Technically, yes, anything other than what's on the box is out of spec. But I've never had a problem when choosing any valid FSB (whatever any model of that CPU can run at) with an appropriate multiplier to keep the CPU happy.
Funny, but it misses the point. You can buy faster ram, and the bus is capable of those speeds - it would do them with a faster CPU installed, by default - so nothing is being run over spec.
No, just cloak themselves. Different UAs and different IPs.
Ideally, google could even randomly check some URLs more than once, with different UAs. This would catch some tricks, but moreso, would encourage people to not use browser-detection code. (Some change is one thing, but if the highly ranked content can't be found - tough.)
That solves the webmasters serving something different to Google problem.
After that, they just need to apply all rankings to the page with the content. Treat all redirects like permanent ones. It's okay that you point somewhere, but because it's hard to prove ownership, you can't get credit for what's there.
Otherwise, we'd need a new response code - 25x somewhere - "OK, but temporarily redirected from..." which means, don't bookmark/index me, bookmark the source. As this requires write access to the page or the server, it couldn't be remotely abused.
Why not? They've convinced you that they're valid. They don't need to convince a judge if everyone is scared. Total cost to them, some time from a lawyer already on staff.
Do you really think they wouldn't have enforced them if they knew they worked? Surely there's someone, somewhere, that a company like Microsoft or Adobe could sue, given their inclination to sue and all the requirements in an EULA which nobody could ever live up to.
Except that EULAs aren't binding, so any terms in them are meaningless. Which means it's back to the software company applying after-sale limitations, much the same as a car dealer who refuses warranty service.
If EULA were valid in any way, the question of their wording and in/exclusions would matter. They are not, it does not.
Because they aren't valid contracts, you can answer however you like and not be bound by it.
No. That's the point. It's not about corporate welfare, it's about having a legal system you can use to get your goods back from someone who didn't pay.
If the government forbids ripping people off it's easier to be a legit businessman because you only have to worry about competing with other businesses. If you have to price-match the thugs in the parking lot selling stolen car stereos, you're not going to make a very good profit.
Well, technically, they sort of make a feeble attempt to "Add value", in that you can't get updates without registering (accepting the EULA again) on the website. They here doesn't just mean Microsoft, it's also Adobe, Blizzard, Valve, and many other companies.
Do they really add value? Not unless you think that patches to flawed software "add" value - to me they're a required piece of the software. Especially now since network play is such a bit part of games - keeping upgrades of a p2p game (Quake3, for instance) to subscribers actually diminishes the value of the original game to everyone else (and the subscribers, when the player-base shrinks).
Making the user sign an EULA to get patched really is no different than the car dealer not being willing to do warranty repairs unless you purchase another service.
Here's where a small deviation from the book - VR helmets - could come in handy. You'd be "in" the game much more quickly. At that point the camera wouldn't be locked and it'd just be like a dream sequence.
I think little deviations (changing "hooks" to jetpacks, for instance) can be fine. They're just a prop. It's only bad when you change something integral to the story (making battle-school 2D or getting rid of the battle suits in Starship Troopers).
It's true, and even people like Ayn Rand support it. A "fair and level playing field" simply means that you have laws and they are enforced evenly. Contract law, laws against unjust use of force, theft, etc, etc.
I think it probably sounded a bit socialist because of the word "Safe". Not safe in the sense of someone holding your hand and keeping you from hurting yourself - safe in the sense of police keeping muggers and rapists in check.
Photos are a lot bigger than than in many cases. My camera's JPEGs are 1.8MB on medium-quality (20d, 8mp) already and they're just going to get bigger.
However, it does matter. In ten years when you transfer the photo to your computer your computer will recognize all the elements in the photo from enough previous photos to have figured out the shape, with that it will search for the pattern - enough other weirdos will have posted about bowl shopping at K-Mart and it'll find the pattern, so it'll just store all of these as a 3D model. Ditto with the pieces of cereal. A little trivial bit of rendering later and it's got 93% of the image from a 3D model, needing to store actual picture data for only a small number of pixels. Really, it could. And then your computer could run a background task to recompress those old JPEGs into the new format for you.
