I gotta disagree. The deny implies a negation. To wit:
The OO was a victim (=> victim)
You can deny OO was victim (=> not victim)
You can't deny OO was victim (=> victim)
You can't deny OO wasn't victim (=> not victim)
First, I can't believe that you really believe your facile, Hollywood fairy tale of the crafty bank robber. We have bank robbers in the region where I live. They are usually poor and desperate. The successful ones use a gun and a mask and a getaway vehicle. They aren't gaming any system.
Second, I know for sure that the people who championed the Patriot Act are the same people who now want to subvert the overwhelming will of the American people and
legalize torture.
Third, the Patriot Act was rushed through a panicked Congress six weeks after the 9/11 attacks. Most members of Congress didn't have time to read it all, let alone analyze it carefully.
Fourth, my first post in this thread was to correct an apparent misconception that the government still needed probably cause to tap phone conversations. The fact that there is still a lot of confusion about what the Patriot Act really does, combined with the fact that it was rushed through Congress imply that part of the reason some people support it is because they don't really know what it does.
Fifth, the real debate over the Patriot Act is not about bank robbers versus terrorists. One real debate would center around whether provisions in the Patriot Act violate the 4th Amendment of the Constitution.
A better debate would center around Benjamin Franklin's prophetic:
They that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
You would need to show that the provisions in the Patriot Act would actually be effective in preventing the Hollywood styled terrorist act you proposed. Whatever added safety is provided would then have to be compared with the very real threat of the Patriot Act being misused to stifle politic dissent.
History shows us that every police power that has been enacted has also been abused. In my opinion, the Patriot Act clearly violates the Constitution and is a very dangerous step towards the USA becoming a police state. The measures in the Patriot Act would have done nothing to help prevent the 9/11 attacks although it has already been used against non-terrorist political groups in the US. I think it must have been named for the Patriot Missile which was famous for never hitting its intended target.
A Google("patriot act" wiretap warrant) led to
this page, which says:
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) regulates the FBI's collection of "foreign intelligence" information for intelligence purposes. Under the Fourth Amendment, a Title III warrant to intercept a communication must be based on probable cause to believe that a crime has been or is being committed. This is not the general rule under FISA: surveillance under FISA is permitted based on a finding of probable cause that the surveillance target is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, irrespective of whether the target is suspected of engaging in criminal activity. The USA PATRIOT Act expanded law enforcement authority to conduct searches and obtain communications under Title III, and also rolled back the already lax restrictions on the FBI's ability to gather information about individuals under FISA.
[...] the PATRIOT Act specifically lowers the threshold for obtaining a full collection warrant for Internet traffic. Instead of needing probable cause as required by Title III, the FBI now only needs to show that the information to be gathered is "relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation." That is a much lower standard than showing probable cause that a crime has been committed.
Clearly, probable cause to believe that criminal activity is occuring is no longer required. It appears that warrants are still technically needed but the requirements are so lax they make the need for a warrant a mere fig leaf of decency.
If Orwell were alive, he'd be rolling in his grave.
To "sit on a wire" anywhere you should need a probable cause and a warrant.
If by should, you mean in a ideal world, or at least in a world more ideal than ours, then I fully agree with you that such things should be needed. Unfortunately they are not, unless the Patriot Act was recently repealed and no one told me.
Please realize that Microsoft as a company is not some huge evil organization out to rape your wallets. They are regular people who want to, like anyone else, do the best job they can.
Unfortunately that job they are working so hard at is to rape our wallets, for the benefit of their stockholders.
The fact that the company is comprised of people doing the best they can is not really a valid argument against the idea that Microsoft is a huge evil organization. In fact, I would imagine that most, if not all, huge evil organizations are filled with regular people doing the best they can.
--
The "USAPATRIOT" Act has nothing to do with patriotism, so I pronounce it "the you sap at riot act" to avoid confusion.
