Because it still doesn't tell you intent, all you're getting is a best guess of the person writing the comments. Most code taken out of context (which disassembled code definitely would be out of context) is nearly impossible to derive purpose and function from. Hell, often times you can't figure out what a piece of code is doing WITH the original programmer's comments. On top of that, there are ways to defeat disassembly, even ways to fool a disassembler into producing code that has nothing to do with the executable you're supposedly disassembling, which would mean you're examining and commenting code that isn't even real, making it less than worthless as it's misleading you.
The only way to be sure the executable you're running is based on the source in front of you is to compile it yourself, and even then you can't be 100% sure. And the only way to legally be sure no one will be able to redistribute some modified version of your source code hidden away in a binary is via copyright law.
I think it's kinda funny that you're so blinded by your religious anti-copyright zeal that you can't even keep straight who's on which side of the lawsuit. Apparently you're advocating punishing Warner Brothers for being sued by Fox?
Besides that, the GPL completely and utterly depends on existing copyright law... That's the only reason it works. Do you even have the slightest idea of what you're talking about?
It's funny, when I read the post you were responding to and his mention of "stuffed animals" the first thing that came to mind was when I walked into a Department Director's office in City Hall and a bobcat was laying on the floor looking at me. Of course, it was stuffed, but the way it was posed was a perfect replica of how a cat will look at someone who just walked into the room. Took a few seconds for the rational part of my brain to remind me that bobcats don't hang out in City Hall.
The grandparent is trying to claim that the whole "uncanny valley" thing is just a meme repeated so people can sound smart/cool... But his/her/its rebuttal comes off as a dismissal of something based solely on its popularity, as there's not anything substantive put forth to make it seem as if he/she/it is even passingly familiar with what the "uncanny valley" is... Kinda ironic...:)
IMO the uncanny valley does exist, as I came across the response myself before I was even familiar with the term (including, funnily enough, reacting to still photography of *real* humans that had been altered slightly, which seriously refutes the GP's argument), but I think it is slightly overhyped. I didn't find the Final Fantasy movie's characters disturbing visually... But then again, they didn't look remotely "real" to me, and I was too busy being angry at how little "Final Fantasy" made it into the movie and lousy in general it was. I'm just a bit jaded, I guess, due to experience with computer graphics. I've seen so very few attempts at "realism" that got close enough to fall into my "valley."
Virtual reality is useful for allowing you to do things that would be too difficult/expensive/dangerous to do in the real world or more traditional interfaces, such as training on operating very valuable equipment or visualizing complex data. Slapping an "Oooh look, 3D!" interface onto an existing (and arguably well designed) workflow will only make a task harder and less fun to do, not easier and more fun. I realize you're just trolling, but the "3D Interace is teh aw3s0m3!" is infuriatingly common...
That assumes a static light source, which is not the case here. For a moving light source, shadow volumes and/or shadow maps have to be regenerated each time the light moves (which is often each frame). Sure, your sun angle may not move and therefore you can pre-calculate all that, but those shadows aren't what impress--it's the dramatic shadowing cast by big spells, torches, or sparks flying off weapons that get the kiddies going.
You can actually ask the processor which advanced instruction sets it's capable of using. Enabling/disabling certain features based on the vendor string and not based on what the processor actually claims to support is braindead.
That's like putting diesel fuel in all Volkswagens because some of them support Diesel. And then putting gasoline in a Freightliner because it's not a Volkswagen. (YAY CAR ANALOGY!)
By my (admittedly coffee deprived) reading of his comments, he seems to be specifically saying non-violence is NOT the most powerful force in the world.
It's a tactic that has its place, but it won't work against a regime who can't be embarrassed. Myanmar, for instance, where they just kick out the foreign journalists and execute all the protesters won't be freed through non-violence.
Why is changing what you have to say a bad thing? If you have a different set of facts or a change in thought, why is it bad to change your opinions?
Changing your opinion on something in light of new facts that show your initial opinion was wrong or ill informed is a good thing. The problem is when, in light of new facts, you attempt to change said opinion in such a way that you can claim you always had your new opinion. For instance, if Hillary Clinton tried to claim she has always been against the war once popular opinion turned against it...
