For *possible* prior art, see keylaunch Released on June 12, 2002, you can launch an app by pressing an application button twice within a limited time.
Also see slowlaunch Released on May 20, 2002, you can launch an app by holding an application button for a specified length of time.
Neither half of the patent (hey, I read only the abstract, but that's more than you did!) seems to have been novel at the file date, and it's easy to imagine that keylaunch and slowlaunch could have coexisted on the same palm, giving the full functionality described in the patent abstract.
The patent doesn't cover *mouse* clicks. It covers a way to get at least 3 different actions from the "application buttons" on your PDA --- short click, long click, and double-click.
I don't know whether this was being done back in 2002, though I know that Palm enhancements used application button chords back in 2002 or 2003.
I think mod-C and mod-V is the easiest way to cut & paste (one hand on keyboard, one on mouse).
This stinks for people who naturally mouse with the left hand. In fact, it's nearly the worst combination you could come up with!
It also stinks for users of DVORAK keyboards, or any national keyboard that moves X C or V to a different location.
It's possible that these keyboard shortcuts are good choices for a majority of users, but don't think for a moment that there's not a trade-off.
If configurability wasn't another nightmare, I'd argue that these keystrokes should all be configurable, probably with right- and left-handed defaults ("m", ",", "." for lefties, for instance) but... well, that's a nightmare too.
If you want a reasonably wide zoom lens on your 300D *or* 10D, and don't want to pay for Canon lenses (let alone Canon L lenses), get the Sigma "DC" lenses. For about $240 you get a 18-50mm and 55-200mm focal lengths. You can apparently only get these as a set, so buy your 300D without the kit lens. They're not the brightest lenses (f/3.5-5.6 and f/4-5.6) but otherwise I'm satisfied with them. Oh, one little complaint---The zoom ring on the 55-200 doesn't move as smoothly as I'd like, which can make it a pain to fine-tune the focal length.
Of course, take my remarks about the quality of these lenses with a grain of salt. I'm new to SLRs (film or digital) and I've only used these Sigma lenses on my camera so far, which doesn't give me a real point of comparison for their quality.
PNG images are pixmaps compressed using Deflate compression, the same as used in zipfiles and by gzip. This compression has a Lempel-Ziv matching stage and then Huffman codes the results. By changing the LZ compression to allow approximate matches of repeated strings, we can have lossy compression of PNG images, while the output file is completely standard PNG format.
I'm pretty sure I read another paper on this subject a few years ago, but I don't have a reference to it now.
Re:Don't get too excited
on
Paid To Spam
·
· Score: 1
Linux's/proc/uptime reports the total time since reboot, and the total idle time. This machine is a development machine for an engineering package, and is also part of the distcc pool for compiles:
10:45:11 up 44 days, 2:30, 36 users, load average: 0.48, 0.49, 0.37 3810603.88 3635816.47
This is a dual-CPU machine which serves NFS and is the master in compiles:
10:46:01 up 89 days, 1:48, 2 users, load average: 5.81, 4.78, 3.66 7696130.58 7245888.15
That's 4.6% and 5.9% CPU usage in both cases.
CPU time to send 10 megs across 100mbps ethernet using rsh: 0.020s user, 0.040s sys
Saturating a pathetic 1 or 2 mbps of outgoing bandwidth shouldn't take much CPU time, surely well less than 1% of a GHz CPU.
What makes you believe you're bound by software EULAs? I *buy* my software, just like I buy books. I didn't sign an agreement, and it's not my fault if there's a bug in the installer that requires that I click a particular radio button to continue the installation process.
By the way, I'm also not dumb enough to believe that I agree to certain Terms merely by browsing a web site, regardless of what one of the pages on it says.
(wanders off, wondering if this will get modded "funny", "insightful", or "troll")
IMO this benchmark is nonsense, and the way the Python code is written is even worse. I looked at the "trig" and I/O benchmarks. In the i/o benchmark, the output is assembled in the stupidest way possible:
linesToWrite = [myString]
for i in range(ioMax - 1):
linesToWrite.append(myString)
Changing this to 'linesToWrite = [myString] * ioMax' dropped time on my system from 2830ms to 1780ms (I'd like to note that I/O on my system was already much faster than his *best* I/O score, thank you very much Linux)
In the trig test, I used numarray to decrease the runtime from 47660.0ms to *6430.0ms*. The original timing matches his pretty closely, which means that numarray would probably beat his gcc timings handily, too. Any time you're working with a billion numbers in Python, it's a safe bet that you should probably use numarray!
