Of course, this could be taken as yet another argument against javascript and java(and don't give me any bullshit about them not being the same, you are missing the point).
The fact is, having ANY client-side scripting is dangerous, and can only lead to security issues. Most of the legitimate functionality provided by js is ugly and less-than helpful crap anyway. Not to mention annoying hovering ads, user-agent checks that will disable some websites for some browsers, the copying of your clipboard buffer, and useless eyecandy that is better described as eyecancer.
I currently only enable javascript for gmail and to test new versions of lastmeasure. Hopefully gmail will eventually be rid of it; lastmeasure on the other hand is intentionally malicious.
Is the united states or americans more important in the eyes of the politicians? And those who answer (as it's a valid answer) that the united states and americans are one and the same, are uttering a very nationalistic idea. Denying that the nation can ever diverge or be separated from the people that constitute it.
Um, no, a nation cannot be separated from its citizens. This is a very simple example of an a priori argument. Perhaps it could be separated or distinguished from a certain faction of people (noncitizens or an excluded group) within the borders, but the definition of a Nation makes no sense without citizens. The identity of a nation is the identity of its citizens.
Unfortunately, that flash fob is of very limited lifespan.
The limitation on the number of writes to a particular area of memory has been known since flash memory first started to appear. Most devices or drivers should account for the issue by either rotating writes to avoid overusing one particular region or by remapping failing sections into other areas. Remapping failing areas will cause the available capacity of formatted flash devices to gradually shrink, while rotating writes will attempt to keep any areas from wearing out too fast (making it more likely that multiple areas will start to fail around the same time). Someone who's done more looking into this should be able to give a good idea which technique(s) are most widely used. Short lifespan translates into disposability; this creates a security problem: what to do with the old drives?
FLAC? Not likely.
As supportive as I'd like to be of an open format, FLAC is not likely to ever displace mp3. Something else will come along to displace mp3, and it won't be FLAC. The reason is simple: mp3 is as perfect as the human ear can tell around 192kbps. Going to a "lossless" format at double the bitrate (hence double the filesize) isn't going to happen when the established "lossy" alternative tends to only lose the audio that our ears discard anyway. Your 400k FLAC isn't going to gain marketshare except among dilettantes and audiophiles straining to convince themselves they can hear a difference.
Some bacteria actually do practice a form of sex: bacterial conjugation is quite common, even in the familiar Escherischia Coli. In addition, viruses provide a method of gene transfer for just about every species on the planet.
While it is true that the vast majority of bacterial reproduction happens by simple fission, let's not oversimplify.
And if the new vehicles will be using free software? No, seriously folks. How do we expect to progress as humanity unless every aspect of our large scientific projects become open and shared? Space exploration is going to stagnate unless they start using open technologies.
The owners of the guaranteed word the rights author of material often they suffer the "harm" ; and loss" "economic; to result to copy illegal. As the majority of the arguments propose by enthusiasts of copyright, it holds little water - for several reasons: The complaint is most of the time vague , presupposes that one person copying differently would have bought a copy of editor. Is from time to time true, but more often false; and when it is false, the claimed loss does not occur. The complaint is partially fallacious because the "loss" of word; suggest events in very different matter -- events in which something they have is carried away. For example, if the actions of bookstore's of the books were burned, or if in the register obtained torn, which would be really "loss." ; We generally agree is erroneous to make these things with copies. But when your friend avoids the need to buy a copy duun delivers, the bookshop and editor do not lose anything they had. More suitable description would be than the bookshop and l editor obtains less income than they could have. The same consequence can result if your friend decides to play the bridge instead of reading a book. In a system of the open market, any business isn't authorized to cry "foul" ; just that the prospective customer chooses not to treat them. The complaint requests the question because the loss idea of the "loss" ; on hypothesis the this have" is founded; of "should the editor; obtained paid. That is founded on hypothesis that copyright exists and prohibits to copy individual. But is just issue current: what copyright should it cover? If the public decides they can divide copies, then editor not authorized to hope to be paid each copy, and thus there cannot claim is a "loss" ; when it not. In other terms, the "loss" ; come from the system of copyright; this not an inherent part to copy. Copying in oneself evils nobody.
