And the banks didn't WANT insecure ATMs, they just happened. How could you read TFA and miss that example, or its point? The guy wasn't answering a question, he was raising it, and pointing out the main issue he thinks the answer should turn on and detailing examples to bolster his point.
His last point is best:
Interest must be aligned with capability, but you need to be careful how you generate interest.
and leaves the question he says needs answering: how is software different from ATM security requirements and the two register-receipt-collection incarnations? Is there any good place to insert the legal lever?
I think OSS already meets the align-capability-with-interest criterion. People think an OSS project isn't interested in improving, they walk, fix or fork. The vendor has no monopoly on capability, so nothing's far enough out of balance to require legal intervention.
There is commercial software out there that it's simply not feasible to ditch. A company might have their entire staff trained on it, with the retraining costs an all but insurmountable barrier. Vendor lock-in is widely regarded as, at the very least, contemptible, especially by its victims. It's widespread because it's effective, and he wants to know how to blunt its worst effects.
Yah, they looked for any way possible to throw the suit out. DirecTV says he's a cable pirate running a cable pirate haven. The court mentions their hundreds of lawsuits and "countless" demand letters, and that's just in Florida. So everybody involved knows this is a "get the hell out of here, we don't want anything to do with you" opinion. Their behavior didn't qualify for the SCA and you didn't try hard enough to prove these guys had anything to do with DirecTV and your colo site was in CA or WA or something and they were in GA and this is FL and blablablabladropdead. I bet nothing that can make an EEG machine twitch will ever cite this case.
Nice post. "Remains flat (as it has for many years)"... let's see, average daily attendance 1989: 37.268 million; 2002: 44.605 million. ~15% increase isn't a budget cut~, neatly presuming that 15% increases aren't pipe dreams. "Focus is on shiny new buildings", neatly ignoring the crumbling old buildings they replace. "When your main concern is that there is a "counselor" for every 3 student" as if that even remotely resembled reality.
I really think anyone who can't make an argument without putting his thumb on the scales like that should avoid calling children ~fat, contented and ignorant~.
Your quote is selective. I linked sections 3121-3127. 3125 says he has to get the court order specified in section 3123. That order has to identify "the person" whose communications are being traced. Section 3125's emergency authority doesn't even remotely cover what they're doing.
enough to trigger presidential war powers; (4) the President has cited such constitutional authority
Read that again. That is exactly what I said. He has cited only military authority for his order.
Where did I say or even imply that he doesn't have the authority he's claiming? He does. I said so flat out. It says so right there in the Constitution. But that's the only authority he has. If he only has civil authority, it isn't legal. You say the civil government is still in place. You're right. You say, "Constitution trumps legislation". You're right. Put those two together, please, and start reasoning.
That's covered under Sect 3121 and defined in Sect 3127 too. You might want to ask yourself why I quoted a usdoj site containing both those (and all the ones inbetween), instead of the easier-to-find Cornell site that quotes one at a time. Your "pompous" is my "stone-faced with rage and trying to maintain civility".
Nice demonstration of why nobody wants to call it what it is.
The only statute the President claims as authority is the Congressional authorization for the use of force. He says that as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces he can order it.
Does it really need to be spelled out further? Here: he says it's a military operation, so he can ignore all those other laws that say he can't do it. He doesn't dare use the common term for that authority, and nobody else in a position of responsibility wants to use the words either. "Martial law" tends to provoke rather emotional reactions.
Up until now, getting phone records does not require a warrant.
You're wrong. One could quibble about the precise definition of "warrant", but the fact is they have to ask the court, and the court's order has to specify the identity of the person whose phone records are being tracked.
No doubt that last is the provision the Administration found... inconvenient... and it's easy to find sympathy for the initial transgression. I can still do that: cut them a break, ok?
But my sympathy and what they're doing now is exactly why we have a Constitution: the good guys might "need" it to start with, but it never stops there, and the crimes it permits are far worse than the crimes it prevents.
And no, I haven't forgotten. I saw the towers fall too. They're going after people who say things they don't like, and now you can't hide. These are men who'll try to hurt you if you do that. If they can't find a way to wreck your career, they'll go after your family.
