*agree completely with parent*. I have my computer in dual-boot between Linux and Windows. Linux takes 8GB for all my work and internet surfing and crosscompilers and such, and Windows runs on 30GB just for games.
You are implying that if you keep repeating it you can compress anything to one short URL?
The FBI has been warned, they're on the way to arrest you for [url=http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sec t1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.h tml&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=5533051.WKU.&OS =PN/5533051&RS=PN/5533051]patent on infinite compression[/url] violation.
Page 3, line 34 of the patent states:
A second aspect of the present invention which further enhances its ability
to achieve high compression percentages, is its ability to be applied to
data recursively. Specifically, the methods of the present invention are
able to make multiple passes over a file, each time further compressing the
file. Thus, a series of recursions are repeated until the desired
compression level is achieved.
Page 27, line 18 of the patent states that the claimed method can compress without loss *all* files by at least one bit:
the direct bit encode method of the present invention is effective for
reducing an input string by one bit regardless of the bit pattern of the
input string.
Above two bits quoted from the comp.compression FAQ.
You CAN NOT make something impossible which is REQUIRED for the function of the device. You cannot make a TV that doesn't display images. You cannot make a camcorder that doesn't make a movie of what it sees.
The only thing DRM can do is make NEW camcorders not work on a certain type of output anymore. You CAN NOT require me to buy one of those, but I can most certainly keep using an old one that doesn't give a d*mn. You cannot detect in the TV anywhere that I'm doing as such, so you cannot stop playing it (or you wouldn't have a functional TV), and the camcorder cannot be hacked as such to make me not record anything.
The only thing that could work is the governments banning use of camcorders that don't use that kind of DRM. Until the entire world is one really big version of 1984 I don't see that happening world-wide. Perhaps just in the nation run by profiteering gluttons.
My point is that camcorders will be changed to match the human perception closely since they're trying to record what you see and hear. If you cannot hear and or see a movie, it's broken. If you can hear and see it, you can thus theoretically always copy it, given an open type of camcorder. Of course, you'd be plain stupid trying to get any companies' camcorder to record those things, since they have a lot to earn by making it impossible. Yet, by disabling recording of those movies through they also disable recording any other use of that method. Using IR sources for making it impossible also makes it hard for you to make a picture of an oven or on a hot day. Putting "This camera cannot be used in temperatures above 80F/25C" will certainly not help sales.
As for watermarking, you could do that but any functional watermark damages/changes the film. If it doesn't change the film it's filtered out by compression using lossy formats (which most people do) because they leave out exactly what you can't see or don't notice.
Foolproof method of copying any type of copyprotected AV that is still usable:
1. buy camcorder. 2. point at TV. 3. not-copy-protected copy of decent quality (or profit, depending on the way you look at it).
The only way to protect against this is to either make it impossible for a plain camcorder to record the images (which means that your eyes can also not see them, rendering it impossible for them to make any form of business) or to not allow you to use a camcorder (which is very hard to do in your own home).
My hobby OS (am moderator at www.mega-tokyo.com - OS development board) has around 8000 lines of code for just the core of the kernel... Must admit, I probably do have better support for threads and more layers and hierarchical constructs to make the code maintainable. It takes him years to bring out a new version, it takes me only a few months.
Might I advise requiring a laserprinter? I think my needs are quicker than a dot-matrix printer and an inkjet... well... let's not wait until the ink dries either.
Linux is user friendly. When you tell it in its language how to do something it does that.
Windows is not user friendly. Even when completely understanding the entire model of windows including all setup and so on, it blatantly doesn't work or does something else altogether.
Somebody at FCC figured 1800 would not fit for mobile phones, so let's put them at 1900. Oh wait, now where to put DECT... let's think... Ah forget DECT, nobody's going to use it.
The US (FCC) standards are just different, and in this case worse. Please do start to conform to the rest of the world.
Except for the Microsoft MSN stuff, I don't understand why it's popular here.
The OS should support any software you deem good to run on it while withstand attacks from software doing stuff without your permission. Preventing all malware thereby is NOT an OS task, since who's going to prevent your programs from being considered malware and therefore not run?
One part makes the engine (the kernel), the second part makes a check on it to prevent you from running stuff that corrupts other tasks (the user-layer wrapper around the kernel) and a third part allows you to do stuff to all software equivalently (the user-side OS support tools that have exceptions from some limits). Or in microsoft terms, the user-layer wrapper is left out (is faster without) and the software-side doesn't have any exception because that makes it faster. OK, leaving my car at a car park in front of the department shop with open doors and the engine running can get me out of the car park quicker, but don't come to me that it's a task of the car developers to keep me from that.
Slashdot Mirror
*agree completely with parent*. I have my computer in dual-boot between Linux and Windows. Linux takes 8GB for all my work and internet surfing and crosscompilers and such, and Windows runs on 30GB just for games.
But VS.Net is bloated!
Anyway, when I try to go to the start of the line and type it erases all of my text. How could you not notice that?
hm... then again, it could well be:
s s%22&meta= => 917 hits.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22dielectric+stre
Nope, it isn't.
There was a point I was trying to make with my reply and you completely missed it.
You are implying that if you keep repeating it you can compress anything to one short URL?
c t1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.h tml&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=5533051.WKU.&OS =PN/5533051&RS=PN/5533051]patent on infinite compression[/url] violation.