Obama's initial position was that the surge wasn't working and our troops were wasting their effort. That's an embarassing opinion to have when the surge starts to work. But instead of making a public statement that, in light of the surge showing signs of succeeding, he has changed his position his staff apparently just edits the section of the website containing his position on the surge so that it looks like he's been supporting it. That just looks bad.
To be honest, it's unlikely he had anything to do with this, as I doubt he gives much day-to-day thought about the contents of his web page. And to be fair, McCain is trying to create his own reality distortion field by claiming he's tough on border security after having been the primary author of the amnesty bill from last year...
We need to stop having Senators run for President. They're so used to selling their values out for support as part of "business as usual" negotiations on the Senate floor that they can't hold an opinion from one day to the next on the campaign trail.
That's why any software developer/engineer/designer will never describe their role as IT. And I think that's fair enough really....
Outside people find it hard to see the difference, it's computers, innit.
Sadly, even some "insiders" don't see the difference. When I finished my Thesis I went to go visit my old coworkers in the city gov's IT department. They asked what my plans were, I told them I figured I had done enough IT for my life, and the head developer looked at me and said "You got a Master's in Comp Sci and you're not going to work with computers any more?" "I'm going to work with computers, but I want to do Software Development." "Oh... But isn't software development IT?"
To me the difference is an IT job is done in support of the business function of where you work, while a software development job IS the business function of where you work... I mean, even software development houses have IT departments, so obviously IT doesn't encompass all software development...:)
You must not administer a Windows network, or Exchange. If you did, you wouldn't be so quick to claim it is boring. Last week I setup our exchange server to output some data to a database, making it usable for other stuff. You probably don't understand what that means, but it's pretty cool stuff.
No, it's not. Administering a Windows network is never cool, and the only reason it is ever not boring is due solely to the frustration factor. After over half a decade spent supporting a ~1k PC windows network, when the CIO started talking to me about how the new personnel/payroll software rollout was the sort of thing "careers are built on," I ran screaming back to school as fast as my legs could take me. If you get fulfillment from such a banal use of computing resources, by all means go for it. Not saying you're not a geek, just that your job is boring.:)
Like soldiers, right? They spend YEARS training to kill people. Clearly, we can't allow ex-soldiers back into society, they're deranged. I suggest island colonies (don't laugh, I just described Australia).
Soldiers who commit first degree murder are generally dealt with more harshly by military justice than civilians in the same predicament.
Let's be clear about your reasoning: You are saying that execution (implied in your post) is NECESSARY to prevent recidivism.
No, I'm implying it's the only way to be sure a killer does not kill again. That you can't argue with.
Not because of moral outrage over the specific crime. You are NOT saying that "murder is bad and we should kill murderers"
Obviously murder is bad, and murderers should be punished. However killing a murderer does nothing to "make right" the wrong he or she has committed. The death penalty's viability as a deterrent is debatable, and I don't think we should be in the revenge business. Likewise, someone who has made a mistake due to negligence, accident, or just acting out in a state of unusual duress doesn't deserve to die for being human. But someone guilty of first degree murder does not fit that mold.
but "Criminals can not EVER be trusted not to re-offend, so we should kill them."
You're the one saying that, not me. I'm referring to a very narrowly defined category of individuals.
So? If your children were being taken away to Russia forever and you would never see them again, how would you react?
I'd react in accordance of law to prevent that from happening. Failing that, other people have had good luck with hiring people to recover their children from foreign countries. Killing my wife does not solve any of these problems.
That was pretty clearly Reiser's motivation.
Considering he hasn't admitted to the crime and explained why he did it, you can't make that claim.
Simply because you lack the imagination to come up with a scenario under which you would commit murder, doesn't mean that "reasonable" people cannot come up with such an scenario.
Oh I can very easily imagine scenarios where I would commit murder.
What if someone raped and murdered your wife/mother/sister, was not punished by the law (for whatever reason), and you then stalked and killed the rapist (obvious 1st degree murder)?
That's a good one there.
Should you be executed?
Yes. It astounds (and frightens) me that you would seriously ask that question.
