A bug in a game makes the front page. This does not.
Is "nerd" is all about living in a bubble?
Re:An error in one of his essays
on
Joel On Software
·
· Score: 1
> What's its behavior? It's undefined, because a pointer-to-NULL is dereferenced, and that's a big C++ no-no. > It could be anything whatsoever according to the C++ standard.
>> Let's be honest here, Not everyone can drive a primus around. > > In fact, no one can, because it doesn't exist. Maybe you were thinking of the Prius?
The Primus does exist, although they are quite difficult to "drive around".
From the article: This huge, extremely heavy reptile was an herbivore (it ate only plants). It had to eat a huge amount of low-lying plant material to sustain itself so its gut must have been very large. It probably had a fermentation compartment to aid in the digestion of the tough plant material, producing prodigious amounts of gas!
>> In addition the bill would "permit people to use technology to skip >> objectionable content -- like a gory or sexually explicit scene -- in films, >> a right that consumers already have. However, under the proposed law, >> skipping any commercials or promotional announcements would be prohibited." > > Non-rhetorical stance: > Really, what if there's an ad for say, Wonderbras, that I find explicit? Can > I turn that off? This is insane. Who are they to say what I can and can't > watch? Howabout turning off the TV to eat dinner when there's an ad on... is > that okay? Do I have their permission for that at least? Ugh
> I'm not anti-business. I'm anti-corporation. There is a difference. I want > expiration dates on IP. I want the corporate shield for individual > malfeasance to be gone. I want this incestuous network of greedy buggers to > hew to some kind of law that they didn't write themselves. We fought long and > hard to break up the 19th century trusts that were smothering the life out of > representative government; I DON'T want them back, only immortal, anational, > and unkillable.
Never going to happen.
Since the beginning of history people were divided into two groups - the haves and the have-nots. The haves happily exploited the have-nots while securing their position and increasing the differences.
Once in a while, the have-nots managed to have a revolution of some kind. People died and some of the have-nots, got. These became the new haves and, in time, grew to like it. And so, the cycle endlessly repeats itself.
> You are simply splitting hairs here. > To have the right to control something is to own it.
An friend of mine is a fighter pilot. He controls an F15. Does he own it?
But, you say, his control is limited and temporary. Well, so are copyrights and patents.
The ideas belong to the public, the copyright/patent holders are only given limited and control for a short time (at least it used to be short before greed and corruption settled in) as an incentive for creating these ideas but, ultimately, these ideas pass into the public domain.
On the other hand, if I manage my affairs right, a piece of land that I own will stay in my estate forever.
So now, every software author should demand that Microsoft will perform an audit on all its computers to make sure that the don't violate said software's license, with the author and some law enforcement present...
Unfortunately, we don't have the legal clout or the resources of the BSA. However, if enough people shout loudly enough and long enough, it will become a PR nightmare for Microsoft.
The founding member of the BSA is a crook. Hmmm....
> Memorandum is an INFORMAL collection, in the US corporate world, minutes > of a meeting are quite formal, and legally required in some cases. Referendum > is generally accepted as a popular vote, as in of the people. This term is > equally incorrect. Memorandum does come closer. But only slightly.
Let's see what the dictionary says about "minutes".
Merriam-Webster: 4 a : a brief note (as of summary or recommendation) b : MEMORANDUM, DRAFT c plural : the official record of the proceedings of a meeting
> Not everyone speak English natively on slashdot, so those that don't know > exactly what that means: minutes means a referendum of a meeting
Isn't it ironic that a post about the English language is moderated "informative" by people who do not know the difference between a referendum and a memorandum?
> If you beam electrons into my house, I have a right to do as I see fit > with those electrons within the confines of my house. If you do not like my > conditions, then don't beam a signal to my house. > > Why do you think that anyone has right to forcibly beam electrons into my > house and then tell me how I can capture them and view them?
A government is a funny thing.
It can take your money (taxes, fines), your freedom and, in some cases, even your life. It can limit or even prevent you from using your property in ways that it does not approve of ("intellectual property" laws, etc.). Hell, it even dictates what you can and cannot do with your own body (suicide and "substance abuse" laws).
So, yes, the government can (and does) grant third parties a permit to beam electrons into your house while at the same time preventing you from doing anything with said electrons.
A lot of residents are not comfortable writing to their representatives due to either limited proficiency in English (and/or French) or not knowing what phrasing is "socially acceptable" in Canada.
Some example letters could be very helpful for these people.
Yes, sites like CDRLabs, cdfreaks and CDRinfo should have better technical reviews. However, Anand has a shootout of several drives which makes it easy to compare them.
> The more traditional (and superior, imo) view acknowledges God as the > creator of the universe as well as the author of the scriptures. The > scriptures are the ultimate authority, but they don't speak exhaustively, and > our understanding of what they say isn't perfect.