I do not agree. Having a java codec for browsers may as well be having no codec at all. Reasoning:
1. The only users that allow their browser to run java are those that either don't know how to disable it, or don't know what it is. Java is (arguably) as powerful as any other general programming language, and has access to things a webbrowser should not be able to touch. Even weak psuedo-programming languages such as javascript become nothing more than a security hole in software that should simply render text, formatting, and images. Those of you that have seen the CD-tray exploit or have been lastmeasured are familiar with the results of allowing javascript.
2. Java is slow and gobbles up resources.
Yes, we've had this argument many times back and forth here on/., but the fact remains: even a new JVM will eat memory and processor cycles like a starving man, and take forever to load. Streaming audio is not worth burning up a CPU (not meant literally) or hardware nearby (this part is meant literally, as many a harddrive has died due to CPU heat).
My assertion is that this codec, ingenious as it may be, is worthless. Breaking security, risking hardware damage, and simply bogging down a machine are not acceptable just to be able to view streaming content. Except for certain uses (radio and other long, live formats) simple downloading will be of more use to the end user.
Whether they are affected or not would be really beside the point, if we were to look at the problem from its root.
The owners of copyrighted material often say they suffer "harm" and "economic loss" resulting from illegal copying. Like most arguments put forth by copyright enthusiasts, it holds little water - for several reasons: The claim is mostly inaccurate because it presupposes that the copying individual would otherwise have bought a copy from the publisher. That is occasionally true, but more often false; and when it is false, the claimed loss does not occur.
The claim is partly misleading because the word "loss" suggests events of a very different nature--events in which something they have is taken away from them. For example, if the bookstore's stock of books were burned, or if the money in the register got torn up, that would really be a "loss." We generally agree it is wrong to do these things to other people. But when your friend avoids the need to buy a copy of a book, the bookstore and the publisher do not lose anything they had. A more fitting description would be that the bookstore and publisher get less income than they might have got. The same consequence can result if your friend decides to play bridge instead of reading a book. In a free market system, no business is entitled to cry "foul" just because a potential customer chooses not to deal with them. The claim is begging the question because the idea of "loss" is based on the assumption that the publisher "should have" gotten paid. That is based on the assumption that copyright exists and prohibits individual copying. But that is just the issue at hand: what should copyright cover? If the public decides it can share copies, then the publisher is not entitled to expect to be paid for each copy, and so cannot claim there is a "loss" when it is not. In other words, the "loss" comes from the copyright system; it is not an inherent part of copying. Copying in itself hurts no one.
For there to be any appreciable solid chunks of Sulphurous material, the Sulphur would have to be in lumps within the shell. This is never the case. Sulphur is a minor ingredient in any powder blend, and is dispersed throughout. I have worked with ball mills, you have (obviously) not. To make up an assertion that actual solid ash, containing Sulphur, has drifted into your eyes, and then follow with the wild-eyed claim that this ash was acidic, throws what little credibility you had left over out the window.
"I assume you live in a bunker and get all your information from video games."
I will let that one stand as it is, no comment needed from me.
You haven't ever been to Southern California, have you?
The Los Angeles basin does not have appreciable smog, except when the Santa Anas kick in, and even then it is just a thin brown layer. Certainly not a major impact on visibility. And this marine layer you speak of has this tendency to, say, BURN OFF from ~~10am, without returning normally until early morning, typically after most displays are finished.
Next fallacy. Can't see across the Grand Canyon? This Grand Canyon that is separated from any smog source by hundreds of miles? Yeah, right, all of Orange County sends its fog to the Grand Canyon, without any dispersion.
"Sulpherous[sic] ash may drift into your eyes". The only ash, or solid product of a gunpowder shell, comes from the paper+glue casing. The (minimal) amount of Sulphur in gunpowder is converted mostly to Sulphur Dioxide, a gas.
Sorta OT, is anyone else irritated with how they are hiding the zipped binaries for windows now? You used to be able to get them as easily as the installer, and before that there was no installer.
I just don't trust it...
