Unfortunately from the description it would appear that the memory is not quantum addressable... that is, you can't use a set of qubits as the address of which qubit to read. For a fully general-purpose quantum computer, we will probably need quantum addressable memory.
Further to my previous reply, it should be noted that this theory itself depends on a technological distinction, unless it is claimed that any program running on Linux is required to be GPL. The distinction between a dynamic kernel library and an ordinary program is a techological one.
Also, this theory would make Windows device drivers and other kernel code, such as anti-virus software, a derivative work of Windows; it would make plug-ins a derivative work of web browsers; and, well, goodness knows what else.
Reading the SLFC blog post in question, it doesn't say that Microsoft violated the GPL. All it says is that according to Steve Hemminger Microsoft violated the GPL, which of course had already been reported on Slashdot.
Note also that this is even the case if Microsoft holds the copyright on every individual line of code they're distributing (as if it were to be linked by the end-user, for example) -- the code as a whole is still "tainted" by the fact that it's designed to be assembled along with non-Microsoft-copyright code into a derivative work.
I thought it was a dynamic library? In that case, the "derivative work" only ever exists as a transient copy in RAM, making this theory seem doubtful.
I'm just guessing, but it may be that if you perform an upgrade installation, you cannot then uninstall IE. (In much the same way that if you install SP3 over IE7, you can't then uninstall IE7.)
At any rate I'm doubtful that uninstalling IE as an integral part of an OS upgrade is as technically straightforward as you suggest.
So if the EU tells Microsoft they have to include third party code in Windows, and the third party code causes Windows to malfunction, who is going to compensate Microsoft for costs incurred, loss of goodwill, and so on?
This quote suggests that Microsoft were insisting that components that normally shipped with Windows not be removed, rather than, as the original poster suggested, that additional components not be added.
Couldn't they still export to the EU, so long as they didn't have any corporate presence there?... I suppose it depends on whether it's Microsoft or the product itself that is allegedly violating the law.
That's easier said than done. Besides anything else, the development and testing period would make it necessary to postpone the release of Windows 7. By comparison, Internet Explorer was already an optional component, so removing it from the installation media would be (relatively) straightforward both to do and to test.
Including third-party software in Windows would be a bad thing for Microsoft and for consumers. The Macromedia Flash debacle should have settled that question once and for all.
Well, *I* don't see any reason why I should buy an iPhone. I want my cellphone to be a phone. Just a phone, thank you. No, I don't want a camera. No, I don't want it to play music. No, I don't even care whether it does texting. Just sell me a freaking phone, OK?
The last thing we need is out of date third party browsers bundled with Windows. (And yes, by the time the disks get from RTM to the consumer the browsers will be out of date.)
A competent user will have to download the latest version anyway, so what's the point? An incompetent user, on the other hand, will go ahead and use an out of date browser, and blame Microsoft for it when they get burned.
What I'd like to see is a mini-browser shipped with Windows: no Javascript, no plug-ins, no active content of any kind. Just basic HTML. This would be enough to let the user download whichever browser he or she chooses.
For the record, the New Zealand law referenced in this article (or rather, the specific clause that allowed guilt by accusation) has been postponed pending a review.
Actually I think I'm wrong about this. The critical part of the law quoted is the words "material that includes"; taken literally, that would only make the possession of an actual minor illegal, so it is obviously intended to mean "material that depicts". Perhaps in legal-speak this alternate meaning is well established.
(On the other hand, the word "simulated" would then appear to be redundant; perhaps the clause really is just very badly drafted.)
Let's see... the symptoms are depression, antisocial behavior, and slipping grades. Except perhaps for the last one, that sounds like any teenager I've ever met.
Here's the cogent argument: Miley Cyrus is a minor, her actual picture is being used to simulate her in a sexual position. By using her actual head, it's entirely possible that it fit the legal definition. What's more, in matters of legal opinion, the DA is more likely to know the law than some guy who goes off on Slashdot about it.