Please allow me to explain. I agree that the Patriot Act had nothing to do with patriotism. It was named after the Patriot Missile, which famously never hit its intended targets and instead rained friendly fire on innocent civilians and soldiers.
Re:Alternate Interfaces
on
IMDb Turns 15
·
· Score: 1
My paragraph that you quoted was an oversimplification. The post I was responding to was claiming that a near infinite sampling frequency was needed to perfectly sample a finite bandwidth signal. That post also specified a "purely theoretical" context.
I'm confident that you will agree with me that after all of the real-world engineering details are taken into account, a finite bandwidth signal can still be captured with a finite sampling rate although that rate needs to be higher than twice the highest frequency in the signal due to the engineering concerns.
Your argument is based on jumping around between three different domains:
Mathematics
Physics
Engineering
You raise the problem of quantization error without mentioning signal to noise ratio. In the real world the signal to noise ratio is never infinite in analog systems. If the quantization errors are random and are well below the noise level in the analog parts of a system then they can be treated as a small component of the analog noise and they don't significantly contribute to any imperfections in the signal.
You say "humans have limited response to frequencies over 20 [k]Hz". My own tests and tons of scientific studies have shown that humans have a limited response to signals over 15 kHz and no response to signals over 20 kHz.
You go on to say " [...] even with band limited signals". All signals in the physical universe are time limited and band limited. The real world signals dealt with in audio engineering are even more limited. The only realm where non-band-limited signals exist is in abstract mathematics such as the field of Measure Theory. I've studied Measure Theory and AFAIK, it has no practical application in the real world, either in physics or engineering.
Your point that all analog systems are eventually non-linear is a good one. Unfortunately that is one of the key arguments why digital computation and reproduction is superior to analog. Your point is also misleading because you do not include the fact that all analog systems also have a finite signal to noise ratio and deal with a limited dynamic range of signals.
Finally your point that it is often useful to use a sampling rate that is greater than 2x the maximum frequency in the signal is totally valid. This issue is discussed in the article I linked to in my original post. I'm not 100% certain, but I am pretty sure that this engineering limitation is one of the reasons a 44.1 kHz sampling rate was chosen for CDs even though to top range of human hearing was 20 kHz. That extra 10% was to allow for anti-alias filters with a gentle enough slope so that they did not significantly distort the signal in the time domain.
I agree with you that anti-alias filters (on both input and output) are an essential part of a well designed digital recording system.
My key point is that claims that physical real-world digital recording systems can't record abstract, mathematically perfect analog signals are misleading and perhaps meaningless.
When sampling a signal (e.g., converting from an analog signal to digital), the sampling frequency must be greater than twice the bandwidth of the input signal in order to be able to reconstruct the original perfectly from the sampled version.
To put it into term that you can understand, if your ear cannot detect frequencies higher than 22.05 kilohertz then a sampling rate of 44.1 samples per second can perfectly reproduce any sound you can hear.
Compaction itself costs but is only needed on those occasions when memory starts becoming tight. And it usually isn't needed at all in the "young" heap area, since the deallocated memory of other young objects can be reused for the next object in need of allocation.
You've lost me here. Perhaps it is due to my lack of knowledge about generational gc.
I thought the original article was boasting that Java gc allocation was very fast because it didn't need to walk free lists in order to allocate. Instead it just grabbed memory from the top of the half-heap that was currently active.
How can deallocated memory be reused without the overhead of free lists?
ShadowRanger said:
The GC usually need not bring any dead data out of swap; certain data about objects is stored independent of the object to reduce that problem, so the GC can just tell the OS to free it (and keep in mind, the OS doesn't manually zero the swap space either, so both JVM and OS get to be lazy).
I agree that the gc can tell the OS to free the unused half of the heap so the garbage in it need not be read back in from swap. But the gc will then need to ask the OS for a new huge block of memory, half the size of the heap. This means the OS will have move other active memory into swap in order to have enough space in RAM for both halves of the heap when the copying from one half to the other is occurring.