The owners of copyrighted material often say they suffer "harm" and "economic loss" resulting from illegal copying. Like most arguments put forth by copyright enthusiasts, it holds little water - for several reasons: The claim is mostly inaccurate because it presupposes that the copying individual would otherwise have bought a copy from the publisher. That is occasionally true, but more often false; and when it is false, the claimed loss does not occur. The claim is partly misleading because the word "loss" suggests events of a very different nature--events in which something they have is taken away from them. For example, if the bookstore's stock of books were burned, or if the money in the register got torn up, that would really be a "loss." We generally agree it is wrong to do these things to other people. But when your friend avoids the need to buy a copy of a book, the bookstore and the publisher do not lose anything they had. A more fitting description would be that the bookstore and publisher get less income than they might have got. The same consequence can result if your friend decides to play bridge instead of reading a book. In a free market system, no business is entitled to cry "foul" just because a potential customer chooses not to deal with them. The claim is begging the question because the idea of "loss" is based on the assumption that the publisher "should have" gotten paid. That is based on the assumption that copyright exists and prohibits individual copying. But that is just the issue at hand: what should copyright cover? If the public decides it can share copies, then the publisher is not entitled to expect to be paid for each copy, and so cannot claim there is a "loss" when it is not. In other words, the "loss" comes from the copyright system; it is not an inherent part of copying. Copying in itself hurts no one.
Yeah, but how much do these experts know about how secure paper ballots really are? They should also interview a third group: those who are experts in the paper system.
Screenshots? This is about rendering engines, not the stuff(games, etc.) built on top.
Back on topic, it may prove worthwhile for developers. Hypothetically, someone is looking for a renderer that can do x in y specs- something compatible will be listed. Having this service available could mean serious savings for the developer who now doesn't need to develop his own engine, and rather build his product on top of an existing one.
Well, that's hardly slamming them. I don't think anyone, even the most ardent supporter of Microsoft, would disagree with the above sentences. The USPTO really does seem to be rubber-stamping.
From the article: For this spoof to have maximal effect, you must have the following settings at their default, out-of-the-box state:
* Web Features | Advanced | Allow Javascript to hide the status bar
* Default selection of toolbars and toolbar buttons
* No particularly bizarre browser extensions installed
* Javascript should be enabled.
As you can see, you have to be browsing with very open settings to be affected. What Firefox users browse with javascript enabled? At the very least, the Slashdot crowd has been lastmeasured enough to know better. "No particularly bizarre browser extensions"... again, not likely with Firefox users, extensions of all sort are the norm. And on top of all that, it only works on versions 0.9 and up, the bugged releases that sent me, if not many others, back to 0.8.
I gotta agree with parent here. Exercise, in fact anything physically or mentally draining, will help you get to sleep. Thus, on vacations when I do nothing, I tend to go 24 awake, 12 sleep. Melatonin is also very effective, moreso than "legit" OTC sleep drugs. Despite not being recognized as a drug by the FDA, it actually works, which is better than I can say for most "dietary supplements". And of course the MJ should do it.
I've had problems stemming from an overly-large HOSTS file before. FF would not open links unless the cache (0MB anyway) was cleared, and the link had to be rclick-"open in new tab"ed. Anyone else had this come up?
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, this could be taken as yet another argument against javascript and java(and don't give me any bullshit about them not being the same, you are missing the point).
The fact is, having ANY client-side scripting is dangerous, and can only lead to security issues. Most of the legitimate functionality provided by js is ugly and less-than helpful crap anyway. Not to mention annoying hovering ads, user-agent checks that will disable some websites for some browsers, the copying of your clipboard buffer, and useless eyecandy that is better described as eyecancer.
I currently only enable javascript for gmail and to test new versions of lastmeasure. Hopefully gmail will eventually be rid of it; lastmeasure on the other hand is intentionally malicious.
Um, no, a nation cannot be separated from its citizens. This is a very simple example of an a priori argument. Perhaps it could be separated or distinguished from a certain faction of people (noncitizens or an excluded group) within the borders, but the definition of a Nation makes no sense without citizens. The identity of a nation is the identity of its citizens.
Unfortunately, that flash fob is of very limited lifespan.
The limitation on the number of writes to a particular area of memory has been known since flash memory first started to appear. Most devices or drivers should account for the issue by either rotating writes to avoid overusing one particular region or by remapping failing sections into other areas. Remapping failing areas will cause the available capacity of formatted flash devices to gradually shrink, while rotating writes will attempt to keep any areas from wearing out too fast (making it more likely that multiple areas will start to fail around the same time). Someone who's done more looking into this should be able to give a good idea which technique(s) are most widely used.
