After reading the critiques here and at some U of Texas physics site, the best I can figure is that this setup may be plausible as weak thruster, and is plausible as a strong levitator.
Plausible? Yes. But as the critique said, only to the extent that sending a particle beam in a specific direction will give you thrust. Which is both weak, quite well-known, and anything but what the inventor is claiming.
Now, just what the heck are you talking about with "weak thruster = strong levitator"? Thrust (force) is thrust, no matter if it's pointed down for levitation or not.
If you take a couple of magnets and place like poles together, they push away from each other until they're too far away to push anymore. Yet no material has been exchanged between them, and no particles have been thrown out one and hit the other.
Okay, in my opinion, this statement is a big warning sign you should be more careful commenting about what obeys the laws of physics and what doesn't.
Magnets do exchange particles when repelling eachother. They're called "exchange particles" (shock!), and to be specific, the exchange particle for the electromagnetic force is the photon. Even more specifically, virtual photons. They transfer momentum between magnets, both when repelling and attracting. (The latter case is of course harder to visualise, since there's no classical analogy. Nevertheless it's true.)
You also made another pointless distinction: Matter versus particles?
That's the best analogy I can draw- this is like setting up a repulsive magnetic field without magnets.
An analogy never ever proves anything in physics. At most you can use it to explain something. Your analogy doesn't do that, though. Nevertheless, conservation of momentum always holds. Or if you like, Newton's third law: For every action there's an equal and opposite reaction. You need two magnets to push against eachother, or they won't move.
And that's the gist of it: What does this thruster push against? The only thing it could ever "push against" are the created particles, and then only if they exit. Any momentum it gains is exactly equal (and opposite) to the momentum of the photons. No bouncing-around, cavity-wall pressure, relativity or other physical concepts can change that. Again, all the forces are equal and opposite: Every force in the engine must be balanced by another force in the engine.
The net effect can't be other than zero unless something else is moving. The only moving things here are the microwave photons, and unless they leave, their net force on the non-moving parts must be zero.
The inventor claims they are not leaving. He also claims that they exert unequal force within the cavity. This is just as wrong as claiming a gas could exert higher pressure on one end of a box (however shaped). In fact, a gas of photons act more like an ideal gas than a real gas does. The concept of photon gases is well studied and understood. (google for it, and while you're at it, you can read up on electron gases, neutron gases, neutrino gases, boson gases, and even entirely fictional substances like jellium.)
Any half-decent physicist, should immediately recognize that you can ignore whatever the purported internal working of the machine is. The thrust will always equal the momentum carried away by the particles leaving the engine, be they rocket exhaust, jet exhaust or a particle beam.
In this case it's entirely trivial. First, nothing is leaving, hence it's bullshit. And if the photons were to leave, the exact momentum is given by P/c (a formula stated in the critique), and the thrust can never be higher than that. (since that would represent creating photons with 100% efficiency, and assume none are absorbed on the way. Which is actually highly unlikely with microwaves, since they're a form of heat radiation, which most materials have quite
AFAIK, Autoconf's version number hasn't changed in at least two years. I can also remember looking into it a few months back and discovering that at the time anyway, GNU Make only had two maintainers.
Autoconf had a release just few months back, actually. Anyway, I don't see your point. First, because I don't think anyone is saying these projects are doing great. Second, because lack of heavy maintainance doesn't imply that they're not. Both are mature and stable pieces of software and as such don't require much maintenance.
Rather, since both utilities are very heavily used, and heavily used by a developer audience, I'd take that as a strong indication that they're working satisfactorily for the vast majority. There's little point in change for the sake of change, and neither really require any new features. Make, for instance, is quite old and a POSIX standard as well.
Anyway, if you need a feature or a bug fixed, I'd suggest volunteering to fix it. Or you can suggest it to those who are. Or you can sit and bitch about it - that would at still be a legitimate than complaining that it's not been updated without giving a reason for why you require one.
The FSF has completely lost focus, IMHO. Core elements of the toolchain are not being actively maintained, and several of the people who were maintaining them have been employed by Red Hat, causing a conflict of interest which cannot be conducive to Linux's long-term wellbeing...or at least that of the GNU project, for those of you who like to split hairs.
I'm not sure what you mean. Seems to me you either misunderstand the role the FSF plays, or you're suggesting they play a different one.
The mangagement of "official" GNU/FSF projects does not differ in any fundamental way from that of any other FOSS project. That is to say, they don't manage the projects at all. The people volunteering for them do. They have some guidelines (e.g. how to keep track of submissions) and administrative functions (e.g. copyright assignments), but that's the extent of it.
The FSF does not and has never dictated who should code on what, or what projects are necessary. Just as a FOSS project will accept any code that meets their standards and goals, the FSF accepts any project that does the same. The only thing they do from a 'focus' perspective is to encourage development on certain projects which they deem more important in the grand scheme of things.
The FSF itself doesn't write code, and doesn't pay people to do so. The possible exception being the stuff done by RMS in the early days, but his work duties today don't include writing code AFAIK.
I see little reason to worry about conflicts of interest, since as I said, the FSF doesn't micromanage 'their' projects. Project decisions are made by project members, and as in most FOSS projects, the opinion of a major contributor (such as RH) will be given more weight. There have only been a few cases of such direct conflicts, such as the EGCS fork, and the FSF seems to have learned their lesson.
The FSF doesn't even dictate the licensing of their projects. E.g. If a solid majority of contributors (representing the bulk of the code) on some project would want to switch from the GPL to the LGPL (for instance), the FSF would let them do so. Such relicensings have occured. (Naturally there are limits. I'd think it unlikely they'd permit a project to switch to a GPL-incompatible license and still remain an official GNU project).
I've had FSF advocates reply to me before and talk about how the anti-DRM crusade is important.
Whereas I'd say it doesn't matter what you consider more important, because the two things don't exclude eachother at all. The main role of the FSF is advocacy, writing and maintaining licenses, providing legal advice on them, stewardship of donated code and defending the rights and interests in that code on their own behalf as well
I don't personally put much weight behind that particular opinion.
The reason is, there are basically two opinions here: 1) Your interpretation of the intent and effects of the licensing 2) Whether that intent agrees with your own.
The second point is certainly a pure matter of opinion that requires no qualifications, and kind of pointless to discuss or provide arguments for.
But the first point is a lot more subjective, and you need to provide arguments for why you believe your interpretation to be correct. That's where they fail, in my opinion. Mostly they just assert their interpretation without giving reason.
IMHO, they must provide further argumentation for (1). Because if you're not a lawyer, I don't really see any reason to take your interpretation of a legal document at face value. Doesn't mean I'm saying they can't have an opinion on it. Only that I for one will put higher demands on explaining the rationale. (OTOH, they're certainly the most qualified people to give an opinion on (2). The license should serve the intent of the developers, not vice-versa.)
To be specific, I take issue with statements like:
As drafted, this currently looks like it would potentially jeopardise the entire patent portfolio of a company simply by the act of placing a GPLv3 licensed programme on their website.
I think that's a rather extreme, or at least non-obvious interpretation. I'd really like to know why they think it "looks like" that. Unfortunately they don't give a reason. Instead they go on to give their opinions on the consequences of that interpretation, stating their belief that it'll seriously inhibit corporate use of GPL software.
I find that also to be extreme or non-obvious, too. And it's really bad not to give an example, because the given argument could just as well support to the opposite position: That the lack of protection from patent liability in the GPLv2 could hurt corporate use. Regardless of my own opinion on the matter, it's wrong not to address the fact that other OSS licenses (e.g. ASL v2, CPL) have anti-patent clauses yet seem to have quite broad corporate use.
Not all points are bad though. For instance, the "Tivoisation" stuff, which doesn't really rely on any particular interpretation since it's clear they object to any and all restrictions on DRM use.
The only objection I can think up to that, is that I don't think you need to say more than that. People want different things, and that's why they need different licenses. RMS and Linus simply want different license obligations with respect to DRM. Talking about "freedom" (and the guaranteeing of it) is just politics and rhetoric - The game being to obscure the difference of opinion by pretending your position logically follows from some concept with positive connotations (like "freedom"). Despite that it doesn't follow, and the meaning (but not the connotation) is anything but agreed-upon.
"Freedom" in probably the all-round most useful term for that, which is why politicians love it. Everyone thinks it's a good thing but noone has a strong idea of what means. You can use it for anything!
People should react with harsh scepticism against anything argued for in terms of 'freedom'. If not for being rhetoric, then for being obvious ( =bad ) and uncreative rhetoric. If you're gonna get bullshitted, you can still demand quality bullshit!
I don't think they're all that bad, I get the impression that many who comment on them A) never read all of the first 6 dunes books, especially more than once, and B) Just like to bitch.
Oh well that completly invalidates their criticism, then!
Reading all 6 of Herbert's original books multiple times makes you a better judge of literature.. how? It doesn't. (Your opinion would be far more interesting, to me at least, if you'd read the first book once and 11 other, completely different books, than if you've read all 6 Dune books twice.)
If someone has read the entire series multiple times, it does tell me one thing: They're are a "Dune" fan. As such, I think it's reasonable to assume that they will be more positively inclined towards any story that's in the "Dune" universe than otherwise. And so I'd put a lot less weight behind that person's opinion.
Okay. Now someone is going to say: "Oh, but if you aren't a fanatic like me, then you won't get it! You'll miss all the references and back-story and continuity and stuff!"
And perhaps I will! But for me at least, those things don't make a book good. They can make a good book better, but if the prose is crap, no amount of that stuff will save it. Since Tolkien is the main topic, you might as well compare LOTR to the Silmarillion. Both have about the same amount of those things. But the prose and structure of the latter suck. Which is why it's nowhere near as popular. (To Tolkien's defense, that choice was intentional and he predicted it'd be less popular himself.)
Anyway, no I've not read the Dune prequels, and only the first four of the original ones. But I feel good reason to be sceptical. Prequels invariably suck, because they're invariably written for money and not due to some inspiration.
E.g. Had Tolkien been like most prequel-writers, the Silmarillion would've had a Baggins family member in every story, as well as Gandalf playing a prominent role everywhere (good thing he's immortal!), Tom Bombadil would probably turn out to be Legolas' great-grandfather, and all in all you'd discover that there are only about 5 important people in the history of the universe who aren't related to a main character of the LOTR books.
He had abandoned the book and his son decided to abandon, edit, and release it for sale. Now I do not know his son obviously, but one must ask themselves, "If he respected his father, he would not being doing this would he?"
I don't really see any easy answer either way, actually.
This dilemma happens to every popular artist after they die. (Obviously, if they're not popular, there won't be any demand anyway and no dilemma) Often they didn't publish the stuff because it they didn't consider it 'done', or they didn't feel it was 'good enough'. Many (most?) great artists have very high standards in that respect.
The problem is that while those concerns may have meant a lot to the artist, they mean nothing now. If people are still interested long after their death, then their reputation is beyond tainting. There is absolutely nothing Chris Tolkien could release, no matter how bad, that would taint J.R.R.'s reputation, since everyone will know that the man himself considered it to be sub-par. Nobody is going to judge him by it.
Now, to take another example: Franz Kafka. He published little during his life, and wanted all his writings destroyed after his death, at which time he was virtually unknown. Obviously that didn't happen, since he's now regarded as one of the 20th century's greatest writers.
His friend Max Brod was the one who published the material. Who is prepared to condemn him? I'm not.
I guess the ethic that I'm suggesting is this: You can't blindly obey someone's wishes, even their last wishes, without considering the motives. There are a lot of possible ones for wanting something to go unpublished. The artist might've considered it too personal, and I think that might be grounds for obeying. But if the motive was a concern the work wasn't up-to-standard, then you might be able to disregard it.
In Kafka's case, I think it suffices to say that the guy had enough self-loathing and self-destructive emotions to fill a Goth club several times over.
I don't think (as a college professor) that written exams do much to really reflect what a student either knows, or is capable of.
I don't think that either. I just don't think they're much worse than the other common methods. I think a well-designed written exam is better than a badly-designed written assignment. But student personality and even gender make for bigger differences. (E.g. studies have shown men to be consistently better at multiple-choice exams, and women at essay-type exams.)
I agree that orals have the big drawback of being rather labor-intensive and difficult to schedule. I mentioned some creative solutions to that in another post (e.g. oral exams only for higher grades than passing). But they're certainly not a solution for any larger group of students. (Unless you can delegate the task)
I disagree that they're subjective though. (Having administered a few myself) The might seem that way. But a proper oral exam takes as much planning as any other kind. Obviously you need to establish a clear set of grade critera and questions ahead of time. (So if someone complains, you can refer them to that). The main challenge is that you have to keep a level of cool-headedness and professionalism, and not be swayed by either emotional responses or smooth-talking students. Since follow-up questions are improvised, you need to be very careful not to make them leading questions. But given that, I don't think they're any more subjective than other tests.
