Since it was fixed in 1.0.3, which came out not long after 1.0 (a hair over 5 months), then you're complaining
Where did you see me complaining?
I was actually trying to waste karma by making a funny comment regarding the possible cause for the need to uninstall old IE7 betas before installing: Yet another attempt at copying Firefox features into IE7. Who cares how long that feature existed in Firefox?
about it being busted in beta versions as well?
Now, that is a really funny question.
First: We are comparing to a IE7 beta, aren't we? Beta to beta, apples to apples, seems reasonable to me.
Second: Have you ever seen 1.0 versions of Phoenix/Firebird which I mentioned as part of my usage history? No? Huh, I really guess some beta versions were included then.
P.S. Please remember to uninstall any previous IE7 builds before installing this one: Control Panel, Add / Remove Programs, Show Updates, scroll to the bottom.
Yeesh! Really? Why do you have to do that?
Another attempt at copying a Firefox feature into IE7?
Until recently, when installing Firefox on a Windows computer, you had to do the uninstall old version / install new version thing to avoid duplicate - and "dead" - entries in the list of installed software.
Yes, I found out it was a non-standard add-on back when it first appeared on keyboards. I think you're under-estimating its penetration now though.
A walk around the office of any company I've worked for in the past five years will reveal not a single keyboard (except for on the IBM Thinkpad) that doesn't have this key.
Your walk gave you some pretty useless info. Try once again, and this time count the users which are actually using the key.
Odd that the values from a hard drive protection mechanism are even available to the software.
I don't know about Macs, but on PCs, the sensitivity of the protection is controllable from software. So at least there needs to be some communication in the opposite direction between the software and the hardware.
Further, there is an icon in the systray showing the status of the protection, so you have a visual indication that you are abusing your computer if you don't already know. This necessitates some communication in the same direction as the alarm system.
I would have thought that it would simply be a boolean toggle that the BIOS immediately reacts to instantly, not relying upon the operating system in any way.
I can't see that one rules the other out. It is quite possible that the drive protection is acting on it self, independent of the OS, while at the same time the OS is able to communicate with the protection to get status, change settings, etc.
Those films are over 50 years old. There is no digital medium that has proven to last that long (for obvious reasons), but so far, due to format changes, new tech, etc. digital has shown to require much more maintenance than things like film, vinyl, and even tape. I personally think it's better to have to re-copy once every 50 years as opposed to once every 10 or 15 years.
When Star Wars IV-VI had their first facelift with new digital effects in 1997, they had to start with restoring the old analog masters which had deterioated a lot after only 14-20 years. White colors had gone blue, etc.
"If I could just boost the output up about 6 db"
You want to increase the current maximum output by 200% ?!
No, 100% or 300% depending on whether you are measuring voltage or effect. Definitely not 200%.
And as others have already told, a 6 dB increase is not that much. Most people will need around 10 dB to double the perceived sound level.
well, the human brain *can* detect a 10 msec delay. and, on the input side, higher quality microphones have less delay, er, in combination with the internal computer guts that you're going through.
10 msec is 10 oscillations of a typical 1 kHz tone. Would you care to explain how an analoque microphone or speaker can store all of those while delaying them?
Even if I set aside the flawed logic, why does the music biz get it all? What about other businesses that are hurt by "copying".
I don't know about Canada, but here in Denmark the money is a compensation for legal copying.
We cannot legally copy software without consent from the copyright holder, and you can't put a "tax" on an illegal behaviour. So there is no compensation to the software industry. (Copying for backup purposes is allowed, but we cannot use the backup and the original simultaneously, so even with the most flawed logic, this legal copying do not represent a loss for the copyright holder.)
However, with some limitations, we can legally copy music without consent from the copyright holder. The music industry gets a compensation for this when we buy blank CDs. (The limitations are: Only copying within the household is allowed, we can only copy from an original, and we are not allowed to circumvent a copy protection. So with the increasing use of copy protection, the compensation ought to decrease, but there are no signs of that.)
