This is neither a new problem -- it goes back to copyists making deliberate or accidental changes to the Bible -- nor a reason for outcry. Where do *you* draw the line? Is the "original" supposed to be more valuable just because it was first? What about the hundreds of hours of film that didn't make it to the original release? Aren't they more "original" than the release? Of course not. You buy the creator's version because he created it. He decides whether or not to create anything else. If you don't like his decisions... tough. They're his decisions.
Sure there is. The originals are supposed to go into the public domain within a "limited time".
Bull. The copyright to the originals goes into the public domain. Nothing says that the owner is required to retain a copy of the original and release it at any time. Passing into the public domain simply means that he can no longer sue anybody for making their own copies (or, much more importantly, derivative works).
The fact that there may be situations where a given work is "lost" just goes to show just how badly broken the current copyright system is.
Double bull. Most works are lost (no quotes) almost immediately, never getting a second printing/viewing/hearing long before copyright expires. And this is a good thing, because 90% of everthing is crud. Copyright is the right to copy, not the responsibility to copy.
There is no constitutionally protected right to re-view movies in the same form that you original saw them.
If your memory isn't good enough, you'll just have to deal. Think of the generations (well, at least two of them) of people who couldn't buy ANY home version of a movie they'd seen.
* set up or get an account on a linux box * install an X server on your windows box (e.g. cygwin with X) * use putty to ssh from your windows box to your linux box, with X forwarding * start an instance of KTerm, running on the linux box but on the X server of your windows box * enjoy tabbed kterm windows, and use commandline ssh in each tab
"The penalty for participating in politics is that you end up governing those who are superior to you, not realizing that you are now inferior." -- Ross Presser
Humans don't require a rules-based system to be able to make judgments about right and wrong. However, robots might. In that case, though flawed, I will concede that it is better than nothing.
Well, Humans do require a rules-based system to be able to make judgements about right and wrong. If we didn't require one, then there'd be no need to teach our children to recongize right from wrong; whatever magic mechanism that works in place of rules, would be already built in. Obviously this is not the case.
The rules aren't hardcoded or even loaded in any straightforward way, but taught by parents, schools, peers, society throughout human life. They are emergent rules from the complex neural network that is our brain. The fact that we can abstract them into short English sentences ("Thou shalt not kill", "It's wrong to do things that are illegal") is a testament to intelligence.
Along with most people who think about this, I expect that robots will acquire morals in the same way that humans do: by explicit teaching using natural language, combined with positive and negative reinforcement over a long period of time.
The integration of UPNP into common broadband routers has lessened this effect, or at least made such lessening more likely. An application can now request a port for receiving without there being a genius at the keyboard.
ISP firewalling and port blocking still chills, of course, but I don't think the sky is black yet.
Re:Beta testing a postscript fax?
on
eFax Hell?
·
· Score: 1
I pulled it out of my ass, as easily seen by the words "in my book" immediately preceding your quotation.
Telescopes on farside of moon are good the entire month. Remember, the lunar sky is black during the day, even though the sun is visible the rest of the sky can be studied.
Communications wouldn't be all that hard. As long as the telescope station isn't at or very close to the lunar poles, a single comsat at lunar L4 or L5 will provide coverage; three comsats in halo orbit around L4/L5 will provide coverage even to the poles. Transmission delays would get a little long.
This has happened before, and it will all happen again.
Re:Beta testing a postscript fax?
on
eFax Hell?
·
· Score: 1
1. Try upgrading.
2. TOC and links are damn near useless in my book. The proper role of PDFs is as a portable format for representing material to be printed. Everything else the idiot savants at Adobe have crammed into the spec is gravy designed to suck in dollars for them. There are a thousand document formats that are less cumbersome and more featureful than PDF for online viewing.
3. On my watch, Distiller has generated PDFs that won't color-separate properly. Ghostscript never has.
I'm done here.
Re:Beta testing a postscript fax?
on
eFax Hell?
·
· Score: 1
Acrobat PDFs suck.
ghostscript is not gsview. They are separate products. If you think they are the same, you are the one lacking clues.
I'm done here.
Re:Beta testing a postscript fax?
on
eFax Hell?
·
· Score: 1
I question your statement that Ghostscript is not very good with PDF. It generates better PDF than anything else I've dealt with; I use it to make PDFs more digestible to our Harlequin RIP. And while it is a bit cumbersome as a PDF viewer, it's not really designed as one -- gsview has that role.
how long will it be before some one ports dd to Win32
MKS Toolkit 1.0, for DOS, was introduced in April 1986, I believe. It contained a version of dd that worked perfectly well with floppies. I cannot speak from personal experience regarding mks and CDs, but I would imagine that there wasn't much lag between the invention of the CD and the improvement of MKS toolkit to handle it.
