I think everyone (not only "spammer") had such an "Oops" in her career.
I remember when we counterattacked CIA agents scanning our network...
I saw a host slowly and randomly syn/fin/null scanning (something like nmap --randomize_hosts -Tparanoid but with -sS, -sF and -sN changing randomly -- a custom patched nmap or something like that) our hosts, so I answered
with directing a broadcast-magnified traffic
to its class C
(something like "smurf" but with custom tools using UDP and TCP as well as ICMP packets)
to disable the offending host,
having absolutely no idea that I saturated the backbone of ISP used by a CIA covert operation.
Imagine my surprise when I saw agents knocking on my door... Fortunately after I described some of my techniques and explained to them that I am a security professional, not a cracker, they let me go but if I wasn't working for the government at that time I probably wouldn't write this now.
I wonder what stories other slashdotters can tell about their biggest "Oops!"
A friend of mine (who is a total pervert, deep into "upskirt" business and who even runs his own
website dedicated to voyeurism deviation -- hi, Igor)
told me recently that "an old-school shoe pinhole camera can only get us this far -- there are serious limitations which we need to overcome if we really want this industry to evolve." I am sure he could find a good use for these cockroaches as soon as they hit the mainstream market being equipped with a wireless mini camera.
I can already see www.cock-roaches.com banner ads.
This is really great news. (For perverts, that is.)
I've already said it countless times, but
if you haven't already read The Right to Read, do it now while you still have the right to do it. From what I witness it might change in the near future. That's funny that we all were laughing out loud at Richard when he wrote his "stupid dystopian science fiction which will never happen outside of a paranoid mind foolishly guarded with a tinfoil hat" and at the same time we all kept allowing it to slowly happen. And who looks like a fool now? Sadly, not Richard but us.
It certainly doesn't make me feel proud at all.
The DMCA is the fruit of our own inaction,
our own inertia,
our own plain stupidity.
We all have to remember that.
We have to take the responsibility if we ever want to overthrow the law system we don't agree with. The DMCA was introduced democratically and it can be fought only democratically, where everyone takes the responsibility for the will of the majority.
It is a great time to renew our EFF memberships because that is our freedom at risk.
If you haven't already read The Right to Read, do it while you still have the right to do it. From what I witness it might change in the near future. Funny that we all were laughing at Richard when he wrote his "dystopian science fiction which will never happen outside of a paranoid mind guarded with a tinfoil hat" and at the same time we all kept allowing it to slowly happen. And who looks like a fool now? Not Richard but us.
It certainly doesn't make me feel proud at all.
OS was my favorite spyware ever
(of course I mean OS, i.e. the Output Spy -- not Operating System, abbreviated as O/S) and not because it was itself so great, but because of the
unbelievably stupid countermeasures,
completely missing the whole point.
I always had a copy of unpatched JEDGAR
but most of people was foolish enough to
use the "patched" (read: backdoored/trojaned) one.
Imagine if today one of the anti-spyware software like chkrootkit, ad-aware or tiger would say "Don't like being spied on? Here's a tool which will tell you you are safe, after doing abslutely nothing at all. Enjoy!" Such morons would be out of business in seconds today, not to mention being sued into oblivion. Unfortunately back in the ITS era most of people didn't understand computers and technology in general. But I must admit that it was somewhat funny to see people using patched JEDGAR against your OS. Those were the days.
Sorry.
I'm in the middle of a major depressive episode.
I'll try to reply as soon as I am back in the
hipomanic part of the spectrum.
I'm really sorry but I just can't write
anything with sense right now.
I hate it when it happens but I can't help much.
Sorry.
Am I the only one who thinks that $100,000 could be used better to actually produce something valuable? I know that it is nothing to/.*AA/ as it is money they get for every downloaded MP3 per person but come on, for everyone outside of/.*AA/ it's a lot of cache. I know great movies with budgets lower than that, for crying out loud.
Of course one has to wonder whether they are planning their "anti-piracy message" to win Academy Award for best fiction though... But let's be serious.
As intelligent people we are usually concerned mostly about our right to read but we are soon going to face the new fight, fight for our undeniable freedom to jig, whatever that means.
Isn't that ironic that the term "hacker"
originally described someone who makes furniture with an axe? Don't you think?
What next?
A boat not sold but licensed with the EULA explicitly prohibiting the very act of abordage?
Well, that will stop piracy for sure.
"Ahoy, Matey. By saying 'Argh!' ye agree to the terms of the following End User License Agreement..."
There's a joke here in my institute that
while 2 to 3 thousand more species are expected to be catalogued before 2010, also another 2 to 3 million species are expected to be catalogued before doomsday.
(You probably have to be a biologist who don't get laid very often to find it funny though.)
