Even if I just stash the same amount of money under the bed I can be guaranteed to still have that exact amount in 40 years, ignoring the effects of inflation.
Ignoring the effects of inflation over a period of 40 years is insane. Stuffing money in a sock is a worse investment strategy than no strategy at all. You deprive yourself of value now, in return for vastly decreased value in the future.
I will guess that federal law prohibits execution of juvenile's in federal cases, but makes no statement about states. If I am correct, then the only fair and reasonable reply to this question would be "Write your state governor, it's not a federal issue."
I'm no supporter of Bush, but let's be fair here. He said: "Federal law prohibits execution of those under 18 when the offense was committed, and I see no reason to change that statue. The Supreme Court will soon consider whether the Constitution requires states to follow a similar rule."
What about that statement was unclear or misleading? Yes, it was buried in a bunch of "Message" verbiage. As adults, I think we're smart enough to parse out the actual important bits, right?
One might infer that, because he sees "no reason to change that statute," that he probably feels that execution of juvenile offenders is wrong. Of course, he avoided actually telling us his opinion, but that's a politician for you.
I, for one, am tired of hearing about a non-event.
Linus lives in Lake Oswego, less than 100 miles from the mountain (as the crow flies).
For the hard-of-thinking among you, this means that if the volcano blows and the winds are "just right," Linus might be spending the next few weeks sweeping ash off his driveway instead of working on Linux stuff.
It's October and right now the land in the west is pretty dry
In the Cascades? Are you kidding? We're heading into the wettest portion of the year right now.
In fact, some geologists around here are theorizing that a period of extremely heavy rain in August and early September may have (partially) contributed to "waking up" the mountain in the first place.
Seriously. We get a lot of rain around here, and the Cascade range is anything but dry at the moment.
Well, the conclusion does not mean run out and patent every idea you have and give it to a foundation to safeguard for public use, but it means that maybe it's really not a half bad idea that novell is doing this because in the end if you take too hard of a approach to refusing to touch a patent you will get steamrolled by MS, RIAA, MPAA and every other corportaion that would love to patent the living hell out of your life.
This exact argument is what lead to the nuclear arms race, the Cold War, and nearly the end of civilization.
Racing with the Soviets didn't decrease the threat of nuclear annihilation -- instead, it only made the weapons more powerful and deadly and increased the animosity and distrust on both sides. By advocating patents-against-patents you are advocating for both sides to withdraw into their own positions, cease diplomacy, and begin amassing patent "weaponry."
"Watch out buddy, I got a patent on that algorithm..."
"Oh yeah? I have a patent on your genome, sucker!"
Never mind the shortage of general purpose registers on x86
The "registers" you see at the assembly code level are not all that exist. Modern Intel chips are not even remotely like that 386 of old. Even without dynamic register mapping, the L1 cache makes the question moot anyway. Well-localized memory accesses are just as fast as registers.
To this, you might object "But you can't have two memory operands in a single instruction, you need to use a temporary register!" Right, at the assembly level. What is actually happening in the chip is optimized in a fairly intelligent manner by the x86 instruction translator. The assembly code looks inefficient, but there's some serious magic happening behind the scenes.
There is no reason why the processor can't look at this sequence of instructions, realize that the third instruction makes the exact assignment of the register eax in the previous two instructions unimportant, and decide to dynamically map the memory references to internal registers.
I continue to be amazed at how Intel can keep up with more modern processor designs while maintaining instruction set compatibility.
the lack of a direct mapping between instruction sets
Why does the mapping have to be direct to be efficient? We've already got JIT compilers for Java bytecode, what makes you think it's impossible to do the same thing with a real world instruction set? Have you even thought about it?
Now, the opponents of Open Source are able to point to us and say, "Look, these people want us to give up OUR software patents so they can steal OUR innovations, while at the same time they support the use of software patents whenever it suits THEIR purposes."
It makes us look like a bunch of fucking hypocrites, which we are, if this stupidity actually goes forward.
Except that you can't control which operating system comes up: That will be completely random.
