You have no concept of meaningful literary wordplay. He is stating this in the form of a question, but he is in no way asking a question. He is explicitely telling the person: "You like that.", he is merely doing so in the form of a question. If your feeble mind can't grasp the possibility of a direct statement ending in a question mark, perhaps you should restrict yourself to less sophisticated literature, dumbass.
I have read through slashdot that when you buy a DVD, you arent really buying the Digital Media, but license to view that Digital Media. This brings up the question of that basic right to re-sell something which you have purchased, or so I'm told.
Anyway, the idea comes from that ROM-trading system mentioned a month or two ago. The idea behind that was: people have actual media, and in order to trade it, they send people the files, during which time their media can't be used- just like trading with someone who lives by you, only without the lives by you part. So I figure if what I own when buying a DVD isnt media, but a license, why not rent out that license instead? So here's the proposal: Buy a DVD, put it on a shelf, keep track of how long you spend Not watching the movie. Then rent out the license for the time you arent using it.
If a DVD is a license, not media, you don't have to worry about where the physical media is in order to use the license. If I buy a DVD, go on a trip out of state, and download a rip of the DVD to watch while I'm gone, it's just as legal as making a copy of a movie on VHS and taking that with you on a trip- everything's fine as long as no one is watching that other copy at the same time. Rights are intangable, so your Rights stay with you wherever you go. Rights also dont need to stay in touch with the rest of the world's time. If I'm licensed to see 30 minutes of a slug beating a mormon to death with a petrified woodpecker, I can watch 10 minutes now, 10 minutes later, and save that extra 10 minutes for a friend of mine whom I wish to torment. DVD's, though, have no time limit. You could put one in your drive now and keep the thing spinning until the drive wears out or the disc disintegrates beyond readability. Fortunatly though, if either of those happen, you're still allowed to watch the movie: a DVD is a license, not a media.
So, there's no time limit, Rights stay with you wherever you go, and rights dont have to follow time in a straight line. Plenty of people have DVDs which have been sitting on their shelves unwatched for months. That could have been 720 showings of the movie, all of which remain unseen. What happens to those showings? Well, you're licensed to have viewed them whether you did or not, why not sell them? License Rental can enable thousands of otherwise ilegal viewings to become legit, all at an affordable price. And there's really no drawbacks.
Before commenting on anything I just said, please note that I am aware that I am not familiar with the subject matter I am typing about. I really couldnt give a shit whether anything I said was true or not. The post was meant only to get people thinking. Whether those thoughts are intelligent or not is up to the person doing the thinking. I dont care if they are, the real point is for someone to look at this and go "That's completely wrong....... however, if instead..." and bring about a total intellectual anarchy and new age of perversion. You may have noticed the actual topic of this post ended abruptly. I wish to assure you that this was because I stopped typing on the subject.
Anyone know where I can find information on the Rockridge standard? I can't find it anywhere and I heard it can burn files to CD including permissions information, I need to get specification though since I need to have each.iso generated by a script.. What? I figure we're off-topic enough already as it is:D
Though it does bring up an interesting point that some people really just need to know where a manual is, or if one exists. Manpages often tell everything you could ask for regaurding command line switches, but doesnt talk at all about the interface, or even what it is the program does. The most helpful source of information could be burried in a seemingly unrelated HOWTO which you'd never know to search for without knowing the program's intended function in the first place [you just found it in some error report from cron] I get the feeling that a lot of people who say "RTFM" havent actually read the specific manual in question, they've learned from others, and through experience with related things. I hate being told to RTFM after I just went through the entire thing and have found nothing even related to my problem.
people get annoyed with me that I ask questions on IRC or message boards which are covered thoroughly in manuals. They respond with, of course, "RTFM" Am I the only one who thinks that a Manual is a pretty lame source of information to reach for first-thing? I have a few sources I go through, usually the manual is one of them, but I _Always_ first ask a person who might have the answer on hand. Manuals are not often things which lend themselves to answering typical questions such as "Can I blah?". The problem with "Can I blah" being looked up in a manual, among other things, is that often there are numerous synonyms for 'blah', and only one of them is ever used in the book, especially the index. Perhaps they mean "Read the entire manual before even using the product". The obvious problem here is that manuals are getting longer every day. I've heard that some Linux Distro comes with a 2000 page manual just for getting it installed. Obviously, to read an entire manual before using a product would leave little time for using any products, and leave you more or less unknowledgeable about the product. Then there's the problem of phrasing. Manuals may answer your question, but only burried in a lot of other information which isnt related to what you're actually working on. A person who knows already, however, can simply answer your question. Slashdot, however, is far too public and non-specific. There's no reason to ask this kind of question on slashdot, get some friends or something.
