Here's your reality check: there's no proof that data came off the judge's PC at all once its compromised. The hacker can just as easily plant the data, modify the access times and forge the E-mails. Trust me, its not hard. I've done it to demonstrate why people need firewalls, routers and E-mail security systems like PGP/GPG for years.
Believe it or not, idealism IS reality. That's why we have in Canada the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; to enforce certain ideals. We live in an idealistic country, and thank goodness for that. I would hope that any such investigation would require better third party verification of data on the PC than the word of a hacker.
If indeed the judge is guilty then so be it. The hacker in question also deserves multiple sentences on illegal break and entry to private property. No hacker has any right sitting on my PC monitoring my E-mail or other activities and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, not congratulated in any way for "lucking out" by finding a pedo. How many other innocent people is he or she violating the privacy rights of?
That's true and false. Yes, if they were the same codecs, it would be the same information. However, its not the same codecs. BD for example offers audio codecs that aren't available on HD-DVD, such as lossless uncompressed full-bandwidth sound (which is better than your local theatre is probably using).
Also its how you use the codec; you can both use VC-1 but if I have 50GiB and you only have 35GiB to store the data on, I might encode with a higher bitrate and therefore it would look better.
Take the money you would've spent on satellite radio in the next 6 months (as well as the receiver) and purchase random recommended songs off iTunes (subscribe to last.fm for a good recommendation list based on your own tastes) or some other service instead, then bring them with you on random shuffle play.
I listen to CDs or other personal audio half the time (unless one of the shows I like on CBC radio happens to be on the radio, or the news). Paying for music I might not want to listen to strikes me as odd, personally.
Up here in the Toronto, Canada region, police officers regularly pull people over and lecture them on holding up traffic if they camp the passing lane.
If a glut of cars is held up behind you and you're able to move over, its your responsibility to let them pass you legally on the left, and not cause problems by blocking traffic, no matter their speed (that's the police's problem).
I have had many people ask why I use the auto-stick to down-shift before corners in my G6 GT and I have to explain the concept of using downshifting to assist slowing the car as well as aiding my acceleration out of (and through) the corner). In a front-wheel drive, I'd rather have my foot on the gas through the corner than on the brakes.
You left out my favourite -- you can rebroadcast any broadcast signal so long as its unmodified. That is to say, if you get broadcast TV in your home, you can cable it over to the neighbour down the hill who can't get those channels, so long as you don't modify the signal.
Yes, this makes sense. Yes, we're progressive. I'm sorry if american big media doesn't like that... oh wait, no I'm not.
Please spec me the high end gaming machine you mean, that can run Oblivion at these quality levels, at this resolution and without frame stutter for less than $600.
As a religious person myself, i see no reason interfering with a religion should be illegal. Disseminating hate, perhaps, like saying "kill all scientologists" but as I understand it he never did any such thing. Hate speech is a crime up here in Canada of course, rarely prosecuted but a crime nonetheless. I don't understand how interfering with a religion even works considering most Jews obviously disagree with Christianity and the latter would probably argue a Shintoist is wrong too. Many people have said that sects of Mormonism is a cult without being arrested; how does that happen?
Allow me to say this one last time. Digital broadcast television (which I have by satellite) is basically the same resolution as a DVD unless the DVD is anamorphic widescreen and you play it back on a widescreen television. For most people watching DVDs who don't believe the HD market matters however, those movies are actually at a lower resolution (especially letterboxed) since the horizontal pixels are squashed to fit on their TVs to basically standard NTSC (or PAL) width and they lose the pixels in height for the letterboxing. If they watch them full-screen, they have slightly more pixels in width, but their vertical resolution is again the same.
According to Wikipedia, DVDs are typically 720×480 (NTSC) or 720×576 (PAL). Again according to Wikipedia, NTSC broadcast television consists of 484 lines of video resolution (out of 525 possible; the rest are used for sync, etc.) at 29.97 frames per second, 59.94 interlaced fields per second.
Feel free to take a look at the graph on the NTSC page hosted by Wikipedia for more information. Also remember that horizontal pixels in broadcast NTSC don't really exist and are a side-effect of newer digital production and storage methods as well as the TV sets, but that defining a horizontal resolution of an analog NTSC signal is difficult at best although SDTV is basically defined as 704x480 (compare to DVDs at 720x480). Tell me again how DVDs are so much better than broadcast TV as you realize for a moment that DVDs are based on the NTSC standard for broadcast television.