> Now that you mention the three channels of vision, it reminds me on an > article I read in Red Herring sometime back about a mutant gene that shows up > in some women that that gives them 4 channels of vision. It allows the ones > lucky enough to have it to have a much sharper perception of color tones - > ironically, most that have it aren't even aware that they see the world any > different than the rest of us. Do a google on tetrachromatic women. > > The Red Herring article is here but you need to give up your first born to > read it.
However, you also have to read the Green Herring and the Blue Herring to get the complete picture.
> Imagine trying to understand 735 documents composed of such language, some > of which can be many many pages, or make "small" adjustments to current laws. > Some bills, I'm sure, are written and titled to purposely obfuscate their > true intentions as well.
Then these bills turn into laws which are impossible to understand and follow because of their ambiguous wording which, incidently, makes selective enforcement that much easier.
Therefore, the representative should reject on sight any bill that the average lay-person cannot read and understand in a reasonably short amount of time.
Confusing? Obfuscated? Vote NO!
> Disclamer: I'm an American and I dislike both of the major candidates, > but I hate Bush more. Remember though, the DMCA was passed under Clinton.
It's not that there aren't any other choices... You don't have to vote for Kodos.
> Laser images printed on the retina? what are the safety concerns with this? > i would think "burn in" would once again be a serious issue.
The problem with a laser of a sufficient power (say, 5mW or higher) would be vaporizing the retina.
However, Class I lasers (under 0.4mW) are safe even for continuous viewing. For example, Sony has been using a laser for AutoFocus assist in its camcorders and digital cameras for quite a while.
Slashdot Mirror
A bug in a game makes the front page.
This does not.
Is "nerd" is all about living in a bubble?
> What's its behavior? It's undefined, because a pointer-to-NULL is dereferenced, and that's a big C++ no-no.
> It could be anything whatsoever according to the C++ standard.
In other words, Joel was lucky.
He could have ended up with demons flying out of his nose.
> Go ride a bike!
Especially if you live in Yellowknife.
>> Let's be honest here, Not everyone can drive a primus around.
>
> In fact, no one can, because it doesn't exist. Maybe you were thinking of the Prius?
The Primus does exist, although they are quite difficult to "drive around".
From the article:
This huge, extremely heavy reptile was an herbivore (it ate only plants).
It had to eat a huge amount of low-lying plant material to sustain itself so
its gut must have been very large. It probably had a fermentation compartment
to aid in the digestion of the tough plant material, producing prodigious
amounts of gas!
Better call it Puteosaurus then.
>> In addition the bill would "permit people to use technology to skip
>> objectionable content -- like a gory or sexually explicit scene -- in films,
>> a right that consumers already have. However, under the proposed law,
>> skipping any commercials or promotional announcements would be prohibited."
>
> Non-rhetorical stance:
> Really, what if there's an ad for say, Wonderbras, that I find explicit? Can
> I turn that off? This is insane. Who are they to say what I can and can't
> watch? Howabout turning off the TV to eat dinner when there's an ad on... is
> that okay? Do I have their permission for that at least? Ugh
Behold the only permitted way to watch content.
> Then they won.
Unfortunately, I thonk you're right.
> I want expiration dates on IP
I thought we already have those.
OK, seriously now
> I'm not anti-business. I'm anti-corporation. There is a difference. I want
> expiration dates on IP. I want the corporate shield for individual
> malfeasance to be gone. I want this incestuous network of greedy buggers to
> hew to some kind of law that they didn't write themselves. We fought long and
> hard to break up the 19th century trusts that were smothering the life out of
> representative government; I DON'T want them back, only immortal, anational,
> and unkillable.
Never going to happen.
Since the beginning of history people were divided into two groups - the haves and the have-nots. The haves happily exploited the have-nots while securing their position and increasing the differences.
Once in a while, the have-nots managed to have a revolution of some kind. People died and some of the have-nots, got. These became the new haves and, in time, grew to like it. And so, the cycle endlessly repeats itself.
Innovation is promoted when ideas are disclosed.
You see farther when you are standing on the shoulders of giants.
> You are simply splitting hairs here.
> To have the right to control something is to own it.
An friend of mine is a fighter pilot. He controls an F15. Does he own it?
But, you say, his control is limited and temporary.
Well, so are copyrights and patents.
The ideas belong to the public, the copyright/patent holders are only given limited and control for a short time (at least it used to be short before greed and corruption settled in) as an incentive for creating these ideas but, ultimately, these ideas pass into the public domain.
On the other hand, if I manage my affairs right, a piece of land that I own will stay in my estate forever.
Only in Soviet Russia.
