Congresswoman Lofgren doesn't bother me very much most of the time, but I have to point out that her position on the economy is kinda wacky. Right after the State of the Union she issued a statement saying,
I hoped for more from the President tonight in his State of the Union address. Unfortunately for the thousands of unemployed workers in Silicon Valley, the President suggested we continue and even accelerate his tax policies that have not done anything to create jobs and grow the economy but have brought us back to massive budget deficits.
And yet, amid all that talk of fiscal responsibility, she supports massive extensions to unemployment benefits. On January 8, she said,
This is unacceptable. Today, House Democrats tried to offer legislation to extend unemployment benefits for everyone in this country who needs extra assistance in finding a job. We offered a 26-week extension for workers who need extra assistance. We were prevented from even offering this simple measure. Our country and our region are in the middle of an economic downturn, and people in Silicon Valley need all the help they can get. According to Republicans, their job is help some, but not all.
So the bottom line for Congresswoman Lofgren is that she'd like to take the tax money of these thousands of unemployed Santa Clara residents, and then give a little of it back to them in unemployment benefits. Thereby not encouraging investors to invest in new business opportunities-- by keeping their taxes up-- and not encouraging the unemployed people in her district to go out and get a job-- by extending their dole.
I know this isn't strictly on-topic; my point is just that you conclude from the fact that Congresswoman Lofgren has the same position you have on this issue that she's the greatest leader our nation has ever seen. Keep an eye on her, and judge her by her entire record, not just her most recent bill.
Lofgren introduced the Digital Choice & Freedom Act last term. What ever happened to it?
It had the words "choice" and "freedom" in its title. When Old White Men(tm) see that on their calendar, they think it's going to be some damn fool left-wing crusade that involves the choice to spend the government's money and the freedom to bankrupt the nation.
Sadly, this knee-jerk reaction is right about as often as it is wrong.
This time she's got the right idea, though. She's taken the Republican-friendly non-threatening acronym route and named her bill the Benefit Authors without Limiting Advancement or Net Consumer Expectations (BALANCE) Act of 2003. She'll fit right in with the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001, the Prosecuting Remedies and Tools Against the Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act of 2003, and the Help Advance Republicanism through Martial Law Everywhere and the Suspension of Self-determination (HARMLESS) Act of 2005.
Slashdot has exceed its expectations. Maybe not so much the technology-- it's doing exactly what it was programmed to do, after all-- but certainly the capacity.
In other words, Slashdot is notable not so much because it works well, but because it works at all.;-)
There's no "e" after the "x", so the preceding "o" is soft. Not like Coke.
But SCO is not pronounced "scaw." It's pronounced "skoh." So the stock symbol SCOX would be pronounced "skoh ecks," which when said fast sounds like "skokes." Or possibly "skwecks," but that's just silly.
Is that three seconds on subsequent launches? Just for kicks, since I posted this comment, I downloaded the beta and tried it. First launch on my 2x1 GHz MDD with plenty of RAM: about 12 seconds by the count in my head, which probably means it was closer to seven or eight.
On subsequent launches it was closer to two or three, which is certainly an improvement, but there's still that stupid splash screen thing. I swear, if they took out the code to load and display and then clear the splash screen, the program would launch instantly, Safari-style. Safari launches in less time than it takes for me to get my mouse from the dock back up to the top of the screen again, which is just fast enough for me, thank you.
This is, in my opinion, just another sign that the tabbed browsing feature in these unreleased builds is an internal-only hack that is not intended to be seen by people outside of Apple. I can't believe, first of all, that Apple would add one or more major features to a piece of beta software, and secondly that Apple would ever put their name on something so half-assed.
Usually MDI has multiple windows, tabbed browsing is one window.
That's the exact opposite of the truth. MDI means to have more than one document contained in a single window. (Note that I'm talking about a window in the window-manager sense. An MDI interface may implement its own windowing system inside its window, but not necessarily.)
Tabbed browsing is definitely an implementation of the MDI paradigm.
