Acording to Dr. Roy G. Biv, redshifting yellow light would make it appear more orange (or . ..you know . . . red). Of course, you could blueshift the yellow light into green, you just need to go through the intersection backawards. At relativistic speeds.
OSX can be trimmed down and still have sane user access levels (iPhone's locked down to prevent users from gaining root at all, but at least it doesn't run as root by default), It has OpenGL and a 3d accelerated GUI, all on an embedded device. Why can't MS clean up their code to run more efficiently rather than having to gut it or have an almost entirely different codebase for embedded?
Still, saying Linux (and FOSS in general) isn't a huge success because it hasn't taken over the desktop is kindof like saying ants are an ineffective species because few people keep them as pets.
So, a company takes notes and sells them to students. Clever students figure they can do better and do the same. Just because they're making monetary gains off of this, it's somehow wrong. God forbid they start using the skills and knowledge they learned in college at their jobs. When I got a bonus for putting together some great financial projections for my boss, do I know owe money the professor who taught me how to do it? Sorry, I paid my tuition. Whether I make a few bucks off what I learn and interpret from your lectures now, I make a few bucks off it later, or I drop the class and make better use of my time and tuition money.
It'll cause a little less overhead and allow the software to run closer to native speed. Microsoft already has a WINE of sorts running on Windows for legacy compatibility. WOW - Windows On Windows.
As for *why* anyone's bothered to port WINE to Win32, I think it has more to do with easier side-by-side program testing to reverse engineer the real MS Libraries to get the WINE libraries more in sync.
Isn't that what Vista SP1 was supposed to be? Folks have been getting Vista on new computers and some poor saps even bought it off store shelves. I know better than to get a MS OS before at least a year and a service pack or two. Many do not. Releasing the next version as quickly as possible rather than fixing or replacing what people already paid for does not inspire consumer confidence. (Kinda like how they handled Windows ME . ..)
It's already been ported to Win32. Granted, that's mostly for testing purposes and needs lots of work to be useful. But yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if it was ported to Windows 7.
Space 1999 is what we would be living it we didn't have NASA and it's bureaucracy.
Well, then I say many thanks to NASA and its bureaucracy for keeping the moon right where it is! I'm also glad silver mini skirts never really caught on. However, perhaps "dangling-on-strings" advanced spacecraft propulsion warrants further study.
I wouldn't be so bothered by what these CEOs earn if they actually contributed something of substance to these companies. Unfortunately they seem to exist only to make themselves wealthy.
He had to at least read the summary--that's how he knew they could build a 12 foot long bat. His point is that just because the army says they want a 6inch bat, *HE* wants a 12 foot bat.
Re:Unknown value?
on
Happy Pi Day
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Whether or not people here illegally download and share copyrighted music isn't the issue. I'll go out on a limb and suggest that most Slashdotters don't file baseless lawsuits against random people who are unprepared to defend themselves from the full force of a massive corporation's legal department realizing most will capitulate and just settle regardless of any wrongdoing as a tragically misguided attempt to strike fear into the heart of someone who gets the latest Britney Spears release from bittorrent.
Big companies are abusing the legal system due to circumstances brought about by new technologies and the Internet. Meanwhile real (and innocent) people are having their lives and livlihoods ruined in the crossfire. So yes, we care a lot about that.
IANAL, but it sounds like the RIAA is going to want to settle and prevent discovery from happening since they don't want all the sordid details of their dealings brought to light.
But that makes me wonder . . . if they do in fact settle, won't this just embolden all the other lawsuit recipients to file against the RIAA too? They can settle malicious lawsuits to keep them from going to trial to their heartss content (*snicker* we know they don't have hearts), but ultimately they're going to have to either WIN a malicious prosecution suit or stop engaging in malicious suits alltogether, no?
I do however question the release of the iPhone without g3 support
The iPhone could have been shipped with 3G, a built in GPS chip, a much louder internal speaker for better speakerphone/media playing without headphones, FM receiver, digital TV tuner, flash for the otherwise nice camera, slide-out qwerty keyboard, clickwheel on the back for eyes-free song changing . . . and on and on and on.
Any or all of these things might be "nice to have" but every new chip/doodad they add is more space, weight, sucks more power, and costs more to manufacture.
I don't think omitting 3G was a deliberate ploy just to make everyone buy the iPhone 2.0. 3G would've costed more, reduced the battery, and 3G coverage isn't all that widely available at the moment. I can understand why Apple felt it wasn't worth including . . . yet. The chipsets will continue to be refined and require less power and be cheaper to produce. Apple will add 3G when they feel it's worthwhile to do so.
Are 50 year old masters all that useful anymore? I imagine they'd deteriorate over time. This music is widely available on CD in lossless digital that will now be freely distributable, which will be fine for most purposes.
Why should anyone get a lifetime income for one thing they created? If they do, why would they bother creating anything else?
Come on, does anyone here honestly believe this has anything at all to do with the actual artists? If someone recorded hits in their teens or twenties, I highly doubt they'll be relying on the pathetic residuals their label deigns to pay them to stay out of the poor house.
