The speed of light is not constant, however the "Speed of LIght" IS constant.
Doesn't make sense? The "Speed of Light" is the speed photons travel in a vaccuum. That's the key... in a vaccuum. Light can be slowed down (WAYYY) down in certain mediums, and thus the speed of light can vary signifigantly.
In fact, I believe./ ran an article about some fellows at a lab slowing light down to literally a few miles per hour, even, I believe, stopping it completely, in some sort of crystal lattice. I don't recall the specifics, but a search should turn it up.
Trip Hawkins is the kiss of death for any project, it seems. Sure, he had a couple good ideas... but in the last 10 - 15 years, anything he got involved with went south.
Not saying it's anything he's done, just that the gods don't like him or something.
That's entirely situational. I have full confidence in my ability to handle IFF internally:)... but I don't have that confidence in anyone else.
If I gained that confidence in her, then yes, that would be fine. However, it would take a lot of convincing. I would expect the same from her, of course, which is why I'm leary of having an easily accessable / loaded gun in the house with more than one person living in it.
In all honesty, given my track record with women, my biggest fear is that I would have pissed them off, unbeknownst to me, and she'd get ahold of it in a fit of rage. I seem to attract psychos. *shudder*
People will just buy guns out of state... not really a big deal.
Although, I like this concept to a degree. I currently live alone, and I keep a gun handy... because I know that if anyone is in my house, it's not anyone that should be there. I feel secure that if I were to be forced to shoot someone, I would not be shooting someone accidentally that I had not intended to do harm.
All that changes though if I get married or have someone living with me. I won't keep a gun around, so that either I, myself, could make a mistake, or the person living with me shoots me coming home late.
Having a gun that would only fire by my own hand would be a good compromise for me, as I would feel secure walking in my house late at night, knowing my wife won't get antsy and accidentally shoot me (or god forbid I piss her off somehow...).
It would still leave me with the problem of potentially shooting someone who might be there, but it would eliminate a big portion of my reservations towardsd keeping a gun easily accessable in the house with more than one person living there. (Lets face it, if you keep a gun locked up and not easily accessable, there's no real point in keeping the gun for "self defense." If you need it for self defense one dark night, you won't have time to find the key, open up the locker, load it and bring it to bear.)
I'd like to see some robust smart gun technology hit the shelves, it would be great. (That doesn't require a bracelet or any "extra" accoutraments to work)
Bwhahaa... Yea, right. Whatever. I'll be happy to stop watching TV, thanks.
Wait... I have a novel idea. How about you let us pay for the shows we want to watch instead... all without commercials. I will pay $2.50 a month to watch 4 episodes of Firefly, and another $2.50 for Enterprise. Umm... I might think about shelling out a few bones for a few Fox Sunday shows. Lets see... what else would I shell out dollars for? Umm... nothing. Yea... definitely nothing. Why? Because it sucks. Thanks, I'm not the lowest common denominator. I don't live in a trailer and I'm not missing most of my teeth. Nor am I an uneducated boob that thinks Rosanne is funny. I guess I'm not a good consumer, because I won't pay for the utter trash that the major networks put out.
Pay for skipping commercials? Heh... piss off. Offer me something worth paying for, and I will... but I sure as hell won't pay for skipping advertisments for junk I will never buy. I can count the number of things I've bought from TV ads on one hand in my ENTIRE LIFE. Maybe that's not quite accurate, maybe when I was a small child and easily influenced, I bought (or had things bought) for me from TV advertisments. But as an adult, I sure as hell haven't bought a damned thing, with the possible exception of my Braun Synchro as a direct result from a TV ad. Nice market penetration there... 1 commercial that was effective out of the countless ones I was forced to view before my UltimateTV (I know, I'm a heathen for supporting Microsoft... if someone wants to show me where to get a $50 Tivo for DTV, I'll gladly switch).
So, I'll keep skipping my commercials until I drive the poor, poor networks into bankruptcy from my irresponsible practices. Then, when they are a flaming heap of ashes, I'll eagerly await the new paradigm of TV type viewing that will allow me to pick and choose the QUALITY shows that are actually worth watching... and never again be forced to rake red-hot razor blades over my eyeballs for accidentally seeing a portion of "Grounded for Life" or "Just shoot me."
Cry me a river, network execs... then build a goddamned bridge and get over it. Welcome to the 21st century. Duh.