And PS, DVDs due to better production and storage methods do look better on my 30 inch TV than most broadcast television at non-HD resolutions. That's just 30 inches. However, well-produced digitally broadcast television in regular definition looks very comparable within its "box" (as it is not wide-screen) to DVDs.
I should stop using Linux too. I've been using it since 1994, but here I am, I own a copy of Windows 3.1, a copy of Excel 3 and oh no, Unixware 7 (I even installed it once).
Let me help you out, yes Nascar, sports in general and group sports with wide angle shots in particular also all benefit greatly from HD (since you can actually recognize players' faces from the distance shots for the first time, instead of being 5 or 6 blurred pixels).
However, more in the realm of standard DVD purchasing and movie watching, CSI (all three), House, Numb3rs, The Unit, Grey's Anatomy, Prison Break, Ghost Whisperer, Las Vegas and a few others I can't think of right now all look incredible in HD. Most of the above rival PBS nature shows, my point was a specific one since leaving an actual TV show on the TV detracts from the whole guest thing.
High definition movies benefit the same way as HD TV shows. Its not that DVDs look bad enough for anyone to complain its that HD visuals look real. Sure, many movies are shot so poorly that you'd never notice if they were in HD. Some actors will probably look worse in HD because blemishes show so much clearer in closeups. By and large, everyone who has seen HD content on my TV has thought it looked stunning and the only reason they don't have the same experience in their homes is that I'm willing to pay for it, and they'd rather wait for it to be cheap.
Its like a nice car or any other initially luxury feature in your life. Its not necessary, but you can't say its not appreciated by most people, because my experience differs. Just like most people who get into a Cadillac for the first time think its great but still wouldn't pay for it, most people who sit in my livingroom feel the same way about HD TV viewing. I didn't say everyone should rush out and buy an HD set because they're missing out, I just said they'll appreciate it when they get it as opposed to supposedly not noticing.
Oh, its pretty immense. Go watch an IMAX movie sometime. From the Wikipedia article:
The intent of IMAX is to dramatically increase the resolution of the image by using much larger film stock at a resolution of about 10000 x 7000 pixels. To do this, 70 mm film stock is run "sideways" through the cameras. While traditional 70 mm film has an image area that is 48.5 mm wide and 22.1 mm tall (for Todd-AO), in IMAX the image is 69.6 mm wide and 48.5 mm tall. In order to expose at standard film speed of 24 frames per second, three times as much film needs to move through the camera each second.
Yeah, you read that right. 10k by 7k pixels. Even high definition TV at approximately 2k by 1k pixels falls dramatically short. Even when shot normally, 70mm film is very impressive compared to regular film on a large enough screen and with a steady enough camera in the field.
No offense, but you need your eyes checked if you can't see the difference (or your TVs too small / too far away for it to matter).
There is a massive resolution difference between 1080i broadcast HDTV and 480i/p DVDs. Now the TV you spoke of was most likely a 720p set, and I have a 1080i CRT at home myself, so we're comparing different brands of apples here, but the premise is true nonetheless.
I've had many many people over since buying my new TV and I almost never tell them its in HD until they ask. I always leave a PBS nature show running in 1080i as background visuals (its like a moving painting) as people come in, and they often stop, stare and say "Wow, that's really bright and crisp! I love your new TV. That looks incredible." That's from almost 15 feet away, double my normal viewing distance. When they get closer, they get more impressed, since the closer you get to any TV, the worse it looks. On my 30" 1080i set, you can barely make out the pixel resolution from a few feet away.
There's only one person who says she doesn't care about the quality change, or doesn't notice, and that's my wife. That's what she said when we got it at least. A year later, she asks why some shows look so grainy and I explain that they're on the regular definition channels. "That looks really bad" she says. "That's how they always looked" I reply.
If you can't see the difference, good for you, you'll save some money. But you honestly need new eye wear or your TVs too small for it to matter (under about 27" at nominal viewing distances).
