The compressed output may have more punch, but it also loses the peaks, & just sounds bad in comparison to uncompressed audio to most people, because it loses it's dynamic range. It's also known as being over-mastered. Here's a great article about it: http://www.prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/articles /8A133F52D0FD71AB86256C2E005DAF1C
Think about that statement - if it's overrated, it's liked by more people than it should be, & to a greater degree than it should be. So just because it's not good enough to take the console market, doesn't mean it won't.
How does a signature work? I really don't know, but the name implies there's a constant which somehow leads to the actual deciding factor in any test of the sig. On the net, an SSL sig can be changed fairly often, right? But on the 360, it's one for the rest of the unit's life - for the game to check it would mean only one, the same for every system. This surely cuts down on the effectiveness? Of course I don't know how hard a signature is to reverse engineer...
How would they enforce such a system? The chip would be unique, so the identification would have to be algorithmic; this means the algorithm can likely be reverse engineered. If it was a hash like MD5 or SHA1 or something, the number of keys they could use would be too small. Either way, a mod chip could beat it.
"Thou shalt not kill" isn't as clear-cut as it seems - the original is more along the lines of not murdering. It doesn't really apply to punishment, war etc. Of course, it's not like GTA has those; GTA has the murder, so the commandment would still apply... if it wasn't a game.
First to file is actually better provided you do it the way most of the world does, i.e. prior art invalidates the application, no appeals. If however they go first to file without prior art invalidating the application, then you're screwed.
(BTW do standards designers ever spell check their documents? referrer has four Rs in it, not 3)
And the reply:
A misspelling of 'referrer' which somehow made it into the HTTP standard.
Are you really this culturally ignorant? The British, Australians, etc., in fact any English speakers who got it from the Poms & not the Yanks spell it 'referer.' We also tend to put our punctuation inside quotes, now that I think of it. It's strange that it got into the HTTP standard, that being an American initiative, but it's not a misspelling.
Do you mean to say that animals are morally superior to humans simply by not being human themselves? Is being human really such an evil, heinous crime?
Apple is the most proprietary plattform, much worse than win XP.
That depends on how you look at it.
On the software side, Windows is most certainly more proprietry. There is no open-source code in Windows or the utilities included with it, whatsoever, of any sort. The best you can hope is to download the leaked Windows 2000 source code, & trust me you won't get much out of that; it's incomplete & out of date. The best available is their 'Shared Source,' & I'm sure you've picked up how most Slashdotters feel about that deal... Apple on the other hand has large amounts of the base system open-sourced, & have even opened some of their own lower-level applications. Only the GUI & things like Rosetta are closed (admittedly that is most of what makes a Mac a Mac).
Re hardware, Windows runs on the fairly open PC architecture. The hardware isn't proprietry to MS, only to the individual manufacturers. Apple controls it's hardware, so it is proprietry.
What's the difference here? Basically that Microsoft don't provide an entire platform, but what they do provide is more proprietry than Apple's equivilent. Hardware doesn't count until Microsoft ship entire PCs themselves, m'kay?
I don't worry about fat content, and have learned that that great tasting burger and steak you used to have as a youngster (if near my age) was due to fat content.
You should worry... the fat doesn't only make meat taste better, it helps it cook. Meat doesn't conduct heat quickly enough to kill all germs & other nasties before it burns on the outside - in mince it's even worse, so much so that it needs to be one third fat by law in Australia. Not only should you want the fat, you actually need the fat.
I tend to agree... I don't see any valid reason for cookies bar one, & I'm not even sure if that one is valid: keeping session logins. AFAIK certificates can't do that, & I don't consider UIDs in a GET parameter good enough. There is no reason to store any information in a cookie except tracking data. Session logins need that; nothing else should even get a look in.
As an aside, what browser other than IE doesn't let you manage your certificates? I suppose it depends how in-depth you want to control them... I personally know nothing about their internals, so I can't comment further.
I want to know why it's ethical to kill plants, but not ethical to kill animals.
Because an animal appears to have a sense of self, & can think to some degree. Plants don't & can't. I might be wrong, maybe plants can think & animals are running on instinct, but do you seriously believe that? No, & nor do the people who feel you shouldn't kill animals but it's OK to kill plants.
Mozilla actually has a tools->cookies menu that lets you quickly block or unblock cookies from a site. Why doesn't firefox?
Remember what exactly Firefox is? It's Mozilla Lite. It was created specifically because people wanted a slimline browser without feature bloat. For some reason they think this is feature bloat... don't ask me why.
But the nature of forms, or cookies for that matter, is that similar information has to be passed again and again to many different servers. A useful browser enhancement would be to have a configuration window where such information could be recorded canonically against a set of tags. Then to fill in a new form, you'd just supply the appropriate tag. Later, if you needed, say, to change an account number or an address, you'd only do it in one place, the configuration window. Neither cookies nor server-side databases can do that for you!
