Coax just means "Coaxial" i.e. the conductors have the same center, which is to say that the conductors form concentric circles. This applies to a lot of different cables and connectors. For example most home audio uses non-coaxial (independent axis?) cable with a coaxial "RCA" type connector. The connector used by thinnet is called BNC, British Naval Connector.
An additional piece of related off-topic info is that connector sex is determined by the innermost conductor. So a thinnet cable has a male plug and the card has a female jack, though it might appear to be the opposite if you don't look closely.
That "other" connector on combo cards is not a joystick port, it is an AUI connector which can be used in conjunction with vampire clips (which are exactly what they sound like, they clip through the insulation on a cable to provide a drop) to connect to thicknet.
Interestingly enough, this same topology is still the basis for Ethernet networking, but the thicknet bus became a thinnet bus became the interior wiring of the hub. Everything related to computers shrinks!
Well, Thomas Jefferson had utter disdain for "it" as well. Franklin ignored the system out of disdain, and probably could have doubled his net worth on his Franklin Stove alone. So we are in good company.
Patents would seem to be a necessary evil in a capitalist society. Sadly, our (US) patent system is clearly completely broken. Did you know that "Save as . .." is patented? Do you realize that, in clear violation of US patent law, patents issue daily for "technology" that wasn't invented by the applicant, and the real "inventor" simply never thought to try to patent such a trivial "advance?"
I would encourage you to re-think your grossly over-simplistic view on the issue of "IP."
I don't work for NASA, but I would assume that it is because they are the top of the heap in physiological monitoring technology out of necessity (physical and mental stress combined with an absolute need to detect even the most mundane of problems as early as possible).
Encoding quality isn't a simple analog scale from good to bad. When you convert from one lossy format to another you get the worst of both at best. Potentially you could have some mutual-reinforcement of quality problems.
I've just gotten into this (ignored the MP3 bandwagon), but my plan is to use flac, a lossless encoder, then re-enc to the lossy format de jour as needed.
You haven't dubunked anything. You illustrated that in a sufficiently contrived circumstance unreadable code may be a necessary evil. I don't deny this.
The flaw: you set up a false dichotomy. It can be both a poor substitute and a necessary evil. I certainly never said anything negative about good comments . ..
As far as the age thing goes, I'm 27, and wore a full beard until about five months ago. I've been around the block once or twice, and you haven't shown me shit.
In fact, companies with patents have a different motivation or strategy when it comes to patent litigation. They don't think "Who can I sue to maximize my payout" they think "Who can I sue to protect my intellectual property". The fact that Linus has no money to give in terms of damages means nothing. They will want to get their patented technology out of Linux, lest they risk having this free technology outmarket their own products and in the end hit their bottom line.
Re-read my previous post.
First, it is clear as day to me that suing Linus would be equally effective in "get[ting] their patented technology out of Linux" as arresting that kid that cracked DCSS was in containing DCSS. Namely; not at all. It might get it out of the "official" tree, but how do they stop every two bit UNIX hack that knows how to use diff and patch and has an internet connection from distributing/using patches? Can't be done.
What does anyone (i.e. SGI) stand to gain by suing Linus? NOTHING. Ill will. Linux is eating SGI's lunch in the movie industry right now, and it would just look like sour grapes. "He's giving away what we are unable to sell! We want to make his kids homeless!" Not good.
I'm not a patent attorney, but I am pretty sure that patents don't hold the same "dilution risk" that trademarks do. IOW I think it is perfectly acceptable to go after only select violators of your patent without it weakening your claim.
Oh, I see the problem, you have no fucking idea what linux is.
Linux is a kernel. Mozilla is a program that runs on a Linux system (among others).
Linux provides things like memory management, filesystem support, hardware device support, etc.
So, to use an example that is actually relevant, say it becomes impossible to have kernel NFS support without violating a patent. Remove it. Then some dude will make a patch that puts it back in. Simple.
To summarize: Get a fucking clue, get a fucking login, then get back to me.
You idiot. I sure the kernel crew have not decided on that as a plan.
You seem to be missing a verb.
However your post might be cited as proof otherwise in a court case.
What the hell are you talking about? I'm not a kernel dev. Can you prove a kernel dev read my post? Are you wearing an aluminum foil hat right now?
So what's the logical solution? Ether stop coding or stop looking at patents.
