My distinction is not at all arbitrary. An "application processor" is the same thing as an auxiliary CPU; they'll lack things like PCIe lanes and paged memory management. Compare to some ARM chips that'd have a cripped 100% turing-complete ARM core next to a proper CPU for "media processing", basically as an extra FPU to decode video, but unable to execute POSIX software (or a real OS kernel) for having no MMU.
Because calling machine-learning methods "artificial intelligence" is a religious attitude towards computation, and that-a-way lies a world where you trust the Computer because the Computer is your friend. It deserves to get figuratively spat on over and over.
So you know the standards of process I'm talking about. Good. I disagree with your disagreement of my use of terminology, and double down on my previous.
It's my opinion that people shouldn't be fired on the basis of complaint alone, because this amplifies the damage that a serial false accuser would do -- both to the company and the employee. In practice investigations happen to the standard of covering the company's ass in court, from both the accuser's and the accusee's directions. This, while shooting quite low, means at the minimum that "guilt upon accusation" would land the employee in court; and it's well that it should, since there are e.g. ways by which an employee can be given a small bonus in return for having someone fired using such an accusation.
But, like, maybe all pregnant women are actually serial workplace rapists in the US. I wouldn't know, and couldn't tell.
Not only does Apple offer their own, inferior, incompatible format in preference to the industry standard, they also pretend the latter doesn't exist. Apple Lossless has St. Jobs' magical pee all over.
Nothing in there points in any way to machine learning. There's just a fancy branch predictor in there, the design of which may have been informed by something related to neural networks, but that's true of all CPUs of the current generation. (kind of like integrated memory controllers were like 10 years ago.)
But that's just as well, given how AI is a marketing scam anyway.
This could involve all encryption on their networks, however. Implying that operators would be required to ban forms of encryption that they cannot crack.
Which has an interesting knock-on in that concealing unbreakable encryption within breakable encryption will only be caught and excluded if breakable encryption will be circumvented as a matter of course.
Like the non-pardon of the Collateral Murder leaker, this is a PR stunt designed to pressure Assange into leaving the embassy. Puts him in the headlines for a couple of days.
Duude... you go out of your way to invalidate your own crank fantasies, and _then_ call my arguments provably false -- presumably in reference to said fantasies. Don't go off your pills on your own.
The whistleblower wrote his/her letter in march 2017 already. Look at the articles of The Grauniad in the related articles bar towards the end. You can guess how much information will have not been shredded in between.
The cops break the law individually and as an organization, and get away with it because the law is set up so that the cops may break it at will.
Also, you'd be able to experimentally prove or disprove halting for every possible program: a halting program will terminate instantly, and a non-halting one will not.
What's more, it would already have computed everything. All we'd need to do is specify what answer we're looking for. Lookup also occurs immediately, implying that the computer knows ahead of time what we're looking for.
All violations of basic consequentiality, I might point out.
>Allowing for an explicit 30-day grace period is nice, but there's already a defacto grace period that's much, much wider.
This is true. There was none in the GPLv2, meaning that coming into compliance before being sued would still leave them open. The GPLv3 is the same way once the 30 days are up, meaning that there's now adequate room for an one-time human error; but not for the corporation that'd try to string 30-day periods one after another.
The clause was in direct response to criticism about the GPLv2 being a loaded gun on a hapless corporation's temple. Now there's some contractual basis to coming into compliance within a given window, meaning that more first time violators will choose to do exactly that. Subsequent violations are as with the GPLv2.
There's no point to taking the GPL to court, as a defendant. Any defense that could be come up with will be based on denying the GPL's applicability, thereby either arguing that some other license exists and producing it, or admitting criminal copyright infringement.
Your point was salient 20 years ago, but these days it's the case that GPL cases are settled out of court because there's no viable defense and never has been. Practical difficulties in GPL enforcement arise from jurisdiction and the cost and effort of going to court, but not from the license being in some way "untested".
Slashdot Mirror
But their dowsing rod is now better than ever... or was in a test, anyway.
My distinction is not at all arbitrary. An "application processor" is the same thing as an auxiliary CPU; they'll lack things like PCIe lanes and paged memory management. Compare to some ARM chips that'd have a cripped 100% turing-complete ARM core next to a proper CPU for "media processing", basically as an extra FPU to decode video, but unable to execute POSIX software (or a real OS kernel) for having no MMU.
