If I've invited someone to my home, then IMO it's only reasonable if I'm liable for any accident they have have if it's a result of gross negligence on my behalf or failure to warn them of some non-obvious danger. However, if someone slips on ice on my property, then I can't see how you can reasonably claim that to be my fault - if the weather is icy then YOU take care (similarly if coffee is hot at McDonalds YOU should take care).
American law seems to assume by default that you can sue someone if you have an accident on their property, or using their product, regardless of whether this was a result of negligence on your behalf or whether it was simply bad luck or stupidity on their part. Only in America does a metal ladder need a warning against resting it against power lines - in the rest of the world people know better, and accept the consequnces if they fuck up - their reaction would be "I can't believe I was so stupid!", not "Who can I sue for this?...".
But, hey this is America, so naturally we can't hold the criminals accountable - after all, we don't hold anybody accountable for their own stupidity or bad luck - just find someone standing close by to sue.
I think that real-world analogies are a good way to determine the proper way to treat a cybercrime, but unfortunately some of the real world laws are rather loopy.
For example, if the neighbors kid trespasses onto your property and drowns in your pool, then YOU are to blame (in NY/CT).
I would presumably be easy for people like google to add a commercial content filter that only returned search results that weren't tagged as being commercial sites. I'm not sure exactly how they'd decide who was commercial or not, although that database could be built by users a la CDDB.
It'd be pretty cool to get a different view of the web - to see the 99% dark web rather than the 1% commercial web.
Sounds like you need to listen more to Linus and less to Stallman.
If you don't want to use SuSE then don't - there's room in the Linux world for more than one distro, and SuSE is extremely popular for good reason.
Go try RedHat, Mandrake, Debian, Slackware, SuSE then come back and tell me with a straight face that they all provided the same bang for the buck to you, and were all of equal quality, etc.
Yeah - I think google would still get the raves. Google's not just a bit better than all the search engines that cames before, it's so much better that using anything else is ridiculous.
You don't have to learn to fly a 747 to be a passenger in one, so why should a space tourist be any different? Obvuiously the risk level is different, but assuming he's signed appropriate waivers, then all they need to be assured of is that he isn't a whacko and wouldn't freak out in an emergency and endanger the other astronauts... which come to think of it is rather hard to guarantee if you don't have the military/astronaut discipline background...
Dunno what article you read Hemos, but the one linked said that Microsoft would only be licencing their implementation - not that it would preclude others.
I agree - the concept of "gene" is obviously a convenient over simplification and a tad fuzzy. It seems that "genes" are really just the attractors of DNA evolution dynamics - they are the units that have strong enough control (in however a convoluted manner) over the phenotype to govern evolutionary success/failure, and thus their own profileration.
Actually you can get automatic Ferrari's, and considering that the top speed limit in the US is 75mph, anyone arguing that they need stick vs auto for performance gain in full of it. On a test track typically only professional drivers can get more performance from a stick vs auto exotic, because most people don't have the ability to shift that perfectly. Ferrari also have semi-autos which IMO are really a better option anyway.
FYI there are prebuilt gcc for Solaris/SPARC binaries available that you can download - I'm not sure where, but I was talking to a guy at work yesterday who had found them. He also mentioned that they're available somewhere on Sun's site. Sorry to be so vague.
Did you check what's been in all the high street GHz+ computers for the last year? Maybe P4 is makign a showing now (at least it's made it to the TV shopping channels), but for a least a year you couldn't even find a high end Intel PC retail - because they didn't have a GHz processor that worked (remember the Intel 1GHz - recalled after about 2 weeks).
AMD is also kicking Intel's ass in Europe, and are expected to continue gaining worldwide market share (from current 20%+ to close to 30% by end of year.
Most consumers don't know enough to make a technical decision anyway - they're going to buy what's cheapest or what their college student geek son/daughter advises.
IMO gcc's optimization is generally weak. gcc doesn't have any MMX/SSE/SSE2 support, and even without considering vertorization it produces code that's around 20% slower than the Intel compiler.
gcc 3.0 apparently has an entirely new x86 back end, but from comments I've heard it produces code that's around 5% SLOWER than the old back end... It'd be nice to see some comprehensive benchmarks of gcc 2.95 vs 3.0 though.
There's a very interesting open source SIMD compiler project (mainly focusing on MMX) at Purdue university:
How is digital art actually sold? I assume that although infinitely reproducible at essentially zero cost that the cost must be kept high to maintain the economics of fine art galleries?
Good grief.:-( I thought there for a second that the moderators were showing slightly better than usual troll detection, then I came back and this has been moderated up to +5!
Clue: The word/pixel gibberish. Geez.
Could it be used to analyze text from certain authors (hey, text and art are no different to a computer - treat words as "pixels" and sentences and structures flow like colors) and mimic their style? Could this one day be used to turn my dull crud into something Fitzgerald or Hemingway or even Asimov or Heinlein might have written?