I didn't immediately see how to translate his other mathematical tests into numarray, but I noted that his textual explanation in the article doesn't match the (python) source code!
(My system is a 2.4GHz Pentium IV running RedHat 9)
This on its own isn't enough to get my spambayes installation to recognize spam. But it's well on its way (mostly due to the ".." in the subject, it would appear):
Here's another message with only a subject line, for comparison: $ echo 'Subject: Spambayes is written in Python' | sb_client.py Subject: Spambayes is written in Python X-Spambayes-Classification: ham; 0.02 X-Spambayes-Evidence: '*H*': 0.98; '*S*': 0.02; 'subject:Python': 0.00;
'from:none': 0.04; 'to:none': 0.23;
'content-type:text/plain': 0.25; 'x-mailer:none': 0.27;
'reply-to:none': 0.27; 'message-id:invalid': 0.36;
'sender:none': 0.83
I was at the Exploratorium last month when I visited the Bay Area, and one of their exhibits is a photograph of a San Francisco panorama which was taken on extremely large-format film but was claimed to be equivalent to a multi-gigapixel image. Unfortunately, it was near the end of the day when I saw this exhibit and I don't know the details as well as I should, and I can't find anything about it on the exploratorium website, www.exploratorium.edu
Anyway, he already has his e-mail address in non-munged form in the internet (http://www.trinary.cc/Projects/Projects.htm).
If I had it to do over again, I might have munged or removed the address, but I didn't think about it. I don't munge my e-mail address when I post to various mailing lists and newsgroups, and I generally decline to correspond with people who munge or use TMDA-style services. It's just not part of my mindset to munge or put an onus on the sender (who may, after all, be contacting me to help me for free with something I posted about!).
Anyway, I'm not sure how that morphed into a SPAM rant. I'm mostly asking forgiveness for this mistake, and an explanation of why it wasn't even on my mind...
One last question -- what makes you say that/. is "one of the most scraped [by spammers -J] sites on the web"? Surely there are easier marks for the spammers to select than us! ebay, yahoo, AOL are bound to be better choices, at least in terms of sales per million messages.
>Using the 'm*n' measure, the bits solution wins (24*8 = 48 18*3 = 54)
Should be 24*2 = 48
E-mail I wrote a long time ago about trinary
on
Beyond Binary Computing?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 10:38:34 -0600 From: Jeff Epler To: steve@trinary.cc Subject: Trinary adder efficiency Do you know of any more efficient trinary adder designs? I've found an online abstract of a paper that may have some, but I don't have access to the paper itself:
http://www.computer.org/proceedings/ats/7129/71290 387abs.htm Also, do you know if a "balanced trinary" adder (-1, 0, 1 trit values) is any simpler than your trinary (0, 1, 2) adder?
I also performed a simplistic comparison of the proposed full adder on your website against a binary full adder at
http://www.play-hookey.com/digital/adder.html I compared number of gates and number of gate delays for a 64 bit binary adder and a 40 trit (slightly smaller range than 64 bits) trinary adder designed from each full adder. These aren't open-and-shut cases, since they don't answer questions such as the relative size and speed of trinary gates to binary gates in a particular process, but I think they may raise some interesting questions about circuit design than the proposed "minimize m*n for given m^n" measure.
In your adder, I count 17 gates + 3 muxes at 15 gates each for 47 gates per trit, or 1880 gates for a 40-trit adder. I count 5 gates per bit, or 320 gates for a 64-bit adder in the binary case. Thus, at least in adders for numbers in this range seem to be significantly larger for trinary. (won't this advantage always exist as a constant factor?)
In your adder, I count 7 gate delays for the MUX operation, giving a count of 14 gate delays for the "result" path and 11 gate delays for the "carry" path. In the binary full adder, I count 2 and 3 delays for the paths. This gives 443 gate delays for the trinary adder, and 191 gate delays for the binary adder. (again, won't this advantage exist for numbers of any magnitude with the same constant factor?)
By either of these measures, it's hard to see trinary logic as a "win". I haven't investigated more complex adder designs (carry-lookahead adder and its trinary counterpart, if any) or more complex ALU operations (multiplication/division, floating point) to see if the advantage binary shows here exists in other operations as well.