No, my statement was made in context of this statement:
Someone convicted of first degree murder won't be able to re-integrate to society after 25 years in prison. But the term of the prison sentence has nothing to do with that.
Don't try to take quotes out of context to change my meaning.
This is especially true because the definition of 'murder in the first degree' is solely a legal construct
As is the difference between "lawful combat" and "murder". As is the difference between "statutory rape" and "consensual sex". I could do this all day, really.
There is a distinct difference between someone who is guilty of murder in the first degree and someone who takes a life; the two concepts may overlap at various points but they are in no way synonymous.
Yes, and that's my point. An individual guilty of murder in the first degree is beyond help. They have proven they have the capability to purposely deprive another person of their life in a situation where a reasonable person would have have "cooled off" or reconsidered. That is what sets them apart from those guilty of second degree murder, manslaughter, or justified homicide. All four classes of individual have taken a life, but only one has done it in a premeditated manner.
It appears you are mixing two dissimilar concepts (taking a life and first degree murder) and then comparing them through two different lenses (societal reintegration and the law) and coming up with necessarily muddled and indistinct answers.
No, the only muddling here is where you take an entire argument and pick select quotes out of context in an attempt to change the meaning of the argument.
Moreover, you seem to be taking the ground that societal integration is a static concept that does not take into account the society one is integrating into.
Yes, I am guilty of making the assumption that any civilized society recognizes an individual's right to exist. If one is being re-integrated to a society where this is not the case, then my entire argument does fall apart, admittedly.
Many people seem to be under the delusion that "criminals" are somehow fundamentally different from other people. People who commit crimes, even violent crimes, are fundamentally identical to you, me, and everyone else. The difference is that when confronted with an unusual situation they made a bad decision. That's it.
No, someone guilty of first degree murder is fundamentally different than you and me. By definition they decided--having taken reasonable time to cool off and think things through--that they could take away someone else's right to live. This is not a crime of passion, this is not an accidental killing, this is not a bad choice made in the heat of the moment. This is a premeditated act. A conscious decision made with full awareness of the gravity of their actions. This is not the action of a reasonable individual. This isn't a case of "I made a mistake." And once someone has shown they are capable of such an act, it is society's responsibility to ensure they do not get another chance.
Seriously, we're not talking about shoplifting here.
OJ hasn't killed anyone else either.
Sounds like he came relatively close recently...
Let's play a game. You come up with examples of murderers who were put to death and killed again afterwards and I'll come up with examples of murderers who were paroled/escaped/served their time and killed again. You can go first.
No, that is not my argument. I said anyone who is guilty of committing murder in the first degree will always be a threat to society and can never be trusted to integrate back into it. There's a enormous difference between just "taking a life" and "first degree murder".
There was a couple who got life in prison for mistreating their child to the point of death (raised her as a vegan) - a British couple got 3 years community service for the same thing
Starve your child to death and all you have to do is pick up trash once a week for a few years? And you think that's a GOOD thing? Wow, just wow...
We put murderers away for a long time because they're murderers. They've taken away someone's most basic right, the right to their own life. Law exists to protect rights, and so there can be no compromise in this regard.
I agree with you, though. Someone convicted of first degree murder won't be able to re-integrate to society after 25 years in prison. But the term of the prison sentence has nothing to do with that.
The only way to make sure society is protected from such individuals is to ensure they do not have the opportunity to ever hurt anyone again. And there is no prison sentence that can give that guarantee.
Ahh those ignorant of history and all that... Considering modern electronic computers got their start as military projects (Colossus MkI/MkII and ENIAC) and that the Internet came out of a military research agency--just to give two examples--is it any surprised you were modded as a Troll?
As others have pointed out, the US military makes heavy use of supercomputers to do nuclear weapons simulation so that they can determine how weapons perform as they age without rolling them out into the desert and blowing them up, which is the way they used to get that data. That's a pretty good use of resources in most people's opinions, as the alternative is unpleasant. There are plenty of other uses for these machines, of course, but the USAF is not in the business of doing "shady" things with them. The NSA, maybe, but you won't hear press releases about those...:P
It has nothing to do with 'philosophy" what so ever. It is a rule mechanic in a Black and white game, nothing more.
