No one has ever proposed that memory of copyrighted work constitutes an illegal copy. That position is absurd. Please argue against a position that is actually hold.
On the other hand, if you have an eidetic memory allowing you to precisely reproduce a work from it, and you do so, then try to distribute it, that is probably copyright infringement. You did not create the work, so why should you have the right to distribute it? Create your own work to sell. If you can't, then that only demonstrates that the original creator has a valuable skill and deserves compensation.
If you're going to disable automatic opening of JPEG files for that reason, then you'd better disable your internet browser altogether. After all, your browser's JPEG renderer or even its HTML render could very well have buffer overruns.
Note: If the decoder is written in a varifiable-bytecode-based, pointer-safe language using capability-based security, it's quite possible to know for sure that it is safe. It's too bad everyone insists on using C/C++, which is none of those things. (And even Java only covers the first two.)
None of your examples have anything to do with my point. A "safe" file in this case is one which can be opened (using the format's full intended functionality) without giving the file's author the opportunity to damage your system, assuming a correct implementation (no buffer overruns). An executable file is unsafe because it is generally not possible to examine the contents of the executable ahead of time to see what it plans to do. The presence of an incorrectly-implemented viewer for a format does not make that format itself unsafe.
Why do people like you say things like "What the hell are you talking about?" and then proceed to make completely nonsensical arguments?
as there is no way to tell whether any file is actually "safe".
Wrong. Text files are "safe". JPEG files are "safe". Java applets are "safe". Flash is "safe". Any software written in a verifiable-bytecode-based, pointer-safe language with capability-based security should be "safe".
Obviously a dashboard widget should not be considered safe, but that doesn't prove that it's impossible to tell if a file is safe. It only proves that the Safari developers made a mistake when deciding what should be considered safe.
Yes, I agree, "Cache-Control: private" should be default for any dynamic site unless the developer states otherwise. It was a good idea for IIS to do it that way.
Of course, you should only slap the "private" header on pages which are actually private. Otherwise you're just killing the ability of the cache to do its job. But, marking everything private is better than marking nothing private; the former just reduces performance while the latter is a security problem.
It looks like microsoft.com, which simply redirects to www.microsoft.com, is marked "private". That's excessive, and indicates to me that Microsoft's web designers don't understand cache-friendliness or weren't interested in implementing it.
I assume Google has properly implemented the HTTP/1.1 caching mechanisms. Among these, it is possible for a server to mark a page as being "private", meaning that it should never be cached in a public cache like Google's. Another thing the server can do is set "Vary: Cookie", which indicates that the server will produce different pages for people who give it different cookies.
Here are the headers that the Futuremark forums give me when I am logged in:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 18:10:16 GMT Server: Apache/1.3.29 (Unix) mod_perl/1.29 Transfer-Encoding: chunked Content-Type: text/html
As you can see, neither "Cache-Control: private" nor "Vary: Cookie" is given. In fact, the server doesn't even give an expiration date for the content. Under these conditions, the HTTP/1.1 protocol says that it is perfectly OK for a cache to keep this page for awhile and serve it to other people.
This problem is firmly the fault of the people who wrote Futuremark's forums. This constitutes a major security hole in the WWWThreads forum package, because this problem will occur when using any standards-compliant HTTP cache. I would strongly recommend against the use of these forums on any web site until they fix their security problems.
(I do not know if other forum software has this problem, but frankly it would not surprise me. It seems lots of PHP developers and other high-level web programmers have no idea how HTTP/1.1 works, and assume that headers are completely unimportant. I have written a web server and forum software myself, though, and I made damned sure that mine produces the right headers.)
I haven't played Everquest, but I've played plenty of WoW, which is just as addictive. Basically, the feeling of accomplishment from completing a quest, gaining a level, etc., feels good. Becoming more powerful as a result of these things also feels good.
All this is magnified by the fact that there are thousands of other people in the same world as you, and your accomplishments make you "better" relative to them. At some point, you find yourself dreaming about all the great things you'll be able to do once you hit the level cap, and all the power you will have over the average player. So the desire to become ultra-powerful also drives you on.
I also rather enjoy just exploring new areas. The world in WoW is huge and beautiful. It would literally take days of play time to see everything, even if there were no enemies to slow you down.
That said, it does get really repetitive. If you snap yourself out of the spell for a bit and realize "This is just a game. My status relative to all these other players is totally irrelevant.", the game gets really boring really fast.