"Publically," eh? Fine. We both know you are bluffing. Oh, by the way, are you really that naive to think that I cannot find your identity if you post as "Anonymous Coward" on Slashdot?
As for the video footage, if you knew the case you'd also know that this tape was being used as the main evinence in the court and as such was already in public domain. I can't believe you want to talk about it, it was years ago! Just get over it.
I belive this is something completely different than confirming to a journalist that some pervert was masturbating in the public place in a gov-sponsored lab. I don't have any friend named Sado Domina or whatever and therefore you not only spread obvious lies but you also waste the time of Slashdot readers. If you indeed know me then contact me privately. Otherwise, get lost and stop wasting my time.
I hope the DOD isn't building a network larger than this, why the heck would they waste the money on millions of machines that would be needed to be larger than the 6bone was.
It's hard to believe and I'm sure I certainly wouldn't have believed it myself if it wasn't my good friend who told me about it, but besides the technical issues some people actually didn't like the name of 6bone, because it sounds to much like sex-boner (sic) and therefore cannot be taken seriously by people who make financial decisions. It may be hard to believe but here in the gov and mil it is sometimes better to waste more money, since it's not your money in the first place. Cheaper solutions often mean less profit and that is exactly why you don't ever want your project to be associated with hobby/nonprofit org. It's also good thing to mention "terrorists" to get more money these days. I really hope this situation is going to change soon.
Who are you? I have no idea what are you talking about. If you really know me then you should also know my email address instead of contacting me here on Slashdot.
What I find somehow disturbing is the very fact that while I can fully understand that back then mentioning freedom and liberty ideals was inconvenient for Eric Raymond in his business negotiations and that he wanted to focus on technical merits while temporarily ignoring the ethical implications until large corporations start actually using the "new" (i.e. new for the corporations mentioned above) open source software and then going back to calling it "free software" again as soon as it gets the required momentum. Fair enough.
But I find it absolutely unacceptable to ignore political, ethical and social issues -- to ignore the freedom itself -- in the context of political decisions of the European Union. Please keep in mind that saying "open source" instead of "free software" had only one purpose -- to temporarily ignore the very fact that GNU is all about freedom in the first place, the techincal superiority being only a nice side effect.
Once again, in the business context I can understand Raymond but bastardising his idea to talk about GNU in the explicitly political environment is clearly against both movements, traditional Free Software as well as the new Open Source, since after all Open Source is Free Software minus the politics -- that's the whole point.
Give me Eric Raymond and Open Source Initiative for talking about business any day, but if we are talking about politics then give me Richard Stallman and Free Software Foundation because this is the political movement.
Of course we all know it is much more complicated than that, since we understand that not mentioning GNU in the name of the OS and calling it simply Linux is done exactly because that way the whole system can be called "open source" without the need to ever publically talk about GNU and free software ideals at all, but we have to remember that the politicians might not always realize that.
Now if only they were talking in the terms of Free Software instead of merely Open Source I would be sure that they are indeed motivated by our freedom and not only technical superiority of GNU. But I am sure that it is only a matter of time until the Freedom ideals are widely recognised in EU parlament. This is a step in the right direction. There are other steps which must follow.
First of all I'm sorry that you had to wait so long for my reply.
It is not true that I didn't wish to address
your "incredibly valid arguments"
as you said.
I didn't know that you are awaiting my answers, since you posted a reply to
LuYu's post
instead of
mine
which would have resulted in Slashdot forum sending me a message informing me about your post.
It was not the case.
It was not until now when I accidentally found your post and now I am replying as soon as I can.
What you (the original poster) have said, is entirely reasonable, but you have to realise some things:
You didn't orinally say that it was a guy masterbating to kiddie porn and that the woman puked (understandable). All you said was that a woman saw some porn on a screen.
I didn't know I would ever have to say it in the first place. It may be hard to believe for you but I am not exactly proud of this shameful incident. I wish it hadn't ever happened. It's not something I particularly enjoy telling people about. But unfortunately it has happened and now all I can possibly do is making sure that it is absolutely impossible to ever happen again.
There is a lot of porn (most I would hope (and in an ideal world, all of it)) that is of consenting adults, not children.
Of course there is a lot of adult pornography.
Please excuse me if I take offense as this
banally obvious statement of yours is clearly implying that I do not realize the most simple facts.
(I hope offending me was not your intention though.)
Contrary to what you might think, I believe that unlike child pornography, merely watching adult pornography in private should not result in prosecution.
Being a deviant is not a crime, because such a person is violating only her own soul and body,
and instead of a punishment we should offer our help to these people.
This is not the case though if the pornography is being watched in a public place like a place of work where other
-- completely innocent --
people might see it by accident
against their will.
