Ground based telescopes are good only for light that is not filtered by the atmosphere. There is a whole lot of spectrum outside it. The JWST targets the infra-red wavelengths, which would be much harder to do with an atmosphere above it
In other words, there is competition when there is no mature solution (your example) or when the only mature solution is showing its age (Blender comes to my mind).
I think the RIAA was not the object of any investigations on price fixing or anything similar. Record companies, on the other hand, seemingly insist on such hard to prove conducts.
I am not familiar with the law, but if accepting gifts from record companies or people connected to them became a crime, it would be a tad more difficult for them to exert undue influence over radios.
"A defense lawyer you may only tell you what you want to hear, so that you will pay him."
Erm... No.
Your lawyer has an obligation to tell you the truth to his/her full knowledge no matter what you want to hear. Either that or he/she can face disbarment. This is the base of the client-attorney trust relationship.
Just imagine if the government or the other part could pay your lawyer to misinform you...
If you have a good reason to think your code is inside their product (same file format, same functionality or same bugs), you can get a court order to have the code evaluated by an independent expert that can compare that specific version to your original and point out any undue similarities. If the bad guys decide they will do something funny like giving another non-infringing version, a simple compile-and-compare binaries should suffice to show it and I suspect no judge would be happy with it.
It's not easy, but it's not impossible.
While copyright law does not prevent someone grabbing your GPL code, it at least creates a mechanism that allows one to go after the bad guy. Even if it fails in several circumstances (i.e. when you don't know about the offending software), it does provide some protection.
Copyright does not prevent society from exploiting good ideas - most countries grant the right to remix/reference/quote/build-upon. Drugs are not a matter of copyright - that is patent law and is a wholly different thing. Maybe the duration of such patents and copyright can be called into question, but not the mechanisms per se. Free software is a specific case of intensely remixing and building upon someone else's work and it's wonderful that such licenses exist that encourage collaboration by ensuring nobody will be able to violate the original author's will in granting the associated and irrevocable freedoms. Copyright is the only thing that ensures those freedoms will be passed along.
Without copyright, licenses like GPL are not enforceable and anyone (or any company) can re-release modified versions of the software in the most disassembly-hostile DRM encumbered binary-only form and use this to create confusion and to ultimately destroy what we have created.
While neither copyright nor patents are something to abolish, they are not perfect yet and both need some adjustments to reflect changing development costs (drugs are getting harder to develop and approve, software is insanely cheap in comparison)
OK. But if you remove the incentive for corporations, you also remove the incentive for individuals to create meaningful contributions to human culture.
When Disney started, it was a very small outfit with just a couple guys doing cartoons. It was hardly a big corporation.
And I see other sides to it - while the original Mickey Mouse flicks should be in public domain, its more modern depictions - and there lies that immediate image recognition and its commercial value - would not fall in the same category.
Another side is that by creating this cheap knock-off, they dilute the value of the originals, associating it with an ugly falsification. If you want to make a Disney theme park, know in advance the quality standards for decoration, fantasies, character behavior and even gardening are insanely - almost prohibitively - high.
And kids would have just as much fun without the knock-offs.
What is really sad is that whoever created the park seemed necessary to use Disney characters.
Re:Another lame MS idea crashes & burns
on
Death of the UMPC?
·
· Score: 1
... And with a "Hello from Seattle" on the back.
Seriously, how can someone live in Seattle and not be embarrassed by this blatant display of total un-coolness?
A periodic test restore (or better - a disaster recovery drill) tells you that the backup is readable and it is usable to recreate the environment. A perfectly correct backup can be useless if it backs-up wrong or incomplete data.
Having proper UPSs, decent servers with RAID, fast disk-to-disk backups and a hardware retirement policy is essential. And, when compared to the cost of restoring lost data (which may include some jail time for the executive officers) it is trivial.
While I agree the last issues of BYTE was not up to the usual high standards, it was not even close to the low standards of PC Magazine.
You could still find great conceptual articles, decent coverage of non-PC platforms, lots of stuff about internet and such and was a much better read than the average computer magazine.
You say it's unintuitive just because it has no GUI.
And it shouldn't have one - it's a file system, not a userland application. The userland applications will come and may even look like Time Machine (I was once impressed, but it got less and less impressive over time, as I learned more about ZFS and LVM snapshots). I hope not - It's cool but not that much functional.
OSX is a nice piece of software and sure solves a lot of problems for its users, but claiming this is in any shape or form inspired on Time Machine is a veritable troll.
BTW, as was pointed out before, OS-level file versioning exists in a for or other since the VMS days. Most probably it was coded on VT05 terminals.
If I got it correctly, you would only have a new copy of the directory when you rename or move the file. The file will only be copied if it is changed.
And it is only necessary if you are doing it based on files. If you do it based on blocks, then only the blocks that were changed get copied.
It seems quite cool. Too bad all servers even remotely related to it appear to have been slashdotted.
Slashdot Mirror
Ground based telescopes are good only for light that is not filtered by the atmosphere. There is a whole lot of spectrum outside it. The JWST targets the infra-red wavelengths, which would be much harder to do with an atmosphere above it
Mental note: Always use a GPS beacon. This way we know where it is all the time.
Actually it looks just bad sci-fi.
What looks remarkably insane is that people really believe it happened.
If you had to use time travel, you would not really predict the future - you would be documenting it.
And I can see this particular part of the future has a very strong chance of sucking really bad.