Oh trust me, that gives me headaches already. Horizontal panning looks terrible on DVDs, especially in action sequences, since objects that are moving at speeds different from the camera appear to 'jump' between locations. 24fps just isn't good enough for high speed panning. Period. The MPEG-2 compressors also can't fit that much motion data into their limited bandwidth (to make the movie fit on a DVD and also to allow the DVD to be processed). Watching the bandwidth meter on my Oppo DVD player is entertaining during those moments; it often hits 100%.
I own an upscaling DVD player already. It outputs 720p or 1080i and does a very good job of making up data from the original source. That said, the original source still doesn't have 720 progressive lines of resolution, its still 480. The original data source is what matters here, a lot more than what the DVD player does to it. Would you rather have your DVD player invent lines that it thinks should be there, or get a transfer from the original film that has the real lines that actually existed? In the case of a forest of trees, the leaves will look correct instead of blurred. In the case of a face, pores, shavings and the wetness of the eye become apparent (in HD resolutions).
Upscaling DVD players are not an alternative to HD movie transfers, they're just a nice way to make your existing low resolution DVDs look better on your new high resolution TV.
I wasn't happy with DVD when it came out. The only things I like about DVD are no artifacting and degradation with time and easy navigation of the disc (no rewinding).
DVD doesn't look great, its essentially the same quality as broadcast TV. Now if you believe broadcast TV looks great, then sorry, but we can do a lot better. I don't pay to go to the cinema to stand on sticky floors, put up with belching behind me or for the overpriced condiments, its for the higher quality sound and picture.
For the price of attending the theatre regularly with my wife over a couple years, I can easily purchase a high definition TV, Dolby Digital and/or dts receiver with speakers and cables and be able to pause. What's missing? The quality of video.
35mm film looks much better than DVD. 70mm film looks immensely better than DVD. I want high definition movies in my living room so I can avoid ever paying to go to the theatre again. Friends? Social life? Invite them over of course. I dirt cheap (free to guests) popcorn myself thank-you very much, and the floor usually isn't sticky.
For one, MySQL supports multiple storage engines. Simply write a WORM storage engine and use it with MySQL if you really think its that important to have as an option. Having it as the default storage engine seems moronic to me from an efficiency standpoint (and as a DBA, I tend to be paranoid about efficiency).
I use different table types in MySQL for different features and different situations. Website guestbooks and hit counters are perfectly well handled by MyISAM, most other data by InnoDB tables.
As another poster pointed out, MySQL also offers full (text and/or binary) logging, so you can always point those to a write-once device as well for nice and easy playback of transactions.
Please read some history on Windows API issues and why this matters to developers.
This isn't about stealing code or making life easier, this is about Microsoft writing both an OS and the software that sits on top of the OS. Since they write say, Office AND Windows, they could (and have) include API calls that benefit their version of Office on Windows that are hidden from (for example) OpenOffice. The court decision was that since Microsoft has a definite monopoly in the OS market, its unfair competition to not allow their competitors equal access to the API that they have IN THEIR NON-OS development divisions.
That is to say, I should be able to with equal talent and innovation create an equal product sitting on Windows to Microsoft's own and they shouldn't be allowed to unfairly hamper me or benefit themselves in the process using the Windows API.
That's why one of the court recommendations was to split Microsoft into OS and application divisions, and why tying of IE and Windows Media Player are a big deal.
Free has several meanings, not all of which necessarily come to mind when people hear the word, and some of which are much more relevant to FLOSS than others.
The one definition above I find most useful for how "Free Software" works, would be "6. able to do something at will; at liberty: free to choose." Note the specific use of the word liberty to expound on the meaning of free in this context. We don't have a separate word in English derived from liberty to refer to an object's status, but the French do. Thus FLOSS.
PS, what do you think the etymology of the word 'liberty' is? Oh, and check the face of a French coin sometime. You might notice the lady liberty there, just like the one they made for the United States known as the statue of liberty. Using a French word to denote freedom in the liberty sense makes excellent sense historically.
You obviously haven't actually read how the 2.6 kernels are maintained. The kernels on kernel.org mirrors are not for end users, but for developers and distribution maintainers. If you want to work with one yourself on a development machine, that's great. Otherwise, you should be using the packaged kernels from your distributor.
