The problem is that suppose in files X and Y there is a checksum match at lines n and m respectively? You can't say anything more than that the lines match. X could have copied from Y, Y from X, or both could duplicate some other source Z.
At least if we knew which lines were supposedly copied, we could find out who contributed the code and ask them where it came from. Right now all we can listen to SCO babble and wait for them to decide if they have any specific claims to make.
Where in the artical did you pick up that he was anti-technology?
Well, I didn't, of course. Wasn't my original post essentially an admission that I hadn't so much as looked at the article before spouting off about it?;-)
I'll start living more simply right now
on
Robots Without a Cause
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
By reading only the technophilic-sounding articles which are handwritten and hand delivered to me (that limits me to what, the Unabomber?), and ignoring anything which complains about the free exploration of technology but which was produced with a word processor and uses a global electronic network for distribution.
Damn I wish I was a lawyer on this case, sitting back knowing I am earning a fat pay check while spewing as much crap as humanely possible to keep everything going.
I think you mean "as humanly possible". Unfortunately for the world, "human" and "humane" are antonyms.
Gutenberg was a wuss who would have frozen to death if it hadn't been for the inventions of Ogg, Bringer of Flame.
Did you read the same link I did?
on
Settling SCOres
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I found the second link (re: kernel developer getting uppity with SCO) to be much more interesting. He claims to be the author (or significant modifier) of code which SCO purports to be in violation.
This isn't the case. SCO hasn't even publically stated which parts of Linux are supposedly in violation, they have just stated that there's some violation(s) in the kernel. The developer in the second link doesn't claim to have authored code that SCO has claimed to be copied; he claims to be a co-author of the Linux kernel, which SCO is still distributing.
His remark in short is "The violation is yours, 'cause I wrote the code".
No, his remark is: "If you won't release every part of this binary I am coauthor of under the GPL, then you are redistributing my code without adhering to my license on it, and you are violating my copyright." This doesn't necessarily even mean that SCO's plagarism claims are false, only that if they pursue those claims then they have themselves been unknowingly violating Linux developers' copyrights for years and are knowingly doing so at this minute.
In a challenge to SCO, he's threatening to sue SCO unless they remove the paticular code sections from their list of copyright violations.
No, he's threatening to sue SCO unless they "retroactively" make their distribution of Linux compatible with the GPL (which, if any kernel code has been copied from SCO, would require SCO to license it under the GPL).
If microsoft played it like this, then why didn't SCO agreed during the meeting, then payed the license fee straight to it's investors and never say another word about it ?
Because Microsoft didn't pay the license fee until after SCO had already sent out the threatening letters.
Re:Sounds Fantastic -- Now Why Not Hemp
on
Corn-Based Plastic
·
· Score: 1
My take is, God got all these things, they all got a use, we get to use them, use the planet, plus we are supposed to be neat, sorta take care of things too, there's our ecological balance idea. Makes sense to me.. We may not know WHAT some things are useful for yet-like chiggers, wazzup with them things?- but, everything is useful, and no government should say "no you don't", that's just bogus.
Thanks; I'd never heard of that idea before. I had heard that lots of ancient cultures drank weak beer whenever they could instead of water for the health benefits (fewer deleterious microorganisms), but it hadn't occurred to me that beer is one "food" source you can't pluck off a bush or hit with a spear.
Do you know where you heard this, off-hand? I'd like to see what the evidence is; it would be hilarious if civilization was the result of beer.
The concept to stop chasing wildlife, and to settle down and grow crops is revolutionary, and would be a scary step
What's worse, there seems to be evidence that growing crops put individuals at a short-term disadvantage over hunter-gatherers, giving them a poorer diet for more work! The primary advantage of crop growing, though, is that it supports a higher population density, so even if your hunter-gatherer tribe may be living better than the nearby village growing crops, the village can feed ten times as many people and so they can expand faster than you and win any conflict between you.
doesnt work because, primarily, the minimum wage desk jockey rubber-stamping endorsements is not an agent with the authority to accept such a condition.
Yeah, but that should cut both ways. The next time you buy some software that you might have a click-through EULA, have the neighbor kid install it.
Because if there is, "Why do you people keep contradicting yourselves? Are there actually multiple people here, with differing opinions?" should be on it.