There are several different meanings you can apply to the concept of "percentage of an infinite set". For instance, the integers are an infinite set, and I can say quite confidently that 50% of them are even. Of course you will point out, a la Cantor, that there is a one-to-one correspondence between integers and positive integers, and that therefore there are "just as many" so 50% does not make sense. Nevertheless, it is clear what I mean by saying 50% of them are even (although I can't express it less ambiguously at the moment... it's 5:48 am).
A different example may be clearer. All squares in a plane contain an infinite number of points (cardinality <C>, I believe). But the area of one square can be half the area of another square. So there is a clear meaning to the sentence "{the set of points in square A} is 50% of the size of {the set of points in square B}."
The GPO does not store the file permissions of every file in the filesystem. It stores a policy that you wish to have applied to the filesystem on bootup, on login, or whenever policies are manually enforced.
For instance, a common policy is to have %SYSTEMROOT% (e.g., C:\WINDOWS) set to be accessible only by the administrators of the machine (as well as SYSTEM, NETWORK SERVICE, and other pseudo-accounts). In the group policy editor, you specify that one entry, specify that it is inheritable and should replace permissions on all contained subfolders and files. When the policy is synchronized, the sytem examines C:\WINDOWS and its subfolders and resets the permissions to what you desire.
And Novell has dynamic inheritance of both file system permissions and directory permissions; I can only imagine what a ghastly mess this would be in the Microsoft world where both NTFS and Active Directory are crippled by static permisssions.
Your knowledge must be a few versions back. Windows 2000 introduced dynamic inheritance of permissions, both for NTFS and Active Directory. Since AD was introduced with W2K, it never had static permissions.
Yikes! When did that come out? Is it stable?
Group Policy has been a basic feature of Active Directory since its inception, with Windows 2000.
Group Policy allows you to override permissions onto NTFS objects, registry keys, and even Active Directory objects. GPOs are stored in Active Directory.
I know the rest of the world uses A4. But how many actual sheets of paper, including those that have been printed over the last six or seven decades, are actually in A4 versus those in US LTR?
And if my company does no business with international or overseas companies, the savings are zero and will remain so. You immediately cry "isolationist" and "ostrich", but the sad (to you) truth is that the US economy is large enough that vast sectors of it have no fucking use for international sales.
Paper sizes are not in the same category as engineering units; do not pretend they are.
a) It would cost BILLIONS (as in 10^9) of dollars, not millions (as in 10^6). Remember that the USA has many times more miles (all right, km) of road than any European country, indeed many times more than all of Europe combined.
b) I do not now have nor do I plan to ever have any children.
Slashdot Mirror
Robert A. Heinlein's book.
Of course Bush isn't Hitler. Bush is Nehemiah Scudder.
This is neither a new problem -- it goes back to copyists making deliberate or accidental changes to the Bible -- nor a reason for outcry. Where do *you* draw the line? Is the "original" supposed to be more valuable just because it was first? What about the hundreds of hours of film that didn't make it to the original release? Aren't they more "original" than the release? Of course not. You buy the creator's version because he created it. He decides whether or not to create anything else. If you don't like his decisions ... tough. They're his decisions.
Bull. The copyright to the originals goes into the public domain. Nothing says that the owner is required to retain a copy of the original and release it at any time. Passing into the public domain simply means that he can no longer sue anybody for making their own copies (or, much more importantly, derivative works).
Double bull. Most works are lost (no quotes) almost immediately, never getting a second printing/viewing/hearing long before copyright expires. And this is a good thing, because 90% of everthing is crud. Copyright is the right to copy, not the responsibility to copy.
There is no constitutionally protected right to re-view movies in the same form that you original saw them.
If your memory isn't good enough, you'll just have to deal. Think of the generations (well, at least two of them) of people who couldn't buy ANY home version of a movie they'd seen.
Overkill method:
* set up or get an account on a linux box
* install an X server on your windows box (e.g. cygwin with X)
* use putty to ssh from your windows box to your linux box, with X forwarding
* start an instance of KTerm, running on the linux box but on the X server of your windows box
* enjoy tabbed kterm windows, and use commandline ssh in each tab
Correct. Destroying voting machines is more like Luddism than Ghandism.
"The penalty for participating in politics is that you end up governing those who are superior to you, not realizing that you are now inferior." -- Ross Presser
Humans don't require a rules-based system to be able to make judgments about right and wrong. However, robots might. In that case, though flawed, I will concede that it is better than nothing.
Well, Humans do require a rules-based system to be able to make judgements about right and wrong. If we didn't require one, then there'd be no need to teach our children to recongize right from wrong; whatever magic mechanism that works in place of rules, would be already built in. Obviously this is not the case.
The rules aren't hardcoded or even loaded in any straightforward way, but taught by parents, schools, peers, society throughout human life. They are emergent rules from the complex neural network that is our brain. The fact that we can abstract them into short English sentences ("Thou shalt not kill", "It's wrong to do things that are illegal") is a testament to intelligence.
Along with most people who think about this, I expect that robots will acquire morals in the same way that humans do: by explicit teaching using natural language, combined with positive and negative reinforcement over a long period of time.
