OR there might be a totally oposite effect:
The pirated material could be encrypted and the keys only given to trusted people. Thus only the one who is involved in the illegal activity will be able to view the video or even know what it is.
And if they all keep their mouths shut they could never be prosecuted because there would be no way to know what the material is, if it is copyrighted or in the public domain or what.
It might be stolen, and the holders would never be able to know what it is.
I think that a lot of people do not want to have to have keys to look at their own content. And they would like to share their material with others freely. The problem that I see with the model of requireing a key to view saved video or audio is that if I don't want to use a key for what I do, then I shouldn't have to use it.
The Entertainment Industry assumes that all uses of recorders is for stealing copyrighted material. But that simply is not the case.
They assume we are all guilty, no innocence allowed.
They want everyone to always have to do a 'mother may I' when ever they want to watch or listen to content that they produced themselves.
What are the long term effects of this? Eventually all content might be unviewable or unlistenable. It will be like those Incan knotted ropes. We will have the physical device but be unable to ever know what it means.
If you want to take it somewhere else, then fork the kernel and do your own thing.
Most likely you would just take what you are interested in and fork that. And if it is good, then you can see if it will make it into the kernel.
If it is not accepted, then what does it matter because you got your stuff to do what you wanted to do and then you can use it for the rest of your life.
As far as what they are doing with virtual memory or device drivers that load with the kernel, that is beyond what most people want to know about, even people who use Linux.
At least we don't have to worry about malicious lawyers and marketting wonks from a company obsoleting our code by making changes that guarantee incompatability.
At least we can write code and design systems that we can use and we know that they will run for years to come.
How many times did I write things to run on other platforms and as soon as a new version came out, things didn't work anymore? That is why I started writing in standard C. That is why I decided to learn Linux when I first heard about it ten or so years ago.
You don't need to know where everything is going, but at least with Linux there is a chance, that if you are really interested, you can look at the code.
For example I learned about Virtual Memory system because of a technical problem that we were having with a system that I was working on. I learned that if I wanted to do things the way that I thought was sound real-time software engineering that I could patch a kernel.
With a commercial OS you aren't given that option unless you pay a lot of money. I am not just talking about our friends in Redmond, either, but some folks in Silicon Valley as well.
Honestly, for most users, don't you think that the particulars of an operating system are totally not important? It only becomes important when the thing doesn't work. Or when malicious companies extend the idea of an operating system to include things that, from my point of view, should just be applications, like a browser for example.
Even TCP/IP is an extension of an OS, isn't it? So if you learn about Linux you learn what it is good for and what it is not so good for without some extra work. But at least with Linux you can do the work and make your stuff perform as you need it to perform. And you can get advice from other programmers and users by just googling for information. And if you are in a bind you can pay people to do work for you.
At least we know where Linux is not going, into the same rat hole that a lot of other OS's went into, good OS's like PSos which was absorbed and then virtually abandoned. This left a lot of people in a lurch.
So those same companies now support Linux, why, so they can have some control over their livlihoods.
Do any of us know what the future holds for real? We all just guess anyway, and hope things work for us. With Linux we can be sure that we don't have our OS vendors competing against us and trying to steal what we do and then saying that it was all theirs in the first place.
Not all computers are for playing games and for watching movies. There are real things that people need to do like run systems and machines, monitor air traffic, control robots, monitor earth quakes and tides, translate ascii into Braille. the list goes on and on.
You can't guess what it is that you may want to do with an operating system. But should some monopolist company get $190 per every copy of an OS that is sold when they are malicious and trying to harm people who are not part of their mafia?
As far as anything audio or video, isn't that an add-on? Or the GUI, mostly X windows? If you only boot to run-level 3 (on Redhat) then you don't run X,you won't see video without something else running. TiVo is just an application. A server is just an application. If you don't want these then you don't have to have them.
I say that they should not. Computers are too important to be left under the control of litigious monopolists who in their extreame narcisism will tell you that without them you are nothing.
So where Linux is not going, as I can see, is away from that diseased view of business and industry.
Years ago I worked on a single board computer.
This machine was for a space shuttle program for a major national laboratory.
I determined rather quickly that I could have put a clock on the reset and start from the beginning of the assembly code everytime and the system would have worked fine.
This wasn't a 'crash'. A crash in the Air Force meant that a plane physically crashed into something. Or a rocket crashed into the dessert.
