The problem with considering -1 as prime is the same problem as considering 1 prime: you end up with nonunique prime factorization for composite numbers, since the only limit on the number of times a factor may appear in its factorization is the highest power of that prime which is a factor of the composite number. -1 to the power of 2 is 1. -1 to the power of 3 is -1. -1 to the power of 4 is 1... And so on.
If this is all that there is which has been inadvertentlky blocked by censorship, then it should be fairly trivial to make exceptions for these cases.
Not that I'm saying I agree with this... just pointing out a possible argument that highlighting these sites could be seen as a pro-censorship position.
More than likely, however, I expect that there are considerably more than these ten, so the argument is admittedly a weak one. It's only real strength may lie in absence of any demonstrable proof that the actual length of the list of unfairly blocked sites is not boundable.
Mr. Wozniak didn't betray Apple. Apple was growing in a different direction than the kind of environment where he was continuing to feel useful. His options of remaining with Apple were apparently to either continue being an engineer at Apple where he didn't feel he was contributing much, since Apple had well over a hundred engineeers at that point, or to move into a management position, but he did not want to move into management because he liked being an engineer. The only thing he felt he could reasonably do, while being true to his own following, was to resign.
There's a component of the GPL that ensures that the source code remain freely available, so people who received it could discover where it originated anyways... plus, they'd have the bonus of being able to tinker with the source code themselves if they so desired.
fwiw, it's my understanding that negative numbers are not considered primes, since allowing primes to be negative would allow composite numbers to have non-unique prime factorization.
Whether or not you consider this to be a sabotaged version depends on if you believe BSD-licensed source code suddenly disappears from existence the moment a company uses it for something.
The funny thing about this is that it is *EXACTLY* what can happen.
Although unlikely with high profile projects, a situation could easily exist in a smaller scope project where somebody uses an allegedly more liberal open source license than how they might see the GPL, perceiving the latter as perhaps somewhat "viral", and then what happens is some company with a lot more cash than the initial developers comes along, modifies it, and distributes it essentially as their own product. With no obligation to release source code, consumers of the product are left unaware of its origins. With a higher public profile than the original developer, the original developer's credibility is not actually improved by the distribution of his own software under different licensing terms than those he originally used. Although his ability to independently distribute is not impacted, the simple fact that he may not have the distribution capacity of the larger profile company would end up adversely impacting him. Worse, when he does attempt to claim credit for it when dealing with people or companies that he is endeavoring to do business with, they may perceive him as trying to take credit for what they perceived as the larger company's work.
Finally, of course, if the original author is unable to continue his software before somebody else who values its free distribution manages to take up the gauntlet of sharing it freely with other people, then even though derived works of it may be available under another license, the open source nature of the work will be gone, forever.
I would have expected optics around the edges of the display to be more cost effective for larger displays, since such the sensor cost increases linearly only with the linear dimensions of the screen. So, for example, an optical sensor array double the width and height of another would cost only twice as much, even though the area within has increased by a factor of 4. Since such sensors are extremely cheap, the biggest cost of a large display would be the display itself, sans any touch sensitive technlogy.
Is torture being declared legal now in the UK? Because that's what this is.
Sustained noise levels this loud will cause completely irreversible hearing damage, and the damage will only worsen with each passing second that the noise level is sustained. Even the loudest that rock concerts get is generally at about 120db or so (which even that can also problematic for sustained periods). I respect that they are trying to keep the peace here, but at what cost?
What I don't understand is why people are bothering to make a display of that size touch sensitive at all. At that size of screen, you could easily and relatively cheaply use optics outside of the display to detect when something is coming in contact with the screen, and not notice any difference between it and an actual touch screen display. A suitably arranged array of IR optics around the rim of the screen could easily detect multiple shapes of objects or fingers that are being put on or resting on the screen.
That's only for the base system that is essentially a consumer-level device. If you want to do development, expect to spend double or even triple that.
