I did some benchmarking and discovered that C or C++ is really great for developing websites with. Everyone moved to Java and Perl and PHP before C++ web development had a chance... OOP > Templating Language > Generic CMS. I found that some shared hosting providers even have GCC installed, and otherwise you can install it yourself, or just upload the binaries and Apache will execute them for you. They run faster than compiling / interpreting PHP or Perl, and I don't have to implement an entire server. I also get access to a huge assortment of software libraries.
I agree CMSs like Drupal or Wordpress have their place. That place is as far from me as physically possible: Anything that runs on PHP invariably requires me mucking about in PHP -- Sorry, I just can't live with that, I'd rather use Java. If PHP is the future, I'll just keep living in the past -- It's actually quite nice here!
When you release the software, don't identify yourself as American. Rent a VPS in Europe or India or somewhere to host the project. Don't let lawyers stop innovation.
That would be fine except for the money trail... I prefer to have laws that don't prevent me from donating to the public domain rather than try to work around the flawed laws and live in fear of them.
The WORST that can happen is yes, your company gets sued. So then you close it off and you are done.
But far more likely is nothing with happen and you can just continue to sell your software.
Well, that's not really the worst that can happen. I just can't afford to spend the time or money to take that risk to deliver a program that I don't seek to benefit by monetarily. The problem is the patent law, not my ability to make or distribute software.
The way things are now it's already like you have already been shut down. Why pre-suppose a very unlikely case?
The way things are now is that I have a profitable mundane software business, and no one but me and mine can benefit from the past side-work I've done for fun. It irks me, but I'm OK with letting others duke it out in the ridiculous legal realm. You must understand, I place value on more than just time and effort and money -- I also greatly value my mental health; Such is at stake any time I deal with stressful matters of imaginary restriction agents, or artificial scarcity law.
I don't really want to sell software that manages personal data. Monetization seems to be the only way to get money enough for very likely litigation, yet such a barrier to entry would prevent widespread adoption -- widespread adoption being the only goal worth spending the time and money and taking the risks for; it's also the only goal that is assured to bring legal suits, see also: Linux, or Android.
As it stands, I must spend additional time and money and take legal risk merely for the public benefit from my free release of software? Doesn't that seem wrong to you? If the public wants to make it easy for me to publish my software by removing/reforming patent law then risking to share my hobby (which competes with entrenched products like Skype (MS), Go To Meeting, Facebook, Dropbox and others) may become worth my time -- Not many projects would piss off so many proprietary companies.
If a hobby causes tons of stress then it's not worth doing. This is just one of those many cases where patent law harms the society as a whole. That patents don't absolutely prevent the possibility of innovation does not diminish the fact that they do seriously limit works intended to directly benefit the public domain. I choose to focus on the solution, not the problem: Reform or abolish software patents.
Yes. as I explained patents would prevent me from using the code I wrote. Since I necessarily used the code I wrote while I developed said code, I would be found as infringing. Opening the sources proves my infringement, if any exists.
Perhaps you misunderstand the term "nullification". The jury can Nullify laws, but it can't create their own laws and rule via them. Jury Nullification would mean the charges are dropped, not the punishments are needed due to their own reasoning. It's the prosecution's job to find reasons for punishment, and jury nullification would work against that, not create new vectors for punishment.
I agree with you, but really now? Come on, it's obvious that the PTO doesn't actually do anything but ensure Ts are crossed and Is are dotted before granting a patent. They give you whatever patent you want and let the courts expensively decide validity. Unless someone makes a big stink about it, they'll even let Swinging on a Swing Sideways get patented. If that doesn't show complete failure, I don't know what does. No amount of high minded analysis is needed -- There is no test real test for Prior Art or Obviousness in the current patent system.