I believe
absolutely no one
-- adult or otherwise --
should ever be forced
to watch those sick perverted materials.
And the guy was fucking wanking! That kind of changes the case a LOT!.
I am not quite sure if I fully understand your intentions hidden behind this statement.
Would you mind clarifying what
did you mean
which was not already stated in other points above?
And still, none of this is all that related to censorship of the written word.
If you are worried about legalities, it is probably ok to strip out images, or to not display an article, but I would be VERY careful before changing a written piece and reattributing it to the original author...
Reconstructing sentences could be considered a violation of the DMCA.
The original author could sue for libel or just because they are pissed off because the new text could be saying things which were not originally intended.
Commenting these "incredibly valid arguments" as you keep calling them,
I haven't ever said it was
"related to censorship of the written word" but in fact it is related very closely.
Pornography can use many shapes and forms
-- namely photography, movies, audio recordings, paintings and last but not least, written text.
As for someone being able to sue me "because they are pissed off" then, well, I'm not sure if "[being] pissed off" is a strong case for legal action. As for the DMCA, could you please quote a fragment you are refering to? Thank you.
I'm glad I finally convinced you about that. (For the lame Slashdot filter: I don't care if I have enough number of characters per line -- what a stupid filter indeed.)
Although you may have missed it, I did mention something at the start of this exchange to the effect of viewing porn during work hours being generally unacceptable, unless you're in the porn industry, or something similar. No convincing was necessary as that has been my position from the start. My differece of opinion with you was how you define porn, i.e. an image not indexed on google.
Porn "industry" be damned! I was talking about the real industry, not a bunch of perverted freaks calling their sick deviations a so called "industry" to justify their sins and feel better while they should be seeking professional help instead if you ask me. In the Real World watching pornography is unacceptable. Period. This is one of the most basic and widely accepted social norms.
I only mentioned The Third Reich as it is the most well known socialist state in the history of human kind, as well as the most abused analogy in the kind of arguments like the one you introduced.
Actually, it was a fascist, not socialist, form of government. There's a significant difference between the two, although it's not always readily apparent.
(emphasis added)
Are you kidding me? Not socialist?
And what do you think the "-zi" in Nazi stands for if not sozialistische?
Please don't tell me (because I won't believe) that you had no idea that Nazi means
Nationalsozialistische,
from
Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei
(National Socialist German Workers Party),
the infamous NSDAP,
which Adolf Hitler changed the name of
Deutsche Arbeiter Partei (German Workers Party)
to, after becoming its leader.
I hope it wasn't some outrageously stupid joke. One of my friends who had survived the Holocaust unfortunatelly passed away this year so I am a little bit sensitive to jokes about Anti-Semitism.
I'm sure there is. There are things much more important than money. The point is that you need lots of money to buy them.
I am firmly of the belief that NOT ALL things can be purchased -- some must be EARNED, and no amount of money can be substituted. I don't want to get into some deep philosophical debate on this issue, but I do want you to see my point.
Of course not everything can be purchased, it was just an intellectual shorcut of mine. Some things you buy, other ones you lease, some other you license, et cetera. But these are details. The point is that you have to work to get anything and those things you get for your work I call a payment.
I don't think anyone can really know the value of anything if one doesn't have to work hard to get it, be it material wealth,
intellectual enlightenment,
mystical illumination,
sexual intercourse or platonic love -- anything.
In my opinion only hard work can result in true and honest appreciation.
But the question is: do you have plenty of money right now, and don't want any more?
Of course I want to make as much as possible. What capitalist would NOT want that? The issue isn't the desire for disposable income, but what actions I'm willing to undertake for that disposable income. If I have to compromise my principles, then I'd just a soon not have the job. I can't enjoy money that I earned unethically nor through the compromise of my principles and beliefs. If that makes me "dumb" in the eyes of some, then so be it, but I don't believe in the concept of "going along to get along."
You are not dumb in my opinion, not at all. You might be somehow naive in your utopian
Yes, yes, bitwidth is the time domain, not frequency.
Well, no, actually that's not the case. The frequency is the time domain. But let's start from the beginning.
The digit. recorded anal. sound representation is first being sampled, i.e. the level of the recorded wave is being probed in some constant time intervals -- e.g. approximately every 22.68us for 44.1kHz sampling frequency. Nothing more has anything to do with time at all. Nothing.
The sampling frequency is important, as the highest harmonics being recorded are those of the wave length exactly twice the sampling period (multiplied by the speed of sound of course). The compact disc pulse code modulation format records harmonics way beyond the human hearing level (i.e. the ultrasounds) and when they are replayed the output from DAC (digit. to anal. converter) is piped through the lowpass filter to cut them off (to eliminate the subharmonic noise of the sampling jitter error of sounds close to the maximum recorded frequency).
