Canada managed to "separate" from England in a peaceful manner. No war/revolution needed.
Now Quebec wants to accomplish what the Southern States tried (but failed) to accomplish with the Civil War but, again, without the war. Others may disagree.
Giving Harper a majority is like letting George Bush stay on for another term.
Do we really want that?
No. I was simply trying to explain why the Conservatives are not, so far, as corrupted as the Liberals were when they were kicked out.
The population and the other parties are demanding that he do something substantial
on issues like the environment. But to no avail. He's too busy looking over Hollywood
drafted bills. Giving him a majority would a nightmare. Protest voting should
go only so far.
What do you suggest? An elected Senate? Having confidence votes? Isn't Harper's government suggesting those? Maybe we should wait for him to implement it before kicking him out:-)
Yes, but they had a lot more experience at being an embarassement.
Just give Harper some time and a majority government and then we can compare.
Also, I'm a Québecois and I don't really appreciate being called a frog. The funny thing is that the English media here never misses a chance to make French Québecois appear to be racists. At least people like you put things in perspective.
40% sounds pretty awful for a 60W lightbulb you can easily run wires for. But for a car? Compared to not having to carry the weight of the battery, efficiency loss of recharging the battery, and as you mentionned, not having to refuel, a 40% efficiency sounds great.
Hope they put a wireless power grid in my city soon.
Sure they can. They must provide the source code if they distribute it under the GPL. For other open source licenses they don't even have to provide the source code - but in this case the openeness is lost.
Alcohol? The 1920s? Failure? We have proven that prohibition does not work. The government should not be in the business of enforcing morals on people.
I agree - to some extent. I guess it would depend on what's the definition of morality and where you believe that the government should intervene. I certainly like the laws that stop people from killing each others. I also like that people can't just take whatever they like without giving something back. Are these laws based on morals? Are they based on respect, common sense, mutually beneficial agreements?
When AL was trying to add a Lottery there was a sign I saw that read, "What would Jesus do?" One of my friends had a great response, "Hang there and watch?"
I like that one.
And these are all STATE laws
That would make the US argument a bit thin. What about the law that makes online gambling illegal? That would have to be a federal law right? I'm not really familiar with US laws but wouldn't that law be trespassing on state laws? Would it hold up in court if it's not federal jurisdiction? You mentioned later that there are federal laws on gambling - if you have both federal and state laws in the same jurisdiction, how do you know which to follow?
I really do believe this was protectionist measures.
I'm from Canada. With the way the US chose to ignore the NAFTA w.r.t. the lumber tariffs, I'm betting you're right. I was just trying to say that there might be some lesser evil involved.
Not that I want to side with the US on this but I can understand why they might want to make online gambling illegal. First, it is considered a vice by many and as such, even if legal, they usually want to put controls on it.
Liquor is legal but there are certains laws put in place to restrict it. Sex is legal but laws restrict it again. Gambling is legal but there are laws to restrict it too.
If online gambling was legal it would be possible to add controls but I believe it would be very difficult to enforce.
I'm not saying they're right but I can understand that they might have a reasonable oppposition. Actually I didn't RTFA so I don't know what their position is.
Yes, but some people are a little slow... others are just overworked... and then there are the stupid ones...
The company I work for disabled telnet from the LAN a few months ago (I don't know how long it's been disabled from the Internet). I thought they were a bunch of morons for not doing this sooner.
I can't think of a single excuse not to fire a network admin that hasn't disabled telnet.
A much bigger problem is that the waves are generated by the pull from the moon (or so I was told). If we reduce the amount or amplitude of ocean waves, this could have an effect on the moon.
Think about it... just like current can create a magnetic field and a magnetic field can create a current, the gravitational pull from the moon is creating waves.
If we stop these waves, the moon's orbit could change.
We will all die because we wanted to create clean energy.
Sometimes a genetic advantage comes with its disadvantages as well.
For example, a resistance to malaria comes with a higher probability of having children with sickle cell anemia (http://sickle.bwh.harvard.edu/malaria_sickle.html).
This makes it likely that some genes will become more prevalent in one environment (ex.: where malaria is widespread) and less in other environments.
So even if ESP is possible and some people have that ability, this ability could come with its own set of problems making it less likely to be passed on from one generation to the other.