It's not possible to do anything really, if you're a small time independent. I wrote my own video and audio codecs, encryption algorithms, and distributed file transfer protocols, virtual machine, and put together a secure unified messaging / VOIP / File sharing system. It's basically in beta -- All the features work, and I'm just working out a few small scaling issues. I wrote every line of code myself. My "dependencies" are OpenGL, Pulse Audio, X11 or Win32 -- Basically, an OS, and low level audio / video APIs. I didn't implement anyone else's protocols or formats, and still the Software Patent Minefield prevents me from monetising or open sourcing the system. Fortunately this is a multi-year "free time" project that began as a bunch of smaller learning experiences, not my bread and butter. Eg: "I wonder how would one create a video codec?", I asked myself, then just did it -- The same for making compilers, interpreters, encryption, etc. (cipher block chaining can turn any one way hash into a two way cipher). Making new software isn't really hard at all; It doesn't take genius, just takes time.
Due to the current patent laws I can't afford to publish my software (except to friends and relatives) -- A single lawsuit would be the end of me even though I've never looked at a technology related patent. If I open source the code, that just opens me up to patent trolls so they can try to find their exact way of doing something in my code, then sue me for retroactive "damages" caused -- Yes, even just my own personal use of the code I wrote myself can be considered infringing and thus "damaging".
The messed up thing is that both Patent and Copyright in the USA were created for the express purpose of benefiting the society as a whole. Patents and Copyrights grant a monopoly over works for a limited period of time to incentivize creators to make their works open to the public.... Uhm, that falls flat on it's face when you consider that Open Source projects jump the gun -- They don't want the monopoly at all, and explicitly allow the public to benefit directly at the time of publication. So, since Free (libre) Open Source projects already meet the stated purposes of the patent & copyright laws, forfeiting the monopoly by choice, shouldn't they gain exemption from patent lawsuits to repay them? Ah, but then anyone could just implement a software patent and open source it, and the whole software patent market falls flat on it's face, see? Patents are stupid -- Any Artificial Scarcity of Information is stupid in the Information Age.
The USA's forefathers didn't contemplate a market would exist in which people would create things explicitly for the public to use free of charge. The founders weren't perfect, that's why they allowed amendments... As it stands it's questionable whether one can even place something into the public domain as soon as its created (Automatic copyright + "It's free" + "Nope, changed my mind, its not free" == ??) We should be treating every law with deep suspicion and testing every law's effectiveness via the scientific method. Otherwise we're operating by untested hypotheses. We don't really know if patent or copyright laws are actually beneficial to society as a whole. I'm fed up and ready to do the experiment: Abolish patents.
I say "not possible to do anything", but what I mean is anything of real importance. Making games is a less risky venture, so I'll try that on the side now.
Where one falls, three more will rise to take his/her place. Locking up LulzSec will be an exercise in futility much like the American "War On Drugs"
No, that was never true. LulzSec was too closed an operation to say such things, especially after they pissed off lots of Anonymites. In the end everyone hated the douche bags, and no one wants to carry their Flaming Asshole Torch.
You're being too nice. Isn't it time to shut down this bitcoin experiment already? Call it all off, make a memorial/historical bitcoin page on Wikipedia, and everyone who used it can just say, "Yeah, we were dumb then."
Isn't it time to shut down this World of Warcraft experiment already? Call it all off, make a memorial/historial WoW page on Wikipedia, and everyone who played it can just say, "Yeah, we were dumb then."
According to the Board of Governors, the Federal Reserve is independent within government in that "its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government." Its authority is derived from statutes enacted by the U.S. Congress and the System is subject to congressional oversight.
Yes, the same congress that is bought and paid for by the lobbyists is the only oversight the US dollar has. So, US$ is basically identical to WoW gold or any other virtual currency run by an independent non government controlled system.
I put my investments in unopened Star Trek collectable figures. Why? Because if even if shit really hits the fan at least they're still worth something to me.
I'm against patents because everyone is simply working by the old unproven hypothesis that patents are beneficial to society. I'm a scientist, so Prove It! In order to prove whether patents are beneficial or not we must run the experiment: Abolish them and see what happens. We didn't always have software patents, or patents at all (Ugg isn't cited as the "inventor" of fire), so we have a data point that lends credence to the idea that we don't actually need the artificial scarcity that patents and copyright create. The fashion and automotive industries also lack copyright and design patents, yet remain innovative in design, which furthers my argument for abolishing patents. No one has conclusive proof that patents are beneficial to society. Additionally, things have changed so drastically since patents and copyright were created that we need to abolish them now more than ever to see if the dawning of the Information Age has made them obsolete ideas or not.
