The further away they are, the faster they seem to be going. That hints at some sort of event, roughly 10 billion years ago, that forced them all away and in fact created these objects. That's coupled with a background microwave radiation we'd expect from a universe at about 3 degrees Kelvin, as if the matter that spread out has cooled down to about that average temperature.
Last time I checked, when matter expands although the heat content remains constant the temperature decreases. Don't confuse one mechanism with another and call a theory "fact" when there may be another simple explanation. Of course as the universe expands and matter becomes more disperse the measured temperature will decrease.
Incidentally, if everything originated from a singularity, why is the universe ACCELERATING in its expansion (implying a net gain in energy) when it should be decelerating (er, accelerating toward the point of origin - don't knock the term decelerate, it's perfectly valid for expressing a concept)?
Gravity can be measured. It can be felt. When you fall down and go bump, it hurts. When you drop something in a vacuum, you can measure its acceleration at 9.8m/s^2 proving there is a force of attraction between the Earth and other objects.
Gas can be manipulated and measured; any hurricane is evidence of that, and it is also evident from the political gasbags in Washington (of both extremes).
Conservation is tangible and can be directly measured.
The Big Bang? Good luck PROVING everything sprang from a singularity 10(8? 15? Who knows?) billion years ago. Who knows, in 15 years we may find empirical evidence that the universe was just one huge disperse cloud of gases and dust 20 billion years ago.
Relativity? We can theorize, and we can only indirectly measure the effects.
Quantum physics? String theory? Again, we can only indirectly observe these mechanisms and anyone who proclaims either as fact is definitely jumping the gun.
"George C. Deutsch, who tried to muzzle top NASA climate scientist James Hansen and ordered NASA web designers to add the word 'theory' to every mention of the Big Bang, has resigned.
Uh, last time I checked, the Big Bang IS just a theory, just as black holes are. They may be credible theories, theories with a lot of evidence, but are still just theories. There is nothing wrong with not proclaiming a theory to be fact.
It's even more simple than that: all it takes is ONE of our European or Asian friends to capture a stream and post it on a torrent site. If HDCP does lock down home video recording, I'll drop cable and get all my entertainment via bittorrent. Heck, I use Bittorrent for timeshifting now as it is, because my ATI capture cards don't work in Linux (well, unless I downgrade to really old XFree86 builds).
About the best that might be said of trolls like NTP is that they've inspired a serious patent-reform debate. A growing crowd--including major firms like Amazon, IBM, Intel, Yahoo!, and Microsoft, and academics like Mark Lemley, Douglas Lichtman, Bhaven Sampat, Arti Rai, and others--now advocate some form of major patent reform.
Excuse me, but isn't Amazon the company which attempted to hijack ecommerce by patenting the "buy now" button?
Isn't Microsoft the company applying for 300 patents per week (or was it per 300 per day)?
If these companies are so supportive of patent reform, shouldn't they lead by example? Or, is what they mean by "reform" limiting the right to patent to publicly-traded companies?
Not necessarily true; if the original architect had half a brain, all of the data manipulation would have been split off into a data abstraction layer, making migration from any given RDBMS to any other one relatively inexpensive and painless - or even change to flat files or spreadsheets if one so desires. The core application should not care. You'd be a fool to mix your data layer in with your business logic because now you have become a victim of vendor lock and bug fixes have become more expensive because where you've made a mistake in manipulating a table in one case, it's likely repeated in many other places, and each instance needs to be patched - where breaking this out into a data abstraction layer would centralize such code, making bug fixes and schema updates relatively simple.
Self-censoring expletives is not political correctness, it's simply showing manners and respect for others. However, I have no respect for politically correct people, so fuck them - preferably using a mace or a rusty old railroad spike.
Yes, you're absolutely right about tags; however there are many instances where MSIE will absolutely refuse to align things correctly, forcing one to resort to table layouts with align=foo height=n width=x type of syntax, and in some instances one's hand is forced to throw an hspace and vspace on an image because although Firefox, Konqueror, Safari, Opera, Epiphany, Netscape, and so forth respect the CSS directives, MSIE will INSIST on padding the image, breaking your layout for the majority of users.
