... but I didn't see the word "iTunes" anywhere in that article.
It is possible to build a profitable, long-lasting, and legal online music business, Mr. Robertson. I'm genuinely sorry you failed to do it, but to pretend that the biggest player in the online music world simply doesn't exist is kind of childish.
The reason you didn't see "iTunes" in the article (which really jumped out at me, too) is that the author cleverly limited himself to streaming online music as opposed to any online music (making his statements factually correct) while not making that terribly clear, thus making the state of the world seem more enveloped in evil than it actually is.
And if the original compiler was gcc, and trojaned in the way the paper describes, then the triple compilation wouldn't catch it. Why? Step 1: the existing compiler builds binary 1 and inserts the backdoor. Step 2: Binary 1 builds binary 2 and inserts the backdoor. Step 3: Binary 2 builds binary 3 and inserts the backdoor. Step 4: binary 2 and binary 3 are compared, and if they are different, then there is an error. However, since all versions have the backdoor, there is no difference, and no error will be flagged. Try reading the linked article again.
Interesting article. However, that case was specifically about whether a company should invest in things, as opposed to paying dividends and maximising short-term income.
Not a good summary. Rather it was specifically about whether a for-profit company could be run for charitable purposes. A quote from the article:
The Court was called upon to decide whether the minority shareholders could prevent Ford from operating the company for the charitable ends that he had declared.
Why do you need to be paid for your artistic creation after you're dead?
Suppose that you are a writer, and your family depends on the income of your writings to live. You die unexpectedly one week after selling rights to one of your works for $1,000,000. All of a sudden, your family doesn't have the income they were expecting. That seems unfair.
However, note that this can be solved through a set term of copyright for X years, as opposed to the current life + X years. That would be fairer in my opinion.
"If you talk to the anti-malware vendors, they are losing the battle," said Quin. "Not that malware is winning, but they can't keep up with the volume anymore."
I have used http://spam.la/ for throwaway email addresses for registrations. Basically, they have a catch-all address for the domain, and you can then use the site to search for all emails sent to a given email address. Emails are discarded after some amount of time. Thus you can use a valid email for a one-time registration, without risk of getting lots of spam.
In my case, it was a bug in the code that simply didn't rear its head on x86, but did on PPC. Basically, va_start must be bracketed by va_end, and va_start must be called each time you want to run through a function's args again.
/* Works on x86, not on PPC */
void f1(int n,...) {
va_list ap;
va_start(ap, n);
for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i) {
g(ap)
}
va_end(ap);
}
/* Works on x86 and PPC */
void f1(int n,...) {
va_list ap;
for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i) {
va_start(ap, n);
g(ap)
va_end(ap);
}
}
There are lots of MIPS Linux distros (Main Page), but that doesn't invalidate the GP post. The only apps you get are the ones in the distros. No one compiles for MIPS, since the market is miniscule. This means it is a crap shoot as to whether the source compile works, and you get nothing if the source isn't available. I had the same problem for PowerPC back when I had Linux on my old Mac, and I would wager that PPC is at least a big a market as MIPS would be.
One of my favorite bug hunts was when I found out the implementation difference in varargs between x86 and PPC: in x86, it is a pointer, which means changes in a called function don't propagate, while it is a pointer to a struct on PPC, which means changes do propagate -- thus the missing va_end only affected things on PPC.
Comcast has filed a court appeal of an FCC ruling that says the company can't delay peer-to-peer traffic on its network because it violates FCC net neutrality principles.
I read:
Comcast filed a court appeal of an FCC ruling. The appeal says that the company can't delay peer-to-peer traffic on its network because it violates FCC net neutrality principles.
I then thought:
WTF?! They are trying to bolster net neutrality? Did I just see a pig fly by?
One interesting bit was that there had to be a court case deciding the fate of people under the age of 13 at the man's death: should they inherit? Conclusion, yes.
That United States governmental system is a federal one. Each state is an independent sovereign entity (in theory). Therefore, a law talking about the US government does not automatically apply to the state government. This is why they are called states and not provinces. However, the states have voluntarily given rights to the federal government in the US constitution that allow the US government to make certain types of laws that apply to the states. However, if the laws don't say they apply, they don't.
Nope, it would be the California government. And before you say that the taxpayers are the government, remember that the state has powers and rights that taxpayers don't -- think eminent domain and the like. Also, just because a group of people collectively fund some work does not mean they have unfettered access to it -- try claiming that you have full rights to a book publisher's books because you are one of the people that paid for their creation, or tell the local PD that you have full access to the jail since taxpayers paid for it.
