That's particularly stupid. Why, when using a computer, does 2^10 equal 10^3? They both share the value 10, but that's it. 1024 is a stupid number that doesn't make sense in binary nor in physics, let's get rid of it.
Microsoft provides an office suite. If you don't like their office suite, go use something else. Or better yet, build your own dam search and aggregation engine.
Kind of like: good luck with judges to wrap their minds around dna profile matching? Of course: you get a few experts, they say yes or no, you follow the experts. Doesn't sound like rocket science to me.
I think in this particular case, the publishers are accusing Google of using their monopoly in search to obtain one in news aggregation. When you opt out of news aggregation, they claim that Google 'opts them out' of search. So, what they are claiming is that Google is gaming the pagerank algorithm to their own ends, something that can be checked by auditors.
Google has a de facto monopoly in search. Realistically, no business can afford to be blacklisted by Google.
That this is due to quality (and inertia) does not give Google the right to obtain monopolies elsewhere. I doubt that Google actually is using these Microsoftesque tactics that they are accused of, but the complaint sounds valid, and if they can show that this happened the plaintiffs have a case. I guess that if this goes far enough, the Italian justice system will, typically in a decade or so, decide to let the system be audited.
In all this, whether the service is free or not, or whether the user can change or not is irrelevant.
Right. Moralistic pigs such as yourself have previously attempted to enforce their method of living to other people by banning alcohol and failed. You yourself, and the prohibition people are so stupid that they haven't learned the lesson that taking away enjoyment from others that have a different view on artificial enjoyment has serious repercussions, so they tried it on other substances.
Bottom line: I like my alcohol, I like my caffeine, I liked my smokes, and I like my THC. Who the fuck is Paxtez to say these should be illegal. And why is Paxtez so stupid that he or she thinks that destroying people's freedom can actually work.
Gangs are not the root. Wiping out gangs will just make smarter gangs to appear. The root cause is demand: if you tackle demand (either by wiping out the population of the US, or by legalizing drugs), you wipe out the gangs. Nothing else will even make a dent.
Academia is very snobbish. If your article isn't accepted in the first rag, you resubmit it to the next rag until it gets a quorum of tired reviewers that are ever so slighly out of their depth in reviewing your article that they will accept it. Presto, a peer-reviewed publication is born. Nobody will ever check it again, and it will be a valid reference for kingdom come. Academia doesn't really want to acknowledge that 99.9% of what they produce is crap (like Wikipedia), so they insist that 100% is trustworthy.
And in Business, one doesn't cite sources. One asserts.
BTW, wikipedia is perfectly citeable to the exact revision that you've used. It's not accepted, but that has nothing to do with quality. The definitive article on quantum mechanics, as published on the 2nd of June on wikipedia by 20 Nobel laureates would be less acceptable to Academia than John Hobo's article in 'forays in quantum estrangement', published by Unlikely Press, MA. It's the way of the world, nothing to do with quality, everything to do with tradition.
Also, I've never seen anybody in Academia or Business use wikipedia as a source
Well, this just proves that you work neither in Academia, nor in Business. I work in both (imagine that), and it is used all over the place. Not in publications of course, only for the actual research.
The sky is blue because air is blue. A little bit of air looks transparent, but it's just a tiny bit blue. There's lots of air in the sky, so it looks very blue.
Not really. The GPL is very clear about what it considers to be a derivative work. What falls under the copyright laws as a derivative work is irrelevant. So, let's suppose that you dynamically link to a piece of GPL code, and let's further assume that copyright law does not consider this to be a form of derivative work. What situation are you in? Well, first off, you will be allowed to distribute your code, but you will not be allowed to distribute the GPL code. Why? Your code can be distributed because according to copyright law, you are the copyright holder and it is not a derivative work. You cannot distribute the GPL code because under that license your code is a derivative work. Therefore you do not abide the license, and normal copyright law applies, making the GPL code non-distributable.
So, in the case that you sketched, GPL is not toast, and nothing has changed.
People wanting to circumvent the GPL can just ship incomplete applications, and hope their customers will download the appropriate stuff and link with it. This is still a legal minefield, but the minefield is now your customer's problem. Good luck with your business.
Actually, not really. There is no need for the behavior of the universe to be governed by laws to work scientifically. On the contrary, physics has just found out that our laws at the quantum level are worse than probabilistic.