That's not me talking, that's a paraphrase of what was said when 2.6 was continued in this way.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's your reality check: there's no proof that data came off the judge's PC at all once its compromised. The hacker can just as easily plant the data, modify the access times and forge the E-mails. Trust me, its not hard. I've done it to demonstrate why people need firewalls, routers and E-mail security systems like PGP/GPG for years.
Believe it or not, idealism IS reality. That's why we have in Canada the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; to enforce certain ideals. We live in an idealistic country, and thank goodness for that. I would hope that any such investigation would require better third party verification of data on the PC than the word of a hacker.
If indeed the judge is guilty then so be it. The hacker in question also deserves multiple sentences on illegal break and entry to private property. No hacker has any right sitting on my PC monitoring my E-mail or other activities and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, not congratulated in any way for "lucking out" by finding a pedo. How many other innocent people is he or she violating the privacy rights of?
That's true and false. Yes, if they were the same codecs, it would be the same information. However, its not the same codecs. BD for example offers audio codecs that aren't available on HD-DVD, such as lossless uncompressed full-bandwidth sound (which is better than your local theatre is probably using).
Also its how you use the codec; you can both use VC-1 but if I have 50GiB and you only have 35GiB to store the data on, I might encode with a higher bitrate and therefore it would look better.
This isn't rocket science.
Take the money you would've spent on satellite radio in the next 6 months (as well as the receiver) and purchase random recommended songs off iTunes (subscribe to last.fm for a good recommendation list based on your own tastes) or some other service instead, then bring them with you on random shuffle play.
I listen to CDs or other personal audio half the time (unless one of the shows I like on CBC radio happens to be on the radio, or the news). Paying for music I might not want to listen to strikes me as odd, personally.
Up here in the Toronto, Canada region, police officers regularly pull people over and lecture them on holding up traffic if they camp the passing lane.
If a glut of cars is held up behind you and you're able to move over, its your responsibility to let them pass you legally on the left, and not cause problems by blocking traffic, no matter their speed (that's the police's problem).
Totally off-topic but I agree.
I have had many people ask why I use the auto-stick to down-shift before corners in my G6 GT and I have to explain the concept of using downshifting to assist slowing the car as well as aiding my acceleration out of (and through) the corner). In a front-wheel drive, I'd rather have my foot on the gas through the corner than on the brakes.
You left out my favourite -- you can rebroadcast any broadcast signal so long as its unmodified. That is to say, if you get broadcast TV in your home, you can cable it over to the neighbour down the hill who can't get those channels, so long as you don't modify the signal.
... oh wait, no I'm not.
Yes, this makes sense. Yes, we're progressive. I'm sorry if american big media doesn't like that
Canada is the second largest supplier of oil to the United States in the world. We're sandwiched in between Venezuela and the Middle East.
The US also buys tremendous amounts of automobile parts, mined goods, forestry product, and beef from Canada.
We also have better high speed Internet access, but I doubt we'll be exporting that anytime soon.
Please spec me the high end gaming machine you mean, that can run Oblivion at these quality levels, at this resolution and without frame stutter for less than $600.
Next question?
As a religious person myself, i see no reason interfering with a religion should be illegal. Disseminating hate, perhaps, like saying "kill all scientologists" but as I understand it he never did any such thing. Hate speech is a crime up here in Canada of course, rarely prosecuted but a crime nonetheless. I don't understand how interfering with a religion even works considering most Jews obviously disagree with Christianity and the latter would probably argue a Shintoist is wrong too. Many people have said that sects of Mormonism is a cult without being arrested; how does that happen?
Allow me to say this one last time. Digital broadcast television (which I have by satellite) is basically the same resolution as a DVD unless the DVD is anamorphic widescreen and you play it back on a widescreen television. For most people watching DVDs who don't believe the HD market matters however, those movies are actually at a lower resolution (especially letterboxed) since the horizontal pixels are squashed to fit on their TVs to basically standard NTSC (or PAL) width and they lose the pixels in height for the letterboxing. If they watch them full-screen, they have slightly more pixels in width, but their vertical resolution is again the same.
According to Wikipedia, DVDs are typically 720×480 (NTSC) or 720×576 (PAL). Again according to Wikipedia, NTSC broadcast television consists of 484 lines of video resolution (out of 525 possible; the rest are used for sync, etc.) at 29.97 frames per second, 59.94 interlaced fields per second.