If the real "win" of trinary is in external pin-count, then another good option would seem to be to use trinary (or even 4-state) logic for I/O, and convert to binary before entering the main logic of the chip. 4-state logic would have easy binary conversion, and if trinary inputs were chosen, encodings such as 6t->9b, 7t->11b, 9t->14b, 12t->19b (# trits -> # bits) could be chosen. (You need 3**n to be just larger than 2**m, where you can also build efficient converters for that width number)
One last thought -- when we convert all our old COBOL programs from binary computers to trinary ones, we'll have to face the horrible encoding "TCD", where each decimal digit will require three trits. Thus, numbers up to one million would require 18 trits, compared to 24 bits. Using the 'm*n' measure, the bits solution wins (24*8 = 48 18*3 = 54)
Thanks for taking the time to read this far -- if you've addressed these points on your website, I hope you'll let me know where (I read much of it, but not the whole thing by any means).. thanks for the interesting website, and I hope you're not drowning in messages after the recent magazine article and publicity on a certain geek website...
Zealots, please note: Free/Open Source Software is still licensed. You need to very carefully understand your rights and obligations under a software license, be it a Microsoft EULA, the BSD license, or the GPL. Failure to do so may open you up to legal problems, regardless. (Go ahead and incorporate some GPL code into a closed product, and see how the FSF reacts.)
What makes you think that I cannot use software I have legally obtained? The example you cite, "incorporate some GPL code into a closed product", is creation of a derivative work, a different matter than simply "using" the software.
Whenever software you've legally obtained presents you with an EULA, don't believe it. Call up their technical support, and tell them that there is a bug in the software: when you choose to use the software you've legally obtained as permitted by US copyright law, and decline the EULA, the "Next" button is disabled. Inform the tech that you've found a workaround (check the "I agree" button, even though you don't agree) and ask that the bug be fixed in the next version or a bugfix release.
It turns out that this definition of a "prime number" is the same as the usual one for integers.
You mean "is equivalent to the usual one for positive integers", leaving the other poster's concern about 0 and 1 out of the picture. But "is equal to 2" is equivalent to the regular definition of primes for even natural numbers, so why isn't it a fallacy to claim that this shows for all integers that only integers equal to 2 are prime?
Anyway, the proof that x|a <=> -x|a seems to be fairly simple. x|a <-> a = kx (k integer). Let k' = -k. (-k'=k). Then a = -k'x -> -a = k'x -> -x|a.
It's too bad that SA is ranking the Bayes score so low. You can, in 2.43, craft a message with a very negative score, even with a fairly spammy body. Take a look at this carefully crafted message
the body was taken from a spam I got (about DVDs) and the headers and footers were crafted by looking at SA 2.43's tests. The result?
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-21.5 required=5.0
your two-point hit from Bayes won't do anything... (and heck, looking at the message there must have been a bunch of tests that failed to trigger because lines that should have been in the header ended up in the body)
I watch several shows on my computer. I never see commercials. A show is somewhere between 40 and 46 minutes, usually.
If a show is 40 minutes, that means there would also have been 40 30-second commercials.
I'd pay 40 cents a week to watch a show that I liked. (That's from 1/2 to 1/10 the cost of the bandwidth to download the show in the first place for me, I pay $.01/MB when I go above my transfer limit. That would mean I already pay $1.00 when I download a typical 40 minute show compressed to a 100 meg avi file)
(I wouldn't be so excited to pay 40 cents if it's per-viewing, though. Of course, I can't see myself using a service that has to "phone home" for each viewing either)
The TV stations could also take advantage of the filesharing networks to distribute these shows at little expense to themselves. One minute after the normal premiere broadcast, make it available online with a fat pipe (or several). Something like bittorrent will take care of the rest.
If the prices are reasonable, I would pay them. What's "reasonable"? I watch 4 programs regularly. I think each one has about 20-25 shows per season. At $2/show ($8/week, $32/month but $0 during reruns), that's still $160-200 of revenue a year they could get from me.
Problem is that this is far lower than a Cable TV station would get in subscription fees. What, $40+/month all 12 months a year ($480/year)?
I'm not implying that an author can revoke the license of GPL software.
I'm talking about this situation: I release software under GPL v2. Microsoft induces Stallman to write an exception into GPL XP that favors Microsoft (for instance, it need not provide source to modified versions of the GPL XP-licensed software). Because I licensed my software under GPL v2, and GPL XP is "any future version", MS can now redistribute my software under terms I never intended to permit.