Crashing was unacceptable. So if the software didn't work we called it a 'hang'.
As far as a bringing software to a halt with a crash, that is not a very logical thing to do. It shows an extreame lack of design skills. I just wouldn't do it like that. There are many reasons why you can't do things like this in a lot of different systems. For embedded systems you really need to have a logical shut down. I would guess that would be correct as well for a server.
You might mean that an application would 'crash', but not the whole system. Would you suggest that a server crash to end a user session? What about all of the other users?
In the theoretical world of fantasy software the idea of 'crash only' is a cute intellectual idea, but utterly not a good way to design any software.
You should provide a way to break out of code.
Remember software engineering is just one part of engineering. You might think that a software crash is a benign event, however when software runs hardware, systems, trains, buses, airplanes, sattelites, then a 'crash' is a very bad thing and people might die.
Maybe you mean 'reset only'. If that is the case, then I could have done this in 1988. If the system 'hung' the watchdog timer would reset.
In embedded systems a watchdog timer is a very common thing, and actually a requirement. But you probably should use the term 'reset only' and not 'crash-only'. Crash is a catastrophy. Reset is an expected event.
to me math and music and the human ear were the keys to my 'getting' mathematics.
Once I learned about the s-plane, and time to frequency domain transformations, then it all made a lot of sense to me.
I could hear how frequencies sound. I could see the time domain equation. I do the transformation and then see the s-plane interpretation.
it seems to me that if we teach frequency domain at the same time as we teach time domain then kids will just get math a lot better. The frequency domain is where everything really happens. Time is a creation of the human mind. Frequencies can be heard. We can see them on an oscilliscope. We can map them to a string on a guitar or on a note on a keyboard. A time domain equation is a fantasy of mathematics because it exisits from + to - infinity. Where as a frequency can be heard and we can see what it does to the air or to electricity. And so to get a child into math, tell the child about how frequency is a better way to think about signals than the cartesian time domain way of thinking about it.
You are incorrect.
How could that be?
Evolution would not have happened if there weren't change. It is only because of radiation that we have mutation.
I point out that envronmental change will be a given with free energy. Did I put a value judgement on it?
If the oceans flood up 100 feet and all of the cities on the coasts loose a lot of their land, that would be a bad thing. I know that is a value judgement, but call me compassionate.
Environmental change is a given, you can't get away from it.
I am trying to point out that 'free' energy is only free in one sense. We still need to use it responsibly! We are never free to ignore that new technologies often have devastating effects.
For example the internet allows semi-anonymous people to sound off about anything at all. And do you agree that most of it is just bored people with stupid comments? That is why there is the moderation system.
I have a lot of time lately, so I am reading a lot of these blogs and commenting when I feel compelled. Your statement about what I seem, to me, is an attempt by you to ignore the fact of the need for regulation. The rich and powerful hate to be regulated because they want to do as they will. But the facts of human society has always been that when the rich and powerful are out of control and unregulated that we have revolution and pain and horrer.
That is bad.
And if you don't think so then you have issues that I can't help you with.
And if desserts world wide all turn into forests, then what happens to all of the dessert creatures? If we are going to do this should we not at least set up some way of protecting the wildlife, much of which is very useful to us?
Money and power brings a lot of responsibility for a muture adult. Unfortunately so many are just given everything and they never worked for it. So they are like children and they hate the suggestion that anyone else should ever have a say about anything.
'free' energy is not free in that in enslaves us to the consequences of it's piggish use by people who don't consider the effects of what they do.
You can deny it and fight it all day long, but it will be regulated. Either by the legislatures or through law suits.
How can the ISP ever know if the content is copyrightable?
If the content is encrypted the ISP can never actually even have a copy of the material as it is broken up, encrypted, sent in packets.
You are asking for a redesign all consumer electronics just so you can prevent people from stealling movies (alledgedly).
What I see is that the reason for all of this rangling over copying is that people who have power want to raise the bar of entry into the music and movie production industry. They spread all this fear and intimidation about copying. They make the price of equipment that is 'broad cast quality' prohibatively expensive.
Here is an interesting personality test that I hope you do on yourself:
Can you please ask yourself if the copying of a bad movie onto a tape and then selling it to someone else to make a profit is even close to being as big a crime as being a terrorist with a bomb. The answer is 'not even close'. So why do you equate the two?
