I complaining because saying that an Ipad is not a generic PC is disingenuous. The ipad 2 somewhere between 1/3 and 1/4 the power of a typical pc for sale. The easy bake over is 1/80 -1/100th the power of a gas range. (Almost two orders order of magnitude vs less than one) The ipad can reproduce more than half of the functionality of the PC for a home user.
And ya, I don't want an Ipad. A net-book is twice as powerful, one half the cost, has a more productive interface (a keyboard), and can also run and store programs from any source I want. Sure I could jailbreak by breaking out my command line if I wanted to, but why should I have to? A jailbreak bottom might change my mind if the warranty wasn't completly invalidated. Say just for the CPU and battery, and not the screen, case, or memory.
Also that something is legal, doesn't mean it's not evil. Lock-in is a pretty dastardly thing to do, even though perfectly legal.
What do you mean? Both machines are truing complete. iOS has the same software libraries as MacOS with modified drivers and user interface.
The only reason they can't be a generic device is the DRM apple shoves down your throat.
Considering that it's possible to run the Linux kernel on the devices, allowing you to run any OS based on the Linux kernel inluding Android, I don't see who you can't say it's not a generic PC. It may not be a traditional PC, but the hardware is that of a generic PC as it can run any algorithm (constrained only be time and it's memory) and it can run the actual software libraries, OS's and application that generic PC's do (Perhaps not as fast, but certainly within reason)
Well no, some portable music players only support.mp3 with the stock firmware. Also.mp3 is lossy so converting to a different codec except a loseless on would make the file lossier.
Not just wal-mart, but an evil wall mart. If walmart doesn't want to sell yeast, they don't prevent me from buying yeast from a third party. Apple has DRM'ed thier platform so that it is forboden to load apps except through a store they controll.
Nobody should even think about disabling a domain for trademark claims until or unless a court of law where the trademark was registered issued an order that effect or a finding that the domain was actually violating the trademark. One or even three people working for the TLD or ICANN aren't qualified to interpret and apply trademark law. Arbitrarily re-assigning domains is simply bad for business. Also if the domain is older than the trademark it would not be disabled from claims about that trademark.
And those who do have the knowledge to regulate are almost always those corporation to be regulated.
I many cases strict liability to even double liability would be better than this maze of paper largely written by those with ties to the regulated industry that currently stand.
Remember that magical point in time somewhere around the Geforce 2 era when it was more important to upgrade the video card, and the processor didn't really matter? Gee, I wonder why today's video cards are far more advanced than today's processors?
They aren't, they just do the same things over an over again and really easy to design the hardware in parallel. You still need a CPU to setup and throw data and instructions at it at it because comparatively speaking the GPU is inflexible and dumb.
But..
"At its core, the sandbox relies on the protection provided by four Windows mechanisms:
A restricted token
The Windows job object
The Windows desktop object
Windows Vista only: The integrity levels"
Because the exploit hasn't been release it's unclear weather the bug was in those systems, or the broker code of Chromium, or possibly even a one or more in both.
And coreboot makes that first stage a lot easier by letting you write in C, rather than assembly. It only has to be in real mode a couple of more instruction before in can jump into your compiled C code.It also provides fallback to a standard shell (busybox) can use any of the Linux driver code, and is extensible.
Considering the EFI on intel's newer boards, Coreboot may be the only option for AMD if they want a competing extensibility and standardization between boards and shipsets.
It's not a BIOS, it's a BIOS replacement. And yes and no. To actually use coreboot you need it to recognize the CPU, the soutbridge, the northbridge, and the Super I/0. It basically just just initializes hardware and hands it off to a paylod, be it the linux kenrel, a BIOS or EFI implementation, or bootloaders like FILO or Grub.
Basically this step makes it easier for implementation of Coreboot, as you know all the CPU specific features should be set-up without any tweaking.
Better yet, just hack something up to feed it arbitrary location information. Make it look like your car has taken off into low earth orbit or something more plausible if you want the ruse to go on longer.
Abuse can mean "improper or excessive use" {Meriiam-Webster Online}. Abuse does not necessarily require any maliciousness. While the article does not mention the specific word, it does talk about the improper application of marginal diagnoses and treatments based on them that cause more damage than they prevent. You fail in comprehension or good faith. When you read another's words you should always try to find some denotation that makes sense before you accuse another of an error. It saves pointless debate and improves the impression you make on others.
also, the article isn't just crappy, it's wrong.