Your suppositions are pure fallcy when it comes to "doing away with SEQ." Did severe legal actions do away with DeCSS? No? What makes you think SEQ would be any different.
In addition to that, how exactly do you propose to find the creator(s) of the decryption libraries? No email addresses exist, certainly no real names. Only a puff of a pseudonym and a few IRC logs perhaps. You'd have about as much luck tracking down Osama Bin Laden as you would tracking down the authors if they don't want to be found. To add insult to that injury, who says they are United States citizens? Heh... once again, the mighty US trying to reach out and control the rest of the sane world with insane laws (Yes, I am a US citizen).
Regardless though, there is no possible way to enforce anything you have stated here, therefore, you can't uphold and unenforcable law, and hence, it is then not a law, but merely a suggestion. Like I said, as much as you might like to believe the US jurisdiction holds outside our borders, reality is very different, and many countries could give a flying pigs butt what the US wants in terms of censorship.
Show me any sources where packet sniffing on your own network is illegal.
The lawyer you consulted over this is a poor lawyer indeed if he advised you of these things. Regardless of whether your parents are lawyers or not, I highly doubt they are familiar with this particular topic... and a lawyer that isn't familiar with a topic is as good as any other armchair lawyer out of their area of speciality.
I think the least of the SEQ devs worries are a legal suit. There is simply no grounds to stand on there.
Cerberusti... what kind of crack are you smoking? What on earth makes you think that Sony has any legal grounds to sue the SEQ developers?
Because they broke a EULA? Heh, show me one EULA that's ever held up in a court of law in relation to "damages." The only thing Sony can do is ban the given user who's using the program. ShowEQ is nothing more than a graphical packet sniffer. If you think Sony can sue people for using a packet sniffer, and NOT DIRECTLY INTERFERING WITH THE GAME IN ANY WAY, you need to go back to law school, or check with your sources, or whatever.
Surely you kid, right? ShowEQ isn't used as a security program. It is a cheating tool. Even in its most beneficent uses, it is for cheating. Period. This has got to be the most sad apologies for cheating I've ever seen
It's pretty sad that a statement like this is modded 5, Insightful. Heh... it's a joke actually. The fact of the matter is, ShowEQ was/is responsible for the state of EverQuest today. If not for ShowEQ, most of the major bugs/problems in the game would never have been fixed (or identified). ShowEQ has been and continues to be the single most useful development tool for EverQuest ever designed.
Every major "problem" Verant has come across has been reported to them, identified and investigated with ShowEQ. EQ wouldn't be half the game it is today without it.
Patrick... this is not meant as a flame, but your statements are ridiculous... utterly and totally. You are obviously "new" to the web, and these statements show what a sophmoric or perhaps coroporate attitude you take towards the web, and it's unsettling.
I take special umbrage to this quote:
They give you content, you view the ad. The Internet is not a one sided deal. You don't get your cake and eat it too.
Wrong. Wrong. So VERY wrong. And wrong three times over. The internet was BUILT on the foundation of sharing information... FOR FREE. YOUR commercialized internet is NOT my internet. I don't NEED your information. I may find it interesting, but chances are, there is some alturistic person out there willing to GIVE it to me for free... just like I provide 10,000+ users information for free as well. I run a number of popular message board sites, most are directed at very niche markets, but together, I serve around 10,000 users at any given time. With EVERY site I run, with the exception of 1, I offer totally free, without banner ads, etc...
Why do I do this? Because that's how _I_ give back to the "internet" for the information I take from elsewhere. I've put hundreds and hundreds of hours into these sites I run, for zero monetary compensation. It probably sounds crazy to you, but 15 years ago, that's what the Internet was all about. Everyone sharing their information for pleasure.
I realize the Internet is a commercial beast now, and we wouldn't have what we have without that commercialization. However, I think that if we were to take away the advantages commercilization gave us, and replace them with the advantages non-commercialization would give us, it (the net) would be a less stressful place to live.
I totally, and utterly disagree with you that blocking ads is theft. The whole premise is utterly ridiculous. If I don't want to watch something on TV, something I find offensive, I TURN THE GOD DAMNED TV off, or change the channel. By your twisted logic, I'm STEALING from the networks because I choose not to watch thier bullshit. How ridiculous can you get? If you want to offer your information, GREAT... and if I find it valuable, I would _consider_ donating to you, however, I feel that my return I give to the net is in proportion to what I take from it. I may not give that "return" DIRECTLY to you, but it's all interwoven, and you recieve the same benefit from somewhere else, who may or may not have recieved benefit from me.
