The important difference is that the flushing of your toilet doesn't predict anything, whereas General Relativity predicts specific although tiny effects from frame dragging. If the effect is found, it will be yet another validation of General Relativity. If not, it might mean our experiment was flawed or we have to come up with an improvement on the G-R theory.
It seems obvious that if a person is habitually lazy or idle that it would take more of an effort to break out of that than, say, a person who typically had a high activity level but was forced to be idle by sickness.
The article summary looks wrong. I don't see anything in TFA itself which indicates that laziness is a result of some genetic factor. All they say is that it's intrinsic to the individual - being a rhesus monkey in this case - that a given individual displays similar activity levels in both a stimulating and a non-stimulating environment.
Actually if you read the article it points out that Gnome has an actual architecture for accessibility, whereas windows accessibility is usually dependent on the third party which develops accessibility tools. The developer of the windows screen reader needs to customise it to each application to be run (or something like that).
"But if a customer modifies the source code, [Red Hat] can't help you [without charging you extra]. They have to lock things down to provide value," Matusow said.
That's a new meaning for the phrase "lock things down" that I hadn't heard before. I don't believe redhat locks anything down. The customer might be responsible for fixing problems with their own changes, but that wouldn't affect the support that redhat provides (i.e. so long as the problem was not caused by a customer change).
In effect, it's more FUD from M$. They really appear desperate now, grasping at any possible argument against Open Source. I didn't see the M$ spokesman telling the audience that Microsoft would support its own software which had been altered by customers.
So Mr Matusow, please explain again, how a license which allows customers to do more than your license allows is bad for those customers? That's like the RIAA claiming that 20-more years of copyright post death of author is good for the consumer.
Ownership is nothing but consensus that somebody owns something. As another person who replied to your comment noted, ownership of domains works because there's consensus among (almost all) internet hosts regarding who runs the root nameservers. There are some rebels who run their own roots, still.
If enough people and/or governments should agree that this Hope person's registry is legitimate, then that would be de facto ownership. I agree with you that the chances of
this happening are vanishingly small. Other than that, the situation is fundamentally the same as with domain names.
It is said "possession is 9 tenths of the law". So if we're talking about owning a chunk of the moon, the time-honoured way of proving that is to be there, on your chunk, fighting off anybody else who tries to move in on you. Nothing like that is going to happen for a few decades at least. So in fact, questions of ownership of chunks of the moon are not only academic, they cannot be decided until we can actually go there, occupy it, and fight off invaders.
What if they're not selling the land per se, but are running a registry. You stake your claim to a parcel of land, and the registrar ensures that no two of their customers are assigned the same land. The price you pay is for their service as a registrar of unique land packages.
Kinda like the DNS really. Hope is Verisign and he's selling you something that he doesn't own and you can call it your own but you don't really own it, particularly not after some big corporation comes around to claim your piece.
It's because the hardware manufacturers are bringing out new cards (etc) all the time, and their new cards are subtly different from their old cards, and so need drivers, and the manufacturer doesn't (or won't) release specifications for OSS developers to use.
I see a lot of gear which is 95% supported in linux, and the developers probably achieved that 95% through reverse engineering. To get 100% you need two things: proper specifications and committed developers.
So does this mean if I run, say, two copies of Internet Explorer, then I have to pay double the license fee?
What's the difference between running two instances of Application X on one CPU, and running one instance of Application X on each of two CPUs?
It boils down to the question "what is virtual, anyway?". If I run a process under an emulator, versus running it on the native operating system, there's no difference as far as the application is concerned. Only its execution environment has changed. So presumably I should require two licenses of the operating system, because I am running two instances of it.
It makes sense to count not CPUs but the number of concurrent instances of an application, irrespective where they run. For applications which are licensed according to some scale, of course. Thanks but no thanks, I'll stick with linux and OSS!
Yes. They should be crypto-signing their emails. And they should use only ONE domain name for all customer interactions - email, http, https.
It's ridiculous in this day and age that people should be expected to validate their own Received: headers, and that large corporations continue to send out email with no better self-authentication than some phisher in a 3rd world country.
You have to turn the playbook around, and you have to do it quick, before the hijackers feel they are in control. They want stealth, so you blow their cover. That upsets their plan from the first second.
You (i.e. the defending passengers and crew) have no plan for defeating the hijackers. Messing up their plan brings them down to your level - that's to your advantage.
One good scream, and the flight deck will have been immediately notified of a problem of some kind in the cabin. Low tech. But pervasive. All the flight attendents already have the necessary hardware. Batteries won't run out.
No they won't. You're proposing that people with no formal training and no reference material will independently redevelop recognised programming techniques.
The largest number of people will invent nothing new; they'll just program within the limitations of what they were taught.
A smaller number of people will invent something new, but it will be some kind of kludge. They'll use it everywhere they can. It will be inefficient or inelegant, but they won't notice that.
A very small number of people will invent something new which works well, is efficient and elegant.