That is the cheepest and easiest way to avoid all of that crap. I feel like I am watching from the shore, safe, while all of these people go buy on a burning boat screaming: "When will the popups end. Why can't I read the email from joan? I looked at the picture. Now my computer doesn't work anymore. boo hoo"
So do your clients a favor and get them a Linux box. They can use that when Windows isn't working. After a while it will work and Windows won't and they will not care.
If I have a piece of glass and I put it in front of a copyrighted piece of work, are the glass manufacturers to be held responsible?
The ISP is like the glass.
How can an owner of network be held responsible for the traffic that others put on that network?
If a drug runner runs drugs in a truck on the highway is the highway department responsible for providing the road?
The only reason there is a case at all is that these huge corporate copyright holders have very deep pockets. They have been successful before in getting special taxes thrown their way. There is a tax on cassette tapes even today.
It seems clear to me that they should loose.
I often notice that cranks or trolls get modded up. Or people who are promotting some agenda, like a lot of hollywood movie nerd types.
Has someone learned how to cook the moderation system? My quess is yes.
I have a lot of respect for/.
I hope that I am wrong in thinking that the moderation is meaningless and that there is a lot of corporate and marketing agenda-mongering going on here.
and yet there is still a lot of interesting things I learn as I sift through the posts.
The problem with nuclear power as it exists today is that very powerful people set up corporations that then let go bankrupt. And they leave the radiation that they created and profited from as a gift for future generations.
They made the money. They funneled this profit to themselves through sweet-heart corporate deals. Then they drive their businesses into bankruptcy and leave the mess for the rest of us.
There may be safe ways to deal with the radioactive waste. But what I have seen is that the people who benefit the most from these kinds of dirty sources of energy shirk their responsibility in making sure that the waste is safely contained.
Nuclear waste is stated in many studies as dangerous for thousands of years. In a thousand years will anyone be there to prevent problems from 'archiological' discoveries of nuclear waste dumps?
What should society do to deal with the waste? Your solution must be funded for 30,000 years. Who should pay for this?
and so I hold that nuclear power is a short tern boon with long term drawbacks for the future. It seems to me that currently nuclear power steals from the future to finance the lavishness of today.
The human race if given 'free' energy will have a lot of issues concerned about the piggish use of energy.
I agree it will be wonderful to master fusion. But remember that often times the things we claim to master thus become masters of us. Money and wealth is often a curse.
If people are strong and enlightened and good, then they can overcome these problems. But don'we know that these qualities can be called subjective traits and that in actuality we all have personality challanges. Even if some of us respect this new power (cheep energy), many of us will not.
Please realize that the use of 'free' energy will be a challange. It may result in the extinction of deserts as people can very cheeply irrigate.
The game 'Civilization' has a simulation about irrigation. At the point in the game when you invent, I think, electrictiy, if you have enough workers and you set them on automatic they will irrigate all of the deserts or build mines on them. Do we want the whole world irrigated and people everywhere, at the bottom of the sea?
And so I conclude that there must be regulation on fusion. Totally unregulated fusion is called a star~(lol)
Christian Scientists are not Catholics and thus while they may respect the Pope, they do not 'controlled' by him. As a note: the Pope doesn't 'control' Catholics either!
Christian Scientists are based in Boston where they have a wonderful church and public space with a giant reflecting pool and beautiful gardens.
They believe that the power of the human mind is all that folks need to heal themselves. And unlike other denominations that would say that most folks don't have this kind of power of mind, but can learn it, the Christian Scientists seem to think that all people have this power and thus should avoid modern medicine. This causes some problems for them when their children have a disease that is easily treated by modern medicine.
Some would say that prosecutors in Massachusetts have a habit of persecuting them for their faith-based point of view. But it is sad that sometimes children die from diseases that are easily cured.
I am sure that they must have a very large presence on the web as they have always promoted reading and learning. They have 'reading rooms' in a lot of places all over New England and beyond.
If you go to Boston their center should be on the list of places to see as a tourist. They are right on Massachusetts Avenue and very excessible.
There is no getting around the need to regulate any form of 'cheep' energy conversion from other sources to human use. The reason? The free availability of energy will result in people moving to locations which are currently unpopular. For example there would be a run of fallow land in Artic regions. Why? Because cheep or free energy will mean that people can move there and heat their spaces for next to no cost. Think of the environmental change that must then occur?