Source? Facts? Arguments? I'm not going to accept the mere claim.
you fail at being human.
So there are never times when it is appropriate to put feelings aside let the data speak whatever the data have to say? There is not room in science for whim. Wishing something to be such and such does not make it so. A thing is such and such, and that is what it is. Statistical anylsis has very precise rules, and fairly clear ways to determine the limits and likelihood of a relation. The studies make a claim about the low end of diagnostic severity, and nothing more. No matter how urgently and heartfelt any empathy is towards x^yy^x and others of a similar datam, it does not make his data suddenly relevant. The data is beyond the limits and boundaries used to reach the conclusion the articles talk about. The is no place in the Mathematical for empathy and mathematics is all the more useful for it. If we couldn't throw empathy out the window and use other methods, there would be no way to guide out development of proceedures that while not preventing x^yy^x suffering completely, certainly saved him from death.
It is sapience that marks man as unique, the process of ratiocination, rather than sentience, the process of feeling and suffering which all animals do to differing degrees.While emotion has it's place, it must be subordinate to reason in order for a man or men in general to flourish.
No, it's fine to recommend lifestyle changes where sugar is above normal, because they are homeopathic have no known side effect. However offering allopathic treatments where people are to lazy for lifestyle changes before the point where there is clear and proven benefit in doing so is irresponsible.
Empathy is irrelevant here. The article is about new techniques being abused to get people to pursue treatment where it is not needed or where it may even be harmful, not that new techniques should not be used, or that new techniques are perfect. Pointing out that someone is offtopic or missing the point is not and excercise of cruelty. No matter when in this post this person with the chinese mystery illness was he would have been considered sick. This is not the case with the original topic And original topic which was not misdiagnoses, but a specific type of misdiagnoses. Diagnosing something as a problem when it is not actually a problem.
Cut of the PC crap where you can't do anything that might offend anyone who is less privileged or worse off than you are. You are doing sick people everywhere a disservice by acting as if they are so fragile that they can't handle some public criticism . While doctors individually are generally well-meaning that doesn't mean there aren't systematic factor about the health care industry that lead lead to something other than wellness. A treatment may or may not be given, and the patient may or may not require it. For instance a doctor afraid of malpractice may diagnose where there is actually not a problem, because it's much harder for spot an error where treatment was given but not necessary than to spot the error where treatment was necessary but not given. Also if people go to the doctor and don't get anything other than a clean bill of health they feel a bit jipped. You go to a doctor when you are wanting treatment, and doctors though well-meaning by humouring this may doing more damage with the treatment than a minor abnormality could.
Yes, the whoosh post was flippant and a bit of a better-than-though game. However moralising is almost always the same sort of one-one-upmanship. "Look at how caring I am, you uncaring fool." You're message would be better received if you just let the facts frame the main point instead of the judgement.
It depends, Usually stuff like physics is in the engine, stuff like HP and damage are usually written in interpreted languages (because you can develop, tweak and balance them a lot faster.) The rules hard coded into the engine would have to be replaced with very generic ones or a section describing the abstraction layer used by the rest of the code to implement rules or you just release the rules as well. any engine worth mentioning is going to have a lot of layers of abstraction anyway so it can be used for a lot of different games.
A free game for a console is harder, either you target some hardware designed to be open or beg the console manufacturer for a signing code and to waive the licensing fees.
By this logic, any written contract reflects distrust of the other party, or a law against murder reflects a general distrust of everyone not to kill anyone else. In reality this law is applied to everyone, not because you don't trust most people not to kill, but because you need a formal system to deal with those who go beyond the bound of trust. A failure to communicate and set up clear, understandable and specific conditions which you expect in return for your efforts is at best a guarantee that people will diverge from your expectations, and at worst an invitation for exploitation of every sort.
The GPL isn't communism. It doesn't say that everyone must share. It just says if certain acts are illegal if done without permission according the the laws that apply to you, then you may perform such acts in accordance to some previously stated conditions. The FSF claims no authority to stop or limit copying except to the extent already barred by existing copyright law, whatever that law is where you live. The current versions of the GPL (2.0 and later) do not require anyone to to share their code if you do not want to. If you are not in compliance it only requires you to stop distribution until you are compliant or work out a version that does not require it.
The FSF certainly encourages sharing and loudly proclaims it's virtue. They have never claimed that those who don't ought to be thrown in a gulag or even that they will use force to keep their code out of proprietary projects. Legally all the GPL does is to provide the same legal protection to people who want a community project to stay a community project as there is to keeping proprietary code proprietary.
