Considering how many classes are taught in Java, the "small expensive workforce" bit is out. "Lots of legacy code", though, might be right. Java may end up being the language that everybody knows, but hates.
Agreed, provided the core JDK remains contributed to the openjdk project under the GPL, this discussion seems tainted by FUD.
No, this discussion is tainted by blind panic (and maybe the ability to see trends). We know what happened to OpenOffice, we know what happened to MySQL, so we're assuming the same sort of things will happen here. It's really only FUD if someone is actively spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt about the project.
I went and looked up the specs for the chip in question. It's a SoC chip, just a PCI bus is all I could find. There's no market reason for PCIe, and it really wouldn't even offer much of a benefit, since the single-core CPU is barely pushing a gigahertz. The FTC behaved pretty much reasonably in this case.
Am I in a bizarro universe or something? Slashdot actually convinced me to try switching to a Microsoft product. I've been having issues with AVG not catching things, and was in need of a new, free, lightweight AV on my Windows boxes. Thanks to/., I have a possible answer.
I was referring to the original releases - when you remaster it and whatever for a hi-def rerelease, you get a new copyright on it. Similar thing happened to Lord of the Rings in the US - the original release lacked a copyright notice (making it PD in the US), but a few years later a revised and better-edited release was made, that one is still under copyright.
And the Sherlock Holmes thing actually proves my point - the character and actually all of the stories are now in the public domain. The Doyle estate gets no money from those movies.
The thing is, even if copyrights expired after a month, Mickey Mouse would still be protected. While the films, TV shows, comics, games, etc. that he appears in are covered by copyright, the distinctive visual character is protected by trademarks. Trademarks are theoretically infinite in duration, provided they remain in use.
Really, a ten-year, maybe twenty-year copyright term should suffice. Is Universal making money off of Back to the Future III still? Is Fox still getting money from Die Hard 2? Is Nintendo getting money from Super Mario Bros. 3? Well, Nintendo might be, but they're greedy bastards. Otherwise, no, there's no real profit being made. Heck, even if you make the copyright term 30 years, that still puts things in the public domain quickly enough for them to be of interest. But with the current 95-year term, you know what goes public domain this year? "The Birth of a Nation", "The Tramp", some Irving Berlin songs, "The Metamorphosis", and the last Sherlock Holmes story.
Show me a case where the court declared something obscene, where it was not. I have searched for cases of material that was found by US courts to be obscene; the only case I found that could be contested was that of "Max Hardcore", which was over simulated (actresses over 18) child pornography, with a couple other "unusual" things as well. That's the only one I've found. One debatable case does not qualify as a "problem".
I believe the problem is the definition of "obscenity". In US free-speech laws and cases, "obscenity" refers, essentially, to "illegal pornography". It has absolutely no effect on violent media, or dissident media, or anything else. Just porn. Freakish, poorly-made, shock porn. I'm not even sure you could classify 2g1c as "obscene", as one could argue that it has some sort of artistic merit. The bar is rather low for that.
There is no problem in the US right now with courts declaring things obscene. The problems are in attempts to restrict sales of media, abuses of DMCA takedowns, and corporate censorship, none of which is caused by the judiciary.
"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution, is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body." - Alexander Hamilton
I shall point you to the Judiciary Act of 1789, particularly Section 25, "And be it further enacted, That... where is drawn in question the validity of a statute... on the ground of their being repugnant to the constitution, treaties or laws of the United States,... may be re-examined and reversed or affirmed in the Supreme Court of the United States"
The "community standards" is only one aspect. The "patently offensive" and "lacks redeeming value" is judged at a national level. Community standards actually plays a very small part, as, usually, things that "depict offensive sexual behavior" and "lack scientific value" will pretty much automatically "appeal to the prurient interest".
Obviously, you are unfamiliar with the case of Miller v California, which laid down the rules for obscenity. And, for the record, the Supreme Court CAN interpret the constitution as they like.
To qualify as obscenity, it has to meet all three of the following requirements: it has to, by the standards of the community, appeal to the prurient interest; it must depict patently offensive sexual behavior; it must lack any and all artistic and scientific value.
I saw "supports wireless connectivity" and wondered why a device that is POE would need WiFi. Need more caffeine.
One, it can be used as a Wi-Fi hotspot. Second, it can also use a normal power adapter, for cases of unpowered Ethernet, or using Wi-Fi connection. There might be other uses as well, but those are the two main ones.
Ignore this if above poster was being sarcastic. I think he might be, but I'm not sure.
First off, we're disputing the use of a general type ("RISC architecture") instead of the actual architecture (ARM, MIPS, etc.). That's just bad tech reporting. I'd expect such sloppiness from Fox or MSN, not/.