As for "deal" with the ads, they aren't going to kill me... I do. I use Webwasher with a very robust and complex filter set. I rarely see banner ads, much less ANY pop-ups. That's how I deal with you... I suggest you DEAL with people blocking intrusive and utterly pointless advertising. I have no wish to see the advertising, and if that means that I won't get access to your information, then so be it... it won't break my heart, because I can get that information elsewhere, and if I can't, and I actually NEED that information, then I will PAY for it voluntarily. But forcing ads upon me is making me pay for that information INVOLUNTARILY, and THAT is the difference between STEALING and protecting myself. Your way is involuntary, my way, the morally correct way, is voluntary.
YOU, sir, are stealing my time from me, I am stealing NOTHING from you.
A judge can reject a case if she thinks it is frivolous, *plus* a defendant can counter-sue for any bills incurred. It's not perfect, but it does work pretty well.
This is a common misconception. It must be specifically written into the law that the disputing parties can then collect legal fees from the "loser." *MOST* laws are *NOT* written this way, and very few, specific laws allow for recompensation for expended legal fees, even if you are the winner.
There are a couple ways around this, but they are difficult to persue. This is why it's often quite a shock to those actually engaging in legal jousting, who have never done it before. It costs money, and everyone loses money in the end, regardless of the fact that you have won or not, unless you are involved with one of those lucky laws where provisions have been made for the winner.
IANAL, but I am embarking on a fairly large civil case soon, and my lawyer and I have gone over lots of details. I have a strong case (it actually involves a fight against the DMCA, heh), and I will probably win, but my lawyer has informed me that even when/if I do win, I'm still going to be out a boat load of money. So I'm mentally perparing myself to throw $20,000 down a rathole, effectively, to take a moral stand against a large corporation, and I'm hoping to set a precedent in the process (against the DMCA, among other laws). Fortunately, I'm single and relatively debt free, with a sizable savings... it's going to hurt, but if $20,000 gives a large corporation a black eye and sets a precedent for future suits of this nature, then I'm going to suck it up and drive on. I'm tired of sitting back and taking in the rear from major corporations who try to throw their weight around.
Yes, given I get the go ahead from the lawyer, I will be making the case specifics public after the dust settles, as of right now, I have zero intention of settling out of court, and if it comes to that, I will not sign a provision for a gag order. Right now, I think I have the consitution to follow through with my grand pronoucements, lets just hope my will holds up.:)
"This is the first time this figure has been made public." The full version of Windows XP costs about $300.00. Microsoft could sell it for $45 and still make a profit."
And _THAT_ is why I will pirate the few Microsoft specific programs that I would like to use for temporary projects.
I would pay $45 for Windows XP, just to have a legit copy. I absolutely will NOT pay $300 for it... especially since the only reason I run Windows on some of my machines is to play games. I can go buy a ^%#@$#@ console for half that price.
I use Macromedia's Studio MX. There is simply nothing better than Dreamweaver for HTML editing... at least nothing I've found. Everything I've tried, and believe me, I've tried a lot, pales in comparison to the Studio. I'm not a big fan of Macromedia, but the MX products are absolutely top notch.
The one other application I have trouble leaving behind on Windows is UltraEdit. There is not a better text editor out there, and I am a big VIM fan/die hard. Never did get into Emacs, but I very seriously doubt it has the ease of use and power that UltraEdit has.
If studio MX and Ultraedit were available natively on Linux, I'd switch. The last remaining applications tying me to all my machines being Linux would be games.
As it stands right now, however, my only "main" Linux machine is my secondary work laptop (the one I use the most), with my primary being forced onto 2000 because of our Exchange server.
Could be... however, I think that perhaps the psychological benefit to learning that we are not alone in the universe may outweigh any short term gains we would get by curing HIV or Cancer.
The planet is already over populated, and even if 80% of the humans sucumb to one disease or another, the human population would remain quite stable.
To add insult to that injury, if a cataclysmic event were to occur, and obliterate this planet, the human race would be gone, forever. No amount of cancer or HIV research will stop a relativistic chunk of iron from impacting on the surface of the planet.
On the other hand, if we were to find unrefutable evidence for life outside the solar system, it may spur the human race to branch out from our "one basket," providing us with an insurance policy for any sort of "localized" event on our planet.
