - that's another.
In general that is true. In this case it only takes one "nut" (and I use this term in the nicest possible way) to copy the CD and give it away for free. Once the CD is broken ONCE! it can travel all over the world in a blink of an eye.
The problem is that only ONE person needs to go through all this trouble. Then ANYONE can play it.
10% of an FTE. Someone would have to spend 10% of their time (full time job) just to read a mailing list? That's a LOT of time. Assuming 7 hour days - that's 42 minutes spent every day just reading the mailing list. Wow.
What about a slightly more sporadic use pattern? For example:
1) IF you have a problem - post it on the newsgroup (or to the mailing list).
Then the next morning see if you have any replies.
2) If you have a person that is fluent with some aspect of the software - have them spend half an hour a WEEK to glance through most recent mailings and see if they can answer any of them. (Optional step - but it's nice to give back to the community).
3) See if the mailing list has a cache of old messages. That way you can check if your question has allready been answered in the past week/month/year. If not, perhaps arrange to have your own locan cache - that can be as easy as a new e-mail account with a large quota and a decent e-mail client that allows you to search it.
No. You cannot download degrees. However, for 49.95 we will mail you your very own, degree from an accredited university. Act Now and you will receive masters at half price!
Quote from one of the above posts:
Also, they're a Pandora's Box: once you've let all the troubles out into the world, you can't put them back in. Why are there countries that will allow such dangerous crops to be forced into human food?
Aaah. You see what I mean about social implications? It includes religion, patents, and a whole slew of other things. I have a few friends in genetics. Genetically modified crops are quite safe. People are still affraid of them.
I actually read about half of the book. I could not finish it as I was unable to read cause I was laughing too hard. I am not saying he's TOTALLY wrong. There may be a time when we will have computers that will be smarter than we are. When we will be able to download our minds into the computer. All of that is fine, his timeline is totally unrealistic.
;-) ). There was a conference, where one of the scientists started making wild predictions. Something like Kurzweil. Computers are supposed to be able to see (image recognition) as well as humans in 20 years, think in 30, etc. One of the other scientists has asked that guy:
A couple of points:
1. The estimates as to how much processing power is in an average human brain vary quite a bit. Is each neuron a bit? It can have multiple inputs - maybe it's something closer to a byte or a word? How and where is memory stored? Just haveing the raw processing power does not mean we will have the knowledge to USE it. We are seriously lacking in the knowledge departament.
2. Social implications. How many good technologies are set back, or even stopped because the people are not ready for it? Do you really think that an average person will simply accept and approve of the ability to live forever in a computer? All the religions of the world are going to have a field day with that. Don't think so? We've had genetically modified crops for a while now. They're safe and far more efficient. Why are there still countries that will not allow such crops to be used for human consumption?
In the end it reminds me of a story I've heard of a long time ago. I'm going from memory so you'll have to forgive me if I get the details wrong.
It happens during the height of Artificial Intelligence (when a lot of people thought we will have talking, seeing, thinking computers in just a few decades
"Why are you saying this? All of those problems are quite hard. It is unlikely anyone will achieve those things in that time."
The first scientist answered:
"True, but notice that every date I've given is AFTER my retirement."
What a way to generate funding, eh? This kind of things simply hurt the field in general.
And that's my gripe for this week. I feel a LOT better now, thank you!
Ooops, communication problem.
I was talking about the first article where they create a real hologram in some material (I forget now what that was - some kind of plastic?). THAT technology is cool.
Actually it does work for more than one viewer. Have you ever seen of those hologram pictures? It works on a similar principle.
Is it me, or is being a lawyer far more profitable than honest, hard work? I don't know about you, but I think there are a lot of problems here.
That's exactly what I meant. There is no single HD that can handle that kind of bandwidth. All other solutions require raid type with multiple HD's. When you are talking about eventually haveing 11 cameras, buying extra 44 Hd's is not insignificant.
There are a lot of limits when it comes to cameras connected to PC's. I've worked in a lab where we used cameras that generated 640x480x4 (32 bit color) frames at 60 Hz. Guess what. You can't even buy a HD that can sustain that kind of transfer rate for any period of time. Good thing those computers had about a gig of ram each ;-)
There is actually a few limitations. Bandwidth is the most important one. Here you're looking at the connection between camera and the computer. We used special frame grabber boards, fireware or USB - well... nothing that I know of can handle 12,000 Hz. Next, somewhat smaller limitation is the bandwidth to memory. When you're talking about 12,000 Hz - that will become a factor. And of course - unless you've got about 40 Gigs of Ram (at least) you would want to save the stream. There are Video Vaults which are basically raid arrays, but again - they can't handle this kind of data stream.
Technology is coming along though. The new CMOS based cameras can have fairly high frame rates. You can actually select between resolution and framerate. Last time I checked the fastest they could go was about 500fps (at low resolution), the limit being again the link between the camera and PC. I believe the theoretical limit of the CMOS type camera is at either 5000 or 8000 fps (I don't really remember which - sorry).
I have no idea why I even bother...