If you did your ten billion trials of dropping a pen, and the one time it fell through the table, the quantum physicist would say: "yes, that was bound to happen at some point.", and leave it at that.
Religion is a meme for procreation. Did you ever notice that every religion that has survived for more than a century actively tells their believers to have as many children as they can muster? That's what makes religions tick: natural selection *big grin*
That, again, is wrong. Scientists are required to have a completely open mind when it comes to everything, even homeopathy. This is precisely why we have useful studies in which scientists tested the claims made by homeopathy and other "alternative" medicine. It's also why we know which of these things work, and which don't.
Not really. If the 'alternative' practice of homeopathy claims that they can take a compound, dilute it to such extent that not a single molecule is left in the 'medicine', and then claim that the resultant water has taken over the 'good' parts of the compound, leaving the 'bad' parts out, a scientist of medicine would be not doing his job if he were not demanding that the proponents of homeopathy would convince physicists first of their view of reality, before he spends even a penny on a clinical trial on this mumbo-jumbo, let alone that he should not laugh in their faces about their internally inconsistent definitions of the 'good' and the 'bad' parts of molecules and point out that by their definition, every sip of water is a medicine for everything, purely by virtue that that sip is a homeopathic dilution of practically every type of molecule on earth.
Of course, independent, mandatory license fee, etc, etc. Bottom line: the BBC is at much government owned as judges are. Which means it is as good as it gets.
Actually, ray tracing would be an area where a multi-core CPU would help. There's some progress, but in contrast with scanline rendering, ray tracing is very GPU unfriendly. So, for photo-realism, the future might still be with the CPU.
At least with the BBC you can be reasonably sure they checked their facts and tried to present it in a more or less neutral way.
Emphasis mine. The BBC is however a fully government owned media source that is funded by tax-payer's money. It is not a corporate controlled rag such as the Murdoch drivel.
If stuff needs to look professional in the business world, why are they using Word? For someone that has used latex and framemaker, Word just looks horrible!
I have, on three seperate occasions, saved the work of some poor student that wrote some math-heavy document in MS-Word. What happened was that Word saved the doc, but couldn't open it anymore. The freaking program was not even compatible with itself! What I managed to do was open the document in openoffice, and save it again. At that point Word could open it again.
Apparently this never happened to you, because you would have thrown out Word right away. Right? Right?
Of course you wouldn't, despite your rhetoric about business actually being rational, you would have been thrown out before they would even consider moving away from ms-office.
Correct, the definition of KB, MB and GB was done in the 1960s, and they were completely and moronically wrong!. Who in his right mind starts mixing a binary and a decimal system. 2^10 bytes? That's a stupid quantity to build upon. Almost as stupid as inches, feet and elbows. Good riddens, and thanks to SI to prevent us to go for yet another system that's incompatible with everything else.
SI works in bytes, not bits, so the fact that a byte is 8 bits is irrelevant from the perspective of SI. I'm personally very glad that SI took over and removed the completely nonsensical scheme that has grown from the 60s. Why on earth is a 2^10 the important building block in a binary system??? That just doesn't make sense (note the Chewbacca defense here). It's a stupid mix of a decimal and a binary system, and the fact that it goes back to the 60s make it approximately as interesting as the inch. Once you cross the threshold of a few tens of those 2^10 blocks, nobody really cares anymore that it is binary, and we're working with the actual order of things. As the whole system of physical measurements is based on order 10, why would bytes be different?
If you want a true binary system, go for true orders of two, and let base 10 out of it completely. The Kibibyte? Pfah, it deserves the derogatory name.
Slashdot Mirror
That's particularly stupid. Why, when using a computer, does 2^10 equal 10^3? They both share the value 10, but that's it. 1024 is a stupid number that doesn't make sense in binary nor in physics, let's get rid of it.
Microsoft provides an office suite. If you don't like their office suite, go use something else. Or better yet, build your own dam search and aggregation engine.
Kind of like: good luck with judges to wrap their minds around dna profile matching? Of course: you get a few experts, they say yes or no, you follow the experts. Doesn't sound like rocket science to me.
Google has a de facto monopoly in search. Realistically, no business can afford to be blacklisted by Google. That this is due to quality (and inertia) does not give Google the right to obtain monopolies elsewhere. I doubt that Google actually is using these Microsoftesque tactics that they are accused of, but the complaint sounds valid, and if they can show that this happened the plaintiffs have a case. I guess that if this goes far enough, the Italian justice system will, typically in a decade or so, decide to let the system be audited.
