You already have a built in upper limit, normalizing the range to that limit fixes the problem.
Way to miss the point. Because there is an upper limit, the record labels compress it all into the top part of the dynamic range to make it sound louder. If we made it so there was no limit to the loudness, there would be no need to do this - to make it sound louder you just increase the number in the tag, no need for compression.
Since the original's consciousness has maintained continuity in the original, even if the duplicate is an exact copy of the original's state, it cannot be continuous with the original's state because the duplicate exists at a different location and time. (I considered using "space-time locus", but it's difficult enough talking about this without resort to high-falutin' words:)
Do it while you're asleep. You go to sleep in a (wheeled) hospital bed in a room. Two of you wake up in two identical beds in another room. How can you tell which one's which?
Re:What will change and what is the fix for TiVo?
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
If the command validating Firmware or Hardware shuts the TiVo down when it receives an invalid command from the OS or software, then this is functionally no different than the original version of the TiVo. That will be unacceptable to the GPL v3 promoters
It's acceptable, because it means you can still e.g. put a nicer interface on the software. GPLv3 is not about giving you the right to remove their DRM so much as the right to improve the software running on your tivo.
Firstly, I wondered if anyone could confirm this? I have heard that it is the case for Britain at least, although I don't see how it can possibly be legally compatible with the presumption of innocence.
It's not the case; there was a bill proposed which would have done that, but civil rights activists got it altered so they can only compel you to give up your encryption keys if they can proove you have them.
Secondly, I wanted to suggest that perhaps this is a reason not to use PGP, because PGP encrypted information can always be decrypted using the recipient's key - even many years after the message was originally sent. So law enforcement officers will be able to get old PGP-encrypted documents from your email account (probably even if you delete them, thanks to backup tapes).
That's what gpg --show-session-key is for. If you get subpoena'd, you can give them just the session keys for the specific emails they want, and they'll be able to read them but not any other messages you received for the same public/private keypair.
You may ask, what about your right to hack your Tivo? I'd respond, what about their right to attempt to prevent their product from being hacked? They are equivalent freedoms.
They have the right to attempt to make it unhackable. They do not have the right to make it illegal for me to try and hack it (which is what they would be doing, via the DMCA, without these restrictions in the GPL), and don't you dare try and tell me those rights are equivalent.
Because with public domain, you can lose credit as authors of that code. The convention to put authorship on public domain work is courtesy and convention, not something legally required. Some people may not have a problem with people using, modifying, or distributing their code, but still want their initial efforts mentioned.
And some people may not have a problem with people using, modifying, or distributing their code, but still want anyone who does so to release the modified versions under the same license. In both cases they are applying restrictions.
While I'm certain someone will say that maintaining authorship is a restricted freedom, most people would consider not doing so akin to plagiarism.
No question of "akin to"; it is plagiarism, plain and simple. But it's still the addition of a restriction.
Typical revisionist history. The essence of the BSD license well precedes the popularity of the GPL license, which really only rose because of Linus's work, not Stallman's meddling.
Anyone who was actually trying to use a unix system in 1990 knows the GPL mattered back then too. But in any case, which came first has no bearing on which is more free.
Furthermore, you ignore that at the advent of the BSD license, the legal environment around copyright was different than it was today. The thought (rightly put forward at the then present, now past) was that licenses were the only way to afford positive affirmations of rights under existing law and court cases. This is why BSD licenses, which some people include the old Apache and MIT licenses, came to exist.
Nevertheless, now we know. So there is no need to use the BSD license any more.
In any case, GPL3 really shows the colors of the GPL camp, which is not about maintaining use and rights but sticking it to corporations and maintaining license lock. The proof is in the pudding, as it were--you've added restrictions.
The GPL has never been about having the least number of restrictions, it's about having the most freedom overall.
Compare that to the BSD license, which has removed a restriction, and that's saying something given there's like there were only 4 or so to begin with.
But if you're going for the "fewest restrictions possible" route, why not remove them all?
Defaulting to no access times is just common sense. They're not meant to be there for forensics, they're there to help the user, and for most users they're just a waste of resources.
Without a 2 front war you would be speaking German, make no mistake. Let's face it, the US mostly whipped the world into shape in WWII.
Utter bollocks, as any high-school student of history outside the US knows (And no, I'm not Russian, nor do I have any love for their country)
Why we allowed Stalin to retain power, I'll never know. We should have given Patton an army of rearmed Germans to finish you off.
Stalin stayed in power because had the US tried to force him out of it they would have lost. Plain and simple.
Yes, you launched a satellite, and yes you launched a man into space. Your efforts were greatly assisted by German rocketry (as were ours). You lost the big enchillada, the moon landing.
It was only the big one if you get your targets from the US. Winning the first 2 out of 3 rounds sounds like a Russian victory to me.
Your empire no longer exists. Indeed you are surrounded by enemies.
How's your empire-building going, USA? Your enemies might not border you but they are more numerous and growing by the day.
Also, your economic warfare against Poland and Estonia are against WTO rules, a US invented organisation that you grovelled to join.
Enjoying your international criminal court there? Oh wait
Typical asshole thing to say. How many languages are you fluent in? Probably not even your mother tongue.