That's a really impressive piece of work, there. Kudos. Taking the assertions individually, if you squint at them just right, you can find "truthful" constructions. It would take hours to pull that thing apart, and just about anybody who actually knows what you're talking about will just skip the whole post after seeing "never hear about AIX anymore". It's exquisite. Did you build it yourself?
Nah you're thinking about Japan. Face doesn't matter a damn to the Chinese, they left that behind along with the bowing after the "popular revolution"
I relied on my mental trivia file for that remark; it's usually pretty good. So I read your remark, blushed, and googled "chinese culture face status important". At least wasn't alone in my ignorance.
included organizing a conspiracy against the China-developed WAPI, insulting China and other national bodies, and intimidation and threats.
"Insulting". You have to read the article to really get a sense of it. I don't know how much of it's a show and how much of it is really that they... feel they've lost face. Ok. It's real. Face matters in Chinese culture, a lot, and this is a combination of homegrown startup tech and nascent national status. By our standards, they subordinate truth to status even in rational endeavors, that's as contemptible coming from them as it is from our own politicians, and you can just see the feedback loop closing. Pray for some genuine diplomats, everybody's going to need them.
I wouldn't know enough to tell without some serious books-hitting — and since it's secret tech nobody has the facts anyway — but imagine the possible irony here: what if WAPI really is better? That's just too delicious. The unfeeling consumer-of-good-stories in me almost hopes it's true.
Merit I don't know. Afaict we don't know what they say Intel did, but it's going to amount to backroom negotiations waawaawaa. Cases like that are political, not technical. Any public discussion of the merits will be lies staged by at least one side, worthless to anyone who wants to know what's actually going on, and the Chinese were going to find something. That's why I said "irrelevant".
Full-system emulators are just that. They model bus contention and DRAM refresh and everything else. If anything at all shows up in the actual hardware that those emulators didn't predict, the engineers figure it out and fix it; they don't like not understanding the hardware they're building, and IBM aren't the only ones who've been doing things like this for a while now.
The LBNL guys started with a simple model. Their model generally predicted performance within 2% of what the full emulator said. It was off by ~13% once, and that bugged them; it turned out the emulator knew about a dispatch interlock that they didn't.
I believe their predictions will going to be dead on the mark.
Yes. Some guys at LBNL took good look./. had the story yesterday. When they were trying, they repeatedly toasted Cray's best. With a "naive" FFT implementation -- not half trying -- they got 80%.
how easy is it to implement an optimizing development system that eliminates the need to hand-optimize the code?
Not much payoff optimizing development systems for slow hardware. Cray tout the X1E as offering "Unrivalled Vector Processing and Scalability for Extreme Performance". These guys smoked one for dinner, woke up the next day, rebuilt their code from the ground up a completely different way and smoked it again for lunch.
It took them a month to figure out how to do that, on maybe $3K worth of hardware. Think anybody wants to teach a compiler how to get close? TFP:
Having become experienced Cell programmers, the single
precision time skewed stencil -- although virtually a complete
rewrite from the double precision single step version
-- required only a single day to code, debug, benchmark,
and attain spectacular results of over 65 Gflop/s. This implementation
consists of about 450 lines, due once again to
unrolling and the heavy use of intrinsics.
I'm just a fanboi in this territory, but last I looked the guys who don't quite need to do that just use pre-tuned libraries to get a nice chunk of what's possible. Who really cares how hard it is to tune those, once?
And when they were just doodling, not thinking hard?
These results are conservative given the naive 1D FFT implementation we used
on Cell whereas the other systems in the comparison used
highly tuned FFTW or vendor-tuned FFT implementations [...] Cell performance is nearly at parity with the X1E in
double precision.
They say DP arithmetic is apparently in there as an afterthought -- it's not really necessary for game-quality 3D, after all -- and they think they know how tweak the pipeline for better than double the throughput.
If you want to learn how to skate, take a tennis ball and chase it around a parking lot while having skates strapped to your feet. Don't spend more than a few minutes trying to consciously learn how to stand, roll forward, brake, or fall. Chase the ball. Do something OTHER than learn how to skate, but do something that requires skating. Your medulla oblongata will do the job far faster if it's allowed to do it without micromanagement from your conscious mind.
That's the most cogent statement of that principle I've ever encountered.
I think you nailed it. But please don't stop there.
Ask yourself why they're so keen to build these networks at all, then?