A writer can say: Nope, not going to write this book unless I'll get paid for doing it. A software engineer can say: Nope, not going to create software unless I get paid for doing it. A musician can say: Nope, I just need to get paid when I do work, like everyone else -- Hey, guess what? Musicians already do get most of their pay via working (concerts) and merchandise, not via selling artificially scarce copies. Software engineers already get paid to make software whether or not the patent lawyer comes around and asks them: "Did you create anything this month that might be patentable?" No software engineer is searching the patent database for solutions they can implement and license -- We all just do the job. In fact, I've been instructed on a few jobs to Never access the PTO database from the office -- Treble damages if you have prior knowledge. Technology companies only benefit by patents via weaponizing them, this hurts competition. Furthermore, If it's possible to accidently stumble across a patent, then it's damn obvious by definition.
So, This person is actually against ALL patents, including software patents. I find the idea that software can be an original invention to be ridiculous because the first time someone accidentally infringes a patent via "independent invention" they're prohibited from using it while someone else is allowed to use the idea. That means you're awarding the research of one inventor and Punishing all the other researchers that come across the idea later. Why do you think the FIRST person to think of something should be the ONLY person to benefit from their own work? Software patents are by and large OBVIOUS, otherwise we wouldn't be stumbling across them. The non obvious ones aren't needed since no one accidentally implements them. WE EXPLICITLY TRY NOT TO LOOK AT THEM! THE PATENTS ARE WORTHLESS!
VortexCortex enters from the west. VortexCortex says: Heh, I can fix that. VortexCortex Casts Basement Dweller's Rage (Lv4) on Kittenman. Kittenman gains status effect: Ineffectual Comment (score +4)
I'm a developer, a major optimization geek both micro- and macro-. I thrive playing with instruction latencies, execution units, and cache usage until my code eeks out as much performance as possible. Of course we'll never know until the CPUs are released for everyone to play with, but right now my money is on Intel.
Yeah, I'm a developer too. However, my simulations run on desktops not super computers so it doesn't matter how optimal the code is on a single particular piece of hardware... Wake me up when there's a cross platform intermediary "object code" I can distribute that gets optimised and linked/compiled at installation time for the exact hardware my games will be running on.
We need software innovation (OS's and Compilers) otherwise I'm coding tons of cases for specific hardware features that aren't available on every platform, and are outpaced by the doubly powerful machine that comes out 18 months later... In short: It's not worth doing all that code optimisation for each and every chip released. This is also why Free Software is so nice: I release the cross platform source code, you compile it, and it's optimised for your hardware... However, most folks actually just download the generic architecture binary, defeating the per processor optimisation benefits.
Like I said: In addition to hardware improvements we need a better cross platform intermediary binary format (so that both closed and open projects benefit). You know, kind of like how Android's Davlik bytecode works (processed at installation), except without needing a VM when you're done. I've got one of my toy languages doing this, but it requires a compiler/interpreter to be already installed (which is fine for me, but in general suffers the same problems as Java). MS is going with.NET, but that's some slow crap in terms of "high-performance" and still uses a VM.
Besides, I thought it was rule #2: Never optimise prematurely?
(I guess the exception is: Unless you're only developing for yourself...)
Women also prefer vibrators, which are typically associated with more powerful orgasms. In fact penises are responsible for far less occurrences of sexual stimulation in women than the other leading stimulation techniques. However, You can call me a selfish prick, but I'm keeping my damn dick.
parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child.
...Only to the extent that their determinations do not permanently modify the body of said infant. Otherwise, due to the fact that "best" is subjective and the mind of the infant can not yet be probed for either "interest" or consent of said modification, it should be prohibited outright. Instead information should be given to the parent about teaching their children how to care for a penis. I mean, they teach girls to care for vaginas instead of sewing them up... It's not only unethical, male infant circumcision is sexist.
The humans have no respect for the rights of the male infants! We can continue to do whatever we think best to their bodies without awaiting maturation of their minds... The doctors have played right into our hands! It's Perfect!
Humans lose plasticity as they grow into adults, so the younger the mind is when we implant the Cerebro-Cybernetics, the more easily they'll adapt! It's for their own good!Bwa ha Ha HAA!