Well, this is the only marginally intelligible thing you have said. Sadly for you I never suggested that they should look at any patents, so your point seems to be in rebuttal to a non-existent argument. In fact, let me remind you that I said "1. Ignore patents." Perhaps you thought that by "Ignore" you thought I meant "actively research?"
You might want to work on those language skills, AC.
Hmmm... didn't know about the neuter form in English... and it seems neither does 51% of the population... go figure.
So this supa-fly NSA guru CS prof teaches at a school that doesn't teach English?
As to the rest of your post, what the fuck are you talking about? How on Earth does a "cute" swap function have anything to do with this new stuff you have introduced?
Was your major "Women's Studies" and you took a CS class to "round out" your education? You seem to have no logic skills whatsoever.
I interpret this fact in the opposite way that you do. The fact that he can't pay any likely judgement means to me that he is pretty safe from being sued.
Let's look at the question "who do you sue?"* The obvious choices might be:
1. Linus Torvalds. Bad choice. I don't have any reason to belive that he is independently wealthy. Strong chance any case that approaches success will cause him to move out of the country. Good money after bad.
2. J. Random Hacker who wrote the infringing code. Probably has even less money than Torvalds, but might be smart enough (and have enough time on his hands) to keep your lawyers pretty busy. Good money after bad.
3. Red Hat. Sorry, they have enough money for a couple of decent lawyers, but not enough to make good on a big judgement. They are also smart enough to make all sorts of "good faith" efforts as soon as the issue comes to light that the courts would probably look pretty favorably upon. Good money after bad.
4. IBM. Could litigate SGI or some "patent house" out of existence before any judgement would have to be paid, even if clearly in the wrong. Probably without having to retain any outside help. Corporate suicide.
Not much of a field of choices.
-Peter
* Microsoft's (and MS supporter's) FUD of "who do you sue?" is not supported by the above arguments. The reason is that when they say "who do you sue?" the answer is "no one." The do this to create the impression that if you use commercial software there is some non-null answer. My statements above aren't relevant to this impression, but I belive that there isn't anyone to sue. I am not aware of any company that has successfully sued MS for damages caused by their shoddy software.
a. Replace the infringing code with code that does not infringe on that particular patent.
What does "particular" mean on planet AC?
Any feature that can't be re-implemented without infringing on the particular patent being worked around can be removed, and then clandestinely patched back in by individual users. Hell, most of the time it could be done by a binary module against a particular distro's stock kernel.
If you mean that someone (Linus?) can't be sued I am skeptical.
If you mean that a portion of the Linux kernel can't be replaced with non-infringing code you are clearly wrong. The case in point here is the Linux VM, which has been replaced en masse several times in recent memory. In fact, earlier this year the -ac kernels had a whole different VM than the "official" kernel.
1. Ignore patents. 2. If you get sued: a. Replace the infringing code with code that does not infringe on that particular patent. b. Sit back and watch patches back to the infringing code appear. 3. Laugh as the corps realize that they are completely ineffective.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled revolution.
Having moved back to the US, I notice the flicker on TV all the time. I notice the flicker on monitors, in lights, etc.
WTF? You notice the 30FPS flicker on your TV, but didn't notice the 25FPS (or whatever the hell it is) on PAL?
You notice the 60Hz flicker in US florescents, but not the 50Hz flicker wherever you were? (Unless you were somewhere on 60-cycle, in which case you are noticing a difference that doesn't exist . ..)
You need to donate your eyes and brain to medical science. Not when you die, right now.
The only complaint that could possibly hold any merit is if your video card/monitor was at 60Hz refresh which looks okay (not great) under 50Hz florescents but like total crap under 60Hz lights.
If it was scratched due to your clumsiness, you need to either invest in a bottle of KlearKote or another DVD.
Bullshit. Media damage happens, that's why backups are part of fair use.
I would gladly buy a new copy of the DVD, but I refuse to by a second license for the movie.
In other words, "they" want their cake and eat it to; when the media becomes dammaged I "own" it, but if I want to act like I own it I'm "just" licensing it.
Fuck that, I deserve either fair use backups OR at cost media replacement. But they have left me with the options of either buying a second license for no reason, or "pirating" it.
Slashdot Mirror
Coax just means "Coaxial" i.e. the conductors have the same center, which is to say that the conductors form concentric circles. This applies to a lot of different cables and connectors. For example most home audio uses non-coaxial (independent axis?) cable with a coaxial "RCA" type connector. The connector used by thinnet is called BNC, British Naval Connector.