Now the quantization. It has nothing to do with time, periods or frequencies, as at this point we are operating on the array of (unrelated from the quantization point of view) analog values.
The quantization phase encodes them as bits.
The number of bits result in the "vertical" resolution of samples values, not the "horizontal" resolution of samples intervals.
There are about $2^(n-1)$ of levels up and down from the base level, where n is the number of bits, but remember about the lowpass filter we'll be piping it through at which point we have just a bunch of pure sinusoids (from the Fourieresce point of view).
The quality of playback is really impressive and it doesn't surprise me, as Philips labs' staff while developing the compact disk specs was in coopeation with Herbert von Karajan at that time (hence the 74 minutes, for the Nineth Beethoven's Symphony to fit). I am really far from the idea that I can possibly hear more than Herbert von Karajan himself.
But given a choice between higher quality and lower quality electronics, give me higher, period.
You remind me of a friend of mine, who is a web graphics designer using 64-bit RGBA bitmaps in 60kdpi resolution when we ask him to design a web template.
With such an attitude I suppose it's only a matter of time until we have 1024-bit quantization with 768MHz sampling frequency PCM audio format on "audiophile" (and then "consumer") grade equipment.
And don't get me wrong, I really look forward for the day when I'm able to throw away all of the seismographs as well as ultrasound recorders in my lab. Those are expensive as hell.
The same with computers. I love it when I hear that people are buying CPUs with multigigahertz timing signals to send email and fax, because it means I can buy the same hardware to do some real work instead of spending a killing on mainframes and expensive cluster nodes.
I always say that the irrational overkill in consumer market is the best friend of every scientist.
Every step into the process introduces aberration. Don't think in terms of one sampling, think of aggregate resampling.
Excuse my lay person question but when do you need resampling in classical music recordings unless you sample with frequency other than 44.1kHz in the first place?
And give me a quiet damned room to record flute. Don't argue with me about what's quiet enough.
I wouldn't dare to argue with you what is quiet enough
for you since you obviously have better hearing than myself.
I'm only saying that half a billion times quieter than the CD quality 16-bit PCM format is able to record is an overkill if the music is to be recorded on CD (and the overkill is understatement). It doesn't matter if your quiet is twice, million or billion times below the threshold, it won't be recorded anyway.
very practical and a great way to pollute your system with proprietary crap. In other words it's great for open source advocates and evil for free software advocates (myself included).
If the 1% of proprietary crap on your system makes it usable, with the option being a 100% proprietary environment, I'm all for the little bit of proprietary crap. If proprietary stuff brings more users, more and better Free Software will be developed.
In other words you are in the open source camp
(see OSI) -- pragmatical and practical imperatives, in the oposition to purely ideological and political ones of free software movement (see FSF).
This is exactly what I was talking about.
As for making the system "usable" I have really no idea how having pure free software system (in The Church of Emacs sense) renders it somhow "unusable." I don't need Windows drivers, since I don't buy crappy hardware without support in my kernel. I don't need win32 codecs for MPlayer, since I don't pirate movies. I don't need patent-violating MP3 players since I don't pirate music, which means I can have all of my CDs ripped to superior in every way Xiph Ogg Vorbis format.
I also don't care about more users -- only about more developers and with my Debian those are completely orthogonal (I don't use commercial GNU distroes, with which I admit that the user base is indeed important).
Do you demand full access to the embedded controller source code for the controller(s) in your hard drive? How about the controllers in your keyboard, mouse, display, etc.?
Of course I do demand full access to the source code.
Maybe it's just necessary for someone to point out how 'dirty' your computer is.
You completely missed the whole point here
but I don't blame you since I used the broad term "system" which you misunderstood.
I was talking about the operating system (OS).
I was sure it was obvious from the context, but then again it apparently wasn't.
But I am probably wasting my time as from your irrational anger it looks like you are one of those people who feel obligated to point out to vegetarians that they are eating plankton while they are swimming, for no reason other that the miserable need to prove they are full of sh*t.
It's kind of like MPlayer's win32 codecs -- very practical and a great way to pollute your system
with proprietary crap. In other words it's great for open source advocates and evil for free software advocates (myself included).
Actually, this Windows drivers, codecs, formats, APIs (Office, Wine,.Net, etc.) it is a very interesting issue where free software differs from open source. Great article.
No, becaue of the lack of sick deviant nature of eating, as opposed to the very act of masturbating. (But it's a good strawman argument -- nice try.)
No, I believe it's a legitimate argument, the whole point of which was to illustrate that just because YOU think something is in poor taste doesn't necessarily mean that it is.
Still I believe there is a huge difference between having a bad taste and being a perverted deviant, don't you think?
I will agree with you that viewing porn during work hours is unacceptable behavior.
