Put it this way... It may not be technically legal, I don't know, but there are historic examples of essentially that kind of thing happening. And the marshals were neither fired nor disciplined. (There may also be examples where they were fired, of course.)
I think it actually does. At one point CDC was contemplating a machine that was going to use APL as the assembler language, to which other languages would need to compile if they were to run as native. So JavaScript can define a virtual machine that can be compiled to.
Now whether that's a good idea is a different question.
Yes. And as robots become more common this will cause increasing problems, because they DON'T react the way we do. We don't even want them to, because as the become more powerful, if they acted the way we do they'd be an existential risk. We want them to be altruistic, to not get angry at people being stupid, to not get angry period. We also want them to be caring, but not constraining. This is not a human motivational system.
Unfortunately, something that looks approximately human and acts approximately human...but only approximately so... is likely to feel very creepy.
I can accept that he was giving you his legal opinion as to how that case would work out. He didn't mention how much time and money it would cost you did he? And any judge might disagree with him over how some part of the law might be interpreted, certainly any opposing lawyer would.
It's one thing to talk about how the case would work out if everything were open and level, but it rarely is. Often justice happens anyway, to some extent. But the cost can be formidable.
But I do wonder about the ones that make the terms say that they can change the terms simply by changing the text on their web site, and it's your responsibility to keep current with what the term are, even though they could change every minute.
Just because Samsung would survive doesn't meant that every company would. Perhaps MS has finally specified the patents, I haven't followed it carefully, but certainly when they originally threatened to sue over installing Linux they weren't willing to specify the patents. China eventually got them to specify some of them, and of those, many were obviously patents that should never have been issued, others could have been worked around if people had known what was being objected to. There may have been a few reasonable ones in the mix, but nobody has listed any that I've noticed. And since they declined to specify they may have been threatening with others.
You don't need to specify to threaten to sue, only when you finally sue. And sometimes you can get that hidden by the court...at least for some period of time. Perhaps the judgment must be public, but I wouldn't even bet on that.
I don't know what *he's* implying, but I won't trust MS as long as they abusively sue, or threaten to sue, over patents that either they won't specify, that are obviously invalid, or both.
Just because defending against a patent lawsuit is too expensive to survive does not make the patent valid. It merely makes the litigant someone who should be harmed in any way feasible.
Well, since it's purportedly an anarchist disorganization, I guess it would have to be anti-democracy. (I'm assuming that you made a typo.) That's not a real argument, however, as we don't have a democracy. We purportedly have a representative Republic. Actually, that's pretty true, you just need to figure out who is being represented.
FWIW, I won't consider anything buy Linux (or BSD...but I need ext4) on my computer. A phone is something different.
I haven't decided to get a smartphone, but when I next replace my phone I may decide to go with Apple. Most Apple users seem satisfied, and it's not like I plan on doing software development on it. (Their EULA drove me away a decade ago for that, and I haven't come to think better of it in the interim.)
Re: How so? Integers and pointers are separate types. It's possible to cast one to the other, but you have to be pretty explicit about it.
That's true for a global analysis, but in a local analysis you don't know that the integer passed in isn't really a pointer or that the integer passed out won't be used as a pointer.
You left out a crucial word. ...Antarcticseaice has been setting maximums.
This is a bit puzzling, but several researchers think they have the answer as to why. Unfortunately, they disagree, so more research is needed. However this does not imply that the Antarctic land ice sheets have stopped melting. So the point you intended to make fails.
A good point. When you say how many people will die/be displaced/etc. by global warming the number depends critically on just what factors you are willing to consider. And it's going to have a more than minor effect on nearly everyone. E.g., this was supposed to be an extremely wet winter in California, but the official site reports the snowpack at 87% of the April 1 average. Not very good for what was supposed to be an extremely wet winter. But the weather has been unusually pleasant all winter. Spring arrived in late January.
People will only be damaged during the period of transition. After the ice caps melt there will be about as much land as there is now, just distributed differently. Canada may become the breadbasket of the world. Antarctica may be farmed. Etc.
Of course, the transition is going to be extremely rough, and the faster it is the more people will die from it. And it will be well over a century before the transition is over. Whoops...that's the entire lifetime of everyone reading this.
Expect sea levels to rise by over a meter, how much more is uncertain, and depends on how much of Antarctica melts...but records show that at one time there were temperate forests growing in Antarctica, and that it hasn't moved around to permit that. It just used to be that much warmer. (Of course, the continents were in different positions, so the weather patterns won't be repeating...)
Personally, I expect all the glaciers in Antarctica to melt except, perhaps, the ones at the tops of high mountains. And considerably higher sea level rise than official reports are willing to consider...but not all that quickly. Probably less than a foot/decade, and likely considerably less. Give it a few centuries, though. The CO2 won't leave the atmosphere quickly, so it's going to keep getting hotter until a new equilibrium is reached...and that 2 degrees is just because some people need a goal that isn't too threatening, not because there's any reasonable chance that we can hold it at that.
I think you overstate the case. It's probably only by the hundreds of thousands...unless you count people who would have died anyway.