I think the benefits to finding life far, far outweigh any short term goal of curing HIV or Cancer.
It's the increased power consumption I'd be worried about in his (the bosses) position.
While 1 CPU running at full throttle 24/7 isn't going to make that big of a jump in the power bill. 500 CPUs... 1000, etc... will create a huge increase in power consumption over a long enough time frame.
I fully support distributed projects like Folding@home, SETI, etc... and run them on my machines, both at home and at work, but the power consumption is a legitimate concern.
I believe someone did a (unprofessional) investigation of the SETI@home debacle when it first came out, and came to the conclusion that something on the order of 100 or 1000 barrels of oil per day were wasted on checking over the same data repeatedly... which SETI@home didn't bother to inform people that their data distribution method wasn't exactly working. (Everyone was checking over the same exact patch of sky 24/7 for weeks). That's what initially turned me off to SETI@home, and I haven't been back since.
Regardless... it applies to Folding@home as well. Thousands and thousands of CPUs, running floored will eat up a considerable amount of power. Is it wasted? No, I don't think so, as long as the distributed computing applications are worthwhile and advance our knowledge.
BlarrrgG!!!
on
High Score
·
· Score: 2, Informative
If you want a *REAL*, comprehensive/exhaustive, *FREE* and fun to read history of video games, go read The Dot Eaters.
I spent a couple hours reading through this, and refer back to it often, just for fun. It sounds like it's a lot of the same stuff as in the book, but it also sounds like Dot Eaters is much more professional and comprehensive in regards to the *history* of games and what they mean to us (30 somethings).
Don't even need to bother with that. Just unscrew that puppy and put a couple bare wires on the headphone jack leads into your sound card. Viola... instant MP3!
And in other news, the RIAA is NOT backing off their stance to shut down P2P networks. Microsoft is NOT going to support previous versions of windows, nor will it issue patches to old security flaws.
In an unsuprising move by Apple Computer, Steve Jobs stated that Apple was NOT going to scuttle OS/X in favor of TurboLinux. Anonymous sources did, however, say that Steve Jobs was most definitely NOT going to hire Wozniak back to work on OS/X++. Also quoted was Mr. Jobs stating that Apple would NOT be reverting to GS/OS as it's next viable operating system. However, ProDOS 1.2 was NOT a possiblity if enough users requested it.
Probably not... however, someone who knows someone, who knows someone, who knows someone, who knows someone, who knows someone who knows Kevin Bacon WILL DEFINITELY BE ON THIS FLIGHT.
What I basically have right now as my major stumbling block is a table with user information that differs from the baseline table.
The baseline table has the SAME information, except all status records are set to 0 (null). The user table has all status records set to appropriate values for that user.
I need to select all the status rows for that user that have a value > 0, then I need to select all rows from the baseline table that pertain to THAT usertype that do NOT exist in the user information table. Does that make sense?
Table 1 = baseline, all status is 0 and contains information for ALL user types. Table 2 = User status on a per user basis.
I want to: SELECT * FROM table1 WHERE table1.status NOT IN (SELECT status FROM table2 WHERE user=username)
It's a little more convoluted than that select statement, but it gives a general idea. If there's any way to do that w/o a subselect, I haven't found it yet.
All I want out of MySQL at this point is subselects. This seems to be one of the most heavily requested features, yet there's no sign of it...
Several of my projects (admittedly, they aren't as high profile or even as important as many things) are on indefnite hold because everything was built around MySQL... with the promise of Subselects in Version 4. Well... version 4 is here, and no subselects... and my project can't move forward without them. Or at least, if the queries can be done another way, I haven't found it yet. The JOIN syntax in SQL is so horribly convoluted that I just simply have not been able to adequately wrap my brain around it, I suppose...
Subselects in and the world is all roses and honey... but at this point, I'm pretty pissed off at MySQL and am wishing I had chosen Postgres from the get go.
But hey... ya get what you pay for, so I guess I can't be too mad, eh? Which is probably why I don't rant over at mysql.com ever:)
Man... does this cry "Sell Short" on their stocks or what? Are they publically traded? You'll make a killing when they go down in flames after everyone cold shoulders them for trying to hijaak the whole shebang.
Slashdot Mirror
... are where one license conflicts with the other. Why put artificial limits on it?
The speed of light is not constant, however the "Speed of LIght" IS constant.