Also, the cheep availability of engergy will mean that techniques for converting sea water to freash water and then transporting it to desert regions will mean the possible extinction of deserts world wide!
The state of California is mostly desert. They want cars that release water and not carbon-dioxide. It occured to me that if all of their cars were producing water then the deserts in California might become wet and many different speices might be threatened.
If we are worried about carbon-dioxide gas, then why would we not worry about the sudden (in geologic terms) release of energy from some cheep source?
If we have the ability to convert this new source into some kind of energy that isn't heat, then we will have less problems. My quess is that heat will be one the biggest uses. This will contribute to global warming.
In my view the problems and challanges raised by finding a new source of cheep energy will be legion. We need to review all the consequences of this before we rush headlong into a new and unregulated form of global change.
I wish that the laws of Thermodynamics were on the top of the list of things to learn for school-aged kids. If we understand these laws than a lot of things that seem wonderful then seem like robbing Saint Peter to pay Saint Paul.
It is exciting that we may have this new source, and it will be very useful in space where we don't really care how much energy we burn (yet).
Yet anothter shameless plug of banel technology
on
Pixar's Drawing Tool
·
· Score: 0
This would have been cutting edge twenty years ago.
Now it is yet another example of hollywood nerds using their moderation points to plug one of their companies.
There are plenty of commercial OS's out there that are great for doing the kinds of things that these folks have done in LINUX.
They are propriatory and expensive.
If you are running a deep projects type of an operation and you have a huge budget to burn you might consider running, say, for example,
OSE, VxWorks, Psos, and even MS embedded products.
Linux is just one OS of so many.
I love Linux but I realize that I have to keep my eyes open and understand what it is good for and what it is not good for.
Your statement seemed very stary eyed as if Linux is somehow a holy grail.
It's just another tool in the big tool box of possible things. I love it. But I won't say that other (pricey) OS's are also up for these custom tasks.
Why spread useless information?
If you read the article that you linked to you would have read this:
"Residents, including Mr Hannaford, who scanned the sky after hearing the bang found it cloudless, starry, and with a waning half-moon directly above."
The picture is not from 4:30 AM, nor is it "cloudless or, starry, and with a waning half-moon directly above"
There is a barge that is going by on the right side of the picture near the bridge and the crane that is down. Way off in the distance behid this there is a light off on the horizon (on the far right of the picture.
If you down load all three pictures into one directory and then use gthumbs (or any other slide show program) you can see the three pictures repeating in sequence.
You will notice that the there is a small annular ring with thick lines coming from it right and down from the flash (almost on top of it). This same annular ring shows up in a small size on the next frame.
My quess is that as this was late and the light levels were low, that there was a distant light house (that flash on the horizon?). The effects of the light from the light house are what may have cause some of what we see.
I don't think that Ihave a full solution, but it seems to me that at least some of what we see is due to lens effects. Why else would the little saturn shaped annular region with 45d degree lines jump up and to the right on the next picture.
You can really see this if you animate the pictures as well as the light on the horizon.
One other note: There is no reflection on the water of the streak, but strangly it seems that there is another streak that parallels the first. It should reflect the first if it was way off in the air and not just a CCD effect. That is what it seems like to me, a CCD effect at the same time that a light on a pole exploded. And that just happened coorespond with the effect on the lens of the distant light house.
So we have two things: A light exploding on a pole with a CCD effect at a 45 degree angle and a distant light house with a cycle that occasionally corresponds with the shutter of this camera.
You can probably get really good images if you just show the images on a screen in a very dark room and then take a picture of each one with a high resolution digital camera. You don't need a computer at all to do this. The images will be saved in whatever format your camera uses.
I often take screen shots like this (as well as use capture)
That was easy.
Why do you need to do FFT with the compiled code?
If you are doing applications that require a lot of FFT, then would you not get a co-prcessor to do this of the kind that Texas Instruments produces?
Even if you use a language like C++ that does not mean that the algorithms that are used or the way that data is jockied about in memory has effciency and gives you fast output.
There are many things to consider besides just a choice of languages.