Second, pretty much all processors now are RISC internally. Yes, i386 is a CISC instruction set, but processors translate those complex instructions into one or more RISC-type instructions, which are then run. That's arguably more efficient - instructions are stored on disk and in memory as complex instructions, for better code density, but they are processed as efficiently as RISC instructions. Only downside is more complex processors, and a bit more power draw from the translation unit.
Very accurate, but I have a point to add. Game designers program the AI to act "fun". Sure, they could make it a devastatingly overpowered, mind-reading unstoppable juggernaut, but that's no fun. Quite often, the AI is deliberately programmed to make poor choices (often documented in comments as "artificial stupidity"), or to make less-than-optimum choices at least some of the time.
I'm literally coding the AI for a small game in my other window, and I'm doing just this. The AI has an advantage in stats - particularly, higher magic abilities. I had originally coded it to exploit that advantage until its mana ran out. It was difficult to beat, but also very boring to beat, because it kept spamming one attack. I added a small check, so it only exploits that advantage 50% of the time. Otherwise, it goes on down to less-than-optimal options. It's a lot more interesting this way.
Video games are designed to be fun, first and foremost. They will sacrifice realism, or difficulty, or almost anything, really, if it will the game more fun. If that means the AI can be beaten, so be it. The AI can't enjoy the game. The player can.
"The Right Thing", right now, would be to donate the OpenOffice.org name to LibreOffice. OO has actually gotten a brand identity, maybe not with big businesses, but small shops and schools are using it (or recommending it to students). LibreOffice has no such brand identity, not yet.
Instead of alphabetical order, prioritize the most commonly used characters. Right now, A, E, I, M, Q, U Y and . have the fastest, one-swipe spots. Some of those make sense (e is very common, for instance) but q? Meanwhile, S and T, both popular letters, are in poorly-optimized locations.
I have an excellent memory for things that I use frequently. But not things I never use. I, and I believe I am in the majority here, memorize things by using them - I remember the syntax for printf placeholders, not because I sat down to memorize them, but because I use it frequently. I remember how to ssh and set up X forwarding in to my BSD box because I do so often. I remember how to drive to school because I do so daily. I even remember all 151 Pokemon because, at one time, I needed to know such things. Last example notwithstanding, I can remember important things, as determined by usage.
If you have to sit down and force yourself to memorize something, you're doing it wrong. The brain automatically memorizes information it needs frequently, just like your CPU caches information it uses frequently. Was that analogy sufficient, or do I need a car metaphor?
And if the goal of math was to teach me to remember things, it failed. I can barely remember how to integrate a basic polynomial, despite Calc II being just 10 months ago, because I do not use that information.
Been done. Extremely inflexible. Not all that fast. Only liked by teachers (easier than teaching proper flow control) and managers (who can only read flowcharts anyways).
Memory Alpha (the main Star Trek wiki) has no records of a lethal Neck Pinch being used in the shows or movies. There is a reference to a "Vulcan Death Grip", (TOS, "The Enterprise Incident"), but it is revealed to be a ruse, and there is no such thing. The entry on Memory Beta (the secondary wiki for Trek expanded-universe works) is only a stub, so short of someone remembering exactly which one it is, it's going to be difficult to find out which book you're thinking of.
You know how some people think Hitler survived the war, and is hiding in South America? Well, I can't say for sure, but if Hitler is alive, he's hiding at a community college in central VA.
That's not what I'm saying, and yet it is. Learning something, but not putting it into practice, is not really learning. However, I am saying that rote memorization without understanding is unimportant.
I suppose what I should have said was "Trim calculus and formal proofs down to the basics; there is no need to have students memorize several pages of integration tables and several pages of proofs when, in the real world, all those things would be available any time advanced mathematics is necessary." However, that's a lot less catchy.
The problem isn't that math isn't important. The problem is that the math being taught isn't important.
I've just gotten all my math courses complete for college, so I can safely say that much of what I learned will never be needed. Calculus? Important to know the principles of it, but it won't be critical to working in the modern world, and I definitely won't need to know the formula for integrating trigonometric functions off the top of my head. Trigonometry? Not of much use, unless I go into engineering. Even some of the higher algebra is needless memorization - I will never need to mathematically prove the Quadratic Formula. Statistics? Yeah, that's important, and they spend all of one term teaching it, while making me take three classes on calculus.
You want kids to learn important math - stop making us memorize things we don't really even need to know. Trim calculus and formal proofs down to the fundamental theory, maybe a bit of practical, and then load up on the statistics, the logic theory (best place to put it, really). With calculators and computers, nobody needs to know math itself. What we need to know is how to think mathematically, and knowing (sec x)' = sec x * tan x doesn't do anything for that.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering how many classes are taught in Java, the "small expensive workforce" bit is out. "Lots of legacy code", though, might be right. Java may end up being the language that everybody knows, but hates.