./ ran an article about some fellows at a lab slowing light down to literally a few miles per hour, even, I believe, stopping it completely, in some sort of crystal lattice. I don't recall the specifics, but a search should turn it up.
Doesn't make sense? The "Speed of Light" is the speed photons travel in a vaccuum. That's the key... in a vaccuum. Light can be slowed down (WAYYY) down in certain mediums, and thus the speed of light can vary signifigantly.
In fact, I believe
Trip Hawkins is the kiss of death for any project, it seems. Sure, he had a couple good ideas... but in the last 10 - 15 years, anything he got involved with went south.
Not saying it's anything he's done, just that the gods don't like him or something.
That's entirely situational. I have full confidence in my ability to handle IFF internally :) ... but I don't have that confidence in anyone else.
If I gained that confidence in her, then yes, that would be fine. However, it would take a lot of convincing. I would expect the same from her, of course, which is why I'm leary of having an easily accessable / loaded gun in the house with more than one person living in it.
In all honesty, given my track record with women, my biggest fear is that I would have pissed them off, unbeknownst to me, and she'd get ahold of it in a fit of rage. I seem to attract psychos. *shudder*
People will just buy guns out of state... not really a big deal.
Although, I like this concept to a degree. I currently live alone, and I keep a gun handy... because I know that if anyone is in my house, it's not anyone that should be there. I feel secure that if I were to be forced to shoot someone, I would not be shooting someone accidentally that I had not intended to do harm.
All that changes though if I get married or have someone living with me. I won't keep a gun around, so that either I, myself, could make a mistake, or the person living with me shoots me coming home late.
Having a gun that would only fire by my own hand would be a good compromise for me, as I would feel secure walking in my house late at night, knowing my wife won't get antsy and accidentally shoot me (or god forbid I piss her off somehow...).
It would still leave me with the problem of potentially shooting someone who might be there, but it would eliminate a big portion of my reservations towardsd keeping a gun easily accessable in the house with more than one person living there. (Lets face it, if you keep a gun locked up and not easily accessable, there's no real point in keeping the gun for "self defense." If you need it for self defense one dark night, you won't have time to find the key, open up the locker, load it and bring it to bear.)
I'd like to see some robust smart gun technology hit the shelves, it would be great. (That doesn't require a bracelet or any "extra" accoutraments to work)
Bwhahaa ... Yea, right. Whatever. I'll be happy to stop watching TV, thanks.
Wait... I have a novel idea. How about you let us pay for the shows we want to watch instead... all without commercials. I will pay $2.50 a month to watch 4 episodes of Firefly, and another $2.50 for Enterprise. Umm... I might think about shelling out a few bones for a few Fox Sunday shows. Lets see... what else would I shell out dollars for? Umm... nothing. Yea... definitely nothing. Why? Because it sucks. Thanks, I'm not the lowest common denominator. I don't live in a trailer and I'm not missing most of my teeth. Nor am I an uneducated boob that thinks Rosanne is funny. I guess I'm not a good consumer, because I won't pay for the utter trash that the major networks put out.
Pay for skipping commercials? Heh... piss off. Offer me something worth paying for, and I will... but I sure as hell won't pay for skipping advertisments for junk I will never buy. I can count the number of things I've bought from TV ads on one hand in my ENTIRE LIFE. Maybe that's not quite accurate, maybe when I was a small child and easily influenced, I bought (or had things bought) for me from TV advertisments. But as an adult, I sure as hell haven't bought a damned thing, with the possible exception of my Braun Synchro as a direct result from a TV ad. Nice market penetration there... 1 commercial that was effective out of the countless ones I was forced to view before my UltimateTV (I know, I'm a heathen for supporting Microsoft... if someone wants to show me where to get a $50 Tivo for DTV, I'll gladly switch).
So, I'll keep skipping my commercials until I drive the poor, poor networks into bankruptcy from my irresponsible practices. Then, when they are a flaming heap of ashes, I'll eagerly await the new paradigm of TV type viewing that will allow me to pick and choose the QUALITY shows that are actually worth watching... and never again be forced to rake red-hot razor blades over my eyeballs for accidentally seeing a portion of "Grounded for Life" or "Just shoot me."
Cry me a river, network execs... then build a goddamned bridge and get over it. Welcome to the 21st century. Duh.