That isn't even true with real quantum particles. You can manipulate force fields in order to skew the quantum wavefunctions, making it more likely for the outcome to be one option than another.
Yes, the behavior is random in the purest mathematical sense, but just because something is random doesn't mean it's unpredictable or uncontrollable.
Suppose I had a 12-sided die, which had the number 1 on each face except for a single face, which had the number 2 on it. Clearly, the outcome of the die toss is still randomly determined, even though the number 2 is only 1/11th as likely as the number 1. If I were betting on such a die, I would certainly bet on 1.
Manipulating the potential to change the quantum wavefunction is sort of analogous to changing the shape of the die. If I squash the die so that one axis is longer than the other, and the "2" face happens to fall on the end of the long axis, then I have dramatically reduced the probability of the die ever coming up 2. (Try tossing a book in the air and see how many times it lands perfectly on its spine. Possible, but very, very unlikely.) It could happen, but perhaps only one in a million times.
Unless you are posting from a third world country at an Internet Cafe you are one selfish bastard. And have a mindset that scares the hell out of me. Freedom is the birthright of EVERY SENTIENT BEING, not just Americans.
Way to completely misunderstand the argument.
If we want to save the earth, we must give up our "freedom" to pollute as we wish, drive whatever car we wish, have as many children as we wish, etc.
It's simple. If you want everybody on earth to be "free," whatever you might mean by that, you're going to have to drastically reduce the population from its current level. We simply can't have 6 billion people walking around, doing whatever the fuck they want to, using whatever resources they want to.
Believing that I'm some kind of monster or wacko just because I pointed out the obvious, is simply self deception which enables you to ignore the actual argument.
I believe the map shows NO2 levels accurately, I don't believe that it's necessarily a bad thing or even caused by humans.
Please. This argument might be remotely plausible if we were talking about CO2. NO2, on the other hand, is highly reactive and can't exist in equilibrium in the atmosphere.
If some natural process was producing huge amounts of NO2, and that process tended to be concentrated in areas of high population density (as the map clearly shows), don't you think we would have discovered and studied that natural process by now?
And as for whether NO2 is harmful, apparently you haven't breathed any lately.
Yeah, pollution spreads from its point of origin, so? If I fart, the smell wafts in all directions, but it's still stinkier a foot away from me than if you were ten feet away.
You "don't believe it?" How can you "not believe" a map? Do you think the satellite is biased? Tell me, do you think the satellite will vote for Nader?
The solution is obvious, encourage more nations to become wealthy by helping them become free.
Unfortunately, the entire world cannot be free, because it simply isn't big enough. Imagine cramming 100 people in a 12' by 10' cell and telling them "Now, be free and happy!" What's going to happen?
Inevitably, some of the people who are stronger, more intelligent, or more persuasive than the others will end up shoving the "undesirables" into a cage in the corner of the room in order to give themselves "breathing space."
With 6 billion people on this planet, global freedom is a luxury we cannot afford.
So you're saying, all I have to do is set off a suitcase nuke at a strategic location to produce a landslide, and the resulting tsunami will devastate the US coast, killing nearly a hundred million people?
And I bet this island doesn't even have a huge contingent of US troops protecting it, either...
Sometimes there is very little that we can do to stop the production of CO2 into our atmosphere. Natural causes, like breathing put tonnes of CO2 into the air.
Wrong.
1. CO2 in the atmosphere is absorbed by leaves of a corn plant.
2. Corn is harvested.
3. You eat the corn.
4. You metabolize the nutrients in the corn.
5. You breath out the waste product of that metabolism: CO2 gas.
6. Go to step 1.
It takes less than a year for this cycle to complete. So no, human breathing has no net effect on CO2 in the atmosphere. In fact, because the world population is increasing, there is actually a net loss of CO2 (there's lots of carbon in a human body) due to the mere fact of human presence.
Why haven't we begun a program using iron oxide spread on the ocean to trap and remove CO2?
Suppose it's too effective and absorbs too much. Now we're in an ice age. Apparently, though, you feel comfortable ignoring that possibility.
Why are environmentalist opposed to a scientific solution?
