Sure, RFID the chips for fraud and theft purposes, but don't link me to the damn things. There's enough trickery goes on behind the scenes already.
You mean like, the pit boss watching you lose $1000 on a single hand of poker, and then coming over to offer you a free room for the night? Trickery like that?
You want to be well-known in a casino. If you play a lot, whether you win or lose, they'll kiss you ass and make your weekend. Haven't you heard of "comps?"
Your comparison is ridiculous. Computer speeds increase exponentially. Cars could easily do 100 MPH in the 1960s, and haven't significantly "improved" since then.
If cars followed Moore's law we'd all be driving at the speed of light about now. And guess what -- that's completely unnecessary.
No, I wouldn't want a 20 HP engine in my car. But I don't feel the need for a 1.6e9 HP engine, either.
Why don't we use a loose-knit network of trust like GPG? We could still have root certificates which are ultimately trusted if the user wants, but would be able to set up little isolated trust networks which wouldn't be crippled by this sort of stupidity.
You would be insane to trust a "loose knit" network.
A certificate is so named, because the signer has CERTIFIED the holder to be trustworthy. If that certificate is later used to commit a felony, say, credit card fraud, then YOU could be held legally liable, because YOU CERTIFIED that this guy was trustworthy. You were negligent in failing to find out that he wasn't.
I'm damn well not going to expose myself to liability like that. Signing other people's certificates is NOT something I would EVER do.
Wait a second. You're saying that if a user installs some unrelated piece of software and that causes Word to break, that's not Word's fault?
I also suppose that if you were to buy a bicycle and put it in your garage, and that caused your car to stop functioning, you wouldn't blame the car manufacturer?
Can somebody help me understand the difference in how major version numbers work between free software and commercial software?
The GIMP has been around a long time, but it's just now bumping against 2.0. In contrast, my company has product younger than two years old which are already hitting 2.3, and will go to 3.0 in a few months.
At least with our products, and I'm sure many other commercial products as well, major version number changes are used to indicate large-scale changes to the infrastructure. In the case of our 7.0 product, our entire rendering infrastructure has been rearchitected. We don't bump the version willy-nilly, and we don't have a competitor with whom to play "version tag" or anything like that.
So what's with free software? Most free software projects never bump past the 0.99 mark, and hardly any ever pass 2.0. KDE and GCC being prime counterexamples. However, this doesn't mean that major development doesn't go on! Things are constantly being redone -- even rewritten entirely -- and yet these major changes come with only a slight version change, say from 1.2 to 1.4 or something like that.
My question is, why not use version numbers more vigorously, as a way to actually indicate the degree of change from the previous version? A few bug fixes shouldn't take a project from 1.8 to 2.0... Nor should a major rewrite of a vital portion of the code only bump it from 1.8 to 1.9.
I don't know what you thought SWAT stood for, but none of the words are "team".
No, that's the sanitized version of the acronym. SWAT originally meant Special Weapons Attack Team, but the acronym was quickly changed, probably for reasons of political correctness, to "Special Weapons and Tactics."
Similarly to how they renamed the NMR machine to MRI, because people didn't feel comfortable stepping into a nuclear magnetic resonance device.
Way to make a claim that is easily disproven after 10 seconds of Google searching.
The ELKS project is a version of Linux designed to run on embedded, specifically MMU-less, systems. It runs just fine on an 8086.
And without the memory management that virtual-mode addressing makes possible, you can't have proper preemptive multitasking.
Were you sleeping in your Operating Systems class? All you need for preemptive multitasking is a timer interrupt. You're thinking of memory protection, and yes, an MMU-less CPU doesn't support that.
And if you haven't got that, it's not really UNIX-like, and that means it's not really Linux, is it?
Why don't you tell that to Alan Cox then. He seems to think otherwise. In fact, he seems right proud of ELKS.
Considering today's technology, photographs should never be admissable as evidence unless the source can verified and possibility of tampering is eliminated...
Ah yes, I see, the Lincoln City Council has taken upon itself to surreptitiously photograph its citizens, then edit the photographs to make them appear as if they are violating ordinances in order to collect citation income from them.
Tell me, do you have the aluminum foil hat, or did you get the spiffy titanium one?
If I murder someone and take photos of it, that's pretty good evidence of my crime. The fact that I wasn't caught "in the act" of murdering someone doesn't make it any less of a crime -- nobody would disagree with that.
Whether you agree or disagree with the reasonableness of the law she violated is irrelevant. Plenty of people also believe that growing pot should be legal, too. Yet if someone was arrested based on photographic evidence of their marijuana plantation, I don't think we'd be hearing people make the same argument they are making in this case.
She broke the law, and took photographic evidence to boot. End of story.
when you talk about scripting, they assume VBScript (the language of virii).
