I don't think it tells us anything about the standard model, other than to point out our lack of computational power. I'm guessing that no one thought of a quadraquark (I just made that up, So archive.org take notice. I coined the phrase) and even if they did, they wouldn't beable to show that it was or was not theoretically possible. But, that in itself could be telling us that the Standard model isn't good enough to predict new particles before we run across them.
Everyone thinks that Microsoft reversed its original decision to not make a music store. Perhaps I am a pessimist, but I think this was their evil plan all along. This is the AntiFud tactic.
1st: Deny Plans for new product and or service. Tell everyone that the current players are doing a good job.
2nd: Wait for competitors to invest deeply in new service.
3rd: Deliver knockout blow to unsuspecting and overextended foes by entering market you said you'd stay out of.
But Spyglass licenced their technology from... badum dum Mosaic.Take a look at the notice from the Help about menu on IE 6:
Based on NCSA Mosaic. NCSA Mosaic(TM); was developed at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Distributed under a licensing agreement with Spyglass, Inc. Contains security software licensed from RSA Data Security Inc. Portions of this software are based in part on the work of the Independent JPEG Group. Multimedia software components, including Indeo(R); video, Indeo(R) audio, and Web Design Effects are provided by Intel Corp. Unix version contains software licensed from Mainsoft Corporation. Copyright (c) 1998-1999 Mainsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Mainsoft is a trademark of Mainsoft Corporation. Warning: This computer program is protected by copyright law and international treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this program, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law.
You are looking at everything big picture. Great, but the devil is in the details. Saying that microsoft isn't an innovator is like saying that berkley doesn't do Physics. Its the small gradual improvements that make great ideas into great products.
In general, I find that to be true. There is BSD freedom, and GPL freedom. Two different views on the world. One benifts the person writting the code, the other benifits those that do not. Its a shame there couldn't be something between the two.
Ok, the title doesn't relate to the rest of the post, but its a good attention grabber.
Scholarly Papers are more than just the result or theory they propose. They contain much more information than that. There is the methods, and reasoning that goes behind them. That can be morevaluable than the result itself. Just think about biology. The first virus was identified in tobbaco plants. Great, doesn't really directly effect someone working on human biology right? basically it says that they found a new way for plants to die. But think of all of the methodology contained within.
Now think about computer SCIENCE. If it truley is a SCIENCE, then much more important than the result, is the process. Think of the math used to derive the result. Even if in a particualr case it produced a suboptimal result, applied to a different problem it may be revolutionary.
Actually, I'm concerned that Fedora will be a bleeding edge distro and not nearly as stable as RHL was. Plus, its an excuse to try something different. I haven't had time to really try out all of the available distros. I liked Redhat in the sence that I like chocolate icecream. That doesn't mean that when they discontinue my brand of choc icecream I won't try other flavors.
Yes, I bought Redhat Linux in stores. Its like paying for an album on mp3.com. I like it, and I want to support those responsible for its creation. That isn't the easiest thing to do with OSS, but buying comercial linux offerings is the least I can do.
Nope, After rereading the article I am infact a moron. They specifically state that Drm protected files from The music stor ecannot be coppied. So, how the heck is this news? How is this any different than putting the mp3's in a shared folder?
I guess someone goofed. Soemtimes, it isn't easy being the first ones to screw up. They shouldn't ahve implamented the filelist sharing. Something like this was bound to happpen. Now, they've threatened ticking off the RIAA.
If you wanted to kill support for RHL, great just do it. Its your service for a popular ( but apperently unprofitable) product. But, Why on earth are you changing the name to fedora? If you wanted to more clearly designate the purpose for each of your products, why not alter the name to reflect that, while keeping the readhat moniker? Something along the lines of Redhat Develpmental Linux(RHDL) would serve your purpose nicely. From a marketing perspective, it would seem that you do not think that Fedora is worthy of the Redhat brand.
Well, If you are doing development on your Mac, you might need to test it directly with linux before releasing it. Just to make sure apple didn't do something wacky to osx, that works differently in Linux. Plus, you have different directory structures in each flavor of linux that need to be tested. Ect, Ect.
No one is really suggusting that everyone needs it, but some might.
Because, it relates to the internet. As a techie what cool methods can we dream up to prevent these kinds of abuses from happening? The obvious answer is archive.org. I wouldn't have posted it, because the answer is so obvious. Forget the context of the particular situation, and abstract to the larger debate. Is the internet intended to be a perminent storage medium in the first place? Is there anything wrong with removing content? Ect. So there is a geek factor, but more as a your rights online kinda deal.
Good, but not Great. Its still 128 Kbs regardless of the source. That is a greater quality bottleneck then the source (unless the source is really bad). But Back to my point, How do you know what bitrate the WMA's will be at? It might be better than those provided by itunes.
I am so ticked that they would assume that we would clown around with their wiki! If I didn't wasn't so busy stuffing my closest 20 friends into my civic, I'd write a complaint.
Has anyone ever looked through the jpeg library? There is all of these #ifdef solaris things all over the place to define functions that are standard in everyoneelse's c liberaries. Even Borland 16bit dos c compilers are more standard.
Regardless of what your opinon o the two operating systesms is, you cannot seriously argue that apple spends more money on research than microsoft does. Take a look at the projects currently being developed by the folks at microsoft research. They are spending tons more than apple. Now money spent does not garuantee superiority.
Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot in general doesn't post enough of these kinds of stories. I wonder if this would have made it if not for the R2d2 reference.
I don't think it tells us anything about the standard model, other than to point out our lack of computational power. I'm guessing that no one thought of a quadraquark (I just made that up, So archive.org take notice. I coined the phrase) and even if they did, they wouldn't beable to show that it was or was not theoretically possible. But, that in itself could be telling us that the Standard model isn't good enough to predict new particles before we run across them.