Rigid and objective standards aren't everything, either. Fairness requires a certain amount of flexibility. I once had a physics exam with two parts, a theory part and a problem-solving part, which accounted for 10% and 90% of the grade, respectively. But you needed a certain score on both to pass. I managed to fail the theory part by a single point, yet have a perfect socre on the problem-solving. So I went to the Prof and tried to find some minor error that I could argue should be disregarded. He was of course very surprized at the result, but told me "I'll find something..". So I got another point and achieved the quite unusual feat of having a grade adjusted from a failing one to a top one.:)
In a way, that was unfair: I got graded on a different criteria by not having that point deducted. But had it been more fair to fail me when I obviously did have knowledge that went beyond the requirement for a passing grade? Ergo, true justice can't be achived without a certain subjectivity. (Shakespeare made the same point with a much better story in "Measure for Measure")
That's the real problem with overly fixed criteria, IMHO. Not the students who learn no more than what is required of them. A disinterested student will never do that, fixed criteria just makes it easier for them.
No, the real problem are the interested ones who've learned far more than required, only in areas and ways not measured by the specific criteria. And that's more often the case than not with interested students. You can't expect their interest to correspond exactly to the syllabus.
If you can't identify and reward that kind of interest, the grade actually means less, despite seeming to mean more. Someone studying only for the exam may well get an A+, only to have forgotten it all in a year. But the interested student will still remember the stuff he liked, even if it was only half the course.
But why do so? "Unauthorized" covers it already. So does "unlicensed". Why start trying to use "non-genuine," which has unavoidable connotations of non-identical near-duplication? "Unauthorized" and "unlicensed" are perfectly accurate, but "non-genuine" implies that the software itself is not the genuine article. It IS the genuine article, by definition, being a perfect copy of either the original or an authorized copy, and thus mathematically indistinguishable from what you would call a "genuine copy".
Two reasons: The first is that an unauthorized copy doesn't actually come with any guarantee whatsoever of being an identical copy of the original software. An authorized edition does come with such a guarantee. (MS or the vendor will undoubtedly exchange it for you otherwise) So I don't see any real dishonesty in making that implication. At worst you could call it hyperbole, since most pirated copies are genuine as far as the software is concerned.
The second reason is that it's naturally in the interests of MS's marketing to play up that risk.
So the "Why?" is quite obvious. The "Why?" I'd like to ask is "Why is this upsetting to anyone?". I mean, they are not lying, and they certainly can't be expect to vouch for the quality and accuracy of pirated software. So at worst, MS marketing is being accused of exaggerating things to their advantage. Which is basically what all marketing does. It's practically their job description.
But why do so? "Unauthorized" covers it already. So does "unlicensed". Why start trying to use "non-genuine," which has unavoidable connotations of non-identical near-duplication? "Unauthorized" and "unlicensed" are perfectly accurate, but "non-genuine" implies that the software itself is not the genuine article. It IS the genuine article, by definition, being a perfect copy of either the original or an authorized
Because, "unauthorized" and "unlicensed" are pretty much synonyms for "without permission", "authorization" carries a connotation of formality, and "license" carries one of of the legal definition. (although both are used outside of formal and legal contexts).
Neither bear any direct relationship to the word "genuine". "genuine" approximately means "Being what it appears to be". So whether one implies the other or not can't be determined without any context. Also, "genuine" is a subjective description (like "ugly" is). So if it's to mean anything, you need some kind of hint from the context as to what they mean by "appearing to be something".
You are saying that a disc of software copied (with license or not) is genuine. And I agree with that; If the contents of a CD look like a Windows install CD and it's an exact copy, then its contents are genuine. Conversely, if the contents look like a Windows CD but contains added spyware, then it's not genuine.
But Microsoft that's not the context MS used. They did not talk about the contents. They were talking about something purchased under the impression of having purchased a Windows CD. Now, if the contents are non-genuine, then they bought something non-genuine. You implicitly agree to at least that much.
Now, you have (intentionally?) clouded the issue here by changing the context of "genuine" from the purchased product to the software itself in order to make licensing irrelevant. The software itself is simple: It's genuine if it's an accurate copy, regardless of licensing. Licensing is not irrelevant to the genuineness of the purchased product. That depends entirely on what impression the buyer got about licensing from the appearance of the product.
First, as I already said, an unlicensed copy carries no guarantee of having genuine contents (and a licensed copy does), so there's nothing directly dishonest in making that implication. (How dare they claim all pirated software is bad when only some of it is!)
Ahh, an exam cynic. A product of the US (or North American) higher educational system, no doubt.:)
Patronizing remarks aside, what I'm saying is that I understand your position, but it's coming from a limited perspective. Go study in Europe a bit. I did. (Sweden)
Yes. True/false and multiple-choice exams are worthless. Yet very common in the US, and perhaps only there.
My experiences from Sweden were the following: First, exams are far more common, and far larger in size. Second, true/false exams are never ever used. I never had one and never heard of anyone else having one either. Third, multiple-choice exams exist, but seem to be quite rare. I only had one in four years, and that one was still augmented by two essay questions and the fact that they deducted points for wrong answers on the multiple-choice part. (The clear message being: Don't even think about guessing your way)
I think there are two very simple reasons these tests are used so much in the US, and neither of them are because they're a good method. First is because they're established and part of the academic culture. That kind of stuff is hard to change. Students don't want tougher exams, and Profs don't want to appear harsher than the others. Second, the Professors are lazy. Why use a test that involves more work from them and will generate complaints from the students, when you can stick with the same-old and everyone's happy?
So on to essay exams, which you've probably guessed would be the usual type, then. Your first criticism is that they're too short. Well again, there's a solution: Longer exams. Where I was studying the typical length was 4-6 hours. Bathroom breaks weren't a problem. The basic order was: Noone gets to leave during the first hour but latecomers can arrive in that period. After one hour, you're permitted to turn in your exam and leave if you want and bathroom breaks are permitted. Bathroom breaks are allowed one at a time, and the exam monitor keeps a log of which students leave and the time of their departure and return. They also log the seating arrangement and the time the exam was turned in. There are also voluntary 10-minute rest breaks where those who wish can leave with a second monitor. (who otherwise is outside, usually checking the bathrooms).
I never saw that dicipline broken. Cheating did still occur of course, but the worst I ever saw was people stuffing a note in their pocket and checking it in the bathroom. And that's of course impossible to stop. But so is any dedicated cheat. And the amount of information you can inconspicuously fit in your pants is rather small. But anyway, point is the bathroom thing can be solved, and has been solved.
Your second argument is even sillier. Bad handwriting? That never seemed to stop them over there. But if it's that bad you can simply require the answer to be written in block text. Or set the condition that illegible answers will not be graded. That should do it.
You leave out what is, IMHO, the most superior form of testing though. Namely oral exams. (not necessarily the formal type) There is simply no better way to assess someone's knowledge and understanding than by talking to them, asking questions and follow-up questions to understand their thought process. And it is very much a real-world type of situation. The only drawback is that it's labor-intensive. I saw some creative solutions to that, though. One was to have a written examination to qualify for a passing grade, and an oral exam for higher grades. That filters 'em out quite well. I think that's because people won't take a chance on it unless they feel certain they've got at least some shot at it. First because it's harder to fake it. Second because people are a lot more reluctant to parade their ignorance in person-to-person communication than on a piece of paper. (Of course, some might simply be too nervous. But if you want to talk real-world, then they'll need to learn to deal with that sooner or later, and
The problem with exams is that the scenario they present is typically not representative of how the student will be expected to perform in "real life".
I don't view that as much of a problem. Academic subjects are themselves not typically representative of "real life" either, so why expect them to be taught that way? It's just not possible to do so.
If you want hands-on, "real life" experience for a career, there are trade schools for that purpose. The purpose of universities is to provide critical-thinking skills and a solid foundations in the theory of your subject. Those are the prerequisites for any higher-level problem solving. If you learn some real-world problem-solving skills too, that's great. But you need the foundation first, and the latter is best learned through experience anyway. (And a lot of people are lucky if they manage to graduate with only the former)
Their emphasis is generally more on memorisation and recall, than research and problem-solving.
Nonsense. Some exams do, some exams don't. Some do both. And I've had plenty of them that actually had quite a good resemblence to "real world" situations. For instance, I've had several oral exams where I was asked to propose solutions to a problem and reason openly about them, and the pros and cons of the respective approaches. In a situation quite reminicent of what your boss would expect you to do, you convey both your level of knowledge and understanding. Well, either that or you master the art of cold reading, which is probably a highly useful real-world skill regardless.
Anyway, I think it's worth emphasizing that there's absolutely nothing wrong with memorization. Memorization has been given a bad rap. It routinely gets portrayed as the antithesis to real understanding. I disagree. You can't substitute understanding with memory. Lots of people try to do it, but it's really no problem to tell the difference if you've got at least some semblance of insight yourself. Besides, "understanding" doesn't carry any weight in a lot of subjects. Like in learning foreign languages.
The truth is that memorization is tedious and dull and absolutely necessary for certain subjects. There are more subjects than physics and math, and the rest of them don't neatly reduce to a few postulates and axioms. And with a more complicated and non-generalizable set of rules, the only way to learn them well is by rote. Your brain sorts out the rest and you're left with something better than deep understanding. You get intuition.
And no matter how fast you can look the correct answer up, you'll never be able to beat someone who can get it instantly and subconciously.
What's the difference between cheating and learning? When I was in middle school, I used to take paragraphs from sources and paraphrase them and dumb them down so that it would sound like I wrote it, and I was a straight A student. What's the point of this intermediate step?
I think your second question holds the answer to the first: You can't paraphrase or dumb it down unless you've first understood what it means. Which implies learning.
And if I paraphrase, how does it make my work any less "cheating" than someone who copies word for word from the same source?
Precisely because it means you've understood what you were writing about. (or it doesn't - if your paraphrased version is inaccurate, then you've not understood the subject) Copying word for word implies no understanding at all. Heck, I can't even be sure you really know the language if you've copied word-for-word.
What exactly is the definition of learning when you're not allowed to use sources with the actual information on the topic without being considered a cheater?
Of course you're allowed to use sources. Nobody's expecting you to go out and perform new and original research on the topic, are they?
Sadly, most school assignments are basically reduced to rewriting what you found out either through the textbook or through online sources instead of encouraging you to think about what you've learned and make decisions based on that information.
Well, you have no disagreement from me on that. My point was just that the former activity is not as mindless as it might seem.
But encouragement is most definitely something which is often lacking. For instance, the common plague of book reports. Most students start writing them in the form of a simply synopsis of the book. Because that's what they're usually first told to do. And a lot of students never develop past that point into doing real thinking, that is, analysis, criticism, etc. Not because they can't (Everyone has an opinion!) but because it either never occured to them, or because they didn't have enough self-confidence to do so.
And that's a real tragedy. Brains mean nothing if you don't have the confidence to use them. There are just way too many people out there stuck in the trap of acting dumb because they've no confidence in their reasoning, and lack confidence because they act dumb.
The fake bills are NOT from the US Government, so they are NOT genuine. However, the copied software code IS from Microsoft, so it IS genuine.
A bogus argument. What if I produce counterfeit bills using the US Mint's own plates? I'm fairly sure you would maintain that they would not be genuine, as they did not originate from the US Mint.
But the engraving did! And yes, you can then describe the engraving itself as "genuine" despite the fact that the overall product, the banknote, is not.
Similarily, while the code on a bootleg Windows disc may very well be "genuine", that does not mean that the overall product is "genuine". The genuine product consists of more than just data. It consists of the disc itself, the box, manual, assorted business-reply-mail forms, a holographic sticker-thingie, a license number and a lifetime membership in the Wham! fan-club.
If any of those components are missing or didn't originate with Microsoft, then the product as a whole is no more genuine than a three-dollar bill. Even if that bill was printed on genuine US Mint cotton paper.
What Microsoft wants to do is attach the idea that their license is what makes Windows genuine or not. That IS a departure from the traditional definition of genuine.
No. I'd say they're attaching the idea that a product that they produced (and not just in part) and paid for is what makes Windows genuine or not. And that is not at all a departure from any "traditional" definition of genuine.
I disagree. Say I buy Windows XP, and then make a backup copy of the CD, so that should my original CD be destroyed, I still have a CD I can install from. Is that a genuine copy?
This is completely irrelevant to the context, which quite specifically refers to "genuine" being used when referring to a copy being sold. And in that context, I agree that it's perfectly reasonable to call an unauthorized copy "non-genuine".
If you want to go off on a tangent and discuss the meaning of "genuine" in all kinds of other contexts to make your point, then you're committing the action Microsoft is being accused of here: Framing the debate by redefining a word in a nonsensical way.
I lend that backup copy I made to a friend so that he can install XP for free. He knows I bought XP, he knows I made a backup, and he's under no illusions that he has the legal right to install it. Now is it a counterfeit copy?
