Did you miss the section of the website titled "Publications"? And are you familiar with the concept "publish or perish"? I suspect they're having fun whilst trying not to perish.
As for the "no academic research", that's certainly true - I don't think I've seen any less scientific crap since some students spray-painted some grey squirrels red in order to balance the size of the two populations.
Ha - do you really classify "I hate to say I told you so" as an insult? You must have a pathetically thin skin if that's the case.
> you could instead be helpful by pointing to GPLed alternatives.
What makes you think that I don't do that? Stop attempting to make a straw man from your false assumptions.
> Of course if you didn't tell them so, "I told you so" itself is a lie.
Nice insinuation that I'm a liar. However, I do tell them, so your assuptions are again false.
And to be honest, in my experience, the more insulting the *repeated* feedback, the more likely it is to be effective. Soft fluffy "I mentioned {thing} before, have you tried it yet?" never works. "Again? You fucking idiot." often does.
Exactly. I find myself someties sticking out as being one of the most pro-GPLv3 people I know (I hang around with a lot of open source software contributors), and it's when situations like this occur that I can point to the flag I'm standing under, and say "This is why I am here - I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so".
(a) Not really. Construct from parts, perhaps. The direct object of the verb combine should be the parts from which the whole is being constructed. Combine {parts} into {whole}. (b) Irrelevant anyway - that's not the construct we have here, namely *combine {part1} from {part2}.
But after a couple of readings it was clear what was meant, there's no need to attemt to justify the error, mistakes happen.
Not at all. because what you've suggested cannot be justified under the doctrine of Fair Use. Coherently presented information can be covered as being educational. Likewise, in the set-up you're alluding to, the individual sharers typically have, and share, the entirely of the work that's beign mirrored - again that's not not covered by the Fair Use doctrine.
Of course, there's no reason why the infrastructure needn't overlap greatly, but my whole point was to get the information shared under the Fair Use doctrine. You even quoted that bit, why did you overlook it?
Not wanting to contradict your post, which I agree with, but you've not plumbed the depths of American corporatism deeply enough to satisfy the following: > I can think of no other industry where it's in fact *illegal* for a manufacturer to sell their own product directly to consumers.
The beer industry is such an industry. And it's even worse than the car industry by the sound of it. In the beer industry it seems there's an obligtory 3 tier system: producers, distributors, retailers. The film's not perfect by a long shot (and one of the "craft brewers" should be taken out back and shot for being an insult to the phrase), but/Beer Wars/ covers at least some of the wrong-think (and downright corruption) in the beer industry in the US. As a European who buys farmhouse beer brought freshly and directly from the farmer to my local pub, the US setup was quite an eye-opener.
Which in no way diminishes your comments about the car industry
Those with a working brain will have noticed thatI do not throw around meaningless tropes, attempting to personify inanimate non-objects. Those wishing to say that it's hard to stop information propagating once it's reached the masses have much more meaningful alternative ways of expressing that idea.
As a non-yank, I happily gave my money to somebody like the EFF for my "USPTO - granting monopoly rights to common sense since 1860" (modulo my poor memory) T-shirt.
So, agreed, we can posture and feel superiour about a few things (very few things, alas), but we should definitely not feel complacent that just because the root of the problem is "over there" it doesn't affect us.
Nah, nah, nah - "May your laptop drop dead" + "and please buy another one from us when it does" - totally different from "drop dead", you're *so* cynical.
(But regarding your body text, I'm sure there will be some clueless parroting of "information wants to be free" too.)
I'm curious - could individuals host single pages, under the Fair Use doctrine? If you have enough individuals doing that, ones who don't forbid an aggregator from reframing their content (whilst hosting none itsef),...
(And this could be the true use for "Anonymous", not their braindead LOIC DDoS attempts.)
Oh noes! By the time they're nearly extinct, 6 decades down the line, they'll have to migrate 300m! That means that their neighbours will of course be in the perfect position for growing arabica. Even if FTA meant 'miles', heaven forfend, at most this means production would move to a neighbouring country.
Not just mobile whre efficiency can be important. Server racks, where the cost of the cooling systems can often be more than the cost of the processors (look at the Spec system definitions for the big clusters that run the TPS benchmarks, for example), can equally benefit from reduced power consumption. The middle-ground is the only situation where you just plug it in and don't care about such things.