Does anyone know of any simular such laws outside of california?
Everyone thinks that Microsoft reversed its original decision to not make a music store. Perhaps I am a pessimist, but I think this was their evil plan all along. This is the AntiFud tactic.
1st: Deny Plans for new product and or service. Tell everyone that the current players are doing a good job.
2nd: Wait for competitors to invest deeply in new service.
3rd: Deliver knockout blow to unsuspecting and overextended foes by entering market you said you'd stay out of.
But Spyglass licenced their technology from ... badum dum Mosaic.Take a look at the notice from the Help about menu on IE 6:
Based on NCSA Mosaic. NCSA Mosaic(TM); was developed at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Distributed under a licensing agreement with Spyglass, Inc.
Contains security software licensed from RSA Data Security Inc.
Portions of this software are based in part on the work of the Independent JPEG Group.
Multimedia software components, including Indeo(R); video, Indeo(R) audio, and Web Design Effects are provided by Intel Corp.
Unix version contains software licensed from Mainsoft Corporation. Copyright (c) 1998-1999 Mainsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Mainsoft is a trademark of Mainsoft Corporation.
Warning: This computer program is protected by copyright law and international treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this program, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law.
You are looking at everything big picture. Great, but the devil is in the details. Saying that microsoft isn't an innovator is like saying that berkley doesn't do Physics. Its the small gradual improvements that make great ideas into great products.
Oh and you forgot about IE. Copied from Mosaic.
In general, I find that to be true. There is BSD freedom, and GPL freedom. Two different views on the world. One benifts the person writting the code, the other benifits those that do not. Its a shame there couldn't be something between the two.
Ok, the title doesn't relate to the rest of the post, but its a good attention grabber.
Scholarly Papers are more than just the result or theory they propose. They contain much more information than that. There is the methods, and reasoning that goes behind them. That can be morevaluable than the result itself. Just think about biology. The first virus was identified in tobbaco plants. Great, doesn't really directly effect someone working on human biology right? basically it says that they found a new way for plants to die. But think of all of the methodology contained within.
Now think about computer SCIENCE. If it truley is a SCIENCE, then much more important than the result, is the process. Think of the math used to derive the result. Even if in a particualr case it produced a suboptimal result, applied to a different problem it may be revolutionary.
Actually, I'm concerned that Fedora will be a bleeding edge distro and not nearly as stable as RHL was. Plus, its an excuse to try something different. I haven't had time to really try out all of the available distros. I liked Redhat in the sence that I like chocolate icecream. That doesn't mean that when they discontinue my brand of choc icecream I won't try other flavors.
Yes, I bought Redhat Linux in stores. Its like paying for an album on mp3.com. I like it, and I want to support those responsible for its creation. That isn't the easiest thing to do with OSS, but buying comercial linux offerings is the least I can do.
Redhat doesn't want my busness anymore, so it looks like a perfect time to try mandrake.
Nope, After rereading the article I am infact a moron. They specifically state that Drm protected files from The music stor ecannot be coppied. So, how the heck is this news? How is this any different than putting the mp3's in a shared folder?
Well, yes if you were copying the file to your computer, but if you are recording the stream as mp3, then you can play it anywhere on anything.
I guess someone goofed. Soemtimes, it isn't easy being the first ones to screw up. They shouldn't ahve implamented the filelist sharing. Something like this was bound to happpen. Now, they've threatened ticking off the RIAA.
If you wanted to kill support for RHL, great just do it. Its your service for a popular ( but apperently unprofitable) product. But, Why on earth are you changing the name to fedora? If you wanted to more clearly designate the purpose for each of your products, why not alter the name to reflect that, while keeping the readhat moniker? Something along the lines of Redhat Develpmental Linux(RHDL) would serve your purpose nicely. From a marketing perspective, it would seem that you do not think that Fedora is worthy of the Redhat brand.
Otherwise they can't reproduce.
Well, If you are doing development on your Mac, you might need to test it directly with linux before releasing it. Just to make sure apple didn't do something wacky to osx, that works differently in Linux. Plus, you have different directory structures in each flavor of linux that need to be tested. Ect, Ect.
No one is really suggusting that everyone needs it, but some might.
Where did you get the $50 G3?
Because, it relates to the internet. As a techie what cool methods can we dream up to prevent these kinds of abuses from happening? The obvious answer is archive.org. I wouldn't have posted it, because the answer is so obvious. Forget the context of the particular situation, and abstract to the larger debate. Is the internet intended to be a perminent storage medium in the first place? Is there anything wrong with removing content? Ect. So there is a geek factor, but more as a your rights online kinda deal.
Good, but not Great. Its still 128 Kbs regardless of the source. That is a greater quality bottleneck then the source (unless the source is really bad). But Back to my point, How do you know what bitrate the WMA's will be at? It might be better than those provided by itunes.
ITMS uses 128kbs AAC files. Thats only superior to a 128 kbs MP3. How do you know what rate the WMA's will be? MusicMatch uses 160 Kbs wma.
There is another way ( other than burning and ripping), but I'm not going to publicly divulge it.
I am so ticked that they would assume that we would clown around with their wiki! If I didn't wasn't so busy stuffing my closest 20 friends into my civic, I'd write a complaint.
Has anyone ever looked through the jpeg library? There is all of these #ifdef solaris things all over the place to define functions that are standard in everyoneelse's c liberaries. Even Borland 16bit dos c compilers are more standard.
Regardless of what your opinon o the two operating systesms is, you cannot seriously argue that apple spends more money on research than microsoft does. Take a look at the projects currently being developed by the folks at microsoft research. They are spending tons more than apple. Now money spent does not garuantee superiority.