Most would not consider that to be a counterfeit, no. Since there's no effort made to defraud him, or any intent to do so. Of course "fraud" is out of the question regardless since you're not charging for it. The real answer here is that "counterfeit" is simply not a useful description in that context.
If it is, then you're claiming that whether or not something is "genuine" can change depending on what someone does with it, irrespective of the nature of the object itself.
Of course it can! What's strange about that? Adjective need not imply some immutable physical property. And "genuine" certainly does not. You can't determine what is meant by "genuine" outside a given context, and obviously you can't compare it between contexts.
A genuine Picasso can never become a counterfeit, even if I were to steal it from its owner and sell it to someone else. It's still a genuine Picasso.
This doesn't demonstrate your point at all, because you're using the word "genuine" in the same context in both instances. Yet, you can still create ambiguity even in that seemingly well-defined context. Is a painting made by Picasso a "genuine" Picasso? What about one which he merely signed? What about one produced in his workshop under his supervision? One produced in his workshop which he did not supervise? One produced outside his workshop but by the same workers in the same methods and designs? What about a forgery which is indistingishable from a "real" Picasso, which everyone considers to be "genuine"? And so on..
But a copy of Windows that was previously "genuine" can suddenly become "counterfeit" merely because I give the copy to someone? I reject that on strictly linguistic grounds.
And I reject it on grounds of being patent nonsense. "genuine" has no absolute meaning. "counterfeit" has no defined meaning in the given context and the assertion that such properties are in contradition regardless of context is a false dichotomy. A counterfeit Vermeer can still be a genuine van Meegeren (who's forgeries are quite valuable today).
The general problem is when people take metaphors that apply to physical objects and then try to apply them to the replication of information.
First, it's not a metaphor. It's an adjective. Second, most adjectives can be used in what's called a "figurative" sense (which is a metaphor), in which you aren't actually referring to a physical property. When somebody is described as being "cold" or "hard", you are not necessarily talking about their temperature and elastic modulus! Context is required to determine what you mean.
And "genuine" doesn't describe any particular physical characteristic to begin with! Which is why it can only be understood within its context. The fallacy that both you and the linked blogger are making is assuming the opposite: That "genuine" does refer to some physical property, and that therefore can't be applied to informati
You've missed the point. (I know for sure because I am Bill Poser.) My Language Log post is not a lament about how the language is going to the dogs because "genuine" is being used "incorrectly", that is, in a way that deviates from whatever I think the standard should be.
That's good. Naturally you know what you intended better than I do, and I wouldn't claim otherwise.
However, the attitude I mentioned and which you cite is exactly the impression I was given by your entry. And I maintain that impression on re-reading it. (I have no opinion or impression at all on the blog in general, as I haven't read the rest)
Not that I doubt the genuininity* of your claimed intent. (*Now that's a more debatable form of the word. AFAIK the OED is the only one who lists it, and does so as 'rare'.)
The point is that Microsoft is using "genuine" in a way that deviates from the way it is commonly used [..]
And my point is that you completely failed to substantiate that. Nowhere do you contrast their use of the term against any common definition. Much less against common usage. All you do is claim that you find their usage "peculiar", and then you back that up by providing an argumentative definition of what you consider the word to mean.
And not only is it a personal definition of the word, but as I said, it doesn't resemble common usage in the slightest. You give extremely narrow definition of a broad term. Among other things you cite specific criteria for being "genuine", namely "aesthetics, functionality, and resale value".
I have great doubts you will find any dictionary citing those criteria. Or any criteria of that order of specificity. If you want to claim that they're not following common usage, then base your arguments on a commonly accepted definition and not your own ad-hoc idea of what the word means.
Using analogy to a real object to define the word is particularily bad. Is the usage of "genuine" wrong in the sentence "His feelings were genuine"? Does this imply that his feelings would have a higher resale value than otherwise? Virtually every adjective is used or can be used in a metaphorical or metaphysical sense. Assuming that they must imply some tangible property is just crazy. It would also be a major catastrophe for the art of poetry.
Now if you'd attacked the usage in the quoted "Customers recognize that the value of genuine is greater than ever.", where they're using "genuine" as a noun, that'd at least have struck a chord with some people. I don't see anything objectionable about it, though. The noun (software) has simply been omitted and replacing nouns with their modifying adjectives is quite commonplace in English. (A certain Sergio Leone western manages to do it three times in its title*)
[..] and that it looks like they are doing this for a deceptive purpose.
Hah. Well you do express that theory, yes. Not that I believe it, though. I don't personally think MS has the least bit of trouble getting support against what they're calling "non-genuine" software. Yes, plenty of people, including myself, dislike Microsoft. But most people also support the idea of copyright. While they may be split on downloading for personal use, most seem to think copyright infringement done for profit is quite wrong.
So where's the deception? Not only is it in Microsoft's best interest that people buy their software and not copies. It's also the consumers best interest that they get genuine Microsoft software if that is what they think they are paying for. The quality of that software is completely irrelevant, period. If there's anyone being decieved here, it's the guy who thought he was getting a copy when he paid for an original.
Obviously you don't like Microsoft. But I don't see why there's reason to assume there's some deception going on rather than that Microsoft's best interests for once
Inasmuch as pirated copies of Windows are fraudulent copies, they are NOT genuine. It doesn't take a linguist to understand this.
Well, it seems the argument he's making is that somethign is not counterfeit/fake (and thus genuine) if it has certain properties:
An unlicensed copy of Microsoft Windows is perfectly genuine. It has exactly the same functionality as a licensed copy and was made by the same company. In contrast, if you buy a "Rorex" watch, it is not genuine because it is not made by the Rolex company and does not have the aesthetics, functionality, and resale value of a real Rolex.
This is in itself an ad-hoc redefinition, since the common usages of "counterfeit", "fake" and other antonyms to "genuine" are hardly that precise. The analogy is pretty bad too, IMHO. What's the resale value of a pirated copy of Windows? Not much, I assure you. Neither article can be sold legally in most countries anyway, so it's kind of a moot point.
A "Rorex" watch may very well have the same functionality as a Rolex, insomuch as they both tell the time correctly. Maybe the Rolex is a bit better. I for one would probably not notice the difference in that respect but I'd sure as hell notice if Microsoft was refusing me tech support and updates!
The author anticipated this argument though (or realized the fallacy later), and disqualifies it as not being an 'intrinsic property' of the software - making the definition even narrower. The remaining relevant part would be that it's a matter of aesthetics. Which is hardly a good criteria for deeming what's 'genuine' and what's not.
I'd think a more realistic definition of "genuine" would be "Something that is what it appears to be."
And in that respect, a commercially pirated copy of Windows anything but "genuine". (Note that MS is indeed referring to software that was sold here.) Whether it's "intrinsically" different or not is just irrelevant. If I buy "X", expect it to be "X", if I get "Y" I've been ripped off. If you are selling me "Y" under the guise of selling me "X", that's fraud. And if you've also made an effort to make "Y" resemble "X", then "Y" is a counterfeit and not genuine.
Unlike a commercial one, a copy you made from a friend or downloaded has at least no pretention of being 'genuine'. Although one might to say the same of the "Rorex" you bought for $10 at a street market in Phuket.;)
Just goes to show you that claiming authority in a given field doesn't make it so.
Well, I wouldn't be too harsh. The author didn't explicity state he was giving some kind of professional opinion as a linguist (if he is one). As usual the Slashdot summary went for the more provocative and possibly misleading take on it.
That said, if the guy really is a linguist, I find the attitude rather strange. Most linguists I know are about as far from the "spelling/grammar/definition-Nazi" type of person as you can get. Since more than anyone, they're aware of how words, spelling and grammar constantly change over time, and embrace the fact that usage constitutes the definition of language. For example, my impression is that most linguists would be the last people to chastise someone for writing in "leet". They'd take it as an interesting shibboleth. But I wouldn't count on an English teacher being equally liberal.:)
Of course, even if he's a linguist, it should probably best just be taken at face value as yet another mindless anti-MS rant. Which is of course why it got picked up on Slashdot.
I'd love to see more stories related to actual linguistics though.
Oh, you mean nobody would ever see these videos otherwise? So if there's no market for these videos, how can it be established there were tens of millions in damages?
That's a rhetorical question, isn't it? Well.. here goes anyway..
Now, I'm not sure whether you're trying to make a political point against the current copyright laws (although the matter really extends to quite a lot of civil liability) or whether you believe you're stating an argument that's relevant within the current legal system. Nevertheless I think it deserves an retort.
Lemme first say the premise is factually incorrect. Many, if not most of the videos in question are actually commercially available. That's not entirely relevant, as I'll get to though.
But assuming that premise and that you're talking about how the law currently stands, the question is: What damages are they entitled to? Three kinds, basically: Compensatory, punitive, and statutory damages. As the names imply, the first exists to compensate the owner's loss, the second serves to punish the infringer if their conduct was found to be particularily malicious/negligent, and the last are damages to which they're entitled by law. Since copyright law has statutory damages, there is no real argument to why they wouldn't be entitled to the latter. Given your argument, it's fairly obvious you're not adressing those damages either, so there's no point in going into that matter further. Just take note that they're entitled by law to at least that much.
Punitive damages are a bit difficult to guess in the US, and their somewhat haphazard nature is a popular argument for tort reform. But let's consider some things I think the court would reasonably find to be fact: 1) YouTube is violating their copyright. 2) They know they are. 3) They are profiting from it. 4) YouTube has taken measures to stop infringing content 5) Those measures have been rather ineffective. 6) They're aware of that fact.
I think the real linchpin is in how the last points are interpreted. If YouTube can convince the court that they'd done all that could reasonably be expected of them to prevent it, then there was no real malice or negligence on their part, and punitive damages would be out of the question. On the other hand, if the plaintiffs convince the court that YouTube was merely making a token effort without any real intent to stop infringement, then they might be found to have acted negligently. And that may entitle the plaintiffs to punitive damages. Personally I think it could go either way, but there's no denying that the large amount of copyrighted stuff is a major factor in YouTube's popularity. But it'll probably depend on what the other damages amount to as well.
Anyway. Let's get to the real issue: Compensatory damages. Which is what your argument is aimed at. As I parse your argument, it goes as follows: A) If they're not currently selling the product, there's no profitable market for it. B) If there is no profitable market for the product, the product has no economic value. C) If the product has no economic value, then they cannot have suffered any economic loss.
Only C is true. A is obviously false. As-of-yet unreleased products can certainly be profitable once they start selling them. It's also false for the other case, products which have been withdrawn from the market. There are any number of counterexamples of profitable re-releases of products.
I understand the implied argument though: That if there was any profit to be made from releasing or re-releasing the product, they'd have done so. Since the product isn't on the market, one concludes there's no profit to be made from it. It's plain old business sense.
The thing is, that argument has little legal relevance. And for good reason, too. The court can't operate on the assumption that you're making good business decisions. Nor should they. But I'll get back to that.
But the people who had their equipment seized WEREN'T trading child porn (or at least, they've not been arrested or charged with that). They were just running a Tor node, which is perfectly legal, and something I do. So yes, I am worried
If that worries you, why shouldn't you be worried?
By running a Tor node, you are letting other people use your property without restriction. And no, there's nothing illegal in that. But that also means they may be using your property to commit a crime. And that's a fact that you are well aware of.
Now if you're in the situation where somebody used your property to commit a crime, what do you suggest the Police should do about it?
Should they take your word: Someone else was using it at the time, and that you don't know who it was? How many criminals would ever be caught by that method of investigation?
Or should they take the property as evidence and do a forensic analysis to find out whatever they can? If you're telling the truth, then you will not be charged. And you'll get your stuff back when they're done (depending on whether it's deemed needed for the investigation or not). Yes, it sucks to have your property seized as evidence. But what alternatives are there?
The answer is: None. Anything you own could be used to commit a crime, and anything used to commit a crime is evidence. And I for one think the Police should have the ability to seize evidence, if they can demonstrate to a court that it was indeed used in a crime and obtain a warrant for it. (With additional safeguards, such as the inadmittability of evidence of any other crimes they might find, and inadmittability of evidence obtained through an illegal search).
Are you really implying that the police should only be allowed to confiscate evidence that belongs to someone charged with a crime?
If having your property seized as evidence worries you, that's too bad. All you can do about that is reduce the chances that it is used in a crime. So the answer there is simple: Avoid letting strangers use your stuff. In particular when there's a criminal application for it that you are well aware of.
Or is your argument: If we assume the police knew it was a Tor server, and how Tor works, etc. They should know better and assume they won't find anything, and therefore simply not bother? That would simply be bad detective-work. If that's the only lead they have, there's no justification for not at least bothering to check up on it.
Has anyone else ever wondered why so many OSS projects are afraid to ever reach v1.0?