Compare angry birds with doom. I'd be amazed if a 486/33 couldn't do a pretty good Angry birds. You only need a 256-colour palate, so a 1MB graphics card would be enough. There's sufficient bus bandwidth for 800x600@60fps double-buffered full-screen redraws, without even needing anything more than an 8-bit bus, and of course there were 16-bit busses, and even VLB back in those days. And of course bus requirements can be reduced if you only redraw dirty rectangles. Computationally, AB's engine is pants, the CPU would barely need to break into a sweat.
Maybe retro-guru Jim Leonard could be persuaded to apply his hand to this problem. Though a 486 is too modern for him, he'd try to do it on an 8086 with CGA graphics.
Exactly! The biggest problem I see with 3D is that, whilst it lets you increase density at the chip level, it makes heat dissipation a bigger problem. Let everyone who has nothing more than passive cooling (a heat sink) in their desktop machine be the first to say "but heat dissipation isn't important".
I remember PCs that didn't even need passive cooling on the CPU, and where they wouldn't get much more than warm to the touch. (Then again, I also remember the size of the heat sink on my DEC Alpha 21164 - from the first family of processors to get above "light bulb" levels of power dissipation (i.e. 60W).)
Address space randomisation doesn't make code more secure. It makes exploits less likely to work their intended way, and more likely to either have no effect or crash.
In order to make your code more secure, you need to *prevent the buffer overruns in the first place*.
Slashdot Mirror
Only if the sample is randomly selected.
People who enter the sample by posting are self-selecting.
Indeed, when you have an infinite error bar, you know you're doing things wrong. Or, perhaps, you don't even know that. It's hard to tell sometimes.
Did you miss the section of the website titled "Publications"? And are you familiar with the concept "publish or perish"? I suspect they're having fun whilst trying not to perish.
As for the "no academic research", that's certainly true - I don't think I've seen any less scientific crap since some students spray-painted some grey squirrels red in order to balance the size of the two populations.
> Instead of adding insult to injury,
Ha - do you really classify "I hate to say I told you so" as an insult? You must have a pathetically thin skin if that's the case.
> you could instead be helpful by pointing to GPLed alternatives.
What makes you think that I don't do that? Stop attempting to make a straw man from your false assumptions.
> Of course if you didn't tell them so, "I told you so" itself is a lie.
Nice insinuation that I'm a liar. However, I do tell them, so your assuptions are again false.
And to be honest, in my experience, the more insulting the *repeated* feedback, the more likely it is to be effective. Soft fluffy "I mentioned {thing} before, have you tried it yet?" never works. "Again? You fucking idiot." often does.
Not if I hate leaving people in a state of ignorance or indecision even more.
> tivoized systems are a bad thing
Exactly. I find myself someties sticking out as being one of the most pro-GPLv3 people I know (I hang around with a lot of open source software contributors), and it's when situations like this occur that I can point to the flag I'm standing under, and say "This is why I am here - I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so".
(a) Not really. Construct from parts, perhaps. The direct object of the verb combine should be the parts from which the whole is being constructed. Combine {parts} into {whole}.
(b) Irrelevant anyway - that's not the construct we have here, namely *combine {part1} from {part2}.
But after a couple of readings it was clear what was meant, there's no need to attemt to justify the error, mistakes happen.
Changing definitions so that you can throw away data that contradicts the conclusions you wish to draw? Exemplary *bad science*.
Not at all. because what you've suggested cannot be justified under the doctrine of Fair Use. Coherently presented information can be covered as being educational. Likewise, in the set-up you're alluding to, the individual sharers typically have, and share, the entirely of the work that's beign mirrored - again that's not not covered by the Fair Use doctrine.
Of course, there's no reason why the infrastructure needn't overlap greatly, but my whole point was to get the information shared under the Fair Use doctrine. You even quoted that bit, why did you overlook it?
You want bird deaths at the hand of man? That's easy - McDonalds.
What about lightning strikes? Won't somebody *pleeeeease* think of the golfers!