Slashdot Mirror
OR there might be a totally oposite effect: The pirated material could be encrypted and the keys only given to trusted people. Thus only the one who is involved in the illegal activity will be able to view the video or even know what it is. And if they all keep their mouths shut they could never be prosecuted because there would be no way to know what the material is, if it is copyrighted or in the public domain or what. It might be stolen, and the holders would never be able to know what it is.
I think that a lot of people do not want to have to have keys to look at their own content. And they would like to share their material with others freely.
The problem that I see with the model of requireing a key to view saved video or audio is that if I don't want to use a key for what I do, then I shouldn't have to use it.
The Entertainment Industry assumes that all uses of recorders is for stealing copyrighted material. But that simply is not the case.
They assume we are all guilty, no innocence allowed.
They want everyone to always have to do a 'mother may I' when ever they want to watch or listen to content that they produced themselves.
What are the long term effects of this? Eventually all content might be unviewable or unlistenable. It will be like those Incan knotted ropes. We will have the physical device but be unable to ever know what it means.
I should be more careful: Last line should read: So where is Linux going, as I can see, away from that diseased view of buiness and industry.
If you want to take it somewhere else, then fork the kernel and do your own thing.
Most likely you would just take what you are interested in and fork that. And if it is good, then you can see if it will make it into the kernel.
If it is not accepted, then what does it matter because you got your stuff to do what you wanted to do and then you can use it for the rest of your life.
As far as what they are doing with virtual memory or device drivers that load with the kernel, that is beyond what most people want to know about, even people who use Linux.
At least we don't have to worry about malicious lawyers and marketting wonks from a company obsoleting our code by making changes that guarantee incompatability.
At least we can write code and design systems that we can use and we know that they will run for years to come.
How many times did I write things to run on other platforms and as soon as a new version came out, things didn't work anymore?
That is why I started writing in standard C. That is why I decided to learn Linux when I first heard about it ten or so years ago.
You don't need to know where everything is going, but at least with Linux there is a chance, that if you are really interested, you can look at the code.
For example I learned about Virtual Memory system because of a technical problem that we were having with a system that I was working on. I learned that if I wanted to do things the way that I thought was sound real-time software engineering that I could patch a kernel.
With a commercial OS you aren't given that option unless you pay a lot of money. I am not just talking about our friends in Redmond, either, but some folks in Silicon Valley as well.
Honestly, for most users, don't you think that the particulars of an operating system are totally not important? It only becomes important when the thing doesn't work. Or when malicious companies extend the idea of an operating system to include things that, from my point of view, should just be applications, like a browser for example.
Even TCP/IP is an extension of an OS, isn't it?
So if you learn about Linux you learn what it is good for and what it is not so good for without some extra work. But at least with Linux you can do the work and make your stuff perform as you need it to perform. And you can get advice from other programmers and users by just googling for information. And if you are in a bind you can pay people to do work for you.
At least we know where Linux is not going, into the same rat hole that a lot of other OS's went into, good OS's like PSos which was absorbed and then virtually abandoned. This left a lot of people in a lurch.
So those same companies now support Linux, why, so they can have some control over their livlihoods.
Do any of us know what the future holds for real? We all just guess anyway, and hope things work for us. With Linux we can be sure that we don't have our OS vendors competing against us and trying to steal what we do and then saying that it was all theirs in the first place.
Not all computers are for playing games and for watching movies. There are real things that people need to do like run systems and machines, monitor air traffic, control robots, monitor earth quakes and tides, translate ascii into Braille.
the list goes on and on.
You can't guess what it is that you may want to do with an operating system. But should some monopolist company get $190 per every copy of an OS that is sold when they are malicious and trying to harm people who are not part of their mafia?
As far as anything audio or video, isn't that an add-on? Or the GUI, mostly X windows? If you only boot to run-level 3 (on Redhat) then you don't run X,you won't see video without something else running. TiVo is just an application. A server is just an application. If you don't want these then you don't have to have them.
I say that they should not. Computers are too important to be left under the control of litigious monopolists who in their extreame narcisism will tell you that without them you are nothing.
So where Linux is not going, as I can see, is away from that diseased view of business and industry.