Granted, the VM manager might be smart enough to do the freeing of RAM incrementally, it still seems to me that no matter how you slice it, if the heap is large enough, copying one half of the heap to the other half is going to require a lot of swapping.
In fact something is screwy. And the Microsoft apologists are really scrambling to explain away the real reasons, which the original poster certainly nailed.
I'm not a Microsoft apologist (far from it) and I don't think anything is screwy. I think that Dell will save money by supplying FreeDOS with these machines.
I own a Dell laptop that I bought a while ago. The service contract expired years ago. Dell still gives me free telephone support for hardware issues that occasionally arise. I run various versions of Linux but I've kept a small partition with WinXP on it because Dell requires Windows for their telephone support.
Dell is going to save money by distributing FreeDOS with their systems because it will allow them the help users diagnose hardware problems via telephone. They will be able to fix many problems faster and avoid playing ship and swap which must cost them a bundle. FreeDOS will give them a fixed OS platform upon which the users will be able to run diagnostics.
What matters is the amount you can discern at any given pupil dialation, which is much [much] smaller.
For electronic picture frame applications you may be correct, but as one of the many people who want to watch movies on their electronic displays, I want to be able to see the brightly lit scenes and the dark scenes in movies without having to get up and fiddle with the brightness and contrast of my 500:1 LCD display.
I've been using this display for two years and I love it to death but I must admit that the limited contrast ratio is the biggest drawback.
The reason the record companies don't want iTunes to succeed is because its success demonstrates to the world that soon they (RIAA, et. al.) will no longer provide a useful service.
As others have stated, artists can connect up with iTunes and similar online distributors directly. They can also record their material themselves or use one of the many low cost independent recording studios.
The whole "economy of scale" argument the record companies have been using for years to rip off artists and listeners alike is now obviously absurd. That argument was the last fig leaf they had left to hide their greed and corruption.
You sir are a fucking brain-washed moron...Now almost a week later you are trying to spread the same lies on Slashdot. Shame on you!
Isn't it interesting how the delusional moonbats are getting increasingly incoherent, irrational and agitated?
Three of my words that you quoted (fucking, brain-washed, moron) were links to rather convincing evidence that showed that the post I was replying to was repeating a lie that was published in the Washington Post. The Washington Post was forced to print a retraction that I linked to and repeat here:
A Sept. 4 article on the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina incorrectly said that Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (D) had not declared a state of emergency. She declared an emergency on Aug. 26.
That incorrect information (lie) came from an anonymous White House source. The Washington Post violated its own guidelines by publishing that lie (and others) from a single anonymous source without first doing a simple check to make sure it was true. They could have Googled or simply called the Governor's office.
It is usually alarmist to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, but if there really is a fire then it may be justified. Perhaps "fucking" was a bit over the top, but I think "brain-washed moron" was appropriate. The post I replied to was repeating a lie that was repudiated over a week ago.
How would you characterize someone who blindly repeats lies without doing even a basic sanity check? An anonymous coward repeating lies from an anonymous White House source?
Something is terribly, terribly wrong here. If we don't fix it soon, we will have much bigger problems than those we face in Iraq and the aftermath of Katrina.
The actual 'lying' part was the bit where they claimed that the feds hadn't screwed up, too.
Since you couldn't be bothered to read the article I linked to, here is the retraction from the top of the Washington Post article:
A Sept. 4 article on the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina incorrectly said that Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (D) had not declared a state of emergency. She declared an emergency on Aug. 26.
The source of this lie was the anonymous senior White House source even though the retraction wimps out and does not make that clear.
If you won't read the article and retraction I linked to and you won't bother to even do a simple Google("state of emergency" anonymous "white house") to check the facts there is no hope for you.
There is an abundant wealth of evidence that an anonymous White House source said that
FEMA's delayed reaction was due to the Governor not declaring a state of emergency.
That is a "lie blaming state and local government" for FEMA's slow reaction. How on earth is that misleading? My statement is not misleading merely because you find it unpalatable.