To say they are literally worse than Hitler is to misunderstand both Hitler and the current situation. And they aren't (generally) malicious, which also counts. P.S.: Stalin killed more people than Hitler did. So if you're going for hyperbole you should say worse than Stalin. Additionally Stalin appears to have done it with greater intent and less because he was crazy, which also counts.
But it's still something that we should have taken seriously decades ago. Now we can only hope to ameliorate the damage. And it's only hope, because the governments don't yet seem to really be ready to act, only to promise.
That was a reasonable argument in the old days, but these days compiler optimizers are, or should be, better than any except a very few programmers who have made a study of system dependent microcode. And that kind of stuff is better handled in assembler, since it's not portable across CPU versions anyway.
I'm not pretending pointers are bad, I'm stating that pointers are senselessly dangerous, and there are better ways. Of course, if the code you're writing is only a page or two long, this isn't a good argument. If you're writing very much code and you depend on yourself never having a fencepost error, or failing to free memory, then I consider that you're in the wrong job. Everyone makes mistakes, and tools that prevent or catch those mistakes are extremely desirable. C and C++ are notorious for memory leaks, array bounds overruns, and many other classes of error that can be automatically prevented with proper language design.
That said, there are cases where C is the appropriate language. (I'm not certain about C++.) Sometimes a sharp knife is the best tool...but it's still dangerous.
I'm sort of rusty on C++, and I'd forgotten that reference parameters could be output parameters. But if those reference parameters are arrays, then you still don't know that pointer manipulation isn't going on.
I can accept that C++11 makes explicit use of pointers usually unnecessary. (I don't know it's true, but I can accept it.) But the implementation of arrays is such that you can't prove that implicit manipulation of pointers by the user isn't happening if you have arrays. C++ has many features that could be used to eliminate pointer problems, but it's inheritance from prior versions means that you can't know what's happening. P.S.: In every case a global analysis could certainly show whether dubious practices were happening, so I'm talking about local analysis, where you can't know whether an input integer is or is not a pointer, and you can't know how an output integer is going to be used. This is a problem of "strict typing" or some such, which many languages allow, and some languages allow in all except a few specially marked routines.
Slashdot Mirror
Mod the parent up!!
It probably wouldn't happen though, because the US has a history of ignoring treaty obligations, while insisting that others honor them.
Put it this way... It may not be technically legal, I don't know, but there are historic examples of essentially that kind of thing happening. And the marshals were neither fired nor disciplined. (There may also be examples where they were fired, of course.)
I think it actually does. At one point CDC was contemplating a machine that was going to use APL as the assembler language, to which other languages would need to compile if they were to run as native. So JavaScript can define a virtual machine that can be compiled to.
Now whether that's a good idea is a different question.
Isn't LG the company that sells a TV that spys on your conversations? (Well, the one that had an article about it on Slashdot.)
Parts of the tech were available. Large rapidly accessible reliable cheap data storage wasn't. And there were other pieces that were missing.
Yes. And as robots become more common this will cause increasing problems, because they DON'T react the way we do. We don't even want them to, because as the become more powerful, if they acted the way we do they'd be an existential risk. We want them to be altruistic, to not get angry at people being stupid, to not get angry period. We also want them to be caring, but not constraining. This is not a human motivational system.
Unfortunately, something that looks approximately human and acts approximately human...but only approximately so ... is likely to feel very creepy.
You should be able to fix that by changing your desktop theme..but I've no experience with Dell, so I may be wrong.
Check System_Settings :: Workspace_Appearance :: Desktop_Theme
I can accept that he was giving you his legal opinion as to how that case would work out. He didn't mention how much time and money it would cost you did he? And any judge might disagree with him over how some part of the law might be interpreted, certainly any opposing lawyer would.
It's one thing to talk about how the case would work out if everything were open and level, but it rarely is. Often justice happens anyway, to some extent. But the cost can be formidable.
But I do wonder about the ones that make the terms say that they can change the terms simply by changing the text on their web site, and it's your responsibility to keep current with what the term are, even though they could change every minute.
Just because Samsung would survive doesn't meant that every company would. Perhaps MS has finally specified the patents, I haven't followed it carefully, but certainly when they originally threatened to sue over installing Linux they weren't willing to specify the patents. China eventually got them to specify some of them, and of those, many were obviously patents that should never have been issued, others could have been worked around if people had known what was being objected to. There may have been a few reasonable ones in the mix, but nobody has listed any that I've noticed. And since they declined to specify they may have been threatening with others.
You don't need to specify to threaten to sue, only when you finally sue. And sometimes you can get that hidden by the court...at least for some period of time. Perhaps the judgment must be public, but I wouldn't even bet on that.
I don't know what *he's* implying, but I won't trust MS as long as they abusively sue, or threaten to sue, over patents that either they won't specify, that are obviously invalid, or both.
Just because defending against a patent lawsuit is too expensive to survive does not make the patent valid. It merely makes the litigant someone who should be harmed in any way feasible.
Well, they could give his bank account data to the Russian mafia..that would shut him up...or at least change his message.