If it was indeed her actual head, that might fit the legal definition, though I think a murder prosecution would be more appropriate. As it is actually just a photograph of her head, your argument is not at all cogent.
Remember, the law in question requires that a minor must be engaged in simulated sexual activity. A photograph engaged in simulated sexual activity, even if it is a photograph of a minor, does not meet this definition.
Sue them for false advertising. They're offering internet access, but since they don't follow the RFCs, what they're providing isn't really the internet.
The assertation was made that there's not enough of such land, that not all arable land is well-suited to growing crops. While that seems inherently contradictory to me, the point of this example was to show that was is possible and practical in terms of crop production even from land that's not ideal.
OK, fair enough - I'd misunderstood what you were getting at. My point is simply that there is a fair bit of land for which grazing is a more economic use.
Read the link. He claims that he "built [his] soil from cement-hard adobe clay to its impressive state from scratch," and that half his land was terraced on a 35 degree slope. That's not perfectly suited to growing.
But how much did this all cost? Given just how much land available that's already perfectly suited to growing vegetables and grains, I find it hard to believe that it is either economically viable or environmentally sensible to convert significant quantities of unsuitable land.
[...] the vast, overwhelming majority of livestock in the world is produced in industrial feedlots. Unless you are some goat herder in Africa,
Just for the record, this is hyperbole (and I assume it was meant as such). There are at least two first-world nations which produce substantial amounts of livestock almost exclusively by grazing, for the simple reason that they have lots of land unsuitable for harvesting.
If more people in developed society cut back or gave up on meat, there would be more grains available to feed the rest of the world.
Aren't there surpluses already? Surely the problem with feeding the rest of the world isn't producing the food but paying for it?
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately from the description it would appear that the memory is not quantum addressable ... that is, you can't use a set of qubits as the address of which qubit to read. For a fully general-purpose quantum computer, we will probably need quantum addressable memory.
Further to my previous reply, it should be noted that this theory itself depends on a technological distinction, unless it is claimed that any program running on Linux is required to be GPL. The distinction between a dynamic kernel library and an ordinary program is a techological one.
Also, this theory would make Windows device drivers and other kernel code, such as anti-virus software, a derivative work of Windows; it would make plug-ins a derivative work of web browsers; and, well, goodness knows what else.
I'm sorry, but unless you can point to a specific case that sets a precedent, I don't believe that this is more than speculation.
Reading the SLFC blog post in question, it doesn't say that Microsoft violated the GPL. All it says is that according to Steve Hemminger Microsoft violated the GPL, which of course had already been reported on Slashdot.
In other words, this isn't news.
Note also that this is even the case if Microsoft holds the copyright on every individual line of code they're distributing (as if it were to be linked by the end-user, for example) -- the code as a whole is still "tainted" by the fact that it's designed to be assembled along with non-Microsoft-copyright code into a derivative work.
I thought it was a dynamic library? In that case, the "derivative work" only ever exists as a transient copy in RAM, making this theory seem doubtful.
Does anyone know why Canada feels it has jurisdiction over Facebook?
Or is this another case of this?
I'm just guessing, but it may be that if you perform an upgrade installation, you cannot then uninstall IE. (In much the same way that if you install SP3 over IE7, you can't then uninstall IE7.)
At any rate I'm doubtful that uninstalling IE as an integral part of an OS upgrade is as technically straightforward as you suggest.
So if the EU tells Microsoft they have to include third party code in Windows, and the third party code causes Windows to malfunction, who is going to compensate Microsoft for costs incurred, loss of goodwill, and so on?
This quote suggests that Microsoft were insisting that components that normally shipped with Windows not be removed, rather than, as the original poster suggested, that additional components not be added.
Couldn't they still export to the EU, so long as they didn't have any corporate presence there? ... I suppose it depends on whether it's Microsoft or the product itself that is allegedly violating the law.