Both create communal goods, the main difference is the price of access. There is almost no price for the BSD goods, where the price of GPL goods is to keep derivative goods communal. In this aspect of being exclusive it is less communal than the BSD.
Now going into fairly minor points Marx saw the end result of the dictatorship of the proletariat (socialism) to be a moral transformation in the nature of man, creating what would be a reformed man who would live in an anarchic state where labor would be joy, and none of the artificial scarcity caused by property leaving enough resourced to fulfil all needs.
Now I agree that BSD is anarchism, or as close as you can get to it and still be legally recognised. The GPL may be like certain approaches of communism, but it certainly isn't the Marxist or revolutionary approach. Their approach is to create their communities as best as they can within the current legal framework, and hope their examples inspire others to adopt their methods through persuasion of a moral (the saint ignacious bit of stallman and the like) or material (the quality and agility of the actual software) flavour.
You can separate the source for the engine from the specific artwork of the game and have them under different licences. In fact it's fairly popular for companies to release their engines near the end of it's life-cycle to help attract developers and improve their image among the same community. Every once in a while you get a decent free game or two from this as well as several indie type games.
It does at least in the short term, the BSD license is basically the closest you can get to releasing into the public domain. The price of a license is simply providing a copy of the original copyright notice somewhere in the copy or derived work.
In the long term and in the collective it doesn't because there are people who don't care about your freedom that may abuse it. Just as in the tragedy of the commons. Without some sort of formal or informal process to preserve the common from abuse, there is a chance for that resource to be ruined (Think of embrace, extend and extinguish)
The GPL isn't as bad as some people make it out to be. It doesn't require you to accept it, and doesn't pretend that you can accept it merely by running the software. They don't claim it's a contract either like some companies with thier EULA's. In a nation without copyright laws the GPL would be of no affect whereas some EULA's might be. It only claims to apply as a copyright licences agreement when you do something which would be illegal where you live unless you had such a licence.
Slashdot Mirror
I complaining because saying that an Ipad is not a generic PC is disingenuous. The ipad 2 somewhere between 1/3 and 1/4 the power of a typical pc for sale. The easy bake over is 1/80 -1/100th the power of a gas range. (Almost two orders order of magnitude vs less than one) The ipad can reproduce more than half of the functionality of the PC for a home user.
And ya, I don't want an Ipad. A net-book is twice as powerful, one half the cost, has a more productive interface (a keyboard), and can also run and store programs from any source I want. Sure I could jailbreak by breaking out my command line if I wanted to, but why should I have to? A jailbreak bottom might change my mind if the warranty wasn't completly invalidated. Say just for the CPU and battery, and not the screen, case, or memory.
Also that something is legal, doesn't mean it's not evil. Lock-in is a pretty dastardly thing to do, even though perfectly legal.
What do you mean? Both machines are truing complete. iOS has the same software libraries as MacOS with modified drivers and user interface.
The only reason they can't be a generic device is the DRM apple shoves down your throat.
Considering that it's possible to run the Linux kernel on the devices, allowing you to run any OS based on the Linux kernel inluding Android, I don't see who you can't say it's not a generic PC. It may not be a traditional PC, but the hardware is that of a generic PC as it can run any algorithm (constrained only be time and it's memory) and it can run the actual software libraries, OS's and application that generic PC's do (Perhaps not as fast, but certainly within reason)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yO2KQHkt4A http://www.idroidproject.org/wiki/OpeniBoot http://blogs.computerworld.com/17345/forget_samsungs_tab_run_android_on_your_ipad
Well no, some portable music players only support .mp3 with the stock firmware. Also .mp3 is lossy so converting to a different codec except a loseless on would make the file lossier.
Not just wal-mart, but an evil wall mart. If walmart doesn't want to sell yeast, they don't prevent me from buying yeast from a third party. Apple has DRM'ed thier platform so that it is forboden to load apps except through a store they controll.
Nobody should even think about disabling a domain for trademark claims until or unless a court of law where the trademark was registered issued an order that effect or a finding that the domain was actually violating the trademark. One or even three people working for the TLD or ICANN aren't qualified to interpret and apply trademark law. Arbitrarily re-assigning domains is simply bad for business. Also if the domain is older than the trademark it would not be disabled from claims about that trademark.
And those who do have the knowledge to regulate are almost always those corporation to be regulated. I many cases strict liability to even double liability would be better than this maze of paper largely written by those with ties to the regulated industry that currently stand.