The result of this is that the Danish music industry earns money from illegal copying of software. Scary thought.
I'm tired of people proudly justifying morally bankrupt actions based on wordplay. I've played along, but no more. It's people like my parent poster who are making life hard on the people who want to do the right thing.
What they are doing is stealing.
"Killing somebody is stealing."
"No, that is murder, not stealing. Stealing is when you take a thing from somebody."
"Yes, you take somebody's life. That is stealing."
"A life is not a thing."
"Don't try to justify morally bankrupt actions based on wordplay. IT IS WRONG SO IT MUST BE STEALING."
But let's say you managed to "crack" a tag. You got '2F0103047541A430000001F9' (yes, this is a valid construct with minimally munged data). Ok, how about someone tell me how that constitutes a breach of security.
Easy. If your security relies on that the response from the RFID tags is impossible to clone, you will be in deep shit if anyone can copy that response for future use.
We have the same law proposed here. It stranded due to the politicians lack of technical knowledge.
That is not entirely correct. The minister who was responsible for the law did understand it correctly, but the largest internet provider in Denmark apparently did not, and the opposition believed the internet provider.
Minister: You can record the needed traffic data without looking at any contents of the mail.
Internet provider: No we can't. We need to analyze headers if we must log CC: recipients too.
Pure bullshit from the internet provider. Mails to CC: recipients are sent with the "rcpt to: " SMTP command, exactly like mails to To: recipients, and both types can be logged without looking at header data.
I guess some of the Danish companys best known outside Denmark are: Lego (toys) Carlsberg (beer) Bang & Olufsen (TV and HiFi) Maersk Sealand including P&O Nedlloyd (container shipping) Novo (medical drugs like Novolog) Lundbeck (medical drugs like Cipramil and Celexa) Oticon (hearing aid) Vestas (wind turbines)
Skype was Danish/Swedish but was sold to Ebay some months ago.
england is also the country which, when crime rates rose, gave up the right of firearm ownership, then when crime rates went up some more, they started talking about getting rid of big knives. clearly the english have a different way of looking at individual rights than americans do.
Yes, the English must clearly be doing something wrong. How else can you explain these figures:
Gun deaths (homicide) per 100,000 population:
USA (year 1999): 4.08
England/Wales (year 1999/2000): 0.12
If it's "new", it cannot be "customary historic". Thus, at least in the area of multimedia, this law will mean that from now on, no algorithms may be patented.
Nice try. But your logic is incredibly flawed, even if it was meant as a joke.
The RIAA/MPAA does not and can not decide if new algorithms can be patented.
Nothing prevents you from patenting a new algorithm. But if you want that algorithm to be used for content controlled by RIAA/MPAA, their approval will be necessary - or at least they want their approval to be necessary.
I've seen various combinations (particularly a large amount of disk space with POP), but never a really good IMAP service. If someone knows of one please let me know!
You can find a rather extensive listing of imap providers including cost, storage space, special services, bad implementations, user satisfaction etc. here:
The site is really a mess since everything is contained in a single page and you have to scroll a few kilometers down to find the comparison tables. However, it lists several hundred IMAP providers and contains a lot of useful information.
Well, I'm not familiar with that particular situation, but as it's involving commerce, I have no problem with it NOT being based in open source.
Open source was not mentioned in the GP's posting. He was complaining that the state of New York has bought a system based on a closed format instead of an open format for their bus/subway cards. This means that they have locked themselves into a specifik vendor for all new purchases and upgrades to this system.
You do not need open source to get open formats. There is a lot of closed source software which uses open formats and protocols.
In XP, a limited user account does not seem to offer any protection - files can be installed, executed, and removed at will.
Let me guess: You are running XP with FAT32 partitions?
FAT32 does not support any kind of access restrictions (except a few attributes, but any user can change those too).
