The problem is that many open-source projects simply will not listen to their minority users, presumably because they have no obligation to do so. Handy examples are the "Use margins to track changes" in Libreoffice. The developers admit that the feature is trivial, but will not implement it even as optional.
Or the recent ridiculous address bar font in Chrome - again obviously trivial but a 'wontfix'.
Now here is the thing, people have specialization and contribute in different ways to open-source. OSS developers need to recognize that very often it is a small specific set of features that prevent users from migrating entirely to their software and this hurts OSS in wide-ranging ways.
The prevalent attitude seems to be 'The code is there for you to modify. Do it yourself.' For the average user, that could mean developing proficiency in some programming language, familiarity with that software's architecture before they even begin to understand how to get what they want.
Here's a shocker : People have different expertise, and knowing C pointers is not the only thing the human race needs. OSS developers needs to recognize the oppurtunity of having a much wider impact by , say, helping that biologist do his convoluted statistical analysis more efficiently in Libreoffice Calc so that he can confirm that the drug his chemist friend made will actually help cancer patients. Ok, that's a long shot - but you get the picture.
A contract can impose that any new code or modifications must be submitted under a license different from the original open-source code. A bribe does not give any rights to anyone.
If anything, bribes revoke rights, in spirit of the open-source ethos.
Firstly, this is not a US-specific problem. Elsevier for example, is Dutch, while the Nature publishing group is UK-based.
Secondly, the problem is not inability to publish in non-paywalled sources like hosting your own website. The problem is that in order to obtain significant recognition of your work even in a narrow field, the journal makes a huge difference. This is why journals such as Nature, Science, and Cell have impact factors in the mid-30s.
Despite the discussion here , every academic knows these journals are not charging for their editorial service or hosting service. They are charging for the brand. In the same way that the $10 sneakers in Vietnam cost $70 when the Nike tick-mark appears on them. The brand has been built because significant discoveries in the past have been published in these journals, making it a self-perpetuating cycle.
The only way the cycle breaks is if all public-funded research is made mandatorily open-access by legislation, or if the scientific community as a whole boycotts paywalled journals. Guess which one will be easier to manifest?
Don't worry too much about what they are saying. They did a formal study of the obvious. The TL:DR is :
If a transmitting node has finite range and finite time of operation, depending on the size of the network, there will always be nodes that never receive the message because 1. they are out of range 2. They is one other node that can transmit information to them , and it died before it could transmit.
I get it. You spent years of hard work and diligence to adapt and meet a standard set by US Government/Corporations that allowed you to stay in the US. But that is not what the parent poster is talking about.
He is asking "Who gave the US Government/Corporations the right to set that particular standard that you had to meet?".
No one. They just happened to be on a certain piece of the earth's geography before you did. In an ideal 'free-world' you wouldn't have had to 'earn' their approval to move there. You would just need to have the resources to get yourself physically there. That is the bigger picture.
No AC , 'Undocumented' means status cannot be determined. For example, family moved here illegaly but baby is born within US borders in a shack without a birth certificate. The baby is then 'undocumented'.
Naturalised US citizen who lost passport, then became homeless and ended up the other side of the country with amnesia = Undocumented.
There is a difference. Unless, any immigration is proved in court to be illegal, it is undocumented. Innocent until proven guilty, remember?
Yeah, because the knowledge the doctor is using to diagnose your brain tumour by eye is completely determinstic, right? Because that how human brains work huh...
""It always bothers me that, according to the laws as we understand them today , it takes a computing machine an infinite number of logical operations to figure out what goes on in no matter how tiny a region of space, and no matter how tiny a region of time. How can all that be going on in that tiny space? Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one tiny piece of space/time is going to do? So I have often made the hypotheses that ultimately physics will not require a mathematical statement, that in the end the machinery will be revealed, and the laws will turn out to be simple, like the chequer board with all its apparent complexities".
There is always information around (new-fangled sense). In fact, Any dissimilarity in the universe of any kind is information. Presumably, the ability to recognise such dissimilarities is required for any information retrieval, and in the end humans must detect it if we are to talk about if it is computation or not.
The point they are making is that one must understand a systems physical laws governing events for it to be a computation. Wrong. What they say actually applies to the fact that we must understand physical laws to use a sequence of physical events as a computer. In fact, the computers we use are simply devices where we can set up physical conditions in such a way that they reflect our problem (encode) and then let the physics solve it. That ability to set up physical events in particular ways makes encoding easier. But it is NOT a requirement. You could develop an encoding scheme that allows you to put in your problem in terms of whatever states a system has. That is exactly the principle behind DNA computing. The physical events of DNA polymerization and annealing of complementary strands are computing all the time. If the information makes any sense to you then, you have not magically invented computation, you just discovered a way to use a physical system as a computer for your pet problem.