In all this, whether the service is free or not, or whether the user can change or not is irrelevant.
Unpredictable is as good a definition of random as any, and probably better than most.
Bottom line: I like my alcohol, I like my caffeine, I liked my smokes, and I like my THC. Who the fuck is Paxtez to say these should be illegal. And why is Paxtez so stupid that he or she thinks that destroying people's freedom can actually work.
Gangs are not the root. Wiping out gangs will just make smarter gangs to appear. The root cause is demand: if you tackle demand (either by wiping out the population of the US, or by legalizing drugs), you wipe out the gangs. Nothing else will even make a dent.
Does this mean that Zelucifer now gets an upgrade on his geek card?
And in Business, one doesn't cite sources. One asserts.
BTW, wikipedia is perfectly citeable to the exact revision that you've used. It's not accepted, but that has nothing to do with quality. The definitive article on quantum mechanics, as published on the 2nd of June on wikipedia by 20 Nobel laureates would be less acceptable to Academia than John Hobo's article in 'forays in quantum estrangement', published by Unlikely Press, MA. It's the way of the world, nothing to do with quality, everything to do with tradition.
Well, this just proves that you work neither in Academia, nor in Business. I work in both (imagine that), and it is used all over the place. Not in publications of course, only for the actual research.
The sky is blue because air is blue. A little bit of air looks transparent, but it's just a tiny bit blue. There's lots of air in the sky, so it looks very blue.
XML dead? That would be excellent news. Yay i4i!
So, in the case that you sketched, GPL is not toast, and nothing has changed. People wanting to circumvent the GPL can just ship incomplete applications, and hope their customers will download the appropriate stuff and link with it. This is still a legal minefield, but the minefield is now your customer's problem. Good luck with your business.
Actually, not really. There is no need for the behavior of the universe to be governed by laws to work scientifically. On the contrary, physics has just found out that our laws at the quantum level are worse than probabilistic. If you did your ten billion trials of dropping a pen, and the one time it fell through the table, the quantum physicist would say: "yes, that was bound to happen at some point.", and leave it at that.
Perverse designer, sloppy and lazy programmer, same difference. For an omnipotent being, C minus, tops.
Religion is a meme for procreation. Did you ever notice that every religion that has survived for more than a century actively tells their believers to have as many children as they can muster? That's what makes religions tick: natural selection *big grin*
Not really. If the 'alternative' practice of homeopathy claims that they can take a compound, dilute it to such extent that not a single molecule is left in the 'medicine', and then claim that the resultant water has taken over the 'good' parts of the compound, leaving the 'bad' parts out, a scientist of medicine would be not doing his job if he were not demanding that the proponents of homeopathy would convince physicists first of their view of reality, before he spends even a penny on a clinical trial on this mumbo-jumbo, let alone that he should not laugh in their faces about their internally inconsistent definitions of the 'good' and the 'bad' parts of molecules and point out that by their definition, every sip of water is a medicine for everything, purely by virtue that that sip is a homeopathic dilution of practically every type of molecule on earth.
Of course, independent, mandatory license fee, etc, etc. Bottom line: the BBC is at much government owned as judges are. Which means it is as good as it gets.
Actually, ray tracing would be an area where a multi-core CPU would help. There's some progress, but in contrast with scanline rendering, ray tracing is very GPU unfriendly. So, for photo-realism, the future might still be with the CPU.
Emphasis mine. The BBC is however a fully government owned media source that is funded by tax-payer's money. It is not a corporate controlled rag such as the Murdoch drivel.
If stuff needs to look professional in the business world, why are they using Word? For someone that has used latex and framemaker, Word just looks horrible!
Apparently this never happened to you, because you would have thrown out Word right away. Right? Right?
Of course you wouldn't, despite your rhetoric about business actually being rational, you would have been thrown out before they would even consider moving away from ms-office.
Correct, the definition of KB, MB and GB was done in the 1960s, and they were completely and moronically wrong!. Who in his right mind starts mixing a binary and a decimal system. 2^10 bytes? That's a stupid quantity to build upon. Almost as stupid as inches, feet and elbows. Good riddens, and thanks to SI to prevent us to go for yet another system that's incompatible with everything else.
If you want a true binary system, go for true orders of two, and let base 10 out of it completely. The Kibibyte? Pfah, it deserves the derogatory name.
At least they know how to spell it, which gives them one leg up to you.