I could be wrong (I don't feel like looking it up) but I thought that God is disproved by the Babel Fish. It says something to the effect that because the Babel Fish couldn't exist unless God exists then it proves that God exists. However, because God requires faith, being able to prove that God exists denies faith. Hence, God cannot exist (and disapears in a puff of "logic").
Note that I might have missed a second/third level in that.
I agree. Microsoft is not, so far as I call tell, a litigious company.
That being said, they don't need to litigate. They just need to make a broad claim that they believe that Mono is infringing on some of their patents.
Using that claim, Novell would then say that they don't believe that they can release Mono under the GPL anymore (the GPL doesn't allow distributing software if you can't provide the same patent protection that you benfit from). They would then release Mono under some other license that is compatible with their arrangement with Microsoft.
Is this likely? I don't know. But when you follow the money in the SCO vs. IBM/Novell/Daimler/Red Hat/AutoZone case, you find that Microsoft is involved in some strange deals.
If Microsoft can generate some fear that other distributions might be dangerous then they can have other distros enter into similar arrangements and collect from distribution of Linux. Corporations would be more likely to use one of the "safe" distros as well.
You say it's unlikely. I say it's better to be proactive.
What I suggest is that if we fork Mono now, then the copyrights of the new contributions would not belong to Novell. This would make the above scenario a lot harder because Novell would no longer be able to redistribute under another license. If Microsoft decided to assert its patent then Novell would not benefit as much so it would level the playing field.
1. Novell owns the copyrights to Mono - it's a requirement for contribution because Novell wants to be able to license Mono under whatever license it likes. 2. Microsoft claims that Mono infringes some patent they own. 3. Novell - using this as an excuse - decides not to license Mono under the GPL anymore. Due to their agreement with Microsoft they claim that this is not allowed under the GPL 4. Mono is forked but this fork is considered dangerous due to potential patent claims. 5. Novell is happy because other Linux distributions can't distribute Mono safely, Microsoft is happy because they collect licenses with every Novell distribution. 6. Linus blames R.M. Stallman because the GPL didn't cover this situation.
I'm not paranoid, just a realist. If I could come up with this scenario 10 mins. after reading about this deal, I can't believe that some lawyer working for Microsoft couldn't come up with it.
Our best bet is to fork Mono and to boycott Novell NOW!
Actually, in Planet of the Apes, it would be more appropriate to associate the Apes to slave owners and the human populace to slaves. So the correct analogy would be Whites=Apes and Blacks=Human on the Apes' planet.
Then you might have to license the product under only one of the licenses. You are not bound by both licenses, only the license under which you choose to use the product.
Still, I'm not sure I see the point of this except maybe as a pet project.
I'm not an expert in this sort of thing, no pun intended, but if I needed to accelerate sorting, I would prefer to use a platform that I can rely on instead of some specific hardware. For example, I would use a merge sort and distribute portions of the dataset to other CPUs [using a heap sort instead of a quick sort to ensure that I always have O(n ln n)].
This way, I have a scalable solution which is easy to implement, is hardware independent, and it's probably cheaper too.
But the benchmark is not against any set. It's against 16 and 32 bit floats.
We don't know the memory requirements for the GPUSort (this should be provided when comparing sort algorithms). We don't know if there is a limit to the amount of keys it can sort (what if the data doesn't fit in the GPU memory). Does the algorithm keep the original order when the key is the same?
In the case we are interested in, with enough memory radix sort is O(n) in speed so it would beat qsort and GPUSort for a large enough set of data. If we had been talking about larger keys, we don't know how GPUSort would fair either.
To be fair though, shouldn't the benchmark be made against an optimized 32-bit float sorter.
The way I see it is that they wrote a sorting algorithm for 16 and 32-bit floats on a GPU and they are comparing this with a generic sorting algorithm. How would the test fair against a radix sort for example? How much memory are they using? How does it compare with qsort when sorting 20 byte keys?
Step 1, get a copy of s/w released under GPLv2 or later
Step 2, add new functionalities and bug fixes
Step 3, release under GPL v3
So contributor released under v3 because he believed that it was a safer version and better suited to protect his code and you choose the v3 license because it contains the additional functionality, bug fixes.
No kidding. If you saw the documentary "L'erreur boréal" by Richard Desjardins, you know that the problem is much worst than just selling at a loss. If you didn't see the documentary, I recommend that you do.
However, this problem existed long before NAFTA, at least here in Québec.
I just think that it's better than no trade agreement at all. As I said before, it's impossible to say if things would have been better without the FTA.
...so what did we gain again??
