How do you know about these breaks that Black people get that you don't have access to? You are making a lot of assumptions about plagiarism and stating them as fact and then you want data to prove that the problem is not the NIH it is the applicants lack of ability. How can this be? Where is your data? The NIH did the research to prove that it is not being fair in the grant selection process. The director of the NIH practically provided his mea coupla!
Next you assert that you would avoid Black doctors because you don't trust their qualifications. In your mind you believe even the possibility of corruption invalidates an entire race. Yet you fail to mention that there have been case of White doctors faking credentials. Exibit A: (http://www.cnbc.com/id/19330471) Should I then say all White doctors are frauds? Of course not! That would be idiotic!
Last time I looked that is text book racism. You can pull any reason out "they are not smart enough", "they got a free ride", etc.
I love at the end you scoff "Racism needs to go away." I got news for you, until you go away it will be here on Slashdot.
Slashdot is a terrible forum to discuss this stuff because the deck is stacked. If you need proof grep the archives for the N word.
That is called binning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_binning It is standard industry practice. Doing so saves *you* money because it gives customers the option to buy underperforming or semi-functional yields at a lower cost. It is good for the environment because it reduces manufacturing waste. Higher sellable yields improves profits for manufacturers and reduce costs for you. It is a win-win situation!
(IANAL) I am not sure why everyone seems to be upset when one company sues each other over Intellectual Property (IP) rights or when company signs an IP agreement with another company. This is how an IP economy works. The only way for companies to agree on price for IP is to have the court determine the price, settle out of court, or sign an agreement to obtain IP. Microsoft claims that some of its technologies used in Android infringe on their patents and they will negotiate a price or take a company to court. This is how IP works. This is how business works. If you run a software company make sure you have a lawyer on retainer, because that is how companies communicate discuss IP rights via lawyers. Patents are validated or invalidated by the court and that is the law in the US.
I think what people here do not like is that you can patent software. I agree! I believe it is foolish and counterproductive for the software industry. But there is no point in getting upset when you hear that one company is suing another etc etc. They do this crap all of the time.
Only a geek would not appreciate being imitated! Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery! Don't worry about appreciation, no one has really appreciated geeks before so what else is new?:-)
For all of you Android haters that want a true Linux phone experience! Built with blessed APIs and running the latest mainline Linux kernel. This is your chance to prove us that a phone OS built using a fully open source development methods works. I am sick of going to conferences and hearing about how Android is bad for the community etc and then these same people pull out Apple iPhones. Needed to get that off my chest!:-)
No app developer is going to use the feature checklist as a deciding point to developing apps.The only thing that will attract developers to the platform is the ability to make money. No one has made a million dollars making software for Honeycomb (AFAIK), so until that happens it is going to be tepid developer ecosystem.
In other news Microsoft is releasing DirectAzureX exclusively for Internet Explorer bringing secure 3D content to the Web. Innovation at work people! Microsoft the true king of standards fragmentation.
If you sort the graph from highest median salary to lowest, you will see that the people who are care about the future generations (educators, counselors, social workers, etc) are paid the least while people (like me) that help drive our unsustainable culture are paid the most. That is not really something to be proud of.
Yes could see that! Your eyes may bleed after watching George Lucas' latest atrocity against the StarWars franchise leaving you soaked in your own blood.
Actually, I don't think the producers of Star Trek had much of a choice but to oversaturate the market. Paramount actually was sued by EA for not prostituting the franchise enough. Star Trek has been playing non-stop for 18 years, I don't think there is anything Paramount could do to keep the series interesting for that long.
This is a subtle point, when Hitler segragated the Jews from German society, the German's lost a talented pool of scientists and engineers. It's a good analogy; IMHO!
No way!!!! I have an LG 16x DVD-ROM/48x CD-R drive and I LOVE IT. It works perfectly on my Slackware distro I would recommend it to anyone. Hope they fix the problem soon. It would be intresting to know why this happens.
(My rebuttal) Note I have no love for either Intel or Sun:-)
Speed-wise: The Ultra SPARC III's 8MB cache is an external L2, so I am not that impressed. Enterprise-Level Intel machines have PCI-X which go to 133MHz as apposed to the 66MHz/33MHz PCI slots. 3GHz Xeon procs with hyperthreading are a "hellova-lot" faster than a weak 1.05GHz USIII. 64bit cores are overated (in most environments) pointer arithmetic is slower. 64-bit US applications are also 1.5x larger than 32-bit US applications for you bloat buffs. If you don't need more than 4GB of RAM then a 32bit intel is what you want.