I'm glad I finally convinced you about that.
(For the lame Slashdot filter: I don't care if I have enough number of characters per line -- what a stupid filter indeed.)
I'll also agree that the "golden rule" applies ("He who has the gold makes the rules.")
Fair enough.
(For the lame Slashdot filter: I don't care if I have enough number of characters per line -- what a stupid filter indeed.)
Where we disagree is whether or not an unindexed image constitutes porn and whether threatening employees is acceptable behavior. If you could overcome your dictatorial tunnel-vision for long enough to actually read my posts, you might understand that. The title of the original reply "Don't you think perverts might find that offensive" was sarcasm alluding to the political correctness scattered throughout your post.
Political correctness?
Scattered throughout my post?
Are you serious?
Or is that another example of sarcasm of yours, which I once again fail to recognize?
And when did I mention masturbating, you sicko? Do you really need to drag that into the discussion, pervo?:-)
Please don't call me like that.
When did I say you mentioned masturbation? I was the one who mentioned it first and I thought this is what we were talking about.
Haven't you read all of the comments in this thread?
I'll take the liberty to answer your question with another, much more interesting question: Don't you think that browsing their friend's recently-poseted photos of their hiking trip during the time I pay them to work is a little bit unfair, to say the very least?
As long as the acceptable use policy allows it, I don't consider it incorrect in any way.
Well, it doesn't. I thought I made it clear.
(For the lame Slashdot filter: I don't care if I have enough number of characters per line -- what a stupid filter indeed.)
Besides, based upon your previous statements regarding your policy, if you're replying to this from your work, you're violating them by doing so.
First of all I am replying from my home so this is not an issue. But second of all I would not violate the policy even if I did indeed post from work, because I am explicitly excluded from that point of our policy. So I could legally post to Slashdot from work if I wanted to and all I would need would be circumventing the firewall blocking Slashdot.
Are you kidding? Do you really think that I allow them to do anything with our equipment which is not work related? Maybe I should also allow them to run DDoS attacks while we're at it?
No, I'm not kidding. Apparently the rules don't apply to you, though, unless you're replying to me from your home.
Once again, I am replying from my home but nonetheless the rules don't apply to me.
Oh, please, for the love of god... You just lost a perfectly valid argument in the very second you introduced s
Slashdot Mirror
I think everyone (not only "spammer") had such an "Oops" in her career. I remember when we counterattacked CIA agents scanning our network... I saw a host slowly and randomly syn/fin/null scanning (something like nmap --randomize_hosts -Tparanoid but with -sS, -sF and -sN changing randomly -- a custom patched nmap or something like that) our hosts, so I answered with directing a broadcast-magnified traffic to its class C (something like "smurf" but with custom tools using UDP and TCP as well as ICMP packets) to disable the offending host, having absolutely no idea that I saturated the backbone of ISP used by a CIA covert operation. Imagine my surprise when I saw agents knocking on my door... Fortunately after I described some of my techniques and explained to them that I am a security professional, not a cracker, they let me go but if I wasn't working for the government at that time I probably wouldn't write this now. I wonder what stories other slashdotters can tell about their biggest "Oops!"
A friend of mine (who is a total pervert, deep into "upskirt" business and who even runs his own website dedicated to voyeurism deviation -- hi, Igor) told me recently that "an old-school shoe pinhole camera can only get us this far -- there are serious limitations which we need to overcome if we really want this industry to evolve." I am sure he could find a good use for these cockroaches as soon as they hit the mainstream market being equipped with a wireless mini camera. I can already see www.cock-roaches.com banner ads. This is really great news. (For perverts, that is.)
I've already said it countless times, but if you haven't already read The Right to Read, do it now while you still have the right to do it. From what I witness it might change in the near future. That's funny that we all were laughing out loud at Richard when he wrote his "stupid dystopian science fiction which will never happen outside of a paranoid mind foolishly guarded with a tinfoil hat" and at the same time we all kept allowing it to slowly happen. And who looks like a fool now? Sadly, not Richard but us. It certainly doesn't make me feel proud at all. The DMCA is the fruit of our own inaction, our own inertia, our own plain stupidity. We all have to remember that. We have to take the responsibility if we ever want to overthrow the law system we don't agree with. The DMCA was introduced democratically and it can be fought only democratically, where everyone takes the responsibility for the will of the majority. It is a great time to renew our EFF memberships because that is our freedom at risk.
If you haven't already read The Right to Read, do it while you still have the right to do it. From what I witness it might change in the near future. Funny that we all were laughing at Richard when he wrote his "dystopian science fiction which will never happen outside of a paranoid mind guarded with a tinfoil hat" and at the same time we all kept allowing it to slowly happen. And who looks like a fool now? Not Richard but us. It certainly doesn't make me feel proud at all.