My opinion is that if you teach 100 people how to program in BASIC without any mention of GOSUB, then have them solve problems by writing programs, and after a while you check what techniques they use, you will find that 90% of those people are writing spaghetti code with no discernable structure (or maybe only WHILE loops), 8% have implemented the idea of the subroutine by supplying a return address in a fixed location (so recursion is not possible) and the remaining 2% have implemented their own stack and use it to simulate proper recursive subroutines.
There has been much more bad design in the history of computer science than good design. I don't see why the situation we see in the large should not apply to individuals too. Just look at language design. Some recognised (nay, famous) programming languages are awful. You think the people who designed those languages weren't smart?
Just look at Niklaus Wirth - and the botch he made of Pascal's string handling, data structures and control structures. This was a guy who studied and taught computer science.
Take a look at COBOL, if you can stand to. Clearly botched in a number of areas, at least in the 1985 revision which is when I last had to look at it. In areas such as conditional handling, data structures, dynamic memory allocation. COBOL had one good idea, namely statically defining the allowable contents of various data areas, and that's about it.
I can only argue that students should be taught best practices from day one, on the basis that they will most likely never invent those best practices for themselves (98% chance) and could develop bad habits as a result of their stunted education (90% chance).
Case in point - a schoolfriend of mine. He liked to program but he didn't study programming. He came to me once so proud of his invention of a sorting function in BASIC. I checked it out and it was a Bubblesort. I don't recall whether I had the heart to inform him that the bubblesort is possibly the slowest recognised sort algorithm.
Teaching programming to kids is a different kettle of fish. Depending on the age of the kids, introducing subroutines and stacks and recursive data structures may be well beyond their capacity to understand. So for kids, start simple: top to bottom execution, arithmetic, strings, conditionals, while loops. When they're ready for it start to introduce subroutines, data structures, recursion, pre- and post-conditions, invariants, objects, interfaces, inheritance, polymorphism.
Let me see if I have this straight. You run a SOAP server, and you use this vendor's library so that your users (who are presumably remote to you, but running your code) will report their exceptions to the vendor's database, which you can query later.
Why don't you just add one more function to your SOAP server and have your exception handler connect to that?
Warning: session_start(): Cannot send session cookie - headers already sent by (output started at/usr/www/website/drupal.gallery2.org/index.php:39) in/usr/www/website/drupal.gallery2.org/includes/sess ion.inc on line 10
Warning: session_start(): Cannot send session cache limiter - headers already sent (output started at/usr/www/website/drupal.gallery2.org/index.php:39) in/usr/www/website/drupal.gallery2.org/includes/sess ion.inc on line 10
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at/usr/www/website/drupal.gallery2.org/index.php:39) in/usr/www/website/drupal.gallery2.org/includes/boot strap.inc on line 448
Plus half a page of unreadable junk which I won't even try to get past the lameness filter.
Read Garth Montgomery's reports from watching the case.
Despite Garth's unusual, semi-gonzo writing style, it seems obvious to me that the Sharman defence was a pitiful joke. Nobody knows what the software does, nobody knows how it does it, nobody is responsible for it, nobody is the boss, everybody is a peon.
Basically they didn't have a solid set of arguments to support their behaviour. They were profiting from copyright infringement, even if they did not do the copying themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
The important difference is that the flushing of your toilet doesn't predict anything, whereas General Relativity predicts specific although tiny effects from frame dragging. If the effect is found, it will be yet another validation of General Relativity. If not, it might mean our experiment was flawed or we have to come up with an improvement on the G-R theory.
The article summary looks wrong. I don't see anything in TFA itself which indicates that laziness is a result of some genetic factor. All they say is that it's intrinsic to the individual - being a rhesus monkey in this case - that a given individual displays similar activity levels in both a stimulating and a non-stimulating environment.
Actually if you read the article it points out that Gnome has an actual architecture for accessibility, whereas windows accessibility is usually dependent on the third party which develops accessibility tools. The developer of the windows screen reader needs to customise it to each application to be run (or something like that).
That's a new meaning for the phrase "lock things down" that I hadn't heard before. I don't believe redhat locks anything down. The customer might be responsible for fixing problems with their own changes, but that wouldn't affect the support that redhat provides (i.e. so long as the problem was not caused by a customer change).
In effect, it's more FUD from M$. They really appear desperate now, grasping at any possible argument against Open Source. I didn't see the M$ spokesman telling the audience that Microsoft would support its own software which had been altered by customers.
So Mr Matusow, please explain again, how a license which allows customers to do more than your license allows is bad for those customers? That's like the RIAA claiming that 20-more years of copyright post death of author is good for the consumer.
If enough people and/or governments should agree that this Hope person's registry is legitimate, then that would be de facto ownership. I agree with you that the chances of this happening are vanishingly small. Other than that, the situation is fundamentally the same as with domain names.
It is said "possession is 9 tenths of the law". So if we're talking about owning a chunk of the moon, the time-honoured way of proving that is to be there, on your chunk, fighting off anybody else who tries to move in on you. Nothing like that is going to happen for a few decades at least. So in fact, questions of ownership of chunks of the moon are not only academic, they cannot be decided until we can actually go there, occupy it, and fight off invaders.
Kinda like the DNS really. Hope is Verisign and he's selling you something that he doesn't own and you can call it your own but you don't really own it, particularly not after some big corporation comes around to claim your piece.
