Apparently, you didn't read my comment very carefully (or I didn't make my own bias clear enough). I stated that the only reason that those companies can make money is because laws have artificially defined "ideas" as a good, and they are selling that good. (Of course, then they use that money to maintain the status quo or to extend it further on their own behalf.)
I personally don't like how far the law has extended these definitions.
Why should the family of artists be granted extended rights to the artist's work (after they are dead)? They didn't do the work. It doesn't benefit society in any fashion. What you're really asking for is welfare for artist's families, and using an anecdote to "prove" the need.
If you write the Great American Novel or the Great American Software Package, then you should save enough money from the proceeds to provide for you & your family, even after you are gone. Your family shouldn't get a free ride at society's expense just because you were able to make some bucks off a "product" whose value was artificially created by society in the first place. If you weren't able to provide enough for them while you were around, then they'll have to either do something themselves to make money, or they'll have to ask other people for help.
Having the GNU blinders on, means the author misses the reality that wealth is built on Intellectual Property. The idea behind the GPL is to tear down IP. Using a BSD licence and BSD software means you can create economic value by choosing to protect IP. By actualling having IP to bring to the economic table, the "digitally divided" have IP to barter for money.
Apparently, somebody has their own "intellectual property" blinders on. "Wealth" is not built on intellectual property, it's built by providing goods & services. If laws hadn't redefined ideas as a "good", nobody would be able to make money by controlling ideas - they'd have to do it providing real goods & services. And the poor would be able to use any of ideas that they could take advantage of to help their own situation.
Is anyone using SDF (Simple Document Format)? I ran across it at http://www.mincom.com/mtr/sdf - the last update was at 25-May-99, so I don't think it's being actively maintained anymore (unless it's being maintained elsewhere).
Interesting...people from the United States get called American, whereas anybody else from any of the countries on either the North or South American continents get a label specific to their country.
I guess it's too easy to point out the ego involved here, but I'll do it anyway.
Of course, from a purely aesthetic viewpoint, USian sounds horrible - perhaps he could've used Yankee? (But that might offend some US Southerners...:-)
I've got the two-tuner DirecTiVo unit, and I love it! It significantly reduces the chances of programming conflict, and I can play a prerecorded show while the two tuners are busy (there are infrequent, occasional playback glitches when I've got the system this busy, perhaps 1-2 for a 1 hour show).
There's three main things I'd would like to see:
1. Being able to get the TiVo data through my IP connection instead of through the phone line.
2. 30-second commercial skip (or just skip the commercials all together, but I suspect the advertisers wouldn't go for that).
3. Better control over my VCR so that I can build my own personal archives of my favorite shows
Making your virtual objects behave like real objects allows people to use their own physical intuition to play the game. You can't just inject different "physics" solely because it's easier to implement - if you want people to feel comfortable in your environment, then the physics have to make sense to them. Even though we might not understand the subject in terms of mathematics, our 'custom-grown' neural networks (brains) are very good at realizing when something isn't behaving naturally, although the people might not be able to tell you anything more specific than "this doesn't feel right".
As far as space missiles go, you have two "realistic" options - either you're shooting missiles in the context of a planet, in which case you've got to deal with the gravitional field of a planet, or you're shooting "space" missiles in deep space - in which case the trajectories are straight lines anyway. In neither case is the resultant trajectory quadratic. To get constant acceleration behavior (with quadratic trajectories), you are no longer using "space" missiles.
This is all well and good when you are trying to do something important, like simulating heat flow within in a heatsink. But for simulating the orbits of planets around a star, for example? What a waste of time! The orbit is elliptical, so just simulate a freaking ellipse!
That's only true in a two-body system.
What about space missiles? Do you need Euler integration? No! There is a closed-form solution to the linear acceleration problem -- it's a quadratic. This procedure does not give low error. It gives zero error.
Only if you assume a flat earth with constant acceleration at all altitudes - which is an incorrect assumption when you're trying to model intercontinental ballistics.
I read this guy's articles several months ago. I thought he was off his rocker then, and I still think so now.
Apparently, your soon-to-be degree in physics doesn't imply a degree in common sense.
I don't think tooltips are a complete hack - I think that well-labeled tooltips have their place just like a well-drawn icon. Some of your customers will have different preferred modalities (they'll like reading text versus looking at a picture, or vice versa), so providing both will satisfy more customers (as long as the implementation of both doesn't interfere with the other).
Probably longer than the US, once Russia & China started launching nuclear missiles. Granted, that would've been a two-way exchange, but the results would have hardly been satisfactory.
Actually, if you think about it, this kind of approach would work pretty well for an encrypted/distributed sharing network like Freenet, where individual nodes of the may or may not be available. You can take all of the pieces of the given file & spew them to lots of different parts of the network, then a client can just go around asking different nodes in the network for any pieces of that file until the client has collected enough of the pieces to form the whole.
Don't really care whether its wireless or not, but being able to see what my family was doing on the computer when they call up asking for help would make MY life a helluva lot easier!