OS was my favorite spyware ever (of course I mean OS, i.e. the Output Spy -- not Operating System, abbreviated as O/S) and not because it was itself so great, but because of the unbelievably stupid countermeasures, completely missing the whole point. I always had a copy of unpatched JEDGAR but most of people was foolish enough to use the "patched" (read: backdoored/trojaned) one. Imagine if today one of the anti-spyware software like chkrootkit, ad-aware or tiger would say "Don't like being spied on? Here's a tool which will tell you you are safe, after doing abslutely nothing at all. Enjoy!" Such morons would be out of business in seconds today, not to mention being sued into oblivion. Unfortunately back in the ITS era most of people didn't understand computers and technology in general. But I must admit that it was somewhat funny to see people using patched JEDGAR against your OS. Those were the days.
Sorry. I'm in the middle of a major depressive episode. I'll try to reply as soon as I am back in the hipomanic part of the spectrum. I'm really sorry but I just can't write anything with sense right now. I hate it when it happens but I can't help much. Sorry.
Am I the only one who thinks that $100,000 could be used better to actually produce something valuable? I know that it is nothing to /.*AA/ as it is money they get for every downloaded MP3 per person but come on, for everyone outside of /.*AA/ it's a lot of cache. I know great movies with budgets lower than that, for crying out loud.
Of course one has to wonder whether they are planning their "anti-piracy message" to win Academy Award for best fiction though... But let's be serious.
And what's in my opinion much more important than the cash for the company is a higher level of transparency to the public.
Of course I would. This is great news (even if not actually "new" to anyone already doing business with Google).
Isn't that ironic that the term "hacker" originally described someone who makes furniture with an axe? Don't you think?
What next? A boat not sold but licensed with the EULA explicitly prohibiting the very act of abordage? Well, that will stop piracy for sure. "Ahoy, Matey. By saying 'Argh!' ye agree to the terms of the following End User License Agreement..."
There's a joke here in my institute that while 2 to 3 thousand more species are expected to be catalogued before 2010, also another 2 to 3 million species are expected to be catalogued before doomsday. (You probably have to be a biologist who don't get laid very often to find it funny though.)
"Publically," eh? Fine. We both know you are bluffing. Oh, by the way, are you really that naive to think that I cannot find your identity if you post as "Anonymous Coward" on Slashdot? As for the video footage, if you knew the case you'd also know that this tape was being used as the main evinence in the court and as such was already in public domain. I can't believe you want to talk about it, it was years ago! Just get over it.
I belive this is something completely different than confirming to a journalist that some pervert was masturbating in the public place in a gov-sponsored lab. I don't have any friend named Sado Domina or whatever and therefore you not only spread obvious lies but you also waste the time of Slashdot readers. If you indeed know me then contact me privately. Otherwise, get lost and stop wasting my time.
It's hard to believe and I'm sure I certainly wouldn't have believed it myself if it wasn't my good friend who told me about it, but besides the technical issues some people actually didn't like the name of 6bone, because it sounds to much like sex-boner (sic) and therefore cannot be taken seriously by people who make financial decisions. It may be hard to believe but here in the gov and mil it is sometimes better to waste more money, since it's not your money in the first place. Cheaper solutions often mean less profit and that is exactly why you don't ever want your project to be associated with hobby/nonprofit org. It's also good thing to mention "terrorists" to get more money these days. I really hope this situation is going to change soon.
Who are you? I have no idea what are you talking about. If you really know me then you should also know my email address instead of contacting me here on Slashdot.
Of course it "fits [my] definition of free [software]" (link added) since The Open Source Definition by Eric Raymond is nothing else but just a rewrite of Free Software Guidelines from Debian GNU/Linux Social Contract written by Bruce Perens himself in the first place. That is not an issue though.
What I find somehow disturbing is the very fact that while I can fully understand that back then mentioning freedom and liberty ideals was inconvenient for Eric Raymond in his business negotiations and that he wanted to focus on technical merits while temporarily ignoring the ethical implications until large corporations start actually using the "new" (i.e. new for the corporations mentioned above) open source software and then going back to calling it "free software" again as soon as it gets the required momentum. Fair enough.
But I find it absolutely unacceptable to ignore political, ethical and social issues -- to ignore the freedom itself -- in the context of political decisions of the European Union. Please keep in mind that saying "open source" instead of "free software" had only one purpose -- to temporarily ignore the very fact that GNU is all about freedom in the first place, the techincal superiority being only a nice side effect.
Once again, in the business context I can understand Raymond but bastardising his idea to talk about GNU in the explicitly political environment is clearly against both movements, traditional Free Software as well as the new Open Source, since after all Open Source is Free Software minus the politics -- that's the whole point.