The record companies just don't want to give up their revenue on oldies--music from 1958 and prior is now lapsing into the public domain in Europe. This is music from the birth of rock and roll, i.e. Chuck Berry (who still performs at concerts, mind you!), Elvis, Little Richard, Buddy Holly, and loads more. These are classics that people are still buying new CDs of, putting on their iPods, etc. Chuck's not gonna wind up on the streets because Johnny B. Good can be downloaded legally for free, but the record company still wants their cut. *THAT'S* what this is really all about.
Your apathy is why they are getting away with stuff like this. Just shrugging your shoulders and in essence saying "Oh well, maybe next time" doesn't make what they are doing OK.
When I said "We just have to learn to live with it" I was referring to omnipresent cameras. They're here. They're not going away. And we can't change that. But we can change laws. Part of learning to live with cameras cameras everywhere is setting very strict rules for the specific circumstances their footage may be used.
Wait, did you seriously just say "I'm okay with omnipresent surveillance"? Oh boy, do you need a smack upside the head with the Constitution.
Well, I'm not thrilled by it, but the satellites are already there and we frequently send new ones up. It's potentially a privacy-destroying technology, but the bitch of it is that (to steal a bit from Arthur C. Clarke) nature doesn't keep secrets. You can't uninvent anything. We just have to learn to live with it.
Besides, does it really matter if it's law enforcement going after satellite imagery, or law enforcement subpoenaing private security cameras (almost as omnipresent in densely populated areas)?
Whether the cameras are in someone's pocket, mounted on a building, or flying overhead on a satellite, the fact remains we've got cameras EVERYWHERE. We're not getting rid of them any time soon, so the only thing I think we can really do is make sure the rules are *very* strict for when law enforcement can get their grubby little hands on them.
The hard part with taking that view, is that we have yet to pinpoint an exact set of conditions or timeframe when abiogenesis occurred on Earth--if it even happened here at all. It's quite possible that living examples of (terrestrial) extremophiles would be quite comfortable in certain spots on Mars, Europa, maybe even Titan . . . but we've barely gotten a comprehensive idea of the conditions on those worlds *right now*, much less how they might've been billions or even millions of years in the past.
. . . this would be the first time law-enforcement would be able to obtain a warrant and request access to satellite imagery.
With the way things have been going, I'm surprised they're still even pretending to care about due process. And really, I wouldn't have a problem with law enforcement gaining access to spy satellite photography as long as they can only get it after supplying evidence to establish probable cause that a specific person committed a specific crime in a specific time and place. But I'm very concerned that little requirement is going to fall by the wayside and they'll be able to spy on citizens waiting for anybody to slip up.
Slashdot Mirror
Red Shift?
Acording to Dr. Roy G. Biv, redshifting yellow light would make it appear more orange (or . . .you know . . . red). Of course, you could blueshift the yellow light into green, you just need to go through the intersection backawards. At relativistic speeds.
Why not?
OSX can be trimmed down and still have sane user access levels (iPhone's locked down to prevent users from gaining root at all, but at least it doesn't run as root by default), It has OpenGL and a 3d accelerated GUI, all on an embedded device. Why can't MS clean up their code to run more efficiently rather than having to gut it or have an almost entirely different codebase for embedded?
Still, saying Linux (and FOSS in general) isn't a huge success because it hasn't taken over the desktop is kindof like saying ants are an ineffective species because few people keep them as pets.
So, a company takes notes and sells them to students. Clever students figure they can do better and do the same. Just because they're making monetary gains off of this, it's somehow wrong. God forbid they start using the skills and knowledge they learned in college at their jobs. When I got a bonus for putting together some great financial projections for my boss, do I know owe money the professor who taught me how to do it? Sorry, I paid my tuition. Whether I make a few bucks off what I learn and interpret from your lectures now, I make a few bucks off it later, or I drop the class and make better use of my time and tuition money.
It'll cause a little less overhead and allow the software to run closer to native speed. Microsoft already has a WINE of sorts running on Windows for legacy compatibility. WOW - Windows On Windows.
As for *why* anyone's bothered to port WINE to Win32, I think it has more to do with easier side-by-side program testing to reverse engineer the real MS Libraries to get the WINE libraries more in sync.
Isn't that what Vista SP1 was supposed to be? Folks have been getting Vista on new computers and some poor saps even bought it off store shelves. I know better than to get a MS OS before at least a year and a service pack or two. Many do not. Releasing the next version as quickly as possible rather than fixing or replacing what people already paid for does not inspire consumer confidence. (Kinda like how they handled Windows ME . . .)
It's already been ported to Win32. Granted, that's mostly for testing purposes and needs lots of work to be useful. But yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if it was ported to Windows 7.
Well, then I say many thanks to NASA and its bureaucracy for keeping the moon right where it is! I'm also glad silver mini skirts never really caught on. However, perhaps "dangling-on-strings" advanced spacecraft propulsion warrants further study.
There. Fixed that for you.
Is that you, Charles Duell?
