Between kernel 2.6.2 and 2.6.3, ALSA 1.02c got merged, and that broke stuff. (I was having problems too.) For me, upgrading to to ALSA 1.03 worked. This would have been in time for 2.6.4, but the -rc kernels were already out, so no big patches could be accepted. Unzip the alsa tarball to/usr/src, and do
cd/usr/src cp -a alsa/alsa-kernel/* linux/sound cp -a alsa/alsa-kernel/include/* linux/include/sound cp -a alsa/alsa-kernel/Documentation/* linux/Documentation/sound
before configuring and compiling the kernel. And if 1.03 doesn't fix it, do the above with 0.9.7.
Actually, the patent doesn't specifically say it has to be a CCD, it only has to be a "an area image sensor having a two-dimensional array of photosites corresponding to picture elements of the image." IANAL, but this could probably apply to vidicons - the actual screen is as close as possible to two-dimensional.
I did too read the patent (look elsewhere in the comments for a link to it), and I stand by my opinion that it's stupid. The patent seems to be the result of someone thinking of a digital camera, and a group of engineers brainstorming ways it could be made. "It'll have, like, a CCD, and an ADC, and removable media. Or maybe it'll have an indicator saying how much space is left on the removable media." All this is converted into legalese. They don't describe how the parts will be combined, or how the parts work. And if you had asked me, in 1991, to describe how to make a digital camera, I could have brainstormed those things. In short, they didn't do anything, certainly not something worth a million bucks. And see my other post for why it was obvious even when it was patented.
Your argument seems to be that the idea was non-obvious because, in the 80s, Cannon was making prototype digital cameras, but they were large and heavy and computer technology was less advanced, so people lacking in forsight (like Kodak) didn't think they were the wave of the future.
That doesn't make the idea non-obvious. Why was Cannon making the prototypes if they didn't think they would be useful or popular? That it took them six years to develop it is irrelevant, because the patent doesn't mention how any of the components it requires works. And to top it off, if your argument is true, shouldn't the patent be Cannon's?
Suppose I say that as soon as we discover unobtanium, which is repelled by gravity, that we should put a blob of it in the center of a saucer-shaped aircraft and annoy Martians with it. Now fast forward to a time when that already happened. By your argument, my idea was highly original, because after all, look at the abysmal state of antigravity in the Stupid Ages. But the idea was in fact obvious, and I certainly wouldn't deserve a reward, because I did none of the work of obtaining unobtanium, or even of designing the saucer-shaped airframe.
That tired joke got modded up not because it's almost chuckle-inducing, but because it's social commentary. The funny part is that the idea is blindingly obvious and shouldn't be worth (puts pinky to lips) one million dollars. The sad part is that, yes, it is.
(which doesn't mean that you don't need to worry about memory leaks, but that's another story...)
You just proved his point. You do need to worry about leaks somewhat: if you allocate objects in tight loops, your app will perform badly. If you keep references to objects you no longer need, you'll run out of memory after a while.
You probably know these things, but a newbie wouldn't necessairily learn them. To use anything effectively, one needs to understand what's under the hood. So there's something to be said for not putting too many skeletons there.
There's a distinction between having admin access and using it. I (obviously) know my Linux computer's root password, but I don't do anything as root when I can avoid it. Windows lets you do that too - but it isn't default, so the very people who would benefit most from it never do. Typing the password can get annoying, but if that bothers you, just have an empty password. It's less secure, but at least you will know when you're using root.
It's sad that you got modded down for that. I agree: McBride, Gates, or any other high profile leader being assasinated would be absolutely horrible, and it wouldn't have any positive effect. At the moment, SCO's cyberterrorism charges are baseless, but if something like that happened, even plain old terrorism would apply.
WINE doesn't necessairily mean emulation of binaries. They have the source, so they can compile native binaries that use the WINE libraries (presumably even for non-x86). The libraries just provide an abstraction layer, similar to QT, MFC, or wxWidgets (formerly wxWindows), except that instead of having their own API, they emulate Windows's.