Or, just abolish patents, copyrights, and other forms of artificial scarcity, and let people make money via effort instead of extortion. You're operating under the flawed assumption that patents are needed at all. The automotive and fashion industries do not have copyright or design patents, and yet they innovate in design... You have an unproven hypothesis: Patents are good sometimes. I put it to you we need to test this hypothesis. If you are of rational mind then you will agree we need to abolish patents and see what they actually provide... Considering I we have industries without such patent protection, I put it to you that there is no evidence in favour of patents being beneficial, while there is evidence for them not being needed at all. Ergo, any further discussion without first agreeing we need to abolish patent and copyright before we continue to discuss is completely useless. The taught you the Scientific Method as a child. That you refuse to use it in your day to day life should be grounds for revocation of your citizenship or voting rights.
I mean... He's got the Internet Kill-switch, which seems like it would qualify as being able to: "destroy, deny, degrade, disrupt, deceive, corrupt, or usurp the adversaries' ability to use the cyberspace domain for his advantage"
Ask the NSA if you want to: "intercept, identify, and locate sources of vulnerability for threat recognition, targeting, and planning, both immediately and for future operations."
If you ask me, the Air force should just focus on flying their air planes. Look, I realise that in the Age of Information traditional warfare is becoming obsolete, but does the air force really need cyber weapons? Are they planning on going to war with their own country?!
I know, right? I mean, if only the supporting platforms slashcode runs on were compatible with Unicode. Why, then instead of cocking up UI with some new Web 2.0 BS, they could have just modified their code to add the feature.::sigh:: Once again, blame Micro$oft!
Slashdot Mirror
I did some benchmarking and discovered that C or C++ is really great for developing websites with. Everyone moved to Java and Perl and PHP before C++ web development had a chance... OOP > Templating Language > Generic CMS. I found that some shared hosting providers even have GCC installed, and otherwise you can install it yourself, or just upload the binaries and Apache will execute them for you. They run faster than compiling / interpreting PHP or Perl, and I don't have to implement an entire server. I also get access to a huge assortment of software libraries.
I agree CMSs like Drupal or Wordpress have their place. That place is as far from me as physically possible: Anything that runs on PHP invariably requires me mucking about in PHP -- Sorry, I just can't live with that, I'd rather use Java. If PHP is the future, I'll just keep living in the past -- It's actually quite nice here!
Hence why Gnome's logo is a bare foot...
When you release the software, don't identify yourself as American. Rent a VPS in Europe or India or somewhere to host the project. Don't let lawyers stop innovation.
That would be fine except for the money trail... I prefer to have laws that don't prevent me from donating to the public domain rather than try to work around the flawed laws and live in fear of them.
The WORST that can happen is yes, your company gets sued. So then you close it off and you are done.
But far more likely is nothing with happen and you can just continue to sell your software.
Well, that's not really the worst that can happen. I just can't afford to spend the time or money to take that risk to deliver a program that I don't seek to benefit by monetarily. The problem is the patent law, not my ability to make or distribute software.
The way things are now it's already like you have already been shut down. Why pre-suppose a very unlikely case?
The way things are now is that I have a profitable mundane software business, and no one but me and mine can benefit from the past side-work I've done for fun. It irks me, but I'm OK with letting others duke it out in the ridiculous legal realm. You must understand, I place value on more than just time and effort and money -- I also greatly value my mental health; Such is at stake any time I deal with stressful matters of imaginary restriction agents, or artificial scarcity law.
I don't really want to sell software that manages personal data. Monetization seems to be the only way to get money enough for very likely litigation, yet such a barrier to entry would prevent widespread adoption -- widespread adoption being the only goal worth spending the time and money and taking the risks for; it's also the only goal that is assured to bring legal suits, see also: Linux, or Android.
As it stands, I must spend additional time and money and take legal risk merely for the public benefit from my free release of software? Doesn't that seem wrong to you? If the public wants to make it easy for me to publish my software by removing/reforming patent law then risking to share my hobby (which competes with entrenched products like Skype (MS), Go To Meeting, Facebook, Dropbox and others) may become worth my time -- Not many projects would piss off so many proprietary companies.