The biggest mistake state and local officials made was trusting promises made by FEMA (such as for buses to transport those without cars) that never materialized. Yet how can we really blame state and local officials for not predicting that FEMA would fuck up so very badly when some people refuse to acknowlege the villainous lies coming out of the White House even though those lies are documented by major media outlets (albeit not on the front page).
The last link is to an article published by the Washington Post that repeats lies from an anonymous senior White House source that the Democratic governor Blanco was slow to declare a state of emergency. But the Washington Post was forced to issue a retraction that you can see at the top of the page.
The White House total fucks up the disaster relief
(
Google "golden 72 hours"), then publicly denounces others for playing the "blame game" while an anonymous White House source spreads lies blaming the local and state governments.
Now almost a week later you are trying to spread the same lies on Slashdot. Shame on you!
That is why I said there would be no need for such a warning. There wouldn't be anything left to warn. I thought it was funny, I still do, but maybe I just have a very sick sense of humor.
The people who think the license fees are too high should look at this Kernel Trap Thread. It contains the following quote:
Since fighting and winning that battle, maddog noted that Linux International has spent over $300,000 defending the Linux Trademark, over $250,000 of which came from his own pocket. A lengthy write-up that further clarifies trademarks and their importance can be found on groklaw.
Given that a quarter mil has already been spent out of pocket, it seems reasonable to me that the license fees be high enough to defray at least a reasonable fraction of the cost of defending the Linux (R) trademark.
Those that explicitly benefit from using the trademark should help foot the bills for defending it. I don't think it is reasonable to expect people (such as maddog) to shoulder all of the financial burden of protecting the Linux (R) trademark. As others have said, if the price is too high, just use a different name.
Since fighting and winning that battle, maddog noted that Linux International has spent over $300,000 defending the Linux Trademark, over $250,000 of which came from his own pocket. A lengthy write-up that further clarifies trademarks and their importance can be found on groklaw.
You can see that there are other people helping out so Linux doesn't have to shoulder the financial burden of protecting the Linux (R) trademark all by himself.
A couple years ago, I noticed a memory leak in OpenGL apps when using Nvidia drivers and an experimental Gentoo Linux kernel. I sent Nvidia an email about it around 10 pm Saturday evening.
I got a response about 20 minutes later which included a patch for the Linux kernel I was using. I recompiled my kernel with the patch and it fixed the leak.
It is too bad their drivers are closed source, but I have to say that their Linux support is outstanding and on a par with the best support I've experienced.
Slashdot Mirror
The OO was a victim (=> victim)
You can deny OO was victim (=> not victim)
You can't deny OO was victim (=> victim)
You can't deny OO wasn't victim (=> not victim)
First, I can't believe that you really believe your facile, Hollywood fairy tale of the crafty bank robber. We have bank robbers in the region where I live. They are usually poor and desperate. The successful ones use a gun and a mask and a getaway vehicle. They aren't gaming any system.
Second, I know for sure that the people who championed the Patriot Act are the same people who now want to subvert the overwhelming will of the American people and legalize torture.
Third, the Patriot Act was rushed through a panicked Congress six weeks after the 9/11 attacks. Most members of Congress didn't have time to read it all, let alone analyze it carefully.
Fourth, my first post in this thread was to correct an apparent misconception that the government still needed probably cause to tap phone conversations. The fact that there is still a lot of confusion about what the Patriot Act really does, combined with the fact that it was rushed through Congress imply that part of the reason some people support it is because they don't really know what it does.
Fifth, the real debate over the Patriot Act is not about bank robbers versus terrorists. One real debate would center around whether provisions in the Patriot Act violate the 4th Amendment of the Constitution.