Granted, it depends on how much effort they expend. And I'm not sure how hard it will be to set up. But it wouldn't necessairily be as bad as you assume.
Yes. Groklaw is hosted, free, by a nonprofit outfit called iBiblio, which runs on $250,000 worth of Linux-based computers donated by IBM. And as we all know, SCO essentially owns IBM.
For the humor-impared, I'm joking. But Blake has implicated that Groklaw is biased by the IBM's and RedHat's contributions to iBiblio, as well as PJ's alleged geographic proximity with IBM.
I think that our moral code has its basis in our basic instincts not to harm one another. So your question becomes, "Where did we come from?". I'll tell you my beliefs on the matter, but I don't expect you to share them, provided you don't expect me to share yours. I believe humans are one result of the process of evolution.
When I look at life, I don't see the constraints of finitely intelligent design, which arise from a designer's need to understand his creation before he can improve it. I conclude that life must have been created either by an infinitely intelligent designer (I suspect this is your position), or by a process such as evolution that can create without understanding.
I prefer the evolutionary explanation, because I see more evidence for it, because I think it explains things better, and because an understanding of it can further the reach of human abilities. Evolutionary hardware and software design experiments like Tierra and Golem convince me that the process of evolution is powerful enough to have created life. Evolution can explain, given the physics of the universe, why various species have the properties they do, for example, why humans have morals. Finally, understanding biological evolution leads to advances in medical science and technology, and the process of evolution can be applied to other fields as well.
The process of evolution depends on the attributes of the system in which it acts, and this is where I believe God might fit in. The laws of chemistry, physics, thermodynamics, and causality allow life to exist and prosper. This could be because if they didn't, we wouldn't be here to reflect upon them. Or it could be because a Creator tuned the laws of this universe in much the same way Adrian Thompson tweaks the fitness function to evolve a better circuit. I don't think its possible for inhabitants of this universe to know which it is, but the latter would be much cooler.
You're saying humans have morals, and they were given to us by God. I agree with the first part. I think we agree that humans (including non-Christians) have morals and can use them. I think this implies that a moral code, even if it's basis was given to us by the Christian God, need not be derived from Christian authority. The morals, regardless of their ultimate source, exist not exclusively in any religion, but in each of us.
if only there were some way to help try to ensure that I could recover the money I spend developing it...
In the software industry, that way is copyrights.
In software, ideas are a dime a dozen. The actual investment is the time spent writing code. Copyright is the perfect tool to protect this investment. Patents are not.
Right, but the trees moving doesn't make the wind blow, ya know.
What's your point? Societal collapse causes immorality and not vice-versa?
> most slave owners would have called
> themselves Christian.
Sure, anyone can.
So you're saying anyone who acts immorally isn't really a Christian? I thought "Christians" were people who share certain beliefs, not people who are, by definition, perfect. Creating a synonym for "moral" is pointless.
> No religion has a perfect track record
Watch for it... watch for it... wide net!
Casting a wide net is only bad if it's innaccurate. Can you name a religion with a perfect record?
One problem with viewing morality as "that which has benefitted society in the past" is that it's impersonal and non-binding. There's no incentive for me to adhere to any particular moral principles, since, hey, I'm a jerk and I don't care about society, and I'm going to die in 40-50 years anyway.
First, I'm saying "that which will benefit humanity in the future." Times change. Next, you're human - acting in humanity's interest is your most deeply-ingrained instinct. (Otherwise we wouldn't be here.) And it's reinforced by your society. (Otherwise it wouldn't be here.) Do you really need further incentive? Besides, there still is one - people are more likely to hurt you if you hurt them.
Furthermore, if I can justify present evil for the good of future society, I can justify knocking off several millions Ukrainians in the name of the people, as did the USSR in the early 20th century.
Genocide will never be good for society, so it will never be justified. (And if that's not enough, genocide increases your chances of being invaded, captured, or assasinated.)
