Nope. Internally, the x86 processors are RISC, and have been for years (specifically, since the P6 and K6). AMD has even used RISC in their marketing, and Intel talks about things like micro-ops. The processors are basically RISC chips with x86 decoders.
For years, the x86 instruction set has been implemented on top of RISC cores. That microcode layer has been getting thicker over the years, and now it seems that it may be too complex to be reliably dealt with. I wonder if this means that we should toss out that x86 layer and deal just with the high-performance, straightforward RISC core.
TFA is an essay linked from a blog. It's just a bit of commentary from somebody who will probably end up doing very good, serious research into the topic. If you are going to judge the author, at least look at the real published papers on her site.
The thing is, repeating the courses and proving mastery don't necessarily go hand in hand. Significant involvement with an OSS project may be the best way for the submitter to prove his abilities. You really can't top a public record of the code you've written and fixed, and the mailing list archives showing that you know what you're doing.
Getting the good grades will impress some people for sure. But writing good code is what well get you the good jobs.
I always thought that failure to disperse = exercising the right "peaceably to assemble". i.e. they can't do anything to you unless the crowd is disorderly or disruptive.
And while IANAL, I would think that someone moving product in a "Sealed" method (whether mirrored or through a retail or online retail site) is probably not liable for any EULA, GPL or otherwise. (Now, if they were installing the software, then they become an OEM which is completely different, but we won't go there, shall we?) Realistically, I would think only in distributing a modified (even if it's as little as re-branding) version of Ubuntu would the GPL have any relevance at all, since at that point you're not reselling, but actually distributing your own product. From the GPLv2:
1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.
You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.
In other words, you're wrong. Re-distribution, even without modification, is completely subject to all of the GPL's terms. Unless, of course, that portion of the GPL is illegal. But then, so would be all "not for resale" and "not for individual sale" labels. As would all licenses granted to the "original purchaser" and all non-transferable warrantees.
Since the GPL is the only license that grants re-distribution rights for most code in a Linux distro, any distribution of that code not following the GPL's terms is copyright infringement and effectively piracy.
If the boxes containing the software go through Staples' supply chain, they are distributing it. Odds are that there is even a specific entity known as a regional "distributor". The only way to escape liability would be to claim that the box was still owned by RedHat and Staples was simply acting as a kind of shipping service. Even that would be tough, because they put a markup on the product and keep some profit from it.
You wouldn't say that ibiblio isn't bound by the GPL because they are only a mirror service, would you? All they do is pull a copy from RedHat and pass it along to others. (This is kind of interesting. We might have a double standard where the rules for the internet are more sensible than the rules for the physical world!)
I don't recall ever hearing about the U-2 being relatively immune to missiles. However, the SR-71 has been documented as outrunning missiles. Keep in mind that high speeds are not always better for recon missions. The SR-71 was able to accelerate quite a bit beyond the cruising speed used for the recon missions. Interestingly enough, because of it's ramjet design, the SR-71 got more fuel efficient as it sped up beyond mach 3.
Considering what a vast improvement security-wise, GUI-wise and feature-wise Vista is over it's predecessors, I don't understand why it's so unpopular with people who've not even used it. I think the problem is that prospective users hear about all the new problems that come with Vista, but they don't hear about how it solves any of their existing problems. Marketing is supposed to prevent that, but Microsoft hasn't been to good at that the past few years. Their marketing consists of things like "look, shiny!", "better security!", and "you're a dinosaur!". The first one won't get them far, especially with Apple around. The second one is completely intangible, and the third one is actually an insult to the customers.
But that language would be brazenly combative (Truth Happens is just an ad campaign). Might it not alienate enterprise customers? It might, but it might also give RedHat's customers more confidence that RedHat is a serious operation that won't be a pushover in the market.
As it currently stands, RedHat's actions just aren't that significant. They haven't hurt Microsoft in any way, and they haven't challenged Microsoft to "put up or shut up." All they've said is "we aren't playing." Why would they want to hurt Microsoft? That's stooping to the enemy's level. Neither does their stance add up to appeasement. Choosing to not get involved and carrying on as normal, rather than letting loose with (potentially expensive) sound and fury, would seem to make tactical sense. You say that as if hurting a competitor that is using illegal tactics was a bad thing, ethically or otherwise. I call it fair. Nor did I accuse RedHat of appeasement.