Think of the browser page as a "browsing session" rather than a "web page" and you'll see it's just one document.
Yeah, and think of a tree as a fish and you'll see it's swimming. But just because you can see it that way, it doesn't mean that's the right way to look at it. A browser window-- a non-tabbed one-- holds and displays one document at a time.
Nit-picking, sure, but I think people who say "tabs are MDI" are really just saying "I don't like tabs and I need to justify it theoretically".
Actually, I kind of get the opposite impression. With all your "think of it as a browsing session instead of as a document" stuff, I'm of the opinion that you do like tabs and that you need to justify it theoretically by coming up with an argument for why tabbed browsing is not an implementation of MDI.
Re:What's so bad about maximized browser windows?
on
Hyatt Discusses Tabs
·
· Score: 1
I don't get it: Why would anybody want to not maximize his browser windows?
Because at average type sizes, a line length of more than about five inches is hard on the eyes.
Anyone that would try to hook an OC-192 line up to a single host for anything other than testing purposes ought to be shot.
Um. OC-192 is only 10 Gbps. That's more than most single computers can saturate today, but you do realize that that's the next step for Ethernet, right? Apple ships half of their computers with built-in 1000BASE-T today; I really don't know about PC's, but I would imagine that most of them have built-in gigabit as well. Sooner than you might realize, 10 Gbps Ethernet is going to be the next big thing on the desktop. Because we need it? Not really. But applications always tend to grow to consume all available resources.
On the other hand, the Safari tabs each have their own close button, albeit a non-standard "x" in a circle
That's not non-standard. It's a standard Cocoa widget used to close a pane or other window part, although in all honesty I'm too lazy right now to look it up and give you more details. Suffice it to say that the x-in-a-circle close-widget has been used in Project Builder for months, at least.
He (?) meant that this stuff actually happened yesterday, but that Slashdot is just getting around to posting it this morning. Ergo, the rest of the world's Thursday Afternoon Release Party becomes Slashdot's... well, you get the idea.
And, is it Ken Burns Effect (no apostrophe, as in : Ken is burning) or Ken Burn's Effect (with apostrophe, as in belonging or pertaining to Ken Burns)
It's "Ken Burns Effect." See, there's this guy, Ken Burns. You may have heard of him. Made a couple of documentaries or something, including one about a war. Didn't have any video of the war-- I guess it happened before CNN or something-- so he had to use lots of still photos. The way he used them, panning across them while telling the story, got him some kind of recognition or something. So now whenever anybody pans across a still photo in a movie, it's called the Ken Burns Effect.
(Sorry for all the snideness. Up late last night, up early today. Bad combo.)
2048x1556, usually at 4 bytes per pixel. That might be packed as 12-bit RGB, or it might be float or log.
Adds up to about 400MB/s sustained (that's byte, not bit).
Your math is off. DPX's at 2K are only 12 MB per frame, and it's only 24 frames per second. That's 288 MB per second.
HD video at 720p has similar requirements
HD at 720p has requirements that are nowhere near those of 2K. A 720p stream at two bytes per pixel requires 110 MB/s, less than half that of 2K. Of course, it's not uncommon to do cross-fades and other real-time transitions in video production, so it's sometimes necessary to play back two streams simultaneously, for a total of 220 MB/s.
Yes, OC192 is faster, but I've never heard of a single computer being able to push that much data that fast over a single connection.
A few years ago SGI did a test where they leased a piece of cross-country dark fibre for a day and ran GSN over it. That's a single connection-- using ST, not TCP-- from one computer to another computer, RAM to RAM. They pegged over 790 MB/s (that's a big B, as in megabytes per second), and sustained it for hours. And, just to reiterate, this was from one computer to another computer, without any fancy-schmancy multiplexing or anything. This was the ST equivalent of a single FTP transfer.
I can't find any documentation of this test on the web, but I saw it with mine own eyes. One end of the connection was in Herndon, VA, (where I was) and the other was out west someplace.