If I'm looking to waste five minutes, I'll play DDR. It's not very filling, but it's kind of a fun distraction.
If I'm looking to waste an hour or two, I'll play a round of Warcraft. This is a little more interesting, but still mostly a distraction.
If I'm looking to waste a weekend, I'll play an FF or other long single-player RPG. I will get much, much more out of this than playing DDR all weekend. A good RPG story makes you think, makes you laugh and cry, etc. There's something cathartic about it, and you come out feeling emotionally refreshed.
Few people look back at 40 hours of DDR (or Counter-Strike, Warcraft, etc.) with the kind of emotional attachment that a good RPG can bring.
This is not to say that short games don't have their place. I wouldn't trade in DDR for another RPG. I guess my point is that it's like comparing cars to airplanes and concluding that cars are always better.
I believe if you do a getsockopt for SO_RCVBUF (i.e. the size of the receive buffer), the result will be 8192. You might try calling setsockopt to change this size for any particular socket. I have not tried this and so can't guarantee that it will work.
Why are you relying on such things? A TCP conection is a continuous stream of bytes, not a bunch of separate packets. There has never been any guarantee that send()s and recv()s would match up 1:1, even if they are less that 8k. If you are relying on this behavior, you need to fix your design.
For a minute there, when you said "They picked C", I thought you meant as in the programming language. Ironically, your post makes almost as much sense with this interpretation./me runs away.
The problem is that he is using his powers not to help the country, but to punish his opponents. This telecommunications conference has nothing to do with partisan politics. His actions make no sense in that respect. It seems much more like he is trying to punish people who donated to Kerry's campaign, perhaps in an effort to scare them away from donating in the future.
Simply put, it is NOT OK to punish people based on their political donations.
In all fairness, in this case RMS was clearly referring to development of the Linux kernel, which is not a GNU project. When he complains about calling it GNU/Linux, he is referring to a complete Linux-based operating system, including shells and command-line tools provided by GNU.
(Not that I agree with him. A complete Linux-based OS includes all sorts of critical software that is not part of Linux or GNU, such as X, Apache, Sendmail, Bind, etc., etc. Gotta stop somewhere.)
I can't find anything in there that requires the state of Texas to provide porn to truckers.
Information is speech. In particular, adult-content text and images are speech. There is no logical reason to prohibit two parties from privately exchanging such information, even over a public network. No one else on the network needs to know that the exchange is taking place.
I believe that the people of Texas have a right to spend their tax money as they please.
It almost certainly costs the state of Texas more money to block this content than it would to leave the networks unfiltered. Therefore, the people of Texas are spending additional tax dollars specifically on censorship. This censorship is not bringing any real advantage to anyone; the only conceivable advantage is that it is bringing peace of mind to people who think porn is evil.
I apologize. I read the article, and it said that white LEDs were made by combining red, green, and blue LEDs. I guess they were wrong. So much for reading TFA...
Oh well. I read the article, and it said that a white led was created by mixing the three. Now I've been moderated to hell for believing the apparently incorrect info in TFA.
In fact, there is a major difference, even in theory. A white LED light is produced by combining red, green, and blue LEDs. If you were to take this white light and run it through a prism, you would not see it defract into a rainbow. Instead, you'd see a red beam, a green beam, and a blue beam.
Now, technically our eyes only have receptors for red, green, and blue. So, what you would see would look mostly the same as under true white lite. However, the way light reflects off of surfaces can be more complex than that. Imagine a surface which only reflects light in the yellow range (that is, it does not simply reflect red and green, but in fact reflects only the yellow wavelength of light). This surface might appear yellow under natural light, but would be black under this LED light!
In general, you won't see such extreme differences. But, there will be subtle differences between colors viewed under these white LEDs vs. an old-fashion light bulb. Will you care? Maybe, maybe not. Fluorescent light has the same problem, and personally it never bothered me. But, yes, I can certainly imagine there being "illumiphiles" who are bothered by it.
Oh yeah... and if you're one of those mutants with a fourth color receptor, you'll hate these lights.
Are you sure you're looking at the right page? The link in the article is to the reference image, which is just a PNG of the correct output. Try this link for the actual test:
Slashdot Mirror
Straw man.