Read the post again, with the assumption that I'm not an idiot or a troll. Then read my other response above. If you still need help understanding what I said, let me know.
A lot of people here seem to suddenly have trouble not gushing with praise for RedHat. I simply wanted to preempt the knee-jerk reactions, and I got modded troll. Figures.
Wrong. I have absolutely nothing against RedHat, and I already have access to all their enterprise systems. In fact, I have several friends that work for RedHat and I use RHEL daily.
What you failed to understand is that making a deal with Microsoft is the most evil thing RedHat can do right now. That they respond initially with a flat "no" is truly not saying much. All it really says is that they are not very evil (which we already knew). If, for example, RedHat publicly announced that they considered MS's tactics to be racketeering, that would be news. As it currently stands, RedHat's actions just aren't that significant. They haven't hurt Microsoft in any way, and they haven't challenged Microsoft to "put up or shut up." All they've said is "we aren't playing."
It's not quite even that. The real problem is that, in the Windows world, everybody thinks "winning" means world domination. In reality, so long as Safari does what Apple needs it to, that is a win for Apple.
What do you think sounds so hard about it? The current record skydive is 20 miles, and the PopSci article is about plans for a 60 mile dive. They say the dive would take 10 minutes, with a maximum external temp of 465 F and a maximum acceleration of 4.4Gs. They only plan to do a 120,000 foot jump in 2009, with the 60 mile jump two years later. They don't have a set timetable for true de-orbit jumps.
To me, the least realistic bit is that they plan to use Carmack's rocket to get up.
Sure, for most of the past 25 years, it has been the clock speed that's been improving. But that's changed in recent years. When Intel switched from Prescott to Core, they pretty much cut the clock speed in half without really sacrificing performance. That's because they increased the IPC a lot in Core, so that it had comparable IPS.
When comparing different processors with the same ISA (ie x86), IPS is the best measure of CPU performance, not clock speed.
Patch Tuesday would be a very asinine idea for a beta product. If patching costs are a problem even for your limited beta deployment, that's just because you suck at updating software.
Safari being the partly-OSS product it is, it might be a good idea for Apple to release weekly or nightly builds. That could generate quite a bit of attention for Safari/Windows, because people would recognize "beta" as an ongoing process.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. Internally, the x86 processors are RISC, and have been for years (specifically, since the P6 and K6). AMD has even used RISC in their marketing, and Intel talks about things like micro-ops. The processors are basically RISC chips with x86 decoders.
For years, the x86 instruction set has been implemented on top of RISC cores. That microcode layer has been getting thicker over the years, and now it seems that it may be too complex to be reliably dealt with. I wonder if this means that we should toss out that x86 layer and deal just with the high-performance, straightforward RISC core.
Yes, but it looks as if the wings might only shatter after the fuselage has been shredded, making the point moot (unless the plane has nobody aboard).
TFA is an essay linked from a blog. It's just a bit of commentary from somebody who will probably end up doing very good, serious research into the topic. If you are going to judge the author, at least look at the real published papers on her site.
The thing is, repeating the courses and proving mastery don't necessarily go hand in hand. Significant involvement with an OSS project may be the best way for the submitter to prove his abilities. You really can't top a public record of the code you've written and fixed, and the mailing list archives showing that you know what you're doing.
Getting the good grades will impress some people for sure. But writing good code is what well get you the good jobs.
Hmmm...
I always thought that failure to disperse = exercising the right "peaceably to assemble". i.e. they can't do anything to you unless the crowd is disorderly or disruptive.
Since the GPL is the only license that grants re-distribution rights for most code in a Linux distro, any distribution of that code not following the GPL's terms is copyright infringement and effectively piracy.
If the boxes containing the software go through Staples' supply chain, they are distributing it. Odds are that there is even a specific entity known as a regional "distributor". The only way to escape liability would be to claim that the box was still owned by RedHat and Staples was simply acting as a kind of shipping service. Even that would be tough, because they put a markup on the product and keep some profit from it.