The SLAC test did 900+ Mb/s over a switched network, which is darned impressive. It's undoubtedly a record for a public switched connection. But don't go thinking it's an absolute land speed record or anything like that.
I agree, that's the definition of stealing. Now, how is downloading stealing?
Taking. Without. Right. Or leave. With intent. To keep. Wrongfully.
If I knew semaphore, I'd be waving flags at you right now.
Why isn't this entire thread absurd?
Oh, it is. I just have a thing for arguing with people who are beyond reason. It's a character trait. Or maybe "character flaw" is a better way of putting it. I tell people to suffer not a fool, but I can't take my own advice.
And, therefore, you lose this argument.
Let me guess. High school debate team? We're not playing a game; there is no score, and neither of us is winning or losing anything.
If you can't come up with some sort of logical proof that downloading is theft, then you lose, plain and simple.
I think you're not seeing the forest for the trees, here. You don't have to look hard to see the proof. It's right in front of you. When you download a song, what do you end up with? A copy of the song, right? How did you get that copy? You downloaded it. You used your computer to connect to another computer to make a copy of the song on your own hard drive. In other words, you took it. You placed it in your possession.
Did you have permission to take it? No, you did not. So you took it without permission.
Did you intend to keep it? Well, that's a somewhat harder question. What does "keep" mean? How about this: did you retain your copy of the song longer than you were legally authorized to? Since the amount of time you were legally authorized to retain your copy was zero, I'd say you did keep it longer. So, whether permanently or for a limited period, you kept it. And because you did so without authorization, you kept it wrongfully.
By the dictionary definition-- which is distinct from the legal definition-- you stole your copy of the song. Thief. Dirty rotten thief.
You don't see any problem with the current music distribution system?
Since perfection is unachievable, I would say that your question is a tautology.
The very fact that it has become a matter of choice whether or not I will pay for the product I am already using is a symptom of a seriously flawed status quo.
That's a dumb thing to say. You always have a choice of whether or not to pay. If you want to steal something, go right ahead. If you get caught, you'll have to deal with the consequences, but it's up to you whether or not you want to try it anyway.
Look, here's the bottom line. You're taking things-- copies of songs-- without paying for them. You're stealing. No matter how hard you might try to weasel your way out of it by arguing about what "to steal" means or, even better, projecting your own culpability onto the system, you're still stealing. What you're doing is wrong, wrong, wrong. Either you know this and you're denying it, or your moral sense is seriously flawed. I wouldn't be surprised at either one; you have the strident insistence of a person who's denying something he knows to be true, but on the other hand we do live in a morally bankrupt time. I say it's 50/50 odds.
You know what the punchline is, though? I personally don't care whether you steal music or not. It's not a big deal to me. But I'm deeply troubled, and pretty disappointed, that you purport to actually believe that what you're doing isn't wrong. An inability to distinguish right from wrong is a sign of a profound social pathology, you know?
So, they don't have it any more? Nope. Still have it.
steal: to take and carry away, feloniously; to take without right or leave, and with intent to keep wrongfully;
The argument that stealing must necessarily involve deprivation has been floated and shot down so many times that you can't possibly still believe in it, can you?
That was pretty much my main point, and you ignored it.
Of course I ignored it. I ignored it because it's absurd. By downloading a song without permission of the copyright holder, you are taking a copy of the song without right or leave, and with intent to keep wrongfully. Wrapping that act up in the word "enjoying" doesn't change the facts of the matter.
I have been granted a license by the US Supreme Court to sell you my copy of a recording.
Only if you obtained your copy legally. If you didn't, then you're trafficking.
How you do that is by convincing me that downloading music is stealing from someone...
Not my responsibility, friend. The status quo is that downloading without permission is illegal; it's covered by a different law, but it's morally equivalent to theft. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that it's either (1) not illegal, or (b) not immoral. And you're going to have to do it without resorting to the old "it's only theft if there's deprivation attached" fallacy.