Public water supplies are test every 3 months for contaminants.
And the reason nuclear is so cheap is the massive infrastructure that was created to build nuclear bombs.
Remember that magical point in time somewhere around the Geforce 2 era when it was more important to upgrade the video card, and the processor didn't really matter? Gee, I wonder why today's video cards are far more advanced than today's processors?
They aren't, they just do the same things over an over again and really easy to design the hardware in parallel. You still need a CPU to setup and throw data and instructions at it at it because comparatively speaking the GPU is inflexible and dumb.
But.. "At its core, the sandbox relies on the protection provided by four Windows mechanisms: A restricted token The Windows job object The Windows desktop object Windows Vista only: The integrity levels" Because the exploit hasn't been release it's unclear weather the bug was in those systems, or the broker code of Chromium, or possibly even a one or more in both.
Mepis perhaps?
And coreboot makes that first stage a lot easier by letting you write in C, rather than assembly. It only has to be in real mode a couple of more instruction before in can jump into your compiled C code.It also provides fallback to a standard shell (busybox) can use any of the Linux driver code, and is extensible. Considering the EFI on intel's newer boards, Coreboot may be the only option for AMD if they want a competing extensibility and standardization between boards and shipsets.
It's not a BIOS, it's a BIOS replacement. And yes and no. To actually use coreboot you need it to recognize the CPU, the soutbridge, the northbridge, and the Super I/0. It basically just just initializes hardware and hands it off to a paylod, be it the linux kenrel, a BIOS or EFI implementation, or bootloaders like FILO or Grub. Basically this step makes it easier for implementation of Coreboot, as you know all the CPU specific features should be set-up without any tweaking.
Better yet, just hack something up to feed it arbitrary location information. Make it look like your car has taken off into low earth orbit or something more plausible if you want the ruse to go on longer.
Butyric acid is not particularly harmful, it's only particularly odoriferous.
Abuse can mean "improper or excessive use" {Meriiam-Webster Online}. Abuse does not necessarily require any maliciousness. While the article does not mention the specific word, it does talk about the improper application of marginal diagnoses and treatments based on them that cause more damage than they prevent. You fail in comprehension or good faith. When you read another's words you should always try to find some denotation that makes sense before you accuse another of an error. It saves pointless debate and improves the impression you make on others.
also, the article isn't just crappy, it's wrong.
Source? Facts? Arguments? I'm not going to accept the mere claim.
you fail at being human.
So there are never times when it is appropriate to put feelings aside let the data speak whatever the data have to say? There is not room in science for whim. Wishing something to be such and such does not make it so. A thing is such and such, and that is what it is. Statistical anylsis has very precise rules, and fairly clear ways to determine the limits and likelihood of a relation. The studies make a claim about the low end of diagnostic severity, and nothing more. No matter how urgently and heartfelt any empathy is towards x^yy^x and others of a similar datam, it does not make his data suddenly relevant. The data is beyond the limits and boundaries used to reach the conclusion the articles talk about. The is no place in the Mathematical for empathy and mathematics is all the more useful for it. If we couldn't throw empathy out the window and use other methods, there would be no way to guide out development of proceedures that while not preventing x^yy^x suffering completely, certainly saved him from death.
It is sapience that marks man as unique, the process of ratiocination, rather than sentience, the process of feeling and suffering which all animals do to differing degrees.While emotion has it's place, it must be subordinate to reason in order for a man or men in general to flourish.
No, it's fine to recommend lifestyle changes where sugar is above normal, because they are homeopathic have no known side effect. However offering allopathic treatments where people are to lazy for lifestyle changes before the point where there is clear and proven benefit in doing so is irresponsible.
Empathy is irrelevant here. The article is about new techniques being abused to get people to pursue treatment where it is not needed or where it may even be harmful, not that new techniques should not be used, or that new techniques are perfect. Pointing out that someone is offtopic or missing the point is not and excercise of cruelty. No matter when in this post this person with the chinese mystery illness was he would have been considered sick. This is not the case with the original topic And original topic which was not misdiagnoses, but a specific type of misdiagnoses. Diagnosing something as a problem when it is not actually a problem.