Reliability: I've seen Enterprise-Level Sunfire 6800s go offline due to problems with I/O boards in enterprise environments. I have never seen a SunBlade 100 that has lasted more than two months in my company. Sun's quality was second to none, but not anymore.
Conclusion: Sun is more expensive and slower. Intel is cheaper and faster. You can play with the numbers all you want but those are the facts.
Re:Not as risky as you might first think
on
Cracking GSM
·
· Score: 1
That C example would only work for all functions in the object file i.e. flavor.o, but if you needed to access flavor() from other objects as flavour() it would not work.
What you need is a solution that supports both flavor() and flavour(). Global function pointers might be good for that.
void flavor(void) {
printf ("chocolate\n"); }
void (* flavour)(void)=flavor;
int main() {
flavour();
flavor(); }
The best solution IMHO is to leave the crap alone.
Do you have any evidence to back this up? Did you compile and benchmark a program with default optimizations and then compile and benchmark the same program with optimizations?
Why screw around with compiler flags when you can "crack open" the source code. I guaruntee if you are a competent hacker you can get more performance out of your software by doing that.
Although I agree with you that you may learn alot by compiling source yourself and learning how to optimize executable binaries, you will learn and possibly contribute even more by optimizing the source code.
I simply do not like distributions you have to compile because it is just too time consuming. I only compile software when the software is a source-only release or when I want to patch the software. Spending half a day compiling my distribution is unacceptible.
I like the.NET/CLR approach of compiling the code into an intermediate format and then running a just-in-time compiler during the first run. Only the code that is used is compilied (with specific optimizations for the machine) and the code is permenantly cached.
This solves three problems that source code compilation/optimation does not: * its faster than lexing, compiling, and linking * it allows me to optimize binary-only software * it allows the intermediate binaries to be cross-platform.
This way the developers can spend time optimizing the code to a virtual target platform, and the administrators can spend time administrating.;-)
If memory serves me right, Linux was not POSIX compliant from the beginning. The LSB is really a standard for Linux distribution makers to follow so that when application designers make a linux application, it can run across distributions with minimal changes.
The GNU extenstions to the standard UNIX commands were in widespread use across distributions before the LSB was created. If the LSB group decided just to implement POSIX, it would force the distribution makers to modify all of the applications or utilities that are not POSIX compliant in thier distribution. This of course would never happen, so the LSB logically decided to base the standard on what was in common use.
In other words, no one would use POSIX because it would force code rewrites, therefore no one would use LSB if it were strictly based on POSIX.
My point is where does the abstaction end? Should "catting" the mp3 output the data to my soundcard or send the data to stdout? Call me old fashioned but the point of the filesystem is to store files in an efficient manner and the point of XMMS is to manage my mp3s.
If you told me the shell or gui was able to modify mp3 tag information, I would have no issue. If the filesystem layer was handling it, then I have a problem with it because it adds complexity. If the mp3 information was an "extended attribute" to the file, I would not have a problem with it. I don't think the author meant that the solution was an extended attribute, but the filesystem actually editing the mp3 tag information itself. I could be wrong about this.
Although I agree that application metadata handled by the filesystem leads to complexity which leads to bugs, I think most people misread the article was saying about metadata handling. In the MP3 example I don't think the author was saying that the MP3 tag metadata should be "stored" in the filesystem, rather the filesystem should abstract the MP3 tag metadata as a filesystem object. When you make modifications to the filesystem objects representing the MP3 tag it will update the MP3 file itself. Transferring the MP3 with its metadata should be seamless with this approach.
I think this looks good on the surface, but this is a solution to a non-problem (which usually causes problems). If I want to update the tag information all I need to do is load XMMS and change the tag features.
Although I call GNU/Linux "Linux", Stallman has a valid argument because all of the core libraries and fundamental utilites were written by GNU. The linux libc (glibc) is written by GNU and all user-mode applications run on top of that library.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you know about these breaks that Black people get that you don't have access to? You are making a lot of assumptions about plagiarism and stating them as fact and then you want data to prove that the problem is not the NIH it is the applicants lack of ability. How can this be? Where is your data? The NIH did the research to prove that it is not being fair in the grant selection process. The director of the NIH practically provided his mea coupla!
