RTOS users need a non-interruptible lock. Nope they need a guaranteed number time slices for their RT application(s) to run whithin constraints. Which they can't get if the kernel not the applications has a lock for arbitrary amounts of time.
Desktop and server users' need conflict with the RTOS users' needs. No they are orthogonal. In fact no BKL means more robust systems under heavy loads.
Unfortunately, the "right thing" is undesirable, because the added indirection will substantially reduce performance for everybody.
In fact none of the people in the discussion seem to think that. They just think it is a huge amount of work (and they should know far better than me, but for what it's worth I agree)
The problem? Changing legacy code used under heavy multitasking in N(-> infinity) configurations.
Torvalds' solution? Start doing it and offer it as an experimental config option. By supporting both options, with BKL as the default, they (a) move the architecture in this direction and (b) allow heavy users and distro creators to experiment with it and give feedback (and help). Open source at its best.
Think fast hot shot. What do you do. What do you do. Nice. The "worse is better" mantra. Do we need it at this stage of the game though?
That's not the best (worst?) way to do it if they want to sabotage Galileo. And it does not have to happen in wartime. A Galileo receiver, like any GPS receiver, will work by getting signals from as many sats as possible, and getting the best fit for position from them.
So what if the GPSIII sats transmit a Galileo signal that is just slightly off? Or even better have this happen for some of the time on some of the sats (so that errors are not reliably replicated)?
Well, the receiver gives a slightly worse result than the US based systems, because it uses good and bad data. Galileo gets a bad reputation. US firms capture most of the GPS market.
If you are sufficiently paranoid having a war is totally unnecessary.
Unless of course Galileo designers become just as paranoid and add digital signatures to their signals. Then receivers can implement a "use only Galileo satellites" option if necessary. It's really a case of paranoid vs paranoid.
Worse is Better (also here) basically says that fast (and crappy) approaches dominate in fast-moving software, because they may produce crappy results, but they allow you to ship products first.
That's fine, but once you reach maturity you should be trying to do the "right thing" (the exact opposite.) And the Linux kernel has reached maturity for quite a while now.
The new OMEGA EP laser will be able to manifest power densities sufficient to examine Unruh and Hawking radiation-like phenomena in the laboratory Does it create a black hole? If not then it doesn't test for Hawing radiation. You can test for the Unruh effect and invoke the equivalence principle (check the wikipedia articles) but that is not the same as testing for Hawking directly. Pity. Creating a black hole would be the ultimate physics hack.
The article does not really talk about how the spammers defeat CAPTCHA, which would be more interesting to me. It focuses instead on how once they defeat the CAPTCHA test (manually or automatically) they take advantage of the added credibility their new accounts have (because of that very test) for their purposes.
This is the scam part, not the technology part of their operations, which would actually tell us about the possible weakenesses for the CAPTCHA tests and give hints how to fix them.
Hopefully Microsoft will follow suit with the 360. Of course with Microsoft IM Blocking YouTube Links you shouldn't hold your breath on doing this for the Xbox.
This principle could actually have practical applications in the near term. By using reversible computing without information being created or lost, merely changed, during the processing we can have sharp reductions in CPU power requirements, which are getting to be a huge problem at 4GHz and beyond with today's technology.
Ladauer was working for IBM and trying to understand computation in the physical universe when he proposed it. Black holes were (well...) a black hole in the principle, but it seems that this hole is being plugged right now.
So this research does have practical applications where you least expect it.
Check out the short story "The man who ate himself" by Rudy Rucker (the man writes SF, but he's also a mathematician, so the story may be weird, but it makes sense). There they do figure out how the loop worked, from the inside.
This is the GR view, and it is has been proven as a theorem under these terms.
Sice GR and QM cannot merge consistenly though, some things will change when (if?) we merge them. The authors of this paper claim that this is one of them, and that you do, in fact, get all the information back.
No, physics tries to describe the laws based on which parts of the universe interact with other parts. You still have a near infinite number of possibilities for a universe with the size of our own. It's just that the rules of the game are fixed.
But then can you also have things like the theory of evolution, which are not based on the specific laws but on general patterns such as replication of genes, mutations etc, that says that interesting combinations must emerge in a complex universe.
Finally you can have intelligence, that can conceive and create interesting patterns as well.
So there are a lot of interesting stuff even if the laws of physics are (ever) fixed.
Weeell... yes they do. Aras first: Their blogs page, full of blogs talking how this is "open", or "open source". Their media coverage page has an "Open-Source PLM" link from Desktop Engineering. Of course they don't say it outright, that would be a direct lie. But they sure look like they try to promote the misunderstunding.