Godson chips are manufactured in China by a French-Italian company called ST Microelectronics and are available commercially under the brand name Loongson, meaning "dragon chip." Loongson chips already power some personal computers and servers on the Chinese market, which come with the Linux operating system and other open-source software.
It's easier to copy/paste a text file of 10000 entries than to laboriously copy by hand a few entries shown in a collection of images. It is an exact analog to copyright and devices that have a significant non-infringing use -- what is the primary use (not necessarily the primary intended use)?
Optical interferometers are mostly seen by astronomers as very specialized instruments, capable of a very limited range of observations. It is often said that an interferometer achieves the effect of a telescope the size of the distance between the apertures; this is only true in the limited sense of angular resolution. The combined effects of limited aperture area and atmospheric turbulence generally limit interferometers to observations of comparatively bright stars and active galactic nuclei. However, they have proven useful for making very high precision measurements of simple stellar parameters such as size and position (astrometry), for imaging the nearest giant stars and probing the cores of nearby active galaxies.
Second, and I'm sure it's only a matter of time before other browsers pick this up - RESIZABLE TEXT FIELDS. I can drag the "comment" field of the slashdot Post Comment dialogue to be any size larger than its original scale, and it's not just slashdot I can do it on. I spend a good amount of time editing posts in a CMS, so the ability to resize the text input fields has quickly gone from a "huh!" to a "must have!"
As others have also pointed out, Safari has had this for a while. I am actually surprised that Firefox did not pick up on this -- it is such a nice feature.
Now I'm not going to try and pretend I have a huge member, but have you every listened to a woman who has had sex with many men? Most of them will prefer a larger penis over a smaller one. This is what is reported both in real life and in marketed culture.
Why are women concerned about their breasts being too small? If you talk to most men, they will tell you that they prefer larger breasts over smaller ones. This is what is reported both in real life and in marketed culture.
Of the people I have talked to, they generally say they want something average. The women do not like fat or long penises that are uncomfortable, nor small ones that they can't feel. The men like something they can do stuff with, but are not unwieldy. Of course, my data is anecdotal, but are there any real surveys out there?
Personally breast size isn't a huge issue (see what I did there? haha) for me. I just prefer them round and shapely.
I'm not complaining about my penis size, but if something could offer me some extra size (girth / length) with little risks, I would probably take it. I'm sure most women would say the same about their breast size.
I mean, seriously, when and how did the penis size obsession get started anyway? (Including all the stupidities that serve as substitute penis size symbols.) Did marketing just manage to make half the male population insecure and unhappy about being normal human beings? And we still think that marketing is a _good_ thing then?
Replace "penis size" with "breast size", "tan", "muscle", or anything else you care to. They all are people who are not happy with themselves, and fixate on whatever happens to be available.
A big cock is harder it get in, especially if she's got an extra tight vagina. If she's got a really tight pussy it's likely to be uncomfortable for both. As Mojo Nixon put in in Tie My Pecker To My Leg, "I need a woman that's six feet ten, she gotta be that tall so's I can get it all in". Some women not only have tight ones, but you hit her back wall.
It is not only uncomfortable for the man, but can be for the woman too. You alluded to this above, but I will say it outright: different women are laid out differently. The uterus can be in a variety of positions, and can be higher or lower as well. This means a longer penis can contact what usually isn't contacted. While some writings can intimate a woman gets off by having their cervix hit, I know that at least some simply feel pain.
Slashdot Mirror
Something created the universe out of nothing.
Or someone. Intelligently or not. ;-)
... but I didn't see the word "iTunes" anywhere in that article.
It is possible to build a profitable, long-lasting, and legal online music business, Mr. Robertson. I'm genuinely sorry you failed to do it, but to pretend that the biggest player in the online music world simply doesn't exist is kind of childish.
The reason you didn't see "iTunes" in the article (which really jumped out at me, too) is that the author cleverly limited himself to streaming online music as opposed to any online music (making his statements factually correct) while not making that terribly clear, thus making the state of the world seem more enveloped in evil than it actually is.
A monopoly is not illegal (follow the link for examples of some legal monopolies). Rather, it is abusive and unfair business practices that are illegal. Also see the US and EU law.