All computation needs is that some physical events happen in a predictable manner (whether you understand why or not). I am doing the computation all the time, but nobody knows why positive charges and negative charges attract. It's not important to use electrons as a computer as long as I am sure they do. The same thing applies to their slime mould example. It solves a maze. It's. I don't know how it does it...but it predictably does. And that's a computation.
I RTFAed. Their theory is essentially that computation can only be said to have occurred if you know the physical nature / laws that allowed the computation to occur.
Which is BS. There are plenty of people who can add 2 numbers on a calculator without knowing anything about electrons, bits, electronics etc. You can extend that until the number of people who understand specific physical laws underlying a computation is zero.
Since when is human knowledge the test for whether any computation is happening? All they are saying is "If we don't understand it, we will not call it computation." Way to go with the semantic circus.
There is no breach of 'trust' here. Microsoft is not demanding that they cripple feature sets on competing operating systems. NVidia (or whatever third party) is choosing to do that because it feels that the Windows Logo certification is better for their profits than providing complete feature sets on competing operating systems. It is completely fair for Microsoft to say "Hey, if you do something special for us, we'll give you our special badge."
To be completely honest, I don't like or dislike Microsoft. I think it was complete nonsense with the whole IE/Netscape thing. I mean, Microsoft added a feature to their OS ( a browser). Heck, by that logic, every time an OS adds a feature like automatic backup, zip handling and so on, you can claim some third-party software company that used to make a product with that functionality is being driven out of business.
Sure, MS has done some nasty and mostly spectacularly stupid things. But fair is fair.
When people say 'technology destroys jobs', what they really mean is that 'technology destroys MY job, and now I have to actually learn something new and more complicated if I want to earn a living'.
Yeah, because all outsourced IT is incompetent purely by virtue of being in India. Which is why outsourcing has been going on for 10 years or so and people still keep doing it. Because you know, businesses LOVE to lose money./s , in case you didn't notice.
Actually, evolution always goes for the lowest common denominator - namely 'does it survive long enough to breed at a rate equal to or more than the rate it dies.'
Do you see why your reasoning is moronic ? The lowest common denominator can be a pretty damn high number.
The obvious "Use Version control/Git" is actually and improvement of your methods. Here is an actual to the point answer to your question about software. A requirement of real time-sync was mention.
There is Synkron (has a scheduler) , OneSync (has real time sync), and Unison (uses rsync).
Actually it is. The gene responsible is PAX-6 which is responsible for eye development in nearly ALL creatures. However, the convergence is functional, not based entirely on sequence similarity. This is no surprise because while gene sequence similarity indicates common protein structure, different sequences can have similar structures and similar functions. Moreover, it is often particular regions of genes that are important for function , not the entire thing. Mutations outside these functional hotspots can have effects that only subtly affect prominent functions.
Funny part is, you can take squid PAX-6 and stick it in a fruit fly...and it makes fruit fly eyes. Which tells you that the mechanistic aspects of this convergence is not simply by sequence similarity in one gene...it is the entire system - the genetic network/cellular context that is converging. And that explains why sequence similarity is not that important...when you thousands of parameters, there are multiple routes to the global minimum.
I didn't actually check this, but I am willing to bet that the cheapest android tablet ever is, at 35$, still a more powerful programming platform than any calculators.
If the icons really bother you so much, just take a peek in "Calibre2InstallDirectory/resources/images". You will find all icons used by Calibre there. Replace them with whatever you wish.
It's a shame because there could easily be a skin-pack applier interface for Calibre, since the icons etc. are individual files and not packed into the executable.
Maybe a little offtopic, but I for one have found serious dearth of decent email clients. Is Thunderbird the only option that actually does everything and doesn't look like shit ?
Oh wait, it just upgraded to 17.0 and looks like shit now too.
Slashdot Mirror
...if they can be forced to turn over encryption keys at the whim of some NSA/government authourity?
The problem is that many open-source projects simply will not listen to their minority users, presumably because they have no obligation to do so. Handy examples are the "Use margins to track changes" in Libreoffice. The developers admit that the feature is trivial, but will not implement it even as optional.