Your suppositions are pure fallcy when it comes to "doing away with SEQ." Did severe legal actions do away with DeCSS? No? What makes you think SEQ would be any different.
In addition to that, how exactly do you propose to find the creator(s) of the decryption libraries? No email addresses exist, certainly no real names. Only a puff of a pseudonym and a few IRC logs perhaps. You'd have about as much luck tracking down Osama Bin Laden as you would tracking down the authors if they don't want to be found. To add insult to that injury, who says they are United States citizens? Heh... once again, the mighty US trying to reach out and control the rest of the sane world with insane laws (Yes, I am a US citizen).
Regardless though, there is no possible way to enforce anything you have stated here, therefore, you can't uphold and unenforcable law, and hence, it is then not a law, but merely a suggestion. Like I said, as much as you might like to believe the US jurisdiction holds outside our borders, reality is very different, and many countries could give a flying pigs butt what the US wants in terms of censorship.
Show me any sources where packet sniffing on your own network is illegal.
The lawyer you consulted over this is a poor lawyer indeed if he advised you of these things. Regardless of whether your parents are lawyers or not, I highly doubt they are familiar with this particular topic... and a lawyer that isn't familiar with a topic is as good as any other armchair lawyer out of their area of speciality.
I think the least of the SEQ devs worries are a legal suit. There is simply no grounds to stand on there.
Cerberusti... what kind of crack are you smoking? What on earth makes you think that Sony has any legal grounds to sue the SEQ developers?
Because they broke a EULA? Heh, show me one EULA that's ever held up in a court of law in relation to "damages." The only thing Sony can do is ban the given user who's using the program. ShowEQ is nothing more than a graphical packet sniffer. If you think Sony can sue people for using a packet sniffer, and NOT DIRECTLY INTERFERING WITH THE GAME IN ANY WAY, you need to go back to law school, or check with your sources, or whatever.
Surely you kid, right? ShowEQ isn't used as a security program. It is a cheating tool. Even in its most beneficent uses, it is for cheating. Period. This has got to be the most sad apologies for cheating I've ever seen
It's pretty sad that a statement like this is modded 5, Insightful. Heh... it's a joke actually. The fact of the matter is, ShowEQ was/is responsible for the state of EverQuest today. If not for ShowEQ, most of the major bugs/problems in the game would never have been fixed (or identified). ShowEQ has been and continues to be the single most useful development tool for EverQuest ever designed.
Every major "problem" Verant has come across has been reported to them, identified and investigated with ShowEQ. EQ wouldn't be half the game it is today without it.
Patrick... this is not meant as a flame, but your statements are ridiculous... utterly and totally. You are obviously "new" to the web, and these statements show what a sophmoric or perhaps coroporate attitude you take towards the web, and it's unsettling.
I take special umbrage to this quote:
They give you content, you view the ad. The Internet is not a one sided deal. You don't get your cake and eat it too.
Wrong. Wrong. So VERY wrong. And wrong three times over. The internet was BUILT on the foundation of sharing information... FOR FREE. YOUR commercialized internet is NOT my internet. I don't NEED your information. I may find it interesting, but chances are, there is some alturistic person out there willing to GIVE it to me for free... just like I provide 10,000+ users information for free as well. I run a number of popular message board sites, most are directed at very niche markets, but together, I serve around 10,000 users at any given time. With EVERY site I run, with the exception of 1, I offer totally free, without banner ads, etc...
Why do I do this? Because that's how _I_ give back to the "internet" for the information I take from elsewhere. I've put hundreds and hundreds of hours into these sites I run, for zero monetary compensation. It probably sounds crazy to you, but 15 years ago, that's what the Internet was all about. Everyone sharing their information for pleasure.
I realize the Internet is a commercial beast now, and we wouldn't have what we have without that commercialization. However, I think that if we were to take away the advantages commercilization gave us, and replace them with the advantages non-commercialization would give us, it (the net) would be a less stressful place to live.
I totally, and utterly disagree with you that blocking ads is theft. The whole premise is utterly ridiculous. If I don't want to watch something on TV, something I find offensive, I TURN THE GOD DAMNED TV off, or change the channel. By your twisted logic, I'm STEALING from the networks because I choose not to watch thier bullshit. How ridiculous can you get? If you want to offer your information, GREAT... and if I find it valuable, I would _consider_ donating to you, however, I feel that my return I give to the net is in proportion to what I take from it. I may not give that "return" DIRECTLY to you, but it's all interwoven, and you recieve the same benefit from somewhere else, who may or may not have recieved benefit from me.