A better debate would center around Benjamin Franklin's prophetic:
You would need to show that the provisions in the Patriot Act would actually be effective in preventing the Hollywood styled terrorist act you proposed. Whatever added safety is provided would then have to be compared with the very real threat of the Patriot Act being misused to stifle politic dissent.History shows us that every police power that has been enacted has also been abused. In my opinion, the Patriot Act clearly violates the Constitution and is a very dangerous step towards the USA becoming a police state. The measures in the Patriot Act would have done nothing to help prevent the 9/11 attacks although it has already been used against non-terrorist political groups in the US. I think it must have been named for the Patriot Missile which was famous for never hitting its intended target.
If Orwell were alive, he'd be rolling in his grave.
Unfortunately that job they are working so hard at is to rape our wallets, for the benefit of their stockholders.
The fact that the company is comprised of people doing the best they can is not really a valid argument against the idea that Microsoft is a huge evil organization. In fact, I would imagine that most, if not all, huge evil organizations are filled with regular people doing the best they can.
The ad makes it look like it could be a pretty good job. You could get paid to implement your ideas.
My paragraph that you quoted was an oversimplification. The post I was responding to was claiming that a near infinite sampling frequency was needed to perfectly sample a finite bandwidth signal. That post also specified a "purely theoretical" context.
I'm confident that you will agree with me that after all of the real-world engineering details are taken into account, a finite bandwidth signal can still be captured with a finite sampling rate although that rate needs to be higher than twice the highest frequency in the signal due to the engineering concerns.
You raise the problem of quantization error without mentioning signal to noise ratio. In the real world the signal to noise ratio is never infinite in analog systems. If the quantization errors are random and are well below the noise level in the analog parts of a system then they can be treated as a small component of the analog noise and they don't significantly contribute to any imperfections in the signal.
You say "humans have limited response to frequencies over 20 [k]Hz". My own tests and tons of scientific studies have shown that humans have a limited response to signals over 15 kHz and no response to signals over 20 kHz.
You go on to say " [...] even with band limited signals". All signals in the physical universe are time limited and band limited. The real world signals dealt with in audio engineering are even more limited. The only realm where non-band-limited signals exist is in abstract mathematics such as the field of Measure Theory. I've studied Measure Theory and AFAIK, it has no practical application in the real world, either in physics or engineering.
Your point that all analog systems are eventually non-linear is a good one. Unfortunately that is one of the key arguments why digital computation and reproduction is superior to analog. Your point is also misleading because you do not include the fact that all analog systems also have a finite signal to noise ratio and deal with a limited dynamic range of signals.
Finally your point that it is often useful to use a sampling rate that is greater than 2x the maximum frequency in the signal is totally valid. This issue is discussed in the article I linked to in my original post. I'm not 100% certain, but I am pretty sure that this engineering limitation is one of the reasons a 44.1 kHz sampling rate was chosen for CDs even though to top range of human hearing was 20 kHz. That extra 10% was to allow for anti-alias filters with a gentle enough slope so that they did not significantly distort the signal in the time domain.
I agree with you that anti-alias filters (on both input and output) are an essential part of a well designed digital recording system.
My key point is that claims that physical real-world digital recording systems can't record abstract, mathematically perfect analog signals are misleading and perhaps meaningless.
The Shannon Sampling Theorem states:
To put it into term that you can understand, if your ear cannot detect frequencies higher than 22.05 kilohertz then a sampling rate of 44.1 samples per second can perfectly reproduce any sound you can hear.I thought the original article was boasting that Java gc allocation was very fast because it didn't need to walk free lists in order to allocate. Instead it just grabbed memory from the top of the half-heap that was currently active.
How can deallocated memory be reused without the overhead of free lists?
ShadowRanger said:
I agree that the gc can tell the OS to free the unused half of the heap so the garbage in it need not be read back in from swap. But the gc will then need to ask the OS for a new huge block of memory, half the size of the heap. This means the OS will have move other active memory into swap in order to have enough space in RAM for both halves of the heap when the copying from one half to the other is occurring.Granted, the VM manager might be smart enough to do the freeing of RAM incrementally, it still seems to me that no matter how you slice it, if the heap is large enough, copying one half of the heap to the other half is going to require a lot of swapping.