Do they capitalize on it? Well it looks like it in
community page where they call for the creation of a community for Microsoft ENterprise Open Solutions", and offer registering.
Now these are all great, for a closed source solution. And of course they are free to markwet their products in any way they like. The problen is really that they seeming implication that they have the open source credibility.
Microsoft next: Microsoft makes almost identical licences, one open source and one not, as the quoted article says, taking the trouble to certify the open source one. They are also making it easy for someone (Aras or anyone else) to confuse the issues.
So my assertion stands: Both big and small companies are starting to try and gain open source credibility by linking their projects to "openess", but without having to respect open source principles. And of course they do it indirectly, so it is harder to be held accountable.
So companies, Microsoft included, will try to use the term but avoid the implicatioons for them.
I guess it is up to the developers to choose their license, but in the end such schemes are doomed to failure. If you want real open source just ignore these projects.
Which just goes to show, like the quoted article says, how right Stallman was for the freedom implications, but also how right Raymond was for the economic implications.
If you don't want your project being used for these ends just use a licence with copyleft or share-alike (to use the Creative Commons term) provisions.
Like Mr Zsidisin, who is advocating the existence of more advocates. It is probably a sign of stagnation in any field when discussion shifts from ways to achieve more progress, to ways to attract more people to the cause.
I am a space enthusiast, but I largely agree with the space critic above, who wants to shift space to the private sector. I think NASA's role should be reduced, with projects shifting to private companies and eventually NASA becoming the FAA of space
Projects that should be pursued right now are things like private companies putting men in true orbit (that will probably make money by opening up true space tourism) and perhaps sending unmanned probes to other planets to get concrete quantifiable knowledge by organizing prizes like the X-Prize (completed), and the Google Lunar X PRIZE (just starting).
Do these things well, get results, and the advocates will come. Old astronauts calling in, and hoping future presidents will give money doesn't do half as much. And then you wonder where have the advocates gone...
Both the hardware and software of course. Because they will just fly one or two of these and self the design.
But if it is released under a copylefted open licence then private companies can modify and use a proven design for all sorts of projects, and they would have to release their designs as well.
If the basic design is good this could well snowball to real (and open) advances in the space industry.
in Florida or the rest of the US by victims of spamigation? This seems like a good way for these people to be compansated for their troubles, caused by the RIAA in the first place.
Already done in a Heinlein juvenile
on
Iron Sky Trailer
·
· Score: 1
the backbone operators can just just block encrypted data.
The backbone operators (their filters really, you don't have to deal with humans) don't have to know anythying. Use steganography and they don't even know the encrypted data is there.
I would say that axioms are invented because you can choose them to be anything you like, although in practice mathematicians try to find axioms that are "interesting", "deep" or simply "useful", but these I think are just human points of view. Platonists may disagree and say that the axioms were "out there" waiting to be discovered, but in this case so is everything else. A poem or even a book could be similarly said to exist before its creation, as its text existed in the space of all possible texts (typed by a million monkeys etc). But most people would disagree, and say that an author created it. So, I would argue, we should say for the axioms.
On the other hand once you fix your axioms (and the flavor of logic used in some extreme cases) all derivative propositions are either provable or not (even if we cannot know which, even in principle in nontrivial systems). So we have to discover theorems one by one.
I have never seen anything about it, only years ago that they were "refusing to disclose details" about that.
Also I see in the link that Novell is the plaintiff, and SCO the defendant. Does that mean that SCO dropped its claims? And what are the chances that SCO is fined out of existence?
Slashdot Mirror
In fact none of the people in the discussion seem to think that. They just think it is a huge amount of work (and they should know far better than me, but for what it's worth I agree)
The problem? Changing legacy code used under heavy multitasking in N(-> infinity) configurations.
Torvalds' solution? Start doing it and offer it as an experimental config option. By supporting both options, with BKL as the default, they (a) move the architecture in this direction and (b) allow heavy users and distro creators to experiment with it and give feedback (and help). Open source at its best.
Think fast hot shot. What do you do. What do you do. Nice. The "worse is better" mantra. Do we need it at this stage of the game though?So what if the GPSIII sats transmit a Galileo signal that is just slightly off? Or even better have this happen for some of the time on some of the sats (so that errors are not reliably replicated)?
Well, the receiver gives a slightly worse result than the US based systems, because it uses good and bad data. Galileo gets a bad reputation. US firms capture most of the GPS market.
If you are sufficiently paranoid having a war is totally unnecessary.
Unless of course Galileo designers become just as paranoid and add digital signatures to their signals. Then receivers can implement a "use only Galileo satellites" option if necessary. It's really a case of paranoid vs paranoid.