So if you want security in XP, you have to use NTFS. Then you will get security like:
- restricted users cannot write to C:\Program Files
- restricted users cannot write to C:\Windows
- restricted users cannot read or write other users' personal folders
How could the camera guess the colour values for a pixel (if, based upon your claim, they actually have 1/3rd of the colour components) from the neighbouring components if it doesn't have the colours there either?
I wrote that each pixel record only one color. I did not write that all pixels record the same color. I hope you are able to see the difference.
In any case, one format I'm interested in is the RAW format that Canon uses on its cameras. My Rebel XT saves a 8MP picture in about a 4-5MB JPEG (obviously in fine), but when I go to the apparently lossless RAW it only jumps to 7-8MB. A minor increase in file size, really, to lose no image data.
The reason for the RAW file being so small is rather sad:
The CCD of your camera does not record enough information for a real 24 bit 8MP picture. 2/3 of the picture information is pure guesswork added by algorithms inside the camera. RAW files does not contain the guessed information and consequently they are only approx. 1/3 of the size of a real 24 bit 8MP uncompressed picture.
The explanation:
For each of those 8 million pixels, the CCD is only recording one color instead of all 3 colors. The two other colors in each pixel are guessed, based on values of neighbour pixels. Then the final picture, containing 2/3 guessed information is saved as a.JPG. If you instead store the pictures as RAW, the guessing part is skipped, as it will be done by the computer program importing the image.
So this is really not a smart way to losslessly compress existing pictures. It would actually be very lossy.
Slashdot Mirror
Is addMoreDRM(music) a valid boolean expression?
Sorry to be so boring, but I just started learning C# a week ago, and your sample made me curious.
Since it was fixed in 1.0.3, which came out not long after 1.0 (a hair over 5 months), then you're complaining
Where did you see me complaining?
I was actually trying to waste karma by making a funny comment regarding the possible cause for the need to uninstall old IE7 betas before installing: Yet another attempt at copying Firefox features into IE7. Who cares how long that feature existed in Firefox?
about it being busted in beta versions as well?
Now, that is a really funny question.
First: We are comparing to a IE7 beta, aren't we? Beta to beta, apples to apples, seems reasonable to me.
Second: Have you ever seen 1.0 versions of Phoenix/Firebird which I mentioned as part of my usage history? No? Huh, I really guess some beta versions were included then.
Depends what you mean by recently.
this blog says the issue you're complaining about was fixed over a year ago
That is recently, comparing to my Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox usage history.
P.S. Please remember to uninstall any previous IE7 builds before installing this one: Control Panel, Add / Remove Programs, Show Updates, scroll to the bottom.
Yeesh! Really? Why do you have to do that?
Another attempt at copying a Firefox feature into IE7?
Until recently, when installing Firefox on a Windows computer, you had to do the uninstall old version / install new version thing to avoid duplicate - and "dead" - entries in the list of installed software.
what the hell is a gibabyte?
1 giGAbyte = 1000^3 bytes
1 giBIbyte = 1024^3 bytes
So, I am guessing that a gibabyte must be some combination of those two. Perhaps:
1 giBAbyte = 1012^3 bytes
Yes, I found out it was a non-standard add-on back when it first appeared on keyboards. I think you're under-estimating its penetration now though. A walk around the office of any company I've worked for in the past five years will reveal not a single keyboard (except for on the IBM Thinkpad) that doesn't have this key.
Your walk gave you some pretty useless info. Try once again, and this time count the users which are actually using the key.
Odd that the values from a hard drive protection mechanism are even available to the software.
I don't know about Macs, but on PCs, the sensitivity of the protection is controllable from software. So at least there needs to be some communication in the opposite direction between the software and the hardware.
Further, there is an icon in the systray showing the status of the protection, so you have a visual indication that you are abusing your computer if you don't already know. This necessitates some communication in the same direction as the alarm system.
