So they are requiring an NDA and charging for the right to use the 'communications protocols'. There is no where in the proposed settlement that states they have to make their code "Open Source" is there?
Just because something isn't GNU doesn't make it illegal.
As you might have read in the article, 'The settlement allows Microsoft to charge for the communications protocols, but says they must be distributed "on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms."' Clearly making membership in Microsoft's Passport a requirement to view the protocols (not the source code!) is not reasonable.
In fact, they don't even let you see either the license agreement you will need to sign or the royalty rates you will need to pay until you comply with their demands.
In my opinion, the protocol (not the source code!) should have been made freely available, as comminication with a monopoly OS can only be done "on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms" in that way. Then an open source solution to interacting with those protocols could be developed. How could anything but free access be nondiscriminatory?
Where YOU specifically get it wrong is your response to others' posts about why we need copyright. Since creative work is assumed to be a benefit to society, obviously maximizing benefit to society involves, at least, maximizing the amount of creative work produced.
We have to balance quantity of production against the utility of what is produced. The current law "balances" copyrights so that 99.8% of the total possible profit goes to the copyright holder, while the publics right to use that work in the public domain gets assigned a value of 0.2%. (Please see Lessig's page for details on this.) In truth, artists working for big labels don't get hardly any of this 99.8%, for example the Dixie Chicks made more than $200M without getting even $1M back.
The copyright balance is way too far in favor of copyright holders, and not nearly enough in the direction of the public's interest in using those works, or even in the artists themselves.
not everyone who supports copyrights, etc, are rich. whould you work for free?
You seem to be implying that copyrights ensure that the people who did the "work" would get paid. This is cerainly not true. In many cases, the people who did the work are long dead. I'd be delighted to work for free after I'm dead. Some are even copyrighting things which have already been placed into the public domain. The whole thing has become a mockery of the original intent.
THEN the crux of game development will be character development, art direction, and plot-related.
The crux of game development is, was, and always will be making a game that is fun to play. So-called *actual photo-realistic detail* is not the goal, frame rates and physics don't make a game fun. How realistic was Worms 2?
They can't accurately predict the weather 2 days in advance
Weather is much harder to predict than climate. If you can average over a year, a lot of the details even out. Weather is all about those pesky details, while climate is about the averages. Much easier to crunch.
Ancient Chinese legends explained that the mineral jade was actually petrified dragon semen.(Sorry about the quality of the reference link, I can't find a better one.)
So, can anyone come up with a concise line of reasoning that will work?
How about a technical solution? If a few kind souls would set up packet snifferes that would intercept random emails, and return copies to the sender with the preface "I saw you were sending this message. I am forwarding this to a few other people I know who might be interested." Crypto use would go up immediately.
English is STILL not a dead languadge. If you want an unchanging languadge go learn latin.
I believe the Pope keeps his records in Latin, and that occasionally he commisions the creation of a new word in Latin when they can't get by otherwise. The Latin word for "helicopter" is such a word. So even Latin is not a safe refuge from change.
Steve Ballmer not only searches for and uses unprotected net, but tells others where to get access to Mountaineer services. Check the InfoWorld article.
Here is arcane information, buried, for your enjoyment, in with many meaningless posts. Did you know that 9x6=42 if the base is 13. Think about it. You may now resume your day.
Could you give a longer example of RPN? I can't see the difference...
In RPN, the operation requested is done *when* you press the button. With algebraic, the requested operation is done "at some later time".
You don't need to memorize any rules of precedence with RPN, what you push is what you get.
If you have a good clean image at 300 dpi you will not notice the difference at all... The grandparent to this post is totally correct, and you are wrong, it does not matter for photos one bit. Your grain on an indoor film at 5 x 7 is going to be around 200 dpi anyway.
Thanks for the vote of confidence. Brad Templeton seems to have the most understandable page on the resolution of normal 35mm film shot with "good" standard pratice, not the best film with perfect technique. I'm not talking about pictures made with a plastic lens Kodak disposable camera. According to him, you should be able to get 12 megapixels on your 35mm film. Blown up to a 5"x7" print, that means 600 DPI. At that size, each pixel is 2.6 sq mils. At 200 DPI, each pixel is 25 sq mils. So, if you don't mind having your dots 10 times as big, you will be happy.
When you say I won't notice the difference, I have to wonder if you know I carry a B&L Hastings Triplet with me at all times. >:-)
This WOULD be true if the printer were able to produce infintely variable shades of each pixel. Unfortunately they are not capable of that. Just ON or OFF...
Modern inkjet technology is not just ON or OFF. They do volume control to regulate the density of color. Current technology is amazing, they regulate volume into the low picoliter range. Here is a cheap $99 HP printer, capable of doing 2400x1200 resolution on photo paper. Here is an explaination of HP PhotoREt technology, although other printer makers can do similar kinds of things. Even assuming you need eight "dots" to get a true 24 bit color, that is giving you a real 600x600 DPI resolution.
I print 5X7 prints with my 2.1 Megapixel Cannon all day long at 1200dpi and get 35mm 1hour processing quality prints.