You wouldn't say that ibiblio isn't bound by the GPL because they are only a mirror service, would you? All they do is pull a copy from RedHat and pass it along to others. (This is kind of interesting. We might have a double standard where the rules for the internet are more sensible than the rules for the physical world!)
Connections don't lose single bits. They lose whole packets, which H.264 handles well.
I don't recall ever hearing about the U-2 being relatively immune to missiles. However, the SR-71 has been documented as outrunning missiles. Keep in mind that high speeds are not always better for recon missions. The SR-71 was able to accelerate quite a bit beyond the cruising speed used for the recon missions. Interestingly enough, because of it's ramjet design, the SR-71 got more fuel efficient as it sped up beyond mach 3.
What could the laser do? Heat up the plane? It's already going to be transonic, so it would take a very powerful laser to do more than friction alone.
Considering what a vast improvement security-wise, GUI-wise and feature-wise Vista is over it's predecessors, I don't understand why it's so unpopular with people who've not even used it. I think the problem is that prospective users hear about all the new problems that come with Vista, but they don't hear about how it solves any of their existing problems. Marketing is supposed to prevent that, but Microsoft hasn't been to good at that the past few years. Their marketing consists of things like "look, shiny!", "better security!", and "you're a dinosaur!". The first one won't get them far, especially with Apple around. The second one is completely intangible, and the third one is actually an insult to the customers.
Read the post again, with the assumption that I'm not an idiot or a troll. Then read my other response above. If you still need help understanding what I said, let me know.
A lot of people here seem to suddenly have trouble not gushing with praise for RedHat. I simply wanted to preempt the knee-jerk reactions, and I got modded troll. Figures.
Wrong. I have absolutely nothing against RedHat, and I already have access to all their enterprise systems. In fact, I have several friends that work for RedHat and I use RHEL daily.
What you failed to understand is that making a deal with Microsoft is the most evil thing RedHat can do right now. That they respond initially with a flat "no" is truly not saying much. All it really says is that they are not very evil (which we already knew). If, for example, RedHat publicly announced that they considered MS's tactics to be racketeering, that would be news. As it currently stands, RedHat's actions just aren't that significant. They haven't hurt Microsoft in any way, and they haven't challenged Microsoft to "put up or shut up." All they've said is "we aren't playing."
It isn't hard. But MS refuses to name the specific patents or lines of infringing code. That's the problem.
Informative?
I pity the person who gets that in meta moderation.
They aren't 100% sell-outs. That's not saying much.
Duh?
Music Piracy.
It wasn't even a DMCA takedown threat. They simply stated that the article included proprietary info and had to be taken down.
It's not quite even that. The real problem is that, in the Windows world, everybody thinks "winning" means world domination. In reality, so long as Safari does what Apple needs it to, that is a win for Apple.
The FF downloads wouldn't have been sustained for so long if there wasn't serious word-of-mouth marketing going on.
What do you think sounds so hard about it? The current record skydive is 20 miles, and the PopSci article is about plans for a 60 mile dive. They say the dive would take 10 minutes, with a maximum external temp of 465 F and a maximum acceleration of 4.4Gs. They only plan to do a 120,000 foot jump in 2009, with the 60 mile jump two years later. They don't have a set timetable for true de-orbit jumps.
To me, the least realistic bit is that they plan to use Carmack's rocket to get up.
Sure, for most of the past 25 years, it has been the clock speed that's been improving. But that's changed in recent years. When Intel switched from Prescott to Core, they pretty much cut the clock speed in half without really sacrificing performance. That's because they increased the IPC a lot in Core, so that it had comparable IPS.
When comparing different processors with the same ISA (ie x86), IPS is the best measure of CPU performance, not clock speed.
Patch Tuesday would be a very asinine idea for a beta product. If patching costs are a problem even for your limited beta deployment, that's just because you suck at updating software.
Safari being the partly-OSS product it is, it might be a good idea for Apple to release weekly or nightly builds. That could generate quite a bit of attention for Safari/Windows, because people would recognize "beta" as an ongoing process.