Today I managed to learn new mathematics....that the even-ness of a number depends on the base it is expressed in. Hmmmm....perhaps the laws of mathematics change regularly, after all!!
Minor point of terminology. Grandparent was mistaken and used the term "even" to refer to "nice round". The number 1,024 is a nice round number in base 2 (1,024 == 2^10), just as 1,000 is a nice round number to a base-10 computer (1,000 = 10^3). Whether a number is even or not depends only on whether or not 2 is present in its prime factorization, but nice roundness of a natural number does depend on the base.
My definition of "nice roundness": A "nice round number" in base b is any natural number n = a * b^p with 1. small a and 2. b not a factor of a.
Babel Fish is laying Yakov easter eggs
on
Pyromaniac Cosplay
·
· Score: 1
Chief editor: Because, so it is to say, mountain wooden you.
"In Soviet Russia, mountain wooden YOU!"
OK, who slipped a Yakov Smirnoff easter egg into Altavista's Babel Fish?
Otherwise, it hasn't been properly translated.
You compare translation to paying for McDonald's food in another currency. But because most individuals can't afford to have proper translations produced, comparing proper translations to Babel Fish is more like comparing a dinner at a high-class restaurant to a McDonald's Extra Value Meal.
I've never discovered the reason why Esperanto is supposed to be so good. I have a suspicion it's based soley on Mexico's proximity to the US. For countries with few spanish speakers, it doesn't make much sense at all...
You're confusing Esperanto with Español, the language of Mexico and Latin America (excluding Brazil). Esperanto is based on a mixture of several Western and Eastern European languages. Think Italian mixed with Polish mixed with the agglutinative structure of languages such as Finnish, Japanese, or Turkish.
When you buy a SW package - you may or may not own it, but not the rights to the actual code (unless specified).
The typical EULA states that "You own the disc in which the Program is fixed, but the Author retains title to the Program itself."
17 USC 101, which defines terms used throughout copyright law, states:
''Copies'' are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term ''copies'' includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed.
So in other words, the disc purchased from the publisher is a copy of the program, and the person who buys a software package from the store is an "owner of a copy" unless the software is part of a rental or lease agreement. By stating that "You own the disc in which this Program is fixed", the copyright owner disclaims any rental agreement.
DISCLAIMER: I am not a copyright lawyer. Nothing you read on Slashdot is legal advice.
So turn it off in the debug builds, but provide a way to turn it on so that you can unit-test your floating-point code both with and without -ffast-math.
In the benchmarks that g4dget referred to, the Intel compiler was tested with the equivalent of -ffast-math turned on anyway, giving it an unfair advantage.
I didn't think that the FSF or the OSI dictates what is free and what isn't Free.
I mentioned this in my comment, making a careful distinction between "free" and "Free". The USA's advertising laws dictate what can be considered "gratis", that is, free as in "free lunch". I'd assume that nobody can deceptively sell you a "free car" and then reveal a $20,000 "shipping and handling fee". If it's really small-f free, and the $20 covers replication, shipping, and handling of the copy, then it should be at least freely copyable and redistributable, which means there needs to be an exception to the Sun Binary Code License Agreement analogous to the exception provided with the Java 1.4 JRE.
Then what about the Adobe v. Softman precedent, stating that if it looks like a sale of a copy and quacks like a sale of a copy, it's a sale of a copy?
A consumer of mass-market software surely doesn't own the copyright on the program, but unless there's a specific rental agreement between the consumer and the copyright owner, the consumer does own a copy of the program. (A "copy" is defined as the medium in which the program is fixed.) And if the consumer owns a copy, then the defenses in 17 USC 109 and 17 USC 117 become available, but the right to distribute modified versions is not among them.
I claim nothing. I have never even set foot inside a law school. I just wondered if anybody more familiar with the case law could elaborate, particularly about how much originality it takes to make a derivative work (as opposed to de minimis alterations).
are you or are you not always this pedantic with informal english?
No. But when it comes to the fine points that win or lose a lawsuit, pedantry pays.
I read it wrong. I thought that by "restricts COPYING and DISTRIBUTING" you meant "restricts COPYING or DISTRIBUTING", or "restricts COPYING and restricts DISTRIBUTING".
I also thought that copyright law restricted copying works other than computer programs into RAM except subject to limited fair use exemptions. But now, after trying to determine whether HTML counts as a computer program, and then reading and re-reading 17 USC 101, I realize that under a broad interpretation of 101, any work fixed digitally could be termed a "computer program" and subject to the additional limitations of 17 USC 117. Can anybody cite case law pertaining to this?
the spirit of copyright laws are restricting COPYING
The problem here is that a U.S. court decision interpreted a copy in RAM as a "copy" for purposes of copyright law. Thus, when the kernel receives a packet, it COPIES the packet from the network card to the browser's memory, and then the browser COPIES and ADAPTS the HTML into a document tree, COPIES and ADAPTS the document tree into an offscreen bitmap, and COPIES the offscreen bitmap into your video card's RAM.