The fact that MSIE flat-out refuses to fix MSIE is unforgivable. Fuck Microsoft.
Your school is wrong, if you really want to get anal and claim she has used computers. The first computer ever used was likely the human body (adding/subtracting using fingers and toes)
Actually, if you want to write a driver for a data aquisition board, you're shit outta luck unless you get a DRM certificate.
Custom X10 or other home automation devices? Get a cert. You'll have to incorporate first because under Microsoft's plan, hobbiests need not apply.
Custom weather equipment, or custom astonomy equipment? Aviation projects? Get a cert. You'll have to incorporate first because under Microsoft's plan, hobbiests need not apply.
1. Program will provide graphical elements which can be clicked to prompt an action 2. Clicking the element shall create an "event" to which an "event handler" can execute code to carry out a task or computation 3. If element or other elements are clicked while the task is being executed, such tasks are stored in a "stack" or "buffer" until such time that those clicks could be acted upon
Now, you can bet that someone will patent this, and since innovation patents won't be subject to review, some idiot will rubber-stamp it, and then we have the whole Apple Vs. Microsoft fiasco again, despite prior art and despite obviousness.
. . . if that means Verizon, SBC, Comcast, and everyone else involved etc. will lose their common carrier status and legalized monopolies, allowing others to come in and offer superior services at better prices.:)
Parent should be modded up because so many people here are implying that a EULA can prevent reverse engineering (aside from commie states like People's Republik of Kalifornia it can't), that you HAVE to use two people to reverse engineer (you might in individual states but generally you don't), etc.
Also: some functions are BOUND to be identical. If you have a memory manager that reallocates say, strings one byte at a time (which is far more expensive than allocating say, 1K at a time due to the required context switches in Windows), what is the likelihood that such an implementation in Windows, ReactOS, BSD, or Linux would have very different code? Aside from comments and formatting, such an obvious implementation would likely be identical. Some would consider that a copyright infringement, but it would be like having a redneck using the phrase "that there is hogwash" in a book, and alledging copyright infringement when another book from another author uses the same phrase in a similar context.
. . . providing you don't just copy & paste code into your own function.
Also I made a similar remark. Someone {cciRRus (889392)} replied that when you decompile it, you're breaking a EULA because when you decompile it you get this in the generated C:/* WARNING!!! You are not allowed to decompile this binary for the purpose of reverse engineering. */
However, IIRC, EULA cannot prevent reverse engineering for the purpose of reverse engineering, even if the method is by decompiling - I think that any alleged violation on that basis would be thrown out of court on at least two basis:
- 1. a shrinkwrap EULA cannot prevent reverse engineering for the purpose of interoperability (heck, even signed non-compete agreements don't hold water in many states)
- 2. Antitrust issues - Microsoft is engaging in anti-competitive tactics by including such notices in an otherwise-legal method, abusing their monopoly status
Of course IANAL so someone better versed in case law/precedents could chime in. I know cases have been decided both ways but I'm not sure which is dominant.
With that said You CANNOT and absolutely should not simply recompile the generated C and distribute that, but you can certainly look at what structures need to be generated to maintain a sane journal on the disk, and cleanly implement new functions to maintain the same structures on disk. A purist approach would be to write a spec and hand it off to another member of the team to implement, but it should not be necessary for any developer with ANY integrity whatsoever. Only a lazy sod would copy the code and implement it as their own.
Would that hold up in court though? If the purpose is interoperability then Microsoft could be tried for antitrust issues if they were to take action against someone who decompiled it to get NTFS to work on another system.
Rather than worrying about that, why would anyone bother looking at the leaked source when decompilers have come a long way in the last few years? Just decompile, say, the NTFS driver and read the decompiled source. DMCA, EULA or other contrived roadblock, not there's nothing prevent such reverse engineering for the purpose of interoperability.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought that was proven in the late 1500s or early 1600s by Galileo Galilei?
Last time I checked, when matter expands although the heat content remains constant the temperature decreases. Don't confuse one mechanism with another and call a theory "fact" when there may be another simple explanation. Of course as the universe expands and matter becomes more disperse the measured temperature will decrease.