Years ago I worked on a single board computer. This machine was for a space shuttle program for a major national laboratory. I determined rather quickly that I could have put a clock on the reset and start from the beginning of the assembly code everytime and the system would have worked fine. This wasn't a 'crash'. A crash in the Air Force meant that a plane physically crashed into something. Or a rocket crashed into the dessert. Crashing was unacceptable. So if the software didn't work we called it a 'hang'. As far as a bringing software to a halt with a crash, that is not a very logical thing to do. It shows an extreame lack of design skills. I just wouldn't do it like that. There are many reasons why you can't do things like this in a lot of different systems. For embedded systems you really need to have a logical shut down. I would guess that would be correct as well for a server. You might mean that an application would 'crash', but not the whole system. Would you suggest that a server crash to end a user session? What about all of the other users? In the theoretical world of fantasy software the idea of 'crash only' is a cute intellectual idea, but utterly not a good way to design any software. You should provide a way to break out of code. Remember software engineering is just one part of engineering. You might think that a software crash is a benign event, however when software runs hardware, systems, trains, buses, airplanes, sattelites, then a 'crash' is a very bad thing and people might die. Maybe you mean 'reset only'. If that is the case, then I could have done this in 1988. If the system 'hung' the watchdog timer would reset. In embedded systems a watchdog timer is a very common thing, and actually a requirement. But you probably should use the term 'reset only' and not 'crash-only'. Crash is a catastrophy. Reset is an expected event.
to me math and music and the human ear were the keys to my 'getting' mathematics.
Once I learned about the s-plane, and time to frequency domain transformations, then it all made a lot of sense to me.
I could hear how frequencies sound. I could see the time domain equation. I do the transformation and then see the s-plane interpretation.
it seems to me that if we teach frequency domain at the same time as we teach time domain then kids will just get math a lot better. The frequency domain is where everything really happens. Time is a creation of the human mind. Frequencies can be heard. We can see them on an oscilliscope. We can map them to a string on a guitar or on a note on a keyboard. A time domain equation is a fantasy of mathematics because it exisits from + to - infinity. Where as a frequency can be heard and we can see what it does to the air or to electricity. And so to get a child into math, tell the child about how frequency is a better way to think about signals than the cartesian time domain way of thinking about it.
You are incorrect. How could that be? Evolution would not have happened if there weren't change. It is only because of radiation that we have mutation. I point out that envronmental change will be a given with free energy. Did I put a value judgement on it? If the oceans flood up 100 feet and all of the cities on the coasts loose a lot of their land, that would be a bad thing. I know that is a value judgement, but call me compassionate. Environmental change is a given, you can't get away from it. I am trying to point out that 'free' energy is only free in one sense. We still need to use it responsibly! We are never free to ignore that new technologies often have devastating effects. For example the internet allows semi-anonymous people to sound off about anything at all. And do you agree that most of it is just bored people with stupid comments? That is why there is the moderation system. I have a lot of time lately, so I am reading a lot of these blogs and commenting when I feel compelled. Your statement about what I seem, to me, is an attempt by you to ignore the fact of the need for regulation. The rich and powerful hate to be regulated because they want to do as they will. But the facts of human society has always been that when the rich and powerful are out of control and unregulated that we have revolution and pain and horrer. That is bad. And if you don't think so then you have issues that I can't help you with. And if desserts world wide all turn into forests, then what happens to all of the dessert creatures? If we are going to do this should we not at least set up some way of protecting the wildlife, much of which is very useful to us? Money and power brings a lot of responsibility for a muture adult. Unfortunately so many are just given everything and they never worked for it. So they are like children and they hate the suggestion that anyone else should ever have a say about anything. 'free' energy is not free in that in enslaves us to the consequences of it's piggish use by people who don't consider the effects of what they do. You can deny it and fight it all day long, but it will be regulated. Either by the legislatures or through law suits.
How can the ISP ever know if the content is copyrightable? If the content is encrypted the ISP can never actually even have a copy of the material as it is broken up, encrypted, sent in packets. You are asking for a redesign all consumer electronics just so you can prevent people from stealling movies (alledgedly). What I see is that the reason for all of this rangling over copying is that people who have power want to raise the bar of entry into the music and movie production industry. They spread all this fear and intimidation about copying. They make the price of equipment that is 'broad cast quality' prohibatively expensive. Here is an interesting personality test that I hope you do on yourself: Can you please ask yourself if the copying of a bad movie onto a tape and then selling it to someone else to make a profit is even close to being as big a crime as being a terrorist with a bomb. The answer is 'not even close'. So why do you equate the two?