No. A local filter is a local filter. It is not a painter, nor an author.
If you put your dull crud through a filter it'll turn it into a *SHOCK* filtered version of the same dull crud. Try the jive filter if that sort of thing impresses you.
What happens when one feeds a Van Gogh through the Van Gogh filter? Does the resultant image change much?
Yah, same as passing a finger painting thru it - you'll get a version with the same local distortions added. It's a filter, get it?
Does the program apply the "filter" differently depending on what type of input it encounters, or is the same method applied to all input?
Does it say it's data adaptive? No.
Conversely, can the program be used to recognize when a work is of a certain artist?
No, neither can it make toasted sandwiches or draw mandlebrot sets. It's a filter.
Or can it be used to see if an image has already been passed through a certain filter?
No, it's a filter.
Are there cases which cause the method to fail or create an undecipherable image?
No, it's a filter.
And if so, are these cases unique or do they conincide with a certain type of artistic style? [e.g. Monet -> Van Gogh just won't work right?]
If you put a Monet painting thru the filter it'll look no more like a Van Gogh than if you put anything else thru - it'll look like a filtered Monet.
So what? It's just optimizing the filter paramters to reduce the difference between the source and target. The only moderately interesting work they did was the manual step of choosing the parameterized filters. The program itself is just a best fit algorithm, and the fact that some impressionist styles can be approximated by local distortions that approximate brushstroke styles doesn't turn a best fit algorithm into Van Gogh.
I'd say Microsofts strategy here is quite simply to try to scare companies into not using free software, in addition to now making it illegal (via Microsofts new licencing terms) for them do do so.
Note that Microsoft have at least been successful in getting a lot of press for their POV and starting discussions about educating people about the "problem" of free software!
Of course it's intersesting to note that the only free software licence NOT on Microsoft's banned list is BSD since their own TCP/IP stack is based on the free BSD licenced one.
Slashdot Mirror
If I've invited someone to my home, then IMO it's only reasonable if I'm liable for any accident they have have if it's a result of gross negligence on my behalf or failure to warn them of some non-obvious danger. However, if someone slips on ice on my property, then I can't see how you can reasonably claim that to be my fault - if the weather is icy then YOU take care (similarly if coffee is hot at McDonalds YOU should take care).
American law seems to assume by default that you can sue someone if you have an accident on their property, or using their product, regardless of whether this was a result of negligence on your behalf or whether it was simply bad luck or stupidity on their part. Only in America does a metal ladder need a warning against resting it against power lines - in the rest of the world people know better, and accept the consequnces if they fuck up - their reaction would be "I can't believe I was so stupid!", not "Who can I sue for this?...".
That's a bogus argument if there ever was one!
Most criminals are enticed by what they go after.
But, hey this is America, so naturally we can't hold the criminals accountable - after all, we don't hold anybody accountable for their own stupidity or bad luck - just find someone standing close by to sue.
:-(
I think that real-world analogies are a good way to determine the proper way to treat a cybercrime, but unfortunately some of the real world laws are rather loopy.
For example, if the neighbors kid trespasses onto your property and drowns in your pool, then YOU are to blame (in NY/CT).
I would presumably be easy for people like google to add a commercial content filter that only returned search results that weren't tagged as being commercial sites. I'm not sure exactly how they'd decide who was commercial or not, although that database could be built by users a la CDDB.
It'd be pretty cool to get a different view of the web - to see the 99% dark web rather than the 1% commercial web.
You seem to be forgetting that AOL isn't a .com - it's part of Time Warner.
Sounds like you need to listen more to Linus and less to Stallman.
If you don't want to use SuSE then don't - there's room in the Linux world for more than one distro, and SuSE is extremely popular for good reason.
Go try RedHat, Mandrake, Debian, Slackware, SuSE then come back and tell me with a straight face that they all provided the same bang for the buck to you, and were all of equal quality, etc.
Yeah - I think google would still get the raves. Google's not just a bit better than all the search engines that cames before, it's so much better that using anything else is ridiculous.
You don't have to learn to fly a 747 to be a passenger in one, so why should a space tourist be any different? Obvuiously the risk level is different, but assuming he's signed appropriate waivers, then all they need to be assured of is that he isn't a whacko and wouldn't freak out in an emergency and endanger the other astronauts... which come to think of it is rather hard to guarantee if you don't have the military/astronaut discipline background...
Dunno what article you read Hemos, but the one linked said that Microsoft would only be licencing their implementation - not that it would preclude others.
I agree - the concept of "gene" is obviously a convenient over simplification and a tad fuzzy. It seems that "genes" are really just the attractors of DNA evolution dynamics - they are the units that have strong enough control (in however a convoluted manner) over the phenotype to govern evolutionary success/failure, and thus their own profileration.