Cut of the PC crap where you can't do anything that might offend anyone who is less privileged or worse off than you are. You are doing sick people everywhere a disservice by acting as if they are so fragile that they can't handle some public criticism . While doctors individually are generally well-meaning that doesn't mean there aren't systematic factor about the health care industry that lead lead to something other than wellness. A treatment may or may not be given, and the patient may or may not require it. For instance a doctor afraid of malpractice may diagnose where there is actually not a problem, because it's much harder for spot an error where treatment was given but not necessary than to spot the error where treatment was necessary but not given. Also if people go to the doctor and don't get anything other than a clean bill of health they feel a bit jipped. You go to a doctor when you are wanting treatment, and doctors though well-meaning by humouring this may doing more damage with the treatment than a minor abnormality could.
Yes, the whoosh post was flippant and a bit of a better-than-though game. However moralising is almost always the same sort of one-one-upmanship. "Look at how caring I am, you uncaring fool." You're message would be better received if you just let the facts frame the main point instead of the judgement.
It depends, Usually stuff like physics is in the engine, stuff like HP and damage are usually written in interpreted languages (because you can develop, tweak and balance them a lot faster.) The rules hard coded into the engine would have to be replaced with very generic ones or a section describing the abstraction layer used by the rest of the code to implement rules or you just release the rules as well. any engine worth mentioning is going to have a lot of layers of abstraction anyway so it can be used for a lot of different games. A free game for a console is harder, either you target some hardware designed to be open or beg the console manufacturer for a signing code and to waive the licensing fees.
Unfortuntately you can't throw a coporate person is jail.
By this logic, any written contract reflects distrust of the other party, or a law against murder reflects a general distrust of everyone not to kill anyone else. In reality this law is applied to everyone, not because you don't trust most people not to kill, but because you need a formal system to deal with those who go beyond the bound of trust. A failure to communicate and set up clear, understandable and specific conditions which you expect in return for your efforts is at best a guarantee that people will diverge from your expectations, and at worst an invitation for exploitation of every sort.
There is even a GNU all-permissive licence as well for such cases.
The GPL isn't communism. It doesn't say that everyone must share. It just says if certain acts are illegal if done without permission according the the laws that apply to you, then you may perform such acts in accordance to some previously stated conditions. The FSF claims no authority to stop or limit copying except to the extent already barred by existing copyright law, whatever that law is where you live. The current versions of the GPL (2.0 and later) do not require anyone to to share their code if you do not want to. If you are not in compliance it only requires you to stop distribution until you are compliant or work out a version that does not require it.
The FSF certainly encourages sharing and loudly proclaims it's virtue. They have never claimed that those who don't ought to be thrown in a gulag or even that they will use force to keep their code out of proprietary projects. Legally all the GPL does is to provide the same legal protection to people who want a community project to stay a community project as there is to keeping proprietary code proprietary.
Both create communal goods, the main difference is the price of access. There is almost no price for the BSD goods, where the price of GPL goods is to keep derivative goods communal. In this aspect of being exclusive it is less communal than the BSD.
Now going into fairly minor points Marx saw the end result of the dictatorship of the proletariat (socialism) to be a moral transformation in the nature of man, creating what would be a reformed man who would live in an anarchic state where labor would be joy, and none of the artificial scarcity caused by property leaving enough resourced to fulfil all needs.
Now I agree that BSD is anarchism, or as close as you can get to it and still be legally recognised. The GPL may be like certain approaches of communism, but it certainly isn't the Marxist or revolutionary approach. Their approach is to create their communities as best as they can within the current legal framework, and hope their examples inspire others to adopt their methods through persuasion of a moral (the saint ignacious bit of stallman and the like) or material (the quality and agility of the actual software) flavour.
You can separate the source for the engine from the specific artwork of the game and have them under different licences. In fact it's fairly popular for companies to release their engines near the end of it's life-cycle to help attract developers and improve their image among the same community. Every once in a while you get a decent free game or two from this as well as several indie type games.
It does at least in the short term, the BSD license is basically the closest you can get to releasing into the public domain. The price of a license is simply providing a copy of the original copyright notice somewhere in the copy or derived work.
In the long term and in the collective it doesn't because there are people who don't care about your freedom that may abuse it. Just as in the tragedy of the commons. Without some sort of formal or informal process to preserve the common from abuse, there is a chance for that resource to be ruined (Think of embrace, extend and extinguish)
The GPL isn't as bad as some people make it out to be. It doesn't require you to accept it, and doesn't pretend that you can accept it merely by running the software. They don't claim it's a contract either like some companies with thier EULA's. In a nation without copyright laws the GPL would be of no affect whereas some EULA's might be. It only claims to apply as a copyright licences agreement when you do something which would be illegal where you live unless you had such a licence.