Information will always get easier to store and process. This guy takes pictures of his food - soon software will be able to figure out what he ate without any keywords. In a few years when they link water-chesnuts to Sudden Exploding Head Syndrome, he'll be able to query his diet for the last few years and know if he's at risk. You, you'd have nice searchable text, but it never was as easy as the photo so you didn't actually write it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's easy to criticize someone's style in doing something you are unwilling to even try.
One of the things that bugged me the most at my old job was my boss telling me I couldn't use screen. Seeing as how my job was largely sshing into remote machines and editing config files I thought it was pretty stupid to forbid me to use a program designed for this niche. Worse was the reason - the boss (who never needed to use my computer) couldn't figure it out. Not the end of the world, but frustrating. Especially when it was a pattern.
My boss didn't value anything he didn't understand, even if it saved a lot of time for everyone else. Worst was when he'd bitch about our speed in an area he'd crippled us in! Bah!
Of course. The proper language to use depends on the job. A pro uses what is the best for the job. Editors, including IDEs have no effect on the job, but make a huge difference in output. You fight about the things that are possible to change.
Well, I swore off of IBM after one failure, but it's the only failure I've got in twenty years, and they denied any problems while StorageReview was running stories on how many of them were dying. So they sent me another of the bad series and sure enough, a friend of mine who took it for $50 ($350 drive at the time) had it die on him later. He thought it was worth a try...
The percentage of patents that the PTO turns away is irrelevant - they turn out enough real stinkers that you can say they aren't doing their job. Patents are supposed to be on things that aren't obvious to the average professional in the field. If you could vaugely discuss the idea with a skilled professional and he'd be able to implement it, it's not worthy of a patent.
If that had been what people wanted when they wrote the laws they'd simply have said "The first guy to do something cool is allowed to impose arbitrary fines on anyone who copies him, unless they blow a huge ammount of money to call his bluff and possibly prove that his idea wasn't that cool."
Note how short that is? That's because it doesn't impose many restrictions. Note how long "patent law" is, even discounting all relevant case law. That's because it DOES impose a lot of restrictions. Do you know why? It's because they didn't want the current mess. They recognize the difference between technological advancement, what we traditionally think of as patentable, and a good idea (what we call a business-model patent) or math (what we call a software patent).
Further, your use statistics is specious at best, to declare that because only five bad examples were listed that the actual percentage is negligible. Obviously you do this to further your style of argument where you pretend that something the other person didn't say was a deliberate omission. More bad patents could be found if they were demanded, but you'd just say that the percentage was still near zero and demand more. This deliberatly deceptive style of arguing totally hurts your case, which is a shame because someone needs to preach that patents aren't bad, just misused ones, but you go so far by refusing to recognize that the system is obviously and objectively not what people or companies want it to be anyone.
Both little inventors and big companies like IBM have spoken out against the current patent system. It doesn't offer any real protection to a lone inventor because of how easily a well-funded patent lawyer can delay any attempts by a non-rich inventor to protect his idea. However, it does also offer a well-funder patent-holder to blackmail others in the same field. Patents have gotten too hard to disprove (not the PTO's fault) but they keep granting barely legitimate ones which are perfect weapons for legal firms in the guise of technology companies to sue the rest of the industry. The only supporters of the way the system is going are the ones who have more lawyers than technology.
I don't know who you think you're kidding by arguing for the current system. Co-filer on the one-click patent?
Good point. Made worse by the pervasive media - a popular pundit's fifteen minutes of fame could be much more powerful in a society where supporters can be rallied so quickly.
Why do all companies have to be evil? I sure wish they weren't, but as soon as you get more than five people together they seem to want to disclaim all ethical responsibility. Companies are often too handicapped, where one person would have to put their neck out by authorizing a friendly solution, that they fall back on asking the lawyers for the *safest* solution, which is always to do as little as possible.
That is the winning move in our system, and that makes it expected that they'll try this, but it means that not only can the people expect companies to change, they themselves must support changing the environment for companies. A company that didn't risk getting sued for a kid choking on his pop might give a few kegs away to scouting events...
But, whatever the root causes of it, companies are evil. Not the malicious kind, but the kind who'd only go help someone hit by a car if they'd get in trouble for not stopping. The fact is that they just aren't good neighbors, even if they're composed of the very individuals we call neighbors.
