>>be financed from taxes and not have a special
>>authority for this is IMHO very valid. Would mean
>>less bureaucracy, and a more fair distribution of
>>burden.)
>This, I fully agree with. Public broadcasting
>should be supported through taxes--tax support
>means lower expenses (compared to having a
>separate billing apparatus) and it automatically
>makes contributions progressive. And I think that
>tax-supported public broadcasting is very
>valuable; it just has to serve a public purpose.
>The German "public" broadcasters, however, are
>just behavving like heavily subsidized private broadcasters.
I'd rather like them to move toward "Public Digital PayPerView Content" broadcasting
1. Public - as in make it availible to the whole public, without Encumbered-DRM and such... easy for anyone to access... using totally Open and Public Standards
2. Digital - well, TV in my country is allready moving toward 'Total Digital TV'... no point in not complying
3. PayPerView - I'd like to be able to "pay a nominal fee" (just the actual "cost of production + diverse minor costs by the broadcaster[s]", NOT those kind of 'private broadcasting'-costs where 50% or more are just absolutely _pure PROFITS_; after all 'Public Broadcasting' is to serve the People, not ones own/someones wallet[s]), for the stuff I'd like to view.
*and* Gee, how much of the content that they 'air' does one really watch?... so why keep paying for stuff one doesn't even look at, and then count the amount of content one can't look at as one is to occupied with sleep, work, school or other.stuff!?!:).So *again*, why pay for all of that "overhead"?... and why would anyone pay to maintain (the req. broadcasting equipment) for such unused "overhead" in the first place?... I see it as 'Double Waste' of my money...
4. Content - And make it so one doesn't have to own a completely separte hardware to be able to view the 'Content' - seamless from regular TV-sets to Computers, to other embeded systems (like mobilephones/portable-media-players...etc)
...and as it *wouldn't* kind of make sense to keep the 'TV'... if one moves to a 'Per Content'-broadcasting scheme... then again, s/Content/TV/ for the "YOU know whoos, who are to YOU know what - whom couldn't figure this line out":-)
And, Yeah, all of this is/has been allready solved in one way or another... just the "makeing it a seamless" solution needs a *lot* of work on... but the basic "Tech." is allready around us...
what I did, and you might have to do to (if link doesn't work), is to go here and search for (in/under 'Articles'): " Laura Juliano " or/xor " Roland R. Griffiths "
No the lame thing is spending 1 hour and 20 minutes on an inconsequential post by a leftists who would believe anything the left says and nothing the right says, in front of a bunch of people who are probably similar. If you really want an argument against leftism, visit rightists blogs, that's all I can say, because no serious rightist is going to spend much time in the leftwing troll orgy that is slashdot. (notice how my first post in this thread was modded "troll" and wasn't..)
*slap's thoughtterrorist & coaxial*
can't you take a look at yourselfs for one moment!
both of you are on 'the same side'... but still you bicker among yourselfs like two little children throwing sand at each other *grow up, both of you'vs*
Things as on non-american I don't get is why that/your *asshole, IMHO* of a president can say "you are either with us, or with the terrorists" amazes me, divide his own country into two... spreading unverified (to 100%) information about a country having WMD (as it's a grave eminet threat to 'your' saftey) AND not taking the time to verify the claims (to 100%) prior doing any engaging...... And still not be ashamed of himself (and how he behaved) and feel honorless.
*well* IT IS beyond ${ME}, and my comprehension of *this* world we live in!
PS. I call your president (bush) an 'asshole' as it's my prerogative as a citizen of a free democratic country to express what ever I feel - isn't it?! - or do we *two* live in other type of controlled countries?
The most un-democroting thing I've heared someone say (in a speach to the masses) was his, "you are either with us, or with the terrorists" - heck, me contradicting him, asking questions, not going along with his agenda would make ${ME} a 'terrorist'.