Feel free to take a look at the graph on the NTSC page hosted by Wikipedia for more information. Also remember that horizontal pixels in broadcast NTSC don't really exist and are a side-effect of newer digital production and storage methods as well as the TV sets, but that defining a horizontal resolution of an analog NTSC signal is difficult at best although SDTV is basically defined as 704x480 (compare to DVDs at 720x480). Tell me again how DVDs are so much better than broadcast TV as you realize for a moment that DVDs are based on the NTSC standard for broadcast television.
And PS, DVDs due to better production and storage methods do look better on my 30 inch TV than most broadcast television at non-HD resolutions. That's just 30 inches. However, well-produced digitally broadcast television in regular definition looks very comparable within its "box" (as it is not wide-screen) to DVDs.
I should stop using Linux too. I've been using it since 1994, but here I am, I own a copy of Windows 3.1, a copy of Excel 3 and oh no, Unixware 7 (I even installed it once).
That would never happen ... (SCO + Caldera anyone?)
Let me help you out, yes Nascar, sports in general and group sports with wide angle shots in particular also all benefit greatly from HD (since you can actually recognize players' faces from the distance shots for the first time, instead of being 5 or 6 blurred pixels).
However, more in the realm of standard DVD purchasing and movie watching, CSI (all three), House, Numb3rs, The Unit, Grey's Anatomy, Prison Break, Ghost Whisperer, Las Vegas and a few others I can't think of right now all look incredible in HD. Most of the above rival PBS nature shows, my point was a specific one since leaving an actual TV show on the TV detracts from the whole guest thing.
High definition movies benefit the same way as HD TV shows. Its not that DVDs look bad enough for anyone to complain its that HD visuals look real. Sure, many movies are shot so poorly that you'd never notice if they were in HD. Some actors will probably look worse in HD because blemishes show so much clearer in closeups. By and large, everyone who has seen HD content on my TV has thought it looked stunning and the only reason they don't have the same experience in their homes is that I'm willing to pay for it, and they'd rather wait for it to be cheap.
Its like a nice car or any other initially luxury feature in your life. Its not necessary, but you can't say its not appreciated by most people, because my experience differs. Just like most people who get into a Cadillac for the first time think its great but still wouldn't pay for it, most people who sit in my livingroom feel the same way about HD TV viewing. I didn't say everyone should rush out and buy an HD set because they're missing out, I just said they'll appreciate it when they get it as opposed to supposedly not noticing.
No offense, but you need your eyes checked if you can't see the difference (or your TVs too small / too far away for it to matter).
There is a massive resolution difference between 1080i broadcast HDTV and 480i/p DVDs. Now the TV you spoke of was most likely a 720p set, and I have a 1080i CRT at home myself, so we're comparing different brands of apples here, but the premise is true nonetheless.
I've had many many people over since buying my new TV and I almost never tell them its in HD until they ask. I always leave a PBS nature show running in 1080i as background visuals (its like a moving painting) as people come in, and they often stop, stare and say "Wow, that's really bright and crisp! I love your new TV. That looks incredible." That's from almost 15 feet away, double my normal viewing distance. When they get closer, they get more impressed, since the closer you get to any TV, the worse it looks. On my 30" 1080i set, you can barely make out the pixel resolution from a few feet away.
There's only one person who says she doesn't care about the quality change, or doesn't notice, and that's my wife. That's what she said when we got it at least. A year later, she asks why some shows look so grainy and I explain that they're on the regular definition channels. "That looks really bad" she says. "That's how they always looked" I reply.
If you can't see the difference, good for you, you'll save some money. But you honestly need new eye wear or your TVs too small for it to matter (under about 27" at nominal viewing distances).
Oh trust me, that gives me headaches already. Horizontal panning looks terrible on DVDs, especially in action sequences, since objects that are moving at speeds different from the camera appear to 'jump' between locations. 24fps just isn't good enough for high speed panning. Period. The MPEG-2 compressors also can't fit that much motion data into their limited bandwidth (to make the movie fit on a DVD and also to allow the DVD to be processed). Watching the bandwidth meter on my Oppo DVD player is entertaining during those moments; it often hits 100%.