But Opera can.
Or it does something so close to what you mean that I find no effective difference. Site-specific information would still need to be edited under your system, & Opera doesn't support that beyond password management & cookie editing. But global information such as your address, your name, phone, etc. can be held by the browser (encrypted of course), & inserted with two clicks or a few keystrokes.
Also, you can remove Opera, unlike Gator; Opera is useful, unlike Gator; you can avoid the ads easily, unlike Gator (serials take the form w-* for Windows, u-* for *nix, & I've seen m-*, so they're prob'ly for OS X).
There's no comparison. The only similarity is the presence of ads, & the ones in Opera are pretty inoffensive. Honestly, if you're that peeved, learn to use Google. Most of the Opera's userbase probably uses the same 10 serial numbers.
Firefox consumes far more resources than IE (although admittedly it also accomplishes far more).
This isn't really an excuse; Opera does more than the two of them put together, & with similar numbers of pages open, uses less resources than Firefox easily. I'm not sure about IE, but it's built into the OS, so it's probably more in total, but less in contrast to what it would use if it was running standalone (this is a wild guess though).
Drugs are bad, m'kay? They're illegal, it's part of criminal law. You are not allowed to even possess drugs, though the system does make allowances.
However, copyrighted works (in other words, MP3s) are quite legal; they are not a prohibited item. You are allowed to have them, though how you obtain them can change that. The point is that in & of themselves, they are not banned.
Furthurmore, copyright law protects a monopoly on the right to distribute & publish the work in question. If I offer a copyrighted MP3, I am not distributing or publishing or whatever. I'm saying "I've got this, you could copy it." Once copied, I have republished without permission, & so have infringed copyright.
Pretty simple really. Offering a file for download but not delivering doesn't infringe copyright, so it isn't illegal.
Cavéat: This isn't to say that you possess the file legally anyhow... but it has no bearing on the point you raise.
Slashdot Mirror
DPS? Is that deaths per second or something? Sorry, I've never played WoW...
The compressed output may have more punch, but it also loses the peaks, & just sounds bad in comparison to uncompressed audio to most people, because it loses it's dynamic range. It's also known as being over-mastered. Here's a great article about it: http://www.prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/articles /8A133F52D0FD71AB86256C2E005DAF1C
Whoops, I totally cocked up & didn't realise until it was too late. 'e' is the natural logarithm, exponential is '^', i.e. 3^2 = 9.
Just to elaborate on what others have replied, 'E' means 'times 10 to the power of,' while 'e' is exponent. Case matters ^_^
Think about that statement - if it's overrated, it's liked by more people than it should be, & to a greater degree than it should be. So just because it's not good enough to take the console market, doesn't mean it won't.
That said, I agree on both points.
Reiser4 doesn't appear to be doing a great deal more than NTFS was designed to do 15 years ago.
I don't know about other functionality, but NTFS is slower than FAT32 in most situations, while Reiser4 is a good deal faster.
How does a signature work? I really don't know, but the name implies there's a constant which somehow leads to the actual deciding factor in any test of the sig. On the net, an SSL sig can be changed fairly often, right? But on the 360, it's one for the rest of the unit's life - for the game to check it would mean only one, the same for every system. This surely cuts down on the effectiveness? Of course I don't know how hard a signature is to reverse engineer...
How would they enforce such a system? The chip would be unique, so the identification would have to be algorithmic; this means the algorithm can likely be reverse engineered. If it was a hash like MD5 or SHA1 or something, the number of keys they could use would be too small. Either way, a mod chip could beat it.
"Thou shalt not kill" isn't as clear-cut as it seems - the original is more along the lines of not murdering. It doesn't really apply to punishment, war etc. Of course, it's not like GTA has those; GTA has the murder, so the commandment would still apply... if it wasn't a game.
Fair enough dude.
First to file is actually better provided you do it the way most of the world does, i.e. prior art invalidates the application, no appeals. If however they go first to file without prior art invalidating the application, then you're screwed.
(BTW do standards designers ever spell check their documents? referrer has four Rs in it, not 3)
And the reply:
A misspelling of 'referrer' which somehow made it into the HTTP standard.
Are you really this culturally ignorant? The British, Australians, etc., in fact any English speakers who got it from the Poms & not the Yanks spell it 'referer.' We also tend to put our punctuation inside quotes, now that I think of it. It's strange that it got into the HTTP standard, that being an American initiative, but it's not a misspelling.
Animals are innocent
Oh? Really?
Do you mean to say that animals are morally superior to humans simply by not being human themselves? Is being human really such an evil, heinous crime?
Apple is the most proprietary plattform, much worse than win XP.
That depends on how you look at it.