PS. I say 'unverified' - as it beats me who's telling the thruth... one say 'ditt' another source says datt... ditt... datt... ditt... ditt... ditt.. datt... datt... datt... ditt... datt... so who's telling the thruth? whom should I belive is?... *etc*
PS. I say 'your' country is divided into two - as, let's face it. IT IS/* just more and more and more of that ditt... datt... ditt...datt -ing going along... */
PS. contrary to what you may (or may not) be thinking - Im rather a apolitical (I don't care what 'party' one is, as long as the solution is a wise one!) person whom can't stand by to see unjustness be commited (no mater what the pretext might be!).
Ban/prohibit M$ like, the FCC *IIRC* did with AT&T from competing/'making money' in anything but their $TELECOM-BUSINESS?.../* obviously, in this case M$ would be banned relatively to their $BUSINESS (that's their 1st $CORE.BUSINESS)*/
Heck, it happened to AT&T and it might happen again to another company... but in retrospect, M$ relative to AT&T is still considered fairly $NEW.../* time will tell, if it'll happen again:) */
"The TNETV1600 platform "provides the cost savings, flexibility and power management to allow developers to manufacture a
WLAN IP phone with talk and standby time comparable to cell phones," according to the Dallas, Texas-based company.
... so that when you are close (with or enabled-mobilephone) to a 'hotspot'.... you could call someone via VoIP instead....
Heck, it makes one userfirendly way for newbies who would like to enable VoIP at home, "use your regular mobile" instead of/over "<all that what one does at the computer to make VoIP calls...>"... lets face it, most ppl who can operate a phone can't operate a computer, but one that can operate a computer can also operate a phone:)...
46. Microsoft Corp., Redmond, Wash., 47, $32.187
301. Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, Calif., 300, $6.207
billon dollar businesses. - Now according to Steve Jobs himself (from WWDC2004) the ipod's have a +50% market share (mesured by units!).
- - -
Ok, now let's do some *simple* math!:).
$58 Billions * 0.50+ = $APPLE.MP3.PROFITS+
${APPLE.MP3.PROFITS}+ + 6.207 = $35.207+ Billions
- - -
say, if M$ has to compete with the 'Linux Desktop' for markes share(s), which *let's assume will* hamper them from further increasing *much*... APPLE would by 2008 at least catch up to them... simply by not competing for the 'Desktop':-)
/* Quote [emphasis added]: "The new initiative is an extension of Microsoft's Government Security Program, which allows the governments of more than 30 countries to examine
most of Microsoft's underlying source code, or software blueprint for its flagship Windows operating system." */
* what is 'required' to agree beforehand with?..and how will this agreement effect ones ability to work (with other 'source code(s)') in the future to come?
/* Quote [emphasis added] : "Redmond, Washington-based Microsoft
keeps its source code closely guarded, and requires any governments or companies to sign agreements not to divulge the data that is used to create its software programs." */
but, since you state "will never be commercial", I can't for the love of me figure out why you haven't tried to improve an existing project doing a racing/car-sim? Why have you chosen to "re-invent the wheel"?... of say, Racer
/* From my POV, you aren't that much into "ooh oohh, our engines is so much better then yours"-cockfight (these weird Big Business Players are) - but more into a "Creating Game Content"-approach instead - why I find it odd that you've decided to 're-invent' an engine of your own, instead of going with something allready _proven_ to be a worthy engine. That's all.*/
DISCLAIMER: site got slashdoted, and haven't had the oportunity to double-check the facts!
as someone else has said before me, this isssue isn't quite that easy to "brush aside", and has to be scrutinized a little bit more *IMHO*.
How is the GPL going to be interpreted?
As you point out "if they provide the source, too, then they ought to be fine", BUT, as 'parrent' pointed out, they don't provide the source for the resp. binaries they sell, the source for the win32 version; only the source for the *nix-platform(s).
so... how is the GPL going to be interpreted?
*) source(s) has to be provided for the same platform as the sold binaries?
*) it suffices if one only provides source for one of the platforms <software> is ported to/supports?
IANAL.... but I'd say this area seems kinda like a 'grey area' someone hasn't shone a (bright enough) light on.
So I'd say, "no, this is still a (fairly) interesting topic to follow..."