Programmability is commonplace in accelerator chips. For example, GPUs. The article's chip cannot support an operating system on its own.
An application-specific integrated circuit, or ASIC. Not a new type of CPU.
Because calling machine-learning methods "artificial intelligence" is a religious attitude towards computation, and that-a-way lies a world where you trust the Computer because the Computer is your friend. It deserves to get figuratively spat on over and over.
I'll have you know that I personally find sweetieposting hilarious. Do keep it up.
But you gotta bring your own "battle-proven" rod.
So you know the standards of process I'm talking about. Good. I disagree with your disagreement of my use of terminology, and double down on my previous.
It's my opinion that people shouldn't be fired on the basis of complaint alone, because this amplifies the damage that a serial false accuser would do -- both to the company and the employee. In practice investigations happen to the standard of covering the company's ass in court, from both the accuser's and the accusee's directions. This, while shooting quite low, means at the minimum that "guilt upon accusation" would land the employee in court; and it's well that it should, since there are e.g. ways by which an employee can be given a small bonus in return for having someone fired using such an accusation.
But, like, maybe all pregnant women are actually serial workplace rapists in the US. I wouldn't know, and couldn't tell.
Didn't take fucking long at all, now that the infosec companies know what they should've been looking for.
Not only does Apple offer their own, inferior, incompatible format in preference to the industry standard, they also pretend the latter doesn't exist. Apple Lossless has St. Jobs' magical pee all over.
Shouldn't they wait until results happen, accusers are met, and so forth? Or do they not want to even make up a kangaroo court?
By consequences, you mean revenge.
For young players at home, this is "IT" in the sense of "tech support".
*physician
Nothing in there points in any way to machine learning. There's just a fancy branch predictor in there, the design of which may have been informed by something related to neural networks, but that's true of all CPUs of the current generation. (kind of like integrated memory controllers were like 10 years ago.)
But that's just as well, given how AI is a marketing scam anyway.
Dude. C99 is those parts of C++ that were a good idea. Not going with C11 is just backward compatibility at this point.
This could involve all encryption on their networks, however. Implying that operators would be required to ban forms of encryption that they cannot crack.
Which has an interesting knock-on in that concealing unbreakable encryption within breakable encryption will only be caught and excluded if breakable encryption will be circumvented as a matter of course.
Like the non-pardon of the Collateral Murder leaker, this is a PR stunt designed to pressure Assange into leaving the embassy. Puts him in the headlines for a couple of days.
Duude... you go out of your way to invalidate your own crank fantasies, and _then_ call my arguments provably false -- presumably in reference to said fantasies. Don't go off your pills on your own.
The whistleblower wrote his/her letter in march 2017 already. Look at the articles of The Grauniad in the related articles bar towards the end. You can guess how much information will have not been shredded in between.
The cops break the law individually and as an organization, and get away with it because the law is set up so that the cops may break it at will.
No user-perceptible I/O latency either: programs waiting for user input will go back to waiting in exactly 0 seconds.
Also, you'd be able to experimentally prove or disprove halting for every possible program: a halting program will terminate instantly, and a non-halting one will not.
What's more, it would already have computed everything. All we'd need to do is specify what answer we're looking for. Lookup also occurs immediately, implying that the computer knows ahead of time what we're looking for.
All violations of basic consequentiality, I might point out.
>Allowing for an explicit 30-day grace period is nice, but there's already a defacto grace period that's much, much wider.
This is true. There was none in the GPLv2, meaning that coming into compliance before being sued would still leave them open. The GPLv3 is the same way once the 30 days are up, meaning that there's now adequate room for an one-time human error; but not for the corporation that'd try to string 30-day periods one after another.
The clause was in direct response to criticism about the GPLv2 being a loaded gun on a hapless corporation's temple. Now there's some contractual basis to coming into compliance within a given window, meaning that more first time violators will choose to do exactly that. Subsequent violations are as with the GPLv2.
There's no point to taking the GPL to court, as a defendant. Any defense that could be come up with will be based on denying the GPL's applicability, thereby either arguing that some other license exists and producing it, or admitting criminal copyright infringement.
Your point was salient 20 years ago, but these days it's the case that GPL cases are settled out of court because there's no viable defense and never has been. Practical difficulties in GPL enforcement arise from jurisdiction and the cost and effort of going to court, but not from the license being in some way "untested".