As for "deal" with the ads, they aren't going to kill me... I do. I use Webwasher with a very robust and complex filter set. I rarely see banner ads, much less ANY pop-ups. That's how I deal with you... I suggest you DEAL with people blocking intrusive and utterly pointless advertising. I have no wish to see the advertising, and if that means that I won't get access to your information, then so be it... it won't break my heart, because I can get that information elsewhere, and if I can't, and I actually NEED that information, then I will PAY for it voluntarily. But forcing ads upon me is making me pay for that information INVOLUNTARILY, and THAT is the difference between STEALING and protecting myself. Your way is involuntary, my way, the morally correct way, is voluntary.
YOU, sir, are stealing my time from me, I am stealing NOTHING from you.
A judge can reject a case if she thinks it is frivolous, *plus* a defendant can counter-sue for any bills incurred. It's not perfect, but it does work pretty well.
:)
This is a common misconception. It must be specifically written into the law that the disputing parties can then collect legal fees from the "loser." *MOST* laws are *NOT* written this way, and very few, specific laws allow for recompensation for expended legal fees, even if you are the winner.
There are a couple ways around this, but they are difficult to persue. This is why it's often quite a shock to those actually engaging in legal jousting, who have never done it before. It costs money, and everyone loses money in the end, regardless of the fact that you have won or not, unless you are involved with one of those lucky laws where provisions have been made for the winner.
IANAL, but I am embarking on a fairly large civil case soon, and my lawyer and I have gone over lots of details. I have a strong case (it actually involves a fight against the DMCA, heh), and I will probably win, but my lawyer has informed me that even when/if I do win, I'm still going to be out a boat load of money. So I'm mentally perparing myself to throw $20,000 down a rathole, effectively, to take a moral stand against a large corporation, and I'm hoping to set a precedent in the process (against the DMCA, among other laws). Fortunately, I'm single and relatively debt free, with a sizable savings... it's going to hurt, but if $20,000 gives a large corporation a black eye and sets a precedent for future suits of this nature, then I'm going to suck it up and drive on. I'm tired of sitting back and taking in the rear from major corporations who try to throw their weight around.
Yes, given I get the go ahead from the lawyer, I will be making the case specifics public after the dust settles, as of right now, I have zero intention of settling out of court, and if it comes to that, I will not sign a provision for a gag order. Right now, I think I have the consitution to follow through with my grand pronoucements, lets just hope my will holds up.
"This is the first time this figure has been made public." The full version of Windows XP costs about $300.00. Microsoft could sell it for $45 and still make a profit."
And _THAT_ is why I will pirate the few Microsoft specific programs that I would like to use for temporary projects.
I would pay $45 for Windows XP, just to have a legit copy. I absolutely will NOT pay $300 for it... especially since the only reason I run Windows on some of my machines is to play games. I can go buy a ^%#@$#@ console for half that price.
I use Macromedia's Studio MX. There is simply nothing better than Dreamweaver for HTML editing... at least nothing I've found. Everything I've tried, and believe me, I've tried a lot, pales in comparison to the Studio. I'm not a big fan of Macromedia, but the MX products are absolutely top notch.
The one other application I have trouble leaving behind on Windows is UltraEdit. There is not a better text editor out there, and I am a big VIM fan/die hard. Never did get into Emacs, but I very seriously doubt it has the ease of use and power that UltraEdit has.
If studio MX and Ultraedit were available natively on Linux, I'd switch. The last remaining applications tying me to all my machines being Linux would be games.
As it stands right now, however, my only "main" Linux machine is my secondary work laptop (the one I use the most), with my primary being forced onto 2000 because of our Exchange server.
Could be... however, I think that perhaps the psychological benefit to learning that we are not alone in the universe may outweigh any short term gains we would get by curing HIV or Cancer.
The planet is already over populated, and even if 80% of the humans sucumb to one disease or another, the human population would remain quite stable.
To add insult to that injury, if a cataclysmic event were to occur, and obliterate this planet, the human race would be gone, forever. No amount of cancer or HIV research will stop a relativistic chunk of iron from impacting on the surface of the planet.
On the other hand, if we were to find unrefutable evidence for life outside the solar system, it may spur the human race to branch out from our "one basket," providing us with an insurance policy for any sort of "localized" event on our planet.