If a hobby causes tons of stress then it's not worth doing. This is just one of those many cases where patent law harms the society as a whole. That patents don't absolutely prevent the possibility of innovation does not diminish the fact that they do seriously limit works intended to directly benefit the public domain. I choose to focus on the solution, not the problem: Reform or abolish software patents.
Yes. as I explained patents would prevent me from using the code I wrote. Since I necessarily used the code I wrote while I developed said code, I would be found as infringing. Opening the sources proves my infringement, if any exists.
Wouldn't that invalidate jury nullification?
Perhaps you misunderstand the term "nullification". The jury can Nullify laws, but it can't create their own laws and rule via them. Jury Nullification would mean the charges are dropped, not the punishments are needed due to their own reasoning. It's the prosecution's job to find reasons for punishment, and jury nullification would work against that, not create new vectors for punishment.
I agree with you, but really now? Come on, it's obvious that the PTO doesn't actually do anything but ensure Ts are crossed and Is are dotted before granting a patent. They give you whatever patent you want and let the courts expensively decide validity. Unless someone makes a big stink about it, they'll even let Swinging on a Swing Sideways get patented. If that doesn't show complete failure, I don't know what does. No amount of high minded analysis is needed -- There is no test real test for Prior Art or Obviousness in the current patent system.
It's not possible to do anything really, if you're a small time independent. I wrote my own video and audio codecs, encryption algorithms, and distributed file transfer protocols, virtual machine, and put together a secure unified messaging / VOIP / File sharing system. It's basically in beta -- All the features work, and I'm just working out a few small scaling issues. I wrote every line of code myself. My "dependencies" are OpenGL, Pulse Audio, X11 or Win32 -- Basically, an OS, and low level audio / video APIs. I didn't implement anyone else's protocols or formats, and still the Software Patent Minefield prevents me from monetising or open sourcing the system. Fortunately this is a multi-year "free time" project that began as a bunch of smaller learning experiences, not my bread and butter. Eg: "I wonder how would one create a video codec?", I asked myself, then just did it -- The same for making compilers, interpreters, encryption, etc. (cipher block chaining can turn any one way hash into a two way cipher). Making new software isn't really hard at all; It doesn't take genius, just takes time.
Due to the current patent laws I can't afford to publish my software (except to friends and relatives) -- A single lawsuit would be the end of me even though I've never looked at a technology related patent. If I open source the code, that just opens me up to patent trolls so they can try to find their exact way of doing something in my code, then sue me for retroactive "damages" caused -- Yes, even just my own personal use of the code I wrote myself can be considered infringing and thus "damaging".
The messed up thing is that both Patent and Copyright in the USA were created for the express purpose of benefiting the society as a whole. Patents and Copyrights grant a monopoly over works for a limited period of time to incentivize creators to make their works open to the public.... Uhm, that falls flat on it's face when you consider that Open Source projects jump the gun -- They don't want the monopoly at all, and explicitly allow the public to benefit directly at the time of publication. So, since Free (libre) Open Source projects already meet the stated purposes of the patent & copyright laws, forfeiting the monopoly by choice, shouldn't they gain exemption from patent lawsuits to repay them? Ah, but then anyone could just implement a software patent and open source it, and the whole software patent market falls flat on it's face, see? Patents are stupid -- Any Artificial Scarcity of Information is stupid in the Information Age.
The USA's forefathers didn't contemplate a market would exist in which people would create things explicitly for the public to use free of charge. The founders weren't perfect, that's why they allowed amendments... As it stands it's questionable whether one can even place something into the public domain as soon as its created (Automatic copyright + "It's free" + "Nope, changed my mind, its not free" == ??) We should be treating every law with deep suspicion and testing every law's effectiveness via the scientific method. Otherwise we're operating by untested hypotheses. We don't really know if patent or copyright laws are actually beneficial to society as a whole. I'm fed up and ready to do the experiment: Abolish patents.
I say "not possible to do anything", but what I mean is anything of real importance. Making games is a less risky venture, so I'll try that on the side now.
Where one falls, three more will rise to take his/her place. Locking up LulzSec will be an exercise in futility much like the American "War On Drugs"
No, that was never true. LulzSec was too closed an operation to say such things, especially after they pissed off lots of Anonymites. In the end everyone hated the douche bags, and no one wants to carry their Flaming Asshole Torch.