Next you assert that you would avoid Black doctors because you don't trust their qualifications. In your mind you believe even the possibility of corruption invalidates an entire race. Yet you fail to mention that there have been case of White doctors faking credentials. Exibit A: (http://www.cnbc.com/id/19330471) Should I then say all White doctors are frauds? Of course not! That would be idiotic!
Last time I looked that is text book racism. You can pull any reason out "they are not smart enough", "they got a free ride", etc.
I love at the end you scoff "Racism needs to go away." I got news for you, until you go away it will be here on Slashdot.
Slashdot is a terrible forum to discuss this stuff because the deck is stacked. If you need proof grep the archives for the N word.
That is called binning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_binning
It is standard industry practice. Doing so saves *you* money because it gives customers the option to buy underperforming or semi-functional yields at a lower cost. It is good for the environment because it reduces manufacturing waste. Higher sellable yields improves profits for manufacturers and reduce costs for you. It is a win-win situation!
No!
(IANAL) I am not sure why everyone seems to be upset when one company sues each other over Intellectual Property (IP) rights or when company signs an IP agreement with another company. This is how an IP economy works. The only way for companies to agree on price for IP is to have the court determine the price, settle out of court, or sign an agreement to obtain IP. Microsoft claims that some of its technologies used in Android infringe on their patents and they will negotiate a price or take a company to court. This is how IP works. This is how business works. If you run a software company make sure you have a lawyer on retainer, because that is how companies communicate discuss IP rights via lawyers. Patents are validated or invalidated by the court and that is the law in the US.
I think what people here do not like is that you can patent software. I agree! I believe it is foolish and counterproductive for the software industry. But there is no point in getting upset when you hear that one company is suing another etc etc. They do this crap all of the time.
Only a geek would not appreciate being imitated! Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery! Don't worry about appreciation, no one has really appreciated geeks before so what else is new? :-)
Don't get me wrong though it looks pretty good so far: http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/21/nokia-n9-first-hands-on/
For all of you Android haters that want a true Linux phone experience! Built with blessed APIs and running the latest mainline Linux kernel. This is your chance to prove us that a phone OS built using a fully open source development methods works. I am sick of going to conferences and hearing about how Android is bad for the community etc and then these same people pull out Apple iPhones. Needed to get that off my chest! :-)
No app developer is going to use the feature checklist as a deciding point to developing apps.The only thing that will attract developers to the platform is the ability to make money. No one has made a million dollars making software for Honeycomb (AFAIK), so until that happens it is going to be tepid developer ecosystem.
In other news Microsoft is releasing DirectAzureX exclusively for Internet Explorer bringing secure 3D content to the Web. Innovation at work people! Microsoft the true king of standards fragmentation.
If you sort the graph from highest median salary to lowest, you will see that the people who are care about the future generations (educators, counselors, social workers, etc) are paid the least while people (like me) that help drive our unsustainable culture are paid the most. That is not really something to be proud of.
The NES went on a diet in the early 90's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NES_2 as well. I am surprised that CNET missed that!
Yes could see that! Your eyes may bleed after watching George Lucas' latest atrocity against the StarWars franchise leaving you soaked in your own blood.
-- Relax it's just a joke!
Actually, I don't think the producers of Star Trek had much of a choice but to oversaturate the market. Paramount actually was sued by EA for not prostituting the franchise enough. Star Trek has been playing non-stop for 18 years, I don't think there is anything Paramount could do to keep the series interesting for that long.
This is a subtle point, when Hitler segragated the Jews from German society, the German's lost a talented pool of scientists and engineers. It's a good analogy; IMHO!
A quick dictionary search at www.m-w.com (Merriam-Webster) states that the use of the plural form ninjas and ninja are both correct.
No way!!!! I have an LG 16x DVD-ROM/48x CD-R drive and I LOVE IT. It works perfectly on my Slackware distro I would recommend it to anyone. Hope they fix the problem soon. It would be intresting to know why this happens.