Give me Eric Raymond and Open Source Initiative for talking about business any day, but if we are talking about politics then give me Richard Stallman and Free Software Foundation because this is the political movement.
Of course we all know it is much more complicated than that, since we understand that not mentioning GNU in the name of the OS and calling it simply Linux is done exactly because that way the whole system can be called "open source" without the need to ever publically talk about GNU and free software ideals at all, but we have to remember that the politicians might not always realize that.
What are you talking about? Do I know you? Is that some kind of stupid joke?
Now if only they were talking in the terms of Free Software instead of merely Open Source I would be sure that they are indeed motivated by our freedom and not only technical superiority of GNU. But I am sure that it is only a matter of time until the Freedom ideals are widely recognised in EU parlament. This is a step in the right direction. There are other steps which must follow.
First of all I'm sorry that you had to wait so long for my reply. It is not true that I didn't wish to address your "incredibly valid arguments" as you said. I didn't know that you are awaiting my answers, since you posted a reply to LuYu's post instead of mine which would have resulted in Slashdot forum sending me a message informing me about your post. It was not the case. It was not until now when I accidentally found your post and now I am replying as soon as I can.
I didn't know I would ever have to say it in the first place. It may be hard to believe for you but I am not exactly proud of this shameful incident. I wish it hadn't ever happened. It's not something I particularly enjoy telling people about. But unfortunately it has happened and now all I can possibly do is making sure that it is absolutely impossible to ever happen again.
Of course there is a lot of adult pornography. Please excuse me if I take offense as this banally obvious statement of yours is clearly implying that I do not realize the most simple facts. (I hope offending me was not your intention though.) Contrary to what you might think, I believe that unlike child pornography, merely watching adult pornography in private should not result in prosecution. Being a deviant is not a crime, because such a person is violating only her own soul and body, and instead of a punishment we should offer our help to these people.
This is not the case though if the pornography is being watched in a public place like a place of work where other -- completely innocent -- people might see it by accident against their will. I believe absolutely no one -- adult or otherwise -- should ever be forced to watch those sick perverted materials.
I am not quite sure if I fully understand your intentions hidden behind this statement. Would you mind clarifying what did you mean which was not already stated in other points above?
Commenting these "incredibly valid arguments" as you keep calling them, I haven't ever said it was "related to censorship of the written word" but in fact it is related very closely. Pornography can use many shapes and forms -- namely photography, movies, audio recordings, paintings and last but not least, written text. As for someone being able to sue me "because they are pissed off" then, well, I'm not sure if "[being] pissed off" is a strong case for legal action. As for the DMCA, could you please quote a fragment you are refering to? Thank you.
Porn "industry" be damned! I was talking about the real industry, not a bunch of perverted freaks calling their sick deviations a so called "industry" to justify their sins and feel better while they should be seeking professional help instead if you ask me. In the Real World watching pornography is unacceptable. Period. This is one of the most basic and widely accepted social norms.
Are you kidding me? Not socialist? And what do you think the "-zi" in Nazi stands for if not sozialistische? Please don't tell me (because I won't believe) that you had no idea that Nazi means Nationalsozialistische, from Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers Party), the infamous NSDAP, which Adolf Hitler changed the name of Deutsche Arbeiter Partei (German Workers Party) to, after becoming its leader. I hope it wasn't some outrageously stupid joke. One of my friends who had survived the Holocaust unfortunatelly passed away this year so I am a little bit sensitive to jokes about Anti-Semitism.
Of course not everything can be purchased, it was just an intellectual shorcut of mine. Some things you buy, other ones you lease, some other you license, et cetera. But these are details. The point is that you have to work to get anything and those things you get for your work I call a payment. I don't think anyone can really know the value of anything if one doesn't have to work hard to get it, be it material wealth, intellectual enlightenment, mystical illumination, sexual intercourse or platonic love -- anything. In my opinion only hard work can result in true and honest appreciation.
You are not dumb in my opinion, not at all. You might be somehow naive in your utopian
Well, no, actually that's not the case. The frequency is the time domain. But let's start from the beginning.
The digit. recorded anal. sound representation is first being sampled, i.e. the level of the recorded wave is being probed in some constant time intervals -- e.g. approximately every 22.68us for 44.1kHz sampling frequency. Nothing more has anything to do with time at all. Nothing.
The sampling frequency is important, as the highest harmonics being recorded are those of the wave length exactly twice the sampling period (multiplied by the speed of sound of course). The compact disc pulse code modulation format records harmonics way beyond the human hearing level (i.e. the ultrasounds) and when they are replayed the output from DAC (digit. to anal. converter) is piped through the lowpass filter to cut them off (to eliminate the subharmonic noise of the sampling jitter error of sounds close to the maximum recorded frequency).