If the program just testing "is this signature authentic?" then you could swap keys and fool it. If the program needs to decrypt part of itself before it can run, and that part of itself has already been encrypted with the Palladium public key, then you'll need to crack the hardware to get the correct private key before it will run; swapping keys won't work.
Disco Stu (selling for "Can't Stop the Learnin' Disco Academies"): "Did you know that disco record sales were up 400% for the year ending 1976? If these trends continue... A-y-y-y!"
I can fool just about anybody in person. Sociopaths are very good at faking facial expressions, tones of voice, emotional responses, etc to fit their needs.
If you really want to fool people, you probably shouldn't use the words "I" and "sociopaths" so interchangeably in conversation.
The multitude of screens displaying Neo in the Architect's room could be taken as an explanation of future prediction in the movie: the computers can model human reactions well enough to do a Monte Carlo simulation and (based on the number of the simulated people who react in each way) estimate probabilities of certain events happening. Some of those events turn out to be so likely that they can even be called "prophecies".
This only explains the Oracle's future prediction and not Neo's, but "How can Neo predict the future?" is going to have to get in line behind "How can Neo affect machines in what we think is real life" on my list of stuff I want explanations for.
"Real World Testing" in general means that they're testing the card on games that are out on the shelf, finished products, right now; i.e. games which were targeted at video cards years old. In other words, one card does 150fps at the highest quality settings, another does 155fps, and when both of them are run on my 80hz refreshing monitor, the results are exactly the same.
Instead, I want testing that approximates the sorts of games that I'll want to buy years from now. Unfortunately those games don't exist yet. In lieu of those games existing, I can look at these eye candy benchmarks to get some idea of what the performance of video cards will be once they're pushed to their limits. How many polygons or how many dynamic lights can programmers squeeze into a scene before the frame rate drops to something unacceptable? How fast can the card whip through those pixel shader programs that everybody is going to be rendering fur and metal and such with in soon? That's what these sorts of benchmarks are supposed to do: tell me how my prospective new purchase will perform on games in the future.
VCDs are burned in "Mode 2", which uses all 2352 bytes per sector. If there's some kind of chip or scratch, you're SOL.
Are you sure? IIRC, there is a level of error correction which audio CDs use, and there is an additional level of error correction which CD-ROMs also use. I was under the impression that VCDs used the same ECC as audio CDs, which may be less robust than other data CDs but wouldn't be quite as bad as you're suggesting.
The link you gave says there is no error correction on VCDs, but also suggests there is no error correction on audio CDs, which I'm certain is wrong.
Remember, Lucas is trying to show the conversion of a very promising young Jedi Knight into the right hand man for the forces of evil. What could be the triggering factor that would make a character such as Anakin no longer value sentient life? If taking revenge for his mother's death wasn't enough to push him over the edge for good, what will be?
It can only be Jar-Jar. That's the death that would really make the audience think. "Wait, is killing Jar-Jar really evil? Perhaps the dark side of the force is more seductive than we imagined!" "Sure, Anakin/Vader is now going to cause the loss of billions of innocent lives and help his vicious master oppress the galaxy for decades... but isn't that a price I would have been just as willing to pay to see Jar-Jar strangled with his own tongue?"
They don't seem to in many other branches of physics. If a meteor hits the Earth, there are as many points for it to land on in Luxemborg as there are in the Pacific Ocean, but because those points don't cover as much area, the odds are greater that the ocean will be hit. How do you measure the "area" spanned by a set of possible potential universes?
What makes the situation worse is that "the set of all possible universes" doesn't look to me like something that can be constructed with the axioms of set theory; it seems more like a "set of all sets" sort of construction. However you try to describe "the set of all possible universes" S, your description will have some cardinality. You can then describe "the set of all possible universe combinations" by the power set of S, which will have a greater cardinality. But, then, doesn't "A universe consisting of this specific combination of other universes" sound like a possible universe itself? If so, then every member of that power set should map back to a member in S, which is impossible.
Slashdot Mirror
I think by "copy" he meant "duplicate the functionality and semantics."
Sadly, based on their mishmash of contradictory claims, I think that's what SCO means by "copy" too.
