its mostly gullible consumers who are fooled into this high-end boutique nonsense.
pros use grungy zipcord for speaker wire, regular non-blessed common metal interconnects, and regular non-hospital IEC power cords. and they MIX the hell out of the sound, and it goes thru any NUMBER of eq stages, is compressed (and so on and so on).... and also their studios are chock full of heavily used tube gear.
I've noticed this problem on Red Hot Chili Peppers' Californication... it actually digitally clips throughout most of the lyrics. It bothered me so much that I stopped listening to the album.
There certainly are digital effects designed to "mimic" the sounds of tape or tubes, but those in the know still claim that they don't sound quite like the real thing.
And as the other poster mentioned, you still have to look out for hard clipping in the digital world, which means putting a limiter on your real-world signal at least. Analog gives you much more leway in that department.
Did you ever consider that saying you stopped accepting that the core of everything they believe in and the basis of everything they do had any value might be inherently hostile?
Saying that he doesn't accept the core of what they believe in is not hostile.
Saying that it has no value may be hostile, but luckily the OP didn't say that.
Putting words in peoples' mouths to try to prove a point can also be considered hostile.
Illegal combatants are designated as such because...
The problem is how to distinguish between "illegal combatants" performing acts of war, and foreign nationals performing criminal acts.
The bush administration is providing very shaky criteria with which to do this distinguishing -- a perpetual state of "war" on terrorism that may never terminate, legislation that redefines hoards of previously criminal acts as acts of "terrorism," etc. It's actually rather scary -- the scope of what constitutes an "enemy combatant" grows larger and larger without boundaries. Your "fuck 'em, they're enemy combatants" attitude demonstrates a grave lack of thoughtfulness into this (which seems to be shared with the president).
You're right, that's not a very good link. There actually is an article on wikipedia detailing and responding to criticisms about it. When wikipedia stops being down for me (my personal biggest gripe with wikipedia -- its downtime) i'll go change that link for you;)
After all, every page is editable. If that link annoyed you, why didn't you change it?
There's a lot of talk about some sort of editorial system / peer review / approved article / version 1.0 / what-have-you at Wikipedia already. See here for starters. Jimbo Wales has even talked about it. Perhaps people should check out what's actually going on at Wikipedia instead of speculatively bashing it/writing suggestion articles about it/etc with their backs apparently turned?
I don't come to works of fiction with the idea that I should have to scrutinize or learn invented languages and read appendices and so on
Man, you're either just a big fucking troll or a big fucking whiner. Where are you getting this crap from? You don't have to even glance in the direction of the appendices to understand what's going on in the book, nor do you have to know a lick of any of the invented languages.
Re:exactly, license patent to GPL software only
on
Revising the GPL
·
· Score: 1
Except that the GPL is a copyright license.
patent license != copyright license
The GPL provision dealing with patents will not be a license grant, it will be a condition of redistributing GPL'd works.
A "copyright license" is just something put in writing by the copyright holder, explaining how they wish to exercise their various rights. While it's true that copyright != patent, I see no reason why you can't include a copyright license and a patent license in the same document (as long as you are also the patent holder or have rights to re-license it). IANAL, though.
For instance, if a term in your new GPL said something like "additionally, upon release of the work covered by this copyright, all patents used in the work are hereby licensed for use in derivative works and other GPL'ed works, and are licensed for re-license under and only under this clause of the GPL" would that not apply? Why not? Is there something special you have to do to grant patent license beyond what you need to do to grant copyright license (ie, put it in writing)?
1) I start to get worried when an implementation of a nice clean idea (such as Free Software) starts getting bogged down in special cases and exceptions. The philosopher in me wants to distill it down to first principles. The programmer in me wants to refactor and see how things can be more cleanly generalized. Special cases are often bad, and reflect a fundamental flaw in the general coverage of an idea (for example, whether you agree with its intention or not, the Assault Weapons Ban was a pretty Bad law, due to the fact that it almost entirely was based on special cases and exceptions with no general definition of what constitutes an "assault weapon.")
The GPL's need to make an exception for linking with OS libraries, for instance, therefore bothers my sensibilities. And Stallman's thoughts of adding clauses to the GPL so you are forbidden from removing certain kinds of features ("remote download of modified versions" or whatnot) knocks my sensibilities completely over, as do thoughts of restrictions on where the GPL software can be used (can't use them on hardware that only runs a specific version!).