Where do you think morality comes from? If you name any organized religions, how do you explain non-evil people who don't subscribe to them? Are they just lucky? Are they just copying you? Do they not exist?
Slashdot Mirror
Stop playing root!
Actually, the patent doesn't specifically say it has to be a CCD, it only has to be a "an area image sensor having a two-dimensional array of photosites corresponding to picture elements of the image." IANAL, but this could probably apply to vidicons - the actual screen is as close as possible to two-dimensional.
I did too read the patent (look elsewhere in the comments for a link to it), and I stand by my opinion that it's stupid. The patent seems to be the result of someone thinking of a digital camera, and a group of engineers brainstorming ways it could be made. "It'll have, like, a CCD, and an ADC, and removable media. Or maybe it'll have an indicator saying how much space is left on the removable media." All this is converted into legalese. They don't describe how the parts will be combined, or how the parts work. And if you had asked me, in 1991, to describe how to make a digital camera, I could have brainstormed those things. In short, they didn't do anything, certainly not something worth a million bucks. And see my other post for why it was obvious even when it was patented.
Your argument seems to be that the idea was non-obvious because, in the 80s, Cannon was making prototype digital cameras, but they were large and heavy and computer technology was less advanced, so people lacking in forsight (like Kodak) didn't think they were the wave of the future.
That doesn't make the idea non-obvious. Why was Cannon making the prototypes if they didn't think they would be useful or popular? That it took them six years to develop it is irrelevant, because the patent doesn't mention how any of the components it requires works. And to top it off, if your argument is true, shouldn't the patent be Cannon's?
Suppose I say that as soon as we discover unobtanium, which is repelled by gravity, that we should put a blob of it in the center of a saucer-shaped aircraft and annoy Martians with it. Now fast forward to a time when that already happened. By your argument, my idea was highly original, because after all, look at the abysmal state of antigravity in the Stupid Ages. But the idea was in fact obvious, and I certainly wouldn't deserve a reward, because I did none of the work of obtaining unobtanium, or even of designing the saucer-shaped airframe.
That tired joke got modded up not because it's almost chuckle-inducing, but because it's social commentary. The funny part is that the idea is blindingly obvious and shouldn't be worth (puts pinky to lips) one million dollars. The sad part is that, yes, it is.
You just proved his point. You do need to worry about leaks somewhat: if you allocate objects in tight loops, your app will perform badly. If you keep references to objects you no longer need, you'll run out of memory after a while.
You probably know these things, but a newbie wouldn't necessairily learn them. To use anything effectively, one needs to understand what's under the hood. So there's something to be said for not putting too many skeletons there.
There's a distinction between having admin access and using it. I (obviously) know my Linux computer's root password, but I don't do anything as root when I can avoid it. Windows lets you do that too - but it isn't default, so the very people who would benefit most from it never do. Typing the password can get annoying, but if that bothers you, just have an empty password. It's less secure, but at least you will know when you're using root.
How dare you want to copy Windows CDs? Pirate!!!
Actually, 65 mph is 174.72 kilofurlongs per fortnight.
If you have orgasms at the rate of 6.8 GHz, you'll be 100 years old before that int overflows. Have fun!
It's sad that you got modded down for that. I agree: McBride, Gates, or any other high profile leader being assasinated would be absolutely horrible, and it wouldn't have any positive effect. At the moment, SCO's cyberterrorism charges are baseless, but if something like that happened, even plain old terrorism would apply.
Granted, it depends on how much effort they expend. And I'm not sure how hard it will be to set up. But it wouldn't necessairily be as bad as you assume.
Yes. Groklaw is hosted, free, by a nonprofit outfit called iBiblio, which runs on $250,000 worth of Linux-based computers donated by IBM. And as we all know, SCO essentially owns IBM.
For the humor-impared, I'm joking. But Blake has implicated that Groklaw is biased by the IBM's and RedHat's contributions to iBiblio, as well as PJ's alleged geographic proximity with IBM.