An additional piece of related off-topic info is that connector sex is determined by the innermost conductor. So a thinnet cable has a male plug and the card has a female jack, though it might appear to be the opposite if you don't look closely.
That "other" connector on combo cards is not a joystick port, it is an AUI connector which can be used in conjunction with vampire clips (which are exactly what they sound like, they clip through the insulation on a cable to provide a drop) to connect to thicknet.
Interestingly enough, this same topology is still the basis for Ethernet networking, but the thicknet bus became a thinnet bus became the interior wiring of the hub. Everything related to computers shrinks!
-Peter
I don't know why but old-school guys (like my Dad) talk about "writing in assembler."
-Peter
Well, Thomas Jefferson had utter disdain for "it" as well. Franklin ignored the system out of disdain, and probably could have doubled his net worth on his Franklin Stove alone. So we are in good company.
# IntellectualProperty)
." is patented? Do you realize that, in clear violation of US patent law, patents issue daily for "technology" that wasn't invented by the applicant, and the real "inventor" simply never thought to try to patent such a trivial "advance?"
The first problem is that almost ANY discussion of "IP" is utterly pointless, since it is such a broad topic as to render any argument on the subject automatically overly broad. (See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html
Patents would seem to be a necessary evil in a capitalist society. Sadly, our (US) patent system is clearly completely broken. Did you know that "Save as . .
I would encourage you to re-think your grossly over-simplistic view on the issue of "IP."
-Peter
I don't see dedicated A-F keys. I think that is a biggie.
-Peter
I'm no bamboo expert, but my understanding is that no type of bamboo grows any taller once it is cut.
-Peter
How 'bout "We are Borg?" Dipshit.
-Peter
I don't work for NASA, but I would assume that it is because they are the top of the heap in physiological monitoring technology out of necessity (physical and mental stress combined with an absolute need to detect even the most mundane of problems as early as possible).
-Peter
PS: I'm ignoring the "funny" part of your post.
-P
Encoding quality isn't a simple analog scale from good to bad. When you convert from one lossy format to another you get the worst of both at best. Potentially you could have some mutual-reinforcement of quality problems.
I've just gotten into this (ignored the MP3 bandwagon), but my plan is to use flac, a lossless encoder, then re-enc to the lossy format de jour as needed.
-Peter
-Peter
You haven't dubunked anything. You illustrated that in a sufficiently contrived circumstance unreadable code may be a necessary evil. I don't deny this.
.
The flaw: you set up a false dichotomy. It can be both a poor substitute and a necessary evil. I certainly never said anything negative about good comments . .
As far as the age thing goes, I'm 27, and wore a full beard until about five months ago. I've been around the block once or twice, and you haven't shown me shit.
You're a professional student, I take it?
-Peter
Re-read my previous post.
First, it is clear as day to me that suing Linus would be equally effective in "get[ting] their patented technology out of Linux" as arresting that kid that cracked DCSS was in containing DCSS. Namely; not at all. It might get it out of the "official" tree, but how do they stop every two bit UNIX hack that knows how to use diff and patch and has an internet connection from distributing/using patches? Can't be done.
What does anyone (i.e. SGI) stand to gain by suing Linus? NOTHING. Ill will. Linux is eating SGI's lunch in the movie industry right now, and it would just look like sour grapes. "He's giving away what we are unable to sell! We want to make his kids homeless!" Not good.
I'm not a patent attorney, but I am pretty sure that patents don't hold the same "dilution risk" that trademarks do. IOW I think it is perfectly acceptable to go after only select violators of your patent without it weakening your claim.
-Peter
Oh, I see the problem, you have no fucking idea what linux is.
Linux is a kernel. Mozilla is a program that runs on a Linux system (among others).
Linux provides things like memory management, filesystem support, hardware device support, etc.
So, to use an example that is actually relevant, say it becomes impossible to have kernel NFS support without violating a patent. Remove it. Then some dude will make a patch that puts it back in. Simple.
To summarize: Get a fucking clue, get a fucking login, then get back to me.
-Peter
You seem to be missing a verb.
What the hell are you talking about? I'm not a kernel dev. Can you prove a kernel dev read my post? Are you wearing an aluminum foil hat right now?
Well, this is the only marginally intelligible thing you have said. Sadly for you I never suggested that they should look at any patents, so your point seems to be in rebuttal to a non-existent argument. In fact, let me remind you that I said "1. Ignore patents." Perhaps you thought that by "Ignore" you thought I meant "actively research?"
