To a Socialist in Europe, the main US parties are both conservative. (US right wingers will deny this, since they like to denounce the Democrats as socialist, but it's clear that the Democrats would never consider many policies supported by socialist parties in other countries.)
So what happens when you do the same tests in countries with a real left? Are the results more extreme, or do they just map to a different range of political views?
This was a ruling about unfair competition, not about personal web pages. Almost all countries restrict what can be said in advertising, so I don't see anything special about this.
Until the early 1990s, anyone could get a block of IP addresses, and it was up to them how they got packets routed to them. This didn't scale well, and it's now virtually impossible. But that's just a result of technical decisions made over the last 10 or 15 years - and they could have been made differently - so there's no reason to expect a judge to be familiar with that. It's certainly not as obvious or clear-cut as a physical address or even a post code.
Presumably as the case proceeds good technical arguments will be made and the temporary order lifted.
Whenever you install new software, you have to wait while the system "optimizes" it, which in fact means checking for applications that need their prebinding redone. On a 700MHz imac - less than 2 years old - this sometimes takes 15 minutes or more. Since I bought it, I've wasted hours, if not days, waiting for installations to complete because of this, which is far longer (and more frustrating) than the total time saved starting programs.
I don't understand why it doesn't just leave the prebinding to be done the first time the program is run.
The casino fixes the odds so that they make a profit, why shouldn't the players do the same? I see on reason why the law should ensure that roulette can make a profit for casinos.
Presumably the signing is done in the camera before the image is stored to the CF card. Maybe it uses a key stored in the hardware. No doubt it can be circumvented, but probably not as easily as you suggest.
The rated speed of a processor is just the one at which the manufacturer decided he could sell it with reliability that was acceptable in terms of the price and return rate, in systems with typical cooling. Your acceptable reliability and environment might be different.
The only sense in which the rated maximum is unique is that it's the one where you can get your money back if it fails, and that's not much of a comfort if your critical server fails.
For really important applications, where failure would be a disaster, underclocking may be the right thing to do.
There was no ruling in the BSD case. It was settled out of court. You might take the judges comment's as suggesting what another judge might decide, but they do not constitute a legal precedent.
If you produced the same G forces that a real pilot experienced, you would produce the same acceleration, and your simulator would soon be hundreds of miles away...
Identifiers beginning with an underscore are reserved the compilers and libraries, but I don't see anything about capital letters.
See section 7.1.3. Other identifiers beginning with underscore are reserved only for some purposes. For example, users can have structure fields beginning with underscore and a lower case letter.
It's not a good idea to use an argument more than once in a macro definition, but there's nothing in the C standard that prohibits it.
The definition of isdigit() prohibits it from being implemented that way.
Defining "myisdigit()" like that would be perfectly legal, but the standard requires that isdigit() behave as if it were a function, and only evaluate its argument once.
The handbook mentions three reasons to compile your own kernel. None of them really makes much difference to performance:
Faster booting: yes, but that's not really performance in the sense being considered.
Saving memory: yes, but it'll only be a megabyte or two. Insignificant on most machines where performance is important.
Hardware support: yes, but that's not performance improvement.
So build your own kernel - it's educational if nothing else - but don't expect anything to run faster as a result. The only reason I build my own kernel is to apply some useful patches: one to spin down ATA disks when they're idle, and one to enable power-saving in the VIA chipset when the machine is idle (makes it *much* cooler).
One of the main advantages of this is that you can replace libraries with security loopholes without having to rebuild everything. There have been several cases of bugs in the standard libraries that have required the statically compiled programs in/bin to be rebuilt.
When I started using X, it was on a machine 500 times slower than the one I use today, with 1/64 as much memory, and a network ten times slower. If the overhead wasn't too much for that, it's nothing today.
My X server uses less than 1% of the CPU time, none of my programs is limited by graphical speed, and I use it across the network all the time. And my machine wasn't even state-of-the-art when I bought it two years ago. So unless "most client desktops" suddenly means playing real-time games while watching 5 DVDs at once, and doing that on a remote machine, the efficiency of X should be the least of our worries.
... can you please tell us what it means? Maybe it's common in America or among movie buffs, but I have never heard the word "screener" before nor has anyone I've asked about it.
... why you want Linux to "get out to the masses". If it's just because you hate Microsoft (and who doesn't), or if it's just like your favourite football team, then maybe you won't care. But if the reason you want Linux to succeed is that you want to promote free software, then a non-free derivative is worse than useless. After all, if you didn't want to ban non-free derivatives, why didn't you use a different licence such as the BSD licence?
They only have to release their code if it is part of a derivative work based on the GPLed code. A port of the Linux kernel to INTERCAL++ would probably be a derivative work, but the compiler might well be a separate work, so they would not need to release its source. But if the reason that it won't compile is that part of the source of the program is missing, then that's a sign that they have not published part of the derivative work.
It's one of the unfortunate properties of physical objects that if you have one, and I take it, you don't have it any more. Ideas and inventions don't have this unfortunate property, but to make them fit in to our system of commerce, the law has decreed that they should be treated as if they did.
This is the wrong way round. Suppose we developed a device that could copy objects, wouldn't that be wonderful? But no, it would be illegal to use it.
Slashdot Mirror
To a Socialist in Europe, the main US parties are both conservative. (US right wingers will deny this, since they like to denounce the Democrats as socialist, but it's clear that the Democrats would never consider many policies supported by socialist parties in other countries.)