That's only in criminal cases and the bar of what the defendant "cannot afford" is set life-ruiningly high.
Minor nitpick: You can have GTK without GIMP.
He had to at least read the summary--that's how he knew they could build a 12 foot long bat. His point is that just because the army says they want a 6inch bat, *HE* wants a 12 foot bat.
Pi = 3.141592653589793helpimtrappedinauniversefactory7108914
Whether or not people here illegally download and share copyrighted music isn't the issue. I'll go out on a limb and suggest that most Slashdotters don't file baseless lawsuits against random people who are unprepared to defend themselves from the full force of a massive corporation's legal department realizing most will capitulate and just settle regardless of any wrongdoing as a tragically misguided attempt to strike fear into the heart of someone who gets the latest Britney Spears release from bittorrent.
Big companies are abusing the legal system due to circumstances brought about by new technologies and the Internet. Meanwhile real (and innocent) people are having their lives and livlihoods ruined in the crossfire. So yes, we care a lot about that.
IANAL, but it sounds like the RIAA is going to want to settle and prevent discovery from happening since they don't want all the sordid details of their dealings brought to light.
But that makes me wonder . . . if they do in fact settle, won't this just embolden all the other lawsuit recipients to file against the RIAA too? They can settle malicious lawsuits to keep them from going to trial to their heartss content (*snicker* we know they don't have hearts), but ultimately they're going to have to either WIN a malicious prosecution suit or stop engaging in malicious suits alltogether, no?
I'll probably get modded down for being such a pansy about home comforts and all . . . but I am rather partial to breathable air.
The iPhone could have been shipped with 3G, a built in GPS chip, a much louder internal speaker for better speakerphone/media playing without headphones, FM receiver, digital TV tuner, flash for the otherwise nice camera, slide-out qwerty keyboard, clickwheel on the back for eyes-free song changing . . . and on and on and on.
Any or all of these things might be "nice to have" but every new chip/doodad they add is more space, weight, sucks more power, and costs more to manufacture.
I don't think omitting 3G was a deliberate ploy just to make everyone buy the iPhone 2.0. 3G would've costed more, reduced the battery, and 3G coverage isn't all that widely available at the moment. I can understand why Apple felt it wasn't worth including . . . yet. The chipsets will continue to be refined and require less power and be cheaper to produce. Apple will add 3G when they feel it's worthwhile to do so.
Yes. But it's a bit pricey.
Are 50 year old masters all that useful anymore? I imagine they'd deteriorate over time. This music is widely available on CD in lossless digital that will now be freely distributable, which will be fine for most purposes.
Come on, does anyone here honestly believe this has anything at all to do with the actual artists? If someone recorded hits in their teens or twenties, I highly doubt they'll be relying on the pathetic residuals their label deigns to pay them to stay out of the poor house.
The record companies just don't want to give up their revenue on oldies--music from 1958 and prior is now lapsing into the public domain in Europe. This is music from the birth of rock and roll, i.e. Chuck Berry (who still performs at concerts, mind you!), Elvis, Little Richard, Buddy Holly, and loads more. These are classics that people are still buying new CDs of, putting on their iPods, etc. Chuck's not gonna wind up on the streets because Johnny B. Good can be downloaded legally for free, but the record company still wants their cut. *THAT'S* what this is really all about.
When I said "We just have to learn to live with it" I was referring to omnipresent cameras. They're here. They're not going away. And we can't change that. But we can change laws. Part of learning to live with cameras cameras everywhere is setting very strict rules for the specific circumstances their footage may be used.
Well, I'm not thrilled by it, but the satellites are already there and we frequently send new ones up. It's potentially a privacy-destroying technology, but the bitch of it is that (to steal a bit from Arthur C. Clarke) nature doesn't keep secrets. You can't uninvent anything. We just have to learn to live with it.
Besides, does it really matter if it's law enforcement going after satellite imagery, or law enforcement subpoenaing private security cameras (almost as omnipresent in densely populated areas)?
Whether the cameras are in someone's pocket, mounted on a building, or flying overhead on a satellite, the fact remains we've got cameras EVERYWHERE. We're not getting rid of them any time soon, so the only thing I think we can really do is make sure the rules are *very* strict for when law enforcement can get their grubby little hands on them.
The hard part with taking that view, is that we have yet to pinpoint an exact set of conditions or timeframe when abiogenesis occurred on Earth--if it even happened here at all. It's quite possible that living examples of (terrestrial) extremophiles would be quite comfortable in certain spots on Mars, Europa, maybe even Titan . . . but we've barely gotten a comprehensive idea of the conditions on those worlds *right now*, much less how they might've been billions or even millions of years in the past.
With the way things have been going, I'm surprised they're still even pretending to care about due process. And really, I wouldn't have a problem with law enforcement gaining access to spy satellite photography as long as they can only get it after supplying evidence to establish probable cause that a specific person committed a specific crime in a specific time and place. But I'm very concerned that little requirement is going to fall by the wayside and they'll be able to spy on citizens waiting for anybody to slip up.
Slippery slope indeed . . .