Hold on a damn minute... It's quite possible to write a virus in Bourne shell script, also. A virus that not only infects other shell scripts, but binaries as well. I know this because I did it as a project for a course in college.
Just goes to show you can do damn near anything in shell script.
No, I won't explain how it's done -- if you can't figure it out on your own, you're too stupid to handle the knowledge responsibly:-)
Aren't most commercials closed-captioned? Couldn't we apply the same statistical techniques that we currently use for recognizing spam, to these commercials?
The goal of spam is to sell you stuff, and the goal of commercial advertising is... to sell you stuff. Seems like we've got a large body of research on the subject that could easily be leveraged against television commercials.
And I'm not talking simple Bayesian only, here. The graphical nature of commercials could allow you to do all kinds of rich things, like correlating certain kinds of motion, the number of cuts (commercials have far more cuts than entertainment programs), as well as the closed captions.
This was actually suggested to me a few years ago by a friend, when he learned that I was working on a neural network spam filter. I just might be interested enough now to try it out.
Does anyone have information on extracting the closed captioning information from a television broadcast? Can a video capture card do it?
Look, I'm in this same situation myself right now.
I want to release my code under a BSD-style license, but I still haven't worked out the details. I don't really know what I want, exactly. In the meantime, I considered releasing the code under GPL, and then switching the license later on (a dual-license situation like we're seeing here with MySQL -- the original GPL license would remain, but I could also license binaries to third parties if I so wished).
The problem is, since the code contributers retain their copyrights on the code they've written for my project, I can't simply switch the license without getting permission from all of them. Therefore, I am considering (I have NOT decided yet) to ask any contributers to assign their copyright to me.
I'm not doing this because I want to slam the project closed at some point. Just the opposite. I want to move to a less restrictive license than the GPL in the future. However, since the BSD license would allow distribution of binaries without source, I would have to get permission from all the people who contributed code under the GPL's terms. So I'm put in an awkward situation where I either have to ask permission from everybody before doing it, or ask up front that they assign copyright to me, before contributing a single line of code.
It's not about being an evil capitalist bastard. Believe me, I'd rather not have to worry about licensing at all.
Anyway, quit demonizing MySQL for wanting copyright granted to them. They are trying to legitimately maintain control of a project that they started, without having to bow to the whims of just any contributing developer who comes along.
They can do it because in order to get a fix/patch/feature into MySQL proper you have to sign your rights over to them... MySQL is a very unopensource, open source project.
You just made a very embarrassing mistake.
The FSF itself requires contributers to GNU software to give away their rights to the FSF.
I suppose it's okay for the FSF to do it, but not MySQL? Shut up, uninformed idiot.
Because I don't think the two are equivalent, as you apparently do. The new "digital world order" and all that. Believe it or not, some people actually do view and treat the Internet as social revolution.
So yes, I'll behave on the Internet differently than I would in reality. Not drastically so, but it's much easier to post a rant on a medium where the reader can choose not to read at, as opposed to standing in a full room and screaming a diatribe at the top of one's lungs.
Would you tell your boss/coworkers that your online persona is named "Acidic Diarrhea?"
I'm really surprised I've continued responding to this...
I think you're taking this way too seriously. To give the benefit of the doubt I reread my old post and although it's a little testy I don't see how I personally insulted you in any way. On the other hand you called me elitist, "arrogant asshole," etc.
Look, I don't walk around "in real life" calling people morons, okay? I'm sorry if you miscontrued my comment to be some kind of personal attack against you. There's a text box on the screen, I type a rant into it, it's a web site. I'm sure you've had your moments where you think everybody around you is an idiot, considering your "liberals need not reply" sig (which has mysteriously disappeared from this post).
Also, does that "Foe" setting make you feel any better? Maybe I'll start using it.
Wow, way to create a (completely wrong) mental image of me and then judge me by it. You think I would "assault" someone over this? What did I say that pissed you off bad enough to spit that kind of bile at me?
No, I don't stand outside the theater ranting at people. I rant on some website precisely because it's a fucking website, not reality -- do you think I really take things that seriously?
I enjoyed the movies. I'm not trying to spoil anybody else's enjoyment of them. I just think that Tolkien has been inadequately credited. I would have very much enjoyed seeing a scrolling message at the beginning of the film, describing the origin of the story. Out of a three hour film they could have invested one single minute in that. For a total of nine hours of film and probably billions in revenue I feel that Tolkien deserved a bit more that a split-second flashing of his name on the screen.
My irritation stems not from some sick devotion to a fictional story, but the fact that the author has been so poorly credited. Has PJ really "brought the story" to people? Half the people I've spoken to don't know who the hell Tolkien is. Sounds like PJ "brought" himself a few million bucks.
As for the story of Anduril, I don't even remember it. I'm not the fanboy you are picturing, it simply ticks me off to see an author of what I view as a historic work of literature get sidelined like this.