No, it is a Moral/Ethical philosophy that your character follows. That's pretty much the very definition of the term. The fact that there were two axes of alignment reflected the fact that it was NOT a Black and White game, but one with a large spectrum of greys.
that's very...ignorant of the system.
No, that's the system exactly. What separates a player character from the average commoner? Hit dice. Specifically hit dice from a character class. It's what separates the Warriors from the Fighters.
They're both Good, funnily enough. The first is Lawful, the second is Neutral (if she's really a druid) though she seems to be leaning more towards Chaotic.
The common thread is that both place an inherent value on the lives others.
I still think it's dumb, however... The difference between plebs and characters has always been the fact that character have levels in "Character" classes, not the alignment they choose to follow... Making NPCs a uniform mass of grey goo seems kinda dumb.
Also saying you have to be Lawful to fight injustice is downright laughable. Law usually has very little to do with justice...
Slashdot Mirror
Because it still doesn't tell you intent, all you're getting is a best guess of the person writing the comments. Most code taken out of context (which disassembled code definitely would be out of context) is nearly impossible to derive purpose and function from. Hell, often times you can't figure out what a piece of code is doing WITH the original programmer's comments. On top of that, there are ways to defeat disassembly, even ways to fool a disassembler into producing code that has nothing to do with the executable you're supposedly disassembling, which would mean you're examining and commenting code that isn't even real, making it less than worthless as it's misleading you.
The only way to be sure the executable you're running is based on the source in front of you is to compile it yourself, and even then you can't be 100% sure. And the only way to legally be sure no one will be able to redistribute some modified version of your source code hidden away in a binary is via copyright law.
Except that commented disassembly is pretty much less than worthless, of course.
I think it's kinda funny that you're so blinded by your religious anti-copyright zeal that you can't even keep straight who's on which side of the lawsuit. Apparently you're advocating punishing Warner Brothers for being sued by Fox?
Besides that, the GPL completely and utterly depends on existing copyright law... That's the only reason it works. Do you even have the slightest idea of what you're talking about?
It's funny, when I read the post you were responding to and his mention of "stuffed animals" the first thing that came to mind was when I walked into a Department Director's office in City Hall and a bobcat was laying on the floor looking at me. Of course, it was stuffed, but the way it was posed was a perfect replica of how a cat will look at someone who just walked into the room. Took a few seconds for the rational part of my brain to remind me that bobcats don't hang out in City Hall.
The grandparent is trying to claim that the whole "uncanny valley" thing is just a meme repeated so people can sound smart/cool... But his/her/its rebuttal comes off as a dismissal of something based solely on its popularity, as there's not anything substantive put forth to make it seem as if he/she/it is even passingly familiar with what the "uncanny valley" is... Kinda ironic... :)
IMO the uncanny valley does exist, as I came across the response myself before I was even familiar with the term (including, funnily enough, reacting to still photography of *real* humans that had been altered slightly, which seriously refutes the GP's argument), but I think it is slightly overhyped. I didn't find the Final Fantasy movie's characters disturbing visually... But then again, they didn't look remotely "real" to me, and I was too busy being angry at how little "Final Fantasy" made it into the movie and lousy in general it was. I'm just a bit jaded, I guess, due to experience with computer graphics. I've seen so very few attempts at "realism" that got close enough to fall into my "valley."
Virtual reality is useful for allowing you to do things that would be too difficult/expensive/dangerous to do in the real world or more traditional interfaces, such as training on operating very valuable equipment or visualizing complex data. Slapping an "Oooh look, 3D!" interface onto an existing (and arguably well designed) workflow will only make a task harder and less fun to do, not easier and more fun. I realize you're just trolling, but the "3D Interace is teh aw3s0m3!" is infuriatingly common...
That assumes a static light source, which is not the case here. For a moving light source, shadow volumes and/or shadow maps have to be regenerated each time the light moves (which is often each frame). Sure, your sun angle may not move and therefore you can pre-calculate all that, but those shadows aren't what impress--it's the dramatic shadowing cast by big spells, torches, or sparks flying off weapons that get the kiddies going.
