Oh! This is Abuse. You want room 12-A next door.

Stupid Git!

Except the host OS will most likely use lazy memory allocation - i.e. it will allocate virtual address space, but will only allocate physical memory when it is actually used. The end result is that even after requesting 4GB of memory, if I've only written to 128MB of it, then I've only got 128MB allocated from the host.

On the other hand, if you request, and then immediately use all that memory, then yes, you are going to have issues (which is why a C malloc followed by memset is bad).

I see what you're saying - I guess I'm just not convinced that high compression (lossless or otherwise) of a higher definition source is necessarily better than a much lower compression of a lower definition source.

Of course, I'm not necessarily convinced that it isn't better either since I know next to nothing about the details of codecs and how humans interpret the end result.

My point isn't so much that an absolute difference of 10% in the actual vs. the reported compression is large, it's that it's inappropriate to say "almost" when the discrepancy is 25% of the actual value.

Don't forget, that 10% isn't 10% of the compressed stream, it's 10% of the uncompressed stream. By reporting 50% compression, that's stating a compression ratio that is 25% greater than it actually is. Due to the non-linear response of biological systems such as eyes and ears, I wouldn't expect many to notice a difference of 10% either. 40% well, possibly there'd be plenty of people who'd notice that. An additional 25% compression and I certainly would expect that to be noticed.

I personally agree with another comment that what they probably did was displayed the comparison pictures on SDTV equipment, hence the "typical" home equipment line.

For my part, when I had Sky+ (SD), I could usually spot the compression artefacts on a SDTV. Now that I have Sky+HD with a HDMI connection to my 1080p HDTV, it's like the difference between VHS and DVD. The low resolution of SDTV just makes it look appalling. Of course, most HD shows just look *too* sharp, but that's another matter.

While I agree in principle with you, there comes a time when "almost" is simply hyperbole.

When the difference between the actual percentage and the "almost" percentage is a quarter of the original figure, then that's just plain silly. (there's a 10% difference between 40% and 50%, which happens to be 25% of the actual value)

You do understand though, that the lost information in your example is lost at the capture stage not the compression stage don't you?

Lossless compression is just that - lossless. Try compressing your copy of notepad.exe with WinZip, extract it and tell me if it still works. That's lossless compression. The result of compression then decompression is bitwise identical to the original. It has nothing to do with whether the original data is an accurate representation of what it claims to be.

Right there, you've just destroyed your own argument. Having "exclusive use" of your code is not a "real, tangible product". The instant you sell or supply your code to anyone else, you necessarily lose the ability to have "exclusive use" of that code.

What copyright gives you is the exclusive right to control the copying and distribution of your code.

Now, what you almost touch on is that theft concerns "real, tangible products", not abstract concepts like software. Regardless of what all the armchair lawyers on Slashdot think, you cannot steal an idea. How many copyright cases do you think include the word theft? I'll give you a hint - it's probably zero. No, they use words like infringement and violation. The simple reason is, despite what they want you to believe, there is no such thing as stealing non-tangible concepts. The copyright owners know it, the courts know it, everybody knows it except the people who are taken in by Big Content's rhetoric.

Copyright infringement may or may not be immoral. It may or may not be unethical. One thing it is not, however, is theft.

Oh, one more thing - we've always been at war with Eurasia.

Although you are trying to ignore this fact, there is a difference between having competitors in a market, and that market being competitive. It's a subtle difference, but it is there.

I gave you an example of how software patents might stifle competitors - I did not claim they can be used to eliminate competitors and thus create a purely uncompetitive market, though surely even you can see how that can happen.

Well, at least we agree about how patents are supposed to be. If patents were granted only for the specific implementation, and not for things that are "obvious, for someone skilled in the art", or indeed in the face of prior art that just hasn't been researched properly, as so many are, then I agree, it would be very difficult to use a patent portfolio to manipulate the market. We both know that's not how it works in reality.

Without wanting to drift too far off topic, you only have to look at how companies use their overly broad and vague software patent portfolios to stifle competition.

If patents were specific to a particular implementation and not overbroad, I might be able to agree, but as it stands, in many areas they've devolved into government sponsored strangleholds, effectively removing competition by raising the barrier to entry due to the threat of expensive patent litigation.

I'd hazard a guess that software patents have something to do with that.

I totally agree, but part of being a professional is conducting yourself ethically at your job. I do not agree that he could ethically divulge critical passwords to personnel he knew to be unqualified to use them, especially when company policy tells him not to.

At the very least I'd imagine you'd be liable for aiding and abetting.

No, he is still responsible because he still has access to the administrative accounts. Now, if the passwords had been changed to prevent access by him, and it was formally noted - that would be better, but he was still obligated by his responsibilities and company policy to not divulge sensitive information to unqualified morons.

Except when his boss screwed something up using that account, who do you think will take the fall? His boss?

He's taking the fall anyway, but he did the right thing and will be ultimately vindicated. Oh, and the city will face a hefty legal bill plus compensation. It wouldn't surprise me if he pressed criminal charges over his arrest and detainment.

Except he was following sensible security precautions and the official policy of the owners of the equipment - they don't have a leg to stand on. They required him to agree to the policy as part of the terms of his employment, and now they're trying to ruin him in criminal court because they wanted to bypass that policy. BZZZZZZT! Wrong answer!

My bad - clearly I don't understand how threading works on /.

Obviously I *am* new around here ;-)