Many websites contain a clause in their EULA which effectively states "this agreement is completely different when you're not looking at it". It's usually worded so that the license agreement can change at any time, you automatically accept the new terms merely by using the website, and the owner of the website need not notify you of the changes.
I see no reason these terms couldn't be placed in a software EULA, and for all I know they already have been.
In a similar vein, though not exactly, the GPL states that (unless specified otherwise) software acquired under one version of the license is automatically licensed under subsequent versions of the GPL. This clause doesn't take away the rights of the person who entered the license (since it is at the option of the person accepting the GPL) though, so it's different from the above speculation.
(On the other hand, and off-topic, I don't know what prevents Bill Gates from paying RMS a few billion to write a "or be used in a proprietary microsoft product" as an exception in the new GPL XP license...)
Buy real business PCs with support contracts. Work with one vendor, so that all your PCs are theirs. When there's a hardware problem, it's not your problem. They'll be forced to provide some sort of continuty when they can't get replacement parts for an older but still-covered PC, which is not at all the case when you decide to standardize on a particular motherboard/NIC/video combination, and then it gets discontinued 3 months later when you've deployed 50% as many machines as you'd planned.
Even if you're planning to be dishonest and pocket the $400 apiece for 60 PCs, it's closer to a quarter's salary (half-year post tax:-P) than enough to retire on. Remember, your one criminal act had better be unexpected, and lucrative enough to let you retire in a foreign country with no extradition agreements with the US.
As for OS licenses, bite the bullet -- it's sad but true, but Microsoft owns the business market, and it's not going to get any easier for business users to do things like recycle licenses. What are you going to do when USB2 is the standard, but W2K doesn't have drivers? Or when your new Hammer server has to run XP Advanced Server with CIFS2, but there's no CIFS2 client for W2K? They're masters of making it not worth your while to try to make the old versions work. You may want to make a statement against Microsoft, but making it at the expense of your company's productivity is no way to do it!
That's perfectly okay because, like most clickthrough licenses you and I agree to, "The Agreement says something different when you are not reading it".
Of course, it says it in legalese, but the biolerplate that the Company reserves the right to modify or update the provisions of this agreement mean, in essence, that when you're not reading the agreement, they're free to do whatever they wish with your personal information, at least to the extent that the law would let you give them use of your personal information (since you have agreed to agree to the changed license)
And then there are the privacy agreements you must read at http://www.example.com/privacy.asp that claim you agree to them by reading any page on http://www.example.com. So you can't even see the agreement before (they claim) you have agreed to it.
If anybody truly took both the clickthrough license and their own privacy seriously, I don't think it would be possible for them to browse the web.
Slashdot Mirror
For *possible* prior art, see keylaunch
Released on June 12, 2002, you can launch an app by pressing an application button twice within a limited time.
Also see slowlaunch
Released on May 20, 2002, you can launch an app by holding an application button for a specified length of time.
Neither half of the patent (hey, I read only the abstract, but that's more than you did!) seems to have been novel at the file date, and it's easy to imagine that keylaunch and slowlaunch could have coexisted on the same palm, giving the full functionality described in the patent abstract.
The patent doesn't cover *mouse* clicks. It covers a way to get at least 3 different actions from the "application buttons" on your PDA --- short click, long click, and double-click.
I don't know whether this was being done back in 2002, though I know that Palm enhancements used application button chords back in 2002 or 2003.
This stinks for people who naturally mouse with the left hand. In fact, it's nearly the worst combination you could come up with!
It also stinks for users of DVORAK keyboards, or any national keyboard that moves X C or V to a different location.
It's possible that these keyboard shortcuts are good choices for a majority of users, but don't think for a moment that there's not a trade-off.
If configurability wasn't another nightmare, I'd argue that these keystrokes should all be configurable, probably with right- and left-handed defaults ("m", ",", "." for lefties, for instance) but ... well, that's a nightmare too.
Oh, one little complaint---The zoom ring on the 55-200 doesn't move as smoothly as I'd like, which can make it a pain to fine-tune the focal length.
Of course, take my remarks about the quality of these lenses with a grain of salt. I'm new to SLRs (film or digital) and I've only used these Sigma lenses on my camera so far, which doesn't give me a real point of comparison for their quality.
Find this lens on froogle
I'm pretty sure I read another paper on this subject a few years ago, but I don't have a reference to it now.
Linux's /proc/uptime reports the total time since reboot, and the total idle time.