Well, since it's purportedly an anarchist disorganization, I guess it would have to be anti-democracy. (I'm assuming that you made a typo.) That's not a real argument, however, as we don't have a democracy. We purportedly have a representative Republic. Actually, that's pretty true, you just need to figure out who is being represented.
FWIW, I won't consider anything buy Linux (or BSD...but I need ext4) on my computer. A phone is something different.
I haven't decided to get a smartphone, but when I next replace my phone I may decide to go with Apple. Most Apple users seem satisfied, and it's not like I plan on doing software development on it. (Their EULA drove me away a decade ago for that, and I haven't come to think better of it in the interim.)
No...but was the state of emergency declared during WWII ever canceled?
It would probably let you run some games that haven't been/won't be ported.
I'm not trying to prove anymore. All the evidence in the world won't convince someone who keeps their eyes shut.
Re: How so? Integers and pointers are separate types. It's possible to cast one to the other, but you have to be pretty explicit about it.
That's true for a global analysis, but in a local analysis you don't know that the integer passed in isn't really a pointer or that the integer passed out won't be used as a pointer.
You left out a crucial word.
...Antarctic sea ice has been setting maximums.
This is a bit puzzling, but several researchers think they have the answer as to why. Unfortunately, they disagree, so more research is needed. However this does not imply that the Antarctic land ice sheets have stopped melting. So the point you intended to make fails.
Both sides are saying it, but one side is lying their pants off. And anyone who pays attention knows that it's the AGW deniers.
A good point. When you say how many people will die/be displaced/etc. by global warming the number depends critically on just what factors you are willing to consider. And it's going to have a more than minor effect on nearly everyone. E.g., this was supposed to be an extremely wet winter in California, but the official site reports the snowpack at 87% of the April 1 average. Not very good for what was supposed to be an extremely wet winter. But the weather has been unusually pleasant all winter. Spring arrived in late January.
People will only be damaged during the period of transition. After the ice caps melt there will be about as much land as there is now, just distributed differently. Canada may become the breadbasket of the world. Antarctica may be farmed. Etc.
Of course, the transition is going to be extremely rough, and the faster it is the more people will die from it. And it will be well over a century before the transition is over. Whoops...that's the entire lifetime of everyone reading this.
Expect sea levels to rise by over a meter, how much more is uncertain, and depends on how much of Antarctica melts...but records show that at one time there were temperate forests growing in Antarctica, and that it hasn't moved around to permit that. It just used to be that much warmer. (Of course, the continents were in different positions, so the weather patterns won't be repeating...)
Personally, I expect all the glaciers in Antarctica to melt except, perhaps, the ones at the tops of high mountains. And considerably higher sea level rise than official reports are willing to consider...but not all that quickly. Probably less than a foot/decade, and likely considerably less. Give it a few centuries, though. The CO2 won't leave the atmosphere quickly, so it's going to keep getting hotter until a new equilibrium is reached...and that 2 degrees is just because some people need a goal that isn't too threatening, not because there's any reasonable chance that we can hold it at that.
I think you overstate the case. It's probably only by the hundreds of thousands...unless you count people who would have died anyway.
To say they are literally worse than Hitler is to misunderstand both Hitler and the current situation. And they aren't (generally) malicious, which also counts.
P.S.: Stalin killed more people than Hitler did. So if you're going for hyperbole you should say worse than Stalin. Additionally Stalin appears to have done it with greater intent and less because he was crazy, which also counts.
But it's still something that we should have taken seriously decades ago. Now we can only hope to ameliorate the damage. And it's only hope, because the governments don't yet seem to really be ready to act, only to promise.
That was a reasonable argument in the old days, but these days compiler optimizers are, or should be, better than any except a very few programmers who have made a study of system dependent microcode. And that kind of stuff is better handled in assembler, since it's not portable across CPU versions anyway.
I'm not pretending pointers are bad, I'm stating that pointers are senselessly dangerous, and there are better ways. Of course, if the code you're writing is only a page or two long, this isn't a good argument. If you're writing very much code and you depend on yourself never having a fencepost error, or failing to free memory, then I consider that you're in the wrong job. Everyone makes mistakes, and tools that prevent or catch those mistakes are extremely desirable. C and C++ are notorious for memory leaks, array bounds overruns, and many other classes of error that can be automatically prevented with proper language design.
That said, there are cases where C is the appropriate language. (I'm not certain about C++.) Sometimes a sharp knife is the best tool...but it's still dangerous.
I'm sort of rusty on C++, and I'd forgotten that reference parameters could be output parameters. But if those reference parameters are arrays, then you still don't know that pointer manipulation isn't going on.
I can accept that C++11 makes explicit use of pointers usually unnecessary. (I don't know it's true, but I can accept it.) But the implementation of arrays is such that you can't prove that implicit manipulation of pointers by the user isn't happening if you have arrays. C++ has many features that could be used to eliminate pointer problems, but it's inheritance from prior versions means that you can't know what's happening.
P.S.: In every case a global analysis could certainly show whether dubious practices were happening, so I'm talking about local analysis, where you can't know whether an input integer is or is not a pointer, and you can't know how an output integer is going to be used. This is a problem of "strict typing" or some such, which many languages allow, and some languages allow in all except a few specially marked routines.