That is the cheepest and easiest way to avoid all of that crap.
I feel like I am watching from the shore, safe, while all of these people go buy on a burning boat screaming: "When will the popups end.
Why can't I read the email from joan?
I looked at the picture. Now my computer
doesn't work anymore. boo hoo"
So do your clients a favor and get them a Linux box. They can use that when Windows isn't working.
After a while it will work and Windows won't and they will not care.
If I have a piece of glass and I put it in front of a copyrighted piece of work, are the glass manufacturers to be held responsible? The ISP is like the glass. How can an owner of network be held responsible for the traffic that others put on that network? If a drug runner runs drugs in a truck on the highway is the highway department responsible for providing the road? The only reason there is a case at all is that these huge corporate copyright holders have very deep pockets. They have been successful before in getting special taxes thrown their way. There is a tax on cassette tapes even today. It seems clear to me that they should loose.
So he had a series of 12 kites that he used to lift his giant camera upto 2000 feet in the air. Very cool. Read the article.
From your post it seems you think so.
I often notice that cranks or trolls get modded up. Or people who are promotting some agenda, like a lot of hollywood movie nerd types.
Has someone learned how to cook the moderation system? My quess is yes.
I have a lot of respect for /.
I hope that I am wrong in thinking that the moderation is meaningless and that there is a lot of corporate and marketing agenda-mongering going on here.
and yet there is still a lot of interesting things I learn as I sift through the posts.
The problem with nuclear power as it exists today is that very powerful people set up corporations that then let go bankrupt. And they leave the radiation that they created and profited from as a gift for future generations.
They made the money. They funneled this profit to themselves through sweet-heart corporate deals. Then they drive their businesses into bankruptcy and leave the mess for the rest of us.
There may be safe ways to deal with the radioactive waste. But what I have seen is that the people who benefit the most from these kinds of dirty sources of energy shirk their responsibility in making sure that the waste is safely contained.
Nuclear waste is stated in many studies as dangerous for thousands of years. In a thousand years will anyone be there to prevent problems from 'archiological' discoveries of nuclear waste dumps?
What should society do to deal with the waste? Your solution must be funded for 30,000 years. Who should pay for this?
and so I hold that nuclear power is a short tern boon with long term drawbacks for the future. It seems to me that currently nuclear power steals from the future to finance the lavishness of today.
The human race if given 'free' energy will have a lot of issues concerned about the piggish use of energy.
I agree it will be wonderful to master fusion. But remember that often times the things we claim to master thus become masters of us. Money and wealth is often a curse.
If people are strong and enlightened and good, then they can overcome these problems. But don'we know that these qualities can be called subjective traits and that in actuality we all have personality challanges. Even if some of us respect this new power (cheep energy), many of us will not.
Please realize that the use of 'free' energy will be a challange. It may result in the extinction of deserts as people can very cheeply irrigate.
The game 'Civilization' has a simulation about irrigation. At the point in the game when you invent, I think, electrictiy, if you have enough workers and you set them on automatic they will irrigate all of the deserts or build mines on them. Do we want the whole world irrigated and people everywhere, at the bottom of the sea?
And so I conclude that there must be regulation on fusion. Totally unregulated fusion is called a star~(lol)
Christian Scientists are not Catholics and thus while they may respect the Pope, they do not 'controlled' by him. As a note: the Pope doesn't 'control' Catholics either! Christian Scientists are based in Boston where they have a wonderful church and public space with a giant reflecting pool and beautiful gardens. They believe that the power of the human mind is all that folks need to heal themselves. And unlike other denominations that would say that most folks don't have this kind of power of mind, but can learn it, the Christian Scientists seem to think that all people have this power and thus should avoid modern medicine. This causes some problems for them when their children have a disease that is easily treated by modern medicine. Some would say that prosecutors in Massachusetts have a habit of persecuting them for their faith-based point of view. But it is sad that sometimes children die from diseases that are easily cured. I am sure that they must have a very large presence on the web as they have always promoted reading and learning. They have 'reading rooms' in a lot of places all over New England and beyond. If you go to Boston their center should be on the list of places to see as a tourist. They are right on Massachusetts Avenue and very excessible.