Um, no. Because there is no general meaning of "1.0" and assigning some meaning to it is little more than numerology. In particular with OSS projects.
Moreover, there isn't any general rule for what the requirements are for a "release" with an OSS project. It could be nothing more than a CVS snapshot on a particular date, or in a more well-organized project it might be required to pass a set of regression tests. It might also (or alternately) be preceeded by any number of test releases.
All a higher version number is guaranteed to mean is that it's a newer release. Whatever additional meaning it might have is completely dependent on the project's release criteria.
Version numbering is even less clear. Unless the project has some clear agree-upon definition such as a roadmap, defining exactly which features should be included into what future version number, then the version numbers have absolutely no meaning. If you haven't decided what "1.0" means, then not only is there little significance to the 1.0 release, but there's no significance to any of the previous version numbers either, since you can't quantify how much closer or farther you're getting to an undefined target.
A sane scheme for a piece of library software may define an API and then define the first major release as the first complete implementation of that API, and subsequent minor releases as fixes/improvements that don't involve API changes. But a piece of application software is far harder. In particular with OSS. As the user and developer base grow, the goals usually change repeatedly.
The case of MythTV is even more complex. Not only is it a very popular app, but one where it's terribly difficult to define what the necessary features are. And the support for even 'basic' features is in constant flux as the situation with hardware, drivers and even the video standards themselves change rapidly.
Here's an example of a project that has been in development since 2002. It's undergone cycles of feature additions and bug fixes, and it's just now hitting version 0.20?
So? Would it make you feel better if they'd labeled the same piece of software "0.99"? The number would not be one bit more meaningful, since AFAIK, the MythTV devs have no set goals for 1.0. And you haven't given a definition here either.
But here's a suggestion: If you do have a definite idea of what you think should consitute a 1.0 release, why don't you suggest it to them?
Version numbers are for users (or marketers) anyway. And version numbers that have meaning are for users too lazy to read release notes.
As the linked article points out, the iterative method (Babylonion/Newton) is a much more efficient manual method.
Well.. that's not quite true (IMHO), and not really what the article says either. It says it converges in fewer iterations (for a well-chosen starting value, although that much is trivial). So all mathematical operations being roughly equivalent (as is the case with a computer), then it's certainly better.
Thing is, that doesn't make it a faster manual method, because with us humans, all mathematical operations are nowhere near being equivalent. In fact, our mental capabilities are usually pretty much limited to the four operations performed on single digit numbers. Everything else gets broken down into single-digit operations. And we suck the worst at division. (Which is why long division is usually considered the most tedious of all the basic operations.)
Now the 'longhand' method does not require much division. Not any really, except to the extent required to find the largest integer divisor of some number. (Different people perform this differently in their head - some might use division, some might use trial multiplication). It is the same as long division in that respect. Indeed the whole method is more or less the same as long division.
So to me at least, performing the entire operation is about as "computationally expensive" as performing a single iteration of Newton's method manually. Which is of course why it was used, and not Newton's method. Of course, if you have a four-operation calculator or happen to be a prodigy at division, then Newton's method is better. On the other hand, the longhand method can be more efficient even on a computer under certain circumstances. For instance if you're want a square root when using fixed-point math on a processor that has no division instruction. (Not a wholly unrealistic scenario; such hardware exists).
IMO this would have been better to teach kids even back then as it would provide a taste of numerical analysis and not some mindless rote mechanical method of arriving at an answer.
You're entitled to your opinion of course, but I can't quite see the reasoning behind it (except perhaps an emotional response due to having been e tedious rote learning of a largely useless method;)). To me at least, both methods are algorithms. Both are just as good as examples of numerical methods and neither is 'mindless'.
The task of performing the algorithms (and just about any algorithm) is invariably going to be "mindless rote", and I'd not advocate spending lots of time on that either. (With the exceptions of long addition, division, etc of course).
So, I agree that teaching an understanding of the algorithm itself is preferable to just performing it. But I disagree that the Babylonian method would be more suitable to that end. The algorithm itself is simpler than the longhand method, certainly, so to that extent it's easier to learn. But what you really want to teach is not just the 'What is it?' but the 'How does it work?'.
The 'how' of the longhand method is explained in the article you linked to. It could be done better, but it's enough to show what's required to show and understand how the method works. The prerequisites as I see them are mostly basic algebra, maybe a 8th grade level or thereabouts. The Babylonian method, OTOH, works by finding the root: x^2 - a = 0 by the Newton-Raphson method. And that, I am certain, can't be understood properly until you have an understanding of functions and derivatives, which is a subject years into the future by comparison. (And if they reach that level, they'll probably be taught it anyway. At least I learned Newton's method in High School.)
So between the two, I'd choose the longhand method as an early introduction to numerics (which is not a bad idea, btw). But IMHO, it'd probably be better from that perspective to just analyze a numerical method they already know well by rote, for instance long division. All it req
Here here! All the old fogys are afraid of the "darned electric voting boxs" when it was and still is easier to "acidentally" destroy all the black voters paper ballets or not count "pregnant chads". I'm not even taking into account thinks done by non-government forces.
Bullshit. How exactly is it easy to destroy ANY ballot when you have multiple election workers with their eyes on them at every moment? Plus any number of election observers, which may be representatives of all parties involved, plus any number of federal or foreign observers.
The ONLY way you can destroy a paper ballot is if there are no observers, and all present voting administrators are corrupt. (And observers are usually deployed to exactly the places where there are suspicions of corruption).
Now let's consider an "e-voting" machine that leaves no verifiable paper trail, shall we? The officials and observers at the polling station have no way of knowing that the vote the machine actually registered was accurate, and neither do you. Nor can they tell if the machine is malfunctioning. All you need is ONE person to tamper with the machine, and do so at ANY time.
If the machine is compromised it can still display "Zero votes registered" when the poll opens. But I'd sure like to see you do the same trick stuffing paper slips in a ballot box and still having it look empty.
To ensure a fair election with paper ballots you need: At least one honest election official. And/or at least one impartial observer. To ensure a fair election with an electronic voting machine you need: All people who've ever had the opportunity to tamper with the machine to be honest. You need the software to be correct and bug-free (yeah, right). You need to be able to verify the correctness of the software.
It's true that it's impossible to guarantee fair elections. All you can do is reduce the risk of cheating, and the possible magnitude of cheating. Electronic voting machines do neither. All they do is cost less money.
Re:Wonder what grade Tanenbaum would give them ?
on
FreeDOS 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
what grade would you get for rewriting DOS 15 yrs later, and would it be higher or lower than the Hurd guys get for taking 20+yrs to get to 0.2 (but doing it the "right" way, with a microkernel) ?
What a smart-assed comment. What's your point? That you think that you (or the FreeDOS guys) know more about OS design than Tanenbaum? I doubt that very much. Tanenbaum wasn't saying a microkernel was the "right" way. He was saying it was the modern way.
It took less than a year for two guys to build the Wright Flyer but a decade for hundreds to build the Concorde. Which design do you think an avionics professor would consider more modern?
Implying that Tanenbaum's opinion was wrong just because the GNU Hurd project has been slow is ridiculous. Tanenbaum is not and never was a Hurd developer. He shares no part in that fiasco. The failure of Hurd versus the success of Linux has little or nothing to do with the kernel architecture and everything to do with the respective project leaderships.
It gets more ridiculous when you consider the fact that Tanenbaum is a guy who implemented an entire microkernel OS (Minix) from scratch, alone. (And Linux would not exist had he not, because Minix was the thing that inspired Linus to write Linux to begin with.)
"5 years from now everyone will be running free GNU" - Andy Tanenbaum, 1992
You're quoting that as if it implies some lack of insight on Tanenbaum's part. He correctly predicted that a free UNIX clone would become dominant, even if he missed the timescale. It's true he was wrong that it would be Hurd, and not Linux. But that was a sentiment shared by Linus himself at the time: "I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu)" - Linus Torvalds, 1991
Re:Still not too bad
on
Crypto Snake Oil
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
To use an analogy, consider two locker rooms. Room A does not have locks on any of the lockers. Room B has locks, but all of them have the same combination. In which one is a person more likely to leave their wallet?
I take it you're implying the correct answer would then be "Neither". And I'd agree.
Problem is, it's not a relevant point. The context here is consumer's ignorance on the performance of crypto products. If someone is buying a crypto product, they must have determined that they need one. Or to continue your analogy: They have already decided that they're going to leave their wallet in a locker. The problem is that they can't tell the difference between a locker room where all the locks have the same combination, and the safer locker room where they don't.
And given that assumption (that they're going to put their wallet in a locker anyway), the poster who claimed that weak encryption is still better than none is right: If you're going to put your wallet in a locker, it's better to put it in one with a bad lock than none at all.
Continuing the analogy: With no lock, any casual bypasser with no particular knowledge at all can easily and quickly check the lockers for any valuables. "Opportunity makes the thief" as they say. Whereas if you at least had a bad lock, finding your wallet would at least require some knowledge of locks. It would also impede the person searching the lockers, which increases the likelyhood of them being discovered before they find your wallet. All in all, a safer situation.
Now obviously, a good and proper lock is better than a bad one. The problem here is that the consumer can't tell the difference when making the choice between the good and bad ones.
But the option of "don't store valuables in it" simply isn't on the table: They've already determined that they're going to store valuables in it, because that's why they wanted a lock in the first place.
..that cherry picked US canned tuna for it's studies to show low mercury levels, so I'm a little worried about this.
Uh, right. So since there's been more than one case of Police corruption, I better be worried whenever they arrest someone.
The sheer number of known carcinogens in the American diet worries me. Aspertame, Sodium Nitrate, Potasium Bromate; the list goes on and on.
Aspartame and Potassium bromate haven't been conclusively shown to be carcinogens. In particular the evidence for aspartame is quite dubious. Meaning that even if these substances are carcinogens, the risk is very, very, low. The laws of statistics dictate that: The lower the risk the harder it is to detect.
Sodium nitrate (and nitrite) are out of the FDA's juristdiction since they were grandfathered in in 1958 when the FDA took over the food-additive approval business from the Dept of Agriculture. The EU has stricter regulations on it, but nevertheless permits it because the cancer risks of it widely outweigh the food poisoning risks it prevents.
The argument is always either a) you're not getting enough to harm you
That's because that happens to be the case. (More on that later)
or b) it's all naturally occuring anyway.
That's ridiculous. Nobody makes that argument. Most of the most carcinogenic substances around are naturally occuring in one way or another.
Neither idea takes into account that a) if you eat a lot of prepared foods (like most poor Americans) you get way more than most studies allow
Blatantly false. Most (all, in the FDA context) carcinogenity studies involve amounts of the substance which are far beyond what any human would normally recieve. To take an example, The Economistdid the math over Sudan-1 recall of Worcestershire sauce last year, arriving at the tidy figure of a human having to consume 800 liters of the stuff per day for 2 years to reproduce the effects on the mice in the study (in which none of the mice didn't actually develop cancer). Nevertheless the recall happened, and Sudan I is indeed banned.
b) is it really a good idea to add more of a naturally occuring carcinogen to a diet?
Of course not. Which is why carcinogens are not permitted in food except for in very few cases. The substances you describe are simply not known for certain if they cause cancer. And if they do, yes, then the risk is truely negligable. Except sodium/potassium nitrate/nitrite, which is known to cause cancer for sure. However, the risk of cancer there far outweighs the health risks of food poisoning. Botulism kills quite a lot of people, and would certainly kill a lot more if nitrites weren't used.
Wouldn't that raise your intake above natural limits?
There's no such thing as "natural limits". You don't reach some point where your body says "that's it!" and goes off and develops cancer. Cancer is natural. It occurs in your body many times each day. Most of the time it gets taken care of by your immune system. You get cancer from the air. From sunlight. From the food you eat. From the natural background radiation. From cosmic radiation. From the natural biological processes in your body. Yes, your body produces huge amounts of carcinogens.
All that exists is a risk you'll develop a cancer your body can't take care of. You can try to lower that risk, but if you're going to do so, you better have a sense of proportion with you. There are a large number of environmental factors which are hugely more important that any food additives. Americans first and foremost need to smoke less. They need to exersize more. (This is good for a lot of other things than just cancer prevention). They need to eat less food in general. They need to avoid polluted air. They need to wear proper sun protection. They need to stop eating fried foods. They need to stop drinking coffee.
>> In fact, halting is decidable for all deterministic machines with finite memory. Either you repeat a previous state, or halt within a finite number of cycles. The decision process may be made arbitrarily hard, but that's not undecidability.
> Yes, but no. While a computer as we know it is a finite-state machine, the number of possible states exceeds the number of atoms in the universe.
Yes but yes. - That is not undecidability. Undecidability is a mathematical concept and it means that the outcome is impossible to determine. Not impractical or impossible in finite time, or any such constraint.
In reality, your assertion that it is decideable is worthless [..]