I would have thought that it would simply be a boolean toggle that the BIOS immediately reacts to instantly, not relying upon the operating system in any way.
I can't see that one rules the other out. It is quite possible that the drive protection is acting on it self, independent of the OS, while at the same time the OS is able to communicate with the protection to get status, change settings, etc.
Those films are over 50 years old. There is no digital medium that has proven to last that long (for obvious reasons), but so far, due to format changes, new tech, etc. digital has shown to require much more maintenance than things like film, vinyl, and even tape. I personally think it's better to have to re-copy once every 50 years as opposed to once every 10 or 15 years.
When Star Wars IV-VI had their first facelift with new digital effects in 1997, they had to start with restoring the old analog masters which had deterioated a lot after only 14-20 years. White colors had gone blue, etc.
50 years seems a little optimistic to me.
"If I could just boost the output up about 6 db" You want to increase the current maximum output by 200% ?!
No, 100% or 300% depending on whether you are measuring voltage or effect. Definitely not 200%. And as others have already told, a 6 dB increase is not that much. Most people will need around 10 dB to double the perceived sound level.
well, the human brain *can* detect a 10 msec delay. and, on the input side, higher quality microphones have less delay, er, in combination with the internal computer guts that you're going through.
10 msec is 10 oscillations of a typical 1 kHz tone. Would you care to explain how an analoque microphone or speaker can store all of those while delaying them?
at some future date law will come into affect.
In other words, this will be a very human law.
Even if I set aside the flawed logic, why does the music biz get it all? What about other businesses that are hurt by "copying".
I don't know about Canada, but here in Denmark the money is a compensation for legal copying.
We cannot legally copy software without consent from the copyright holder, and you can't put a "tax" on an illegal behaviour. So there is no compensation to the software industry. (Copying for backup purposes is allowed, but we cannot use the backup and the original simultaneously, so even with the most flawed logic, this legal copying do not represent a loss for the copyright holder.)
However, with some limitations, we can legally copy music without consent from the copyright holder. The music industry gets a compensation for this when we buy blank CDs. (The limitations are: Only copying within the household is allowed, we can only copy from an original, and we are not allowed to circumvent a copy protection. So with the increasing use of copy protection, the compensation ought to decrease, but there are no signs of that.)
The result of this is that the Danish music industry earns money from illegal copying of software. Scary thought.
I'm tired of people proudly justifying morally bankrupt actions based on wordplay. I've played along, but no more. It's people like my parent poster who are making life hard on the people who want to do the right thing.
What they are doing is stealing.
"Killing somebody is stealing."
"No, that is murder, not stealing. Stealing is when you take a thing from somebody."
"Yes, you take somebody's life. That is stealing."
"A life is not a thing."
"Don't try to justify morally bankrupt actions based on wordplay. IT IS WRONG SO IT MUST BE STEALING."
But let's say you managed to "crack" a tag. You got '2F0103047541A430000001F9' (yes, this is a valid construct with minimally munged data). Ok, how about someone tell me how that constitutes a breach of security.
Easy. If your security relies on that the response from the RFID tags is impossible to clone, you will be in deep shit if anyone can copy that response for future use.
Think "RFID based access control systems".
We have the same law proposed here. It stranded due to the politicians lack of technical knowledge.
That is not entirely correct. The minister who was responsible for the law did understand it correctly, but the largest internet provider in Denmark apparently did not, and the opposition believed the internet provider.
Minister: You can record the needed traffic data without looking at any contents of the mail.
Internet provider: No we can't. We need to analyze headers if we must log CC: recipients too.
Pure bullshit from the internet provider. Mails to CC: recipients are sent with the "rcpt to: " SMTP command, exactly like mails to To: recipients, and both types can be logged without looking at header data.
