Not necessarily LLVM lets you use a intermediate representation that can be interpreted or even compiled the rest of the way with fairly good results. The tech is there is you want it going forward, It's just going backwards that is the real problem.
Any computer skill you teach someone will likely be our of date in 20 years, and it's good for people to understand at some level how computers actually operate. But for the actual choice you only need to look out 5-8 years, as someone already in the field shouldn't have a really difficult time learning a new syntax for their algorithms. For those that don't its not like there aren't any complilers at all that will compile fortran or basic.The tools are still viable, they've just been replace by better tools in industry.
There's a few newer ones, and AMD is supporting it for all of thier 14h cpu and chipsets so I think its just a matter of time till you get more options.
Well I think catching XP is a possible goal (since xp is pretty much dead a.k.a static now.), but i agree that they'll never catch up to the latest version.
I'm not sure where that switch is, and I just about borked my installation (thank tom for TWM), but managed to figure it out, and I agree that it's much nicer that the unity interface gunk Ubuntu seems so fond of.
That's the most fucking asinine or exceedingly obtuse comment on this page yet. The threat doesn't go away when you turn the computer off. The damage of a death threat isn't in the symbols used to convey the message, but the intent it converts.
Hacker make things work, generally with either with a low budget, a high degree of creativity, simple elegance, or superfluous complexity. More for the satisfaction of being able to be it. Sometimes involving good-natured pranks, naivety or a need to take dissect things just to see how they work. However a death threat is the sort of malovelence far removed from a hacker's nature. Also hackers tend to be very strongly motivated by internal rewards (satisfaction at a job well done) rather than the external (money) as these scammers are.
'High Frequency Trading, however, should be illegal since it does not involve human value judgements at all. It simply allows a computer to front-run actual humans and siphon off people attempting to perform a useful act -- that is, price discovery."
The algorithms are just extensions of human judgement. Certain patterns in stock signal that price move is occurring or is about to occur. It is just stop and buy limits, but just very complex ones the depend more on what happened in the past minute than in the past week like a broker might do.
You can use imap to pull mail in from yahoo to his computer, and use any sane mail client with will encrypt outgoing mail (PGP extensions). Instruct clients to do the same or use hushmail (which does PGP automatically)
Yes, but I don't think looking at a patent would help. First is that the material are biological that are either illegal to harvest, or of a quality that simply can't be had at any price today. Secondly the sort of craftsmanship required is not something that can be communicated by a patent draft, book, or even a video documentary. The sort of skill you could only pick up with a lifetime of hands-on work. A lot more akin to art than any of the consumer products we have today.
Once the reserves were burnt through, at least $1000 dollars an ounce. That's at least what it costs to mine, and there are industrial uses for it for which there is no practicable replacement. (plus paper gold is actual inflated, with at least five times as many claims on gold as there is physical gold.)
Money wouldn't work if people didn't hoard it. Money is never in circulation, but is at any given moment part of one person's monetary reserves or another. Money comes to be demanded in it's own right, and people come to desire or value a certain balance of it. How much people actually demand is dependent on how much it could buy yesterday which was dependent on how big the demand for discrete monetary holdings were yesterday, which was dependent on how much it could buy the day before that... and ad infinitum. (well not forever, but a long time). Right now bitcoin is struggling to establish this sort of history and memory. Deflationary just means that people will tend to decrease their holdings over time. If it takes half as much bitcoin to buy the things you want why is only being able to mine them half as fast an issue?
Drugs/ pharmacueticals are probably the one exception where it is clear that patents generate more revenues than cost in that industry. However this is because of a wierd setup (more actually a conflict of interest) where the entities doing drug effectiveness testing and drug manufacturing are the same companies. This and that most of the cost is in testing. A cost which is much higher than it really needs to be, which prevents many potentially life-saving and cost-saving drugs (drugs tend to be cheaper than surgical interventions) from coming to market.
To actually develop a method of making a drug/drugs with a certain class of bio-activity costs 4-5 million There are also potential methods of testing that could put the costs on public institutions or paid though on a tax on all drugs. Or even better the technology is starting to become present where you can do much of the testing via computer models. I don't really have a solution, but it's a thorny and complex issue. Anyways, just because they play an important role in one industry due to some very unusual circumstances does not mean patents are actually useful or necessary in promoting it in other more usual circumstances.