2) "I'm trying to stop people from creating new licenses," Fink said. "To the extent we can create a license that has a broader buy-in, that stops proliferation of more licenses, that to me is goodness."
Uhm, what? No! Variety is the spice of life, and it's up to the creator of the copyright to decide which license they want to put on their work. You cannot "stop" them from creating, or using, new licenses, and you should not want to or try to, either! That to me is badness. What's the point of license homogeneity?
Reminds me of some people on wikipedia who get upset because "their" articles were changed, missing the entire point of wikipedia (once you submit, the text no longer is yours but is the whole community's).
Getting code from other GPL'ed projects, spinoffs or not, is not only not unethical, but is part of how the whole friggen thing works in the first place.
And how others have noted, they started *their* project by taking code from *your* project. So WTF.
Wow, if it's in all caps, bolded, and on a line by itself, it must be true!
Saying that school would have "reconditioned her mind" is a bit patronizing, don't you think? She may have been bored by school; but reprogrammed by it? I think not.
It's still NSFW, which I think is the biggest problem here. No matter how open you are or you think everyone else should be with various matters of depictions of sexuality, that kind of thing isn't appropriate to view on your computer in a lot of workplaces.
I really disagree with your characterization of "most environment and animal-related science" as being represented by the web sites you linked.
And I'm giving up mod points to say that.
Do you know anything about the *real* environmental and animal research going on, or do you base your impressions on the loudest screamers of the pop-science realm?
It's unclear that the ad is about a web browser until you've read the headline, waded through testimonials and finally make it to the body copy - by that time, the reader has already turned the page
What part of "Are you fed up with your web browser?" do you not think people will understand?
A couple problems.
on
Lego Logic Gates
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
As another poster mentioned, there's no gain in these devices, so after a few stages of friction loss and imperfections in the mechanisms, the whole thing will lock up. Electronic gates have inherent gain, and thus are resistant to noise and slight differences between gates.
Another problem is the way his clock works -- the clock has to go to zero before the set or clear bits can change. This won't happen in a real circuit -- generally everything changes just after the clock rises. One solution is some sort of two-phase system, where alternate flip flops use the rising and falling clocks, but I'm not sure how much this would limit the circuits you can build.
He mentions that "It is possible to build an edge detector for the clock signal. It requires a few more NAND gates. The advantage of doing this is that it no longer matters when the clock signal goes back to 0 and the indeterminant state is avoided." But I want to see it in action before I believe it.
Giving the gates gain may be possible, too, but it would require powering each gate, either with electrical power or some sort of funky mechanical setup.
Integrate with a Dasher-like interface?
on
Google Suggest
·
· Score: 1
Why am I picturing something like dasher with live search results integrated into its database? hmmmmm...
I'd say that the GPL and P2P generally make it tougher to make a living.
There may be some pressure from fellow geeks to only release GPL products... but the majority of users who won't be modifying the code probably don't care.
One reason GPL code may be harder to compete with, however, is the fact that GPL projects, just like big software companies' products, are generally made by a team of programmers vs your loneness, and it's harder to keep up to their level of work.
The Wikipedia process suffers from regression to the mean. Just as glaringly bad articles will be revised and polished, beautiful articles will be revised and destroyed.
This is certainly his thesis, but he provides esentially no evidence that it's true. It's unfortunate that the slashdot crowd is already parroting the argument he made, for no real reason other than it sounds good to them.
He cites only one piece of evidence to back up his assertion, and it's not even an especially good one: He completely ignores the fact that while the quality of the writing of the article and some self-consistancy issues have worsened, the *scope* of the article has greatly increased. Once the content and scope of an article stabilizes, then its quality starts to ramp up.
All one has to do is cite some of the absolutely *stellar* articles on wikipedia that have also undergone hundreds of edits, and it blows this "articles tend toward mediocrity" hypothesis out of the water.
Slashdot Mirror
its mostly gullible consumers who are fooled into this high-end boutique nonsense.
... and also their studios are chock full of heavily used tube gear.
pros use grungy zipcord for speaker wire, regular non-blessed common metal interconnects, and regular non-hospital IEC power cords. and they MIX the hell out of the sound, and it goes thru any NUMBER of eq stages, is compressed (and so on and so on).