A "scientific solution" which involves dumping massive amounts of chemicals into open ocean water, and hoping that experimental results in a lab actually scale up by billions of times, and have no unforseen negative impacts?
The motivation to test derives from the observation that all code has bugs. You can't write useful code of any realistic complexity without writing at least a few bugs.
But the unit test driver is, itself, a program. And if the unit it is testing is somewhat complex, then the test program itself will be similarly complex. Thus, the probability of having bugs in the test driver is not negligible.
I have, on more than one occassion, committed code changes that I thought were thoroughly tested, only to discover that the test driver itself was doing something wrong.
So, should we write a test driver for the test driver? Naaah... The solution is code review.
Rackspace was given no time to defend against the order
How do you "defend" against something like that? You can't dispute a warrant/search order. When the cops show up with paper in hand, you don't get to say "Hey, wait a sec, let's talk this over." They have the warrant. Period.
you were innocent until proven guilty and had the right to defend yourself. have i missed something?
Just because they were searched doesn't mean they've been assumed guilty. (Guilty of what, I have no idea...) That won't be known until the evidence is assessed. And the evidence can't be assessed unless the government has access to it. That's sort of the point of a search order.
Unfortunately, as things currently are, the government can confiscate property under certain laws with no obligation to return it or provide compensation. Drug property forfeitures work the same way -- if you're suspected of transporting cocaine on your yacht, for example, you forfeit the yacht, even if it later turns out you were innocent of everything.
If I were Indymedia, I wouldn't count on ever seeing those hard drives, ever again.
It's the definition of "due process" which has been changing in recent years. The constitution says that we can't be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process, but that isn't clearly defined. And I definitely don't like the direction that definition is evolving toward...
I thought one of the requirements to be a valid patent is to be unobvious.
The word "obvious" has about as clear a definition as the word "obscene." Like obscenity, what is not obvious to one person may be obvious to another.
The introduction of the word "obvious" into the legal language leads to the same sorts of problems as those suffered by laws banning "obscene" material.
We need to face up to the fact that this "obvious/not obvious" criterion for whether something can be patented is much too vague. It's too easy, as a non-inventor, to sit on the sidelines and complain "But that's obvious." I'd venture to argue that anything is obvious in hindsight.
It's sort of like saying that only "beautiful" works can be copyrighted, not just any work. Then failing to define the exact legal meaning of "beautiful."
Sorry, but I think we need to toss the obviousness criterion for patents, and focus on things which are more measurable.
Slashdot Mirror
Abuse? How can it be abuse to use the software in a manner that the license explicitly allows?
So what you're saying is, people should not have what they want?
"Dude, Bush said we should vote!"
"What a dipshit! He couldn't tell his own head from his ass. I'm not doing anything that moron says!"
"Me neither. Hey, we're out of rolling papers, let's use this voter's pamphlet..."
Ignoring the effects of inflation over a period of 40 years is insane. Stuffing money in a sock is a worse investment strategy than no strategy at all. You deprive yourself of value now, in return for vastly decreased value in the future.
Are you happy out there in your perfect suburban utopia, Jack? Seen any colored people lately?
I'm no supporter of Bush, but let's be fair here. He said: "Federal law prohibits execution of those under 18 when the offense was committed, and I see no reason to change that statue. The Supreme Court will soon consider whether the Constitution requires states to follow a similar rule."
What about that statement was unclear or misleading? Yes, it was buried in a bunch of "Message" verbiage. As adults, I think we're smart enough to parse out the actual important bits, right?
One might infer that, because he sees "no reason to change that statute," that he probably feels that execution of juvenile offenders is wrong. Of course, he avoided actually telling us his opinion, but that's a politician for you.
Linus lives in Lake Oswego, less than 100 miles from the mountain (as the crow flies).
For the hard-of-thinking among you, this means that if the volcano blows and the winds are "just right," Linus might be spending the next few weeks sweeping ash off his driveway instead of working on Linux stuff.
Seems a little more important now, don't it?
In the Cascades? Are you kidding? We're heading into the wettest portion of the year right now.