Education is better for society when everyone has it. Not only would an educated populace handle threats better, but an educated leader would probably have a bigger-picture view and realize that he'd be wealthier in the long run by exploiting a good economy rather than slums.
I'm not talking about going into a country and killing everyone to save a few, I'm talking about helping some people move. That's it.
My value judgements, which are just as applicable to everyone, as everyone else's are, say that nobody is morally justify keeping an innocent person a slave, or invent a crime on inaction (not being the right race, religion, etc) and make them a prisoner. That is applicable to the world - as applicable as any value judgement can be. I have as much right to free a slave as you do to keep him.
The true root of the disagreement is that I don't see countries or cultures as having any rights beyond those of the people in them. Canada is just a collection of Canadians. Canada has no more right to enslave you that a group of Canadians do. I'd help someone, even you, if I saw a group of people enslave them and I'd help them even if that group of people chose to call themselves a country.
You can't even say I'm wrong - by your own admission, nobody has any absolute answers.
Are you sure that your issue isn't that you're unwilling to help and that you're trying to justify this by preaching innaction? Where do you draw the line between helping a child with abusive parents - one who grew up in 'a culture of fear' as the saying goes, and not helping an abused child growing up in a foreign culture? How foreign does it need to be? Can we help people from Utah? Mexico? Canada? Iran?
As for the question of bring down tyrannies, Germany fell in WW2 - not from inside either, but from the actions of the rest of the world.
Quit grandstanding. The only part of 'culture' that I disagree with is when you try to force it on someone. I'm sure many Iranians do like their system, but that doesn't change the fact that there are many who don't like it and don't want to be there. It goes for any country with enough people.
I don't believe that any country's right to sovreignty outweighs its people's rights to opt out. That's it. How do you figure the "rights" of a culture to keep unwilling participants outweighs the rights of the people to leave?
You keep going on about how if people really want to leave, they will, but you cite examples where the majority rose up - I'm talking about the situations where the minorities, even individuals, are in danger because they don't want to participate in the "culture". They can get on their high horses about meddling when they actually let people opt out.
It's all well and good to think that people should have the chance to practice their culture, but it's just bullshit when you that they should be left in that culture even against their wishes.
I'm not saying that "we" need to "pacify" the "poor little brown people", or however you hear this. I'm saying that much of what goes on is injustice no matter how you look at it, even and especially through the eyes of those subjected to it. Saying that we shouldn't help them leave that situation, just because it goes against the wishes of the masters in that culture, is nuts. Seriously, there's no useful difference between me abusing you and an Iranian person abusing another Iranian. Saying otherwise is where the racism comes in.
Nobody needs to overthrow anyone - all you need is to give people the ability to choose for themselves if they want to be part of that culture. If people don't have a choice it's not a culture, it's a prison.
You can call it whatever you wish, but unless someone has an honest choice about their participation in a society they can't be bound by its restrictions. In most cases simply the ability to pick up and move is available, but in certain restrictive societies it is not.
It's as if I lived near you and made it a habit to beat you and whenever you tried to get away I found you and hauled you home and beat you more. Then, when people came and tried to help, I told them that this was simply the natural order of things and that why you might swear six ways to sunday that you didn't want to be here, it was what you knew and to take you away from it would be more damaging.
That is what it would be like if you were a resident in a country like Russia in the 60s, or Iran in the 80s if you weren't religious, or North Korea now, or Cambodia in the 60s, etc. Nobody chooses to be a second-class citizen, often with less rights than an animal.
It may be the only thing they know, and "saving" them by bombing a village might do more harm than good, but at the root of it if they could be given the chance to make an honest choice, none of them would choose to remain at the bottom of a totalitarian social structure.
It's not an issue of culture, we wouldn't let a recently relocated Saudi Arabian religious enforcer discipline locals, unless we could see that they freely chose to submit. In a similar way, we shouldn't let him discipline foreigners who would choose to leave, and who we feel are blameless.
Culture can be just another thin rationale for oppression. Let the victims get away and see what culture they want to keep and what they don't.
Slashdot Mirror
Technically, yes, anything other than what's on the box is out of spec. But I've never had a problem when choosing any valid FSB (whatever any model of that CPU can run at) with an appropriate multiplier to keep the CPU happy.