(My rebuttal) :-)
Note I have no love for either Intel or Sun
Speed-wise:
The Ultra SPARC III's 8MB cache is an external L2, so I am not that impressed. Enterprise-Level Intel machines have PCI-X which go to 133MHz as apposed to the 66MHz/33MHz PCI slots. 3GHz Xeon procs with hyperthreading are a "hellova-lot" faster than a weak 1.05GHz USIII. 64bit cores are overated (in most environments) pointer arithmetic is slower. 64-bit US applications are also 1.5x larger than 32-bit US applications for you bloat buffs. If you don't need more than 4GB of RAM then a 32bit intel is what you want.
Reliability:
I've seen Enterprise-Level Sunfire 6800s go offline due to problems with I/O boards in enterprise environments. I have never seen a SunBlade 100 that has lasted more than two months in my company. Sun's quality was second to none, but not anymore.
Conclusion:
Sun is more expensive and slower. Intel is cheaper and faster. You can play with the numbers all you want but those are the facts.
Damn it I just, bought a 3G cell phone!!!
Oh, well I did not expect it to be secure anyway.
That C example would only work for all functions in the object file i.e. flavor.o, but if you needed to access flavor() from other objects as flavour() it would not work.
What you need is a solution that supports both flavor() and flavour(). Global function pointers might be good for that.
void flavor(void)
{
printf ("chocolate\n");
}
void (* flavour)(void)=flavor;
int main()
{
flavour();
flavor();
}
The best solution IMHO is to leave the crap alone.
Do you have any evidence to back this up? Did you compile and benchmark a program with default optimizations and then compile and benchmark the same program with optimizations?
Why screw around with compiler flags when you can "crack open" the source code. I guaruntee if you are a competent hacker you can get more performance out of your software by doing that.
Although I agree with you that you may learn alot by compiling source yourself and learning how to optimize executable binaries, you will learn and possibly contribute even more by optimizing the source code.
I simply do not like distributions you have to compile because it is just too time consuming. I only compile software when the software is a source-only release or when I want to patch the software. Spending half a day compiling my distribution is unacceptible.
.NET/CLR approach of compiling the code into an intermediate format and then running a just-in-time compiler during the first run. Only the code that is used is compilied (with specific optimizations for the machine) and the code is permenantly cached.
;-)
I like the
This solves three problems that source code compilation/optimation does not:
* its faster than lexing, compiling, and linking
* it allows me to optimize binary-only software
* it allows the intermediate binaries to be cross-platform.
This way the developers can spend time optimizing the code to a virtual target platform, and the administrators can spend time administrating.
If memory serves me right, Linux was not POSIX compliant from the beginning. The LSB is really a standard for Linux distribution makers to follow so that when application designers make a linux application, it can run across distributions with minimal changes.
The GNU extenstions to the standard UNIX commands were in widespread use across distributions before the LSB was created. If the LSB group decided just to implement POSIX, it would force the distribution makers to modify all of the applications or utilities that are not POSIX compliant in thier distribution. This of course would never happen, so the LSB logically decided to base the standard on what was in common use.
In other words, no one would use POSIX because it would force code rewrites, therefore no one would use LSB if it were strictly based on POSIX.
My point is where does the abstaction end? Should "catting" the mp3 output the data to my soundcard or send the data to stdout? Call me old fashioned but the point of the filesystem is to store files in an efficient manner and the point of XMMS is to manage my mp3s.
If you told me the shell or gui was able to modify mp3 tag information, I would have no issue. If the filesystem layer was handling it, then I have a problem with it because it adds complexity. If the mp3 information was an "extended attribute" to the file, I would not have a problem with it. I don't think the author meant that the solution was an extended attribute, but the filesystem actually editing the mp3 tag information itself. I could be wrong about this.
Although I agree that application metadata handled by the filesystem leads to complexity which leads to bugs, I think most people misread the article was saying about metadata handling. In the MP3 example I don't think the author was saying that the MP3 tag metadata should be "stored" in the filesystem, rather the filesystem should abstract the MP3 tag metadata as a filesystem object. When you make modifications to the filesystem objects representing the MP3 tag it will update the MP3 file itself. Transferring the MP3 with its metadata should be seamless with this approach.
I think this looks good on the surface, but this is a solution to a non-problem (which usually causes problems). If I want to update the tag information all I need to do is load XMMS and change the tag features.
Although I call GNU/Linux "Linux", Stallman has a valid argument because all of the core libraries and fundamental utilites were written by GNU. The linux libc (glibc) is written by GNU and all user-mode applications run on top of that library.
;-)
Don't disrespect the GNU.