Less money being spent on bureaucrats collecting taxes and less bariers to trade.
Yea we did vote on it, what happened to the convservatives?
majority government to what 2 seats?
And the Liberals promised that they would cancel the FTA and the GST when they got in power. What's your point?
Let me guess, you are a wannabe american, your parents are american, or you make money from americans. 100 bucks that it is one of those three, because it always is with you people.
Wrong. Wrong. I work for an American company but NAFTA has nothing to do with that.
oh wait i know the arguement let me:
"We need them we export 80% of our goods to them."
I don't think this way.
I just think that it's a lot more efficient to reduce barriers to trade than to pay bureaucrats to collect taxes on this and that just to save some jobs in an industry where the Americans can produce for cheaper (and vice-versa).
Ok so why not expand trade with other people?
We should.
why not trade with the europeans, the chinese, the indians or heck find a couple of emerging markets and use them to trade with.
As long as the markets in question have a policy of human rights which is compatible with ours, I think that we should.
What are you proposing we should do?
Stop trading?
Unfortunatly, Canada doesn't produce everything that it consumes so we need to buy products from other countries. How do you propose we pay for that?
Maybe you prefer tariffs? This way the least worst lizard can choose which products we need to produce and which we should buy until the next lizard makes new choices.
Slashdot Mirror
Now Quebec wants to accomplish what the Southern States tried (but failed) to accomplish with the Civil War but, again, without the war. Others may disagree.
No. I was simply trying to explain why the Conservatives are not, so far, as corrupted as the Liberals were when they were kicked out.
The population and the other parties are demanding that he do something substantial on issues like the environment. But to no avail. He's too busy looking over Hollywood drafted bills. Giving him a majority would a nightmare. Protest voting should go only so far.
What do you suggest? An elected Senate? Having confidence votes? Isn't Harper's government suggesting those? Maybe we should wait for him to implement it before kicking him out :-)
So what would that law say: "no regional parties allowed", "no party with a single agenda allowed", or maybe a combination?
Some Québecois want to separate. If they can't do it in a peaceful way, what other ways are there?
Yes, but they had a lot more experience at being an embarassement.
Just give Harper some time and a majority government and then we can compare.
Also, I'm a Québecois and I don't really appreciate being called a frog. The funny thing is that the English media here never misses a chance to make French Québecois appear to be racists. At least people like you put things in perspective.
Christianity and science don't conflict in the same way that Harry Potter and science don't conflict.
40% sounds pretty awful for a 60W lightbulb you can easily run wires for. But for a car? Compared to not having to carry the weight of the battery, efficiency loss of recharging the battery, and as you mentionned, not having to refuel, a 40% efficiency sounds great.
Hope they put a wireless power grid in my city soon.
Not that I want to side with the US on this but I can understand why they might want to make online gambling illegal. First, it is considered a vice by many and as such, even if legal, they usually want to put controls on it.
Liquor is legal but there are certains laws put in place to restrict it. Sex is legal but laws restrict it again. Gambling is legal but there are laws to restrict it too.
If online gambling was legal it would be possible to add controls but I believe it would be very difficult to enforce.
I'm not saying they're right but I can understand that they might have a reasonable oppposition. Actually I didn't RTFA so I don't know what their position is.
I can't think of a single excuse not to fire a network admin that hasn't disabled telnet.
A much bigger problem is that the waves are generated by the pull from the moon (or so I was told). If we reduce the amount or amplitude of ocean waves, this could have an effect on the moon.
Think about it... just like current can create a magnetic field and a magnetic field can create a current, the gravitational pull from the moon is creating waves.
If we stop these waves, the moon's orbit could change.
We will all die because we wanted to create clean energy.
Let's stop this madness before it's too late.
This makes it likely that some genes will become more prevalent in one environment (ex.: where malaria is widespread) and less in other environments.
So even if ESP is possible and some people have that ability, this ability could come with its own set of problems making it less likely to be passed on from one generation to the other.
I could be wrong (I don't feel like looking it up) but I thought that God is disproved by the Babel Fish. It says something to the effect that because the Babel Fish couldn't exist unless God exists then it proves that God exists. However, because God requires faith, being able to prove that God exists denies faith. Hence, God cannot exist (and disapears in a puff of "logic").
Note that I might have missed a second/third level in that.
I agree. Microsoft is not, so far as I call tell, a litigious company.
