The problems and solutions will not be available there because this was a private competition run by TopCoder for Google, rather than a standard TopCoder competition.
The easy problem was, given a topographic map (as an array of strings of the same length, with 'A' to 'Z' giving the heights), a point on the map, and a cardinal direction, return the farthest point visible in that direction from that point.
The medium problem was, given an array of integers representing the coefficients of a polynomial, return the largest root. Note that this is harder than it sounds because it's difficult to solve correctly just using Newton's method.
The hard problem was, given an integer n and a fixed, precisely defined set of keystrokes available in a hypothetical editor, return the minimum number of keystrokes required to produce exactly n copies of the same character. This required an efficient search and correct choice of state space.
The only problem I see is that most people would take the oppurtunity to vote "none of the above". Consider the last US presidential election, for example...
You still have not actually cited SCOTUS cases saying that the militia is the State and National Guards. No rational debate can occur if you simply call names and repeat yourself while thrice failing to cite these two cases that prove your point.
That right there screws any individual interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
It does so only if "militia" refers to the State and National Guards. Miller quotes a bunch of stuff suggesting that the militia consists of all able-bodied males, and so does not screw any individual rights interpretation. If the SCOTUS said that the militia consists of the State and National Guards, then that would seem to represent a departure from Miller.
Citing US v. Miller by itself doesn't prove your point, because it seems to quote a bunch of stuff from the 17th and 18th centuries saying that the militia is "all able-bodied males" and stuff like that. Miller is also a strange decision to cite because it states that "in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument," which would seem to imply that it could have been decided differently if the weapon in question was, for example, a fully-automatic assault rifle.
If the connotation of "regulated" hadn't changed over 200 years, you might have a point, but it has and you don't.
From the OED, "regulated: b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare." Thus, the analogy is clear. Disciplined troops correspond to a schooled electorate.
Modern firearms are vastly easier to use, way more powerful and reliable than anything available back then - at close range you could probably kill more quickly and effectively with a decent modern combat knife by the time you've reloaded one of those clunkers.
The lethality of firearms has changed much less than you might expect, because modern medicine is overwhelmingly superior to 18th century medicine. A gunshot wound would have been much more likely to lead to infection and subsequent amputation or death. Recall that the Civil War was the bloodiest in this nation's history.
Most proprietary licenses grant fewer rights that copyright law does by default. If such a license is void, the customer loses nothing, and thus is owed no refund.
I agree that Symantec may publish software that blocks any sites whatsoever. It becomes a free speech when the use of such software is mandated by things like CIPA.
Uh, just because the ACLU is anti-gun doesn't mean it doesn't support the free speech rights of pro-gun people. I mean, the ACLU supports neo-Nazis' free speech rights, but they're not Nazis.
One wonders why MIT did not acquire the rights to play the music from one of the music clearing houses instead of going to a digital streaming company. The whole point of this exercise, after all, was to not stream music over the web. The music may originate from a computer, and I think this is the norm for many radio stations, but it is broadcast over cable.
MIT has properly the acquired the rights to broadcast music from ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC. The problem appears that Loudeye did not have the right to provide with MIT with the files that it did, or something weird like that.
Of course such action would not be legally rightful, but it violates the rights of the copyright holders, not the customers. The terms and conditions of the proprietary license might indeed be void, but this does not mean that customers could compel CocoaTech to give them source code.
If the copyright holders do not enforce their rights, no one else can.
Normally true, but if you've bought the product you have a leg to stand on as well, there are certain legal rights your supposed to have and you do have a right to demand them.
That may be true if CocoaTech states that it is licensing part of the product to you under the GPL, but in principle they could say that they are licensing the entire product to you under some proprietary license, and then only the copyright holders of the incorporated GPL'd work could bring them to task for distributing their work without complying with the terms of the GPL.
Well, misinformed comments on/. are far more often the results of not reading than of misreading. I apologize if you did read it, but did so incorrectly.
Part of the legal power that is being exerted is the very fact that its NOT analog signals..
LAMP broadcasts analog signals over cable, as permitted by MIT's licenses with ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC.
Since they are moving the audio do digital format, they potentially are asking for trouble.
That's backwards. Audio from CD's, which are digital, is being broadcast as analog, just like any radio station does.
Plus AFAIK a license to broadcast analog doesn't automatically give you a license to broadcast digital ( it makes sense that you should be able too, but when does law have to make sense? )
Slashdot Mirror
This wasn't a lottery. The probability of winning depended on skill, and the four winners certainly had a better than 1/5000 chance of winning.
The problems and solutions will not be available there because this was a private competition run by TopCoder for Google, rather than a standard TopCoder competition.
The easy problem was, given a topographic map (as an array of strings of the same length, with 'A' to 'Z' giving the heights), a point on the map, and a cardinal direction, return the farthest point visible in that direction from that point.