You can actually ask the processor which advanced instruction sets it's capable of using. Enabling/disabling certain features based on the vendor string and not based on what the processor actually claims to support is braindead.
That's like putting diesel fuel in all Volkswagens because some of them support Diesel. And then putting gasoline in a Freightliner because it's not a Volkswagen. (YAY CAR ANALOGY!)
By my (admittedly coffee deprived) reading of his comments, he seems to be specifically saying non-violence is NOT the most powerful force in the world.
It's a tactic that has its place, but it won't work against a regime who can't be embarrassed. Myanmar, for instance, where they just kick out the foreign journalists and execute all the protesters won't be freed through non-violence.
Which I guess makes changing from "boo" to "yay" without fanfare that much worse, doesn't it?
Changing your opinion on something in light of new facts that show your initial opinion was wrong or ill informed is a good thing. The problem is when, in light of new facts, you attempt to change said opinion in such a way that you can claim you always had your new opinion. For instance, if Hillary Clinton tried to claim she has always been against the war once popular opinion turned against it...
Obama's initial position was that the surge wasn't working and our troops were wasting their effort. That's an embarassing opinion to have when the surge starts to work. But instead of making a public statement that, in light of the surge showing signs of succeeding, he has changed his position his staff apparently just edits the section of the website containing his position on the surge so that it looks like he's been supporting it. That just looks bad.
To be honest, it's unlikely he had anything to do with this, as I doubt he gives much day-to-day thought about the contents of his web page. And to be fair, McCain is trying to create his own reality distortion field by claiming he's tough on border security after having been the primary author of the amnesty bill from last year...
We need to stop having Senators run for President. They're so used to selling their values out for support as part of "business as usual" negotiations on the Senate floor that they can't hold an opinion from one day to the next on the campaign trail.
If anything, you made his point.
Though the C64 was a relatively big deal in the US.
Sadly, even some "insiders" don't see the difference. When I finished my Thesis I went to go visit my old coworkers in the city gov's IT department. They asked what my plans were, I told them I figured I had done enough IT for my life, and the head developer looked at me and said "You got a Master's in Comp Sci and you're not going to work with computers any more?" "I'm going to work with computers, but I want to do Software Development." "Oh... But isn't software development IT?"
To me the difference is an IT job is done in support of the business function of where you work, while a software development job IS the business function of where you work... I mean, even software development houses have IT departments, so obviously IT doesn't encompass all software development... :)
No, it's not. Administering a Windows network is never cool, and the only reason it is ever not boring is due solely to the frustration factor. After over half a decade spent supporting a ~1k PC windows network, when the CIO started talking to me about how the new personnel/payroll software rollout was the sort of thing "careers are built on," I ran screaming back to school as fast as my legs could take me. If you get fulfillment from such a banal use of computing resources, by all means go for it. Not saying you're not a geek, just that your job is boring. :)
Also, Exchange is the devil. True story.
Soldiers who commit first degree murder are generally dealt with more harshly by military justice than civilians in the same predicament.
No, I'm implying it's the only way to be sure a killer does not kill again. That you can't argue with.
Obviously murder is bad, and murderers should be punished. However killing a murderer does nothing to "make right" the wrong he or she has committed. The death penalty's viability as a deterrent is debatable, and I don't think we should be in the revenge business. Likewise, someone who has made a mistake due to negligence, accident, or just acting out in a state of unusual duress doesn't deserve to die for being human. But someone guilty of first degree murder does not fit that mold.
You're the one saying that, not me. I'm referring to a very narrowly defined category of individuals.
I'd react in accordance of law to prevent that from happening. Failing that, other people have had good luck with hiring people to recover their children from foreign countries. Killing my wife does not solve any of these problems.
Considering he hasn't admitted to the crime and explained why he did it, you can't make that claim.
Oh I can very easily imagine scenarios where I would commit murder.
That's a good one there.
Yes. It astounds (and frightens) me that you would seriously ask that question.
No, my statement was made in context of this statement:
Don't try to take quotes out of context to change my meaning.
As is the difference between "lawful combat" and "murder". As is the difference between "statutory rape" and "consensual sex". I could do this all day, really.