Actually, if there's any justice in the world, musicians will have to actually play their instruments every single time they want to get paid.
Explain, if you can, what theory of justice would support such a position? Again, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the status quo is flawed or insufficient. Let's hear what you've got to say.
Slashdot Mirror
What should they do? Make software cheaper, and make software better. Same goes for audio CDs.
I want more for less. And the fact that I can't have it is somehow indicative of a fatal flaw in our economic or political system. Waa.
I know this isn't strictly on-topic; my point is just that you conclude from the fact that Congresswoman Lofgren has the same position you have on this issue that she's the greatest leader our nation has ever seen. Keep an eye on her, and judge her by her entire record, not just her most recent bill.
Lofgren introduced the Digital Choice & Freedom Act last term. What ever happened to it?
It had the words "choice" and "freedom" in its title. When Old White Men(tm) see that on their calendar, they think it's going to be some damn fool left-wing crusade that involves the choice to spend the government's money and the freedom to bankrupt the nation.
Sadly, this knee-jerk reaction is right about as often as it is wrong.
This time she's got the right idea, though. She's taken the Republican-friendly non-threatening acronym route and named her bill the Benefit Authors without Limiting Advancement or Net Consumer Expectations (BALANCE) Act of 2003. She'll fit right in with the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001, the Prosecuting Remedies and Tools Against the Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act of 2003, and the Help Advance Republicanism through Martial Law Everywhere and the Suspension of Self-determination (HARMLESS) Act of 2005.
God, what a great game. That little robot used to royally piss me off.
Slashdot has exceed its expectations. Maybe not so much the technology-- it's doing exactly what it was programmed to do, after all-- but certainly the capacity.
;-)
In other words, Slashdot is notable not so much because it works well, but because it works at all.
PCI-X will practically be a requirement to properly utilize a 10Gbps Ethernet connection.
PCI-X is de rigeur on new machines anyway, right?
There's no "e" after the "x", so the preceding "o" is soft. Not like Coke.
But SCO is not pronounced "scaw." It's pronounced "skoh." So the stock symbol SCOX would be pronounced "skoh ecks," which when said fast sounds like "skokes." Or possibly "skwecks," but that's just silly.
Unlike this thread...
Is that three seconds on subsequent launches? Just for kicks, since I posted this comment, I downloaded the beta and tried it. First launch on my 2x1 GHz MDD with plenty of RAM: about 12 seconds by the count in my head, which probably means it was closer to seven or eight.
On subsequent launches it was closer to two or three, which is certainly an improvement, but there's still that stupid splash screen thing. I swear, if they took out the code to load and display and then clear the splash screen, the program would launch instantly, Safari-style. Safari launches in less time than it takes for me to get my mouse from the dock back up to the top of the screen again, which is just fast enough for me, thank you.
Both Safari v64 and Camino seem a bit faster, especially Camino.
I forgot to ask. Does Chimeramino still take like 17 1/2 hours to launch?
SCOX - say it fast
Skokes.
it sounds like "sucks cocks"
I think you're mispronouncing "cocks."
Is Ken Burns the guy who did that Civil War documentary?
The Civil War, Baseball, Jazz, et cetera. He's completely different from but right up there with Errol Morris, in my opinion.
This is, in my opinion, just another sign that the tabbed browsing feature in these unreleased builds is an internal-only hack that is not intended to be seen by people outside of Apple. I can't believe, first of all, that Apple would add one or more major features to a piece of beta software, and secondly that Apple would ever put their name on something so half-assed.
Usually MDI has multiple windows, tabbed browsing is one window.
That's the exact opposite of the truth. MDI means to have more than one document contained in a single window. (Note that I'm talking about a window in the window-manager sense. An MDI interface may implement its own windowing system inside its window, but not necessarily.)
Tabbed browsing is definitely an implementation of the MDI paradigm.
Think of the browser page as a "browsing session" rather than a "web page" and you'll see it's just one document.