One, though I'd say two more better than subby's english, but I wouldn't presume to submit to a site this big in a foreign language. Learning new languages is a fine thing, but the front page of slashdot is not the place to do it.
'Kudos' to the guy who wrote an article in a foreign language and had the cojones (that's BALLS to you, pal) to go so far as to make it public to the world
It's pretty much true. Look at the other languages you "should" learn today. Perl, PHP, Python, C#, Java... When you know your C well, learning them is fairly easy.
But if you code in them the way you code in C you won't gain any advantage from using them. The advantages of modern languages are in the things they have that C doesn't have.
Security - Javascript is NOT designed to secure a web app, security needs to happen on the server side, out of necessity!
The security problem is that users end up disabling javascript, because allowing it is too insecure.
Programmatic friendlyness - Joel says it all here Personally, I've programmed in dozens of languages, and few are as flexible and enjoyable as Javascript
I enjoy writing python a lot more, and can do everything Joel talks about and more; I heard there was a mozilla project to add support for client-side python, but don't know what became of it. In any case, programming language will always be a matter of personal preference and the specific problem being solved, which makes a system which runs some standardised bytecode form which multiple languages can be compiled to - be that Java,.net, parrot or something else - far superior to one restricted to a single language, however good that language is.
To be truly crossplatform means that it can run on any platform that supports some basic standard (such as C, or Posix, or perhaps WxWidgets); it doesn't need to be ported to new platforms, rather new platforms will implement the standards needed to support it. Given how well e.g. the BeOS port of Java is going, I don't think it qualifies.
Other programs there? Mozilla? It even got started because Netscape wanted a browser that can stop MS's onslaught onto their business. Then it got bought by AOL, and nowadays it's Google footing the bill. Open Office? Got started as a proprietary project, then bought by Sun. Nowadays it's Sun doing pretty much the whole work, with people paid to code on OOo. It's costing Sun a lot of money. Etc.
And those are taking huge amounts of resources for relatively small benefits, where e.g. konqueror is being written from scratch by a bunch of nerds on their own time and managing to be a better browser than mozilla. It's the corporate-funded projects that are causing the confusion, because they tend to be better in the short term by sheer brute force of man-hours, but less well written and ultimately inferior.
Also, Tesla had to use the energy he'd stored up from the wheel (in a huge bank of capacitors - creating this was such a feat that the unit for capacitance is now named in his honour) to actually drive the wheel and restore the Earth's proper rotational period. Of course, the transfer wasn't without loss, which is why years divisible by 100 do not have leap days any longer.
Nah, he used it to destroy all Einstein's prism tanks.
How much of an improvement in QWERTY could you see if you spent as much time improving that skill rather than learning DVORAK?
My personal experience was a 15wpm increase with a month of work. You hit the point where return on typing practise with the same layout is less than that pretty quickly.
Tell me again why we as Software Engineers are supposed to use descriptive method and variable names? Sure, it may be useful during testing/building/debugging/etc; nobody will argue that. However, if your "secure" product can be easily hacked due to the fact that you use descriptive class/variable/method names, maybe the practice should be reviewed.
Having descriptive names makes it easier for random hobbyists to try and break in. This is a good thing, since it means that if there are holes in your program they are more likely to be found by one of these than by someone malicious. Obscurity of this sort is not going to stop someone who's got money to make from cracking it, wheras it might put off someone who's just poking around because they're interested.
Slashdot Mirror
Way to miss the point. Because there is an upper limit, the record labels compress it all into the top part of the dynamic range to make it sound louder. If we made it so there was no limit to the loudness, there would be no need to do this - to make it sound louder you just increase the number in the tag, no need for compression.
Do it while you're asleep. You go to sleep in a (wheeled) hospital bed in a room. Two of you wake up in two identical beds in another room. How can you tell which one's which?
I hear you can now get vi for it.
It's acceptable, because it means you can still e.g. put a nicer interface on the software. GPLv3 is not about giving you the right to remove their DRM so much as the right to improve the software running on your tivo.
It's not the case; there was a bill proposed which would have done that, but civil rights activists got it altered so they can only compel you to give up your encryption keys if they can proove you have them.
Secondly, I wanted to suggest that perhaps this is a reason not to use PGP, because PGP encrypted information can always be decrypted using the recipient's key - even many years after the message was originally sent. So law enforcement officers will be able to get old PGP-encrypted documents from your email account (probably even if you delete them, thanks to backup tapes).
That's what gpg --show-session-key is for. If you get subpoena'd, you can give them just the session keys for the specific emails they want, and they'll be able to read them but not any other messages you received for the same public/private keypair.
No; the GPL provision is "you waive your right to use the DMCA or similar laws in certain ways", not "the DMCA is now invalid"
They have the right to attempt to make it unhackable. They do not have the right to make it illegal for me to try and hack it (which is what they would be doing, via the DMCA, without these restrictions in the GPL), and don't you dare try and tell me those rights are equivalent.
And some people may not have a problem with people using, modifying, or distributing their code, but still want anyone who does so to release the modified versions under the same license. In both cases they are applying restrictions.