In fact, some geologists around here are theorizing that a period of extremely heavy rain in August and early September may have (partially) contributed to "waking up" the mountain in the first place.
Seriously. We get a lot of rain around here, and the Cascade range is anything but dry at the moment.
This exact argument is what lead to the nuclear arms race, the Cold War, and nearly the end of civilization.
Racing with the Soviets didn't decrease the threat of nuclear annihilation -- instead, it only made the weapons more powerful and deadly and increased the animosity and distrust on both sides. By advocating patents-against-patents you are advocating for both sides to withdraw into their own positions, cease diplomacy, and begin amassing patent "weaponry."
"Watch out buddy, I got a patent on that algorithm..."
"Oh yeah? I have a patent on your genome, sucker!"
Is this what we REALLY want?
The "registers" you see at the assembly code level are not all that exist. Modern Intel chips are not even remotely like that 386 of old. Even without dynamic register mapping, the L1 cache makes the question moot anyway. Well-localized memory accesses are just as fast as registers.
To this, you might object "But you can't have two memory operands in a single instruction, you need to use a temporary register!" Right, at the assembly level. What is actually happening in the chip is optimized in a fairly intelligent manner by the x86 instruction translator. The assembly code looks inefficient, but there's some serious magic happening behind the scenes.
Suppose you've code code like this:
mov eax, [var_x]
add [var_y], eax
mov eax, some_new_value
There is no reason why the processor can't look at this sequence of instructions, realize that the third instruction makes the exact assignment of the register eax in the previous two instructions unimportant, and decide to dynamically map the memory references to internal registers.
I continue to be amazed at how Intel can keep up with more modern processor designs while maintaining instruction set compatibility.
the lack of a direct mapping between instruction sets
Why does the mapping have to be direct to be efficient? We've already got JIT compilers for Java bytecode, what makes you think it's impossible to do the same thing with a real world instruction set? Have you even thought about it?
Now, the opponents of Open Source are able to point to us and say, "Look, these people want us to give up OUR software patents so they can steal OUR innovations, while at the same time they support the use of software patents whenever it suits THEIR purposes."
It makes us look like a bunch of fucking hypocrites, which we are, if this stupidity actually goes forward.
Boooo, Novell. You really don't get it, do you?
In such a system, your infinite message wouldn't even be valid, because it doesn't terminate with the "end of stream" symbol.
Problem neatly sidestepped :-)
That isn't even true with real quantum particles. You can manipulate force fields in order to skew the quantum wavefunctions, making it more likely for the outcome to be one option than another.
Yes, the behavior is random in the purest mathematical sense, but just because something is random doesn't mean it's unpredictable or uncontrollable.
Suppose I had a 12-sided die, which had the number 1 on each face except for a single face, which had the number 2 on it. Clearly, the outcome of the die toss is still randomly determined, even though the number 2 is only 1/11th as likely as the number 1. If I were betting on such a die, I would certainly bet on 1.
Manipulating the potential to change the quantum wavefunction is sort of analogous to changing the shape of the die. If I squash the die so that one axis is longer than the other, and the "2" face happens to fall on the end of the long axis, then I have dramatically reduced the probability of the die ever coming up 2. (Try tossing a book in the air and see how many times it lands perfectly on its spine. Possible, but very, very unlikely.) It could happen, but perhaps only one in a million times.
I don't follow. What's your gripe?
Forest fires producing nitric oxide? They must have some really weird trees over there...
Way to completely misunderstand the argument.
If we want to save the earth, we must give up our "freedom" to pollute as we wish, drive whatever car we wish, have as many children as we wish, etc.
It's simple. If you want everybody on earth to be "free," whatever you might mean by that, you're going to have to drastically reduce the population from its current level. We simply can't have 6 billion people walking around, doing whatever the fuck they want to, using whatever resources they want to.
Believing that I'm some kind of monster or wacko just because I pointed out the obvious, is simply self deception which enables you to ignore the actual argument.
Please. This argument might be remotely plausible if we were talking about CO2. NO2, on the other hand, is highly reactive and can't exist in equilibrium in the atmosphere.