And if the original compiler was gcc, and trojaned in the way the paper describes, then the triple compilation wouldn't catch it. Why? Step 1: the existing compiler builds binary 1 and inserts the backdoor. Step 2: Binary 1 builds binary 2 and inserts the backdoor. Step 3: Binary 2 builds binary 3 and inserts the backdoor. Step 4: binary 2 and binary 3 are compared, and if they are different, then there is an error. However, since all versions have the backdoor, there is no difference, and no error will be flagged. Try reading the linked article again.
The triple compilation is not for detecting trojans, but "because the compiler will be tested more completely and could also have better performance."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Company
Interesting article. However, that case was specifically about whether a company should invest in things, as opposed to paying dividends and maximising short-term income.
Not a good summary. Rather it was specifically about whether a for-profit company could be run for charitable purposes. A quote from the article:
The Court was called upon to decide whether the minority shareholders could prevent Ford from operating the company for the charitable ends that he had declared.
Why do you need to be paid for your artistic creation after you're dead?
Suppose that you are a writer, and your family depends on the income of your writings to live. You die unexpectedly one week after selling rights to one of your works for $1,000,000. All of a sudden, your family doesn't have the income they were expecting. That seems unfair.
However, note that this can be solved through a set term of copyright for X years, as opposed to the current life + X years. That would be fairer in my opinion.
"If you talk to the anti-malware vendors, they are losing the battle," said Quin. "Not that malware is winning, but they can't keep up with the volume anymore."
Isn't that the definition of malware winning?
I have used http://spam.la/ for throwaway email addresses for registrations. Basically, they have a catch-all address for the domain, and you can then use the site to search for all emails sent to a given email address. Emails are discarded after some amount of time. Thus you can use a valid email for a one-time registration, without risk of getting lots of spam.
This reminded me of a previous slashdot article, which talked about spy satellites with undisclosed orbits. There is an amateur astronomer group that tracks them (and others).
In my case, it was a bug in the code that simply didn't rear its head on x86, but did on PPC. Basically, va_start must be bracketed by va_end, and va_start must be called each time you want to run through a function's args again.
void f1(int n,
va_list ap;
va_start(ap, n);
for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i) {
g(ap)
}
va_end(ap);
}
void f1(int n,
va_list ap;
for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i) {
va_start(ap, n);
g(ap)
va_end(ap);
}
}
void g(va_list ap) {
}
Sorry, I can't seem to get the above indented.
There are lots of MIPS Linux distros (Main Page), but that doesn't invalidate the GP post. The only apps you get are the ones in the distros. No one compiles for MIPS, since the market is miniscule. This means it is a crap shoot as to whether the source compile works, and you get nothing if the source isn't available. I had the same problem for PowerPC back when I had Linux on my old Mac, and I would wager that PPC is at least a big a market as MIPS would be.
One of my favorite bug hunts was when I found out the implementation difference in varargs between x86 and PPC: in x86, it is a pointer, which means changes in a called function don't propagate, while it is a pointer to a struct on PPC, which means changes do propagate -- thus the missing va_end only affected things on PPC.
Comcast has filed a court appeal of an FCC ruling that says the company can't delay peer-to-peer traffic on its network because it violates FCC net neutrality principles.
I read:
Comcast filed a court appeal of an FCC ruling. The appeal says that the company can't delay peer-to-peer traffic on its network because it violates FCC net neutrality principles.
I then thought:
WTF?! They are trying to bolster net neutrality? Did I just see a pig fly by?
I bet you have only read the instructions that come with the tax forms. Tax form instructions are not the tax code. Here is Title 26, Subtitle F, Chapter 65, Subchapter A, Sec. 6406 which was somewhat arbitrarily chosen. However, since you talked about personal taxes, how about the section defining gross income and tax owed?
One interesting bit was that there had to be a court case deciding the fate of people under the age of 13 at the man's death: should they inherit? Conclusion, yes.
That United States governmental system is a federal one. Each state is an independent sovereign entity (in theory). Therefore, a law talking about the US government does not automatically apply to the state government. This is why they are called states and not provinces. However, the states have voluntarily given rights to the federal government in the US constitution that allow the US government to make certain types of laws that apply to the states. However, if the laws don't say they apply, they don't.
Nope, it would be the California government. And before you say that the taxpayers are the government, remember that the state has powers and rights that taxpayers don't -- think eminent domain and the like. Also, just because a group of people collectively fund some work does not mean they have unfettered access to it -- try claiming that you have full rights to a book publisher's books because you are one of the people that paid for their creation, or tell the local PD that you have full access to the jail since taxpayers paid for it.