Or the recent ridiculous address bar font in Chrome - again obviously trivial but a 'wontfix'.
Now here is the thing, people have specialization and contribute in different ways to open-source. OSS developers need to recognize that very often it is a small specific set of features that prevent users from migrating entirely to their software and this hurts OSS in wide-ranging ways.
The prevalent attitude seems to be 'The code is there for you to modify. Do it yourself.' For the average user, that could mean developing proficiency in some programming language, familiarity with that software's architecture before they even begin to understand how to get what they want.
Here's a shocker : People have different expertise, and knowing C pointers is not the only thing the human race needs. OSS developers needs to recognize the oppurtunity of having a much wider impact by , say, helping that biologist do his convoluted statistical analysis more efficiently in Libreoffice Calc so that he can confirm that the drug his chemist friend made will actually help cancer patients. Ok, that's a long shot - but you get the picture.
A contract can impose that any new code or modifications must be submitted under a license different from the original open-source code. A bribe does not give any rights to anyone.
If anything, bribes revoke rights, in spirit of the open-source ethos.
user of Android 4+ can already get Quickoffice for free through the play store. What's your point?
Firstly, this is not a US-specific problem. Elsevier for example, is Dutch, while the Nature publishing group is UK-based.
Secondly, the problem is not inability to publish in non-paywalled sources like hosting your own website. The problem is that in order to obtain significant recognition of your work even in a narrow field, the journal makes a huge difference. This is why journals such as Nature, Science, and Cell have impact factors in the mid-30s.
Despite the discussion here , every academic knows these journals are not charging for their editorial service or hosting service. They are charging for the brand. In the same way that the $10 sneakers in Vietnam cost $70 when the Nike tick-mark appears on them. The brand has been built because significant discoveries in the past have been published in these journals, making it a self-perpetuating cycle.
The only way the cycle breaks is if all public-funded research is made mandatorily open-access by legislation, or if the scientific community as a whole boycotts paywalled journals. Guess which one will be easier to manifest?
Don't worry too much about what they are saying. They did a formal study of the obvious. The TL:DR is :
If a transmitting node has finite range and finite time of operation, depending on the size of the network, there will always be nodes that never receive the message because 1. they are out of range 2. They is one other node that can transmit information to them , and it died before it could transmit.
I get it. You spent years of hard work and diligence to adapt and meet a standard set by US Government/Corporations that allowed you to stay in the US. But that is not what the parent poster is talking about.
He is asking "Who gave the US Government/Corporations the right to set that particular standard that you had to meet?".
No one. They just happened to be on a certain piece of the earth's geography before you did. In an ideal 'free-world' you wouldn't have had to 'earn' their approval to move there. You would just need to have the resources to get yourself physically there. That is the bigger picture.
No AC , 'Undocumented' means status cannot be determined. For example, family moved here illegaly but baby is born within US borders in a shack without a birth certificate. The baby is then 'undocumented'.
Naturalised US citizen who lost passport, then became homeless and ended up the other side of the country with amnesia = Undocumented.
There is a difference. Unless, any immigration is proved in court to be illegal, it is undocumented. Innocent until proven guilty, remember?
Yeah, because the knowledge the doctor is using to diagnose your brain tumour by eye is completely determinstic, right? Because that how human brains work huh...
This is what Feynman said
""It always bothers me that, according to the laws as we understand them today , it takes a computing machine an infinite number of logical operations to figure out what goes on in no matter how tiny a region of space, and no matter how tiny a region of time. How can all that be going on in that tiny space? Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one tiny piece of space/time is going to do? So I have often made the hypotheses that ultimately physics will not require a mathematical statement, that in the end the machinery will be revealed, and the laws will turn out to be simple, like the chequer board with all its apparent complexities".
. There is a subtle difference.
Yeah, who the hell are these authors anyway? Engineers?
There is always information around (new-fangled sense). In fact, Any dissimilarity in the universe of any kind is information. Presumably, the ability to recognise such dissimilarities is required for any information retrieval, and in the end humans must detect it if we are to talk about if it is computation or not.
The point they are making is that one must understand a systems physical laws governing events for it to be a computation. Wrong. What they say actually applies to the fact that we must understand physical laws to use a sequence of physical events as a computer. In fact, the computers we use are simply devices where we can set up physical conditions in such a way that they reflect our problem (encode) and then let the physics solve it. That ability to set up physical events in particular ways makes encoding easier. But it is NOT a requirement. You could develop an encoding scheme that allows you to put in your problem in terms of whatever states a system has. That is exactly the principle behind DNA computing. The physical events of DNA polymerization and annealing of complementary strands are computing all the time. If the information makes any sense to you then, you have not magically invented computation, you just discovered a way to use a physical system as a computer for your pet problem.