Good idea, since the layer computations within the net are merely a series of matrix multiplications. However, you still need to apply the transfer function to the output vectors before flowing into the next layer. How do you implement such a nonlinear transfer function on a GPU?
I view it more as bitter sarcasm than an attempt at humor.
A lot of people (myself included) are somewhat depressed at the hordes of children and even adults who seem to believe that Peter Jackson pulled the story out of his ass, fully formed. "Wow, this is one of the most complex movie plots I've ever seen! I hope this guy writes more movies!" (<-- moronic comment actually heard upon departing the movie theater)
Or the shops at the mall where you can buy a plastic "Aragorn's Sword." For fuck's sake.
I am not complaining.. I mean, I sit there and look into my beer and wonder about the bubbles sometimes.. just wondering who is paying for this research?
Wise people who understand that the applications of a theory or effect may go far beyond the scope of the original experiment?
Slashdot Mirror
You mean like, the pit boss watching you lose $1000 on a single hand of poker, and then coming over to offer you a free room for the night? Trickery like that?
You want to be well-known in a casino. If you play a lot, whether you win or lose, they'll kiss you ass and make your weekend. Haven't you heard of "comps?"
If cars followed Moore's law we'd all be driving at the speed of light about now. And guess what -- that's completely unnecessary.
No, I wouldn't want a 20 HP engine in my car. But I don't feel the need for a 1.6e9 HP engine, either.
You would be insane to trust a "loose knit" network.
A certificate is so named, because the signer has CERTIFIED the holder to be trustworthy. If that certificate is later used to commit a felony, say, credit card fraud, then YOU could be held legally liable, because YOU CERTIFIED that this guy was trustworthy. You were negligent in failing to find out that he wasn't.
I'm damn well not going to expose myself to liability like that. Signing other people's certificates is NOT something I would EVER do.
Wait a second. You're saying that if a user installs some unrelated piece of software and that causes Word to break, that's not Word's fault?
I also suppose that if you were to buy a bicycle and put it in your garage, and that caused your car to stop functioning, you wouldn't blame the car manufacturer?
Twit.
The GIMP has been around a long time, but it's just now bumping against 2.0. In contrast, my company has product younger than two years old which are already hitting 2.3, and will go to 3.0 in a few months.
At least with our products, and I'm sure many other commercial products as well, major version number changes are used to indicate large-scale changes to the infrastructure. In the case of our 7.0 product, our entire rendering infrastructure has been rearchitected. We don't bump the version willy-nilly, and we don't have a competitor with whom to play "version tag" or anything like that.
So what's with free software? Most free software projects never bump past the 0.99 mark, and hardly any ever pass 2.0. KDE and GCC being prime counterexamples. However, this doesn't mean that major development doesn't go on! Things are constantly being redone -- even rewritten entirely -- and yet these major changes come with only a slight version change, say from 1.2 to 1.4 or something like that.
My question is, why not use version numbers more vigorously, as a way to actually indicate the degree of change from the previous version? A few bug fixes shouldn't take a project from 1.8 to 2.0... Nor should a major rewrite of a vital portion of the code only bump it from 1.8 to 1.9.
Anyway, why the difference?
No, that's the sanitized version of the acronym. SWAT originally meant Special Weapons Attack Team, but the acronym was quickly changed, probably for reasons of political correctness, to "Special Weapons and Tactics."
Similarly to how they renamed the NMR machine to MRI, because people didn't feel comfortable stepping into a nuclear magnetic resonance device.
Anyway, "SWAT team" is redundant.
The ELKS project is a version of Linux designed to run on embedded, specifically MMU-less, systems. It runs just fine on an 8086.
And without the memory management that virtual-mode addressing makes possible, you can't have proper preemptive multitasking.
Were you sleeping in your Operating Systems class? All you need for preemptive multitasking is a timer interrupt. You're thinking of memory protection, and yes, an MMU-less CPU doesn't support that.
And if you haven't got that, it's not really UNIX-like, and that means it's not really Linux, is it?
Why don't you tell that to Alan Cox then. He seems to think otherwise. In fact, he seems right proud of ELKS.
Then I guess somebody's going to have to call in the SWAT team...
Ah yes, I see, the Lincoln City Council has taken upon itself to surreptitiously photograph its citizens, then edit the photographs to make them appear as if they are violating ordinances in order to collect citation income from them.
Tell me, do you have the aluminum foil hat, or did you get the spiffy titanium one?
Whether you agree or disagree with the reasonableness of the law she violated is irrelevant. Plenty of people also believe that growing pot should be legal, too. Yet if someone was arrested based on photographic evidence of their marijuana plantation, I don't think we'd be hearing people make the same argument they are making in this case.
She broke the law, and took photographic evidence to boot. End of story.