So what happens when you do the same tests in countries with a real left? Are the results more extreme, or do they just map to a different range of political views?
This was a ruling about unfair competition, not about personal web pages. Almost all countries restrict what can be said in advertising, so I don't see anything special about this.
Until the early 1990s, anyone could get a block of IP addresses, and it was up to them how they got packets routed to them. This didn't scale well, and it's now virtually impossible. But that's just a result of technical decisions made over the last 10 or 15 years - and they could have been made differently - so there's no reason to expect a judge to be familiar with that. It's certainly
not as obvious or clear-cut as a physical address or even a post code.
Presumably as the case proceeds good technical arguments will be made and the temporary order lifted.
The $8.25m was the corresponding three months in 2003.
I feel sure this will immediately be spelt "sempr0n".
Um, it takes a fraction of a second to prebind most single programs.
The "optimization" step prebinds hundreds of programs I never use, and spends time searching the disk for programs to prebind.
And the undeniable fact is, I find it annoying waiting for it, so it's not achieving its goal of making the system feel faster.
Whenever you install new software, you have to wait while the system "optimizes" it, which in fact means checking for applications that need their prebinding redone. On a 700MHz imac - less than 2 years old - this sometimes takes 15 minutes or more. Since I bought it, I've wasted hours, if not days, waiting for installations to complete because of this, which is far longer (and more frustrating) than the total time saved starting programs.
I don't understand why it doesn't just leave the prebinding to be done the first time the program is run.
The casino fixes the odds so that they make a profit, why shouldn't the players do the same? I see on reason why the law should ensure that roulette can make a profit for casinos.
Presumably the signing is done in the camera before the image is stored to the CF card. Maybe it uses a key stored in the hardware. No doubt it can be circumvented, but probably not as easily as you suggest.
The rated speed of a processor is just the one at which the manufacturer decided he could sell it with reliability that was acceptable in terms of the price and return rate, in systems with typical cooling. Your acceptable reliability and environment might be different.
The only sense in which the rated maximum is unique is that it's the one where you can get your money back if it fails, and that's not much of a comfort if your critical server fails.
For really important applications, where failure would be a disaster, underclocking may be the right thing to do.
There was no ruling in the BSD case. It was settled out of court. You might take the judges comment's as suggesting what another judge might decide, but they do not constitute a legal precedent.
If you produced the same G forces that a real pilot experienced, you would produce the same acceleration, and your simulator would soon be hundreds of miles away...
See section 7.1.3. Other identifiers beginning with underscore are reserved only for some purposes. For example, users can have structure fields beginning with underscore and a lower case letter.
The definition of isdigit() prohibits it from being implemented that way.
Using the same numbers isn't copying the file.
Defining "myisdigit()" like that would be perfectly legal, but the standard requires that isdigit() behave as if it were a function, and only evaluate its argument once.
The handbook mentions three reasons to compile your own kernel. None of them really makes much difference to performance:
Faster booting: yes, but that's not really performance in the sense being considered.
Saving memory: yes, but it'll only be a megabyte or two. Insignificant on most machines where performance is important.
Hardware support: yes, but that's not performance improvement.
So build your own kernel - it's educational if nothing else - but don't expect anything to run faster as a result. The only reason I build my own kernel is to apply some useful patches: one to spin down ATA disks when they're idle, and one to enable power-saving in the VIA chipset when the machine is idle (makes it *much* cooler).
One of the main advantages of this is that you can replace libraries with security loopholes without having to rebuild everything. There have been several cases of bugs in the standard libraries that have required the statically compiled programs in /bin to be rebuilt.
When I started using X, it was on a machine 500 times slower than the one I use today, with 1/64
as much memory, and a network ten times slower. If the overhead wasn't too much for that, it's nothing today.
My X server uses less than 1% of the CPU time, none of my programs is limited by graphical speed, and I use it across the network all the time. And my machine wasn't even state-of-the-art when I bought it two years ago. So unless "most client desktops" suddenly means playing real-time games while watching 5 DVDs at once, and doing that on a remote machine, the efficiency of X should be the least of our worries.
... can you please tell us what it means? Maybe it's common in America or among movie buffs, but I have never heard the word "screener" before nor has anyone I've asked about it.
I have more than once inadvertently rebooted by using the backwards-kill-sexp command in emacs.
... why you want Linux to "get out to the masses". If it's just because you hate Microsoft (and who doesn't), or if it's just like your favourite football team, then maybe you won't care. But if the reason you want Linux to succeed is that you want to promote free software, then a non-free derivative is worse than useless. After all, if you didn't want to ban non-free derivatives, why didn't you use a different licence such as the BSD licence?
They only have to release their code if it is part of a derivative work based on the GPLed code. A port of the Linux kernel to INTERCAL++ would probably be a derivative work, but the compiler might well be a separate work, so they would not need to release its source. But if the reason that it won't compile is that part of the source of the program is missing, then that's a sign that they have not published part of the derivative work.
It's one of the unfortunate properties of physical objects that if you have one, and I take it, you don't have it any more. Ideas and inventions don't have this unfortunate property, but to make them fit in to our system of commerce, the law has decreed that they should be treated as if they did.
This is the wrong way round. Suppose we developed a device that could copy objects, wouldn't that be wonderful? But no, it would be illegal to use it.
Maybe control-U is meant to kill the input, but they used shift-U instead?
It's probably optimized in the sense of not crashing immediately with a message "unknown CPU type".