The FBI has been warned, they're on the way to arrest you for [url=http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Se
Page 3, line 34 of the patent states:
A second aspect of the present invention which further enhances its ability
to achieve high compression percentages, is its ability to be applied to
data recursively. Specifically, the methods of the present invention are
able to make multiple passes over a file, each time further compressing the
file. Thus, a series of recursions are repeated until the desired
compression level is achieved.
Page 27, line 18 of the patent states that the claimed method can compress
without loss *all* files by at least one bit:
the direct bit encode method of the present invention is effective for
reducing an input string by one bit regardless of the bit pattern of the
input string.
Above two bits quoted from the comp.compression FAQ.
You CAN NOT make something impossible which is REQUIRED for the function of the device. You cannot make a TV that doesn't display images. You cannot make a camcorder that doesn't make a movie of what it sees.
The only thing DRM can do is make NEW camcorders not work on a certain type of output anymore. You CAN NOT require me to buy one of those, but I can most certainly keep using an old one that doesn't give a d*mn. You cannot detect in the TV anywhere that I'm doing as such, so you cannot stop playing it (or you wouldn't have a functional TV), and the camcorder cannot be hacked as such to make me not record anything.
The only thing that could work is the governments banning use of camcorders that don't use that kind of DRM. Until the entire world is one really big version of 1984 I don't see that happening world-wide. Perhaps just in the nation run by profiteering gluttons.
My point is that camcorders will be changed to match the human perception closely since they're trying to record what you see and hear. If you cannot hear and or see a movie, it's broken. If you can hear and see it, you can thus theoretically always copy it, given an open type of camcorder. Of course, you'd be plain stupid trying to get any companies' camcorder to record those things, since they have a lot to earn by making it impossible. Yet, by disabling recording of those movies through they also disable recording any other use of that method. Using IR sources for making it impossible also makes it hard for you to make a picture of an oven or on a hot day. Putting "This camera cannot be used in temperatures above 80F/25C" will certainly not help sales.
As for watermarking, you could do that but any functional watermark damages/changes the film. If it doesn't change the film it's filtered out by compression using lossy formats (which most people do) because they leave out exactly what you can't see or don't notice.
Foolproof method of copying any type of copyprotected AV that is still usable:
1. buy camcorder.
2. point at TV.
3. not-copy-protected copy of decent quality (or profit, depending on the way you look at it).
The only way to protect against this is to either make it impossible for a plain camcorder to record the images (which means that your eyes can also not see them, rendering it impossible for them to make any form of business) or to not allow you to use a camcorder (which is very hard to do in your own home).
Step 3: Profit ?
You could just put your laptop on a bunch of self-adhesive feet you can buy at any home depot-ish store. They come ready-made!
small car companies like Smart who really should be looking harder at the American market
there IS no American market for small cars.
No, rest assured, it's definately not the comments...
My hobby OS (am moderator at www.mega-tokyo.com - OS development board) has around 8000 lines of code for just the core of the kernel... Must admit, I probably do have better support for threads and more layers and hierarchical constructs to make the code maintainable. It takes him years to bring out a new version, it takes me only a few months.
That would be a DNA buggy at that scale. Enjoy it and please don't cross the continuous carbon chains.
ifconfig eth0
ifconfig eth0:0
well, that is probably been like that for around... well... 30 years?
Microsoft is "Innovating" again.
It's for all firefoxes BELOW 1.0.7. The topic title suggests the exact opposite, that it's only for 1.0.7.
> our cars never have to communicate between each other
Cars can kiss. When they do, it's a problem if one is driving a hummer and the other a smart.
Might I advise requiring a laserprinter? I think my needs are quicker than a dot-matrix printer and an inkjet... well... let's not wait until the ink dries either.
The big question is: Does it run on Lynx and Links?
Linux is user friendly. When you tell it in its language how to do something it does that.
Windows is not user friendly. Even when completely understanding the entire model of windows including all setup and so on, it blatantly doesn't work or does something else altogether.
Somebody at FCC figured 1800 would not fit for mobile phones, so let's put them at 1900. Oh wait, now where to put DECT... let's think... Ah forget DECT, nobody's going to use it.
The US (FCC) standards are just different, and in this case worse. Please do start to conform to the rest of the world.
Except for the Microsoft MSN stuff, I don't understand why it's popular here.
I still have to see the first voting ballot on which you can actually vote explicitly against one candidate.
Now all of Europe's going to be completely overwhelmed with advertisements for political parties they cannot even vote for.
The OS should support any software you deem good to run on it while withstand attacks from software doing stuff without your permission. Preventing all malware thereby is NOT an OS task, since who's going to prevent your programs from being considered malware and therefore not run?
One part makes the engine (the kernel), the second part makes a check on it to prevent you from running stuff that corrupts other tasks (the user-layer wrapper around the kernel) and a third part allows you to do stuff to all software equivalently (the user-side OS support tools that have exceptions from some limits). Or in microsoft terms, the user-layer wrapper is left out (is faster without) and the software-side doesn't have any exception because that makes it faster. OK, leaving my car at a car park in front of the department shop with open doors and the engine running can get me out of the car park quicker, but don't come to me that it's a task of the car developers to keep me from that.