No one has ever proposed that memory of copyrighted work constitutes an illegal copy. That position is absurd. Please argue against a position that is actually hold.
On the other hand, if you have an eidetic memory allowing you to precisely reproduce a work from it, and you do so, then try to distribute it, that is probably copyright infringement. You did not create the work, so why should you have the right to distribute it? Create your own work to sell. If you can't, then that only demonstrates that the original creator has a valuable skill and deserves compensation.
If you're going to disable automatic opening of JPEG files for that reason, then you'd better disable your internet browser altogether. After all, your browser's JPEG renderer or even its HTML render could very well have buffer overruns.
Note: If the decoder is written in a varifiable-bytecode-based, pointer-safe language using capability-based security, it's quite possible to know for sure that it is safe. It's too bad everyone insists on using C/C++, which is none of those things. (And even Java only covers the first two.)
That doesn't make JPEG unsafe. That makes those decoders unsafe.
None of your examples have anything to do with my point. A "safe" file in this case is one which can be opened (using the format's full intended functionality) without giving the file's author the opportunity to damage your system, assuming a correct implementation (no buffer overruns). An executable file is unsafe because it is generally not possible to examine the contents of the executable ahead of time to see what it plans to do. The presence of an incorrectly-implemented viewer for a format does not make that format itself unsafe.
Why do people like you say things like "What the hell are you talking about?" and then proceed to make completely nonsensical arguments?
as there is no way to tell whether any file is actually "safe".
Wrong. Text files are "safe". JPEG files are "safe". Java applets are "safe". Flash is "safe". Any software written in a verifiable-bytecode-based, pointer-safe language with capability-based security should be "safe".
Obviously a dashboard widget should not be considered safe, but that doesn't prove that it's impossible to tell if a file is safe. It only proves that the Safari developers made a mistake when deciding what should be considered safe.
Yes, I agree, "Cache-Control: private" should be default for any dynamic site unless the developer states otherwise. It was a good idea for IIS to do it that way.
Of course, you should only slap the "private" header on pages which are actually private. Otherwise you're just killing the ability of the cache to do its job. But, marking everything private is better than marking nothing private; the former just reduces performance while the latter is a security problem.
It looks like microsoft.com, which simply redirects to www.microsoft.com, is marked "private". That's excessive, and indicates to me that Microsoft's web designers don't understand cache-friendliness or weren't interested in implementing it.
Here are the headers that the Futuremark forums give me when I am logged in:As you can see, neither "Cache-Control: private" nor "Vary: Cookie" is given. In fact, the server doesn't even give an expiration date for the content. Under these conditions, the HTTP/1.1 protocol says that it is perfectly OK for a cache to keep this page for awhile and serve it to other people.
This problem is firmly the fault of the people who wrote Futuremark's forums. This constitutes a major security hole in the WWWThreads forum package, because this problem will occur when using any standards-compliant HTTP cache. I would strongly recommend against the use of these forums on any web site until they fix their security problems.
(I do not know if other forum software has this problem, but frankly it would not surprise me. It seems lots of PHP developers and other high-level web programmers have no idea how HTTP/1.1 works, and assume that headers are completely unimportant. I have written a web server and forum software myself, though, and I made damned sure that mine produces the right headers.)
I haven't played Everquest, but I've played plenty of WoW, which is just as addictive. Basically, the feeling of accomplishment from completing a quest, gaining a level, etc., feels good. Becoming more powerful as a result of these things also feels good.
All this is magnified by the fact that there are thousands of other people in the same world as you, and your accomplishments make you "better" relative to them. At some point, you find yourself dreaming about all the great things you'll be able to do once you hit the level cap, and all the power you will have over the average player. So the desire to become ultra-powerful also drives you on.
I also rather enjoy just exploring new areas. The world in WoW is huge and beautiful. It would literally take days of play time to see everything, even if there were no enemies to slow you down.
That said, it does get really repetitive. If you snap yourself out of the spell for a bit and realize "This is just a game. My status relative to all these other players is totally irrelevant.", the game gets really boring really fast.
If I'm looking to waste five minutes, I'll play DDR. It's not very filling, but it's kind of a fun distraction.
If I'm looking to waste an hour or two, I'll play a round of Warcraft. This is a little more interesting, but still mostly a distraction.