This is unicast video. People are going to expect to come home and turn on their PC the way they turn on their TV. The ISPs will have to build capacity for 100% of advertised bandwidth to all customers simultaneously: customers will expect delivery especially when there's something available everyone wants to see.
So even at peak loads they won't have to bump "low-priority" traffic: whether you use it or not they'll still have the capacity. As in available, and unused by paid commercial traffic.
No business will have any motive to pay your ISP to deliver traffic over available bandwidth you've already paid for unless they absolutely have to, so the ISPs will have to simply make it "unavailable": to refuse to deliver "low-priority" "unpaid" traffic over this new network at all. They'll still call it Internet service, of course, and because it'll use Internet Protocol.
It will just be doing exactly the same thing as digital cable does now, not one bit more. They'll make up "exclusive content!" you can only get by paying for this "new" service, and charge more for it. After all, it'll be their all new, mind-bogglingly-fast Internet Service.
And the backbones will build capacity for the "priority" commercial traffic, and then demand that Congress not "force them to subsidize" that low-priority "unpaid" traffic, and demand the same "right" as the residential ISPs: to refuse to route it at all, even over idle pipes.
And when people complain, they'll just be cynical whiners. After all, it'll all be Perfectly Legal.
killing it on other platforms wasn't Microsoft's motivation
Maybe not their only motivation, but games sell machines. For a long time, Macs just weren't gaming machines: Apple had wrong-footed themselves by trying for the "business" image. Bungie were changing that, attracting attention with a long string of outstanding Mac-first and Mac-only games, and it was starting to positively affect Apple's image. Everybody knew Halo was going to be just amazing. Bungie had history, reputation, credibility and absolutely awesome demos. People bought machines just to play that one game. Do you really think Microsoft would stand by and watch those be Macs?
Slashdot Mirror
His last point is best:
and leaves the question he says needs answering: how is software different from ATM security requirements and the two register-receipt-collection incarnations? Is there any good place to insert the legal lever?
I think OSS already meets the align-capability-with-interest criterion. People think an OSS project isn't interested in improving, they walk, fix or fork. The vendor has no monopoly on capability, so nothing's far enough out of balance to require legal intervention.
There is commercial software out there that it's simply not feasible to ditch. A company might have their entire staff trained on it, with the retraining costs an all but insurmountable barrier. Vendor lock-in is widely regarded as, at the very least, contemptible, especially by its victims. It's widespread because it's effective, and he wants to know how to blunt its worst effects.
This'll probably go over like a lead zeppelin.
So that's all right then.
Yah, they looked for any way possible to throw the suit out. DirecTV says he's a cable pirate running a cable pirate haven. The court mentions their hundreds of lawsuits and "countless" demand letters, and that's just in Florida. So everybody involved knows this is a "get the hell out of here, we don't want anything to do with you" opinion. Their behavior didn't qualify for the SCA and you didn't try hard enough to prove these guys had anything to do with DirecTV and your colo site was in CA or WA or something and they were in GA and this is FL and blablablabladropdead. I bet nothing that can make an EEG machine twitch will ever cite this case.
You're not using reason, you're using scare words and the hope of ignorance.
Here's their site. Sure they're having fun with the word. You can find more dangerous things in the cleaning supplies aisle at Safeway.
I really think anyone who can't make an argument without putting his thumb on the scales like that should avoid calling children ~fat, contented and ignorant~.
Read the definition of "trap and trace", right there next to it in the code I linked.
Where did I say or even imply that he doesn't have the authority he's claiming? He does. I said so flat out. It says so right there in the Constitution. But that's the only authority he has. If he only has civil authority, it isn't legal. You say the civil government is still in place. You're right. You say, "Constitution trumps legislation". You're right. Put those two together, please, and start reasoning.
Nice demonstration of why nobody wants to call it what it is.
The only statute the President claims as authority is the Congressional authorization for the use of force. He says that as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces he can order it.
Does it really need to be spelled out further? Here: he says it's a military operation, so he can ignore all those other laws that say he can't do it. He doesn't dare use the common term for that authority, and nobody else in a position of responsibility wants to use the words either. "Martial law" tends to provoke rather emotional reactions.
No doubt that last is the provision the Administration found ... inconvenient ... and it's easy to find sympathy for the initial transgression. I can still do that: cut them a break, ok?