Please stop talking out of your ass.
I've noticed this problem on Red Hot Chili Peppers' Californication ... it actually digitally clips throughout most of the lyrics. It bothered me so much that I stopped listening to the album.
Digital is better.
In every respect.
For reproduction and playback, perhaps.
But for recording and production, analog has its merits. But "audiophiles" don't care about that -- "recording professionals" do.
Someone must have forgotten to tell you that your individual experience doesn't automatically apply to the rest of the computing world...
There certainly are digital effects designed to "mimic" the sounds of tape or tubes, but those in the know still claim that they don't sound quite like the real thing.
And as the other poster mentioned, you still have to look out for hard clipping in the digital world, which means putting a limiter on your real-world signal at least. Analog gives you much more leway in that department.
Did you ever consider that saying you stopped accepting that the core of everything they believe in and the basis of everything they do had any value might be inherently hostile?
Saying that he doesn't accept the core of what they believe in is not hostile.
Saying that it has no value may be hostile, but luckily the OP didn't say that.
Putting words in peoples' mouths to try to prove a point can also be considered hostile.
Illegal combatants are designated as such because...
The problem is how to distinguish between "illegal combatants" performing acts of war, and foreign nationals performing criminal acts.
The bush administration is providing very shaky criteria with which to do this distinguishing -- a perpetual state of "war" on terrorism that may never terminate, legislation that redefines hoards of previously criminal acts as acts of "terrorism," etc. It's actually rather scary -- the scope of what constitutes an "enemy combatant" grows larger and larger without boundaries. Your "fuck 'em, they're enemy combatants" attitude demonstrates a grave lack of thoughtfulness into this (which seems to be shared with the president).
You're right, that's not a very good link. There actually is an article on wikipedia detailing and responding to criticisms about it. When wikipedia stops being down for me (my personal biggest gripe with wikipedia -- its downtime) i'll go change that link for you ;)
After all, every page is editable. If that link annoyed you, why didn't you change it?
There's a lot of talk about some sort of editorial system / peer review / approved article / version 1.0 / what-have-you at Wikipedia already. See here for starters. Jimbo Wales has even talked about it. Perhaps people should check out what's actually going on at Wikipedia instead of speculatively bashing it/writing suggestion articles about it/etc with their backs apparently turned?
I don't come to works of fiction with the idea that I should have to scrutinize or learn invented languages and read appendices and so on
Man, you're either just a big fucking troll or a big fucking whiner. Where are you getting this crap from? You don't have to even glance in the direction of the appendices to understand what's going on in the book, nor do you have to know a lick of any of the invented languages.
Except that the GPL is a copyright license.
patent license != copyright license
The GPL provision dealing with patents will not be a license grant, it will be a condition of redistributing GPL'd works.
A "copyright license" is just something put in writing by the copyright holder, explaining how they wish to exercise their various rights. While it's true that copyright != patent, I see no reason why you can't include a copyright license and a patent license in the same document (as long as you are also the patent holder or have rights to re-license it). IANAL, though.
For instance, if a term in your new GPL said something like "additionally, upon release of the work covered by this copyright, all patents used in the work are hereby licensed for use in derivative works and other GPL'ed works, and are licensed for re-license under and only under this clause of the GPL" would that not apply? Why not? Is there something special you have to do to grant patent license beyond what you need to do to grant copyright license (ie, put it in writing)?
1) I start to get worried when an implementation of a nice clean idea (such as Free Software) starts getting bogged down in special cases and exceptions. The philosopher in me wants to distill it down to first principles. The programmer in me wants to refactor and see how things can be more cleanly generalized. Special cases are often bad, and reflect a fundamental flaw in the general coverage of an idea (for example, whether you agree with its intention or not, the Assault Weapons Ban was a pretty Bad law, due to the fact that it almost entirely was based on special cases and exceptions with no general definition of what constitutes an "assault weapon.")
The GPL's need to make an exception for linking with OS libraries, for instance, therefore bothers my sensibilities. And Stallman's thoughts of adding clauses to the GPL so you are forbidden from removing certain kinds of features ("remote download of modified versions" or whatnot) knocks my sensibilities completely over, as do thoughts of restrictions on where the GPL software can be used (can't use them on hardware that only runs a specific version!).