There is no getting around the need to regulate any form of 'cheep' energy conversion from other sources to human use. The reason? The free availability of energy will result in people moving to locations which are currently unpopular. For example there would be a run of fallow land in Artic regions. Why? Because cheep or free energy will mean that people can move there and heat their spaces for next to no cost. Think of the environmental change that must then occur? Also, the cheep availability of engergy will mean that techniques for converting sea water to freash water and then transporting it to desert regions will mean the possible extinction of deserts world wide! The state of California is mostly desert. They want cars that release water and not carbon-dioxide. It occured to me that if all of their cars were producing water then the deserts in California might become wet and many different speices might be threatened. If we are worried about carbon-dioxide gas, then why would we not worry about the sudden (in geologic terms) release of energy from some cheep source? If we have the ability to convert this new source into some kind of energy that isn't heat, then we will have less problems. My quess is that heat will be one the biggest uses. This will contribute to global warming. In my view the problems and challanges raised by finding a new source of cheep energy will be legion. We need to review all the consequences of this before we rush headlong into a new and unregulated form of global change. I wish that the laws of Thermodynamics were on the top of the list of things to learn for school-aged kids. If we understand these laws than a lot of things that seem wonderful then seem like robbing Saint Peter to pay Saint Paul. It is exciting that we may have this new source, and it will be very useful in space where we don't really care how much energy we burn (yet).
This would have been cutting edge twenty years ago. Now it is yet another example of hollywood nerds using their moderation points to plug one of their companies.
Or buy one with a video in and hook it to the analog video out.
You won't get a high def image, but you can record the image.
Doing this might be illegal but I bet you don't care about that.
There are plenty of commercial OS's out there that are great for doing the kinds of things that these folks have done in LINUX. They are propriatory and expensive. If you are running a deep projects type of an operation and you have a huge budget to burn you might consider running, say, for example, OSE, VxWorks, Psos, and even MS embedded products. Linux is just one OS of so many. I love Linux but I realize that I have to keep my eyes open and understand what it is good for and what it is not good for. Your statement seemed very stary eyed as if Linux is somehow a holy grail. It's just another tool in the big tool box of possible things. I love it. But I won't say that other (pricey) OS's are also up for these custom tasks.
Because they use this forum so often to plug their products.
Why spread useless information? If you read the article that you linked to you would have read this: "Residents, including Mr Hannaford, who scanned the sky after hearing the bang found it cloudless, starry, and with a waning half-moon directly above." The picture is not from 4:30 AM, nor is it "cloudless or, starry, and with a waning half-moon directly above"
There is a barge that is going by on the right side of the picture near the bridge and the crane that is down. Way off in the distance behid this there is a light off on the horizon (on the far right of the picture.
If you down load all three pictures into one directory and then use gthumbs (or any other slide show program) you can see the three pictures repeating in sequence.
You will notice that the there is a small annular ring with thick lines coming from it right and down from the flash (almost on top of it).
This same annular ring shows up in a small size on the next frame.
My quess is that as this was late and the light levels were low, that there was a distant light house (that flash on the horizon?). The effects of the light from the light house are what may have cause some of what we see.
I don't think that Ihave a full solution, but it seems to me that at least some of what we see is due to lens effects. Why else would the little saturn shaped annular region with 45d degree lines jump up and to the right on the next picture.
You can really see this if you animate the pictures as well as the light on the horizon.
One other note: There is no reflection on the water of the streak, but strangly it seems that there is another streak that parallels the first.
It should reflect the first if it was way off in the air and not just a CCD effect. That is what it seems like to me, a CCD effect at the same time that a light on a pole exploded. And that just happened coorespond with the effect on the lens of the distant light house.
So we have two things: A light exploding on a pole with a CCD effect at a 45 degree angle and
a distant light house with a cycle that occasionally corresponds with the shutter of this camera.
Does this sound reasonable?
You can probably get really good images if you just show the images on a screen in a very dark room and then take a picture of each one with a high resolution digital camera. You don't need a computer at all to do this. The images will be saved in whatever format your camera uses. I often take screen shots like this (as well as use capture) That was easy.
Why do you need to do FFT with the compiled code? If you are doing applications that require a lot of FFT, then would you not get a co-prcessor to do this of the kind that Texas Instruments produces? Even if you use a language like C++ that does not mean that the algorithms that are used or the way that data is jockied about in memory has effciency and gives you fast output. There are many things to consider besides just a choice of languages.