That's easier said than done. Besides anything else, the development and testing period would make it necessary to postpone the release of Windows 7. By comparison, Internet Explorer was already an optional component, so removing it from the installation media would be (relatively) straightforward both to do and to test.
You've never heard of zero-day exploits?
It's my understanding that IE will be an optional component in Windows 7. So you won't need the European edition.
Including third-party software in Windows would be a bad thing for Microsoft and for consumers. The Macromedia Flash debacle should have settled that question once and for all.
Well, *I* don't see any reason why I should buy an iPhone. I want my cellphone to be a phone. Just a phone, thank you. No, I don't want a camera. No, I don't want it to play music. No, I don't even care whether it does texting. Just sell me a freaking phone, OK?
The last thing we need is out of date third party browsers bundled with Windows. (And yes, by the time the disks get from RTM to the consumer the browsers will be out of date.)
A competent user will have to download the latest version anyway, so what's the point? An incompetent user, on the other hand, will go ahead and use an out of date browser, and blame Microsoft for it when they get burned.
What I'd like to see is a mini-browser shipped with Windows: no Javascript, no plug-ins, no active content of any kind. Just basic HTML. This would be enough to let the user download whichever browser he or she chooses.
For the record, the New Zealand law referenced in this article (or rather, the specific clause that allowed guilt by accusation) has been postponed pending a review.
Actually I think I'm wrong about this. The critical part of the law quoted is the words "material that includes"; taken literally, that would only make the possession of an actual minor illegal, so it is obviously intended to mean "material that depicts". Perhaps in legal-speak this alternate meaning is well established.
(On the other hand, the word "simulated" would then appear to be redundant; perhaps the clause really is just very badly drafted.)
Besides, she isn't a child. She's above the age of consent in all civilised jurisdictions.
Let's see ... the symptoms are depression, antisocial behavior, and slipping grades. Except perhaps for the last one, that sounds like any teenager I've ever met.
Here's the cogent argument: Miley Cyrus is a minor, her actual picture is being used to simulate her in a sexual position. By using her actual head, it's entirely possible that it fit the legal definition. What's more, in matters of legal opinion, the DA is more likely to know the law than some guy who goes off on Slashdot about it.
If it was indeed her actual head, that might fit the legal definition, though I think a murder prosecution would be more appropriate. As it is actually just a photograph of her head, your argument is not at all cogent.
Remember, the law in question requires that a minor must be engaged in simulated sexual activity. A photograph engaged in simulated sexual activity, even if it is a photograph of a minor, does not meet this definition.
Sue them for false advertising. They're offering internet access, but since they don't follow the RFCs, what they're providing isn't really the internet.
The assertation was made that there's not enough of such land, that not all arable land is well-suited to growing crops. While that seems inherently contradictory to me, the point of this example was to show that was is possible and practical in terms of crop production even from land that's not ideal.
OK, fair enough - I'd misunderstood what you were getting at. My point is simply that there is a fair bit of land for which grazing is a more economic use.
Read the link. He claims that he "built [his] soil from cement-hard adobe clay to its impressive state from scratch," and that half his land was terraced on a 35 degree slope. That's not perfectly suited to growing.
But how much did this all cost? Given just how much land available that's already perfectly suited to growing vegetables and grains, I find it hard to believe that it is either economically viable or environmentally sensible to convert significant quantities of unsuitable land.
[...] the vast, overwhelming majority of livestock in the world is produced in industrial feedlots. Unless you are some goat herder in Africa,
Just for the record, this is hyperbole (and I assume it was meant as such). There are at least two first-world nations which produce substantial amounts of livestock almost exclusively by grazing, for the simple reason that they have lots of land unsuitable for harvesting.
If more people in developed society cut back or gave up on meat, there would be more grains available to feed the rest of the world.
Aren't there surpluses already? Surely the problem with feeding the rest of the world isn't producing the food but paying for it?