Agreed, provided the core JDK remains contributed to the openjdk project under the GPL, this discussion seems tainted by FUD.
No, this discussion is tainted by blind panic (and maybe the ability to see trends). We know what happened to OpenOffice, we know what happened to MySQL, so we're assuming the same sort of things will happen here. It's really only FUD if someone is actively spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt about the project.
I went and looked up the specs for the chip in question. It's a SoC chip, just a PCI bus is all I could find. There's no market reason for PCIe, and it really wouldn't even offer much of a benefit, since the single-core CPU is barely pushing a gigahertz. The FTC behaved pretty much reasonably in this case.
Am I in a bizarro universe or something? Slashdot actually convinced me to try switching to a Microsoft product. I've been having issues with AVG not catching things, and was in need of a new, free, lightweight AV on my Windows boxes. Thanks to /., I have a possible answer.
I was referring to the original releases - when you remaster it and whatever for a hi-def rerelease, you get a new copyright on it. Similar thing happened to Lord of the Rings in the US - the original release lacked a copyright notice (making it PD in the US), but a few years later a revised and better-edited release was made, that one is still under copyright.
And the Sherlock Holmes thing actually proves my point - the character and actually all of the stories are now in the public domain. The Doyle estate gets no money from those movies.
The thing is, even if copyrights expired after a month, Mickey Mouse would still be protected. While the films, TV shows, comics, games, etc. that he appears in are covered by copyright, the distinctive visual character is protected by trademarks. Trademarks are theoretically infinite in duration, provided they remain in use.
Really, a ten-year, maybe twenty-year copyright term should suffice. Is Universal making money off of Back to the Future III still? Is Fox still getting money from Die Hard 2? Is Nintendo getting money from Super Mario Bros. 3? Well, Nintendo might be, but they're greedy bastards. Otherwise, no, there's no real profit being made. Heck, even if you make the copyright term 30 years, that still puts things in the public domain quickly enough for them to be of interest. But with the current 95-year term, you know what goes public domain this year? "The Birth of a Nation", "The Tramp", some Irving Berlin songs, "The Metamorphosis", and the last Sherlock Holmes story.
Yes, there is.
Show me a case where the court declared something obscene, where it was not. I have searched for cases of material that was found by US courts to be obscene; the only case I found that could be contested was that of "Max Hardcore", which was over simulated (actresses over 18) child pornography, with a couple other "unusual" things as well. That's the only one I've found. One debatable case does not qualify as a "problem".
I believe the problem is the definition of "obscenity". In US free-speech laws and cases, "obscenity" refers, essentially, to "illegal pornography". It has absolutely no effect on violent media, or dissident media, or anything else. Just porn. Freakish, poorly-made, shock porn. I'm not even sure you could classify 2g1c as "obscene", as one could argue that it has some sort of artistic merit. The bar is rather low for that.
There is no problem in the US right now with courts declaring things obscene. The problems are in attempts to restrict sales of media, abuses of DMCA takedowns, and corporate censorship, none of which is caused by the judiciary.
"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution, is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body." - Alexander Hamilton
... where is drawn in question the validity of a statute ... on the ground of their being repugnant to the constitution, treaties or laws of the United States, ... may be re-examined and reversed or affirmed in the Supreme Court of the United States"
I shall point you to the Judiciary Act of 1789, particularly Section 25, "And be it further enacted, That
The "infrastructure" seems to be a secure courier handing over hard drives in a lockbox. This is more like offline backup, not online.
The "community standards" is only one aspect. The "patently offensive" and "lacks redeeming value" is judged at a national level. Community standards actually plays a very small part, as, usually, things that "depict offensive sexual behavior" and "lack scientific value" will pretty much automatically "appeal to the prurient interest".
Obviously, you are unfamiliar with the case of Miller v California, which laid down the rules for obscenity. And, for the record, the Supreme Court CAN interpret the constitution as they like.
To qualify as obscenity, it has to meet all three of the following requirements: it has to, by the standards of the community, appeal to the prurient interest; it must depict patently offensive sexual behavior; it must lack any and all artistic and scientific value.
No problem. I'm just a bit cynical about things like that.
I saw "supports wireless connectivity" and wondered why a device that is POE would need WiFi. Need more caffeine.
One, it can be used as a Wi-Fi hotspot. Second, it can also use a normal power adapter, for cases of unpowered Ethernet, or using Wi-Fi connection. There might be other uses as well, but those are the two main ones.
Ignore this if above poster was being sarcastic. I think he might be, but I'm not sure.
/.
