Believing that the Sun is the center of the solar system: check.
Believing that time slows down as speed increases: check.
Just because a lot of people think your ideas are insane doesn't mean they aren't valid.
I'll bite.
I studied physics. Trust me, it's valid. If you don't believe me, you can study it too.
More to the point, those statements are useful in the sense that they can be used to successfully make predictions about the observable outcomes of your actions before you take those actions. What good is the statement, "Santa exists", if the truth of that statement is observationally indistinguishable from the statement, "Santa does not exist"?
Same with God. Either you define "God" so vaguely and unverifiably that a belief in that God serves no useful purpose, or you define it more clearly, and it becomes demonstrably false.
That is basically what is meant when people talk about the falsifiability of a particular claim.
We use code reviews to communicate about changes with the rest of the team. When we make significant changes, we plop them into our review tool so that everyone gets a chance to see how the code is evolving, to learn from each other, and to provide feedback.
It's also a great way to identify when team members don't know how the code works. If somebody says, "I don't understand any of this at all", then we know that it's time to sit down and explain things, and maybe add some documentation.
Amateurs. North Korea is not only phasing our nuclear-generated electricity; they're phasing out electricity altogether! This is great for astronomers in the country, and leaves a much smaller environmental footprint.
Inevitably content gets ripped, true. But the goal is often to discourage the casual effort.
A simple advisory flag would accomplish that.
More to the point: Given that DRM doesn't prevent the content from leaking onto the open Internet, who cares whether users casually rip their streams? It doesn't make an actual, substantial difference.
Inevitably content gets ripped, true. But the goal is often to discourage the casual effort.
A simple advisory flag would accomplish that.
There are sites which let you download a YouTube link to watch on a future date offline. I know of no such site for Netflix. There might be a way to do it but it's not going to be trivial. It would be easier as you mention to just torrent it from another source.
I don't anybody personally who has ever ripped a Netflix Instant stream. That sounds like a successful operation to me.
The success criterion for DRM isn't "prevent everyone from ripping a Netflix stream", it's "prevent everyone from ripping Doctor Who". People don't rip Netflix right now simply because there are currently easier sources. Meanwhile, for example, the record labels have handed their entire electronic distribution system to Apple. Oops.
Microsoft has recently shifted its strategy on Silverlight as a cross-platform solution and now wants to implement standards-based HTML5 really, really, really well in Internet Explorer 9.
But HTML 5 doesn't offer the same level of encryption as Silverlight.
Oh, give it a rest. The only reason why content providers even bother with that is because there's always some jerk who is willing to lie to them about what crypto can do, and the content providers themselves aren't savvy enough to know any better.
Encryption in DRM is a waste. of. time. The *only* thing it accomplishes is vendor lock-in for the maker of the DRM-encumbered platform. If you think encryption in DRM protects content providers, then you don't know what you're talking about.
Do you honestly think that I couldn't find anything I want from Netflix on a torrent site somewhere, if I wanted to? You could replace all that crypto snake oil with a couple of simple HTTP headers, ask developers nicely to respect it by default, and you'd be done. It would "keep honest people honest", it would change nothing for the dishonest folks, and it would cost far less and avoid the lock-in of complicated crypto-based DRM monstrosities.
Most of these seemed to be in finance (from what I could gather) and I still cannot for the life of me understand why they would invest resources into critical systems using this technology.
Because they're finance people, not tech people. Tech people would know better.
That's not necessarily true. Bear in mind that, if put to a legal test, parts of the license could be found unenforceable, in which case someone could escape the terms of the GPL.
Courts generally only do that if there's a severability clause. GPL has an anti-severability clause:
If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.
It's not even doing that, since parent used the "(strong)" adjective, therefore excluding agnostic atheists (weak atheists).