All data should be free.
Everybody's data (including thoughts) should be available to everyone, realtime, no exceptions.
Only then can we derive true morality.
I disagree. Your theory is sound, but in practice Twitter and Facebook didn't result in more morals.
On top of that you had all the functionality of the Linux OS underneath it.
You lost me here. Did you mean POSIX?
By removing your head or destroying your brain.
You're being too nice. Isn't it time to shut down this bitcoin experiment already? Call it all off, make a memorial/historical bitcoin page on Wikipedia, and everyone who used it can just say, "Yeah, we were dumb then."
Isn't it time to shut down this World of Warcraft experiment already? Call it all off, make a memorial/historial WoW page on Wikipedia, and everyone who played it can just say, "Yeah, we were dumb then."
Isn't it time to shut down this Eve Online experiment already? ... Isn't it time to shut down this Diablo 3 experiment already? ... Isn't it time to shut down this US dollar backed by Private Finance experiment already?
According to the Board of Governors, the Federal Reserve is independent within government in that "its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government." Its authority is derived from statutes enacted by the U.S. Congress and the System is subject to congressional oversight.
Yes, the same congress that is bought and paid for by the lobbyists is the only oversight the US dollar has. So, US$ is basically identical to WoW gold or any other virtual currency run by an independent non government controlled system.
I put my investments in unopened Star Trek collectable figures. Why? Because if even if shit really hits the fan at least they're still worth something to me.
I thought we went over this already: virus -> viruses, therefore: modpoint -> modpointet
I'm against patents because everyone is simply working by the old unproven hypothesis that patents are beneficial to society. I'm a scientist, so Prove It! In order to prove whether patents are beneficial or not we must run the experiment: Abolish them and see what happens. We didn't always have software patents, or patents at all (Ugg isn't cited as the "inventor" of fire), so we have a data point that lends credence to the idea that we don't actually need the artificial scarcity that patents and copyright create. The fashion and automotive industries also lack copyright and design patents, yet remain innovative in design, which furthers my argument for abolishing patents. No one has conclusive proof that patents are beneficial to society. Additionally, things have changed so drastically since patents and copyright were created that we need to abolish them now more than ever to see if the dawning of the Information Age has made them obsolete ideas or not.
A writer can say: Nope, not going to write this book unless I'll get paid for doing it. A software engineer can say: Nope, not going to create software unless I get paid for doing it. A musician can say: Nope, I just need to get paid when I do work, like everyone else -- Hey, guess what? Musicians already do get most of their pay via working (concerts) and merchandise, not via selling artificially scarce copies. Software engineers already get paid to make software whether or not the patent lawyer comes around and asks them: "Did you create anything this month that might be patentable?" No software engineer is searching the patent database for solutions they can implement and license -- We all just do the job. In fact, I've been instructed on a few jobs to Never access the PTO database from the office -- Treble damages if you have prior knowledge. Technology companies only benefit by patents via weaponizing them, this hurts competition. Furthermore, If it's possible to accidently stumble across a patent, then it's damn obvious by definition.
So, This person is actually against ALL patents, including software patents. I find the idea that software can be an original invention to be ridiculous because the first time someone accidentally infringes a patent via "independent invention" they're prohibited from using it while someone else is allowed to use the idea. That means you're awarding the research of one inventor and Punishing all the other researchers that come across the idea later. Why do you think the FIRST person to think of something should be the ONLY person to benefit from their own work? Software patents are by and large OBVIOUS, otherwise we wouldn't be stumbling across them. The non obvious ones aren't needed since no one accidentally implements them. WE EXPLICITLY TRY NOT TO LOOK AT THEM! THE PATENTS ARE WORTHLESS!
I'm not apathetic, I'm disenchanted.
VortexCortex enters from the west.
VortexCortex says: Heh, I can fix that.
VortexCortex Casts Basement Dweller's Rage (Lv4) on Kittenman.
Kittenman gains status effect: Ineffectual Comment (score +4)
>_
Ominous Voice-Over: You wouldn't seed a torrent of a movie, so why would you seed a torrent of a car template?