I guess some of the Danish companys best known outside Denmark are:
Lego (toys)
Carlsberg (beer)
Bang & Olufsen (TV and HiFi)
Maersk Sealand including P&O Nedlloyd (container shipping)
Novo (medical drugs like Novolog)
Lundbeck (medical drugs like Cipramil and Celexa)
Oticon (hearing aid)
Vestas (wind turbines)
Skype was Danish/Swedish but was sold to Ebay some months ago.
england is also the country which, when crime rates rose, gave up the right of firearm ownership, then when crime rates went up some more, they started talking about getting rid of big knives. clearly the english have a different way of looking at individual rights than americans do.
Yes, the English must clearly be doing something wrong. How else can you explain these figures:
Gun deaths (homicide) per 100,000 population:
USA (year 1999): 4.08
England/Wales (year 1999/2000): 0.12
If it's "new", it cannot be "customary historic". Thus, at least in the area of multimedia, this law will mean that from now on, no algorithms may be patented.
Nice try. But your logic is incredibly flawed, even if it was meant as a joke.
The RIAA/MPAA does not and can not decide if new algorithms can be patented.
Nothing prevents you from patenting a new algorithm. But if you want that algorithm to be used for content controlled by RIAA/MPAA, their approval will be necessary - or at least they want their approval to be necessary.
I've seen various combinations (particularly a large amount of disk space with POP), but never a really good IMAP service. If someone knows of one please let me know!
You can find a rather extensive listing of imap providers including cost, storage space, special services, bad implementations, user satisfaction etc. here:
http://www.ii.com/internet/messaging/imap/isps/
The site is really a mess since everything is contained in a single page and you have to scroll a few kilometers down to find the comparison tables. However, it lists several hundred IMAP providers and contains a lot of useful information.
Well, I'm not familiar with that particular situation, but as it's involving commerce, I have no problem with it NOT being based in open source.
Open source was not mentioned in the GP's posting. He was complaining that the state of New York has bought a system based on a closed format instead of an open format for their bus/subway cards. This means that they have locked themselves into a specifik vendor for all new purchases and upgrades to this system.
You do not need open source to get open formats. There is a lot of closed source software which uses open formats and protocols.
In XP, a limited user account does not seem to offer any protection - files can be installed, executed, and removed at will.
Let me guess: You are running XP with FAT32 partitions?
FAT32 does not support any kind of access restrictions (except a few attributes, but any user can change those too).
So if you want security in XP, you have to use NTFS. Then you will get security like:
- restricted users cannot write to C:\Program Files
- restricted users cannot write to C:\Windows
- restricted users cannot read or write other users' personal folders
6. Discover that the typical geek generates a lot of very boring false positives.
How could the camera guess the colour values for a pixel (if, based upon your claim, they actually have 1/3rd of the colour components) from the neighbouring components if it doesn't have the colours there either?
I wrote that each pixel record only one color. I did not write that all pixels record the same color. I hope you are able to see the difference.
In any case, one format I'm interested in is the RAW format that Canon uses on its cameras. My Rebel XT saves a 8MP picture in about a 4-5MB JPEG (obviously in fine), but when I go to the apparently lossless RAW it only jumps to 7-8MB. A minor increase in file size, really, to lose no image data.
.JPG. If you instead store the pictures as RAW, the guessing part is skipped, as it will be done by the computer program importing the image.
The reason for the RAW file being so small is rather sad:
The CCD of your camera does not record enough information for a real 24 bit 8MP picture. 2/3 of the picture information is pure guesswork added by algorithms inside the camera. RAW files does not contain the guessed information and consequently they are only approx. 1/3 of the size of a real 24 bit 8MP uncompressed picture.
The explanation:
For each of those 8 million pixels, the CCD is only recording one color instead of all 3 colors. The two other colors in each pixel are guessed, based on values of neighbour pixels. Then the final picture, containing 2/3 guessed information is saved as a
So this is really not a smart way to losslessly compress existing pictures. It would actually be very lossy.
and a third who cannot resist the temptation to continue.