But my sympathy and what they're doing now is exactly why we have a Constitution: the good guys might "need" it to start with, but it never stops there, and the crimes it permits are far worse than the crimes it prevents.
And no, I haven't forgotten. I saw the towers fall too. They're going after people who say things they don't like, and now you can't hide. These are men who'll try to hurt you if you do that. If they can't find a way to wreck your career, they'll go after your family.
That's a really impressive piece of work, there. Kudos. Taking the assertions individually, if you squint at them just right, you can find "truthful" constructions. It would take hours to pull that thing apart, and just about anybody who actually knows what you're talking about will just skip the whole post after seeing "never hear about AIX anymore". It's exquisite. Did you build it yourself?
I have to wonder whether the poster, the modder or both are actively committing slashdot self-parody, because this is just screamingly funny.
You might be able to get Sony to subsidize a PS3 port — protogeek coolness, your game console's hunting aliens while you sleep.
"Insulting". You have to read the article to really get a sense of it. I don't know how much of it's a show and how much of it is really that they ... feel they've lost face. Ok. It's real. Face matters in Chinese culture, a lot, and this is a combination of homegrown startup tech and nascent national status. By our standards, they subordinate truth to status even in rational endeavors, that's as contemptible coming from them as it is from our own politicians, and you can just see the feedback loop closing. Pray for some genuine diplomats, everybody's going to need them.
I wouldn't know enough to tell without some serious books-hitting — and since it's secret tech nobody has the facts anyway — but imagine the possible irony here: what if WAPI really is better? That's just too delicious. The unfeeling consumer-of-good-stories in me almost hopes it's true.
Merit I don't know. Afaict we don't know what they say Intel did, but it's going to amount to backroom negotiations waawaawaa. Cases like that are political, not technical. Any public discussion of the merits will be lies staged by at least one side, worthless to anyone who wants to know what's actually going on, and the Chinese were going to find something. That's why I said "irrelevant".
The LBNL guys started with a simple model. Their model generally predicted performance within 2% of what the full emulator said. It was off by ~13% once, and that bugged them; it turned out the emulator knew about a dispatch interlock that they didn't.
I believe their predictions will going to be dead on the mark.
Yes. Some guys at LBNL took good look. /. had the story yesterday. When they were trying, they repeatedly toasted Cray's best. With a "naive" FFT implementation -- not half trying -- they got 80%.
It took them a month to figure out how to do that, on maybe $3K worth of hardware. Think anybody wants to teach a compiler how to get close? TFP:
I'm just a fanboi in this territory, but last I looked the guys who don't quite need to do that just use pre-tuned libraries to get a nice chunk of what's possible. Who really cares how hard it is to tune those, once?
And when they were just doodling, not thinking hard?
They say DP arithmetic is apparently in there as an afterthought -- it's not really necessary for game-quality 3D, after all -- and they think they know how tweak the pipeline for better than double the throughput.
--
IABCOT!
Ask yourself why they're so keen to build these networks at all, then?
This is unicast video. People are going to expect to come home and turn on their PC the way they turn on their TV. The ISPs will have to build capacity for 100% of advertised bandwidth to all customers simultaneously: customers will expect delivery especially when there's something available everyone wants to see.
So even at peak loads they won't have to bump "low-priority" traffic: whether you use it or not they'll still have the capacity. As in available, and unused by paid commercial traffic.
No business will have any motive to pay your ISP to deliver traffic over available bandwidth you've already paid for unless they absolutely have to, so the ISPs will have to simply make it "unavailable": to refuse to deliver "low-priority" "unpaid" traffic over this new network at all. They'll still call it Internet service, of course, and because it'll use Internet Protocol.
It will just be doing exactly the same thing as digital cable does now, not one bit more. They'll make up "exclusive content!" you can only get by paying for this "new" service, and charge more for it. After all, it'll be their all new, mind-bogglingly-fast Internet Service.
And the backbones will build capacity for the "priority" commercial traffic, and then demand that Congress not "force them to subsidize" that low-priority "unpaid" traffic, and demand the same "right" as the residential ISPs: to refuse to route it at all, even over idle pipes.
And when people complain, they'll just be cynical whiners. After all, it'll all be Perfectly Legal.