This machine is a development machine for an engineering package, and is also part of the distcc pool for compiles:
10:45:11 up 44 days, 2:30, 36 users, load average: 0.48, 0.49, 0.37
3810603.88 3635816.47
This is a dual-CPU machine which serves NFS and is the master in compiles:
10:46:01 up 89 days, 1:48, 2 users, load average: 5.81, 4.78, 3.66
7696130.58 7245888.15
That's 4.6% and 5.9% CPU usage in both cases.
CPU time to send 10 megs across 100mbps ethernet using rsh: 0.020s user, 0.040s sys
Saturating a pathetic 1 or 2 mbps of outgoing bandwidth shouldn't take much CPU time, surely well less than 1% of a GHz CPU.
By the way, I'm also not dumb enough to believe that I agree to certain Terms merely by browsing a web site, regardless of what one of the pages on it says.
(wanders off, wondering if this will get modded "funny", "insightful", or "troll")
Changing this to 'linesToWrite = [myString] * ioMax' dropped time on my system from 2830ms to 1780ms (I'd like to note that I/O on my system was already much faster than his *best* I/O score, thank you very much Linux)
In the trig test, I used numarray to decrease the runtime from 47660.0ms to *6430.0ms*. The original timing matches his pretty closely, which means that numarray would probably beat his gcc timings handily, too. Any time you're working with a billion numbers in Python, it's a safe bet that you should probably use numarray!
I didn't immediately see how to translate his other mathematical tests into numarray, but I noted that his textual explanation in the article doesn't match the (python) source code!
(My system is a 2.4GHz Pentium IV running RedHat 9)
This on its own isn't enough to get my spambayes installation to recognize spam. But it's well on its way (mostly due to the ".." in the subject, it would appear):
i on: unsure; 0.45
$ echo 'Subject: R.a..n,d,o.,m p,u,,n,c.t,,u_a.t.1..0.n' | sb_client.py
Subject: R.a..n,d,o.,m p,u,,n,c.t,,u_a.t.1..0.n
X-Spambayes-Classificat
X-Spambayes-Evidence: '*H*': 0.67; '*S*': 0.58; 'from:none': 0.04;
'to:none': 0.23; 'content-type:text/plain': 0.25;
'x-mailer:none': 0.27; 'reply-to:none': 0.27;
'message-id:invalid': 0.36; 'sender:none': 0.83;
'subject:,': 0.86; 'subject:..': 0.98
Here's another message with only a subject line, for comparison:
$ echo 'Subject: Spambayes is written in Python' | sb_client.py
Subject: Spambayes is written in Python
X-Spambayes-Classification: ham; 0.02
X-Spambayes-Evidence: '*H*': 0.98; '*S*': 0.02; 'subject:Python': 0.00;
'from:none': 0.04; 'to:none': 0.23;
'content-type:text/plain': 0.25; 'x-mailer:none': 0.27;
'reply-to:none': 0.27; 'message-id:invalid': 0.36;
'sender:none': 0.83
Thanks -- I was wondering about the efficiency issue.
I was at the Exploratorium last month when I visited the Bay Area, and one of their exhibits is a photograph of a San Francisco panorama which was taken on extremely large-format film but was claimed to be equivalent to a multi-gigapixel image. Unfortunately, it was near the end of the day when I saw this exhibit and I don't know the details as well as I should, and I can't find anything about it on the exploratorium website, www.exploratorium.edu
Do you want mine too? jepler@unpythonic.net
/. is "one of the most scraped [by spammers -J] sites on the web"? Surely there are easier marks for the spammers to select than us! ebay, yahoo, AOL are bound to be better choices, at least in terms of sales per million messages.
Anyway, he already has his e-mail address in non-munged form in the internet (http://www.trinary.cc/Projects/Projects.htm).
If I had it to do over again, I might have munged or removed the address, but I didn't think about it. I don't munge my e-mail address when I post to various mailing lists and newsgroups, and I generally decline to correspond with people who munge or use TMDA-style services. It's just not part of my mindset to munge or put an onus on the sender (who may, after all, be contacting me to help me for free with something I posted about!).
Anyway, I'm not sure how that morphed into a SPAM rant. I'm mostly asking forgiveness for this mistake, and an explanation of why it wasn't even on my mind...