On the software side, Windows is most certainly more proprietry. There is no open-source code in Windows or the utilities included with it, whatsoever, of any sort. The best you can hope is to download the leaked Windows 2000 source code, & trust me you won't get much out of that; it's incomplete & out of date. The best available is their 'Shared Source,' & I'm sure you've picked up how most Slashdotters feel about that deal... Apple on the other hand has large amounts of the base system open-sourced, & have even opened some of their own lower-level applications. Only the GUI & things like Rosetta are closed (admittedly that is most of what makes a Mac a Mac).
Re hardware, Windows runs on the fairly open PC architecture. The hardware isn't proprietry to MS, only to the individual manufacturers. Apple controls it's hardware, so it is proprietry.
What's the difference here? Basically that Microsoft don't provide an entire platform, but what they do provide is more proprietry than Apple's equivilent. Hardware doesn't count until Microsoft ship entire PCs themselves, m'kay?
Righto then. That makes sense & squares with what I know. Give yourself a pat on the back, you've just made a convert.
I don't worry about fat content, and have learned that that great tasting burger and steak you used to have as a youngster (if near my age) was due to fat content.
You should worry... the fat doesn't only make meat taste better, it helps it cook. Meat doesn't conduct heat quickly enough to kill all germs & other nasties before it burns on the outside - in mince it's even worse, so much so that it needs to be one third fat by law in Australia. Not only should you want the fat, you actually need the fat.Unless you eat your steak raw.
I tend to agree... I don't see any valid reason for cookies bar one, & I'm not even sure if that one is valid: keeping session logins. AFAIK certificates can't do that, & I don't consider UIDs in a GET parameter good enough. There is no reason to store any information in a cookie except tracking data. Session logins need that; nothing else should even get a look in.
As an aside, what browser other than IE doesn't let you manage your certificates? I suppose it depends how in-depth you want to control them... I personally know nothing about their internals, so I can't comment further.
I want to know why it's ethical to kill plants, but not ethical to kill animals.
Because an animal appears to have a sense of self, & can think to some degree. Plants don't & can't. I might be wrong, maybe plants can think & animals are running on instinct, but do you seriously believe that? No, & nor do the people who feel you shouldn't kill animals but it's OK to kill plants.
Animals also tend to be cuter than plants.
Mozilla actually has a tools->cookies menu that lets you quickly block or unblock cookies from a site. Why doesn't firefox?
Remember what exactly Firefox is? It's Mozilla Lite. It was created specifically because people wanted a slimline browser without feature bloat. For some reason they think this is feature bloat... don't ask me why.
But the nature of forms, or cookies for that matter, is that similar information has to be passed again and again to many different servers. A useful browser enhancement would be to have a configuration window where such information could be recorded canonically against a set of tags. Then to fill in a new form, you'd just supply the appropriate tag. Later, if you needed, say, to change an account number or an address, you'd only do it in one place, the configuration window. Neither cookies nor server-side databases can do that for you!
But Opera can.
Or it does something so close to what you mean that I find no effective difference. Site-specific information would still need to be edited under your system, & Opera doesn't support that beyond password management & cookie editing. But global information such as your address, your name, phone, etc. can be held by the browser (encrypted of course), & inserted with two clicks or a few keystrokes.
Also, you can remove Opera, unlike Gator; Opera is useful, unlike Gator; you can avoid the ads easily, unlike Gator (serials take the form w-* for Windows, u-* for *nix, & I've seen m-*, so they're prob'ly for OS X).
There's no comparison. The only similarity is the presence of ads, & the ones in Opera are pretty inoffensive. Honestly, if you're that peeved, learn to use Google. Most of the Opera's userbase probably uses the same 10 serial numbers.
Disclaimer: I'm using Opera to post this.
Firefox consumes far more resources than IE (although admittedly it also accomplishes far more).
This isn't really an excuse; Opera does more than the two of them put together, & with similar numbers of pages open, uses less resources than Firefox easily. I'm not sure about IE, but it's built into the OS, so it's probably more in total, but less in contrast to what it would use if it was running standalone (this is a wild guess though).
Basically, you're screwed.
It's a flawed analogy.
Drugs are bad, m'kay? They're illegal, it's part of criminal law. You are not allowed to even possess drugs, though the system does make allowances.
However, copyrighted works (in other words, MP3s) are quite legal; they are not a prohibited item. You are allowed to have them, though how you obtain them can change that. The point is that in & of themselves, they are not banned.
Furthurmore, copyright law protects a monopoly on the right to distribute & publish the work in question. If I offer a copyrighted MP3, I am not distributing or publishing or whatever. I'm saying "I've got this, you could copy it." Once copied, I have republished without permission, & so have infringed copyright.
Pretty simple really. Offering a file for download but not delivering doesn't infringe copyright, so it isn't illegal.
Cavéat: This isn't to say that you possess the file legally anyhow... but it has no bearing on the point you raise.
Seems it is time for a website like notrustedcomputing.org (by analogy with nosoftwarepatents.org).
There already is: http://www.againsttcpa.com/.