Now the quantization. It has nothing to do with time, periods or frequencies, as at this point we are operating on the array of (unrelated from the quantization point of view) analog values. The quantization phase encodes them as bits. The number of bits result in the "vertical" resolution of samples values, not the "horizontal" resolution of samples intervals. There are about $2^(n-1)$ of levels up and down from the base level, where n is the number of bits, but remember about the lowpass filter we'll be piping it through at which point we have just a bunch of pure sinusoids (from the Fourieresce point of view).
The quality of playback is really impressive and it doesn't surprise me, as Philips labs' staff while developing the compact disk specs was in coopeation with Herbert von Karajan at that time (hence the 74 minutes, for the Nineth Beethoven's Symphony to fit). I am really far from the idea that I can possibly hear more than Herbert von Karajan himself.
You remind me of a friend of mine, who is a web graphics designer using 64-bit RGBA bitmaps in 60kdpi resolution when we ask him to design a web template. With such an attitude I suppose it's only a matter of time until we have 1024-bit quantization with 768MHz sampling frequency PCM audio format on "audiophile" (and then "consumer") grade equipment. And don't get me wrong, I really look forward for the day when I'm able to throw away all of the seismographs as well as ultrasound recorders in my lab. Those are expensive as hell. The same with computers. I love it when I hear that people are buying CPUs with multigigahertz timing signals to send email and fax, because it means I can buy the same hardware to do some real work instead of spending a killing on mainframes and expensive cluster nodes. I always say that the irrational overkill in consumer market is the best friend of every scientist.
Excuse my lay person question but when do you need resampling in classical music recordings unless you sample with frequency other than 44.1kHz in the first place?
I wouldn't dare to argue with you what is quiet enough for you since you obviously have better hearing than myself. I'm only saying that half a billion times quieter than the CD quality 16-bit PCM format is able to record is an overkill if the music is to be recorded on CD (and the overkill is understatement). It doesn't matter if your quiet is twice, million or billion times below the threshold, it won't be recorded anyway.
In other words you are in the open source camp (see OSI) -- pragmatical and practical imperatives, in the oposition to purely ideological and political ones of free software movement (see FSF). This is exactly what I was talking about.
As for making the system "usable" I have really no idea how having pure free software system (in The Church of Emacs sense) renders it somhow "unusable." I don't need Windows drivers, since I don't buy crappy hardware without support in my kernel. I don't need win32 codecs for MPlayer, since I don't pirate movies. I don't need patent-violating MP3 players since I don't pirate music, which means I can have all of my CDs ripped to superior in every way Xiph Ogg Vorbis format.
I also don't care about more users -- only about more developers and with my Debian those are completely orthogonal (I don't use commercial GNU distroes, with which I admit that the user base is indeed important).
Of course I do demand full access to the source code.
You completely missed the whole point here but I don't blame you since I used the broad term "system" which you misunderstood. I was talking about the operating system (OS). I was sure it was obvious from the context, but then again it apparently wasn't. But I am probably wasting my time as from your irrational anger it looks like you are one of those people who feel obligated to point out to vegetarians that they are eating plankton while they are swimming, for no reason other that the miserable need to prove they are full of sh*t.
It's kind of like MPlayer's win32 codecs -- very practical and a great way to pollute your system with proprietary crap. In other words it's great for open source advocates and evil for free software advocates (myself included). Actually, this Windows drivers, codecs, formats, APIs (Office, Wine, .Net, etc.) it is a very interesting issue where free software differs from open source. Great article.
Microsoft Bob, indeed...
Still I believe there is a huge difference between having a bad taste and being a perverted deviant, don't you think?
I'm glad I finally convinced you about that. (For the lame Slashdot filter: I don't care if I have enough number of characters per line -- what a stupid filter indeed.)
Fair enough. (For the lame Slashdot filter: I don't care if I have enough number of characters per line -- what a stupid filter indeed.)
Political correctness? Scattered throughout my post? Are you serious? Or is that another example of sarcasm of yours, which I once again fail to recognize?
Please don't call me like that. When did I say you mentioned masturbation? I was the one who mentioned it first and I thought this is what we were talking about. Haven't you read all of the comments in this thread?
Well, it doesn't. I thought I made it clear. (For the lame Slashdot filter: I don't care if I have enough number of characters per line -- what a stupid filter indeed.)
First of all I am replying from my home so this is not an issue. But second of all I would not violate the policy even if I did indeed post from work, because I am explicitly excluded from that point of our policy. So I could legally post to Slashdot from work if I wanted to and all I would need would be circumventing the firewall blocking Slashdot.
Once again, I am replying from my home but nonetheless the rules don't apply to me.