Funny, but it misses the point. You can buy faster ram, and the bus is capable of those speeds - it would do them with a faster CPU installed, by default - so nothing is being run over spec.
No, just cloak themselves. Different UAs and different IPs.
..." which means, don't bookmark/index me, bookmark the source. As this requires write access to the page or the server, it couldn't be remotely abused.
Ideally, google could even randomly check some URLs more than once, with different UAs. This would catch some tricks, but moreso, would encourage people to not use browser-detection code. (Some change is one thing, but if the highly ranked content can't be found - tough.)
That solves the webmasters serving something different to Google problem.
After that, they just need to apply all rankings to the page with the content. Treat all redirects like permanent ones. It's okay that you point somewhere, but because it's hard to prove ownership, you can't get credit for what's there.
Otherwise, we'd need a new response code - 25x somewhere - "OK, but temporarily redirected from
I don't see how the word "protect" fits here. Just about anything you could do differently between me and google would be like the 302 "bug".
Why not? They've convinced you that they're valid. They don't need to convince a judge if everyone is scared. Total cost to them, some time from a lawyer already on staff.
Do you really think they wouldn't have enforced them if they knew they worked? Surely there's someone, somewhere, that a company like Microsoft or Adobe could sue, given their inclination to sue and all the requirements in an EULA which nobody could ever live up to.
Except that EULAs aren't binding, so any terms in them are meaningless. Which means it's back to the software company applying after-sale limitations, much the same as a car dealer who refuses warranty service.
If EULA were valid in any way, the question of their wording and in/exclusions would matter. They are not, it does not.
Because they aren't valid contracts, you can answer however you like and not be bound by it.
No. That's the point. It's not about corporate welfare, it's about having a legal system you can use to get your goods back from someone who didn't pay.
If the government forbids ripping people off it's easier to be a legit businessman because you only have to worry about competing with other businesses. If you have to price-match the thugs in the parking lot selling stolen car stereos, you're not going to make a very good profit.
Well, technically, they sort of make a feeble attempt to "Add value", in that you can't get updates without registering (accepting the EULA again) on the website. They here doesn't just mean Microsoft, it's also Adobe, Blizzard, Valve, and many other companies.
Do they really add value? Not unless you think that patches to flawed software "add" value - to me they're a required piece of the software. Especially now since network play is such a bit part of games - keeping upgrades of a p2p game (Quake3, for instance) to subscribers actually diminishes the value of the original game to everyone else (and the subscribers, when the player-base shrinks).
Making the user sign an EULA to get patched really is no different than the car dealer not being willing to do warranty repairs unless you purchase another service.
Here's where a small deviation from the book - VR helmets - could come in handy. You'd be "in" the game much more quickly. At that point the camera wouldn't be locked and it'd just be like a dream sequence.
I think little deviations (changing "hooks" to jetpacks, for instance) can be fine. They're just a prop. It's only bad when you change something integral to the story (making battle-school 2D or getting rid of the battle suits in Starship Troopers).
It's true, and even people like Ayn Rand support it. A "fair and level playing field" simply means that you have laws and they are enforced evenly. Contract law, laws against unjust use of force, theft, etc, etc.
I think it probably sounded a bit socialist because of the word "Safe". Not safe in the sense of someone holding your hand and keeping you from hurting yourself - safe in the sense of police keeping muggers and rapists in check.
What was XML invented for genius? Maybe I should patent using HTML as a text markup language for rendering by "client" machines.
Fuck you're an idiot. XML is a fucking data exchange format - patenting the intended use is never a novel use of a technology.
Photos are a lot bigger than than in many cases. My camera's JPEGs are 1.8MB on medium-quality (20d, 8mp) already and they're just going to get bigger.
However, it does matter. In ten years when you transfer the photo to your computer your computer will recognize all the elements in the photo from enough previous photos to have figured out the shape, with that it will search for the pattern - enough other weirdos will have posted about bowl shopping at K-Mart and it'll find the pattern, so it'll just store all of these as a 3D model. Ditto with the pieces of cereal. A little trivial bit of rendering later and it's got 93% of the image from a 3D model, needing to store actual picture data for only a small number of pixels. Really, it could. And then your computer could run a background task to recompress those old JPEGs into the new format for you.