2) "I'm trying to stop people from creating new licenses," Fink said. "To the extent we can create a license that has a broader buy-in, that stops proliferation of more licenses, that to me is goodness."
Uhm, what? No! Variety is the spice of life, and it's up to the creator of the copyright to decide which license they want to put on their work. You cannot "stop" them from creating, or using, new licenses, and you should not want to or try to, either! That to me is badness. What's the point of license homogeneity?
Reminds me of some people on wikipedia who get upset because "their" articles were changed, missing the entire point of wikipedia (once you submit, the text no longer is yours but is the whole community's).
Getting code from other GPL'ed projects, spinoffs or not, is not only not unethical, but is part of how the whole friggen thing works in the first place.
And how others have noted, they started *their* project by taking code from *your* project. So WTF.
Wow, if it's in all caps, bolded, and on a line by itself, it must be true!
Saying that school would have "reconditioned her mind" is a bit patronizing, don't you think? She may have been bored by school; but reprogrammed by it? I think not.
This is bourne out in the recent outbreaks of win32 malware.
Explain how.
It's easy to bash something. It's much more difficult to support your assertions logically.
Sheesh.
It's still NSFW, which I think is the biggest problem here. No matter how open you are or you think everyone else should be with various matters of depictions of sexuality, that kind of thing isn't appropriate to view on your computer in a lot of workplaces.
I really disagree with your characterization of "most environment and animal-related science" as being represented by the web sites you linked.
And I'm giving up mod points to say that.
Do you know anything about the *real* environmental and animal research going on, or do you base your impressions on the loudest screamers of the pop-science realm?
It's unclear that the ad is about a web browser until you've read the headline, waded through testimonials and finally make it to the body copy - by that time, the reader has already turned the page
What part of "Are you fed up with your web browser?" do you not think people will understand?
As another poster mentioned, there's no gain in these devices, so after a few stages of friction loss and imperfections in the mechanisms, the whole thing will lock up. Electronic gates have inherent gain, and thus are resistant to noise and slight differences between gates.
Another problem is the way his clock works -- the clock has to go to zero before the set or clear bits can change. This won't happen in a real circuit -- generally everything changes just after the clock rises. One solution is some sort of two-phase system, where alternate flip flops use the rising and falling clocks, but I'm not sure how much this would limit the circuits you can build.
He mentions that "It is possible to build an edge detector for the clock signal. It requires a few more NAND gates. The advantage of doing this is that it no longer matters when the clock signal goes back to 0 and the indeterminant state is avoided." But I want to see it in action before I believe it.
Giving the gates gain may be possible, too, but it would require powering each gate, either with electrical power or some sort of funky mechanical setup.
Why am I picturing something like dasher with live search results integrated into its database? hmmmmm...
hw culd using teh net hurt lerning?? u get lots of prcatice lrning hw 2 rite n use gramer & english! isnt writing skilz importnt 4 schol & acadaimea??
I found this photograph... maybe that will help?
I found this photograph... maybe that will help?
I'd say that the GPL and P2P generally make it tougher to make a living.
There may be some pressure from fellow geeks to only release GPL products... but the majority of users who won't be modifying the code probably don't care.
One reason GPL code may be harder to compete with, however, is the fact that GPL projects, just like big software companies' products, are generally made by a team of programmers vs your loneness, and it's harder to keep up to their level of work.
The Wikipedia process suffers from regression to the mean. Just as glaringly bad articles will be revised and polished, beautiful articles will be revised and destroyed.
This is certainly his thesis, but he provides esentially no evidence that it's true. It's unfortunate that the slashdot crowd is already parroting the argument he made, for no real reason other than it sounds good to them.
He cites only one piece of evidence to back up his assertion, and it's not even an especially good one: He completely ignores the fact that while the quality of the writing of the article and some self-consistancy issues have worsened, the *scope* of the article has greatly increased. Once the content and scope of an article stabilizes, then its quality starts to ramp up.
All one has to do is cite some of the absolutely *stellar* articles on wikipedia that have also undergone hundreds of edits, and it blows this "articles tend toward mediocrity" hypothesis out of the water.