That sounds too much like "If you haven't done anything wrong, then you won't mind us snooping through your web history."
You are making the fallacy of assuming whenever X is similar to Y in some regards, then everything that is true for X should be similarly true for Y. This is an over-generalization. At best a weak analogy. At worst, simply false.
I presume, then, that you perceive of lineups at a cashier as actively punishing people who choose to purchase items in the store instead of shoplift?
That's a pretty interesting world view you have there.
But in the case of DVD's, you'll actually spend orders of magnitude more time and effort pirating it than you would have spent simply sitting through the warning. I trust you realize what such a choice of actions makes you look like.
The only situation I can think of where you can view it without downloading it is when it was already saved onto the computer by somebody else. But if you are the owner or operator of the computer, I'm not entirely sure how you're going to believably argue that it wasn't you who downloaded it or saved it there.
You are somebody proficient in the use of lethal force as a form of self defense. You are walking somewhere, minding your own business, when somebody comes up to you quickly and by virtue of surprise manages to subdue you and steals your wallet. The person turns to leave while you recover. Serendipitously, you are able to recover from the attack relatively quickly, and if you can get to your feet soon enough, do you a) call the police to report the crime, b) engage him in a brawl where it is not known how quickly or how far it will escalate, or c) kill the son-of-a-bitch? Remember, your life at this point is in absolutely no danger. While you could certainly have been said not to know this while he was attacking you, the attacking has clearly stopped and you are being left alone. He attacked you, and then took your wallet. That's all. He is in the process of leaving you and not showing any obvious signs of returning. His willingness and ability to resort to using lethal force in another engagement if you should attack him with non-lethal force is not known. What do you do?
Bear in mind that any reservations he may have had against using lethal force to subdue you simply to get your wallet may have been based on the assumption that it would take you longer to recover than you did, and an argument certainly exists that it should not necessarily be taken as a general measure of his ability, willingness, or lack thereof to use lethal force if he is actually attacked.
Taking everything into consideration, and assuming you can actually deliberate this in your mind in the moments that it was taking you to recover and get back onto your feet... what do you do?
" You're tying your hand behind your back to be 'nice' in a fight with someone trying to kill you?"
If somebody is trying to kill you, or somebody else's safety is mortal jeopardy, then lethal force is actually justified. It's when it is clear that nobody's life is actually in any danger (which, although I know that people on slashdot just love to point out the rare exceptions to a general rule, is actually the case a *VAST* majority of the time) that there is no justification for lethal force.
Meeting you in person or even often just knowing your name offers an employer sufficient information to discriminate against you based on your gender. I'm not in favor of employers asking employees for their Facebook info in any way whatsoever, but I think it's straining credibility to presume the request is to actually otherwise unlawful discriminate against a person.
Mammoths are so named because they are... get this... "large". In fact, the word itself is an adjective that actually means the same thing as large. Mini means "small", so the notion of a mini-mammoth seems to me to be about as much of a contradiction in terms as the idea of a square triangle.
(now watch this... some pedantic slashdotter is actually going to reply to this after finding some reference to something that could arguably be a "square triangle" just to prove me wrong. Or, on the other hand, maybe they won't now that I've suggested it... but then again, they still might just to cross me up because they think I won't be expecting it because I already mentioned it... Oh, I dunno).
Why not? Or rather, why pick on Java when every other piece of software has its own problems? The primary problem isn't the software... it never has been. The major attack vector for such malware has always been users who are not practicing diligence in being informed about what packages their computer is really running, when and where to get the latest security updates on software that they require, and whether or not some other programs should ever even be there.
Oh, and if you're going to abolish all of the existing software patents then you'll have to pay the patent owners reasonable compensation under the Fifth Amendment
It's worth pointing out that slave owners received no compensation when slavery was no longer legal. Why should patent holders?
... now where's the epidemic Linux virus that people are predicting will spontaneously appear once Linux starts making headway?