The cost of reverse engineering is about the cost of development, and a copycat will never have quite the same understanding of a technology as an inventor, and will always be chasing technology that is out of date. A copycat only really succeeds with they offer some feature overlooked by the original (thus being innovative) or when they are more efficient in production. Either is beneficial to consumers. (plus the little guys will be fabbing their stuff via contract with a Chinese company anyways so it's not clear why anyone else in china would neccessarily be able to undercut them)
Plus getting into an established market is much harder than keeping one that you've already established. But anyways your argument ignores the costs of patents, patent litigation, and how how patents actually encourage cartelization. Unless you have an arsenal of patents the little guy has a much large chance of being ruined by patents asserted against him, then to successfully assert a patent against the established players. Best case scenario is that they end up cross-licensing with each other.
If something can't be reverse engineered within 20 years, either everyone has incompetent R&D staff, or it's simply not worth reversing. Anyways patents are generally so vauge that starting with a patent description is only going to cut a small fraction off of R&D time. The original patent term was just long enough for someone to train two rounds of apprentices in production of an item. A more reasonable term would be twice the industry average of putting a product into production. (so if it takes two years to get something to market you get two years of protection after it hits the market) We could probably do without patents altogether, but a real reform would involve cutting the term of the patent significantly for most industries, and to require fair and reasonable licensing in industries that are especially chocked with patents (software and biotech).
Um, macs don't play all that nice with thrid-party package managers especially across updates. There are a few ports tools that pull out ports in a prefix (chroot), but after a certain point it's just not worth it.
ppa:kernel-edgers is an option for people whose hardware still has that new car smell. Though I would agree somthing like a ppa:ui-edgers would have been a better option than forcing a incomplete unity on people. I tried it for two week and opted into the classic fallback. I kind of like that the title bare of the active window would merge with the top panel when maximized, but would have really liked a universal menu more easily accessible, and the panel to the left was more of less useless to me as it was configured. Smaller with more icons would have been nice (I'm not blind).
Slashdot Mirror
Not necessarily LLVM lets you use a intermediate representation that can be interpreted or even compiled the rest of the way with fairly good results. The tech is there is you want it going forward, It's just going backwards that is the real problem.
Not spooky, it's the only non-contradictory political philosophy excepting the Machiavellian ones. (the are no principles, only power)
I thin you underestimate a person's ability to compartmentalize. I mean these guy already have to pass a few math and science cources.
Any computer skill you teach someone will likely be our of date in 20 years, and it's good for people to understand at some level how computers actually operate. But for the actual choice you only need to look out 5-8 years, as someone already in the field shouldn't have a really difficult time learning a new syntax for their algorithms. For those that don't its not like there aren't any complilers at all that will compile fortran or basic.The tools are still viable, they've just been replace by better tools in industry.
Actually I'm betting they make silverlight the new lock-in. A much worse situation for competing platforms.
I'm thinking a firmware (uefi) extension, or a hypervisor.
There's a few newer ones, and AMD is supporting it for all of thier 14h cpu and chipsets so I think its just a matter of time till you get more options.
every set is a subset of itself of course. However you still can't enumerate it.
Well I think catching XP is a possible goal (since xp is pretty much dead a.k.a static now.), but i agree that they'll never catch up to the latest version.
It shares a lot of the code for the dll's to implement the api, but a lot of the code is unique (kernel-level stuff)
I'm not sure where that switch is, and I just about borked my installation (thank tom for TWM), but managed to figure it out, and I agree that it's much nicer that the unity interface gunk Ubuntu seems so fond of.
That's the most fucking asinine or exceedingly obtuse comment on this page yet. The threat doesn't go away when you turn the computer off. The damage of a death threat isn't in the symbols used to convey the message, but the intent it converts.
Hacker make things work, generally with either with a low budget, a high degree of creativity, simple elegance, or superfluous complexity. More for the satisfaction of being able to be it. Sometimes involving good-natured pranks, naivety or a need to take dissect things just to see how they work. However a death threat is the sort of malovelence far removed from a hacker's nature. Also hackers tend to be very strongly motivated by internal rewards (satisfaction at a job well done) rather than the external (money) as these scammers are.
'High Frequency Trading, however, should be illegal since it does not involve human value judgements at all. It simply allows a computer to front-run actual humans and siphon off people attempting to perform a useful act -- that is, price discovery."
The algorithms are just extensions of human judgement. Certain patterns in stock signal that price move is occurring or is about to occur. It is just stop and buy limits, but just very complex ones the depend more on what happened in the past minute than in the past week like a broker might do.