That being said, they don't need to litigate. They just need to make a broad claim that they believe that Mono is infringing on some of their patents.
Using that claim, Novell would then say that they don't believe that they can release Mono under the GPL anymore (the GPL doesn't allow distributing software if you can't provide the same patent protection that you benfit from). They would then release Mono under some other license that is compatible with their arrangement with Microsoft.
Is this likely? I don't know. But when you follow the money in the SCO vs. IBM/Novell/Daimler/Red Hat/AutoZone case, you find that Microsoft is involved in some strange deals.
If Microsoft can generate some fear that other distributions might be dangerous then they can have other distros enter into similar arrangements and collect from distribution of Linux. Corporations would be more likely to use one of the "safe" distros as well.
You say it's unlikely. I say it's better to be proactive.
What I suggest is that if we fork Mono now, then the copyrights of the new contributions would not belong to Novell. This would make the above scenario a lot harder because Novell would no longer be able to redistribute under another license. If Microsoft decided to assert its patent then Novell would not benefit as much so it would level the playing field.
Here's a potential scenario:
1. Novell owns the copyrights to Mono - it's a requirement for contribution because Novell wants to be able to license Mono under whatever license it likes.
2. Microsoft claims that Mono infringes some patent they own.
3. Novell - using this as an excuse - decides not to license Mono under the GPL anymore. Due to their agreement with Microsoft they claim that this is not allowed under the GPL
4. Mono is forked but this fork is considered dangerous due to potential patent claims.
5. Novell is happy because other Linux distributions can't distribute Mono safely, Microsoft is happy because they collect licenses with every Novell distribution.
6. Linus blames R.M. Stallman because the GPL didn't cover this situation.
I'm not paranoid, just a realist. If I could come up with this scenario 10 mins. after reading about this deal, I can't believe that some lawyer working for Microsoft couldn't come up with it.
Our best bet is to fork Mono and to boycott Novell NOW!
Actually, in Planet of the Apes, it would be more appropriate to associate the Apes to slave owners and the human populace to slaves. So the correct analogy would be Whites=Apes and Blacks=Human on the Apes' planet.
please mod parent up so that some crazy elephants might get a clue.
Then you might have to license the product under only one of the licenses. You are not bound by both licenses, only the license under which you choose to use the product.
I'm not an expert in this sort of thing, no pun intended, but if I needed to accelerate sorting, I would prefer to use a platform that I can rely on instead of some specific hardware. For example, I would use a merge sort and distribute portions of the dataset to other CPUs [using a heap sort instead of a quick sort to ensure that I always have O(n ln n)].
This way, I have a scalable solution which is easy to implement, is hardware independent, and it's probably cheaper too.
We don't know the memory requirements for the GPUSort (this should be provided when comparing sort algorithms). We don't know if there is a limit to the amount of keys it can sort (what if the data doesn't fit in the GPU memory). Does the algorithm keep the original order when the key is the same?
In the case we are interested in, with enough memory radix sort is O(n) in speed so it would beat qsort and GPUSort for a large enough set of data. If we had been talking about larger keys, we don't know how GPUSort would fair either.
The way I see it is that they wrote a sorting algorithm for 16 and 32-bit floats on a GPU and they are comparing this with a generic sorting algorithm. How would the test fair against a radix sort for example? How much memory are they using? How does it compare with qsort when sorting 20 byte keys?
- Step 1, get a copy of s/w released under GPLv2 or later
- Step 2, add new functionalities and bug fixes
- Step 3, release under GPL v3
So contributor released under v3 because he believed that it was a safer version and better suited to protect his code and you choose the v3 license because it contains the additional functionality, bug fixes.However, this problem existed long before NAFTA, at least here in Québec.
I just think that it's better than no trade agreement at all. As I said before, it's impossible to say if things would have been better without the FTA.
Less money being spent on bureaucrats collecting taxes and less bariers to trade.I just think that it's a lot more efficient to reduce barriers to trade than to pay bureaucrats to collect taxes on this and that just to save some jobs in an industry where the Americans can produce for cheaper (and vice-versa).
We should. As long as the markets in question have a policy of human rights which is compatible with ours, I think that we should.What are you proposing we should do?
Stop trading?
Unfortunatly, Canada doesn't produce everything that it consumes so we need to buy products from other countries. How do you propose we pay for that?
Maybe you prefer tariffs? This way the least worst lizard can choose which products we need to produce and which we should buy until the next lizard makes new choices.