Actually you can get automatic Ferrari's, and considering that the top speed limit in the US is 75mph, anyone arguing that they need stick vs auto for performance gain in full of it. On a test track typically only professional drivers can get more performance from a stick vs auto exotic, because most people don't have the ability to shift that perfectly. Ferrari also have semi-autos which IMO are really a better option anyway.
Would I pay for "content" like this? No.
FYI there are prebuilt gcc for Solaris/SPARC binaries available that you can download - I'm not sure where, but I was talking to a guy at work yesterday who had found them. He also mentioned that they're available somewhere on Sun's site. Sorry to be so vague.
How about behind-the-scenes videos of the making of the software...
Programmers sitting around, surfing the web, belching, farting, viewing porn, drinking coffee..
Did you check what's been in all the high street GHz+ computers for the last year? Maybe P4 is makign a showing now (at least it's made it to the TV shopping channels), but for a least a year you couldn't even find a high end Intel PC retail - because they didn't have a GHz processor that worked (remember the Intel 1GHz - recalled after about 2 weeks).
AMD is also kicking Intel's ass in Europe, and are expected to continue gaining worldwide market share (from current 20%+ to close to 30% by end of year.
Most consumers don't know enough to make a technical decision anyway - they're going to buy what's cheapest or what their college student geek son/daughter advises.
IMO gcc's optimization is generally weak. gcc doesn't have any MMX/SSE/SSE2 support, and even without considering vertorization it produces code that's around 20% slower than the Intel compiler.
gcc 3.0 apparently has an entirely new x86 back end, but from comments I've heard it produces code that's around 5% SLOWER than the old back end... It'd be nice to see some comprehensive benchmarks of gcc 2.95 vs 3.0 though.
There's a very interesting open source SIMD compiler project (mainly focusing on MMX) at Purdue university:
http://shay.ecn.purdue.edu/~swar/Index.html
Because Amazon have a 1-click porn patent.
Maybe it's gasses escaping from Nessie!
How long before we're hitting a PayPal button to pay ESR's salary?
Maybe we could strip him naked and put him on a webcam like that guy on the Japanese TV show...
Hit the PayPal button and watch ESR dance around as a small piece of cheese drops out of a chute into his rice bowl.
Indeed, and note that this digital artist hasn't provided any links to his "art". Maybe it plain sucks, and the problem is the artist not the medium.
How is digital art actually sold? I assume that although infinitely reproducible at essentially zero cost that the cost must be kept high to maintain the economics of fine art galleries?
Good grief. :-( I thought there for a second that the moderators were showing slightly better than usual troll detection, then I came back and this has been moderated up to +5!
Clue: The word/pixel gibberish. Geez.
Could it be used to analyze text from certain authors (hey, text and art are no different to a computer - treat words as "pixels" and sentences and structures flow like colors) and mimic their style? Could this one day be used to turn my dull crud into something Fitzgerald or Hemingway or even Asimov or Heinlein might have written?
No. A local filter is a local filter. It is not a painter, nor an author.
If you put your dull crud through a filter it'll turn it into a *SHOCK* filtered version of the same dull crud. Try the jive filter if that sort of thing impresses you.
What happens when one feeds a Van Gogh through the Van Gogh filter? Does the resultant image change much?
Yah, same as passing a finger painting thru it - you'll get a version with the same local distortions added. It's a filter, get it?
Does the program apply the "filter" differently depending on what type of input it encounters, or is the same method applied to all input?
Does it say it's data adaptive? No.
Conversely, can the program be used to recognize when a work is of a certain artist?
No, neither can it make toasted sandwiches or draw mandlebrot sets. It's a filter.
Or can it be used to see if an image has already been passed through a certain filter?
No, it's a filter.
Are there cases which cause the method to fail or create an undecipherable image?
No, it's a filter.
And if so, are these cases unique or do they conincide with a certain type of artistic style? [e.g. Monet -> Van Gogh just won't work right?]
If you put a Monet painting thru the filter it'll look no more like a Van Gogh than if you put anything else thru - it'll look like a filtered Monet.
So what? It's just optimizing the filter paramters to reduce the difference between the source and target. The only moderately interesting work they did was the manual step of choosing the parameterized filters. The program itself is just a best fit algorithm, and the fact that some impressionist styles can be approximated by local distortions that approximate brushstroke styles doesn't turn a best fit algorithm into Van Gogh.
I'd say Microsofts strategy here is quite simply to try to scare companies into not using free software, in addition to now making it illegal (via Microsofts new licencing terms) for them do do so.
Note that Microsoft have at least been successful in getting a lot of press for their POV and starting discussions about educating people about the "problem" of free software!
Of course it's intersesting to note that the only free software licence NOT on Microsoft's banned list is BSD since their own TCP/IP stack is based on the free BSD licenced one.
I think that if einstein here finds a bird with a pouch he wants to call it a marsupial! I guess by those rules a bat is a bird, not a mammal!