Yeah, and think of a tree as a fish and you'll see it's swimming. But just because you can see it that way, it doesn't mean that's the right way to look at it. A browser window-- a non-tabbed one-- holds and displays one document at a time.
Nit-picking, sure, but I think people who say "tabs are MDI" are really just saying "I don't like tabs and I need to justify it theoretically".
Actually, I kind of get the opposite impression. With all your "think of it as a browsing session instead of as a document" stuff, I'm of the opinion that you do like tabs and that you need to justify it theoretically by coming up with an argument for why tabbed browsing is not an implementation of MDI.
I don't get it: Why would anybody want to not maximize his browser windows?
Because at average type sizes, a line length of more than about five inches is hard on the eyes.
Anyone that would try to hook an OC-192 line up to a single host for anything other than testing purposes ought to be shot.
Um. OC-192 is only 10 Gbps. That's more than most single computers can saturate today, but you do realize that that's the next step for Ethernet, right? Apple ships half of their computers with built-in 1000BASE-T today; I really don't know about PC's, but I would imagine that most of them have built-in gigabit as well. Sooner than you might realize, 10 Gbps Ethernet is going to be the next big thing on the desktop. Because we need it? Not really. But applications always tend to grow to consume all available resources.
On the other hand, the Safari tabs each have their own close button, albeit a non-standard "x" in a circle
That's not non-standard. It's a standard Cocoa widget used to close a pane or other window part, although in all honesty I'm too lazy right now to look it up and give you more details. Suffice it to say that the x-in-a-circle close-widget has been used in Project Builder for months, at least.
Okay, I give. What did you do? Did you have to put IE back on, or did you get Safari via FTP or iDisk or some such?
He (?) meant that this stuff actually happened yesterday, but that Slashdot is just getting around to posting it this morning. Ergo, the rest of the world's Thursday Afternoon Release Party becomes Slashdot's... well, you get the idea.
And, is it Ken Burns Effect (no apostrophe, as in : Ken is burning) or Ken Burn's Effect (with apostrophe, as in belonging or pertaining to Ken Burns)
It's "Ken Burns Effect." See, there's this guy, Ken Burns. You may have heard of him. Made a couple of documentaries or something, including one about a war. Didn't have any video of the war-- I guess it happened before CNN or something-- so he had to use lots of still photos. The way he used them, panning across them while telling the story, got him some kind of recognition or something. So now whenever anybody pans across a still photo in a movie, it's called the Ken Burns Effect.
(Sorry for all the snideness. Up late last night, up early today. Bad combo.)
Nice to know they are finally starting to speed up the slowest part of the computer again.
You mean the user?
I can't remember the exact bit depth and res
2048x1556, usually at 4 bytes per pixel. That might be packed as 12-bit RGB, or it might be float or log.
Adds up to about 400MB/s sustained (that's byte, not bit).
Your math is off. DPX's at 2K are only 12 MB per frame, and it's only 24 frames per second. That's 288 MB per second.
HD video at 720p has similar requirements
HD at 720p has requirements that are nowhere near those of 2K. A 720p stream at two bytes per pixel requires 110 MB/s, less than half that of 2K. Of course, it's not uncommon to do cross-fades and other real-time transitions in video production, so it's sometimes necessary to play back two streams simultaneously, for a total of 220 MB/s.
Yes, OC192 is faster, but I've never heard of a single computer being able to push that much data that fast over a single connection.
A few years ago SGI did a test where they leased a piece of cross-country dark fibre for a day and ran GSN over it. That's a single connection-- using ST, not TCP-- from one computer to another computer, RAM to RAM. They pegged over 790 MB/s (that's a big B, as in megabytes per second), and sustained it for hours. And, just to reiterate, this was from one computer to another computer, without any fancy-schmancy multiplexing or anything. This was the ST equivalent of a single FTP transfer.
I can't find any documentation of this test on the web, but I saw it with mine own eyes. One end of the connection was in Herndon, VA, (where I was) and the other was out west someplace.