The medium problem was, given an array of integers representing the coefficients of a polynomial, return the largest root. Note that this is harder than it sounds because it's difficult to solve correctly just using Newton's method.
The hard problem was, given an integer n and a fixed, precisely defined set of keystrokes available in a hypothetical editor, return the minimum number of keystrokes required to produce exactly n copies of the same character. This required an efficient search and correct choice of state space.
You are correct. The four winners used C++.
Is it really that hard to assign one person the task of being responsible for domain renewals?
Jeez, even if that's all somebody did it would be worth paying someone $20,000/year just to avoid serious cock-ups like this one.
Hell, I'll keep all their domains renewed for only $15,000 a year.
The only problem I see is that most people would take the oppurtunity to vote "none of the above". Consider the last US presidential election, for example...
And this is a problem because?
No wonder Schwarzenegger won California!
You still have not actually cited SCOTUS cases saying that the militia is the State and National Guards. No rational debate can occur if you simply call names and repeat yourself while thrice failing to cite these two cases that prove your point.
That right there screws any individual interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
It does so only if "militia" refers to the State and National Guards. Miller quotes a bunch of stuff suggesting that the militia consists of all able-bodied males, and so does not screw any individual rights interpretation. If the SCOTUS said that the militia consists of the State and National Guards, then that would seem to represent a departure from Miller.
Citing US v. Miller by itself doesn't prove your point, because it seems to quote a bunch of stuff from the 17th and 18th centuries saying that the militia is "all able-bodied males" and stuff like that. Miller is also a strange decision to cite because it states that "in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument," which would seem to imply that it could have been decided differently if the weapon in question was, for example, a fully-automatic assault rifle.
OK, what you say makes sense. So, why does the FSF, for example, seek to have developers assign copyright to them?
If the connotation of "regulated" hadn't changed over 200 years, you might have a point, but it has and you don't.
From the OED, "regulated: b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare." Thus, the analogy is clear. Disciplined troops correspond to a schooled electorate.
Modern firearms are vastly easier to use, way more powerful and reliable than anything available back then - at close range you could probably kill more quickly and effectively with a decent modern combat knife by the time you've reloaded one of those clunkers.
The lethality of firearms has changed much less than you might expect, because modern medicine is overwhelmingly superior to 18th century medicine. A gunshot wound would have been much more likely to lead to infection and subsequent amputation or death. Recall that the Civil War was the bloodiest in this nation's history.
Most proprietary licenses grant fewer rights that copyright law does by default. If such a license is void, the customer loses nothing, and thus is owed no refund.
I agree that Symantec may publish software that blocks any sites whatsoever. It becomes a free speech when the use of such software is mandated by things like CIPA.
This is false. If this has happened, cite the cases.
Uh, just because the ACLU is anti-gun doesn't mean it doesn't support the free speech rights of pro-gun people. I mean, the ACLU supports neo-Nazis' free speech rights, but they're not Nazis.
One wonders why MIT did not acquire the rights to play the music from one of the music clearing houses instead of going to a digital streaming company. The whole point of this exercise, after all, was to not stream music over the web. The music may originate from a computer, and I think this is the norm for many radio stations, but it is broadcast over cable.
MIT has properly the acquired the rights to broadcast music from ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC. The problem appears that Loudeye did not have the right to provide with MIT with the files that it did, or something weird like that.
Why does MIT get to broadcast music for free, and what does this have to do with mp3.com?
MIT doesn't get to broadcast music for free, it gets to broadcast music under the licenses for which it pays ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC.
Of course such action would not be legally rightful, but it violates the rights of the copyright holders, not the customers. The terms and conditions of the proprietary license might indeed be void, but this does not mean that customers could compel CocoaTech to give them source code. If the copyright holders do not enforce their rights, no one else can.
Normally true, but if you've bought the product you have a leg to stand on as well, there are certain legal rights your supposed to have and you do have a right to demand them.
That may be true if CocoaTech states that it is licensing part of the product to you under the GPL, but in principle they could say that they are licensing the entire product to you under some proprietary license, and then only the copyright holders of the incorporated GPL'd work could bring them to task for distributing their work without complying with the terms of the GPL.
According to the sentence you yourself quote, they are using all but 44 computers.
Well, misinformed comments on /. are far more often the results of not reading than of misreading. I apologize if you did read it, but did so incorrectly.
I'm not the AC who replied.
This is surely not a PhD thesis.
What the hell are you rambling about?
Part of the legal power that is being exerted is the very fact that its NOT analog signals..
LAMP broadcasts analog signals over cable, as permitted by MIT's licenses with ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC.
Since they are moving the audio do digital format, they potentially are asking for trouble.
That's backwards. Audio from CD's, which are digital, is being broadcast as analog, just like any radio station does.
Plus AFAIK a license to broadcast analog doesn't automatically give you a license to broadcast digital ( it makes sense that you should be able too, but when does law have to make sense? )
The audio is not being broadcast digitally.