Of course, there is the nontrivial barrier of inventing an artificial form of cellular respiration (or other means of extracting energy from glucose) that will fit in whatever physical constraints this device needs to have.
Instead of trying to imitate the process of cellular respiration directly, perhaps it might be easier to build something which is fuel-cell like, converting the sugars that it scavenges from the bloodstream into electricity.
As far as getting such an implant "hooked into" the circulatory system, I would imagine that after installation, the implant could release some of those body-hormones which cause new blood vessels to grow into the signaling tissue (the same chemical control that tumors & damaged heart tissue use to get more blood supply). God help you if the implant gets ripped out of your body though:(
In a way, it might be good if the implant is _so_ different from the body that it doesn't have any recognizable proteins to trigger rejection from the body's immune system.
Hmmm...that would definitely be an interesting way to power cybernetic implants, where the implant can use the same types of simple sugars that the body uses to fuel itself, perhaps via some fuel cell-like technology, to generate & store energy for its own functionality.
It certainly would be dangerous for someone with blood sugar control problems (e.g., diabetic), although if the implant is smart enough, it might be able to _provide_ that control for someone.
For those of us whose level of physical activity is much lower than our calorie intake, this kind of implant might be the only "practical" barrier between us & obesity:-)
Re:same reason we still run gasoline engines.....
on
Clockless Chips
·
· Score: 2
Hmmm, must've been using some kind of time-sensitive design.
The really robust clockless (asynchronous) design is completely functionally insensitive to changes in temperature or voltage (as long as it's w/in operating specs of the silicon, of course). The environment only affects the performance of the design.
Umm, I believe that Microsoft's total assets are larger than IBM's - not that IBM is a small company, but it certainly doesn't have more money on their hands than "Microsoft could dream of".
Re:anti-Microsoft conspiracy theories
on
MS DOS: A Eulogy
·
· Score: 1
Besides, if MS-DOS had really been a copy of CP/M, wouldn't it have also implemented the PIP and STAT commands?
Ack - PIP! I remember trying to use that to test my 300 baud Hayes Smartmodem (Got the modem before I got a term program:-)
I guess it depends on what you think assert() should be used for. My understanding of assert(), is that it is only intended for non-side-effect debug checking - in essence, making sure that things which are supposed to be true (or false) actually are. assert() is not intended to be used for anything which might change stored values or the control flow of the process.
In other words, if you are using assert() for such things, then you are using it incorrectly.
Ummmm...I wouldn't wrap it around _any_ function call, since when you compile with the NDEBUG flag (usually in conjuction with the -O optimization flag), anything inside the assert() gets turned into a null statement.
More accurately, you commonly use the built-in assert() macro to check the values of variables which were used to save the return values from functions. And you've got to make sure that evaluating those expressions don't cause any side effects, otherwise you're setting yourself up for some hair-ripping debugging.
Slashdot Mirror
Damn, can I do this at home? I'd love to be more energetic at home instead of lying around all the time sleeping.
From a cold start, though, you need enough time to get the tea hot.
Cost effective for who? With public funds, I generally think "cost-effective" for the public, not for private parties.
Apparently, you didn't read my comment very carefully (or I didn't make my own bias clear enough). I stated that the only reason that those companies can make money is because laws have artificially defined "ideas" as a good, and they are selling that good. (Of course, then they use that money to maintain the status quo or to extend it further on their own behalf.)
I personally don't like how far the law has extended these definitions.
Why should the family of artists be granted extended rights to the artist's work (after they are dead)? They didn't do the work. It doesn't benefit society in any fashion. What you're really asking for is welfare for artist's families, and using an anecdote to "prove" the need.
If you write the Great American Novel or the Great American Software Package, then you should save enough money from the proceeds to provide for you & your family, even after you are gone. Your family shouldn't get a free ride at society's expense just because you were able to make some bucks off a "product" whose value was artificially created by society in the first place. If you weren't able to provide enough for them while you were around, then they'll have to either do something themselves to make money, or they'll have to ask other people for help.
Apparently, somebody has their own "intellectual property" blinders on. "Wealth" is not built on intellectual property, it's built by providing goods & services. If laws hadn't redefined ideas as a "good", nobody would be able to make money by controlling ideas - they'd have to do it providing real goods & services. And the poor would be able to use any of ideas that they could take advantage of to help their own situation.
Is anyone using SDF (Simple Document Format)? I ran across it at http://www.mincom.com/mtr/sdf - the last update was at 25-May-99, so I don't think it's being actively maintained anymore (unless it's being maintained elsewhere).
I have a feeling that if all of our world leaders smoked enough pot, they probably wouldn't feel the need to have large arsenals of nuclear weapons.
Interesting...people from the United States get called American, whereas anybody else from any of the countries on either the North or South American continents get a label specific to their country.
:-)
I guess it's too easy to point out the ego involved here, but I'll do it anyway.
Of course, from a purely aesthetic viewpoint, USian sounds horrible - perhaps he could've used Yankee? (But that might offend some US Southerners...