Even if you've got a bottom-of-the-barrel $49 printer, it will do at least 600x600DPI. A 5"x7" print will use 3000x4200 pixels at that resolution, or over 12 megapixels. Dye sublimation will hide the loss of clarity because the process is inherently blurry at the pixel level, there is no set of sharp dots. But if you are looking for great contrasty detail, like nature photography where you want to see veining on a dragonfly wing, you are going to want those pixels. A 2.1 megapixel camera will give you far less than 300x300 DPI on a 5"x7".
Even a (relatively) cheap 35mm SLR like the Canon Eos Rebel at under $250 will easily take negatives with ordinary film that will print a 8"x10" that you will need a magnifying glass to see all the detail.
I use a special debit card that only has enough money on it to buy what I buy online. It's accepted everywhere a credit card is and doesn't invoke any fee's (free checking and debit account). Paypal can't be any better than that.
PayPal is better than a debit card for at least two important reasons:
As a seller on eBay, I don't have to got through the expense of becoming an affiliate of a credit card company in order to accept credit card payment. Can you accept credit card payment with your debit card?
As a buyer on eBay, I can pay for an auction in a couple of minutes after the auction closes if the auction accepts PayPal. Most eBay auctions (I believe it is near two thirds) accept PayPal. Can you settle an auction like that with your card, and no PayPal account?
Visit PayPalSucks.com [paypalsucks.com] for an entire community pissed off at PayPal.com's practices.
Yes, an entire community of whining morons. "Ooo, PayPal charged me for a service!" "Ooo, PayPal prefers I use email to communicate with them!" I've used PayPal over 200 times, and they have always come through quickly, efficiently, and with great documentation of my accounts and transactions. They have even had to compensate for some of eBay's bad *coff* *monopolistic* *coff* behaviors, such as pushing BillPay and copying the PayPal "Pay Now!" button with their own "Pay Now!" button. If you don't like PayPal, don't use PayPal. How can it be any more simple?
Then there was a similar scheme that burned off a whole track with a laser. Once again, the software on the disk knew not to read the damaged portion.
The scheme only burned a tiny hole in one sector. The copy protection routine deliberatly tried to write that sector, and if it succeeded, then the disk was assumed to be pirate. A sector that was not supposed to be damaged was also written, to check that the disk was not just write protected. It was a very popular scheme
The third is that people write shitty HTML. I see it all the time. Not closing tags, overlapping tags, missing tags, extra tags, etc. I've also seen some browsers totally NOT SHOW TEXT when it runs across HTML that it screwed up on. For example, I think it was Netscape 4 that failed to show data in a table if the table wasn't closed. IE showed the data ok. Crappy HTML, but IE proved to be the better browser.
Ask yourself how that page got posted with the HTML errors in it. You know the answer, the author "tested" their page with IE! If IE failed to display broken HTML, just think how much better the overall quality of HTML on the net would be.
What is worse, MS tools (coff, FrontPage, coff) encourage the generation of errors which IE can read right through. It could just as easily alert you to the fact that the wrong sex of slash is being used as let it go by. Some folks see a pattern here.
A simple layer of copper screening applied to the interior of the theater, (under the wallpaper or behind the wallboard,) would solve the problem in a passive, legal, inexpensive, and foolproof way. Here's a link to an article that mentions it, look all the way at the end. You can bring your phone in, it just won't ring.
Slashdot Mirror
As you might have read in the article, 'The settlement allows Microsoft to charge for the communications protocols, but says they must be distributed "on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms."' Clearly making membership in Microsoft's Passport a requirement to view the protocols (not the source code!) is not reasonable.
In fact, they don't even let you see either the license agreement you will need to sign or the royalty rates you will need to pay until you comply with their demands.
In my opinion, the protocol (not the source code!) should have been made freely available, as comminication with a monopoly OS can only be done "on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms" in that way. Then an open source solution to interacting with those protocols could be developed. How could anything but free access be nondiscriminatory?
That ain't sayin much.
I figure you can do about 5 reboots an hour, for an 8 hour day, that's about 40 reboots to get it working. Sounds about right.
We have to balance quantity of production against the utility of what is produced. The current law "balances" copyrights so that 99.8% of the total possible profit goes to the copyright holder, while the publics right to use that work in the public domain gets assigned a value of 0.2%. (Please see Lessig's page for details on this.) In truth, artists working for big labels don't get hardly any of this 99.8%, for example the Dixie Chicks made more than $200M without getting even $1M back.
The copyright balance is way too far in favor of copyright holders, and not nearly enough in the direction of the public's interest in using those works, or even in the artists themselves.
I second this idea. Here's a links to a cheap but good kit. There are some other kits available too, google away.
You're both wrong, it should be "All Your Base-Pair Are Belong To Us"!
You seem to be implying that copyrights ensure that the people who did the "work" would get paid. This is cerainly not true. In many cases, the people who did the work are long dead. I'd be delighted to work for free after I'm dead. Some are even copyrighting things which have already been placed into the public domain. The whole thing has become a mockery of the original intent.
The crux of game development is, was, and always will be making a game that is fun to play. So-called *actual photo-realistic detail* is not the goal, frame rates and physics don't make a game fun. How realistic was Worms 2?