First off, we're disputing the use of a general type ("RISC architecture") instead of the actual architecture (ARM, MIPS, etc.). That's just bad tech reporting. I'd expect such sloppiness from Fox or MSN, not
Second, pretty much all processors now are RISC internally. Yes, i386 is a CISC instruction set, but processors translate those complex instructions into one or more RISC-type instructions, which are then run. That's arguably more efficient - instructions are stored on disk and in memory as complex instructions, for better code density, but they are processed as efficiently as RISC instructions. Only downside is more complex processors, and a bit more power draw from the translation unit.
Very accurate, but I have a point to add. Game designers program the AI to act "fun". Sure, they could make it a devastatingly overpowered, mind-reading unstoppable juggernaut, but that's no fun. Quite often, the AI is deliberately programmed to make poor choices (often documented in comments as "artificial stupidity"), or to make less-than-optimum choices at least some of the time.
I'm literally coding the AI for a small game in my other window, and I'm doing just this. The AI has an advantage in stats - particularly, higher magic abilities. I had originally coded it to exploit that advantage until its mana ran out. It was difficult to beat, but also very boring to beat, because it kept spamming one attack. I added a small check, so it only exploits that advantage 50% of the time. Otherwise, it goes on down to less-than-optimal options. It's a lot more interesting this way.
Video games are designed to be fun, first and foremost. They will sacrifice realism, or difficulty, or almost anything, really, if it will the game more fun. If that means the AI can be beaten, so be it. The AI can't enjoy the game. The player can.
"The Right Thing", right now, would be to donate the OpenOffice.org name to LibreOffice. OO has actually gotten a brand identity, maybe not with big businesses, but small shops and schools are using it (or recommending it to students). LibreOffice has no such brand identity, not yet.
Instead of alphabetical order, prioritize the most commonly used characters. Right now, A, E, I, M, Q, U Y and . have the fastest, one-swipe spots. Some of those make sense (e is very common, for instance) but q? Meanwhile, S and T, both popular letters, are in poorly-optimized locations.
C'mon, people. You can do better than this.
I have an excellent memory for things that I use frequently. But not things I never use. I, and I believe I am in the majority here, memorize things by using them - I remember the syntax for printf placeholders, not because I sat down to memorize them, but because I use it frequently. I remember how to ssh and set up X forwarding in to my BSD box because I do so often. I remember how to drive to school because I do so daily. I even remember all 151 Pokemon because, at one time, I needed to know such things. Last example notwithstanding, I can remember important things, as determined by usage.
If you have to sit down and force yourself to memorize something, you're doing it wrong. The brain automatically memorizes information it needs frequently, just like your CPU caches information it uses frequently. Was that analogy sufficient, or do I need a car metaphor?
And if the goal of math was to teach me to remember things, it failed. I can barely remember how to integrate a basic polynomial, despite Calc II being just 10 months ago, because I do not use that information .
Been done. Extremely inflexible. Not all that fast. Only liked by teachers (easier than teaching proper flow control) and managers (who can only read flowcharts anyways).
Memory Alpha (the main Star Trek wiki) has no records of a lethal Neck Pinch being used in the shows or movies. There is a reference to a "Vulcan Death Grip", (TOS, "The Enterprise Incident"), but it is revealed to be a ruse, and there is no such thing. The entry on Memory Beta (the secondary wiki for Trek expanded-universe works) is only a stub, so short of someone remembering exactly which one it is, it's going to be difficult to find out which book you're thinking of.
You know how some people think Hitler survived the war, and is hiding in South America? Well, I can't say for sure, but if Hitler is alive, he's hiding at a community college in central VA.
That's not what I'm saying, and yet it is. Learning something, but not putting it into practice, is not really learning. However, I am saying that rote memorization without understanding is unimportant.
I suppose what I should have said was "Trim calculus and formal proofs down to the basics; there is no need to have students memorize several pages of integration tables and several pages of proofs when, in the real world, all those things would be available any time advanced mathematics is necessary." However, that's a lot less catchy.
The problem isn't that math isn't important. The problem is that the math being taught isn't important.
I've just gotten all my math courses complete for college, so I can safely say that much of what I learned will never be needed. Calculus? Important to know the principles of it, but it won't be critical to working in the modern world, and I definitely won't need to know the formula for integrating trigonometric functions off the top of my head. Trigonometry? Not of much use, unless I go into engineering. Even some of the higher algebra is needless memorization - I will never need to mathematically prove the Quadratic Formula. Statistics? Yeah, that's important, and they spend all of one term teaching it, while making me take three classes on calculus.
You want kids to learn important math - stop making us memorize things we don't really even need to know. Trim calculus and formal proofs down to the fundamental theory, maybe a bit of practical, and then load up on the statistics, the logic theory (best place to put it, really). With calculators and computers, nobody needs to know math itself. What we need to know is how to think mathematically, and knowing (sec x)' = sec x * tan x doesn't do anything for that.
Pixar.