In other words, there is competition when there is no mature solution (your example) or when the only mature solution is showing its age (Blender comes to my mind).
That's very interesting. I didn't knew the 2600 used the high-impedance state as a state in itself. Where is this used in the 2600?
I think the RIAA was not the object of any investigations on price fixing or anything similar. Record companies, on the other hand, seemingly insist on such hard to prove conducts.
I am not familiar with the law, but if accepting gifts from record companies or people connected to them became a crime, it would be a tad more difficult for them to exert undue influence over radios.
Maybe some laws could be revised.
"A defense lawyer you may only tell you what you want to hear, so that you will pay him."
Erm... No.
Your lawyer has an obligation to tell you the truth to his/her full knowledge no matter what you want to hear. Either that or he/she can face disbarment. This is the base of the client-attorney trust relationship.
Just imagine if the government or the other part could pay your lawyer to misinform you...
If you have a good reason to think your code is inside their product (same file format, same functionality or same bugs), you can get a court order to have the code evaluated by an independent expert that can compare that specific version to your original and point out any undue similarities. If the bad guys decide they will do something funny like giving another non-infringing version, a simple compile-and-compare binaries should suffice to show it and I suspect no judge would be happy with it.
It's not easy, but it's not impossible.
While copyright law does not prevent someone grabbing your GPL code, it at least creates a mechanism that allows one to go after the bad guy. Even if it fails in several circumstances (i.e. when you don't know about the offending software), it does provide some protection.
We should be able to increase maximum mod limits. +1 true
Mostly kids that want the next Spiderman in HD for free.
Copyright does not prevent society from exploiting good ideas - most countries grant the right to remix/reference/quote/build-upon. Drugs are not a matter of copyright - that is patent law and is a wholly different thing. Maybe the duration of such patents and copyright can be called into question, but not the mechanisms per se. Free software is a specific case of intensely remixing and building upon someone else's work and it's wonderful that such licenses exist that encourage collaboration by ensuring nobody will be able to violate the original author's will in granting the associated and irrevocable freedoms. Copyright is the only thing that ensures those freedoms will be passed along.
Without copyright, licenses like GPL are not enforceable and anyone (or any company) can re-release modified versions of the software in the most disassembly-hostile DRM encumbered binary-only form and use this to create confusion and to ultimately destroy what we have created.
While neither copyright nor patents are something to abolish, they are not perfect yet and both need some adjustments to reflect changing development costs (drugs are getting harder to develop and approve, software is insanely cheap in comparison)
Exactly how far to the East you think Brazil is?
... of radio silence.
OK. But if you remove the incentive for corporations, you also remove the incentive for individuals to create meaningful contributions to human culture.
When Disney started, it was a very small outfit with just a couple guys doing cartoons. It was hardly a big corporation.
And I see other sides to it - while the original Mickey Mouse flicks should be in public domain, its more modern depictions - and there lies that immediate image recognition and its commercial value - would not fall in the same category.
Another side is that by creating this cheap knock-off, they dilute the value of the originals, associating it with an ugly falsification. If you want to make a Disney theme park, know in advance the quality standards for decoration, fantasies, character behavior and even gardening are insanely - almost prohibitively - high.
And kids would have just as much fun without the knock-offs.
What is really sad is that whoever created the park seemed necessary to use Disney characters.
... And with a "Hello from Seattle" on the back.
Seriously, how can someone live in Seattle and not be embarrassed by this blatant display of total un-coolness?
This must be a Microsoft employee trying to make Mac users look bad.
Being close almost past 40, I'd take that deal. ;-)
A periodic test restore (or better - a disaster recovery drill) tells you that the backup is readable and it is usable to recreate the environment. A perfectly correct backup can be useless if it backs-up wrong or incomplete data.
Having proper UPSs, decent servers with RAID, fast disk-to-disk backups and a hardware retirement policy is essential. And, when compared to the cost of restoring lost data (which may include some jail time for the executive officers) it is trivial.
Anything less is risking too much.
Really, the question is why supposedly smart people insist in investing time and money on a project where Microsoft controls the requirements?
And yes - because Microsoft has an effective monopoly, it is subject to a different set of rules designed to protect the market from it.
While I agree the last issues of BYTE was not up to the usual high standards, it was not even close to the low standards of PC Magazine.
You could still find great conceptual articles, decent coverage of non-PC platforms, lots of stuff about internet and such and was a much better read than the average computer magazine.
I felt the loss, deeply.
You say it's unintuitive just because it has no GUI.
And it shouldn't have one - it's a file system, not a userland application. The userland applications will come and may even look like Time Machine (I was once impressed, but it got less and less impressive over time, as I learned more about ZFS and LVM snapshots). I hope not - It's cool but not that much functional.
OSX is a nice piece of software and sure solves a lot of problems for its users, but claiming this is in any shape or form inspired on Time Machine is a veritable troll.
BTW, as was pointed out before, OS-level file versioning exists in a for or other since the VMS days. Most probably it was coded on VT05 terminals.
If I got it correctly, you would only have a new copy of the directory when you rename or move the file. The file will only be copied if it is changed.
And it is only necessary if you are doing it based on files. If you do it based on blocks, then only the blocks that were changed get copied.
It seems quite cool. Too bad all servers even remotely related to it appear to have been slashdotted.
No. It's a Mach kernel with a BSD-ish layer over it.
;-)
And yes. BSD is dead.
+1 disturbing