Have you perchance noticed the line:
memset(silence, 0, sizeof(silence));
Hmm... I wonder what it does. Set's the the memory array, pointed to by silence to zero? Up until the size of silence?
Why do people post replies before they read the original posts?
Personally I have no problem with buying software. There is nothing wrong with making a product and profiting from it. What I do have a problem with is when a company sells a product that, in may ways, is inferior to something a few guys wrote in their spare time. Now, if the same company refuses to acknowledge/fix problems with their software ... well.. they get what they deserve.
Lame answer to my own post. Tiff version number is 42. It is not expected to change. I hope I do not have to tell you what that number represents.
I've got a few images in that format stored on my hd. Inside each tiff image there is one byte storing the version number. That single byte holds THE ANSWER. I think it's worth a LOT.
I do not agree. I actually know how to program. I wrote a few viruses (school assignment. No, really ;-) ). There are fundamental differences between the two OS's. When I am running Linux at home, I do not feel hindered in any way. Only when I need to install something, or tinker with the settings do I need root. Even then it's only an xterm, su, and "make install" (if it works;-) ).
;-), try this little program:
There are root exploits for linux/linux programs. Fair enough. Compare that, and their difficulty with an OS that I can crash with a simple printf statement! (that bug has existed since NT3.5 I believe. It also exists in WinXP). Don't believe me? If you're running a windows box other than 9x, ME or 3.1
int main()
{
for (int i=0; i1000; i++)
{
printf("\t\b\b\b\b\b");
}
return 0;
}
Compile it in Visual C++ as a console program. Similar thing will work in most programming languages. I haven't tried a java applet yet;-)
Ummm wave particle duality? Seriously. You can mathematically derive that everything has to be particle based at the quantum level. Its been done and done often. However this is not the case experimentally. So the particle nature of the electron is "relaxed" (i.e. fudged) using wave particle duality so that the experiments work right.
You can do a lot of things mathematically that are not necessairly true. That particular statement (everything has to be particle at the quantum level) simply does not agree with some basic physics experiments. Here is a simple one.
If you're in a room with fluorescent lighting (does not work with normal lightbulbs). Hold two of your fingers so that they're just, almost touching. Look at that light through those fingers. If you do it right you will see diffraction of the light (little colored rings). That's quantum mechanics at work. That's also something that CANNOT be done by a particle. You can also search the web for descriptions of single and double slit experiments. If you've heard of tunneling (which is used in electronics) that is again, only possible if the particle has wave-like properties.
As for your other comment. Well. I can't really disprove it without knowing what it is. Given your choice of sources...
Note also that for hunreds of years all the respectable scientists believed in the four aristotlean elements, impetus theory, and phlogiston theory, too.
Please note that the Greeks did not really belive in the scientific method. All of their "discoveries" where made by purely thinking about the problem. No experiments were preformed (in fact thay had no way of preforming those kinds of experiments). Still, I think they came up with things that are amazingly close to what we belive in right now. None of the "revolutions" in physics really changed things all that much. Just because we have Einstein's Relativity, that does not mean that Sir. Newton was wrong. Sir Isaac's formulas are still good enough to get us to the moon. That's not bad in my book.
Going back to the greeks for a while. The world would be a better place if people would stop and THINK on what they're going to say, BEFORE they say it.
In reply.
A) Please note that I was refering to Quantum Mechinics in particular. That theory is about century old.
B) Just like special relativity was not meant to work with gravity, so QM is not really ment to work with it. Within its bounds it is absolute (as far as I know). It may not be the absolute/true view of the universe. However, in its own realm it holds true very nicely. For you information, it also breaks down when you approach the speed of light - that's when relativistic effects become too large to ignore.
I see a small problem here. What is described as hydrino violates some of the basic principles of quantum mechanics. There is nothing especially wrong with that except:
A) For nearly a century pople have been looking at and working with the QM.
B) Can you guess how many experiments disagree with QM? Anyone? That's right. ZERO. In almost a century we have been unable to find a single experiment that does not follow QM. Einstein spend a lot of energy (pun intended) trying to disprove QM. In that regard QM is the most successful theory in history of human race (so far). Even General Relativity is an approximation (Order beta^2 if I remember properly, where beta = v/c).
I think that any experiment that makes people think "outside the box" can be called beautiful.
I forget what this one is called, but it goes something like this:
You have a light source on one end. Screen on another (a fairly long rail connecting the two.
Put a piece of horizontaly polarized glass between light and screen - the intensity of light on the screen is cut in half.
Add another piece of (vertically this time) polarized glass - there is virutally no light going through.
Lastly - add a piece of polarized glass that's at about 45 degrees half way in between the other two. What do you expect to see on the screen?
I'm just graduating from Computing Science. I guess I do not know a lot about the "REAL WORLD".
Isn't it a mark of a good design when a system is modular? I mean, if one component needs to be replaced/rewritter you just rewrite that one component and be done with it. I can't even think that a project the size of Windows, IE, Media Plaer combined as a spaghetti code could even run.
Is it just me, or does it seem tha Microsoft is PROUD of the fact that they do not have a design?