SMP systems became the only acceptable standard and that person shut up, after saying quote: "What? But.. the benchmarks! The benchmarks stay the same!" and pointing to a system which was using the latest in benchmarking technology on one proccessor and proccessing SETI@Home units on the other proccessor, which had been detected as completely idle.
Proccessors dont have to keep getting smaller for the technology to keep getting smaller. And proccessors arent going to stop getting smaller any time soon, the method proccessors use will change, though. And proccessing speed will continue to increase regaurdless of limits put on how small proccessors can get.
Yeah, what's even funnier is that the "Even worse" was something that couldnt possibly happen, so the whole thing was still accurate, and you're a moron. Ha! I win.
I didnt bother with that one for a couple reasons. The most obvious being, you can't know the hostname that is sending out the mail. The second, more subtle, yet I think much more important, is that having to whitelist a server [or group of servers] every time you need to get a mail from an unknown source makes this whole thing no better than any other system. The point of sending along a token is to get messages through without having to deal with a whitelist. Whitelists are pretty much against the entire purpose of using E-Mail instead of IM, It takes away the entire purpose of this 'token' method, and as I mentioned, You can't always know what server to expect the message from. So see, it wasnt that I merely didnt consider it, but it was so utterly stupid as to not warrant a responce.
I thought my worst case scenarios had been perfectly tailored to be understandable to even the stupidest of individuals, but I seem to have been mistaken: I'm talking about sites that DONT support this hack, moron. Ones which do probably wouldnt ignore the reply or accept it as a confirmation. Don't be so eager to spout "RTFA" without READING THE FUCKING POST. bitch.
Obviously we could all switch to just allowing accepted-only people to contact us, or requiring confirmation from a person before accepting a message, but this doesnt solve the problem of registration forms which require you input your e-mail address. You know, for things like Forums, Online Purchases, Your slashdot account, they require a valid e-mail address to have confirmation sent to the user. Are these forms going to respond well to such a system? Are they going to respond at all? Best case: You never recieve your confirmation because your mailer drops the message and the system you are signing up for doesnt respond to replies Worst case: Your mailer replies to the message asking for confirmation, this is taken to be the confirmation the system was waiting for, you are signed up for something you didnt mean to sign up for. Even worse: Two of these bounce off eachother, you are sent a bill for 200 million dollars, and your ISP drops you because you were DoSing their mail server.
The point is that you might be more willing to brush off your shyness and be social with a stranger if you had his personality profile scanned and filtered before you acknowledged his existence. Most people do that anyway, this would just be the geek way of doing that.
And here we're talking about calling the next major release "3.0" while things as important as/the file system/ need to be majorly reworked. Perhaps we shouldnt jump the gun on this. 3.0 should not have things laying around in it that need to be completely re-worked if they're going to work right. It doesnt count as a culmination of significant changes since 2.0 if those changes wont actually be working in 3.0.1
He is not getting a PhD for this, no one is considering or has ever considered getting a PhD for this. No one has even implied that this is the case. So I guess your real problem is that Slashdot doesnt have "Fucking Moron" listed as a reason. [I do protest this, I sorely wish for a "Fucking Moron" option, as I have been forced to mod many non-trollic posts as 'troll' simply because it is the closest option availible]
Slashdot Mirror
You have no concept of meaningful literary wordplay. He is stating this in the form of a question, but he is in no way asking a question. He is explicitely telling the person: "You like that.", he is merely doing so in the form of a question.
If your feeble mind can't grasp the possibility of a direct statement ending in a question mark, perhaps you should restrict yourself to less sophisticated literature, dumbass.
I have read through slashdot that when you buy a DVD, you arent really buying the Digital Media, but license to view that Digital Media. This brings up the question of that basic right to re-sell something which you have purchased, or so I'm told.
... ... however, if instead..." and bring about a total intellectual anarchy and new age of perversion.
Anyway, the idea comes from that ROM-trading system mentioned a month or two ago. The idea behind that was: people have actual media, and in order to trade it, they send people the files, during which time their media can't be used- just like trading with someone who lives by you, only without the lives by you part.