Hold on a damn minute... It's quite possible to write a virus in Bourne shell script, also. A virus that not only infects other shell scripts, but binaries as well. I know this because I did it as a project for a course in college.
Just goes to show you can do damn near anything in shell script.
No, I won't explain how it's done -- if you can't figure it out on your own, you're too stupid to handle the knowledge responsibly :-)
The goal of spam is to sell you stuff, and the goal of commercial advertising is... to sell you stuff. Seems like we've got a large body of research on the subject that could easily be leveraged against television commercials.
And I'm not talking simple Bayesian only, here. The graphical nature of commercials could allow you to do all kinds of rich things, like correlating certain kinds of motion, the number of cuts (commercials have far more cuts than entertainment programs), as well as the closed captions.
This was actually suggested to me a few years ago by a friend, when he learned that I was working on a neural network spam filter. I just might be interested enough now to try it out.
Does anyone have information on extracting the closed captioning information from a television broadcast? Can a video capture card do it?
I want to release my code under a BSD-style license, but I still haven't worked out the details. I don't really know what I want, exactly. In the meantime, I considered releasing the code under GPL, and then switching the license later on (a dual-license situation like we're seeing here with MySQL -- the original GPL license would remain, but I could also license binaries to third parties if I so wished).
The problem is, since the code contributers retain their copyrights on the code they've written for my project, I can't simply switch the license without getting permission from all of them. Therefore, I am considering (I have NOT decided yet) to ask any contributers to assign their copyright to me.
I'm not doing this because I want to slam the project closed at some point. Just the opposite. I want to move to a less restrictive license than the GPL in the future. However, since the BSD license would allow distribution of binaries without source, I would have to get permission from all the people who contributed code under the GPL's terms. So I'm put in an awkward situation where I either have to ask permission from everybody before doing it, or ask up front that they assign copyright to me, before contributing a single line of code.
It's not about being an evil capitalist bastard. Believe me, I'd rather not have to worry about licensing at all.
Anyway, quit demonizing MySQL for wanting copyright granted to them. They are trying to legitimately maintain control of a project that they started, without having to bow to the whims of just any contributing developer who comes along.
You just made a very embarrassing mistake.
The FSF itself requires contributers to GNU software to give away their rights to the FSF.
I suppose it's okay for the FSF to do it, but not MySQL? Shut up, uninformed idiot.
So yes, I'll behave on the Internet differently than I would in reality. Not drastically so, but it's much easier to post a rant on a medium where the reader can choose not to read at, as opposed to standing in a full room and screaming a diatribe at the top of one's lungs.
Would you tell your boss/coworkers that your online persona is named "Acidic Diarrhea?"
I'm really surprised I've continued responding to this...
Look, I don't walk around "in real life" calling people morons, okay? I'm sorry if you miscontrued my comment to be some kind of personal attack against you. There's a text box on the screen, I type a rant into it, it's a web site. I'm sure you've had your moments where you think everybody around you is an idiot, considering your "liberals need not reply" sig (which has mysteriously disappeared from this post).
Also, does that "Foe" setting make you feel any better? Maybe I'll start using it.
Ahh... That must explain why it is found under /usr/src/linux/include/linux/ctype.h
Wait for it....
DUMBASS.
I never said the statement was logical. I was ranting. Try to get over it.
No, I don't stand outside the theater ranting at people. I rant on some website precisely because it's a fucking website, not reality -- do you think I really take things that seriously?
I enjoyed the movies. I'm not trying to spoil anybody else's enjoyment of them. I just think that Tolkien has been inadequately credited. I would have very much enjoyed seeing a scrolling message at the beginning of the film, describing the origin of the story. Out of a three hour film they could have invested one single minute in that. For a total of nine hours of film and probably billions in revenue I feel that Tolkien deserved a bit more that a split-second flashing of his name on the screen.
As for the story of Anduril, I don't even remember it. I'm not the fanboy you are picturing, it simply ticks me off to see an author of what I view as a historic work of literature get sidelined like this.
Good idea, since the layer computations within the net are merely a series of matrix multiplications. However, you still need to apply the transfer function to the output vectors before flowing into the next layer. How do you implement such a nonlinear transfer function on a GPU?
Thanks for pointing me at that, I'll be interested to read it.
A lot of people (myself included) are somewhat depressed at the hordes of children and even adults who seem to believe that Peter Jackson pulled the story out of his ass, fully formed. "Wow, this is one of the most complex movie plots I've ever seen! I hope this guy writes more movies!" (<-- moronic comment actually heard upon departing the movie theater)
Or the shops at the mall where you can buy a plastic "Aragorn's Sword." For fuck's sake.
Wise people who understand that the applications of a theory or effect may go far beyond the scope of the original experiment?
Colon (a.k.a. "The Double Dot"): The Most Overused Punctuational Mark In Modern Literary Titling