While I'm certain someone will say that maintaining authorship is a restricted freedom, most people would consider not doing so akin to plagiarism.
No question of "akin to"; it is plagiarism, plain and simple. But it's still the addition of a restriction.
Typical revisionist history. The essence of the BSD license well precedes the popularity of the GPL license, which really only rose because of Linus's work, not Stallman's meddling.
Anyone who was actually trying to use a unix system in 1990 knows the GPL mattered back then too. But in any case, which came first has no bearing on which is more free.
Furthermore, you ignore that at the advent of the BSD license, the legal environment around copyright was different than it was today. The thought (rightly put forward at the then present, now past) was that licenses were the only way to afford positive affirmations of rights under existing law and court cases. This is why BSD licenses, which some people include the old Apache and MIT licenses, came to exist.
Nevertheless, now we know. So there is no need to use the BSD license any more.
In any case, GPL3 really shows the colors of the GPL camp, which is not about maintaining use and rights but sticking it to corporations and maintaining license lock. The proof is in the pudding, as it were--you've added restrictions.
The GPL has never been about having the least number of restrictions, it's about having the most freedom overall.
Compare that to the BSD license, which has removed a restriction, and that's saying something given there's like there were only 4 or so to begin with.
But if you're going for the "fewest restrictions possible" route, why not remove them all?
Nor would we have a very useful BSD system without many pieces of GPL software.
(Yes, I pirated a copy after discovering I couldn't. It works, but it's missing the movies)
Defaulting to no access times is just common sense. They're not meant to be there for forensics, they're there to help the user, and for most users they're just a waste of resources.
Utter bollocks, as any high-school student of history outside the US knows (And no, I'm not Russian, nor do I have any love for their country)
Why we allowed Stalin to retain power, I'll never know. We should have given Patton an army of rearmed Germans to finish you off.
Stalin stayed in power because had the US tried to force him out of it they would have lost. Plain and simple.
Yes, you launched a satellite, and yes you launched a man into space. Your efforts were greatly assisted by German rocketry (as were ours). You lost the big enchillada, the moon landing.
It was only the big one if you get your targets from the US. Winning the first 2 out of 3 rounds sounds like a Russian victory to me.
Your empire no longer exists. Indeed you are surrounded by enemies.
How's your empire-building going, USA? Your enemies might not border you but they are more numerous and growing by the day.
Also, your economic warfare against Poland and Estonia are against WTO rules, a US invented organisation that you grovelled to join.
Enjoying your international criminal court there? Oh wait
One, though I'd say two more better than subby's english, but I wouldn't presume to submit to a site this big in a foreign language. Learning new languages is a fine thing, but the front page of slashdot is not the place to do it.
'Kudos' to the guy who wrote an article in a foreign language and had the cojones (that's BALLS to you, pal) to go so far as to make it public to the world
Why? It was painful to read.
Yours sincerely,
m50d
So you don't do it accidentally, since one of the available commands is "instant reboot, no syncing/unmounting" ?
But if you code in them the way you code in C you won't gain any advantage from using them. The advantages of modern languages are in the things they have that C doesn't have.
That's the newbies who have joined slashdot since then. True slashdotters are still using win2k for their windows.
The security problem is that users end up disabling javascript, because allowing it is too insecure.
Programmatic friendlyness - Joel says it all here Personally, I've programmed in dozens of languages, and few are as flexible and enjoyable as Javascript
I enjoy writing python a lot more, and can do everything Joel talks about and more; I heard there was a mozilla project to add support for client-side python, but don't know what became of it. In any case, programming language will always be a matter of personal preference and the specific problem being solved, which makes a system which runs some standardised bytecode form which multiple languages can be compiled to - be that Java, .net, parrot or something else - far superior to one restricted to a single language, however good that language is.
To be truly crossplatform means that it can run on any platform that supports some basic standard (such as C, or Posix, or perhaps WxWidgets); it doesn't need to be ported to new platforms, rather new platforms will implement the standards needed to support it. Given how well e.g. the BeOS port of Java is going, I don't think it qualifies.
Bollocks. If that were the case, why wouldn't they allow Real to sell music for the ipod?
And those are taking huge amounts of resources for relatively small benefits, where e.g. konqueror is being written from scratch by a bunch of nerds on their own time and managing to be a better browser than mozilla. It's the corporate-funded projects that are causing the confusion, because they tend to be better in the short term by sheer brute force of man-hours, but less well written and ultimately inferior.
Whoever controls the tubes controls the galaxy. THE PR0N MUST FLOW!
Nah, he used it to destroy all Einstein's prism tanks.
How much of an improvement in QWERTY could you see if you spent as much time improving that skill rather than learning DVORAK?
My personal experience was a 15wpm increase with a month of work. You hit the point where return on typing practise with the same layout is less than that pretty quickly.
Having descriptive names makes it easier for random hobbyists to try and break in. This is a good thing, since it means that if there are holes in your program they are more likely to be found by one of these than by someone malicious. Obscurity of this sort is not going to stop someone who's got money to make from cracking it, wheras it might put off someone who's just poking around because they're interested.