Actually, I find your argument far more worthless. Did you bother to read the context? His assertion that it is decidable (formally true while impossible in practice) was raised in response to someone claiming the opposite had been proven, which is formally false unless you're talking about Turing machines.
[..] except for contrived examples and does not solve the problem in the general case.
That's a lot more contrived! The guy didn't say that decidability was practically possible in the general case. Make up your mind about what you're interested in here: Mathematical rigour or the real-world?
You just wrote that it doesn't matter if it's formally decidable, since it can't be done on a practical timescale, yet you still think it's important to to adress the general case? As the guy pointed out, and did so quite correctly, real-world programs running on real-world computers are anything but the general case.
Real programs aren't anywhere near the complexity they could have in theory. Do you think a program occupying 1 meg of memory really has 2^8000000 unique states, all of which are significant?
So what's your point? That you can't write a program which will find *every* single bug theoretically possible in *every* single program theoretically possible and have a guarantee of finishing the job on a practical timescale? Nobody said that, either.
But there's a huge difference between finding every bug in every program and not being able to find bugs at all. Just as there's a huge difference between something being formally decidable and practically decidable. It's strange you find he latter distinction so important but ignore the former.
Why dis XMMS if you don't use it? Is there any reason to be bitter?
He didn't 'dis' it. He said it was stagnant. And that's the sad truth of the matter. If you use XMMS you should've noticed that.
For many people, myself included, XMMS is still the best out there. Not everybody feels the need for music libraries.
XMMS isn't the best out there. I still use XMMS, mostly out of old habit, but certainly has some obvious flaws.
For one, the fact that it's still using the horrible GTK 1.0 file selector. Which is crap, and also inconsistent with the rest of my desktop. Secondly, and more irritatingly, the equalizer does not work with Ogg Vorbis files.
Slashdot Mirror
Go back and re-read. It quite explicitly is not.
If that were the case, there wouldn't be any controversy. But no novelty either.
Plausible? Yes. But as the critique said, only to the extent that sending a particle beam in a specific direction will give you thrust. Which is both weak, quite well-known, and anything but what the inventor is claiming.
Now, just what the heck are you talking about with "weak thruster = strong levitator"? Thrust (force) is thrust, no matter if it's pointed down for levitation or not.
Okay, in my opinion, this statement is a big warning sign you should be more careful commenting about what obeys the laws of physics and what doesn't.
Magnets do exchange particles when repelling eachother. They're called "exchange particles" (shock!), and to be specific, the exchange particle for the electromagnetic force is the photon. Even more specifically, virtual photons. They transfer momentum between magnets, both when repelling and attracting. (The latter case is of course harder to visualise, since there's no classical analogy. Nevertheless it's true.)
You also made another pointless distinction: Matter versus particles?
An analogy never ever proves anything in physics. At most you can use it to explain something. Your analogy doesn't do that, though. Nevertheless, conservation of momentum always holds. Or if you like, Newton's third law: For every action there's an equal and opposite reaction. You need two magnets to push against eachother, or they won't move.
And that's the gist of it: What does this thruster push against? The only thing it could ever "push against" are the created particles, and then only if they exit. Any momentum it gains is exactly equal (and opposite) to the momentum of the photons. No bouncing-around, cavity-wall pressure, relativity or other physical concepts can change that. Again, all the forces are equal and opposite: Every force in the engine must be balanced by another force in the engine.
The net effect can't be other than zero unless something else is moving. The only moving things here are the microwave photons, and unless they leave, their net force on the non-moving parts must be zero.
The inventor claims they are not leaving. He also claims that they exert unequal force within the cavity. This is just as wrong as claiming a gas could exert higher pressure on one end of a box (however shaped). In fact, a gas of photons act more like an ideal gas than a real gas does. The concept of photon gases is well studied and understood. (google for it, and while you're at it, you can read up on electron gases, neutron gases, neutrino gases, boson gases, and even entirely fictional substances like jellium.)
Any half-decent physicist, should immediately recognize that you can ignore whatever the purported internal working of the machine is. The thrust will always equal the momentum carried away by the particles leaving the engine, be they rocket exhaust, jet exhaust or a particle beam.
In this case it's entirely trivial. First, nothing is leaving, hence it's bullshit. And if the photons were to leave, the exact momentum is given by P/c (a formula stated in the critique), and the thrust can never be higher than that. (since that would represent creating photons with 100% efficiency, and assume none are absorbed on the way. Which is actually highly unlikely with microwaves, since they're a form of heat radiation, which most materials have quite
Autoconf had a release just few months back, actually. Anyway, I don't see your point. First, because I don't think anyone is saying these projects are doing great. Second, because lack of heavy maintainance doesn't imply that they're not. Both are mature and stable pieces of software and as such don't require much maintenance.
Rather, since both utilities are very heavily used, and heavily used by a developer audience, I'd take that as a strong indication that they're working satisfactorily for the vast majority. There's little point in change for the sake of change, and neither really require any new features. Make, for instance, is quite old and a POSIX standard as well.
Anyway, if you need a feature or a bug fixed, I'd suggest volunteering to fix it. Or you can suggest it to those who are. Or you can sit and bitch about it - that would at still be a legitimate than complaining that it's not been updated without giving a reason for why you require one.
I'm not sure what you mean. Seems to me you either misunderstand the role the FSF plays, or you're suggesting they play a different one.
The mangagement of "official" GNU/FSF projects does not differ in any fundamental way from that of any other FOSS project. That is to say, they don't manage the projects at all. The people volunteering for them do. They have some guidelines (e.g. how to keep track of submissions) and administrative functions (e.g. copyright assignments), but that's the extent of it.
The FSF does not and has never dictated who should code on what, or what projects are necessary. Just as a FOSS project will accept any code that meets their standards and goals, the FSF accepts any project that does the same. The only thing they do from a 'focus' perspective is to encourage development on certain projects which they deem more important in the grand scheme of things.
The FSF itself doesn't write code, and doesn't pay people to do so. The possible exception being the stuff done by RMS in the early days, but his work duties today don't include writing code AFAIK.
I see little reason to worry about conflicts of interest, since as I said, the FSF doesn't micromanage 'their' projects. Project decisions are made by project members, and as in most FOSS projects, the opinion of a major contributor (such as RH) will be given more weight. There have only been a few cases of such direct conflicts, such as the EGCS fork, and the FSF seems to have learned their lesson.
The FSF doesn't even dictate the licensing of their projects. E.g. If a solid majority of contributors (representing the bulk of the code) on some project would want to switch from the GPL to the LGPL (for instance), the FSF would let them do so. Such relicensings have occured. (Naturally there are limits. I'd think it unlikely they'd permit a project to switch to a GPL-incompatible license and still remain an official GNU project).
Whereas I'd say it doesn't matter what you consider more important, because the two things don't exclude eachother at all. The main role of the FSF is advocacy, writing and maintaining licenses, providing legal advice on them, stewardship of donated code and defending the rights and interests in that code on their own behalf as well
The reason is, there are basically two opinions here:
1) Your interpretation of the intent and effects of the licensing
2) Whether that intent agrees with your own.
The second point is certainly a pure matter of opinion that requires no qualifications, and kind of pointless to discuss or provide arguments for.
But the first point is a lot more subjective, and you need to provide arguments for why you believe your interpretation to be correct. That's where they fail, in my opinion. Mostly they just assert their interpretation without giving reason.
IMHO, they must provide further argumentation for (1). Because if you're not a lawyer, I don't really see any reason to take your interpretation of a legal document at face value. Doesn't mean I'm saying they can't have an opinion on it. Only that I for one will put higher demands on explaining the rationale.
(OTOH, they're certainly the most qualified people to give an opinion on (2). The license should serve the intent of the developers, not vice-versa.)
To be specific, I take issue with statements like:
I think that's a rather extreme, or at least non-obvious interpretation. I'd really like to know why they think it "looks like" that. Unfortunately they don't give a reason. Instead they go on to give their opinions on the consequences of that interpretation, stating their belief that it'll seriously inhibit corporate use of GPL software.
I find that also to be extreme or non-obvious, too. And it's really bad not to give an example, because the given argument could just as well support to the opposite position: That the lack of protection from patent liability in the GPLv2 could hurt corporate use. Regardless of my own opinion on the matter, it's wrong not to address the fact that other OSS licenses (e.g. ASL v2, CPL) have anti-patent clauses yet seem to have quite broad corporate use.
Not all points are bad though. For instance, the "Tivoisation" stuff, which doesn't really rely on any particular interpretation since it's clear they object to any and all restrictions on DRM use.
The only objection I can think up to that, is that I don't think you need to say more than that. People want different things, and that's why they need different licenses. RMS and Linus simply want different license obligations with respect to DRM. Talking about "freedom" (and the guaranteeing of it) is just politics and rhetoric - The game being to obscure the difference of opinion by pretending your position logically follows from some concept with positive connotations (like "freedom"). Despite that it doesn't follow, and the meaning (but not the connotation) is anything but agreed-upon.
"Freedom" in probably the all-round most useful term for that, which is why politicians love it. Everyone thinks it's a good thing but noone has a strong idea of what means. You can use it for anything!
People should react with harsh scepticism against anything argued for in terms of 'freedom'. If not for being rhetoric, then for being obvious ( =bad ) and uncreative rhetoric. If you're gonna get bullshitted, you can still demand quality bullshit!
Oh well that completly invalidates their criticism, then!
Reading all 6 of Herbert's original books multiple times makes you a better judge of literature.. how?
It doesn't. (Your opinion would be far more interesting, to me at least, if you'd read the first book once and 11 other, completely different books, than if you've read all 6 Dune books twice.)
If someone has read the entire series multiple times, it does tell me one thing: They're are a "Dune" fan. As such, I think it's reasonable to assume that they will be more positively inclined towards any story that's in the "Dune" universe than otherwise. And so I'd put a lot less weight behind that person's opinion.
Okay. Now someone is going to say: "Oh, but if you aren't a fanatic like me, then you won't get it! You'll miss all the references and back-story and continuity and stuff!"
And perhaps I will! But for me at least, those things don't make a book good. They can make a good book better, but if the prose is crap, no amount of that stuff will save it. Since Tolkien is the main topic, you might as well compare LOTR to the Silmarillion. Both have about the same amount of those things. But the prose and structure of the latter suck. Which is why it's nowhere near as popular.
(To Tolkien's defense, that choice was intentional and he predicted it'd be less popular himself.)
Anyway, no I've not read the Dune prequels, and only the first four of the original ones. But I feel good reason to be sceptical. Prequels invariably suck, because they're invariably written for money and not due to some inspiration.
E.g. Had Tolkien been like most prequel-writers, the Silmarillion would've had a Baggins family member in every story, as well as Gandalf playing a prominent role everywhere (good thing he's immortal!), Tom Bombadil would probably turn out to be Legolas' great-grandfather, and all in all you'd discover that there are only about 5 important people in the history of the universe who aren't related to a main character of the LOTR books.
I don't really see any easy answer either way, actually.
This dilemma happens to every popular artist after they die. (Obviously, if they're not popular, there won't be any demand anyway and no dilemma) Often they didn't publish the stuff because it they didn't consider it 'done', or they didn't feel it was 'good enough'. Many (most?) great artists have very high standards in that respect.
The problem is that while those concerns may have meant a lot to the artist, they mean nothing now. If people are still interested long after their death, then their reputation is beyond tainting. There is absolutely nothing Chris Tolkien could release, no matter how bad, that would taint J.R.R.'s reputation, since everyone will know that the man himself considered it to be sub-par. Nobody is going to judge him by it.
Now, to take another example: Franz Kafka. He published little during his life, and wanted all his writings destroyed after his death, at which time he was virtually unknown. Obviously that didn't happen, since he's now regarded as one of the 20th century's greatest writers.
His friend Max Brod was the one who published the material. Who is prepared to condemn him? I'm not.
I guess the ethic that I'm suggesting is this: You can't blindly obey someone's wishes, even their last wishes, without considering the motives. There are a lot of possible ones for wanting something to go unpublished. The artist might've considered it too personal, and I think that might be grounds for obeying. But if the motive was a concern the work wasn't up-to-standard, then you might be able to disregard it.
In Kafka's case, I think it suffices to say that the guy had enough self-loathing and self-destructive emotions to fill a Goth club several times over.
I don't think (as a college professor) that written exams do much to really reflect what a student either knows, or is capable of.
:)
I don't think that either. I just don't think they're much worse than the other common methods. I think a well-designed written exam is better than a badly-designed written assignment. But student personality and even gender make for bigger differences. (E.g. studies have shown men to be consistently better at multiple-choice exams, and women at essay-type exams.)