Oh, that's right... most people who use Linux actually know a thing or two about computer administration and aren't liable to remain vulnerable to exploits when patches exist.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with considering -1 as prime is the same problem as considering 1 prime: you end up with nonunique prime factorization for composite numbers, since the only limit on the number of times a factor may appear in its factorization is the highest power of that prime which is a factor of the composite number. -1 to the power of 2 is 1. -1 to the power of 3 is -1. -1 to the power of 4 is 1... And so on.
If this is all that there is which has been inadvertentlky blocked by censorship, then it should be fairly trivial to make exceptions for these cases.
Not that I'm saying I agree with this... just pointing out a possible argument that highlighting these sites could be seen as a pro-censorship position.
More than likely, however, I expect that there are considerably more than these ten, so the argument is admittedly a weak one. It's only real strength may lie in absence of any demonstrable proof that the actual length of the list of unfairly blocked sites is not boundable.
Mr. Wozniak didn't betray Apple. Apple was growing in a different direction than the kind of environment where he was continuing to feel useful. His options of remaining with Apple were apparently to either continue being an engineer at Apple where he didn't feel he was contributing much, since Apple had well over a hundred engineeers at that point, or to move into a management position, but he did not want to move into management because he liked being an engineer. The only thing he felt he could reasonably do, while being true to his own following, was to resign.
You can't do that now anyways.
There's a component of the GPL that ensures that the source code remain freely available, so people who received it could discover where it originated anyways... plus, they'd have the bonus of being able to tinker with the source code themselves if they so desired.
fwiw, it's my understanding that negative numbers are not considered primes, since allowing primes to be negative would allow composite numbers to have non-unique prime factorization.
The funny thing about this is that it is *EXACTLY* what can happen.
Although unlikely with high profile projects, a situation could easily exist in a smaller scope project where somebody uses an allegedly more liberal open source license than how they might see the GPL, perceiving the latter as perhaps somewhat "viral", and then what happens is some company with a lot more cash than the initial developers comes along, modifies it, and distributes it essentially as their own product. With no obligation to release source code, consumers of the product are left unaware of its origins. With a higher public profile than the original developer, the original developer's credibility is not actually improved by the distribution of his own software under different licensing terms than those he originally used. Although his ability to independently distribute is not impacted, the simple fact that he may not have the distribution capacity of the larger profile company would end up adversely impacting him. Worse, when he does attempt to claim credit for it when dealing with people or companies that he is endeavoring to do business with, they may perceive him as trying to take credit for what they perceived as the larger company's work.
Finally, of course, if the original author is unable to continue his software before somebody else who values its free distribution manages to take up the gauntlet of sharing it freely with other people, then even though derived works of it may be available under another license, the open source nature of the work will be gone, forever.
I would have expected optics around the edges of the display to be more cost effective for larger displays, since such the sensor cost increases linearly only with the linear dimensions of the screen. So, for example, an optical sensor array double the width and height of another would cost only twice as much, even though the area within has increased by a factor of 4. Since such sensors are extremely cheap, the biggest cost of a large display would be the display itself, sans any touch sensitive technlogy.
Is torture being declared legal now in the UK? Because that's what this is.
Sustained noise levels this loud will cause completely irreversible hearing damage, and the damage will only worsen with each passing second that the noise level is sustained. Even the loudest that rock concerts get is generally at about 120db or so (which even that can also problematic for sustained periods). I respect that they are trying to keep the peace here, but at what cost?
What I don't understand is why people are bothering to make a display of that size touch sensitive at all. At that size of screen, you could easily and relatively cheaply use optics outside of the display to detect when something is coming in contact with the screen, and not notice any difference between it and an actual touch screen display. A suitably arranged array of IR optics around the rim of the screen could easily detect multiple shapes of objects or fingers that are being put on or resting on the screen.
That's only for the base system that is essentially a consumer-level device. If you want to do development, expect to spend double or even triple that.