Short lifespan translates into disposability; this creates a security problem: what to do with the old drives?
FLAC? Not likely.
As supportive as I'd like to be of an open format, FLAC is not likely to ever displace mp3. Something else will come along to displace mp3, and it won't be FLAC. The reason is simple: mp3 is as perfect as the human ear can tell around 192kbps. Going to a "lossless" format at double the bitrate (hence double the filesize) isn't going to happen when the established "lossy" alternative tends to only lose the audio that our ears discard anyway. Your 400k FLAC isn't going to gain marketshare except among dilettantes and audiophiles straining to convince themselves they can hear a difference.
Some bacteria actually do practice a form of sex: bacterial conjugation is quite common, even in the familiar Escherischia Coli. In addition, viruses provide a method of gene transfer for just about every species on the planet.
While it is true that the vast majority of bacterial reproduction happens by simple fission, let's not oversimplify.
And if the new vehicles will be using free software?
No, seriously folks. How do we expect to progress as humanity unless every aspect of our large scientific projects become open and shared? Space exploration is going to stagnate unless they start using open technologies.
Sorry, I am not english specialty.
Dumbass, it was a replacement for the link in my previous post. It is linked as an example of abusive code. Thanks for the downmods, idiots.
Whoops, bad link. RIP partycat. here is a different mirror, but not a very fast one.
1. The only users that allow their browser to run java are those that either don't know how to disable it, or don't know what it is. Java is (arguably) as powerful as any other general programming language, and has access to things a webbrowser should not be able to touch. Even weak psuedo-programming languages such as javascript become nothing more than a security hole in software that should simply render text, formatting, and images. Those of you that have seen the CD-tray exploit or have been lastmeasured are familiar with the results of allowing javascript.
2. Java is slow and gobbles up resources. /., but the fact remains: even a new JVM will eat memory and processor cycles like a starving man, and take forever to load. Streaming audio is not worth burning up a CPU (not meant literally) or hardware nearby (this part is meant literally, as many a harddrive has died due to CPU heat).
Yes, we've had this argument many times back and forth here on
My assertion is that this codec, ingenious as it may be, is worthless. Breaking security, risking hardware damage, and simply bogging down a machine are not acceptable just to be able to view streaming content. Except for certain uses (radio and other long, live formats) simple downloading will be of more use to the end user.
Whether they are affected or not would be really beside the point, if we were to look at the problem from its root.
The owners of copyrighted material often say they suffer "harm" and "economic loss"
resulting from illegal copying. Like most arguments put forth by copyright enthusiasts, it holds little water - for several reasons:
The claim is mostly inaccurate because it presupposes that the copying individual would otherwise have bought a copy from the publisher. That is occasionally true, but more often false; and when it is false, the claimed loss does not occur.
The claim is partly misleading because the word "loss" suggests events of a very different nature--events in which something they have is taken away from them. For example, if the bookstore's stock of books were burned, or if the money in the register got torn up, that would really be a "loss." We generally agree it is wrong to do these things to other people. But when your friend avoids the need to buy a copy of a book, the bookstore and the publisher do not lose anything they had. A more fitting description would be that the bookstore and publisher get less income than they might have got. The same consequence can result if your friend decides to play bridge instead of reading a book. In a free market system, no business is entitled to cry "foul" just because a potential customer chooses not to deal with them. The claim is begging the question because the idea of "loss" is based on the assumption that the publisher "should have" gotten paid. That is based on the assumption
that copyright exists and prohibits individual copying. But that is just the issue at hand: what should copyright cover? If the public decides it can share copies, then the publisher is not entitled to expect to be paid for each copy, and so cannot claim there is a "loss" when it is not.
In other words, the "loss" comes from the copyright system; it is not an inherent part of copying. Copying in itself hurts no one.
WARNING: disgusting, also spawns alot of pops. You have been warned.
For the adventurous only. For ACs who can't see my sig, OH NOES
"I assume you live in a bunker and get all your information from video games."
I will let that one stand as it is, no comment needed from me.