The SLAC test did 900+ Mb/s over a switched network, which is darned impressive. It's undoubtedly a record for a public switched connection. But don't go thinking it's an absolute land speed record or anything like that.
I agree, that's the definition of stealing. Now, how is downloading stealing?
Taking. Without. Right. Or leave. With intent. To keep. Wrongfully.
If I knew semaphore, I'd be waving flags at you right now.
Why isn't this entire thread absurd?
Oh, it is. I just have a thing for arguing with people who are beyond reason. It's a character trait. Or maybe "character flaw" is a better way of putting it. I tell people to suffer not a fool, but I can't take my own advice.
And, therefore, you lose this argument.
Let me guess. High school debate team? We're not playing a game; there is no score, and neither of us is winning or losing anything.
If you can't come up with some sort of logical proof that downloading is theft, then you lose, plain and simple.
I think you're not seeing the forest for the trees, here. You don't have to look hard to see the proof. It's right in front of you. When you download a song, what do you end up with? A copy of the song, right? How did you get that copy? You downloaded it. You used your computer to connect to another computer to make a copy of the song on your own hard drive. In other words, you took it. You placed it in your possession.
Did you have permission to take it? No, you did not. So you took it without permission.
Did you intend to keep it? Well, that's a somewhat harder question. What does "keep" mean? How about this: did you retain your copy of the song longer than you were legally authorized to? Since the amount of time you were legally authorized to retain your copy was zero, I'd say you did keep it longer. So, whether permanently or for a limited period, you kept it. And because you did so without authorization, you kept it wrongfully.
By the dictionary definition-- which is distinct from the legal definition-- you stole your copy of the song. Thief. Dirty rotten thief.
You don't see any problem with the current music distribution system?
Since perfection is unachievable, I would say that your question is a tautology.
The very fact that it has become a matter of choice whether or not I will pay for the product I am already using is a symptom of a seriously flawed status quo.
That's a dumb thing to say. You always have a choice of whether or not to pay. If you want to steal something, go right ahead. If you get caught, you'll have to deal with the consequences, but it's up to you whether or not you want to try it anyway.
Look, here's the bottom line. You're taking things-- copies of songs-- without paying for them. You're stealing. No matter how hard you might try to weasel your way out of it by arguing about what "to steal" means or, even better, projecting your own culpability onto the system, you're still stealing. What you're doing is wrong, wrong, wrong. Either you know this and you're denying it, or your moral sense is seriously flawed. I wouldn't be surprised at either one; you have the strident insistence of a person who's denying something he knows to be true, but on the other hand we do live in a morally bankrupt time. I say it's 50/50 odds.
You know what the punchline is, though? I personally don't care whether you steal music or not. It's not a big deal to me. But I'm deeply troubled, and pretty disappointed, that you purport to actually believe that what you're doing isn't wrong. An inability to distinguish right from wrong is a sign of a profound social pathology, you know?
It parsed just fine for me. I thought you were saying that the criteria are irrelevant.
That was pretty much my main point, and you ignored it.
Of course I ignored it. I ignored it because it's absurd. By downloading a song without permission of the copyright holder, you are taking a copy of the song without right or leave, and with intent to keep wrongfully. Wrapping that act up in the word "enjoying" doesn't change the facts of the matter.
I have been granted a license by the US Supreme Court to sell you my copy of a recording.
Only if you obtained your copy legally. If you didn't, then you're trafficking.
How you do that is by convincing me that downloading music is stealing from someone...
Not my responsibility, friend. The status quo is that downloading without permission is illegal; it's covered by a different law, but it's morally equivalent to theft. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that it's either (1) not illegal, or (b) not immoral. And you're going to have to do it without resorting to the old "it's only theft if there's deprivation attached" fallacy.
Actually, if there's any justice in the world, musicians will have to actually play their instruments every single time they want to get paid.
Explain, if you can, what theory of justice would support such a position? Again, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the status quo is flawed or insufficient. Let's hear what you've got to say.