I agree that orals have the big drawback of being rather labor-intensive and difficult to schedule. I mentioned some creative solutions to that in another post (e.g. oral exams only for higher grades than passing). But they're certainly not a solution for any larger group of students. (Unless you can delegate the task)
I disagree that they're subjective though. (Having administered a few myself) The might seem that way. But a proper oral exam takes as much planning as any other kind. Obviously you need to establish a clear set of grade critera and questions ahead of time. (So if someone complains, you can refer them to that). The main challenge is that you have to keep a level of cool-headedness and professionalism, and not be swayed by either emotional responses or smooth-talking students. Since follow-up questions are improvised, you need to be very careful not to make them leading questions. But given that, I don't think they're any more subjective than other tests.
Rigid and objective standards aren't everything, either. Fairness requires a certain amount of flexibility. I once had a physics exam with two parts, a theory part and a problem-solving part, which accounted for 10% and 90% of the grade, respectively. But you needed a certain score on both to pass. I managed to fail the theory part by a single point, yet have a perfect socre on the problem-solving. So I went to the Prof and tried to find some minor error that I could argue should be disregarded. He was of course very surprized at the result, but told me "I'll find something..". So I got another point and achieved the quite unusual feat of having a grade adjusted from a failing one to a top one.
In a way, that was unfair: I got graded on a different criteria by not having that point deducted. But had it been more fair to fail me when I obviously did have knowledge that went beyond the requirement for a passing grade? Ergo, true justice can't be achived without a certain subjectivity. (Shakespeare made the same point with a much better story in "Measure for Measure")
That's the real problem with overly fixed criteria, IMHO. Not the students who learn no more than what is required of them. A disinterested student will never do that, fixed criteria just makes it easier for them.
No, the real problem are the interested ones who've learned far more than required, only in areas and ways not measured by the specific criteria. And that's more often the case than not with interested students. You can't expect their interest to correspond exactly to the syllabus.
If you can't identify and reward that kind of interest, the grade actually means less, despite seeming to mean more. Someone studying only for the exam may well get an A+, only to have forgotten it all in a year. But the interested student will still remember the stuff he liked, even if it was only half the course.
Two reasons: The first is that an unauthorized copy doesn't actually come with any guarantee whatsoever of being an identical copy of the original software. An authorized edition does come with such a guarantee. (MS or the vendor will undoubtedly exchange it for you otherwise) So I don't see any real dishonesty in making that implication. At worst you could call it hyperbole, since most pirated copies are genuine as far as the software is concerned.
The second reason is that it's naturally in the interests of MS's marketing to play up that risk.
So the "Why?" is quite obvious. The "Why?" I'd like to ask is "Why is this upsetting to anyone?". I mean, they are not lying, and they certainly can't be expect to vouch for the quality and accuracy of pirated software. So at worst, MS marketing is being accused of exaggerating things to their advantage. Which is basically what all marketing does. It's practically their job description.
Because, "unauthorized" and "unlicensed" are pretty much synonyms for "without permission", "authorization" carries a connotation of formality, and "license" carries one of of the legal definition. (although both are used outside of formal and legal contexts).
Neither bear any direct relationship to the word "genuine". "genuine" approximately means "Being what it appears to be". So whether one implies the other or not can't be determined without any context. Also, "genuine" is a subjective description (like "ugly" is). So if it's to mean anything, you need some kind of hint from the context as to what they mean by "appearing to be something".
You are saying that a disc of software copied (with license or not) is genuine. And I agree with that; If the contents of a CD look like a Windows install CD and it's an exact copy, then its contents are genuine. Conversely, if the contents look like a Windows CD but contains added spyware, then it's not genuine.
But Microsoft that's not the context MS used. They did not talk about the contents. They were talking about something purchased under the impression of having purchased a Windows CD. Now, if the contents are non-genuine, then they bought something non-genuine. You implicitly agree to at least that much.
Now, you have (intentionally?) clouded the issue here by changing the context of "genuine" from the purchased product to the software itself in order to make licensing irrelevant. The software itself is simple: It's genuine if it's an accurate copy, regardless of licensing. Licensing is not irrelevant to the genuineness of the purchased product. That depends entirely on what impression the buyer got about licensing from the appearance of the product.
First, as I already said, an unlicensed copy carries no guarantee of having genuine contents (and a licensed copy does), so there's nothing directly dishonest in making that implication. (How dare they claim all pirated software is bad when only some of it is!)
Second, you ignore the follow
Ahh, an exam cynic. A product of the US (or North American) higher educational system, no doubt. :)
Patronizing remarks aside, what I'm saying is that I understand your position, but it's coming from a limited perspective. Go study in Europe a bit. I did. (Sweden)
Yes. True/false and multiple-choice exams are worthless. Yet very common in the US, and perhaps only there.
My experiences from Sweden were the following: First, exams are far more common, and far larger in size.
Second, true/false exams are never ever used. I never had one and never heard of anyone else having one either.
Third, multiple-choice exams exist, but seem to be quite rare. I only had one in four years, and that one was still augmented by two essay questions and the fact that they deducted points for wrong answers on the multiple-choice part. (The clear message being: Don't even think about guessing your way)
I think there are two very simple reasons these tests are used so much in the US, and neither of them are because they're a good method. First is because they're established and part of the academic culture. That kind of stuff is hard to change. Students don't want tougher exams, and Profs don't want to appear harsher than the others. Second, the Professors are lazy. Why use a test that involves more work from them and will generate complaints from the students, when you can stick with the same-old and everyone's happy?
So on to essay exams, which you've probably guessed would be the usual type, then. Your first criticism is that they're too short. Well again, there's a solution: Longer exams. Where I was studying the typical length was 4-6 hours. Bathroom breaks weren't a problem. The basic order was: Noone gets to leave during the first hour but latecomers can arrive in that period. After one hour, you're permitted to turn in your exam and leave if you want and bathroom breaks are permitted. Bathroom breaks are allowed one at a time, and the exam monitor keeps a log of which students leave and the time of their departure and return. They also log the seating arrangement and the time the exam was turned in. There are also voluntary 10-minute rest breaks where those who wish can leave with a second monitor. (who otherwise is outside, usually checking the bathrooms).
I never saw that dicipline broken. Cheating did still occur of course, but the worst I ever saw was people stuffing a note in their pocket and checking it in the bathroom. And that's of course impossible to stop. But so is any dedicated cheat. And the amount of information you can inconspicuously fit in your pants is rather small.
But anyway, point is the bathroom thing can be solved, and has been solved.
Your second argument is even sillier. Bad handwriting? That never seemed to stop them over there. But if it's that bad you can simply require the answer to be written in block text. Or set the condition that illegible answers will not be graded. That should do it.
You leave out what is, IMHO, the most superior form of testing though. Namely oral exams. (not necessarily the formal type) There is simply no better way to assess someone's knowledge and understanding than by talking to them, asking questions and follow-up questions to understand their thought process. And it is very much a real-world type of situation. The only drawback is that it's labor-intensive. I saw some creative solutions to that, though. One was to have a written examination to qualify for a passing grade, and an oral exam for higher grades. That filters 'em out quite well. I think that's because people won't take a chance on it unless they feel certain they've got at least some shot at it. First because it's harder to fake it. Second because people are a lot more reluctant to parade their ignorance in person-to-person communication than on a piece of paper. (Of course, some might simply be too nervous. But if you want to talk real-world, then they'll need to learn to deal with that sooner or later, and
The problem with exams is that the scenario they present is typically not representative of how the student will be expected to perform in "real life".
I don't view that as much of a problem. Academic subjects are themselves not typically representative of "real life" either, so why expect them to be taught that way? It's just not possible to do so.
If you want hands-on, "real life" experience for a career, there are trade schools for that purpose.
The purpose of universities is to provide critical-thinking skills and a solid foundations in the theory of your subject. Those are the prerequisites for any higher-level problem solving. If you learn some real-world problem-solving skills too, that's great. But you need the foundation first, and the latter is best learned through experience anyway. (And a lot of people are lucky if they manage to graduate with only the former)
Their emphasis is generally more on memorisation and recall, than research and problem-solving.
Nonsense. Some exams do, some exams don't. Some do both. And I've had plenty of them that actually had quite a good resemblence to "real world" situations. For instance, I've had several oral exams where I was asked to propose solutions to a problem and reason openly about them, and the pros and cons of the respective approaches. In a situation quite reminicent of what your boss would expect you to do, you convey both your level of knowledge and understanding. Well, either that or you master the art of cold reading, which is probably a highly useful real-world skill regardless.
Anyway, I think it's worth emphasizing that there's absolutely nothing wrong with memorization. Memorization has been given a bad rap. It routinely gets portrayed as the antithesis to real understanding. I disagree. You can't substitute understanding with memory. Lots of people try to do it, but it's really no problem to tell the difference if you've got at least some semblance of insight yourself. Besides, "understanding" doesn't carry any weight in a lot of subjects. Like in learning foreign languages.
The truth is that memorization is tedious and dull and absolutely necessary for certain subjects. There are more subjects than physics and math, and the rest of them don't neatly reduce to a few postulates and axioms. And with a more complicated and non-generalizable set of rules, the only way to learn them well is by rote. Your brain sorts out the rest and you're left with something better than deep understanding. You get intuition.
And no matter how fast you can look the correct answer up, you'll never be able to beat someone who can get it instantly and subconciously.
What's the difference between cheating and learning? When I was in middle school, I used to take paragraphs from sources and paraphrase them and dumb them down so that it would sound like I wrote it, and I was a straight A student. What's the point of this intermediate step?
I think your second question holds the answer to the first: You can't paraphrase or dumb it down unless you've first understood what it means. Which implies learning.
And if I paraphrase, how does it make my work any less "cheating" than someone who copies word for word from the same source?
Precisely because it means you've understood what you were writing about. (or it doesn't - if your paraphrased version is inaccurate, then you've not understood the subject) Copying word for word implies no understanding at all. Heck, I can't even be sure you really know the language if you've copied word-for-word.
What exactly is the definition of learning when you're not allowed to use sources with the actual information on the topic without being considered a cheater?
Of course you're allowed to use sources. Nobody's expecting you to go out and perform new and original research on the topic, are they?
Sadly, most school assignments are basically reduced to rewriting what you found out either through the textbook or through online sources instead of encouraging you to think about what you've learned and make decisions based on that information.
Well, you have no disagreement from me on that. My point was just that the former activity is not as mindless as it might seem.
But encouragement is most definitely something which is often lacking. For instance, the common plague of book reports. Most students start writing them in the form of a simply synopsis of the book. Because that's what they're usually first told to do. And a lot of students never develop past that point into doing real thinking, that is, analysis, criticism, etc. Not because they can't (Everyone has an opinion!) but because it either never occured to them, or because they didn't have enough self-confidence to do so.
And that's a real tragedy. Brains mean nothing if you don't have the confidence to use them. There are just way too many people out there stuck in the trap of acting dumb because they've no confidence in their reasoning, and lack confidence because they act dumb.
The fake bills are NOT from the US Government, so they are NOT genuine. However, the copied software code IS from Microsoft, so it IS genuine.
A bogus argument. What if I produce counterfeit bills using the US Mint's own plates? I'm fairly sure you would maintain that they would not be genuine, as they did not originate from the US Mint.
But the engraving did! And yes, you can then describe the engraving itself as "genuine" despite the fact that the overall product, the banknote, is not.
Similarily, while the code on a bootleg Windows disc may very well be "genuine", that does not mean that the overall product is "genuine". The genuine product consists of more than just data. It consists of the disc itself, the box, manual, assorted business-reply-mail forms, a holographic sticker-thingie, a license number and a lifetime membership in the Wham! fan-club.
If any of those components are missing or didn't originate with Microsoft, then the product as a whole is no more genuine than a three-dollar bill. Even if that bill was printed on genuine US Mint cotton paper.
What Microsoft wants to do is attach the idea that their license is what makes Windows genuine or not. That IS a departure from the traditional definition of genuine.
No. I'd say they're attaching the idea that a product that they produced (and not just in part) and paid for is what makes Windows genuine or not. And that is not at all a departure from any "traditional" definition of genuine.
This is completely irrelevant to the context, which quite specifically refers to "genuine" being used when referring to a copy being sold. And in that context, I agree that it's perfectly reasonable to call an unauthorized copy "non-genuine".
If you want to go off on a tangent and discuss the meaning of "genuine" in all kinds of other contexts to make your point, then you're committing the action Microsoft is being accused of here: Framing the debate by redefining a word in a nonsensical way.
Most would not consider that to be a counterfeit, no. Since there's no effort made to defraud him, or any intent to do so. Of course "fraud" is out of the question regardless since you're not charging for it. The real answer here is that "counterfeit" is simply not a useful description in that context.
Of course it can! What's strange about that? Adjective need not imply some immutable physical property. And "genuine" certainly does not. You can't determine what is meant by "genuine" outside a given context, and obviously you can't compare it between contexts.