Weather is much harder to predict than climate. If you can average over a year, a lot of the details even out. Weather is all about those pesky details, while climate is about the averages. Much easier to crunch.
Ancient Chinese legends explained that the mineral jade was actually petrified dragon semen.(Sorry about the quality of the reference link, I can't find a better one.)
Almost certainly more than you wanted to know.
How about a technical solution? If a few kind souls would set up packet snifferes that would intercept random emails, and return copies to the sender with the preface "I saw you were sending this message. I am forwarding this to a few other people I know who might be interested." Crypto use would go up immediately.
I believe the Pope keeps his records in Latin, and that occasionally he commisions the creation of a new word in Latin when they can't get by otherwise. The Latin word for "helicopter" is such a word. So even Latin is not a safe refuge from change.
Steve Ballmer not only searches for and uses unprotected net, but tells others where to get access to Mountaineer services. Check the InfoWorld article.
Here is arcane information, buried, for your enjoyment, in with many meaningless posts.
Did you know that 9x6=42 if the base is 13.
Think about it. You may now resume your day.
Just like a scene from the movie "What's Up, Tigerlily?" by Woody Allen. "Oh no, another door!"
If you have four notes from a diatonic scale, there are only 20,736 possibilities (12^4, excluding timing variations.) Quite a bit under 50,000.
Here's an interesting page on Ogg Vorbis/MP3/etc getting the identity of what you are listening, called MusicBrainz. It is GNU open sourced.
Thanks for the vote of confidence. Brad Templeton seems to have the most understandable page on the resolution of normal 35mm film shot with "good" standard pratice, not the best film with perfect technique. I'm not talking about pictures made with a plastic lens Kodak disposable camera. According to him, you should be able to get 12 megapixels on your 35mm film. Blown up to a 5"x7" print, that means 600 DPI. At that size, each pixel is 2.6 sq mils. At 200 DPI, each pixel is 25 sq mils. So, if you don't mind having your dots 10 times as big, you will be happy.
When you say I won't notice the difference, I have to wonder if you know I carry a B&L Hastings Triplet with me at all times. >:-)
Modern inkjet technology is not just ON or OFF. They do volume control to regulate the density of color. Current technology is amazing, they regulate volume into the low picoliter range. Here is a cheap $99 HP printer, capable of doing 2400x1200 resolution on photo paper. Here is an explaination of HP PhotoREt technology, although other printer makers can do similar kinds of things. Even assuming you need eight "dots" to get a true 24 bit color, that is giving you a real 600x600 DPI resolution.
Even if you've got a bottom-of-the-barrel $49 printer, it will do at least 600x600DPI. A 5"x7" print will use 3000x4200 pixels at that resolution, or over 12 megapixels. Dye sublimation will hide the loss of clarity because the process is inherently blurry at the pixel level, there is no set of sharp dots. But if you are looking for great contrasty detail, like nature photography where you want to see veining on a dragonfly wing, you are going to want those pixels. A 2.1 megapixel camera will give you far less than 300x300 DPI on a 5"x7".
Even a (relatively) cheap 35mm SLR like the Canon Eos Rebel at under $250 will easily take negatives with ordinary film that will print a 8"x10" that you will need a magnifying glass to see all the detail.
PayPal is better than a debit card for at least two important reasons:
As a seller on eBay, I don't have to got through the expense of becoming an affiliate of a credit card company in order to accept credit card payment. Can you accept credit card payment with your debit card?
As a buyer on eBay, I can pay for an auction in a couple of minutes after the auction closes if the auction accepts PayPal. Most eBay auctions (I believe it is near two thirds) accept PayPal. Can you settle an auction like that with your card, and no PayPal account?
Yes, an entire community of whining morons. "Ooo, PayPal charged me for a service!" "Ooo, PayPal prefers I use email to communicate with them!" I've used PayPal over 200 times, and they have always come through quickly, efficiently, and with great documentation of my accounts and transactions. They have even had to compensate for some of eBay's bad *coff* *monopolistic* *coff* behaviors, such as pushing BillPay and copying the PayPal "Pay Now!" button with their own "Pay Now!" button. If you don't like PayPal, don't use PayPal. How can it be any more simple?
The scheme only burned a tiny hole in one sector. The copy protection routine deliberatly tried to write that sector, and if it succeeded, then the disk was assumed to be pirate. A sector that was not supposed to be damaged was also written, to check that the disk was not just write protected. It was a very popular scheme
Ask yourself how that page got posted with the HTML errors in it. You know the answer, the author "tested" their page with IE! If IE failed to display broken HTML, just think how much better the overall quality of HTML on the net would be.
What is worse, MS tools (coff, FrontPage, coff) encourage the generation of errors which IE can read right through. It could just as easily alert you to the fact that the wrong sex of slash is being used as let it go by. Some folks see a pattern here.
A simple layer of copper screening applied to the interior of the theater, (under the wallpaper or behind the wallboard,) would solve the problem in a passive, legal, inexpensive, and foolproof way. Here's a link to an article that mentions it, look all the way at the end. You can bring your phone in, it just won't ring.