This has nothing to do with Parent or GrandParent, a completely different thing.
DISCLAMIR: haven't used reiserfs (extensively that I'd say I know reiserfs. I've done one suse test-install with reiserFS, hardly qualifies...)
I was wondering if reiser4 could do:
It's like so I happen to have a few infamous IBM Desktop GXP75's - where some have shown that they have bad blocks.
What I was wondering, does reiser4 do: "mark bad blocks it finds under the/a extensive format as unusable"?
apart from the (few) bad blocks the drive(s) work flawlessly - and it'd be a damn shame of a waste to replace them, because one couldn't tell the FS/kernel "don't go there/use those damn blocks!" - to my knowledge, most FS's have an option to check for 'bad blocks' but none are 'smrt' enought to leave them out when creating the FS...
Of course, it could be argued to use IBM's DFT to remap the bad blocks internally, but for some reason even that fails... (can't recall the error msg forehand)... but it could be it finds to many bad blocks, and it hasn't enough 'spare blocks' to remap em' to - to which of course my initial reply whould be, "how about just marking them unsuable for eternity? and yes, even if I loose some space doing so...."
At last, after writing this - I'm left pondering: Ok, maybe "leaving em' out"/"creating the FS around" the 'bad blocks' woludn't work; *this* 'dancnig threes'... *hum*, what about during an extensive format 'isolate & wrap in' 'bad blocks' into a file(s?), and mark it so that the Kernel/OS/FS is never ever allowed to access this file? Additionally,
one can't prevent 'bad blocks' from ever starting occurring (at most/best, we could prelong the inneverable of happing sooner...) - but one could at least provide a solution to work around future occurring 'bad blocks' by adding them to the file(s?) this way.
...*ok, enough blurbbing nonsense*
/* btw, my handy work-around, was to divide the drive into parts, do an (ext3) extensive format.. and that way start to pin-point where on the drive the blocks where located... etc etc, and finally not mount the effected parts (of course, I did combine the unaffected 'parts' into one partition, at the end...)... */
>P.S.---I can't believe that the banner ad at the top of my browser window as I write this is actually blinking at me. Thanks,/. editors. Do me a favor, folks, and don't buy anything from Server Beach.
why? *just curious, as from the post you seem like a bright person...*
Slashdot Mirror
>>be financed from taxes and not have a special
>>authority for this is IMHO very valid. Would mean
>>less bureaucracy, and a more fair distribution of
>>burden.)
>This, I fully agree with. Public broadcasting
>should be supported through taxes--tax support
>means lower expenses (compared to having a
>separate billing apparatus) and it automatically
>makes contributions progressive. And I think that
>tax-supported public broadcasting is very
>valuable; it just has to serve a public purpose.
>The German "public" broadcasters, however, are
>just behavving like heavily subsidized private broadcasters.
I'd rather like them to move toward "Public Digital PayPerView Content" broadcasting
1. Public - as in make it availible to the whole public, without Encumbered-DRM and such ... easy for anyone to access ... using totally Open and Public Standards
2. Digital - well, TV in my country is allready moving toward 'Total Digital TV' ... no point in not complying
3. PayPerView - I'd like to be able to "pay a nominal fee" (just the actual "cost of production + diverse minor costs by the broadcaster[s]", NOT those kind of 'private broadcasting'-costs where 50% or more are just absolutely _pure PROFITS_; after all 'Public Broadcasting' is to serve the People, not ones own/someones wallet[s]), for the stuff I'd like to view.
*and* Gee, how much of the content that they 'air' does one really watch? ... so why keep paying for stuff one doesn't even look at, and then count the amount of content one can't look at as one is to occupied with sleep, work, school or other.stuff!?! :).So *again*, why pay for all of that "overhead"? ... and why would anyone pay to maintain (the req. broadcasting equipment) for such unused "overhead" in the first place? ... I see it as 'Double Waste' of my money...