Tell the truth: your name is Leonard Shelby, isn't it? Or Sammy Jankis?
The integration of UPNP into common broadband routers has lessened this effect, or at least made such lessening more likely. An application can now request a port for receiving without there being a genius at the keyboard.
ISP firewalling and port blocking still chills, of course, but I don't think the sky is black yet.
I pulled it out of my ass, as easily seen by the words "in my book" immediately preceding your quotation.
Telescopes on farside of moon are good the entire month. Remember, the lunar sky is black during the day, even though the sun is visible the rest of the sky can be studied.
Communications wouldn't be all that hard. As long as the telescope station isn't at or very close to the lunar poles, a single comsat at lunar L4 or L5 will provide coverage; three comsats in halo orbit around L4/L5 will provide coverage even to the poles. Transmission delays would get a little long.
Did I just hear somebody say "interlocking directorate"? Or "Money Trust"?
This has happened before, and it will all happen again.
1. Try upgrading.
2. TOC and links are damn near useless in my book. The proper role of PDFs is as a portable format for representing material to be printed. Everything else the idiot savants at Adobe have crammed into the spec is gravy designed to suck in dollars for them. There are a thousand document formats that are less cumbersome and more featureful than PDF for online viewing.
3. On my watch, Distiller has generated PDFs that won't color-separate properly. Ghostscript never has.
I'm done here.
Acrobat PDFs suck.
ghostscript is not gsview. They are separate products. If you think they are the same, you are the one lacking clues.
I'm done here.
I question your statement that Ghostscript is not very good with PDF. It generates better PDF than anything else I've dealt with; I use it to make PDFs more digestible to our Harlequin RIP. And while it is a bit cumbersome as a PDF viewer, it's not really designed as one -- gsview has that role.
If she does, that will be a travesty of the original book. There was only one female that I recall, and she was only about 1/5 of the story.
how long will it be before some one ports dd to Win32
MKS Toolkit 1.0, for DOS, was introduced in April 1986, I believe. It contained a version of dd that worked perfectly well with floppies. I cannot speak from personal experience regarding mks and CDs, but I would imagine that there wasn't much lag between the invention of the CD and the improvement of MKS toolkit to handle it.
There are several different meanings you can apply to the concept of "percentage of an infinite set". For instance, the integers are an infinite set, and I can say quite confidently that 50% of them are even. Of course you will point out, a la Cantor, that there is a one-to-one correspondence between integers and positive integers, and that therefore there are "just as many" so 50% does not make sense. Nevertheless, it is clear what I mean by saying 50% of them are even (although I can't express it less ambiguously at the moment ... it's 5:48 am).
A different example may be clearer. All squares in a plane contain an infinite number of points (cardinality <C>, I believe). But the area of one square can be half the area of another square. So there is a clear meaning to the sentence "{the set of points in square A} is 50% of the size of {the set of points in square B}."
The name "Google" was probably chosen to conflate the two concepts: "googol" for the very large number of pages indexed, and "ogle" to "take a look".
The GPO does not store the file permissions of every file in the filesystem. It stores a policy that you wish to have applied to the filesystem on bootup, on login, or whenever policies are manually enforced.
For instance, a common policy is to have %SYSTEMROOT% (e.g., C:\WINDOWS) set to be accessible only by the administrators of the machine (as well as SYSTEM, NETWORK SERVICE, and other pseudo-accounts). In the group policy editor, you specify that one entry, specify that it is inheritable and should replace permissions on all contained subfolders and files. When the policy is synchronized, the sytem examines C:\WINDOWS and its subfolders and resets the permissions to what you desire.
And Novell has dynamic inheritance of both file system permissions and directory permissions; I can only imagine what a ghastly mess this would be in the Microsoft world where both NTFS and Active Directory are crippled by static permisssions.
Your knowledge must be a few versions back. Windows 2000 introduced dynamic inheritance of permissions, both for NTFS and Active Directory. Since AD was introduced with W2K, it never had static permissions.
Yikes! When did that come out? Is it stable?
Group Policy has been a basic feature of Active Directory since its inception, with Windows 2000.
Group Policy allows you to override permissions onto NTFS objects, registry keys, and even Active Directory objects. GPOs are stored in Active Directory.
I know the rest of the world uses A4. But how many actual sheets of paper, including those that have been printed over the last six or seven decades, are actually in A4 versus those in US LTR?
And if my company does no business with international or overseas companies, the savings are zero and will remain so. You immediately cry "isolationist" and "ostrich", but the sad (to you) truth is that the US economy is large enough that vast sectors of it have no fucking use for international sales.
Paper sizes are not in the same category as engineering units; do not pretend they are.
a) It would cost BILLIONS (as in 10^9) of dollars, not millions (as in 10^6). Remember that the USA has many times more miles (all right, km) of road than any European country, indeed many times more than all of Europe combined.
b) I do not now have nor do I plan to ever have any children.