So now, every software author should demand that Microsoft will perform an audit on all its computers to make sure that the don't violate said software's license, with the author and some law enforcement present...
Unfortunately, we don't have the legal clout or the resources of the BSA.
However, if enough people shout loudly enough and long enough, it will become a PR nightmare for Microsoft.
The founding member of the BSA is a crook. Hmmm....
> Ha'aretz is a fairly centrist viewpoint, defining center in terms of Israeli politics.
Of the Israeli mainstream media, Ha'aretz is usually considered to be "left of centre" and Jerusalem post - "right of centre".
> Memorandum is an INFORMAL collection, in the US corporate world, minutes
> of a meeting are quite formal, and legally required in some cases. Referendum
> is generally accepted as a popular vote, as in of the people. This term is
> equally incorrect. Memorandum does come closer. But only slightly.
Let's see what the dictionary says about "minutes".
Merriam-Webster:
4 a : a brief note (as of summary or recommendation)
b : MEMORANDUM, DRAFT
c plural : the official record of the proceedings of a meeting
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:
6. A note or summary covering points to be remembered; a memorandum.
JURIST's browsable dictionary of basic U.S. legal terminology and Legal Dictionary:
Memorandum of a transaction or proceeding.
Sounds close enough for non-lawyers.
> Not everyone speak English natively on slashdot, so those that don't know
> exactly what that means: minutes means a referendum of a meeting
Isn't it ironic that a post about the English language is moderated "informative" by
people who do not know the difference between a referendum and a memorandum?
This was circulated after the 2000 elections. Still relevant...
> If you beam electrons into my house, I have a right to do as I see fit
> with those electrons within the confines of my house. If you do not like my
> conditions, then don't beam a signal to my house.
>
> Why do you think that anyone has right to forcibly beam electrons into my
> house and then tell me how I can capture them and view them?
A government is a funny thing.
It can take your money (taxes, fines), your freedom and, in some cases, even your life. It can limit or even prevent you from using your property in ways that it does not approve of ("intellectual property" laws, etc.). Hell, it even dictates what you can and cannot do with your own body (suicide and "substance abuse" laws).
So, yes, the government can (and does) grant third parties a permit to beam electrons into your house while at the same time preventing you from doing anything with said electrons.
Canada is an immigration country.
A lot of residents are not comfortable writing to their representatives due to either limited proficiency in English (and/or French) or not knowing what phrasing is "socially acceptable" in Canada.
Some example letters could be very helpful for these people.
Yes, sites like CDRLabs, cdfreaks and CDRinfo should have better technical reviews. However, Anand has a shootout of several drives which makes it easy to compare them.
As far as I know, all 12ms displays and all but the most expensive 16ms displays use 6-bit panels.
So if you want good-looking colours, you're effectively stuck with 20ms models.
> The more traditional (and superior, imo) view acknowledges God as the
> creator of the universe as well as the author of the scriptures. The
> scriptures are the ultimate authority, but they don't speak exhaustively, and
> our understanding of what they say isn't perfect.
Um, exactly which god and scriptures?
> Now that you mention the three channels of vision, it reminds me on an
> article I read in Red Herring sometime back about a mutant gene that shows up
> in some women that that gives them 4 channels of vision. It allows the ones
> lucky enough to have it to have a much sharper perception of color tones -
> ironically, most that have it aren't even aware that they see the world any
> different than the rest of us. Do a google on tetrachromatic women.
>
> The Red Herring article is here but you need to give up your first born to
> read it.
However, you also have to read the Green Herring and the Blue Herring to get the complete picture.
> Imagine trying to understand 735 documents composed of such language, some
> of which can be many many pages, or make "small" adjustments to current laws.
> Some bills, I'm sure, are written and titled to purposely obfuscate their
> true intentions as well.
Then these bills turn into laws which are impossible to understand and follow because of their ambiguous wording which, incidently, makes selective enforcement that much easier.
Therefore, the representative should reject on sight any bill that the average lay-person cannot read and understand in a reasonably short amount of time.
Confusing? Obfuscated? Vote NO!
> Disclamer: I'm an American and I dislike both of the major candidates,
> but I hate Bush more. Remember though, the DMCA was passed under Clinton.
It's not that there aren't any other choices...
You don't have to vote for Kodos.
> Laser images printed on the retina? what are the safety concerns with this?
> i would think "burn in" would once again be a serious issue.
The problem with a laser of a sufficient power (say, 5mW or higher) would be vaporizing the retina.
However, Class I lasers (under 0.4mW) are safe even for continuous viewing. For example, Sony has been using a laser for AutoFocus assist in its camcorders and digital cameras for quite a while.
The whole "intellectual property" concept, as it is understood and practiced nowadays in the western world is bogus.
Had to be said.