All computation needs is that some physical events happen in a predictable manner (whether you understand why or not). I am doing the computation all the time, but nobody knows why positive charges and negative charges attract. It's not important to use electrons as a computer as long as I am sure they do. The same thing applies to their slime mould example. It solves a maze. It's. I don't know how it does it...but it predictably does. And that's a computation.
I RTFAed. Their theory is essentially that computation can only be said to have occurred if you know the physical nature / laws that allowed the computation to occur.
Which is BS. There are plenty of people who can add 2 numbers on a calculator without knowing anything about electrons, bits, electronics etc. You can extend that until the number of people who understand specific physical laws underlying a computation is zero.
Since when is human knowledge the test for whether any computation is happening? All they are saying is "If we don't understand it, we will not call it computation." Way to go with the semantic circus.
There is no breach of 'trust' here. Microsoft is not demanding that they cripple feature sets on competing operating systems. NVidia (or whatever third party) is choosing to do that because it feels that the Windows Logo certification is better for their profits than providing complete feature sets on competing operating systems. It is completely fair for Microsoft to say "Hey, if you do something special for us, we'll give you our special badge."
To be completely honest, I don't like or dislike Microsoft. I think it was complete nonsense with the whole IE/Netscape thing. I mean, Microsoft added a feature to their OS ( a browser). Heck, by that logic, every time an OS adds a feature like automatic backup, zip handling and so on, you can claim some third-party software company that used to make a product with that functionality is being driven out of business.
Sure, MS has done some nasty and mostly spectacularly stupid things. But fair is fair.
When people say 'technology destroys jobs', what they really mean is that 'technology destroys MY job, and now I have to actually learn something new and more complicated if I want to earn a living'.
Yeah, because all outsourced IT is incompetent purely by virtue of being in India. Which is why outsourcing has been going on for 10 years or so and people still keep doing it. Because you know, businesses LOVE to lose money. /s , in case you didn't notice.
Actually, evolution always goes for the lowest common denominator - namely 'does it survive long enough to breed at a rate equal to or more than the rate it dies.'
Do you see why your reasoning is moronic ? The lowest common denominator can be a pretty damn high number.
The obvious "Use Version control/Git" is actually and improvement of your methods.
Here is an actual to the point answer to your question about software. A requirement of real time-sync was mention.
There is Synkron (has a scheduler) , OneSync (has real time sync), and Unison (uses rsync).
All are open source and free. Have fun.
His Mac should be able to run DeDRM and finish the job in about ..let see...a few hundred milliseconds.
It is ironic, that his art is finding artistic value because of its sheer inelegance.
Actually it is. The gene responsible is PAX-6 which is responsible for eye development in nearly ALL creatures. However, the convergence is functional, not based entirely on sequence similarity. This is no surprise because while gene sequence similarity indicates common protein structure, different sequences can have similar structures and similar functions. Moreover, it is often particular regions of genes that are important for function , not the entire thing. Mutations outside these functional hotspots can have effects that only subtly affect prominent functions.
Funny part is, you can take squid PAX-6 and stick it in a fruit fly...and it makes fruit fly eyes. Which tells you that the mechanistic aspects of this convergence is not simply by sequence similarity in one gene...it is the entire system - the genetic network/cellular context that is converging. And that explains why sequence similarity is not that important...when you thousands of parameters, there are multiple routes to the global minimum.
Take a look at the comparison of a squid eye, and a mammalian eye. This is a mollusc converging with mammals in an organ as complicated as the eye.
I didn't actually check this, but I am willing to bet that the cheapest android tablet ever is, at 35$, still a more powerful programming platform than any calculators.
If only there was an open source system, with freely downloadable resources, and could run a standard simple programming language like Python.
Oh wait, there's this Android thing...
If the icons really bother you so much, just take a peek in "Calibre2InstallDirectory/resources/images". You will find all icons used by Calibre there. Replace them with whatever you wish.
It's a shame because there could easily be a skin-pack applier interface for Calibre, since the icons etc. are individual files and not packed into the executable.
Maybe a little offtopic, but I for one have found serious dearth of decent email clients. Is Thunderbird the only option that actually does everything and doesn't look like shit ?
Oh wait, it just upgraded to 17.0 and looks like shit now too.