Purchasing an overpriced, DRMed version of a movie (that will most likely be playable only on a Windows box)
Just to be pedantic:
Compatible with Windows ME, 2008, XP, Mac OS, 8.6 and Higher, Linux, Kernal 2.4X and any operating system with a USB port.
Short answer: yes.
Long answer, from TFA:
Godson chips are manufactured in China by a French-Italian company called ST Microelectronics and are available commercially under the brand name Loongson, meaning "dragon chip." Loongson chips already power some personal computers and servers on the Chinese market, which come with the Linux operating system and other open-source software.
How would it make it easier?
It's easier to copy/paste a text file of 10000 entries than to laboriously copy by hand a few entries shown in a collection of images. It is an exact analog to copyright and devices that have a significant non-infringing use -- what is the primary use (not necessarily the primary intended use)?
Optical interferometers are mostly seen by astronomers as very specialized instruments, capable of a very limited range of observations. It is often said that an interferometer achieves the effect of a telescope the size of the distance between the apertures; this is only true in the limited sense of angular resolution. The combined effects of limited aperture area and atmospheric turbulence generally limit interferometers to observations of comparatively bright stars and active galactic nuclei. However, they have proven useful for making very high precision measurements of simple stellar parameters such as size and position (astrometry), for imaging the nearest giant stars and probing the cores of nearby active galaxies.
Mod parent up (despite limited details).
The design is called Paul-Baker/Mersenne-Schmidt.
Page on the telescope design: http://www.lssto.org/Science/lsst_baseline.shtml
Wikipedia article on telescope: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Synoptic_Survey_Telescope
Wikipedia article section on the Mersenne-Schmidt design: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmidt_camera#Mersenne-Schmidt
Paper on the Mersenne-Schmidt design: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984MNRAS.210..597W
Second, and I'm sure it's only a matter of time before other browsers pick this up - RESIZABLE TEXT FIELDS. I can drag the "comment" field of the slashdot Post Comment dialogue to be any size larger than its original scale, and it's not just slashdot I can do it on. I spend a good amount of time editing posts in a CMS, so the ability to resize the text input fields has quickly gone from a "huh!" to a "must have!"
As others have also pointed out, Safari has had this for a while. I am actually surprised that Firefox did not pick up on this -- it is such a nice feature.
Now I'm not going to try and pretend I have a huge member, but have you every listened to a woman who has had sex with many men? Most of them will prefer a larger penis over a smaller one. This is what is reported both in real life and in marketed culture.
Why are women concerned about their breasts being too small? If you talk to most men, they will tell you that they prefer larger breasts over smaller ones. This is what is reported both in real life and in marketed culture.
Of the people I have talked to, they generally say they want something average. The women do not like fat or long penises that are uncomfortable, nor small ones that they can't feel. The men like something they can do stuff with, but are not unwieldy. Of course, my data is anecdotal, but are there any real surveys out there?
Personally breast size isn't a huge issue (see what I did there? haha) for me. I just prefer them round and shapely.
I'm not complaining about my penis size, but if something could offer me some extra size (girth / length) with little risks, I would probably take it. I'm sure most women would say the same about their breast size.
Everyone wants the flashier peacock tail.
I mean, seriously, when and how did the penis size obsession get started anyway? (Including all the stupidities that serve as substitute penis size symbols.) Did marketing just manage to make half the male population insecure and unhappy about being normal human beings? And we still think that marketing is a _good_ thing then?
Replace "penis size" with "breast size", "tan", "muscle", or anything else you care to. They all are people who are not happy with themselves, and fixate on whatever happens to be available.
A big cock is harder it get in, especially if she's got an extra tight vagina. If she's got a really tight pussy it's likely to be uncomfortable for both. As Mojo Nixon put in in Tie My Pecker To My Leg, "I need a woman that's six feet ten, she gotta be that tall so's I can get it all in". Some women not only have tight ones, but you hit her back wall.
It is not only uncomfortable for the man, but can be for the woman too. You alluded to this above, but I will say it outright: different women are laid out differently. The uterus can be in a variety of positions, and can be higher or lower as well. This means a longer penis can contact what usually isn't contacted. While some writings can intimate a woman gets off by having their cervix hit, I know that at least some simply feel pain.