This doesn't demonstrate your point at all, because you're using the word "genuine" in the same context in both instances. Yet, you can still create ambiguity even in that seemingly well-defined context. Is a painting made by Picasso a "genuine" Picasso? What about one which he merely signed? What about one produced in his workshop under his supervision? One produced in his workshop which he did not supervise? One produced outside his workshop but by the same workers in the same methods and designs? What about a forgery which is indistingishable from a "real" Picasso, which everyone considers to be "genuine"? And so on..
But a copy of Windows that was previously "genuine" can suddenly become "counterfeit" merely because I give the copy to someone? I reject that on strictly linguistic grounds.
And I reject it on grounds of being patent nonsense. "genuine" has no absolute meaning. "counterfeit" has no defined meaning in the given context and the assertion that such properties are in contradition regardless of context is a false dichotomy. A counterfeit Vermeer can still be a genuine van Meegeren (who's forgeries are quite valuable today).
First, it's not a metaphor. It's an adjective. Second, most adjectives can be used in what's called a "figurative" sense (which is a metaphor), in which you aren't actually referring to a physical property. When somebody is described as being "cold" or "hard", you are not necessarily talking about their temperature and elastic modulus! Context is required to determine what you mean.
And "genuine" doesn't describe any particular physical characteristic to begin with! Which is why it can only be understood within its context. The fallacy that both you and the linked blogger are making is assuming the opposite: That "genuine" does refer to some physical property, and that therefore can't be applied to informati
That's good. Naturally you know what you intended better than I do, and I wouldn't claim otherwise.
However, the attitude I mentioned and which you cite is exactly the impression I was given by your entry. And I maintain that impression on re-reading it. (I have no opinion or impression at all on the blog in general, as I haven't read the rest)
Not that I doubt the genuininity* of your claimed intent.
(*Now that's a more debatable form of the word. AFAIK the OED is the only one who lists it, and does so as 'rare'.)
And my point is that you completely failed to substantiate that. Nowhere do you contrast their use of the term against any common definition. Much less against common usage. All you do is claim that you find their usage "peculiar", and then you back that up by providing an argumentative definition of what you consider the word to mean.
And not only is it a personal definition of the word, but as I said, it doesn't resemble common usage in the slightest. You give extremely narrow definition of a broad term. Among other things you cite specific criteria for being "genuine", namely "aesthetics, functionality, and resale value".
I have great doubts you will find any dictionary citing those criteria. Or any criteria of that order of specificity. If you want to claim that they're not following common usage, then base your arguments on a commonly accepted definition and not your own ad-hoc idea of what the word means.
Using analogy to a real object to define the word is particularily bad. Is the usage of "genuine" wrong in the sentence "His feelings were genuine"? Does this imply that his feelings would have a higher resale value than otherwise? Virtually every adjective is used or can be used in a metaphorical or metaphysical sense. Assuming that they must imply some tangible property is just crazy. It would also be a major catastrophe for the art of poetry.
Now if you'd attacked the usage in the quoted "Customers recognize that the value of genuine is greater than ever.", where they're using "genuine" as a noun, that'd at least have struck a chord with some people. I don't see anything objectionable about it, though. The noun (software) has simply been omitted and replacing nouns with their modifying adjectives is quite commonplace in English. (A certain Sergio Leone western manages to do it three times in its title*)
[..] and that it looks like they are doing this for a deceptive purpose.
Hah. Well you do express that theory, yes. Not that I believe it, though. I don't personally think MS has the least bit of trouble getting support against what they're calling "non-genuine" software. Yes, plenty of people, including myself, dislike Microsoft. But most people also support the idea of copyright. While they may be split on downloading for personal use, most seem to think copyright infringement done for profit is quite wrong.
So where's the deception? Not only is it in Microsoft's best interest that people buy their software and not copies. It's also the consumers best interest that they get genuine Microsoft software if that is what they think they are paying for. The quality of that software is completely irrelevant, period. If there's anyone being decieved here, it's the guy who thought he was getting a copy when he paid for an original.
Obviously you don't like Microsoft. But I don't see why there's reason to assume there's some deception going on rather than that Microsoft's best interests for once
Well, it seems the argument he's making is that somethign is not counterfeit/fake (and thus genuine) if it has certain properties:
This is in itself an ad-hoc redefinition, since the common usages of "counterfeit", "fake" and other antonyms to "genuine" are hardly that precise. The analogy is pretty bad too, IMHO. What's the resale value of a pirated copy of Windows? Not much, I assure you. Neither article can be sold legally in most countries anyway, so it's kind of a moot point.
A "Rorex" watch may very well have the same functionality as a Rolex, insomuch as they both tell the time correctly. Maybe the Rolex is a bit better. I for one would probably not notice the difference in that respect but I'd sure as hell notice if Microsoft was refusing me tech support and updates!
The author anticipated this argument though (or realized the fallacy later), and disqualifies it as not being an 'intrinsic property' of the software - making the definition even narrower. The remaining relevant part would be that it's a matter of aesthetics. Which is hardly a good criteria for deeming what's 'genuine' and what's not.
I'd think a more realistic definition of "genuine" would be "Something that is what it appears to be."
And in that respect, a commercially pirated copy of Windows anything but "genuine". (Note that MS is indeed referring to software that was sold here.) Whether it's "intrinsically" different or not is just irrelevant. If I buy "X", expect it to be "X", if I get "Y" I've been ripped off. If you are selling me "Y" under the guise of selling me "X", that's fraud. And if you've also made an effort to make "Y" resemble "X", then "Y" is a counterfeit and not genuine.
Unlike a commercial one, a copy you made from a friend or downloaded has at least no pretention of being 'genuine'. Although one might to say the same of the "Rorex" you bought for $10 at a street market in Phuket.
Just goes to show you that claiming authority in a given field doesn't make it so.
Well, I wouldn't be too harsh. The author didn't explicity state he was giving some kind of professional opinion as a linguist (if he is one). As usual the Slashdot summary went for the more provocative and possibly misleading take on it.
That said, if the guy really is a linguist, I find the attitude rather strange. Most linguists I know are about as far from the "spelling/grammar/definition-Nazi" type of person as you can get. Since more than anyone, they're aware of how words, spelling and grammar constantly change over time, and embrace the fact that usage constitutes the definition of language. For example, my impression is that most linguists would be the last people to chastise someone for writing in "leet". They'd take it as an interesting shibboleth. But I wouldn't count on an English teacher being equally liberal.
Of course, even if he's a linguist, it should probably best just be taken at face value as yet another mindless anti-MS rant. Which is of course why it got picked up on Slashdot.
I'd love to see more stories related to actual linguistics though.
Oh, you mean nobody would ever see these videos otherwise? So if there's no market for these videos, how can it be established there were tens of millions in damages?
That's a rhetorical question, isn't it? Well.. here goes anyway..
Now, I'm not sure whether you're trying to make a political point against the current copyright laws (although the matter really extends to quite a lot of civil liability) or whether you believe you're stating an argument that's relevant within the current legal system. Nevertheless I think it deserves an retort.
Lemme first say the premise is factually incorrect. Many, if not most of the videos in question are actually commercially available. That's not entirely relevant, as I'll get to though.
But assuming that premise and that you're talking about how the law currently stands, the question is: What damages are they entitled to? Three kinds, basically: Compensatory, punitive, and statutory damages. As the names imply, the first exists to compensate the owner's loss, the second serves to punish the infringer if their conduct was found to be particularily malicious/negligent, and the last are damages to which they're entitled by law. Since copyright law has statutory damages, there is no real argument to why they wouldn't be entitled to the latter. Given your argument, it's fairly obvious you're not adressing those damages either, so there's no point in going into that matter further. Just take note that they're entitled by law to at least that much.
Punitive damages are a bit difficult to guess in the US, and their somewhat haphazard nature is a popular argument for tort reform. But let's consider some things I think the court would reasonably find to be fact:
1) YouTube is violating their copyright.
2) They know they are.
3) They are profiting from it.
4) YouTube has taken measures to stop infringing content
5) Those measures have been rather ineffective.
6) They're aware of that fact.
I think the real linchpin is in how the last points are interpreted. If YouTube can convince the court that they'd done all that could reasonably be expected of them to prevent it, then there was no real malice or negligence on their part, and punitive damages would be out of the question. On the other hand, if the plaintiffs convince the court that YouTube was merely making a token effort without any real intent to stop infringement, then they might be found to have acted negligently. And that may entitle the plaintiffs to punitive damages. Personally I think it could go either way, but there's no denying that the large amount of copyrighted stuff is a major factor in YouTube's popularity. But it'll probably depend on what the other damages amount to as well.
Anyway. Let's get to the real issue: Compensatory damages. Which is what your argument is aimed at.
As I parse your argument, it goes as follows:
A) If they're not currently selling the product, there's no profitable market for it.
B) If there is no profitable market for the product, the product has no economic value.
C) If the product has no economic value, then they cannot have suffered any economic loss.
Only C is true. A is obviously false. As-of-yet unreleased products can certainly be profitable once they start selling them. It's also false for the other case, products which have been withdrawn from the market. There are any number of counterexamples of profitable re-releases of products.
I understand the implied argument though: That if there was any profit to be made from releasing or re-releasing the product, they'd have done so. Since the product isn't on the market, one concludes there's no profit to be made from it. It's plain old business sense.
The thing is, that argument has little legal relevance. And for good reason, too. The court can't operate on the assumption that you're making good business decisions. Nor should they. But I'll get back to that.
B is also false. There is no legal justif
But the people who had their equipment seized WEREN'T trading child porn (or at least, they've not been arrested or charged with that). They were just running a Tor node, which is perfectly legal, and something I do. So yes, I am worried
If that worries you, why shouldn't you be worried?
By running a Tor node, you are letting other people use your property without restriction. And no, there's nothing illegal in that. But that also means they may be using your property to commit a crime. And that's a fact that you are well aware of.
Now if you're in the situation where somebody used your property to commit a crime, what do you suggest the Police should do about it?
Should they take your word: Someone else was using it at the time, and that you don't know who it was? How many criminals would ever be caught by that method of investigation?
Or should they take the property as evidence and do a forensic analysis to find out whatever they can? If you're telling the truth, then you will not be charged. And you'll get your stuff back when they're done (depending on whether it's deemed needed for the investigation or not). Yes, it sucks to have your property seized as evidence. But what alternatives are there?
The answer is: None. Anything you own could be used to commit a crime, and anything used to commit a crime is evidence. And I for one think the Police should have the ability to seize evidence, if they can demonstrate to a court that it was indeed used in a crime and obtain a warrant for it. (With additional safeguards, such as the inadmittability of evidence of any other crimes they might find, and inadmittability of evidence obtained through an illegal search).
Are you really implying that the police should only be allowed to confiscate evidence that belongs to someone charged with a crime?
If having your property seized as evidence worries you, that's too bad. All you can do about that is reduce the chances that it is used in a crime. So the answer there is simple: Avoid letting strangers use your stuff. In particular when there's a criminal application for it that you are well aware of.
Or is your argument: If we assume the police knew it was a Tor server, and how Tor works, etc. They should know better and assume they won't find anything, and therefore simply not bother? That would simply be bad detective-work. If that's the only lead they have, there's no justification for not at least bothering to check up on it.
Has anyone else ever wondered why so many OSS projects are afraid to ever reach v1.0?
Um, no. Because there is no general meaning of "1.0" and assigning some meaning to it is little more than numerology. In particular with OSS projects.
Moreover, there isn't any general rule for what the requirements are for a "release" with an OSS project. It could be nothing more than a CVS snapshot on a particular date, or in a more well-organized project it might be required to pass a set of regression tests. It might also (or alternately) be preceeded by any number of test releases.
All a higher version number is guaranteed to mean is that it's a newer release. Whatever additional meaning it might have is completely dependent on the project's release criteria.
Version numbering is even less clear. Unless the project has some clear agree-upon definition such as a roadmap, defining exactly which features should be included into what future version number, then the version numbers have absolutely no meaning. If you haven't decided what "1.0" means, then not only is there little significance to the 1.0 release, but there's no significance to any of the previous version numbers either, since you can't quantify how much closer or farther you're getting to an undefined target.
A sane scheme for a piece of library software may define an API and then define the first major release as the first complete implementation of that API, and subsequent minor releases as fixes/improvements that don't involve API changes. But a piece of application software is far harder. In particular with OSS. As the user and developer base grow, the goals usually change repeatedly.
The case of MythTV is even more complex. Not only is it a very popular app, but one where it's terribly difficult to define what the necessary features are. And the support for even 'basic' features is in constant flux as the situation with hardware, drivers and even the video standards themselves change rapidly.
Here's an example of a project that has been in development since 2002. It's undergone cycles of feature additions and bug fixes, and it's just now hitting version 0.20?
So? Would it make you feel better if they'd labeled the same piece of software "0.99"? The number would not be one bit more meaningful, since AFAIK, the MythTV devs have no set goals for 1.0. And you haven't given a definition here either.