And if you're arguing fair use, as I said, you better have the money to pay an attorney to back it up.
If you think that there wasn't anything as simple as a firearm before firearms were invented, take a look at a crossbow.
"Crossbows don't kill people; people kill people." "Crossbows don't kill people; arrows kill people." "Crossbows don't kill people; blood loss kills people." The clichés are intended to concentrate attention on different parts of the cause.
I have difficulty buying that re-formatting a UI is ``creating a derivative work''.
If you're not independently wealthy, you'll also "have difficulty buying" the services of an attorney to defend you in a court of law.
The definition of "derivative work" in US copyright law can be found in 17 USC 101 plus case law with which I am not very familiar because I'm not a copyright lawyer.
Any web site that uses a visual method of authentication as the exclusive method of authentication will be inaccessible to people with vision problems and thus not be compliant with Section 508 of the U.S. Rehabilitation Act, and the entity that operates the web site will lose the U.S. government as a potential customer.
There's no law stating that we have to look at ads.
What about 17 USC 106, which states that barring fair use, etc., the copyright owner has the right to prevent others from creating derivative works of a web page?
Doesn't "64-bit" refer only to the size of the registers (that is, hardware support for long long) and pointers (that is, hardware support for far pointer arithmetic)? Last time I checked, the 64-bit architectures didn't have 64-bit instruction words unless they were VLIW architectures such as Crusoe's backend or TI TMS320C6K. The "bitness" of a processor has nothing to do with its instruction size; witness the 16-bit Thumb instructions of the 32-bit ARM architecture.
Slashdot Mirror
Today I managed to learn new mathematics....that the even-ness of a number depends on the base it is expressed in. Hmmmm....perhaps the laws of mathematics change regularly, after all!!
Minor point of terminology. Grandparent was mistaken and used the term "even" to refer to "nice round". The number 1,024 is a nice round number in base 2 (1,024 == 2^10), just as 1,000 is a nice round number to a base-10 computer (1,000 = 10^3). Whether a number is even or not depends only on whether or not 2 is present in its prime factorization, but nice roundness of a natural number does depend on the base.
My definition of "nice roundness": A "nice round number" in base b is any natural number n = a * b^p with 1. small a and 2. b not a factor of a.
Chief editor: Because, so it is to say, mountain wooden you.
"In Soviet Russia, mountain wooden YOU!"
OK, who slipped a Yakov Smirnoff easter egg into Altavista's Babel Fish?
Otherwise, it hasn't been properly translated.
You compare translation to paying for McDonald's food in another currency. But because most individuals can't afford to have proper translations produced, comparing proper translations to Babel Fish is more like comparing a dinner at a high-class restaurant to a McDonald's Extra Value Meal.
I've never discovered the reason why Esperanto is supposed to be so good. I have a suspicion it's based soley on Mexico's proximity to the US. For countries with few spanish speakers, it doesn't make much sense at all...
You're confusing Esperanto with Español, the language of Mexico and Latin America (excluding Brazil). Esperanto is based on a mixture of several Western and Eastern European languages. Think Italian mixed with Polish mixed with the agglutinative structure of languages such as Finnish, Japanese, or Turkish.
why the hell can't the entire world switch to English(first choice) or Esperanto
Because even Esperanto is more complicated than Toki Pona, which manages to say almost everything with only 120 words.
When you buy a SW package - you may or may not own it, but not the rights to the actual code (unless specified).
The typical EULA states that "You own the disc in which the Program is fixed, but the Author retains title to the Program itself."
17 USC 101, which defines terms used throughout copyright law, states:
So in other words, the disc purchased from the publisher is a copy of the program, and the person who buys a software package from the store is an "owner of a copy" unless the software is part of a rental or lease agreement. By stating that "You own the disc in which this Program is fixed", the copyright owner disclaims any rental agreement.
DISCLAIMER: I am not a copyright lawyer. Nothing you read on Slashdot is legal advice.
Add -fthis-program-has-no-bugs and you are done.
So turn it off in the debug builds, but provide a way to turn it on so that you can unit-test your floating-point code both with and without -ffast-math.
In the benchmarks that g4dget referred to, the Intel compiler was tested with the equivalent of -ffast-math turned on anyway, giving it an unfair advantage.
I could not care less about anything called the OSS model, because that is not well defined
If this document doesn't precisely define open source, what is it lacking?
as soon as I can compile and use a good 32bit dos extender with gcc
As soon as now.
[The GCC team] should rename [GCC's -ffast-math optimization flag] -fviolate-ieee.
Or how about -fthis-is-a-game-not-scientific-research -fdont-give-two-poops-if-its-half-a-pixel-off ?
gcc ... ignores some architectures completely.
Watcom C++ ignores ARM, MIPS, PowerPC, and SPARC completely because Watcom C++ is an x86 compiler.
That's because it's okay to copy a performance of a song by performing it yourself
Only if the band pays for a compulsory license that costs about eight cents per song per copy.
Heck, the band may have to pay another songwriter even if a band member writes the songs.