If Dell includes a liveCD then it all makes sense to me. If not, then I agree with you that something doesn't make sense.
I'm not a Microsoft apologist (far from it) and I don't think anything is screwy. I think that Dell will save money by supplying FreeDOS with these machines.
I own a Dell laptop that I bought a while ago. The service contract expired years ago. Dell still gives me free telephone support for hardware issues that occasionally arise. I run various versions of Linux but I've kept a small partition with WinXP on it because Dell requires Windows for their telephone support.
Dell is going to save money by distributing FreeDOS with their systems because it will allow them the help users diagnose hardware problems via telephone. They will be able to fix many problems faster and avoid playing ship and swap which must cost them a bundle. FreeDOS will give them a fixed OS platform upon which the users will be able to run diagnostics.
I've been using this display for two years and I love it to death but I must admit that the limited contrast ratio is the biggest drawback.
As others have stated, artists can connect up with iTunes and similar online distributors directly. They can also record their material themselves or use one of the many low cost independent recording studios.
The whole "economy of scale" argument the record companies have been using for years to rip off artists and listeners alike is now obviously absurd. That argument was the last fig leaf they had left to hide their greed and corruption.
It is usually alarmist to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, but if there really is a fire then it may be justified. Perhaps "fucking" was a bit over the top, but I think "brain-washed moron" was appropriate. The post I replied to was repeating a lie that was repudiated over a week ago.
How would you characterize someone who blindly repeats lies without doing even a basic sanity check? An anonymous coward repeating lies from an anonymous White House source?
Something is terribly, terribly wrong here. If we don't fix it soon, we will have much bigger problems than those we face in Iraq and the aftermath of Katrina.
Since you couldn't be bothered to read the article I linked to, here is the retraction from the top of the Washington Post article:
The source of this lie was the anonymous senior White House source even though the retraction wimps out and does not make that clear.If you won't read the article and retraction I linked to and you won't bother to even do a simple Google("state of emergency" anonymous "white house") to check the facts there is no hope for you.
There is an abundant wealth of evidence that an anonymous White House source said that FEMA's delayed reaction was due to the Governor not declaring a state of emergency.
That is a "lie blaming state and local government" for FEMA's slow reaction. How on earth is that misleading? My statement is not misleading merely because you find it unpalatable.
The biggest mistake state and local officials made was trusting promises made by FEMA (such as for buses to transport those without cars) that never materialized. Yet how can we really blame state and local officials for not predicting that FEMA would fuck up so very badly when some people refuse to acknowlege the villainous lies coming out of the White House even though those lies are documented by major media outlets (albeit not on the front page).
You sir are a
The last link is to an article published by the Washington Post that repeats lies from an anonymous senior White House source that the Democratic governor Blanco was slow to declare a state of emergency. But the Washington Post was forced to issue a retraction that you can see at the top of the page.
The White House total fucks up the disaster relief ( Google "golden 72 hours"), then publicly denounces others for playing the "blame game" while an anonymous White House source spreads lies blaming the local and state governments.
Now almost a week later you are trying to spread the same lies on Slashdot. Shame on you!
This is actually a great idea because the laptop will have a dual use as the heat source for the ignition of their fusion drives.
Those that explicitly benefit from using the trademark should help foot the bills for defending it. I don't think it is reasonable to expect people (such as maddog) to shoulder all of the financial burden of protecting the Linux (R) trademark. As others have said, if the price is too high, just use a different name.
Thanks for you concern but you don't have to worry. Jeremy at the Kernel Trap says:
You can see that there are other people helping out so Linux doesn't have to shoulder the financial burden of protecting the Linux (R) trademark all by himself.I got a response about 20 minutes later which included a patch for the Linux kernel I was using. I recompiled my kernel with the patch and it fixed the leak.
It is too bad their drivers are closed source, but I have to say that their Linux support is outstanding and on a par with the best support I've experienced.