Incidentally, if everything originated from a singularity, why is the universe ACCELERATING in its expansion (implying a net gain in energy) when it should be decelerating (er, accelerating toward the point of origin - don't knock the term decelerate, it's perfectly valid for expressing a concept)?
Well there is a difference.
Gravity can be measured. It can be felt. When you fall down and go bump, it hurts. When you drop something in a vacuum, you can measure its acceleration at 9.8m/s^2 proving there is a force of attraction between the Earth and other objects.
Gas can be manipulated and measured; any hurricane is evidence of that, and it is also evident from the political gasbags in Washington (of both extremes).
Conservation is tangible and can be directly measured.
The Big Bang? Good luck PROVING everything sprang from a singularity 10(8? 15? Who knows?) billion years ago. Who knows, in 15 years we may find empirical evidence that the universe was just one huge disperse cloud of gases and dust 20 billion years ago.
Relativity? We can theorize, and we can only indirectly measure the effects.
Quantum physics? String theory? Again, we can only indirectly observe these mechanisms and anyone who proclaims either as fact is definitely jumping the gun.
Uh, last time I checked, the Big Bang IS just a theory, just as black holes are. They may be credible theories, theories with a lot of evidence, but are still just theories. There is nothing wrong with not proclaiming a theory to be fact.
It's even more simple than that: all it takes is ONE of our European or Asian friends to capture a stream and post it on a torrent site. If HDCP does lock down home video recording, I'll drop cable and get all my entertainment via bittorrent. Heck, I use Bittorrent for timeshifting now as it is, because my ATI capture cards don't work in Linux (well, unless I downgrade to really old XFree86 builds).
Excuse me, but isn't Amazon the company which attempted to hijack ecommerce by patenting the "buy now" button?
Isn't Microsoft the company applying for 300 patents per week (or was it per 300 per day)?
If these companies are so supportive of patent reform, shouldn't they lead by example? Or, is what they mean by "reform" limiting the right to patent to publicly-traded companies?
Not necessarily true; if the original architect had half a brain, all of the data manipulation would have been split off into a data abstraction layer, making migration from any given RDBMS to any other one relatively inexpensive and painless - or even change to flat files or spreadsheets if one so desires. The core application should not care. You'd be a fool to mix your data layer in with your business logic because now you have become a victim of vendor lock and bug fixes have become more expensive because where you've made a mistake in manipulating a table in one case, it's likely repeated in many other places, and each instance needs to be patched - where breaking this out into a data abstraction layer would centralize such code, making bug fixes and schema updates relatively simple.
Turn off fast user switching and you'll be back to the Win2K way of doing things. :)
Self-censoring expletives is not political correctness, it's simply showing manners and respect for others. However, I have no respect for politically correct people, so fuck them - preferably using a mace or a rusty old railroad spike.
Yes, you're absolutely right about tags; however there are many instances where MSIE will absolutely refuse to align things correctly, forcing one to resort to table layouts with align=foo height=n width=x type of syntax, and in some instances one's hand is forced to throw an hspace and vspace on an image because although Firefox, Konqueror, Safari, Opera, Epiphany, Netscape, and so forth respect the CSS directives, MSIE will INSIST on padding the image, breaking your layout for the majority of users.
The fact that MSIE flat-out refuses to fix MSIE is unforgivable. Fuck Microsoft.
Deprecated HTML elements (and browser sniffing) will be around for as long as Microsoft refuses to fix MSIE. This includes MSIE 7.0.
Your school is wrong, if you really want to get anal and claim she has used computers. The first computer ever used was likely the human body (adding/subtracting using fingers and toes)
No, we've become pussies due to the political correctness police.
A EULA might bind one ethically and morally if the software is built for hire and not sold as an off-the-shelf boxed product.
Until then, F*** Microsoft's EULA.
Actually, if you want to write a driver for a data aquisition board, you're shit outta luck unless you get a DRM certificate.
Custom X10 or other home automation devices? Get a cert. You'll have to incorporate first because under Microsoft's plan, hobbiests need not apply.