The original troll was:
[troll] (Not 'fundamentalist')Religion is equally valid with atheism/naturalism because the only difference it has with (strong)atheism/naturalism lies in its fundamental assumptions. Both rely on unproven or unprovable assumptions. [/troll]:D
Note how "(strong)" came *after* "because". It can be read as, "[sweeping statement about all atheists] because the only difference it has with [the position of a small minority of atheists] is...". It's a straw-man argument combined with sloppy reasoning. It's also, unfortunately, a very common (albeit invalid) criticism of atheists generally. It's also a good troll, due to Poe's law.
Religion is equally valid with atheism/naturalism because the only difference it has with (strong)atheism/naturalism lies in its fundamental assumptions. Both rely on unproven or unprovable assumptions.
How is that a troll? I think any reasonable person can agree that gnostic atheism is indefensible.
The troll is in the implication that "atheism" means "gnostic atheism", even though the vast majority of people who self-identify as "atheist" are agnostic atheists.
No, it's not. De-compiling to source then re-compiling using a different compiler will result in different (machine) code, the copyright won't match. The only way to protect software is with short term patents...
It doesn't work that way. As it turns out, judges are not stupid. Copyright law already applies to translations of a work, and for software, there's the abstraction-filtration-comparison test.
if you just spent 5 years full time building a mission critical embedded RTOS for a commodity router you'd want to be paid for it.
In my experience, if you're building anything of value, you have customers and/or investors lined up while you're building it. Patents really don't make much of a difference.
Except for Linux, I'm not sure that that's true. Most of the GPLv2 code I've seen is actually "GPLv2 or any later version", so it can be upgraded to GPLv3.
Slashdot Mirror
Believing that the Earth is round: check.
Believing that the Sun is the center of the solar system: check.
Believing that time slows down as speed increases: check.
Just because a lot of people think your ideas are insane doesn't mean they aren't valid.
I'll bite.
I studied physics. Trust me, it's valid. If you don't believe me, you can study it too.
More to the point, those statements are useful in the sense that they can be used to successfully make predictions about the observable outcomes of your actions before you take those actions. What good is the statement, "Santa exists", if the truth of that statement is observationally indistinguishable from the statement, "Santa does not exist"?
Same with God. Either you define "God" so vaguely and unverifiably that a belief in that God serves no useful purpose, or you define it more clearly, and it becomes demonstrably false.
That is basically what is meant when people talk about the falsifiability of a particular claim.
Seriously, everyone knows code reviews are a good thing unless your ego is friggen huge.
Wrong. My ego is friggen huge, and I still know that code reviews are a good thing.
It's also a great way to identify when team members don't know how the code works. If somebody says, "I don't understand any of this at all", then we know that it's time to sit down and explain things, and maybe add some documentation.
Amateurs. North Korea is not only phasing our nuclear-generated electricity; they're phasing out electricity altogether! This is great for astronomers in the country, and leaves a much smaller environmental footprint.
But the real problem is not reactor design, it's the storage of the goddam nuclear waste!
That's a reactor design problem, actually. There are designs that provide (1) reprocessing and (2) waste with much shorter half-lifes.
Netcraft.
Inevitably content gets ripped, true. But the goal is often to discourage the casual effort.
A simple advisory flag would accomplish that.
More to the point: Given that DRM doesn't prevent the content from leaking onto the open Internet, who cares whether users casually rip their streams? It doesn't make an actual, substantial difference.
Inevitably content gets ripped, true. But the goal is often to discourage the casual effort.
A simple advisory flag would accomplish that.
There are sites which let you download a YouTube link to watch on a future date offline. I know of no such site for Netflix. There might be a way to do it but it's not going to be trivial. It would be easier as you mention to just torrent it from another source.
I don't anybody personally who has ever ripped a Netflix Instant stream. That sounds like a successful operation to me.
The success criterion for DRM isn't "prevent everyone from ripping a Netflix stream", it's "prevent everyone from ripping Doctor Who". People don't rip Netflix right now simply because there are currently easier sources. Meanwhile, for example, the record labels have handed their entire electronic distribution system to Apple. Oops.
I'm not going to believe it until Netcraft confirms it.
How's this?