If I'm looking to waste a weekend, I'll play an FF or other long single-player RPG. I will get much, much more out of this than playing DDR all weekend. A good RPG story makes you think, makes you laugh and cry, etc. There's something cathartic about it, and you come out feeling emotionally refreshed.
Few people look back at 40 hours of DDR (or Counter-Strike, Warcraft, etc.) with the kind of emotional attachment that a good RPG can bring.
This is not to say that short games don't have their place. I wouldn't trade in DDR for another RPG. I guess my point is that it's like comparing cars to airplanes and concluding that cars are always better.
I believe if you do a getsockopt for SO_RCVBUF (i.e. the size of the receive buffer), the result will be 8192. You might try calling setsockopt to change this size for any particular socket. I have not tried this and so can't guarantee that it will work.
Why are you relying on such things? A TCP conection is a continuous stream of bytes, not a bunch of separate packets. There has never been any guarantee that send()s and recv()s would match up 1:1, even if they are less that 8k. If you are relying on this behavior, you need to fix your design.
For a minute there, when you said "They picked C", I thought you meant as in the programming language. Ironically, your post makes almost as much sense with this interpretation. /me runs away.
This is exactly why we have laws against monopolies, now, isn't it? :)
The problem is that he is using his powers not to help the country, but to punish his opponents. This telecommunications conference has nothing to do with partisan politics. His actions make no sense in that respect. It seems much more like he is trying to punish people who donated to Kerry's campaign, perhaps in an effort to scare them away from donating in the future.
Simply put, it is NOT OK to punish people based on their political donations.
In all fairness, in this case RMS was clearly referring to development of the Linux kernel, which is not a GNU project. When he complains about calling it GNU/Linux, he is referring to a complete Linux-based operating system, including shells and command-line tools provided by GNU.
(Not that I agree with him. A complete Linux-based OS includes all sorts of critical software that is not part of Linux or GNU, such as X, Apache, Sendmail, Bind, etc., etc. Gotta stop somewhere.)
Yeah, but a single FF8 summon is still longer.
Does blocking adult content at a truck stop provide any benefit whatsoever to anyone?
Didn't think so.
I can't find anything in there that requires the state of Texas to provide porn to truckers.
Information is speech. In particular, adult-content text and images are speech. There is no logical reason to prohibit two parties from privately exchanging such information, even over a public network. No one else on the network needs to know that the exchange is taking place.
I believe that the people of Texas have a right to spend their tax money as they please.
It almost certainly costs the state of Texas more money to block this content than it would to leave the networks unfiltered. Therefore, the people of Texas are spending additional tax dollars specifically on censorship. This censorship is not bringing any real advantage to anyone; the only conceivable advantage is that it is bringing peace of mind to people who think porn is evil.
Total waste of money.
I apologize. I read the article, and it said that white LEDs were made by combining red, green, and blue LEDs. I guess they were wrong. So much for reading TFA...
Oh well. I read the article, and it said that a white led was created by mixing the three. Now I've been moderated to hell for believing the apparently incorrect info in TFA.
In fact, there is a major difference, even in theory. A white LED light is produced by combining red, green, and blue LEDs. If you were to take this white light and run it through a prism, you would not see it defract into a rainbow. Instead, you'd see a red beam, a green beam, and a blue beam.
Now, technically our eyes only have receptors for red, green, and blue. So, what you would see would look mostly the same as under true white lite. However, the way light reflects off of surfaces can be more complex than that. Imagine a surface which only reflects light in the yellow range (that is, it does not simply reflect red and green, but in fact reflects only the yellow wavelength of light). This surface might appear yellow under natural light, but would be black under this LED light!
In general, you won't see such extreme differences. But, there will be subtle differences between colors viewed under these white LEDs vs. an old-fashion light bulb. Will you care? Maybe, maybe not. Fluorescent light has the same problem, and personally it never bothered me. But, yes, I can certainly imagine there being "illumiphiles" who are bothered by it.
Oh yeah... and if you're one of those mutants with a fourth color receptor, you'll hate these lights.
You have a good point, but somehow I don't think Mr. Coward is terribly concerned about his karma. ;)
Just use this:
http://www.thinkgeek.com/stuff/41/tracker.shtml
(Note: Product originally announced April 1st, 2005)
Are you sure you're looking at the right page? The link in the article is to the reference image, which is just a PNG of the correct output. Try this link for the actual test:
http://webstandards.org/act/acid2/test.html#top
Safari fails for me.