You might want to work on those language skills, AC.
-Peter
So this supa-fly NSA guru CS prof teaches at a school that doesn't teach English?
As to the rest of your post, what the fuck are you talking about? How on Earth does a "cute" swap function have anything to do with this new stuff you have introduced?
Was your major "Women's Studies" and you took a CS class to "round out" your education? You seem to have no logic skills whatsoever.
-Peter
Comeon, man. I resisted the urge to do that in my initial post, trying to make /. a better place, and you have to go an ruin it! ;-)
-Peter
I interpret this fact in the opposite way that you do. The fact that he can't pay any likely judgement means to me that he is pretty safe from being sued.
Let's look at the question "who do you sue?"* The obvious choices might be:
1. Linus Torvalds. Bad choice. I don't have any reason to belive that he is independently wealthy. Strong chance any case that approaches success will cause him to move out of the country. Good money after bad.
2. J. Random Hacker who wrote the infringing code. Probably has even less money than Torvalds, but might be smart enough (and have enough time on his hands) to keep your lawyers pretty busy. Good money after bad.
3. Red Hat. Sorry, they have enough money for a couple of decent lawyers, but not enough to make good on a big judgement. They are also smart enough to make all sorts of "good faith" efforts as soon as the issue comes to light that the courts would probably look pretty favorably upon. Good money after bad.
4. IBM. Could litigate SGI or some "patent house" out of existence before any judgement would have to be paid, even if clearly in the wrong. Probably without having to retain any outside help. Corporate suicide.
Not much of a field of choices.
-Peter
* Microsoft's (and MS supporter's) FUD of "who do you sue?" is not supported by the above arguments. The reason is that when they say "who do you sue?" the answer is "no one." The do this to create the impression that if you use commercial software there is some non-null answer. My statements above aren't relevant to this impression, but I belive that there isn't anyone to sue. I am not aware of any company that has successfully sued MS for damages caused by their shoddy software.
-P
What does "particular" mean on planet AC?
Any feature that can't be re-implemented without infringing on the particular patent being worked around can be removed, and then clandestinely patched back in by individual users. Hell, most of the time it could be done by a binary module against a particular distro's stock kernel.
-Peter
Could you be just a hair more verbose?
If you mean that someone (Linus?) can't be sued I am skeptical.
If you mean that a portion of the Linux kernel can't be replaced with non-infringing code you are clearly wrong. The case in point here is the Linux VM, which has been replaced en masse several times in recent memory. In fact, earlier this year the -ac kernels had a whole different VM than the "official" kernel.
If you mean something else I'm at a loss.
-Peter
RMS makes a better counter-argument than I could make.
Also see the last quote on this page.
Patents cover ideas, whereas copyright covers (written) "works".
-Peter
1. Ignore patents.
2. If you get sued:
a. Replace the infringing code with code that does not infringe on that particular patent.
b. Sit back and watch patches back to the infringing code appear.
3. Laugh as the corps realize that they are completely ineffective.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled revolution.
-Peter
"He" is the neuter in English.
Good comments are a poor substitute for clear code.
-Peter
Is that suppoesed to be funny?
The question was how to dispose of a monitor, and that was a fax machine in Office Space (and that fact was relevent).
-Peter
WTF? You notice the 30FPS flicker on your TV, but didn't notice the 25FPS (or whatever the hell it is) on PAL?
You notice the 60Hz flicker in US florescents, but not the 50Hz flicker wherever you were? (Unless you were somewhere on 60-cycle, in which case you are noticing a difference that doesn't exist . .
You need to donate your eyes and brain to medical science. Not when you die, right now.
The only complaint that could possibly hold any merit is if your video card/monitor was at 60Hz refresh which looks okay (not great) under 50Hz florescents but like total crap under 60Hz lights.
-Peter
Bullshit. Media damage happens, that's why backups are part of fair use.
I would gladly buy a new copy of the DVD, but I refuse to by a second license for the movie.
In other words, "they" want their cake and eat it to; when the media becomes dammaged I "own" it, but if I want to act like I own it I'm "just" licensing it.
Fuck that, I deserve either fair use backups OR at cost media replacement. But they have left me with the options of either buying a second license for no reason, or "pirating" it.
-Peter
I take exception to that. I am royaly pissed because my Phantom Menace DVD got scratched and Fox won't do a media replacement for me.
-Peter