Information will always get easier to store and process. This guy takes pictures of his food - soon software will be able to figure out what he ate without any keywords. In a few years when they link water-chesnuts to Sudden Exploding Head Syndrome, he'll be able to query his diet for the last few years and know if he's at risk. You, you'd have nice searchable text, but it never was as easy as the photo so you didn't actually write it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's easy to criticize someone's style in doing something you are unwilling to even try.
One of the things that bugged me the most at my old job was my boss telling me I couldn't use screen. Seeing as how my job was largely sshing into remote machines and editing config files I thought it was pretty stupid to forbid me to use a program designed for this niche. Worse was the reason - the boss (who never needed to use my computer) couldn't figure it out. Not the end of the world, but frustrating. Especially when it was a pattern.
My boss didn't value anything he didn't understand, even if it saved a lot of time for everyone else. Worst was when he'd bitch about our speed in an area he'd crippled us in! Bah!
Of course. The proper language to use depends on the job. A pro uses what is the best for the job. Editors, including IDEs have no effect on the job, but make a huge difference in output. You fight about the things that are possible to change.
Well, I swore off of IBM after one failure, but it's the only failure I've got in twenty years, and they denied any problems while StorageReview was running stories on how many of them were dying. So they sent me another of the bad series and sure enough, a friend of mine who took it for $50 ($350 drive at the time) had it die on him later. He thought it was worth a try...
The percentage of patents that the PTO turns away is irrelevant - they turn out enough real stinkers that you can say they aren't doing their job. Patents are supposed to be on things that aren't obvious to the average professional in the field. If you could vaugely discuss the idea with a skilled professional and he'd be able to implement it, it's not worthy of a patent.
If that had been what people wanted when they wrote the laws they'd simply have said "The first guy to do something cool is allowed to impose arbitrary fines on anyone who copies him, unless they blow a huge ammount of money to call his bluff and possibly prove that his idea wasn't that cool."
Note how short that is? That's because it doesn't impose many restrictions. Note how long "patent law" is, even discounting all relevant case law. That's because it DOES impose a lot of restrictions. Do you know why? It's because they didn't want the current mess. They recognize the difference between technological advancement, what we traditionally think of as patentable, and a good idea (what we call a business-model patent) or math (what we call a software patent).
Further, your use statistics is specious at best, to declare that because only five bad examples were listed that the actual percentage is negligible. Obviously you do this to further your style of argument where you pretend that something the other person didn't say was a deliberate omission. More bad patents could be found if they were demanded, but you'd just say that the percentage was still near zero and demand more. This deliberatly deceptive style of arguing totally hurts your case, which is a shame because someone needs to preach that patents aren't bad, just misused ones, but you go so far by refusing to recognize that the system is obviously and objectively not what people or companies want it to be anyone.
Both little inventors and big companies like IBM have spoken out against the current patent system. It doesn't offer any real protection to a lone inventor because of how easily a well-funded patent lawyer can delay any attempts by a non-rich inventor to protect his idea. However, it does also offer a well-funder patent-holder to blackmail others in the same field. Patents have gotten too hard to disprove (not the PTO's fault) but they keep granting barely legitimate ones which are perfect weapons for legal firms in the guise of technology companies to sue the rest of the industry. The only supporters of the way the system is going are the ones who have more lawyers than technology.
I don't know who you think you're kidding by arguing for the current system. Co-filer on the one-click patent?
Good point. Made worse by the pervasive media - a popular pundit's fifteen minutes of fame could be much more powerful in a society where supporters can be rallied so quickly.
Why do all companies have to be evil? I sure wish they weren't, but as soon as you get more than five people together they seem to want to disclaim all ethical responsibility. Companies are often too handicapped, where one person would have to put their neck out by authorizing a friendly solution, that they fall back on asking the lawyers for the *safest* solution, which is always to do as little as possible.
That is the winning move in our system, and that makes it expected that they'll try this, but it means that not only can the people expect companies to change, they themselves must support changing the environment for companies. A company that didn't risk getting sued for a kid choking on his pop might give a few kegs away to scouting events...
But, whatever the root causes of it, companies are evil. Not the malicious kind, but the kind who'd only go help someone hit by a car if they'd get in trouble for not stopping. The fact is that they just aren't good neighbors, even if they're composed of the very individuals we call neighbors.