Microsoft has recently shifted its strategy on Silverlight as a cross-platform solution and now wants to implement standards-based HTML5 really, really, really well in Internet Explorer 9.
But HTML 5 doesn't offer the same level of encryption as Silverlight.
Oh, give it a rest. The only reason why content providers even bother with that is because there's always some jerk who is willing to lie to them about what crypto can do, and the content providers themselves aren't savvy enough to know any better.
Encryption in DRM is a waste. of. time. The *only* thing it accomplishes is vendor lock-in for the maker of the DRM-encumbered platform. If you think encryption in DRM protects content providers, then you don't know what you're talking about.
Do you honestly think that I couldn't find anything I want from Netflix on a torrent site somewhere, if I wanted to? You could replace all that crypto snake oil with a couple of simple HTTP headers, ask developers nicely to respect it by default, and you'd be done. It would "keep honest people honest", it would change nothing for the dishonest folks, and it would cost far less and avoid the lock-in of complicated crypto-based DRM monstrosities.
Most of these seemed to be in finance (from what I could gather) and I still cannot for the life of me understand why they would invest resources into critical systems using this technology.
Because they're finance people, not tech people. Tech people would know better.
No kidding! It's not like we don't have a huge supply of real things to complain about Microsoft doing.
You're writing Java code, aren't you?
That's not necessarily true. Bear in mind that, if put to a legal test, parts of the license could be found unenforceable, in which case someone could escape the terms of the GPL.
Courts generally only do that if there's a severability clause. GPL has an anti-severability clause:
If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.
This is not an exploit of quantum cryptography.
Correct. It's an exploit of the snake oil currently being sold as "quantum cryptography".
.... It's also a good troll, due to Poe's law.
Ah... Except because I put in a smiley,":D" it's not? Or is this the paradox?
The smiley was outside the [troll][/troll] tags, so it doesn't count as part of the troll. :P
It's not even doing that, since parent used the "(strong)" adjective, therefore excluding agnostic atheists (weak atheists).
The original troll was:
[troll] (Not 'fundamentalist')Religion is equally valid with atheism/naturalism because the only difference it has with (strong)atheism/naturalism lies in its fundamental assumptions. Both rely on unproven or unprovable assumptions. [/troll] :D
Note how "(strong)" came *after* "because". It can be read as, "[sweeping statement about all atheists] because the only difference it has with [the position of a small minority of atheists] is...". It's a straw-man argument combined with sloppy reasoning. It's also, unfortunately, a very common (albeit invalid) criticism of atheists generally. It's also a good troll, due to Poe's law.
Winning arguments used to help you get laid. Of course that was before women learned how to roll their eyes.
Because only men are capable of reasoned argumentation.
Religion is equally valid with atheism/naturalism because the only difference it has with (strong)atheism/naturalism lies in its fundamental assumptions. Both rely on unproven or unprovable assumptions.
How is that a troll? I think any reasonable person can agree that gnostic atheism is indefensible.
The troll is in the implication that "atheism" means "gnostic atheism", even though the vast majority of people who self-identify as "atheist" are agnostic atheists.
RTFM
No, it's not. De-compiling to source then re-compiling using a different compiler will result in different (machine) code, the copyright won't match. The only way to protect software is with short term patents...
It doesn't work that way. As it turns out, judges are not stupid. Copyright law already applies to translations of a work, and for software, there's the abstraction-filtration-comparison test.
if you just spent 5 years full time building a mission critical embedded RTOS for a commodity router you'd want to be paid for it.
In my experience, if you're building anything of value, you have customers and/or investors lined up while you're building it. Patents really don't make much of a difference.
Ban on Sharia Law
Why is that bad? I thought justice was supposed to be blind.
You want an offensive image? You've got it.
With such a long half-life, how radioactive is it? I'd expect not very.
Except for Linux, I'm not sure that that's true. Most of the GPLv2 code I've seen is actually "GPLv2 or any later version", so it can be upgraded to GPLv3.