The problem is that suppose in files X and Y there is a checksum match at lines n and m respectively? You can't say anything more than that the lines match. X could have copied from Y, Y from X, or both could duplicate some other source Z.
At least if we knew which lines were supposedly copied, we could find out who contributed the code and ask them where it came from. Right now all we can listen to SCO babble and wait for them to decide if they have any specific claims to make.
Where in the artical did you pick up that he was anti-technology?
;-)
Well, I didn't, of course. Wasn't my original post essentially an admission that I hadn't so much as looked at the article before spouting off about it?
By reading only the technophilic-sounding articles which are handwritten and hand delivered to me (that limits me to what, the Unabomber?), and ignoring anything which complains about the free exploration of technology but which was produced with a word processor and uses a global electronic network for distribution.
Damn I wish I was a lawyer on this case, sitting back knowing I am earning a fat pay check while spewing as much crap as humanely possible to keep everything going.
I think you mean "as humanly possible". Unfortunately for the world, "human" and "humane" are antonyms.
For computers to be useful you have to have some level of trust,
I have never run any executable code I received in an email. What exactly have your friends been sending you?
Gutenberg was a wuss who would have frozen to death if it hadn't been for the inventions of Ogg, Bringer of Flame.
I found the second link (re: kernel developer getting uppity with SCO) to be much more interesting. He claims to be the author (or significant modifier) of code which SCO purports to be in violation.
This isn't the case. SCO hasn't even publically stated which parts of Linux are supposedly in violation, they have just stated that there's some violation(s) in the kernel. The developer in the second link doesn't claim to have authored code that SCO has claimed to be copied; he claims to be a co-author of the Linux kernel, which SCO is still distributing.
His remark in short is "The violation is yours, 'cause I wrote the code".
No, his remark is: "If you won't release every part of this binary I am coauthor of under the GPL, then you are redistributing my code without adhering to my license on it, and you are violating my copyright." This doesn't necessarily even mean that SCO's plagarism claims are false, only that if they pursue those claims then they have themselves been unknowingly violating Linux developers' copyrights for years and are knowingly doing so at this minute.
In a challenge to SCO, he's threatening to sue SCO unless they remove the paticular code sections from their list of copyright violations.
No, he's threatening to sue SCO unless they "retroactively" make their distribution of Linux compatible with the GPL (which, if any kernel code has been copied from SCO, would require SCO to license it under the GPL).
From my understanding, if there was SCO code in there that somebody replaced, they would have had to do it without ANY access to the SCO code at all
Yes, this would also explain why professional authors don't read books.
If microsoft played it like this, then why didn't SCO agreed during the meeting, then payed the license fee straight to it's investors and never say another word about it ?
Because Microsoft didn't pay the license fee until after SCO had already sent out the threatening letters.
My take is, God got all these things, they all got a use, we get to use them, use the planet, plus we are supposed to be neat, sorta take care of things too, there's our ecological balance idea. Makes sense to me.. We may not know WHAT some things are useful for yet-like chiggers, wazzup with them things?- but, everything is useful, and no government should say "no you don't", that's just bogus.
You're high right now, aren't you?
Thanks; I'd never heard of that idea before. I had heard that lots of ancient cultures drank weak beer whenever they could instead of water for the health benefits (fewer deleterious microorganisms), but it hadn't occurred to me that beer is one "food" source you can't pluck off a bush or hit with a spear.
Do you know where you heard this, off-hand? I'd like to see what the evidence is; it would be hilarious if civilization was the result of beer.
The concept to stop chasing wildlife, and to settle down and grow crops is revolutionary, and would be a scary step
What's worse, there seems to be evidence that growing crops put individuals at a short-term disadvantage over hunter-gatherers, giving them a poorer diet for more work! The primary advantage of crop growing, though, is that it supports a higher population density, so even if your hunter-gatherer tribe may be living better than the nearby village growing crops, the village can feed ten times as many people and so they can expand faster than you and win any conflict between you.
Now we have Windows ... What can be done to improve the situation?
Fire -- and lots of it!
doesnt work because, primarily, the minimum wage desk jockey rubber-stamping endorsements is not an agent with the authority to accept such a condition.
Yeah, but that should cut both ways. The next time you buy some software that you might have a click-through EULA, have the neighbor kid install it.