But here's a suggestion: If you do have a definite idea of what you think should consitute a 1.0 release, why don't you suggest it to them?
Version numbers are for users (or marketers) anyway. And version numbers that have meaning are for users too lazy to read release notes.
As the linked article points out, the iterative method (Babylonion/Newton) is a much more efficient manual method.
;)). To me at least, both methods are algorithms. Both are just as good as examples of numerical methods and neither is 'mindless'.
Well.. that's not quite true (IMHO), and not really what the article says either. It says it converges in fewer iterations (for a well-chosen starting value, although that much is trivial). So all mathematical operations being roughly equivalent (as is the case with a computer), then it's certainly better.
Thing is, that doesn't make it a faster manual method, because with us humans, all mathematical operations are nowhere near being equivalent. In fact, our mental capabilities are usually pretty much limited to the four operations performed on single digit numbers. Everything else gets broken down into single-digit operations. And we suck the worst at division. (Which is why long division is usually considered the most tedious of all the basic operations.)
Now the 'longhand' method does not require much division. Not any really, except to the extent required to find the largest integer divisor of some number. (Different people perform this differently in their head - some might use division, some might use trial multiplication). It is the same as long division in that respect. Indeed the whole method is more or less the same as long division.
So to me at least, performing the entire operation is about as "computationally expensive" as performing a single iteration of Newton's method manually. Which is of course why it was used, and not Newton's method. Of course, if you have a four-operation calculator or happen to be a prodigy at division, then Newton's method is better. On the other hand, the longhand method can be more efficient even on a computer under certain circumstances. For instance if you're want a square root when using fixed-point math on a processor that has no division instruction. (Not a wholly unrealistic scenario; such hardware exists).
IMO this would have been better to teach kids even back then as it would provide a taste of numerical analysis and not some mindless rote mechanical method of arriving at an answer.
You're entitled to your opinion of course, but I can't quite see the reasoning behind it (except perhaps an emotional response due to having been e tedious rote learning of a largely useless method
The task of performing the algorithms (and just about any algorithm) is invariably going to be "mindless rote", and I'd not advocate spending lots of time on that either. (With the exceptions of long addition, division, etc of course).
So, I agree that teaching an understanding of the algorithm itself is preferable to just performing it. But I disagree that the Babylonian method would be more suitable to that end. The algorithm itself is simpler than the longhand method, certainly, so to that extent it's easier to learn. But what you really want to teach is not just the 'What is it?' but the 'How does it work?'.
The 'how' of the longhand method is explained in the article you linked to. It could be done better, but it's enough to show what's required to show and understand how the method works. The prerequisites as I see them are mostly basic algebra, maybe a 8th grade level or thereabouts. The Babylonian method, OTOH, works by finding the root: x^2 - a = 0 by the Newton-Raphson method. And that, I am certain, can't be understood properly until you have an understanding of functions and derivatives, which is a subject years into the future by comparison. (And if they reach that level, they'll probably be taught it anyway. At least I learned Newton's method in High School.)
So between the two, I'd choose the longhand method as an early introduction to numerics (which is not a bad idea, btw). But IMHO, it'd probably be better from that perspective to just analyze a numerical method they already know well by rote, for instance long division. All it req
Here here! All the old fogys are afraid of the "darned electric voting boxs" when it was and still is easier to "acidentally" destroy all the black voters paper ballets or not count "pregnant chads". I'm not even taking into account thinks done by non-government forces.
Bullshit. How exactly is it easy to destroy ANY ballot when you have multiple election workers with their eyes on them at every moment? Plus any number of election observers, which may be representatives of all parties involved, plus any number of federal or foreign observers.
The ONLY way you can destroy a paper ballot is if there are no observers, and all present voting administrators are corrupt. (And observers are usually deployed to exactly the places where there are suspicions of corruption).
Now let's consider an "e-voting" machine that leaves no verifiable paper trail, shall we? The officials and observers at the polling station have no way of knowing that the vote the machine actually registered was accurate, and neither do you. Nor can they tell if the machine is malfunctioning. All you need is ONE person to tamper with the machine, and do so at ANY time.
If the machine is compromised it can still display "Zero votes registered" when the poll opens. But I'd sure like to see you do the same trick stuffing paper slips in a ballot box and still having it look empty.
To ensure a fair election with paper ballots you need: At least one honest election official. And/or at least one impartial observer. To ensure a fair election with an electronic voting machine you need: All people who've ever had the opportunity to tamper with the machine to be honest. You need the software to be correct and bug-free (yeah, right). You need to be able to verify the correctness of the software.
It's true that it's impossible to guarantee fair elections. All you can do is reduce the risk of cheating, and the possible magnitude of cheating. Electronic voting machines do neither. All they do is cost less money.
what grade would you get for rewriting DOS 15 yrs later, and would it be higher or lower than the Hurd guys get for taking 20+yrs to get to 0.2 (but doing it the "right" way, with a microkernel) ?
What a smart-assed comment. What's your point? That you think that you (or the FreeDOS guys) know more about OS design than Tanenbaum? I doubt that very much. Tanenbaum wasn't saying a microkernel was the "right" way. He was saying it was the modern way.
It took less than a year for two guys to build the Wright Flyer but a decade for hundreds to build the Concorde. Which design do you think an avionics professor would consider more modern?
Implying that Tanenbaum's opinion was wrong just because the GNU Hurd project has been slow is ridiculous. Tanenbaum is not and never was a Hurd developer. He shares no part in that fiasco. The failure of Hurd versus the success of Linux has little or nothing to do with the kernel architecture and everything to do with the respective project leaderships.
It gets more ridiculous when you consider the fact that Tanenbaum is a guy who implemented an entire microkernel OS (Minix) from scratch, alone. (And Linux would not exist had he not, because Minix was the thing that inspired Linus to write Linux to begin with.)
"5 years from now everyone will be running free GNU" - Andy Tanenbaum, 1992
You're quoting that as if it implies some lack of insight on Tanenbaum's part. He correctly predicted that a free UNIX clone would become dominant, even if he missed the timescale. It's true he was wrong that it would be Hurd, and not Linux. But that was a sentiment shared by Linus himself at the time: "I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu)" - Linus Torvalds, 1991
To use an analogy, consider two locker rooms. Room A does not have locks on any of the lockers. Room B has locks, but all of them have the same combination. In which one is a person more likely to leave their wallet?
I take it you're implying the correct answer would then be "Neither". And I'd agree.
Problem is, it's not a relevant point. The context here is consumer's ignorance on the performance of crypto products. If someone is buying a crypto product, they must have determined that they need one. Or to continue your analogy: They have already decided that they're going to leave their wallet in a locker. The problem is that they can't tell the difference between a locker room where all the locks have the same combination, and the safer locker room where they don't.
And given that assumption (that they're going to put their wallet in a locker anyway), the poster who claimed that weak encryption is still better than none is right: If you're going to put your wallet in a locker, it's better to put it in one with a bad lock than none at all.
Continuing the analogy: With no lock, any casual bypasser with no particular knowledge at all can easily and quickly check the lockers for any valuables. "Opportunity makes the thief" as they say. Whereas if you at least had a bad lock, finding your wallet would at least require some knowledge of locks. It would also impede the person searching the lockers, which increases the likelyhood of them being discovered before they find your wallet. All in all, a safer situation.
Now obviously, a good and proper lock is better than a bad one. The problem here is that the consumer can't tell the difference when making the choice between the good and bad ones.
But the option of "don't store valuables in it" simply isn't on the table: They've already determined that they're going to store valuables in it, because that's why they wanted a lock in the first place.
..that cherry picked US canned tuna for it's studies to show low mercury levels, so I'm a little worried about this.
Uh, right. So since there's been more than one case of Police corruption, I better be worried whenever they arrest someone.
The sheer number of known carcinogens in the American diet worries me. Aspertame, Sodium Nitrate, Potasium Bromate; the list goes on and on.
Aspartame and Potassium bromate haven't been conclusively shown to be carcinogens. In particular the evidence for aspartame is quite dubious. Meaning that even if these substances are carcinogens, the risk is very, very, low. The laws of statistics dictate that: The lower the risk the harder it is to detect.
Sodium nitrate (and nitrite) are out of the FDA's juristdiction since they were grandfathered in in 1958 when the FDA took over the food-additive approval business from the Dept of Agriculture. The EU has stricter regulations on it, but nevertheless permits it because the cancer risks of it widely outweigh the food poisoning risks it prevents.
The argument is always either a) you're not getting enough to harm you
That's because that happens to be the case. (More on that later)
or b) it's all naturally occuring anyway.
That's ridiculous. Nobody makes that argument. Most of the most carcinogenic substances around are naturally occuring in one way or another.
Neither idea takes into account that a) if you eat a lot of prepared foods (like most poor Americans) you get way more than most studies allow
Blatantly false. Most (all, in the FDA context) carcinogenity studies involve amounts of the substance which are far beyond what any human would normally recieve. To take an example, The Economist did the math over Sudan-1 recall of Worcestershire sauce last year, arriving at the tidy figure of a human having to consume 800 liters of the stuff per day for 2 years to reproduce the effects on the mice in the study (in which none of the mice didn't actually develop cancer). Nevertheless the recall happened, and Sudan I is indeed banned.
b) is it really a good idea to add more of a naturally occuring carcinogen to a diet?
Of course not. Which is why carcinogens are not permitted in food except for in very few cases. The substances you describe are simply not known for certain if they cause cancer. And if they do, yes, then the risk is truely negligable. Except sodium/potassium nitrate/nitrite, which is known to cause cancer for sure. However, the risk of cancer there far outweighs the health risks of food poisoning. Botulism kills quite a lot of people, and would certainly kill a lot more if nitrites weren't used.
Wouldn't that raise your intake above natural limits?
There's no such thing as "natural limits". You don't reach some point where your body says "that's it!" and goes off and develops cancer. Cancer is natural. It occurs in your body many times each day. Most of the time it gets taken care of by your immune system. You get cancer from the air. From sunlight. From the food you eat. From the natural background radiation. From cosmic radiation. From the natural biological processes in your body. Yes, your body produces huge amounts of carcinogens.
All that exists is a risk you'll develop a cancer your body can't take care of. You can try to lower that risk, but if you're going to do so, you better have a sense of proportion with you. There are a large number of environmental factors which are hugely more important that any food additives. Americans first and foremost need to smoke less. They need to exersize more. (This is good for a lot of other things than just cancer prevention). They need to eat less food in general. They need to avoid polluted air. They need to wear proper sun protection. They need to stop eating fried foods. They need to stop drinking coffee.
Try to buy
>> In fact, halting is decidable for all deterministic machines with finite memory. Either you repeat a previous state, or halt within a finite number of cycles. The decision process may be made arbitrarily hard, but that's not undecidability.
> Yes, but no. While a computer as we know it is a finite-state machine, the number of possible states exceeds the number of atoms in the universe.
Yes but yes. - That is not undecidability. Undecidability is a mathematical concept and it means that the outcome is impossible to determine. Not impractical or impossible in finite time, or any such constraint.
In reality, your assertion that it is decideable is worthless [..]
Actually, I find your argument far more worthless. Did you bother to read the context? His assertion that it is decidable (formally true while impossible in practice) was raised in response to someone claiming the opposite had been proven, which is formally false unless you're talking about Turing machines.
[..] except for contrived examples and does not solve the problem in the general case.
That's a lot more contrived! The guy didn't say that decidability was practically possible in the general case. Make up your mind about what you're interested in here: Mathematical rigour or the real-world?
You just wrote that it doesn't matter if it's formally decidable, since it can't be done on a practical timescale, yet you still think it's important to to adress the general case? As the guy pointed out, and did so quite correctly, real-world programs running on real-world computers are anything but the general case.
Real programs aren't anywhere near the complexity they could have in theory. Do you think a program occupying 1 meg of memory really has 2^8000000 unique states, all of which are significant?
So what's your point? That you can't write a program which will find *every* single bug theoretically possible in *every* single program theoretically possible and have a guarantee of finishing the job on a practical timescale? Nobody said that, either.
But there's a huge difference between finding every bug in every program and not being able to find bugs at all. Just as there's a huge difference between something being formally decidable and practically decidable. It's strange you find he latter distinction so important but ignore the former.
Why dis XMMS if you don't use it? Is there any reason to be bitter?
He didn't 'dis' it. He said it was stagnant. And that's the sad truth of the matter. If you use XMMS you should've noticed that.
For many people, myself included, XMMS is still the best out there. Not everybody feels the need for music libraries.
XMMS isn't the best out there. I still use XMMS, mostly out of old habit, but certainly has some obvious flaws.
For one, the fact that it's still using the horrible GTK 1.0 file selector. Which is crap, and also inconsistent with the rest of my desktop. Secondly, and more irritatingly, the equalizer does not work with Ogg Vorbis files.