If some natural process was producing huge amounts of NO2, and that process tended to be concentrated in areas of high population density (as the map clearly shows), don't you think we would have discovered and studied that natural process by now?
And as for whether NO2 is harmful, apparently you haven't breathed any lately.
Bizarre analogy, I know.
You "don't believe it?" How can you "not believe" a map? Do you think the satellite is biased? Tell me, do you think the satellite will vote for Nader?
Unfortunately, the entire world cannot be free, because it simply isn't big enough. Imagine cramming 100 people in a 12' by 10' cell and telling them "Now, be free and happy!" What's going to happen?
Inevitably, some of the people who are stronger, more intelligent, or more persuasive than the others will end up shoving the "undesirables" into a cage in the corner of the room in order to give themselves "breathing space."
With 6 billion people on this planet, global freedom is a luxury we cannot afford.
And I bet this island doesn't even have a huge contingent of US troops protecting it, either...
Wrong.
1. CO2 in the atmosphere is absorbed by leaves of a corn plant.
2. Corn is harvested.
3. You eat the corn.
4. You metabolize the nutrients in the corn.
5. You breath out the waste product of that metabolism: CO2 gas.
6. Go to step 1.
It takes less than a year for this cycle to complete. So no, human breathing has no net effect on CO2 in the atmosphere. In fact, because the world population is increasing, there is actually a net loss of CO2 (there's lots of carbon in a human body) due to the mere fact of human presence.
Why haven't we begun a program using iron oxide spread on the ocean to trap and remove CO2?
Suppose it's too effective and absorbs too much. Now we're in an ice age. Apparently, though, you feel comfortable ignoring that possibility.
Why are environmentalist opposed to a scientific solution?
A "scientific solution" which involves dumping massive amounts of chemicals into open ocean water, and hoping that experimental results in a lab actually scale up by billions of times, and have no unforseen negative impacts?
The motivation to test derives from the observation that all code has bugs. You can't write useful code of any realistic complexity without writing at least a few bugs.
But the unit test driver is, itself, a program. And if the unit it is testing is somewhat complex, then the test program itself will be similarly complex. Thus, the probability of having bugs in the test driver is not negligible.
I have, on more than one occassion, committed code changes that I thought were thoroughly tested, only to discover that the test driver itself was doing something wrong.
So, should we write a test driver for the test driver? Naaah... The solution is code review.
Unit testing is nothing without code review.
Rackspace was given no time to defend against the order
How do you "defend" against something like that? You can't dispute a warrant/search order. When the cops show up with paper in hand, you don't get to say "Hey, wait a sec, let's talk this over." They have the warrant. Period.
you were innocent until proven guilty and had the right to defend yourself. have i missed something?
Just because they were searched doesn't mean they've been assumed guilty. (Guilty of what, I have no idea...) That won't be known until the evidence is assessed. And the evidence can't be assessed unless the government has access to it. That's sort of the point of a search order.
Unfortunately, as things currently are, the government can confiscate property under certain laws with no obligation to return it or provide compensation. Drug property forfeitures work the same way -- if you're suspected of transporting cocaine on your yacht, for example, you forfeit the yacht, even if it later turns out you were innocent of everything.
If I were Indymedia, I wouldn't count on ever seeing those hard drives, ever again.
It's the definition of "due process" which has been changing in recent years. The constitution says that we can't be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process, but that isn't clearly defined. And I definitely don't like the direction that definition is evolving toward...
The word "obvious" has about as clear a definition as the word "obscene." Like obscenity, what is not obvious to one person may be obvious to another.
The introduction of the word "obvious" into the legal language leads to the same sorts of problems as those suffered by laws banning "obscene" material.
We need to face up to the fact that this "obvious/not obvious" criterion for whether something can be patented is much too vague. It's too easy, as a non-inventor, to sit on the sidelines and complain "But that's obvious." I'd venture to argue that anything is obvious in hindsight.
It's sort of like saying that only "beautiful" works can be copyrighted, not just any work. Then failing to define the exact legal meaning of "beautiful."
Sorry, but I think we need to toss the obviousness criterion for patents, and focus on things which are more measurable.