Readit News logoReadit News
TheLoneWolfling commented on One checkbox equals non-UTC fun   rachelbythebay.com/w/2015... · Posted by u/dantiberian
justin_vanw · 10 years ago
My understanding is that NTP will NOT set your system time back and cause the same time to be seen over and over. This will not happen unless you force it to manually. NTP's behavior is to slow down or speed up the clock on the local machine until it is in sync with it's time sources.

Am I wrong about this?

TheLoneWolfling · 10 years ago
If the time differential is too extreme it will skip ahead or back instead of just skewing.

> ...The ntpd algorithms discard sample offsets exceeding 128 ms, unless the interval during which no sample offset is less than 128 ms exceeds 900s. The first sample after that, no matter what the offset, steps the clock to the indicated time.

> This may on occasion cause the clock to be set backwards if the local clock time is more than 128 [m]s in the future relative to the server. In some applications, this behavior may be unacceptable.

TheLoneWolfling commented on Patent Law Shouldn’t Block the Sale of Used Tech Products   nytimes.com/2015/09/07/op... · Posted by u/walterbell
jahewson · 10 years ago
> And even when said premise is correct for a device, there are cases where the firmware inherently requires copyrighted material (For instance, requiring a (copyrighted) poem in a handshake).

No way! Copyright law does not prevent someone from creating a new work that is designed to be compatible with an old work. Likely outcomes are that the poem would not qualify for copyright protection for that usage (it's not a poem as much as a sequence of arbitrary bytes to be read only by a computer), or that a fair use finding would be made, perhaps on the grounds that the copy does not affect the market for the original work - i.e. nobody was paying for the poem. Most likely a judge would just throw out the entire case at the start as a waste of the court's time.

TheLoneWolfling · 10 years ago
And when someone embeds an entire book (that was otherwise written and they have the rights for) into the handshake, what then?
TheLoneWolfling commented on Patent Law Shouldn’t Block the Sale of Used Tech Products   nytimes.com/2015/09/07/op... · Posted by u/walterbell
superuser2 · 10 years ago
What the manufacturer makes it easy to do and what you can get in legal trouble for are different things.

Do you want the state to use men with guns to force everything with a microcontroller in it to also come with an SDK? I'm basically a socialist, and even I think that's ridiculous overreach.

TheLoneWolfling · 10 years ago
> there are cases where the firmware inherently requires copyrighted material (For instance, requiring a (copyrighted) poem in a handshake).
TheLoneWolfling commented on Patent Law Shouldn’t Block the Sale of Used Tech Products   nytimes.com/2015/09/07/op... · Posted by u/walterbell
jdmichal · 10 years ago
> It's like if it were illegal to use anything but Home Depot(TM) nails on Home Depot(TM) planks, or auto shops that have to kick back to Ford or GM or else they couldn't touch your car.

It's actually nothing like that. It's like Ford refusing to sell you parts for your car. Or Apple refusing to sell you parts for their computers. Nothing says you can't acquire parts from another manufacturer, nor is there anything preventing you from performing the repairs yourself. (Other than maybe warranty terms, which is IMO not a moral hazard.)

TheLoneWolfling · 10 years ago
> Nothing says you can't acquire parts from another manufacturer, nor is there anything preventing you from performing the repairs yourself.

Incorrect.

> I'm not sure if you've been keeping up with US news, but this isn't true, at least until it's decided in court. GM, John Deere, and Ford all have the opposite opinion[1][2][3]

> [1]http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org/2015/04/john-deere-and....

> [2]https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150421/23581430744/gm-sa....

> [3]http://news.boldride.com/2015/04/gm-wants-to-make-working-on....

> Not to mention I think it's currently illegal to Jailbreak an iPhone or root an Android, despite them being yours.

> I really do wish the US was as cut/dry as you make it seem, and I wish they cared about consumers more, but in reality, Companies get far more rights then we, as consumers, do.

For instance: parts that refuse to work unless all other parts return a handshake containing a copyrighted message.

TheLoneWolfling commented on Patent Law Shouldn’t Block the Sale of Used Tech Products   nytimes.com/2015/09/07/op... · Posted by u/walterbell
superuser2 · 10 years ago
The hardware is yours. If you want to blow away the firmware and write your own, no one can (legally) stop you on copyright grounds, though it might lose its street-legal status in the interest of the people you might manslaughter by writing buggy code.

It's where you want to modify the software and post a derivative work online that copyright law kicks in. You may as well say that you do not "own" a book, because you don't have the right to share an edited version of it. Sort of true, but not very interesting.

TheLoneWolfling · 10 years ago
> If you want to blow away the firmware...

False premise: you often cannot blow away the firmware, because it is either hard-coded, or signed.

And even when said premise is correct for a device, there are cases where the firmware inherently requires copyrighted material (For instance, requiring a (copyrighted) poem in a handshake).

TheLoneWolfling commented on Sslip.io: A Valid SSL Certificate for Every IP Address   blog.pivotal.io/labs/labs... · Posted by u/arianvanp
0x0 · 10 years ago
Good question. Maybe you can skip the fee by posting your private key to pastebin and send them the link? :P Might not leave you with an account in good standing with them though ;)
TheLoneWolfling commented on Sslip.io: A Valid SSL Certificate for Every IP Address   blog.pivotal.io/labs/labs... · Posted by u/arianvanp
yrro · 10 years ago
Hm, how is that compatible with Startcom's policy of charging for revocation?
TheLoneWolfling · 10 years ago
It isn't.
TheLoneWolfling commented on How many errors?   nedbatchelder.com//blog/2... · Posted by u/ingve
TheLoneWolfling · 10 years ago
You have a problem. You use a regex. Now you have two problems.
TheLoneWolfling commented on Walking Every Street in San Francisco   sfwalkingman.com/... · Posted by u/wormold
roflchoppa · 10 years ago
a very cool accomplishment. it would be neat to see someone do this without the overlap of walking the same road twice.
TheLoneWolfling · 10 years ago
Not possible. There are > 2 intersections with an odd number of streets. (Note that this includes dead-end streets)
TheLoneWolfling commented on Ask HN: How much do you love C#?    · Posted by u/tuyguntn
nvivo · 10 years ago
That's exactly the point. Enums are just enumerations, they're not classes. It makes little sense in my opinion to add constructors and variables to enums.

You can do exactly what java calls enums with classes in C#, which in my view are better suited to having constructors and fields. But I agree it's all preferences.

TheLoneWolfling · 10 years ago
> You can do exactly what java calls enums with classes in C#

No you cannot. You lose the single biggest benefit of enumerations - namely compile-time checking. (For instance: warning when a switch statement does not cover all cases.)

Try to do this in C#, and you'll see what I mean: http://snipplr.com/view/42422/the-planet-enum-example/. Either you end up with it being ~3x as verbose (if not more), or you lose the compile-time benefits, or both.

u/TheLoneWolfling

KarmaCake day1750August 21, 2013View Original