As always, any sufficiently insightful deconstruction is indistinguishable from satire.
I see a lot of gear which is 95% supported in linux, and the developers probably achieved that 95% through reverse engineering. To get 100% you need two things: proper specifications and committed developers.
You don't come here much anymore, do you?
In my country, International Standards Day occurs next week.
I'm just waiting for the price to come down. When it becomes affordable, I'll be there!
I thought we weren't going to practice genetic discrimination.
What's the difference between running two instances of Application X on one CPU, and running one instance of Application X on each of two CPUs?
It boils down to the question "what is virtual, anyway?". If I run a process under an emulator, versus running it on the native operating system, there's no difference as far as the application is concerned. Only its execution environment has changed. So presumably I should require two licenses of the operating system, because I am running two instances of it.
It makes sense to count not CPUs but the number of concurrent instances of an application, irrespective where they run. For applications which are licensed according to some scale, of course. Thanks but no thanks, I'll stick with linux and OSS!
It's ridiculous in this day and age that people should be expected to validate their own Received: headers, and that large corporations continue to send out email with no better self-authentication than some phisher in a 3rd world country.
Only in Iraq will you realise the potential as you taste the water.
In South Korea, only old people are taught by humans.
You (i.e. the defending passengers and crew) have no plan for defeating the hijackers. Messing up their plan brings them down to your level - that's to your advantage.
One good scream, and the flight deck will have been immediately notified of a problem of some kind in the cabin. Low tech. But pervasive. All the flight attendents already have the necessary hardware. Batteries won't run out.
The largest number of people will invent nothing new; they'll just program within the limitations of what they were taught.
A smaller number of people will invent something new, but it will be some kind of kludge. They'll use it everywhere they can. It will be inefficient or inelegant, but they won't notice that.
A very small number of people will invent something new which works well, is efficient and elegant.
My opinion is that if you teach 100 people how to program in BASIC without any mention of GOSUB, then have them solve problems by writing programs, and after a while you check what techniques they use, you will find that 90% of those people are writing spaghetti code with no discernable structure (or maybe only WHILE loops), 8% have implemented the idea of the subroutine by supplying a return address in a fixed location (so recursion is not possible) and the remaining 2% have implemented their own stack and use it to simulate proper recursive subroutines.
There has been much more bad design in the history of computer science than good design. I don't see why the situation we see in the large should not apply to individuals too. Just look at language design. Some recognised (nay, famous) programming languages are awful. You think the people who designed those languages weren't smart?
Just look at Niklaus Wirth - and the botch he made of Pascal's string handling, data structures and control structures. This was a guy who studied and taught computer science.
Take a look at COBOL, if you can stand to. Clearly botched in a number of areas, at least in the 1985 revision which is when I last had to look at it. In areas such as conditional handling, data structures, dynamic memory allocation. COBOL had one good idea, namely statically defining the allowable contents of various data areas, and that's about it.
I can only argue that students should be taught best practices from day one, on the basis that they will most likely never invent those best practices for themselves (98% chance) and could develop bad habits as a result of their stunted education (90% chance).
Case in point - a schoolfriend of mine. He liked to program but he didn't study programming. He came to me once so proud of his invention of a sorting function in BASIC. I checked it out and it was a Bubblesort. I don't recall whether I had the heart to inform him that the bubblesort is possibly the slowest recognised sort algorithm.
Teaching programming to kids is a different kettle of fish. Depending on the age of the kids, introducing subroutines and stacks and recursive data structures may be well beyond their capacity to understand. So for kids, start simple: top to bottom execution, arithmetic, strings, conditionals, while loops. When they're ready for it start to introduce subroutines, data structures, recursion, pre- and post-conditions, invariants, objects, interfaces, inheritance, polymorphism.
Yeah. Just like the RIAA.
A freezer that calls your food supplier is not.
Why don't you just add one more function to your SOAP server and have your exception handler connect to that?
Perhaps Sun could learn to promote their products on their own merits, rather than insulting a competitor.
Warning: session_start(): Cannot send session cookie - headers already sent by (output started at /usr/www/website/drupal.gallery2.org/index.php:39) in /usr/www/website/drupal.gallery2.org/includes/sess ion.inc on line 10
Warning: session_start(): Cannot send session cache limiter - headers already sent (output started at /usr/www/website/drupal.gallery2.org/index.php:39) in /usr/www/website/drupal.gallery2.org/includes/sess ion.inc on line 10
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /usr/www/website/drupal.gallery2.org/index.php:39) in /usr/www/website/drupal.gallery2.org/includes/boot strap.inc on line 448
Plus half a page of unreadable junk which I won't even try to get past the lameness filter.
I think I'll wait for Gallery 3.x
Despite Garth's unusual, semi-gonzo writing style, it seems obvious to me that the Sharman defence was a pitiful joke. Nobody knows what the software does, nobody knows how it does it, nobody is responsible for it, nobody is the boss, everybody is a peon.
Basically they didn't have a solid set of arguments to support their behaviour. They were profiting from copyright infringement, even if they did not do the copying themselves.