Yes, and that's my point. An individual guilty of murder in the first degree is beyond help. They have proven they have the capability to purposely deprive another person of their life in a situation where a reasonable person would have have "cooled off" or reconsidered. That is what sets them apart from those guilty of second degree murder, manslaughter, or justified homicide. All four classes of individual have taken a life, but only one has done it in a premeditated manner.
No, the only muddling here is where you take an entire argument and pick select quotes out of context in an attempt to change the meaning of the argument.
Yes, I am guilty of making the assumption that any civilized society recognizes an individual's right to exist. If one is being re-integrated to a society where this is not the case, then my entire argument does fall apart, admittedly.
No, someone guilty of first degree murder is fundamentally different than you and me. By definition they decided--having taken reasonable time to cool off and think things through--that they could take away someone else's right to live. This is not a crime of passion, this is not an accidental killing, this is not a bad choice made in the heat of the moment. This is a premeditated act. A conscious decision made with full awareness of the gravity of their actions. This is not the action of a reasonable individual. This isn't a case of "I made a mistake." And once someone has shown they are capable of such an act, it is society's responsibility to ensure they do not get another chance.
Seriously, we're not talking about shoplifting here.
OJ hasn't killed anyone else either.
Sounds like he came relatively close recently...
Let's play a game. You come up with examples of murderers who were put to death and killed again afterwards and I'll come up with examples of murderers who were paroled/escaped/served their time and killed again. You can go first.
No, that is not my argument. I said anyone who is guilty of committing murder in the first degree will always be a threat to society and can never be trusted to integrate back into it. There's a enormous difference between just "taking a life" and "first degree murder".
Yes, I want to argue that people who starve their children to death are bad people.
Starve your child to death and all you have to do is pick up trash once a week for a few years? And you think that's a GOOD thing? Wow, just wow...
We put murderers away for a long time because they're murderers. They've taken away someone's most basic right, the right to their own life. Law exists to protect rights, and so there can be no compromise in this regard.
I agree with you, though. Someone convicted of first degree murder won't be able to re-integrate to society after 25 years in prison. But the term of the prison sentence has nothing to do with that.
The only way to make sure society is protected from such individuals is to ensure they do not have the opportunity to ever hurt anyone again. And there is no prison sentence that can give that guarantee.
Ahh those ignorant of history and all that... Considering modern electronic computers got their start as military projects (Colossus MkI/MkII and ENIAC) and that the Internet came out of a military research agency--just to give two examples--is it any surprised you were modded as a Troll?
:P
As others have pointed out, the US military makes heavy use of supercomputers to do nuclear weapons simulation so that they can determine how weapons perform as they age without rolling them out into the desert and blowing them up, which is the way they used to get that data. That's a pretty good use of resources in most people's opinions, as the alternative is unpleasant. There are plenty of other uses for these machines, of course, but the USAF is not in the business of doing "shady" things with them. The NSA, maybe, but you won't hear press releases about those...
No, good lawyers are Neutral Evil. Lawful Evil means you obey the law. Neutral Evil means you make the law obey you.
No, it is a Moral/Ethical philosophy that your character follows. That's pretty much the very definition of the term. The fact that there were two axes of alignment reflected the fact that it was NOT a Black and White game, but one with a large spectrum of greys.
No, that's the system exactly. What separates a player character from the average commoner? Hit dice. Specifically hit dice from a character class. It's what separates the Warriors from the Fighters.
They're both Good, funnily enough. The first is Lawful, the second is Neutral (if she's really a druid) though she seems to be leaning more towards Chaotic.
The common thread is that both place an inherent value on the lives others.
Well I'm sorry for razzing you, then.
I still think it's dumb, however... The difference between plebs and characters has always been the fact that character have levels in "Character" classes, not the alignment they choose to follow... Making NPCs a uniform mass of grey goo seems kinda dumb.
Also saying you have to be Lawful to fight injustice is downright laughable. Law usually has very little to do with justice...
I have to disagree with the placement of Chaotic Evil on that spectrum... As neutral evil is so significantly more evil than chaotic.
Also holding up Lawful Good as the paragon of virtue that all people should look up to is kinda whacked.