I'm a developer, a major optimization geek both micro- and macro-. I thrive playing with instruction latencies, execution units, and cache usage until my code eeks out as much performance as possible. Of course we'll never know until the CPUs are released for everyone to play with, but right now my money is on Intel.
Yeah, I'm a developer too. However, my simulations run on desktops not super computers so it doesn't matter how optimal the code is on a single particular piece of hardware... Wake me up when there's a cross platform intermediary "object code" I can distribute that gets optimised and linked/compiled at installation time for the exact hardware my games will be running on.
We need software innovation (OS's and Compilers) otherwise I'm coding tons of cases for specific hardware features that aren't available on every platform, and are outpaced by the doubly powerful machine that comes out 18 months later... In short: It's not worth doing all that code optimisation for each and every chip released. This is also why Free Software is so nice: I release the cross platform source code, you compile it, and it's optimised for your hardware... However, most folks actually just download the generic architecture binary, defeating the per processor optimisation benefits.
Like I said: In addition to hardware improvements we need a better cross platform intermediary binary format (so that both closed and open projects benefit). You know, kind of like how Android's Davlik bytecode works (processed at installation), except without needing a VM when you're done. I've got one of my toy languages doing this, but it requires a compiler/interpreter to be already installed (which is fine for me, but in general suffers the same problems as Java). MS is going with .NET, but that's some slow crap in terms of "high-performance" and still uses a VM.
Besides, I thought it was rule #2: Never optimise prematurely?
(I guess the exception is: Unless you're only developing for yourself...)
Women also prefer vibrators, which are typically associated with more powerful orgasms. In fact penises are responsible for far less occurrences of sexual stimulation in women than the other leading stimulation techniques. However, You can call me a selfish prick, but I'm keeping my damn dick.
You fail ethics.
parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child.
...Only to the extent that their determinations do not permanently modify the body of said infant. Otherwise, due to the fact that "best" is subjective and the mind of the infant can not yet be probed for either "interest" or consent of said modification, it should be prohibited outright. Instead information should be given to the parent about teaching their children how to care for a penis. I mean, they teach girls to care for vaginas instead of sewing them up... It's not only unethical, male infant circumcision is sexist.
I couldn't be happier with this!
The humans have no respect for the rights of the male infants! We can continue to do whatever we think best to their bodies without awaiting maturation of their minds... The doctors have played right into our hands! It's Perfect!
Humans lose plasticity as they grow into adults, so the younger the mind is when we implant the Cerebro-Cybernetics, the more easily they'll adapt! It's for their own good! Bwa ha Ha HAA!
Or, just abolish patents, copyrights, and other forms of artificial scarcity, and let people make money via effort instead of extortion. You're operating under the flawed assumption that patents are needed at all. The automotive and fashion industries do not have copyright or design patents, and yet they innovate in design... You have an unproven hypothesis: Patents are good sometimes. I put it to you we need to test this hypothesis. If you are of rational mind then you will agree we need to abolish patents and see what they actually provide... Considering I we have industries without such patent protection, I put it to you that there is no evidence in favour of patents being beneficial, while there is evidence for them not being needed at all. Ergo, any further discussion without first agreeing we need to abolish patent and copyright before we continue to discuss is completely useless. The taught you the Scientific Method as a child. That you refuse to use it in your day to day life should be grounds for revocation of your citizenship or voting rights.
I mean... He's got the Internet Kill-switch, which seems like it would qualify as being able to: "destroy, deny, degrade, disrupt, deceive, corrupt, or usurp the adversaries' ability to use the cyberspace domain for his advantage"
Ask the NSA if you want to: "intercept, identify, and locate sources of vulnerability for threat recognition, targeting, and planning, both immediately and for future operations."
If you ask me, the Air force should just focus on flying their air planes. Look, I realise that in the Age of Information traditional warfare is becoming obsolete, but does the air force really need cyber weapons? Are they planning on going to war with their own country?!
The government does.
I know, right? I mean, if only the supporting platforms slashcode runs on were compatible with Unicode. Why, then instead of cocking up UI with some new Web 2.0 BS, they could have just modified their code to add the feature. ::sigh:: Once again, blame Micro$oft!