The article states that these CDs are produced with CD-R technology. Though Americans are allowed to resell the CDs (17 USC 109), they can't do so on eBay. An eBay policy bans the sale of copies recorded on CD-R media unless the sale is authorized by the copyright owner, even if the sale would otherwise be lawful in the United States.
I'm assuming that these CDs will not carry copy restriction technology because the popular CD recording software does not support it.
I didn't think that the FSF or the OSI dictates what is free and what isn't Free.
I mentioned this in my comment, making a careful distinction between "free" and "Free". The USA's advertising laws dictate what can be considered "gratis", that is, free as in "free lunch". I'd assume that nobody can deceptively sell you a "free car" and then reveal a $20,000 "shipping and handling fee". If it's really small-f free, and the $20 covers replication, shipping, and handling of the copy, then it should be at least freely copyable and redistributable, which means there needs to be an exception to the Sun Binary Code License Agreement analogous to the exception provided with the Java 1.4 JRE.
You don't own the SW after you buy it.
Then what about the Adobe v. Softman precedent, stating that if it looks like a sale of a copy and quacks like a sale of a copy, it's a sale of a copy?
A consumer of mass-market software surely doesn't own the copyright on the program, but unless there's a specific rental agreement between the consumer and the copyright owner, the consumer does own a copy of the program. (A "copy" is defined as the medium in which the program is fixed.) And if the consumer owns a copy, then the defenses in 17 USC 109 and 17 USC 117 become available, but the right to distribute modified versions is not among them.
Plus, how many 32-bit, multitasking graphical, multimedia OSes run out of ROM these days?
How about the operating systems for game consoles? (It depends on the definition of multitasking; I have been told that Xbox OS does support threads.)
do you or do you not claim
I claim nothing. I have never even set foot inside a law school. I just wondered if anybody more familiar with the case law could elaborate, particularly about how much originality it takes to make a derivative work (as opposed to de minimis alterations).
are you or are you not always this pedantic with informal english?
No. But when it comes to the fine points that win or lose a lawsuit, pedantry pays.
I read it wrong. I thought that by "restricts COPYING and DISTRIBUTING" you meant "restricts COPYING or DISTRIBUTING", or "restricts COPYING and restricts DISTRIBUTING".
I also thought that copyright law restricted copying works other than computer programs into RAM except subject to limited fair use exemptions. But now, after trying to determine whether HTML counts as a computer program, and then reading and re-reading 17 USC 101, I realize that under a broad interpretation of 101, any work fixed digitally could be termed a "computer program" and subject to the additional limitations of 17 USC 117. Can anybody cite case law pertaining to this?
Actually, I believe that an art patron is perfectly entitled to vandalize anything that they buy.
There does exist limited protection of "moral rights" in United States copyright law, in 17 USC 106A, which would prevent such defacements.
the spirit of copyright laws are restricting COPYING
The problem here is that a U.S. court decision interpreted a copy in RAM as a "copy" for purposes of copyright law. Thus, when the kernel receives a packet, it COPIES the packet from the network card to the browser's memory, and then the browser COPIES and ADAPTS the HTML into a document tree, COPIES and ADAPTS the document tree into an offscreen bitmap, and COPIES the offscreen bitmap into your video card's RAM.
And if you're arguing fair use, as I said, you better have the money to pay an attorney to back it up.
If you think that there wasn't anything as simple as a firearm before firearms were invented, take a look at a crossbow.
"Crossbows don't kill people; people kill people." "Crossbows don't kill people; arrows kill people." "Crossbows don't kill people; blood loss kills people." The clichés are intended to concentrate attention on different parts of the cause.
I have difficulty buying that re-formatting a UI is ``creating a derivative work''.
If you're not independently wealthy, you'll also "have difficulty buying" the services of an attorney to defend you in a court of law.
The definition of "derivative work" in US copyright law can be found in 17 USC 101 plus case law with which I am not very familiar because I'm not a copyright lawyer.
Any web site that uses a visual method of authentication as the exclusive method of authentication will be inaccessible to people with vision problems and thus not be compliant with Section 508 of the U.S. Rehabilitation Act, and the entity that operates the web site will lose the U.S. government as a potential customer.
There's no law stating that we have to look at ads.
What about 17 USC 106, which states that barring fair use, etc., the copyright owner has the right to prevent others from creating derivative works of a web page?
sparcv9 is 64 bit
Doesn't "64-bit" refer only to the size of the registers (that is, hardware support for long long) and pointers (that is, hardware support for far pointer arithmetic)? Last time I checked, the 64-bit architectures didn't have 64-bit instruction words unless they were VLIW architectures such as Crusoe's backend or TI TMS320C6K. The "bitness" of a processor has nothing to do with its instruction size; witness the 16-bit Thumb instructions of the 32-bit ARM architecture.
I don't understand why they're charging $20 for Intel but not for Sparc
SPARC platform users paid for the download of a couple future versions when they bought their machines.
It can't be for covering the bandwidth (do you seriously think it should cost $20 to download a few gigs of data ?)
IP packet transit to a country other than the United States and Canada just might cost $20 per GB.