4. Content - And make it so one doesn't have to own a completely separte hardware to be able to view the 'Content' - seamless from regular TV-sets to Computers, to other embeded systems (like mobilephones/portable-media-players...etc)
And, Yeah, all of this is/has been allready solved in one way or another
<EMBED width="100%" height="100%" name="plugin" src="goodtobeindc.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash">
BTW - change width= & height= if it's to big for ya
what I did, and you might have to do to (if link doesn't work), is to go here and search for (in/under 'Articles'): " Laura Juliano " or/xor " Roland R. Griffiths "
Here's some info:
Psychopharmacology
Publisher: Springer-Verlag Heidelberg
ISSN: 0033-3158 (Paper) 1432-2072 (Online)
DOI: 10.1007/s00213-004-2000-x
Issue: Volume 176, Number 1
Date: October 2004
Pages: 1 - 29
Review: "A critical review of caffeine withdrawal: empirical validation of symptoms and signs, incidence, severity, and associated features"
Here is the original Johns Hopkins Medicine (hopkinsmedicine.org) press release ( +printer friendly version)
*opps*
Ok! rather 'catchy'...
*then* who's telling the lie?
I'd bet my last $0.03 both sides would swear on their mothers graves they are, and point the finger at each other.
BTW, so if none of the 'parties' can be thrused, then whom would you go to?
*slap's thoughtterrorist & coaxial*
can't you take a look at yourselfs for one moment!
both of you are on 'the same side' ... but still you bicker among yourselfs like two little children throwing sand at each other *grow up, both of you'vs*
Things as on non-american I don't get is why that/your *asshole, IMHO* of a president can say "you are either with us, or with the terrorists" amazes me, divide his own country into two ... spreading unverified (to 100%) information about a country having WMD (as it's a grave eminet threat to 'your' saftey) AND not taking the time to verify the claims (to 100%) prior doing any engaging ...... And still not be ashamed of himself (and how he behaved) and feel honorless.
*well* IT IS beyond ${ME}, and my comprehension of *this* world we live in!
PS. I call your president (bush) an 'asshole' as it's my prerogative as a citizen of a free democratic country to express what ever I feel - isn't it?! - or do we *two* live in other type of controlled countries?
The most un-democroting thing I've heared someone say (in a speach to the masses) was his, "you are either with us, or with the terrorists" - heck, me contradicting him, asking questions, not going along with his agenda would make ${ME} a 'terrorist'.
PS. I say 'unverified' - as it beats me who's telling the thruth ... one say 'ditt' another source says datt ... ditt ... datt ... ditt ... ditt ... ditt .. datt ... datt ... datt ... ditt ... datt ... so who's telling the thruth? whom should I belive is? ... *etc*
PS. I say 'your' country is divided into two - as, let's face it. IT IS /* just more and more and more of that ditt ... datt ... ditt ...datt -ing going along ... */
PS. contrary to what you may (or may not) be thinking - Im rather a apolitical (I don't care what 'party' one is, as long as the solution is a wise one!) person whom can't stand by to see unjustness be commited (no mater what the pretext might be!).
Ban/prohibit M$ like, the FCC *IIRC* did with AT&T from competing/'making money' in anything but their $TELECOM-BUSINESS? .../* obviously, in this case M$ would be banned relatively to their $BUSINESS (that's their 1st $CORE.BUSINESS)*/
Heck, it happened to AT&T and it might happen again to another company ... but in retrospect, M$ relative to AT&T is still considered fairly $NEW ... /* time will tell, if it'll happen again :) */
A's - I'm upset because $PERSON didn't ask me for permission. *a matter of principle* ...
B's - I'm upset because $PERSON got a peek into my 'secrete/private'-life. *a matter of humiliation*
A) $PERSON invaded your privacy
B) $PERSON caught you on $TAPE, $DOING what ever $YOU'vs where doing?
don't you "see the picture"?
to quote one phrase from the article
Heck, it makes one userfirendly way for newbies who would like to enable VoIP at home, "use your regular mobile" instead of/over "<all that what one does at the computer to make VoIP calls...>" ... lets face it, most ppl who can operate a phone can't operate a computer, but one that can operate a computer can also operate a phone :) ...