You can use imap to pull mail in from yahoo to his computer, and use any sane mail client with will encrypt outgoing mail (PGP extensions). Instruct clients to do the same or use hushmail (which does PGP automatically)
Yes, it it's addressed to the lawyer, but thats not to say how it might be used out of court.
Yes, but I don't think looking at a patent would help. First is that the material are biological that are either illegal to harvest, or of a quality that simply can't be had at any price today. Secondly the sort of craftsmanship required is not something that can be communicated by a patent draft, book, or even a video documentary. The sort of skill you could only pick up with a lifetime of hands-on work. A lot more akin to art than any of the consumer products we have today.
Once the reserves were burnt through, at least $1000 dollars an ounce. That's at least what it costs to mine, and there are industrial uses for it for which there is no practicable replacement. (plus paper gold is actual inflated, with at least five times as many claims on gold as there is physical gold.)
Money wouldn't work if people didn't hoard it. Money is never in circulation, but is at any given moment part of one person's monetary reserves or another. Money comes to be demanded in it's own right, and people come to desire or value a certain balance of it. How much people actually demand is dependent on how much it could buy yesterday which was dependent on how big the demand for discrete monetary holdings were yesterday, which was dependent on how much it could buy the day before that... and ad infinitum. (well not forever, but a long time). Right now bitcoin is struggling to establish this sort of history and memory. Deflationary just means that people will tend to decrease their holdings over time. If it takes half as much bitcoin to buy the things you want why is only being able to mine them half as fast an issue?
Drugs/ pharmacueticals are probably the one exception where it is clear that patents generate more revenues than cost in that industry. However this is because of a wierd setup (more actually a conflict of interest) where the entities doing drug effectiveness testing and drug manufacturing are the same companies. This and that most of the cost is in testing. A cost which is much higher than it really needs to be, which prevents many potentially life-saving and cost-saving drugs (drugs tend to be cheaper than surgical interventions) from coming to market.
To actually develop a method of making a drug /drugs with a certain class of bio-activity costs 4-5 million There are also potential methods of testing that could put the costs on public institutions or paid though on a tax on all drugs. Or even better the technology is starting to become present where you can do much of the testing via computer models. I don't really have a solution, but it's a thorny and complex issue. Anyways, just because they play an important role in one industry due to some very unusual circumstances does not mean patents are actually useful or necessary in promoting it in other more usual circumstances.
The cost of reverse engineering is about the cost of development, and a copycat will never have quite the same understanding of a technology as an inventor, and will always be chasing technology that is out of date. A copycat only really succeeds with they offer some feature overlooked by the original (thus being innovative) or when they are more efficient in production. Either is beneficial to consumers. (plus the little guys will be fabbing their stuff via contract with a Chinese company anyways so it's not clear why anyone else in china would neccessarily be able to undercut them)
Plus getting into an established market is much harder than keeping one that you've already established. But anyways your argument ignores the costs of patents, patent litigation, and how how patents actually encourage cartelization. Unless you have an arsenal of patents the little guy has a much large chance of being ruined by patents asserted against him, then to successfully assert a patent against the established players. Best case scenario is that they end up cross-licensing with each other.
If something can't be reverse engineered within 20 years, either everyone has incompetent R&D staff, or it's simply not worth reversing. Anyways patents are generally so vauge that starting with a patent description is only going to cut a small fraction off of R&D time. The original patent term was just long enough for someone to train two rounds of apprentices in production of an item. A more reasonable term would be twice the industry average of putting a product into production. (so if it takes two years to get something to market you get two years of protection after it hits the market) We could probably do without patents altogether, but a real reform would involve cutting the term of the patent significantly for most industries, and to require fair and reasonable licensing in industries that are especially chocked with patents (software and biotech).
I think they might just start over or use two adjectives, or give names to them. Astrid the August Albatross
Um, macs don't play all that nice with thrid-party package managers especially across updates. There are a few ports tools that pull out ports in a prefix (chroot), but after a certain point it's just not worth it.
ppa:kernel-edgers is an option for people whose hardware still has that new car smell. Though I would agree somthing like a ppa:ui-edgers would have been a better option than forcing a incomplete unity on people. I tried it for two week and opted into the classic fallback. I kind of like that the title bare of the active window would merge with the top panel when maximized, but would have really liked a universal menu more easily accessible, and the panel to the left was more of less useless to me as it was configured. Smaller with more icons would have been nice (I'm not blind).