Raise your hands, everyone who learned this from a Dilbert book.
I think you're missing a few zeros in that trade defecit figure. And in 2003, it's $489.4 billion.
Note that the parent said the samples must be less than one half the wavelength apart. Less than, not less than or equal to.
The point of decrypting commercial CDs is (almost) singlefold, to watch them.
When I look at life, I don't see the constraints of finitely intelligent design, which arise from a designer's need to understand his creation before he can improve it. I conclude that life must have been created either by an infinitely intelligent designer (I suspect this is your position), or by a process such as evolution that can create without understanding.
I prefer the evolutionary explanation, because I see more evidence for it, because I think it explains things better, and because an understanding of it can further the reach of human abilities. Evolutionary hardware and software design experiments like Tierra and Golem convince me that the process of evolution is powerful enough to have created life. Evolution can explain, given the physics of the universe, why various species have the properties they do, for example, why humans have morals. Finally, understanding biological evolution leads to advances in medical science and technology, and the process of evolution can be applied to other fields as well.
The process of evolution depends on the attributes of the system in which it acts, and this is where I believe God might fit in. The laws of chemistry, physics, thermodynamics, and causality allow life to exist and prosper. This could be because if they didn't, we wouldn't be here to reflect upon them. Or it could be because a Creator tuned the laws of this universe in much the same way Adrian Thompson tweaks the fitness function to evolve a better circuit. I don't think its possible for inhabitants of this universe to know which it is, but the latter would be much cooler.
The 24-hour lockdown makes it easy to DoS the lock. The timeout should be short, say 5 seconds.
You're saying humans have morals, and they were given to us by God. I agree with the first part. I think we agree that humans (including non-Christians) have morals and can use them. I think this implies that a moral code, even if it's basis was given to us by the Christian God, need not be derived from Christian authority. The morals, regardless of their ultimate source, exist not exclusively in any religion, but in each of us.
In the software industry, that way is copyrights.
In software, ideas are a dime a dozen. The actual investment is the time spent writing code. Copyright is the perfect tool to protect this investment. Patents are not.
Yes. I was asking a rhetorical question, the answer to which is no, to counter your statement about trees. Anyway...
I think God has given most people a conscience that lets us know when we do right and wrong.
In that case, going way back to the beginning of this, we agree that morals exist in the hearts and minds of individuals, and hence, outside religion.
Did they license the Matrix Reloaded trademark? Or maybe they're just a bunch of hippocrates.
What's your point? Societal collapse causes immorality and not vice-versa?
> most slave owners would have called
> themselves Christian.
Sure, anyone can.
So you're saying anyone who acts immorally isn't really a Christian? I thought "Christians" were people who share certain beliefs, not people who are, by definition, perfect. Creating a synonym for "moral" is pointless.
> No religion has a perfect track record
Watch for it... watch for it... wide net!
Casting a wide net is only bad if it's innaccurate. Can you name a religion with a perfect record?
One problem with viewing morality as "that which has benefitted society in the past" is that it's impersonal and non-binding. There's no incentive for me to adhere to any particular moral principles, since, hey, I'm a jerk and I don't care about society, and I'm going to die in 40-50 years anyway.
First, I'm saying "that which will benefit humanity in the future." Times change. Next, you're human - acting in humanity's interest is your most deeply-ingrained instinct. (Otherwise we wouldn't be here.) And it's reinforced by your society. (Otherwise it wouldn't be here.) Do you really need further incentive? Besides, there still is one - people are more likely to hurt you if you hurt them.
Furthermore, if I can justify present evil for the good of future society, I can justify knocking off several millions Ukrainians in the name of the people, as did the USSR in the early 20th century.
Genocide will never be good for society, so it will never be justified. (And if that's not enough, genocide increases your chances of being invaded, captured, or assasinated.)
Where do you think morality comes from? If you name any organized religions, how do you explain non-evil people who don't subscribe to them? Are they just lucky? Are they just copying you? Do they not exist?