So I figure if what I own when buying a DVD isnt media, but a license, why not rent out that license instead?
So here's the proposal: Buy a DVD, put it on a shelf, keep track of how long you spend Not watching the movie.
Then rent out the license for the time you arent using it.
If a DVD is a license, not media, you don't have to worry about where the physical media is in order to use the license. If I buy a DVD, go on a trip out of state, and download a rip of the DVD to watch while I'm gone, it's just as legal as making a copy of a movie on VHS and taking that with you on a trip- everything's fine as long as no one is watching that other copy at the same time. Rights are intangable, so your Rights stay with you wherever you go. Rights also dont need to stay in touch with the rest of the world's time. If I'm licensed to see 30 minutes of a slug beating a mormon to death with a petrified woodpecker, I can watch 10 minutes now, 10 minutes later, and save that extra 10 minutes for a friend of mine whom I wish to torment.
DVD's, though, have no time limit. You could put one in your drive now and keep the thing spinning until the drive wears out or the disc disintegrates beyond readability. Fortunatly though, if either of those happen, you're still allowed to watch the movie: a DVD is a license, not a media.
So, there's no time limit, Rights stay with you wherever you go, and rights dont have to follow time in a straight line.
Plenty of people have DVDs which have been sitting on their shelves unwatched for months. That could have been 720 showings of the movie, all of which remain unseen. What happens to those showings? Well, you're licensed to have viewed them whether you did or not, why not sell them?
License Rental can enable thousands of otherwise ilegal viewings to become legit, all at an affordable price. And there's really no drawbacks.
Before commenting on anything I just said, please note that I am aware that I am not familiar with the subject matter I am typing about. I really couldnt give a shit whether anything I said was true or not. The post was meant only to get people thinking. Whether those thoughts are intelligent or not is up to the person doing the thinking. I dont care if they are, the real point is for someone to look at this and go "That's completely wrong.
You may have noticed the actual topic of this post ended abruptly. I wish to assure you that this was because I stopped typing on the subject.
Uhm.. Yay!
?
14 hours of searching I can consider an exhausting search.
So it's really a question of 14 hours vs near instantaneous.
If you dont pick instantaneous you're merely a fucking idiot.
Anyone know where I can find information on the Rockridge standard? I can't find it anywhere and I heard it can burn files to CD including permissions information, I need to get specification though since I need to have each .iso generated by a script.. :D
What? I figure we're off-topic enough already as it is
Though it does bring up an interesting point that some people really just need to know where a manual is, or if one exists. Manpages often tell everything you could ask for regaurding command line switches, but doesnt talk at all about the interface, or even what it is the program does. The most helpful source of information could be burried in a seemingly unrelated HOWTO which you'd never know to search for without knowing the program's intended function in the first place [you just found it in some error report from cron]
I get the feeling that a lot of people who say "RTFM" havent actually read the specific manual in question, they've learned from others, and through experience with related things. I hate being told to RTFM after I just went through the entire thing and have found nothing even related to my problem.
people get annoyed with me that I ask questions on IRC or message boards which are covered thoroughly in manuals. They respond with, of course, "RTFM"
Am I the only one who thinks that a Manual is a pretty lame source of information to reach for first-thing?
I have a few sources I go through, usually the manual is one of them, but I _Always_ first ask a person who might have the answer on hand. Manuals are not often things which lend themselves to answering typical questions such as "Can I blah?". The problem with "Can I blah" being looked up in a manual, among other things, is that often there are numerous synonyms for 'blah', and only one of them is ever used in the book, especially the index.
Perhaps they mean "Read the entire manual before even using the product". The obvious problem here is that manuals are getting longer every day. I've heard that some Linux Distro comes with a 2000 page manual just for getting it installed. Obviously, to read an entire manual before using a product would leave little time for using any products, and leave you more or less unknowledgeable about the product.
Then there's the problem of phrasing. Manuals may answer your question, but only burried in a lot of other information which isnt related to what you're actually working on. A person who knows already, however, can simply answer your question.
Slashdot, however, is far too public and non-specific. There's no reason to ask this kind of question on slashdot, get some friends or something.
I saw nearly this exact post a couple threads back! Maybe you should try the slashdot search feature before making a post, mmkay?