I've got the two-tuner DirecTiVo unit, and I love it! It significantly reduces the chances of programming conflict, and I can play a prerecorded show while the two tuners are busy (there are infrequent, occasional playback glitches when I've got the system this busy, perhaps 1-2 for a 1 hour show).
There's three main things I'd would like to see:
1. Being able to get the TiVo data through my IP connection instead of through the phone line.
2. 30-second commercial skip (or just skip the commercials all together, but I suspect the advertisers wouldn't go for that).
3. Better control over my VCR so that I can build my own personal archives of my favorite shows
Making your virtual objects behave like real objects allows people to use their own physical intuition to play the game. You can't just inject different "physics" solely because it's easier to implement - if you want people to feel comfortable in your environment, then the physics have to make sense to them. Even though we might not understand the subject in terms of mathematics, our 'custom-grown' neural networks (brains) are very good at realizing when something isn't behaving naturally, although the people might not be able to tell you anything more specific than "this doesn't feel right".
As far as space missiles go, you have two "realistic" options - either you're shooting missiles in the context of a planet, in which case you've got to deal with the gravitional field of a planet, or you're shooting "space" missiles in deep space - in which case the trajectories are straight lines anyway. In neither case is the resultant trajectory quadratic. To get constant acceleration behavior (with quadratic trajectories), you are no longer using "space" missiles.
That's only true in a two-body system.
Only if you assume a flat earth with constant acceleration at all altitudes - which is an incorrect assumption when you're trying to model intercontinental ballistics.
Apparently, your soon-to-be degree in physics doesn't imply a degree in common sense.
I don't think tooltips are a complete hack - I think that well-labeled tooltips have their place just like a well-drawn icon. Some of your customers will have different preferred modalities (they'll like reading text versus looking at a picture, or vice versa), so providing both will satisfy more customers (as long as the implementation of both doesn't interfere with the other).
Probably longer than the US, once Russia & China started launching nuclear missiles. Granted, that would've been a two-way exchange, but the results would have hardly been satisfactory.
Actually, if you think about it, this kind of approach would work pretty well for an encrypted/distributed sharing network like Freenet, where individual nodes of the may or may not be available. You can take all of the pieces of the given file & spew them to lots of different parts of the network, then a client can just go around asking different nodes in the network for any pieces of that file until the client has collected enough of the pieces to form the whole.
Don't really care whether its wireless or not, but being able to see what my family was doing on the computer when they call up asking for help would make MY life a helluva lot easier!
Were they "well-trained runners"?
Instead of trying to imitate the process of cellular respiration directly, perhaps it might be easier to build something which is fuel-cell like, converting the sugars that it scavenges from the bloodstream into electricity.
As far as getting such an implant "hooked into" the circulatory system, I would imagine that after installation, the implant could release some of those body-hormones which cause new blood vessels to grow into the signaling tissue (the same chemical control that tumors & damaged heart tissue use to get more blood supply). God help you if the implant gets ripped out of your body though :(
In a way, it might be good if the implant is _so_ different from the body that it doesn't have any recognizable proteins to trigger rejection from the body's immune system.
Hmmm...that would definitely be an interesting way to power cybernetic implants, where the implant can use the same types of simple sugars that the body uses to fuel itself, perhaps via some fuel cell-like technology, to generate & store energy for its own functionality.
:-)
It certainly would be dangerous for someone with blood sugar control problems (e.g., diabetic), although if the implant is smart enough, it might be able to _provide_ that control for someone.
For those of us whose level of physical activity is much lower than our calorie intake, this kind of implant might be the only "practical" barrier between us & obesity
Hmmm, must've been using some kind of time-sensitive design.
The really robust clockless (asynchronous) design is completely functionally insensitive to changes in temperature or voltage (as long as it's w/in operating specs of the silicon, of course). The environment only affects the performance of the design.
Umm, I believe that Microsoft's total assets are larger than IBM's - not that IBM is a small company, but it certainly doesn't have more money on their hands than "Microsoft could dream of".
Ack - PIP! I remember trying to use that to test my 300 baud Hayes Smartmodem (Got the modem before I got a term program :-)
I guess it depends on what you think assert() should be used for. My understanding of assert(), is that it is only intended for non-side-effect debug checking - in essence, making sure that things which are supposed to be true (or false) actually are. assert() is not intended to be used for anything which might change stored values or the control flow of the process.
In other words, if you are using assert() for such things, then you are using it incorrectly.
Can't quite tell what you're getting at here - are you critical of the way that the assert() macro works, or are you approving its behavior?
Ummmm...I wouldn't wrap it around _any_ function call, since when you compile with the NDEBUG flag (usually in conjuction with the -O optimization flag), anything inside the assert() gets turned into a null statement.
More accurately, you commonly use the built-in assert() macro to check the values of variables which were used to save the return values from functions. And you've got to make sure that evaluating those expressions don't cause any side effects, otherwise you're setting yourself up for some hair-ripping debugging.