I think the benefits to finding life far, far outweigh any short term goal of curing HIV or Cancer.
It's the increased power consumption I'd be worried about in his (the bosses) position.
... which SETI@home didn't bother to inform people that their data distribution method wasn't exactly working. (Everyone was checking over the same exact patch of sky 24/7 for weeks). That's what initially turned me off to SETI@home, and I haven't been back since.
... it applies to Folding@home as well. Thousands and thousands of CPUs, running floored will eat up a considerable amount of power. Is it wasted? No, I don't think so, as long as the distributed computing applications are worthwhile and advance our knowledge.
While 1 CPU running at full throttle 24/7 isn't going to make that big of a jump in the power bill. 500 CPUs... 1000, etc... will create a huge increase in power consumption over a long enough time frame.
I fully support distributed projects like Folding@home, SETI, etc... and run them on my machines, both at home and at work, but the power consumption is a legitimate concern.
I believe someone did a (unprofessional) investigation of the SETI@home debacle when it first came out, and came to the conclusion that something on the order of 100 or 1000 barrels of oil per day were wasted on checking over the same data repeatedly
Regardless
... that they FLUSHED the patent ?
If you want a *REAL*, comprehensive/exhaustive, *FREE* and fun to read history of video games, go read The Dot Eaters.
I spent a couple hours reading through this, and refer back to it often, just for fun. It sounds like it's a lot of the same stuff as in the book, but it also sounds like Dot Eaters is much more professional and comprehensive in regards to the *history* of games and what they mean to us (30 somethings).
It's definitely worth a read.
Don't even need to bother with that. Just unscrew that puppy and put a couple bare wires on the headphone jack leads into your sound card. Viola ... instant MP3!
Screw the thing back together and you're done.
And in other news, the RIAA is NOT backing off their stance to shut down P2P networks. Microsoft is NOT going to support previous versions of windows, nor will it issue patches to old security flaws.
In an unsuprising move by Apple Computer, Steve Jobs stated that Apple was NOT going to scuttle OS/X in favor of TurboLinux. Anonymous sources did, however, say that Steve Jobs was most definitely NOT going to hire Wozniak back to work on OS/X++. Also quoted was Mr. Jobs stating that Apple would NOT be reverting to GS/OS as it's next viable operating system. However, ProDOS 1.2 was NOT a possiblity if enough users requested it.
Probably not... however, someone who knows someone, who knows someone, who knows someone, who knows someone, who knows someone who knows Kevin Bacon WILL DEFINITELY BE ON THIS FLIGHT.
I'm not sure what you mean by views?
What I basically have right now as my major stumbling block is a table with user information that differs from the baseline table.
The baseline table has the SAME information, except all status records are set to 0 (null). The user table has all status records set to appropriate values for that user.
I need to select all the status rows for that user that have a value > 0, then I need to select all rows from the baseline table that pertain to THAT usertype that do NOT exist in the user information table. Does that make sense?
Table 1 = baseline, all status is 0 and contains information for ALL user types.
Table 2 = User status on a per user basis.
I want to: SELECT * FROM table1 WHERE table1.status NOT IN (SELECT status FROM table2 WHERE user=username)
It's a little more convoluted than that select statement, but it gives a general idea. If there's any way to do that w/o a subselect, I haven't found it yet.
All I want out of MySQL at this point is subselects. This seems to be one of the most heavily requested features, yet there's no sign of it...
... with the promise of Subselects in Version 4. Well... version 4 is here, and no subselects... and my project can't move forward without them. Or at least, if the queries can be done another way, I haven't found it yet. The JOIN syntax in SQL is so horribly convoluted that I just simply have not been able to adequately wrap my brain around it, I suppose...
:)
Several of my projects (admittedly, they aren't as high profile or even as important as many things) are on indefnite hold because everything was built around MySQL
Subselects in and the world is all roses and honey... but at this point, I'm pretty pissed off at MySQL and am wishing I had chosen Postgres from the get go.
But hey... ya get what you pay for, so I guess I can't be too mad, eh? Which is probably why I don't rant over at mysql.com ever
Don't you mean "I rove Engrish?"
Oh well... I guess that's the way the cookie bounces.
Man... does this cry "Sell Short" on their stocks or what? Are they publically traded? You'll make a killing when they go down in flames after everyone cold shoulders them for trying to hijaak the whole shebang.