One last question -- what makes you say that
>Using the 'm*n' measure, the bits solution wins (24*8 = 48 18*3 = 54)
Should be 24*2 = 48
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 10:38:34 -06000 387abs.htm
From: Jeff Epler
To: steve@trinary.cc
Subject: Trinary adder efficiency
Do you know of any more efficient trinary adder designs? I've found an
online abstract of a paper that may have some, but I don't have access
to the paper itself:
http://www.computer.org/proceedings/ats/7129/7129
Also, do you know if a "balanced trinary" adder (-1, 0, 1 trit values)
is any simpler than your trinary (0, 1, 2) adder?
I also performed a simplistic comparison of the proposed full adder on
your website against a binary full adder at
http://www.play-hookey.com/digital/adder.html
I compared number of gates and number of gate delays for a 64 bit binary
adder and a 40 trit (slightly smaller range than 64 bits) trinary adder
designed from each full adder. These aren't open-and-shut cases, since
they don't answer questions such as the relative size and speed of
trinary gates to binary gates in a particular process, but I think they
may raise some interesting questions about circuit design than the
proposed "minimize m*n for given m^n" measure.
In your adder, I count 17 gates + 3 muxes at 15 gates each for 47 gates
per trit, or 1880 gates for a 40-trit adder. I count 5 gates per bit,
or 320 gates for a 64-bit adder in the binary case. Thus, at least
in adders for numbers in this range seem to be significantly larger
for trinary. (won't this advantage always exist as a constant factor?)
In your adder, I count 7 gate delays for the MUX operation, giving a
count of 14 gate delays for the "result" path and 11 gate delays for the
"carry" path. In the binary full adder, I count 2 and 3 delays for
the paths. This gives 443 gate delays for the trinary adder, and 191
gate delays for the binary adder. (again, won't this advantage exist for
numbers of any magnitude with the same constant factor?)
By either of these measures, it's hard to see trinary logic as a "win".
I haven't investigated more complex adder designs (carry-lookahead adder
and its trinary counterpart, if any) or more complex ALU operations
(multiplication/division, floating point) to see if the advantage binary
shows here exists in other operations as well.
If the real "win" of trinary is in external pin-count, then another good
option would seem to be to use trinary (or even 4-state) logic for
I/O, and convert to binary before entering the main logic of the chip.
4-state logic would have easy binary conversion, and if trinary inputs
were chosen, encodings such as 6t->9b, 7t->11b, 9t->14b, 12t->19b (#
trits -> # bits) could be chosen. (You need 3**n to be just larger than
2**m, where you can also build efficient converters for that width
number)
One last thought -- when we convert all our old COBOL programs from
binary computers to trinary ones, we'll have to face the horrible
encoding "TCD", where each decimal digit will require three trits.
Thus, numbers up to one million would require 18 trits, compared to 24
bits. Using the 'm*n' measure, the bits solution wins (24*8 = 48
18*3 = 54)
Thanks for taking the time to read this far -- if you've addressed these
points on your website, I hope you'll let me know where (I read much of
it, but not the whole thing by any means).. thanks for the interesting
website, and I hope you're not drowning in messages after the recent
magazine article and publicity on a certain geek website...
Jeff
[3000 copies of the letter 'd' deleted to avoid lameness filter]
If we all chip in, we can help rf0 delete his spam! Let's work together, Slashdot!
What makes you think that I cannot use software I have legally obtained? The example you cite, "incorporate some GPL code into a closed product", is creation of a derivative work, a different matter than simply "using" the software.
Whenever software you've legally obtained presents you with an EULA, don't believe it. Call up their technical support, and tell them that there is a bug in the software: when you choose to use the software you've legally obtained as permitted by US copyright law, and decline the EULA, the "Next" button is disabled. Inform the tech that you've found a workaround (check the "I agree" button, even though you don't agree) and ask that the bug be fixed in the next version or a bugfix release.
You mean "is equivalent to the usual one for positive integers", leaving the other poster's concern about 0 and 1 out of the picture. But "is equal to 2" is equivalent to the regular definition of primes for even natural numbers, so why isn't it a fallacy to claim that this shows for all integers that only integers equal to 2 are prime?
Anyway, the proof that x|a <=> -x|a seems to be fairly simple. x|a <-> a = kx (k integer). Let k' = -k. (-k'=k). Then a = -k'x -> -a = k'x -> -x|a.
AFAIK, Enron did maintain (at least for a time) that there was nothing abnormal or illegal about the destruction of documents it performed.
the body was taken from a spam I got (about DVDs) and the headers and footers were crafted by looking at SA 2.43's tests. The result?