I think he posted to the wrong topic, note the next story. However, he's a troll, so it doesnt matter either way.
"simultaneously handling multiple objects for use in developing
chemical substitutes for products commonly used to cook"?
No...
Maybe you mean "^s\w+ing$" my "[dc]\w+k$"? But that doesnt make sense... why would they want a patent on stewing your duck?
SMP systems became the only acceptable standard and that person shut up, after saying quote: "What? But.. the benchmarks! The benchmarks stay the same!" and pointing to a system which was using the latest in benchmarking technology on one proccessor and proccessing SETI@Home units on the other proccessor, which had been detected as completely idle.
Proccessors dont have to keep getting smaller for the technology to keep getting smaller. And proccessors arent going to stop getting smaller any time soon, the method proccessors use will change, though. And proccessing speed will continue to increase regaurdless of limits put on how small proccessors can get.
Yeah, what's even funnier is that the "Even worse" was something that couldnt possibly happen, so the whole thing was still accurate, and you're a moron. Ha! I win.
I didnt bother with that one for a couple reasons.
The most obvious being, you can't know the hostname that is sending out the mail.
The second, more subtle, yet I think much more important, is that having to whitelist a server [or group of servers] every time you need to get a mail from an unknown source makes this whole thing no better than any other system. The point of sending along a token is to get messages through without having to deal with a whitelist. Whitelists are pretty much against the entire purpose of using E-Mail instead of IM, It takes away the entire purpose of this 'token' method, and as I mentioned, You can't always know what server to expect the message from.
So see, it wasnt that I merely didnt consider it, but it was so utterly stupid as to not warrant a responce.
I thought my worst case scenarios had been perfectly tailored to be understandable to even the stupidest of individuals, but I seem to have been mistaken: I'm talking about sites that DONT support this hack, moron. Ones which do probably wouldnt ignore the reply or accept it as a confirmation. Don't be so eager to spout "RTFA" without READING THE FUCKING POST. bitch.
Obviously we could all switch to just allowing accepted-only people to contact us, or requiring confirmation from a person before accepting a message, but this doesnt solve the problem of registration forms which require you input your e-mail address. You know, for things like Forums, Online Purchases, Your slashdot account, they require a valid e-mail address to have confirmation sent to the user. Are these forms going to respond well to such a system? Are they going to respond at all?
Best case: You never recieve your confirmation because your mailer drops the message and the system you are signing up for doesnt respond to replies
Worst case: Your mailer replies to the message asking for confirmation, this is taken to be the confirmation the system was waiting for, you are signed up for something you didnt mean to sign up for.
Even worse: Two of these bounce off eachother, you are sent a bill for 200 million dollars, and your ISP drops you because you were DoSing their mail server.
Uh-huh. Everything I said is 100% true. Really.
When you're buying the display model you already wave the expectation that the computer is new.
But linux has already done both of those! Get a new goal!
"ZzzzzzzZzzzzz" is hit by the lameness filter and a stick man in a box gets through? BOOOooo!
You're so cool you could keep a slab of meat in you for a week.
It seems someone has taken the advice...
Wake me when I can get on of these that works with T-rays
The point is that you might be more willing to brush off your shyness and be social with a stranger if you had his personality profile scanned and filtered before you acknowledged his existence. Most people do that anyway, this would just be the geek way of doing that.
And if I said we shouldnt go to the moon, I suppose you'd assume I meant "at all" instead of "again" and correct me there, too.
Now my friends can't bug me with things like "She'll never talk to you if you dont do anything but stare at her from accross the room!"
And here we're talking about calling the next major release "3.0" while things as important as /the file system/ need to be majorly reworked. Perhaps we shouldnt jump the gun on this. 3.0 should not have things laying around in it that need to be completely re-worked if they're going to work right. It doesnt count as a culmination of significant changes since 2.0 if those changes wont actually be working in 3.0.1
He is not getting a PhD for this, no one is considering or has ever considered getting a PhD for this. No one has even implied that this is the case.
So I guess your real problem is that Slashdot doesnt have "Fucking Moron" listed as a reason. [I do protest this, I sorely wish for a "Fucking Moron" option, as I have been forced to mod many non-trollic posts as 'troll' simply because it is the closest option availible]
Are you really so busy that you can't spend more than 2 seconds typing a /. post? Maybe you should be working instead of reading slashdot!