I own an upscaling DVD player already. It outputs 720p or 1080i and does a very good job of making up data from the original source. That said, the original source still doesn't have 720 progressive lines of resolution, its still 480. The original data source is what matters here, a lot more than what the DVD player does to it. Would you rather have your DVD player invent lines that it thinks should be there, or get a transfer from the original film that has the real lines that actually existed? In the case of a forest of trees, the leaves will look correct instead of blurred. In the case of a face, pores, shavings and the wetness of the eye become apparent (in HD resolutions).
Upscaling DVD players are not an alternative to HD movie transfers, they're just a nice way to make your existing low resolution DVDs look better on your new high resolution TV.
Its pretty easy to prove. Someone nearby can check for court filings. They are after all public record.
I wasn't happy with DVD when it came out. The only things I like about DVD are no artifacting and degradation with time and easy navigation of the disc (no rewinding).
DVD doesn't look great, its essentially the same quality as broadcast TV. Now if you believe broadcast TV looks great, then sorry, but we can do a lot better. I don't pay to go to the cinema to stand on sticky floors, put up with belching behind me or for the overpriced condiments, its for the higher quality sound and picture.
For the price of attending the theatre regularly with my wife over a couple years, I can easily purchase a high definition TV, Dolby Digital and/or dts receiver with speakers and cables and be able to pause. What's missing? The quality of video.
35mm film looks much better than DVD. 70mm film looks immensely better than DVD. I want high definition movies in my living room so I can avoid ever paying to go to the theatre again. Friends? Social life? Invite them over of course. I dirt cheap (free to guests) popcorn myself thank-you very much, and the floor usually isn't sticky.
Did you miss something? Go check the PS3's specs aside from RAM and get back to me about the price/performance for server workloads.
For one, MySQL supports multiple storage engines. Simply write a WORM storage engine and use it with MySQL if you really think its that important to have as an option. Having it as the default storage engine seems moronic to me from an efficiency standpoint (and as a DBA, I tend to be paranoid about efficiency).
I use different table types in MySQL for different features and different situations. Website guestbooks and hit counters are perfectly well handled by MyISAM, most other data by InnoDB tables.
As another poster pointed out, MySQL also offers full (text and/or binary) logging, so you can always point those to a write-once device as well for nice and easy playback of transactions.
You're obviously clueless to the issues at hand.
Please read some history on Windows API issues and why this matters to developers.
This isn't about stealing code or making life easier, this is about Microsoft writing both an OS and the software that sits on top of the OS. Since they write say, Office AND Windows, they could (and have) include API calls that benefit their version of Office on Windows that are hidden from (for example) OpenOffice. The court decision was that since Microsoft has a definite monopoly in the OS market, its unfair competition to not allow their competitors equal access to the API that they have IN THEIR NON-OS development divisions.
That is to say, I should be able to with equal talent and innovation create an equal product sitting on Windows to Microsoft's own and they shouldn't be allowed to unfairly hamper me or benefit themselves in the process using the Windows API.
That's why one of the court recommendations was to split Microsoft into OS and application divisions, and why tying of IE and Windows Media Player are a big deal.
Weren't you paying attention when everyone agreed that a PC isn't a PC without Windows on it?
</sarcasm>
Yeah, made me get a sick feeling in my stomach.
I'm so sorry your English teacher failed you.
Free has several meanings, not all of which necessarily come to mind when people hear the word, and some of which are much more relevant to FLOSS than others.
The one definition above I find most useful for how "Free Software" works, would be "6. able to do something at will; at liberty: free to choose." Note the specific use of the word liberty to expound on the meaning of free in this context. We don't have a separate word in English derived from liberty to refer to an object's status, but the French do. Thus FLOSS.
PS, what do you think the etymology of the word 'liberty' is? Oh, and check the face of a French coin sometime. You might notice the lady liberty there, just like the one they made for the United States known as the statue of liberty. Using a French word to denote freedom in the liberty sense makes excellent sense historically.
You obviously haven't actually read how the 2.6 kernels are maintained. The kernels on kernel.org mirrors are not for end users, but for developers and distribution maintainers. If you want to work with one yourself on a development machine, that's great. Otherwise, you should be using the packaged kernels from your distributor.
That's not me talking, that's a paraphrase of what was said when 2.6 was continued in this way.