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-21.5 required=5.0
your two-point hit from Bayes won't do anything... (and heck, looking at the message there must have been a bunch of tests that failed to trigger because lines that should have been in the header ended up in the body)
I'd happily pay 1c to skip a commercial.
I watch several shows on my computer. I never see commercials. A show is somewhere between 40 and 46 minutes, usually.
If a show is 40 minutes, that means there would also have been 40 30-second commercials.
I'd pay 40 cents a week to watch a show that I liked. (That's from 1/2 to 1/10 the cost of the bandwidth to download the show in the first place for me, I pay $.01/MB when I go above my transfer limit. That would mean I already pay $1.00 when I download a typical 40 minute show compressed to a 100 meg avi file)
(I wouldn't be so excited to pay 40 cents if it's per-viewing, though. Of course, I can't see myself using a service that has to "phone home" for each viewing either)
The TV stations could also take advantage of the filesharing networks to distribute these shows at little expense to themselves. One minute after the normal premiere broadcast, make it available online with a fat pipe (or several). Something like bittorrent will take care of the rest.
If the prices are reasonable, I would pay them. What's "reasonable"? I watch 4 programs regularly. I think each one has about 20-25 shows per season. At $2/show ($8/week, $32/month but $0 during reruns), that's still $160-200 of revenue a year they could get from me.
Problem is that this is far lower than a Cable TV station would get in subscription fees. What, $40+/month all 12 months a year ($480/year)?
I'm not implying that an author can revoke the license of GPL software.
I'm talking about this situation: I release software under GPL v2. Microsoft induces Stallman to write an exception into GPL XP that favors Microsoft (for instance, it need not provide source to modified versions of the GPL XP-licensed software). Because I licensed my software under GPL v2, and GPL XP is "any future version", MS can now redistribute my software under terms I never intended to permit.
Many websites contain a clause in their EULA which effectively states "this agreement is completely different when you're not looking at it". It's usually worded so that the license agreement can change at any time, you automatically accept the new terms merely by using the website, and the owner of the website need not notify you of the changes.
I see no reason these terms couldn't be placed in a software EULA, and for all I know they already have been.
In a similar vein, though not exactly, the GPL states that (unless specified otherwise) software acquired under one version of the license is automatically licensed under subsequent versions of the GPL. This clause doesn't take away the rights of the person who entered the license (since it is at the option of the person accepting the GPL) though, so it's different from the above speculation.
(On the other hand, and off-topic, I don't know what prevents Bill Gates from paying RMS a few billion to write a "or be used in a proprietary microsoft product" as an exception in the new GPL XP license...)
Buy real business PCs with support contracts. Work with one vendor, so that all your PCs are theirs. When there's a hardware problem, it's not your problem. They'll be forced to provide some sort of continuty when they can't get replacement parts for an older but still-covered PC, which is not at all the case when you decide to standardize on a particular motherboard/NIC/video combination, and then it gets discontinued 3 months later when you've deployed 50% as many machines as you'd planned.
:-P) than enough to retire on. Remember, your one criminal act had better be unexpected, and lucrative enough to let you retire in a foreign country with no extradition agreements with the US.
Even if you're planning to be dishonest and pocket the $400 apiece for 60 PCs, it's closer to a quarter's salary (half-year post tax
As for OS licenses, bite the bullet -- it's sad but true, but Microsoft owns the business market, and it's not going to get any easier for business users to do things like recycle licenses. What are you going to do when USB2 is the standard, but W2K doesn't have drivers? Or when your new Hammer server has to run XP Advanced Server with CIFS2, but there's no CIFS2 client for W2K? They're masters of making it not worth your while to try to make the old versions work. You may want to make a statement against Microsoft, but making it at the expense of your company's productivity is no way to do it!
Of course, it says it in legalese, but the biolerplate that the Company reserves the right to modify or update the provisions of this agreement mean, in essence, that when you're not reading the agreement, they're free to do whatever they wish with your personal information, at least to the extent that the law would let you give them use of your personal information (since you have agreed to agree to the changed license)
And then there are the privacy agreements you must read at http://www.example.com/privacy.asp that claim you agree to them by reading any page on http://www.example.com. So you can't even see the agreement before (they claim) you have agreed to it.
If anybody truly took both the clickthrough license and their own privacy seriously, I don't think it would be possible for them to browse the web.
They can just give 'em out for free at Radio Shack!