BUT what if one heats it up to more then 75C? ... what happens then?!
so head over to: www.johnkerry.com
if you'd like to know more about Kerry.
I knooow, hit me the sec. I pressed 'submit'
According to the Fortune 500 list, M$ and Apple are resp. :
46. Microsoft Corp., Redmond, Wash., 47, $32.187
301. Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, Calif., 300, $6.207
billon dollar businesses. - Now according to Steve Jobs himself (from WWDC2004) the ipod's have a +50% market share (mesured by units!).
- - -
Ok, now let's do some *simple* math! :).
$58 Billions * 0.50+ = $APPLE.MP3.PROFITS+
${APPLE.MP3.PROFITS}+ + 6.207 = $35.207+ Billions
- - -
say, if M$ has to compete with the 'Linux Desktop' for markes share(s), which *let's assume will* hamper them from further increasing *much* ... APPLE would by 2008 at least catch up to them ... simply by not competing for the 'Desktop' :-)
* what is 'required' to agree beforehand with? ..and how will this agreement effect ones ability to work (with other 'source code(s)') in the future to come?
I guess we've to let 'Miss Time' be the wise fortuneteller, won't we?!
c'ya in a year or so :-)
but, since you state "will never be commercial" , I can't for the love of me figure out why you haven't tried to improve an existing project doing a racing/car-sim? Why have you chosen to "re-invent the wheel"? ... of say, Racer
PS, and did I mention, it too is cross-platform?
as someone else has said before me, this isssue isn't quite that easy to "brush aside", and has to be scrutinized a little bit more *IMHO*.
How is the GPL going to be interpreted?
As you point out "if they provide the source, too, then they ought to be fine", BUT, as 'parrent' pointed out, they don't provide the source for the resp. binaries they sell, the source for the win32 version; only the source for the *nix-platform(s).
so... how is the GPL going to be interpreted?
*) it suffices if one only provides source for one of the platforms <software> is ported to/supports?
IANAL .... but I'd say this area seems kinda like a 'grey area' someone hasn't shone a (bright enough) light on.
So I'd say, "no, this is still a (fairly) interesting topic to follow..."
It'd be a waste of resources if 'we' all started crafting at the same basic thing(s) .... instead of helping each other....
sincerely, from still prefer my CLI over my GUI (KDE) *user*
DISCLAMIR: haven't used reiserfs (extensively that I'd say I know reiserfs. I've done one suse test-install with reiserFS, hardly qualifies ...)
I was wondering if reiser4 could do:
What I was wondering, does reiser4 do: "mark bad blocks it finds under the/a extensive format as unusable"?
apart from the (few) bad blocks the drive(s) work flawlessly - and it'd be a damn shame of a waste to replace them, because one couldn't tell the FS/kernel "don't go there/use those damn blocks!" - to my knowledge, most FS's have an option to check for 'bad blocks' but none are 'smrt' enought to leave them out when creating the FS...
Of course, it could be argued to use IBM's DFT to remap the bad blocks internally, but for some reason even that fails... (can't recall the error msg forehand) ... but it could be it finds to many bad blocks, and it hasn't enough 'spare blocks' to remap em' to - to which of course my initial reply whould be, "how about just marking them unsuable for eternity? and yes, even if I loose some space doing so ...."
At last, after writing this - I'm left pondering: Ok, maybe "leaving em' out"/"creating the FS around" the 'bad blocks' woludn't work; *this* 'dancnig threes' ... *hum*, what about during an extensive format 'isolate & wrap in' 'bad blocks' into a file(s?), and mark it so that the Kernel/OS/FS is never ever allowed to access this file? Additionally,
one can't prevent 'bad blocks' from ever starting occurring (at most/best, we could prelong the inneverable of happing sooner...) - but one could at least provide a solution to work around future occurring 'bad blocks' by adding them to the file(s?) this way.
say, H.264 anyone?
ah. so other than a bad PR judgement, they are ok.
>about grammar
all right'y then. think I found what you where saying.
why? *just curious, as from the post you seem like a bright person ...*