Because if there is, "Why do you people keep contradicting yourselves? Are there actually multiple people here, with differing opinions?" should be on it.
If the program just testing "is this signature authentic?" then you could swap keys and fool it. If the program needs to decrypt part of itself before it can run, and that part of itself has already been encrypted with the Palladium public key, then you'll need to crack the hardware to get the correct private key before it will run; swapping keys won't work.
Disco Stu (selling for "Can't Stop the Learnin' Disco Academies"): "Did you know that disco record sales were up 400% for the year ending 1976? If these trends continue... A-y-y-y!"
I can fool just about anybody in person. Sociopaths are very good at faking facial expressions, tones of voice, emotional responses, etc to fit their needs.
If you really want to fool people, you probably shouldn't use the words "I" and "sociopaths" so interchangeably in conversation.
In my day, we didn't have "1", but we got by with 0 factorial just fine!
The multitude of screens displaying Neo in the Architect's room could be taken as an explanation of future prediction in the movie: the computers can model human reactions well enough to do a Monte Carlo simulation and (based on the number of the simulated people who react in each way) estimate probabilities of certain events happening. Some of those events turn out to be so likely that they can even be called "prophecies".
This only explains the Oracle's future prediction and not Neo's, but "How can Neo predict the future?" is going to have to get in line behind "How can Neo affect machines in what we think is real life" on my list of stuff I want explanations for.
"Real World Testing" in general means that they're testing the card on games that are out on the shelf, finished products, right now; i.e. games which were targeted at video cards years old. In other words, one card does 150fps at the highest quality settings, another does 155fps, and when both of them are run on my 80hz refreshing monitor, the results are exactly the same.
Instead, I want testing that approximates the sorts of games that I'll want to buy years from now. Unfortunately those games don't exist yet. In lieu of those games existing, I can look at these eye candy benchmarks to get some idea of what the performance of video cards will be once they're pushed to their limits. How many polygons or how many dynamic lights can programmers squeeze into a scene before the frame rate drops to something unacceptable? How fast can the card whip through those pixel shader programs that everybody is going to be rendering fur and metal and such with in soon? That's what these sorts of benchmarks are supposed to do: tell me how my prospective new purchase will perform on games in the future.
VCDs are burned in "Mode 2", which uses all 2352 bytes per sector. If there's some kind of chip or scratch, you're SOL.
Are you sure? IIRC, there is a level of error correction which audio CDs use, and there is an additional level of error correction which CD-ROMs also use. I was under the impression that VCDs used the same ECC as audio CDs, which may be less robust than other data CDs but wouldn't be quite as bad as you're suggesting.
The link you gave says there is no error correction on VCDs, but also suggests there is no error correction on audio CDs, which I'm certain is wrong.
Remember, Lucas is trying to show the conversion of a very promising young Jedi Knight into the right hand man for the forces of evil. What could be the triggering factor that would make a character such as Anakin no longer value sentient life? If taking revenge for his mother's death wasn't enough to push him over the edge for good, what will be?
It can only be Jar-Jar. That's the death that would really make the audience think. "Wait, is killing Jar-Jar really evil? Perhaps the dark side of the force is more seductive than we imagined!" "Sure, Anakin/Vader is now going to cause the loss of billions of innocent lives and help his vicious master oppress the galaxy for decades... but isn't that a price I would have been just as willing to pay to see Jar-Jar strangled with his own tongue?"
They don't seem to in many other branches of physics. If a meteor hits the Earth, there are as many points for it to land on in Luxemborg as there are in the Pacific Ocean, but because those points don't cover as much area, the odds are greater that the ocean will be hit. How do you measure the "area" spanned by a set of possible potential universes?
What makes the situation worse is that "the set of all possible universes" doesn't look to me like something that can be constructed with the axioms of set theory; it seems more like a "set of all sets" sort of construction. However you try to describe "the set of all possible universes" S, your description will have some cardinality. You can then describe "the set of all possible universe combinations" by the power set of S, which will have a greater cardinality. But, then, doesn't "A universe consisting of this specific combination of other universes" sound like a possible universe itself? If so, then every member of that power set should map back to a member in S, which is impossible.