The Los Angeles basin does not have appreciable smog, except when the Santa Anas kick in, and even then it is just a thin brown layer. Certainly not a major impact on visibility. And this marine layer you speak of has this tendency to, say, BURN OFF from ~~10am, without returning normally until early morning, typically after most displays are finished.
Next fallacy. Can't see across the Grand Canyon? This Grand Canyon that is separated from any smog source by hundreds of miles? Yeah, right, all of Orange County sends its fog to the Grand Canyon, without any dispersion.
"Sulpherous[sic] ash may drift into your eyes". The only ash, or solid product of a gunpowder shell, comes from the paper+glue casing. The (minimal) amount of Sulphur in gunpowder is converted mostly to Sulphur Dioxide, a gas.
You made all of this up, didn't you?
Sorta OT, is anyone else irritated with how they are hiding the zipped binaries for windows now? You used to be able to get them as easily as the installer, and before that there was no installer. I just don't trust it...
Packaging? You mean like tarballs?
The owners of copyrighted material often say they suffer "harm" and "economic loss"
resulting from illegal copying. Like most arguments put forth by copyright enthusiasts, it holds little water - for several reasons:
The claim is mostly inaccurate because it presupposes that the copying individual would otherwise have bought a copy from the publisher. That is occasionally true, but more often false; and when it is false, the claimed loss does not occur.
The claim is partly misleading because the word "loss" suggests events of a very different nature--events in which something they have is taken away from them. For example, if the bookstore's stock of books were burned, or if the money in the register got torn up, that would really be a "loss." We generally agree it is wrong to do these things to other people. But when your friend avoids the need to buy a copy of a book, the bookstore and the publisher do not lose anything they had. A more fitting description would be that the bookstore and publisher get less income than they might have got. The same consequence can result if your friend decides to play bridge instead of reading a book. In a free market system, no business is entitled to cry "foul" just because a potential customer chooses not to deal with them. The claim is begging the question because the idea of "loss" is based on the assumption that the publisher "should have" gotten paid. That is based on the assumption
that copyright exists and prohibits individual copying. But that is just the issue at hand: what should copyright cover? If the public decides it can share copies, then the publisher is not entitled to expect to be paid for each copy, and so cannot claim there is a "loss" when it is not. In other words, the "loss" comes from the copyright system; it is not an inherent part of copying. Copying in itself hurts no one.
Yeah, but how much do these experts know about how secure paper ballots really are? They should also interview a third group: those who are experts in the paper system.
Back on topic, it may prove worthwhile for developers. Hypothetically, someone is looking for a renderer that can do x in y specs- something compatible will be listed. Having this service available could mean serious savings for the developer who now doesn't need to develop his own engine, and rather build his product on top of an existing one.
From the aftab website: The lawyer's Phone # is 201-463-8663. Not that anyone should leave harassing calls or anything.
The price of music has dropped. The consumer only needs to ignore a few copyright laws. It is easier than ever to get $0 music.
Well, that's hardly slamming them. I don't think anyone, even the most ardent supporter of Microsoft, would disagree with the above sentences. The USPTO really does seem to be rubber-stamping.
For this spoof to have maximal effect, you must have the following settings at their default, out-of-the-box state:
* Web Features | Advanced | Allow Javascript to hide the status bar
* Default selection of toolbars and toolbar buttons
* No particularly bizarre browser extensions installed
* Javascript should be enabled.
As you can see, you have to be browsing with very open settings to be affected. What Firefox users browse with javascript enabled? At the very least, the Slashdot crowd has been lastmeasured enough to know better. "No particularly bizarre browser extensions"... again, not likely with Firefox users, extensions of all sort are the norm. And on top of all that, it only works on versions 0.9 and up, the bugged releases that sent me, if not many others, back to 0.8.
I gotta agree with parent here. Exercise, in fact anything physically or mentally draining, will help you get to sleep. Thus, on vacations when I do nothing, I tend to go 24 awake, 12 sleep.
Melatonin is also very effective, moreso than "legit" OTC sleep drugs. Despite not being recognized as a drug by the FDA, it actually works, which is better than I can say for most "dietary supplements". And of course the MJ should do it.
I've had problems stemming from an overly-large HOSTS file before. FF would not open links unless the cache (0MB anyway) was cleared, and the link had to be rclick-"open in new tab"ed. Anyone else had this come up?