Not wanting to contradict your post, which I agree with, but you've not plumbed the depths of American corporatism deeply enough to satisfy the following:
/Beer Wars/ covers at least some of the wrong-think (and downright corruption) in the beer industry in the US. As a European who buys farmhouse beer brought freshly and directly from the farmer to my local pub, the US setup was quite an eye-opener.
> I can think of no other industry where it's in fact *illegal* for a manufacturer to sell their own product directly to consumers.
The beer industry is such an industry. And it's even worse than the car industry by the sound of it. In the beer industry it seems there's an obligtory 3 tier system: producers, distributors, retailers. The film's not perfect by a long shot (and one of the "craft brewers" should be taken out back and shot for being an insult to the phrase), but
Which in no way diminishes your comments about the car industry
If they invested their money in the right lobbyists, then I'm sure their argument will do just fine...
No species which large numbers of humans, in globally influential countries, make profit from is in trouble.
At a job about 4 years back, I was forced to use MS Windows. During that time, my penis reached over 17m in length!
Most countries aren't sensible.
The one responding to the latter, clearly.
Those with a working brain will have noticed thatI do not throw around meaningless tropes, attempting to personify inanimate non-objects. Those wishing to say that it's hard to stop information propagating once it's reached the masses have much more meaningful alternative ways of expressing that idea.
As a non-yank, I happily gave my money to somebody like the EFF for my "USPTO - granting monopoly rights to common sense since 1860" (modulo my poor memory) T-shirt.
So, agreed, we can posture and feel superiour about a few things (very few things, alas), but we should definitely not feel complacent that just because the root of the problem is "over there" it doesn't affect us.
Nah, nah, nah - "May your laptop drop dead" + "and please buy another one from us when it does" - totally different from "drop dead", you're *so* cynical.
...
(But regarding your body text, I'm sure there will be some clueless parroting of "information wants to be free" too.)
I'm curious - could individuals host single pages, under the Fair Use doctrine? If you have enough individuals doing that, ones who don't forbid an aggregator from reframing their content (whilst hosting none itsef),
(And this could be the true use for "Anonymous", not their braindead LOIC DDoS attempts.)
Oh noes! By the time they're nearly extinct, 6 decades down the line, they'll have to migrate 300m! That means that their neighbours will of course be in the perfect position for growing arabica. Even if FTA meant 'miles', heaven forfend, at most this means production would move to a neighbouring country.
This is a total non-story.
They also neglected to report what percentage of MS Windows users have the required levels of stupidity.
Not just mobile whre efficiency can be important. Server racks, where the cost of the cooling systems can often be more than the cost of the processors (look at the Spec system definitions for the big clusters that run the TPS benchmarks, for example), can equally benefit from reduced power consumption. The middle-ground is the only situation where you just plug it in and don't care about such things.
Compare angry birds with doom. I'd be amazed if a 486/33 couldn't do a pretty good Angry birds. You only need a 256-colour palate, so a 1MB graphics card would be enough. There's sufficient bus bandwidth for 800x600@60fps double-buffered full-screen redraws, without even needing anything more than an 8-bit bus, and of course there were 16-bit busses, and even VLB back in those days. And of course bus requirements can be reduced if you only redraw dirty rectangles. Computationally, AB's engine is pants, the CPU would barely need to break into a sweat.
Maybe retro-guru Jim Leonard could be persuaded to apply his hand to this problem. Though a 486 is too modern for him, he'd try to do it on an 8086 with CGA graphics.
Exactly! The biggest problem I see with 3D is that, whilst it lets you increase density at the chip level, it makes heat dissipation a bigger problem. Let everyone who has nothing more than passive cooling (a heat sink) in their desktop machine be the first to say "but heat dissipation isn't important".
I remember PCs that didn't even need passive cooling on the CPU, and where they wouldn't get much more than warm to the touch. (Then again, I also remember the size of the heat sink on my DEC Alpha 21164 - from the first family of processors to get above "light bulb" levels of power dissipation (i.e. 60W).)
Address space randomisation doesn't make code more secure. It makes exploits less likely to work their intended way, and more likely to either have no effect or crash.
In order to make your code more secure, you need to *prevent the buffer overruns in the first place*.