Custom weather equipment, or custom astonomy equipment? Aviation projects? Get a cert. You'll have to incorporate first because under Microsoft's plan, hobbiests need not apply.
Oh sure, until you have a patent like:
1. Program will provide graphical elements which can be clicked to prompt an action
2. Clicking the element shall create an "event" to which an "event handler" can execute code to carry out a task or computation
3. If element or other elements are clicked while the task is being executed, such tasks are stored in a "stack" or "buffer" until such time that those clicks could be acted upon
Now, you can bet that someone will patent this, and since innovation patents won't be subject to review, some idiot will rubber-stamp it, and then we have the whole Apple Vs. Microsoft fiasco again, despite prior art and despite obviousness.
. . . if that means Verizon, SBC, Comcast, and everyone else involved etc. will lose their common carrier status and legalized monopolies, allowing others to come in and offer superior services at better prices. :)
OBVIOUSLY you and the idiot who modded my post have no fucking sense of humor.
Parent should be modded up because so many people here are implying that a EULA can prevent reverse engineering (aside from commie states like People's Republik of Kalifornia it can't), that you HAVE to use two people to reverse engineer (you might in individual states but generally you don't), etc.
Also: some functions are BOUND to be identical. If you have a memory manager that reallocates say, strings one byte at a time (which is far more expensive than allocating say, 1K at a time due to the required context switches in Windows), what is the likelihood that such an implementation in Windows, ReactOS, BSD, or Linux would have very different code? Aside from comments and formatting, such an obvious implementation would likely be identical. Some would consider that a copyright infringement, but it would be like having a redneck using the phrase "that there is hogwash" in a book, and alledging copyright infringement when another book from another author uses the same phrase in a similar context.
. . . providing you don't just copy & paste code into your own function.
/* WARNING!!! You are not allowed to decompile this binary for the purpose of reverse engineering. */
Also I made a similar remark. Someone {cciRRus (889392)} replied that when you decompile it, you're breaking a EULA because when you decompile it you get this in the generated C:
However, IIRC, EULA cannot prevent reverse engineering for the purpose of reverse engineering, even if the method is by decompiling - I think that any alleged violation on that basis would be thrown out of court on at least two basis:
- 1. a shrinkwrap EULA cannot prevent reverse engineering for the purpose of interoperability (heck, even signed non-compete agreements don't hold water in many states)
- 2. Antitrust issues - Microsoft is engaging in anti-competitive tactics by including such notices in an otherwise-legal method, abusing their monopoly status
Of course IANAL so someone better versed in case law/precedents could chime in. I know cases have been decided both ways but I'm not sure which is dominant.
With that said You CANNOT and absolutely should not simply recompile the generated C and distribute that, but you can certainly look at what structures need to be generated to maintain a sane journal on the disk, and cleanly implement new functions to maintain the same structures on disk. A purist approach would be to write a spec and hand it off to another member of the team to implement, but it should not be necessary for any developer with ANY integrity whatsoever. Only a lazy sod would copy the code and implement it as their own.
Would that hold up in court though? If the purpose is interoperability then Microsoft could be tried for antitrust issues if they were to take action against someone who decompiled it to get NTFS to work on another system.
Rather than worrying about that, why would anyone bother looking at the leaked source when decompilers have come a long way in the last few years? Just decompile, say, the NTFS driver and read the decompiled source. DMCA, EULA or other contrived roadblock, not there's nothing prevent such reverse engineering for the purpose of interoperability.
Dubya to order the FBI to shut down /. in 3, 2, 1^HNKLH&*@*^^#Y(BHO)@*Y(#H)@*G
Want to see a screenshot of Acid2 in Konqueror? Check it out:
s ses_acid2_thanks_apple.png
http://kim.biyn.com/files/images/konqueror_3.5_pa
Also: Google Maps works just fine in Konqueror as well (a hell of a lot better than in Firefox) if you spoof Safari's user agent. Just FYI.
Why $9 for a download when DVDs can be had for $5.50 and $7.50 at Wal*Mart?