You are making the fallacy of assuming whenever X is similar to Y in some regards, then everything that is true for X should be similarly true for Y. This is an over-generalization. At best a weak analogy. At worst, simply false.
I presume, then, that you perceive of lineups at a cashier as actively punishing people who choose to purchase items in the store instead of shoplift?
That's a pretty interesting world view you have there.
But in the case of DVD's, you'll actually spend orders of magnitude more time and effort pirating it than you would have spent simply sitting through the warning. I trust you realize what such a choice of actions makes you look like.
Ditto. Not sure if I should be happy to see I'm not alone in this regard, or worried about it.
What if you know about it, but did not intend it? IE, you only knew about it after the fact?
The only situation I can think of where you can view it without downloading it is when it was already saved onto the computer by somebody else. But if you are the owner or operator of the computer, I'm not entirely sure how you're going to believably argue that it wasn't you who downloaded it or saved it there.
Situation:
You are somebody proficient in the use of lethal force as a form of self defense. You are walking somewhere, minding your own business, when somebody comes up to you quickly and by virtue of surprise manages to subdue you and steals your wallet. The person turns to leave while you recover. Serendipitously, you are able to recover from the attack relatively quickly, and if you can get to your feet soon enough, do you a) call the police to report the crime, b) engage him in a brawl where it is not known how quickly or how far it will escalate, or c) kill the son-of-a-bitch? Remember, your life at this point is in absolutely no danger. While you could certainly have been said not to know this while he was attacking you, the attacking has clearly stopped and you are being left alone. He attacked you, and then took your wallet. That's all. He is in the process of leaving you and not showing any obvious signs of returning. His willingness and ability to resort to using lethal force in another engagement if you should attack him with non-lethal force is not known. What do you do?
Bear in mind that any reservations he may have had against using lethal force to subdue you simply to get your wallet may have been based on the assumption that it would take you longer to recover than you did, and an argument certainly exists that it should not necessarily be taken as a general measure of his ability, willingness, or lack thereof to use lethal force if he is actually attacked.
Taking everything into consideration, and assuming you can actually deliberate this in your mind in the moments that it was taking you to recover and get back onto your feet... what do you do?
If somebody is trying to kill you, or somebody else's safety is mortal jeopardy, then lethal force is actually justified. It's when it is clear that nobody's life is actually in any danger (which, although I know that people on slashdot just love to point out the rare exceptions to a general rule, is actually the case a *VAST* majority of the time) that there is no justification for lethal force.
Meeting you in person or even often just knowing your name offers an employer sufficient information to discriminate against you based on your gender. I'm not in favor of employers asking employees for their Facebook info in any way whatsoever, but I think it's straining credibility to presume the request is to actually otherwise unlawful discriminate against a person.
Yes, it actually happened
No, it's not. See above
Unfortunately not yet. But there could be soon.
Mammoths are so named because they are... get this... "large". In fact, the word itself is an adjective that actually means the same thing as large. Mini means "small", so the notion of a mini-mammoth seems to me to be about as much of a contradiction in terms as the idea of a square triangle.
(now watch this... some pedantic slashdotter is actually going to reply to this after finding some reference to something that could arguably be a "square triangle" just to prove me wrong. Or, on the other hand, maybe they won't now that I've suggested it... but then again, they still might just to cross me up because they think I won't be expecting it because I already mentioned it ... Oh, I dunno).
True... but most exploits are *NOT* zero-day.
Why not? Or rather, why pick on Java when every other piece of software has its own problems? The primary problem isn't the software... it never has been. The major attack vector for such malware has always been users who are not practicing diligence in being informed about what packages their computer is really running, when and where to get the latest security updates on software that they require, and whether or not some other programs should ever even be there.
It's worth pointing out that slave owners received no compensation when slavery was no longer legal. Why should patent holders?
Oh, that's right... most people who use Linux actually know a thing or two about computer administration and aren't liable to remain vulnerable to exploits when patches exist.