Education is better for society when everyone has it. Not only would an educated populace handle threats better, but an educated leader would probably have a bigger-picture view and realize that he'd be wealthier in the long run by exploiting a good economy rather than slums.
I'm not talking about going into a country and killing everyone to save a few, I'm talking about helping some people move. That's it.
My value judgements, which are just as applicable to everyone, as everyone else's are, say that nobody is morally justify keeping an innocent person a slave, or invent a crime on inaction (not being the right race, religion, etc) and make them a prisoner. That is applicable to the world - as applicable as any value judgement can be. I have as much right to free a slave as you do to keep him.
The true root of the disagreement is that I don't see countries or cultures as having any rights beyond those of the people in them. Canada is just a collection of Canadians. Canada has no more right to enslave you that a group of Canadians do. I'd help someone, even you, if I saw a group of people enslave them and I'd help them even if that group of people chose to call themselves a country.
You can't even say I'm wrong - by your own admission, nobody has any absolute answers.
Are you sure that your issue isn't that you're unwilling to help and that you're trying to justify this by preaching innaction? Where do you draw the line between helping a child with abusive parents - one who grew up in 'a culture of fear' as the saying goes, and not helping an abused child growing up in a foreign culture? How foreign does it need to be? Can we help people from Utah? Mexico? Canada? Iran?
As for the question of bring down tyrannies, Germany fell in WW2 - not from inside either, but from the actions of the rest of the world.
Quit grandstanding. The only part of 'culture' that I disagree with is when you try to force it on someone. I'm sure many Iranians do like their system, but that doesn't change the fact that there are many who don't like it and don't want to be there. It goes for any country with enough people.
I don't believe that any country's right to sovreignty outweighs its people's rights to opt out. That's it. How do you figure the "rights" of a culture to keep unwilling participants outweighs the rights of the people to leave?
You keep going on about how if people really want to leave, they will, but you cite examples where the majority rose up - I'm talking about the situations where the minorities, even individuals, are in danger because they don't want to participate in the "culture". They can get on their high horses about meddling when they actually let people opt out.
It's all well and good to think that people should have the chance to practice their culture, but it's just bullshit when you that they should be left in that culture even against their wishes.
I'm not saying that "we" need to "pacify" the "poor little brown people", or however you hear this. I'm saying that much of what goes on is injustice no matter how you look at it, even and especially through the eyes of those subjected to it. Saying that we shouldn't help them leave that situation, just because it goes against the wishes of the masters in that culture, is nuts. Seriously, there's no useful difference between me abusing you and an Iranian person abusing another Iranian. Saying otherwise is where the racism comes in.
Nobody needs to overthrow anyone - all you need is to give people the ability to choose for themselves if they want to be part of that culture. If people don't have a choice it's not a culture, it's a prison.
You seem to have a problem with the language. Seems like part of something larger.
Take a hike, troll.
You can call it whatever you wish, but unless someone has an honest choice about their participation in a society they can't be bound by its restrictions. In most cases simply the ability to pick up and move is available, but in certain restrictive societies it is not.
It's as if I lived near you and made it a habit to beat you and whenever you tried to get away I found you and hauled you home and beat you more. Then, when people came and tried to help, I told them that this was simply the natural order of things and that why you might swear six ways to sunday that you didn't want to be here, it was what you knew and to take you away from it would be more damaging.
That is what it would be like if you were a resident in a country like Russia in the 60s, or Iran in the 80s if you weren't religious, or North Korea now, or Cambodia in the 60s, etc. Nobody chooses to be a second-class citizen, often with less rights than an animal.
It may be the only thing they know, and "saving" them by bombing a village might do more harm than good, but at the root of it if they could be given the chance to make an honest choice, none of them would choose to remain at the bottom of a totalitarian social structure.
It's not an issue of culture, we wouldn't let a recently relocated Saudi Arabian religious enforcer discipline locals, unless we could see that they freely chose to submit. In a similar way, we shouldn't let him discipline foreigners who would choose to leave, and who we feel are blameless.
Culture can be just another thin rationale for oppression. Let the victims get away and see what culture they want to keep and what they don't.