That's fine, but once you reach maturity you should be trying to do the "right thing" (the exact opposite.) And the Linux kernel has reached maturity for quite a while now.
I think Linus is right on this.
This is the scam part, not the technology part of their operations, which would actually tell us about the possible weakenesses for the CAPTCHA tests and give hints how to fix them.
Note 1: Totally unrelated to OLPC. Just does what you asked.
Note 2: Free version does not currently support SP3.
Note 3: Not recommended if you are a casual user. You must know XP fairly well to use.
Sorry, my mistake.
Ladauer was working for IBM and trying to understand computation in the physical universe when he proposed it. Black holes were (well...) a black hole in the principle, but it seems that this hole is being plugged right now.
So this research does have practical applications where you least expect it.
All you get is physics. You can try metaphysics, but I don't think anyone made them work.
Check out the short story "The man who ate himself" by Rudy Rucker (the man writes SF, but he's also a mathematician, so the story may be weird, but it makes sense). There they do figure out how the loop worked, from the inside.
Sice GR and QM cannot merge consistenly though, some things will change when (if?) we merge them. The authors of this paper claim that this is one of them, and that you do, in fact, get all the information back.
But then can you also have things like the theory of evolution, which are not based on the specific laws but on general patterns such as replication of genes, mutations etc, that says that interesting combinations must emerge in a complex universe.
Finally you can have intelligence, that can conceive and create interesting patterns as well.
So there are a lot of interesting stuff even if the laws of physics are (ever) fixed.
Because as Steve Balmer said last year we should be paying M$ if we dare use a Red Hat distro. So we have to wait until they set the price :-(
Do they capitalize on it? Well it looks like it in community page where they call for the creation of a community for Microsoft ENterprise Open Solutions", and offer registering.
Now these are all great, for a closed source solution. And of course they are free to markwet their products in any way they like. The problen is really that they seeming implication that they have the open source credibility.
Microsoft next: Microsoft makes almost identical licences, one open source and one not, as the quoted article says, taking the trouble to certify the open source one. They are also making it easy for someone (Aras or anyone else) to confuse the issues.
So my assertion stands: Both big and small companies are starting to try and gain open source credibility by linking their projects to "openess", but without having to respect open source principles. And of course they do it indirectly, so it is harder to be held accountable.
I guess it is up to the developers to choose their license, but in the end such schemes are doomed to failure. If you want real open source just ignore these projects.
Which just goes to show, like the quoted article says, how right Stallman was for the freedom implications, but also how right Raymond was for the economic implications.
If you don't want your project being used for these ends just use a licence with copyleft or share-alike (to use the Creative Commons term) provisions.
I am a space enthusiast, but I largely agree with the space critic above, who wants to shift space to the private sector. I think NASA's role should be reduced, with projects shifting to private companies and eventually NASA becoming the FAA of space
Projects that should be pursued right now are things like private companies putting men in true orbit (that will probably make money by opening up true space tourism) and perhaps sending unmanned probes to other planets to get concrete quantifiable knowledge by organizing prizes like the X-Prize (completed), and the Google Lunar X PRIZE (just starting).
Do these things well, get results, and the advocates will come. Old astronauts calling in, and hoping future presidents will give money doesn't do half as much. And then you wonder where have the advocates gone...
Step 0: M$ blocks youtube
Step 1: Someone creates an add-in that intercepts youtube links,creates tinyurl links and automatically replaces them.
Step 2: M$ blocks tinyurl
Step 3: .....
Step n: M$ blocks all sites they don't own
Step n+1: The 3 remaining people still using M$ messaging clients abandon them
See? Simple
But if it is released under a copylefted open licence then private companies can modify and use a proven design for all sorts of projects, and they would have to release their designs as well.
If the basic design is good this could well snowball to real (and open) advances in the space industry.
in Florida or the rest of the US by victims of spamigation? This seems like a good way for these people to be compansated for their troubles, caused by the RIAA in the first place.
Apparently there are conspiracy theories claiming Nazis went to the moon for real (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_moon_base) Oh well..
The backbone operators (their filters really, you don't have to deal with humans) don't have to know anythying. Use steganography and they don't even know the encrypted data is there.
On the other hand once you fix your axioms (and the flavor of logic used in some extreme cases) all derivative propositions are either provable or not (even if we cannot know which, even in principle in nontrivial systems). So we have to discover theorems one by one.
Also I see in the link that Novell is the plaintiff, and SCO the defendant. Does that mean that SCO dropped its claims? And what are the chances that SCO is fined out of existence?