On the other hand/.'s lawyers don't seem to have too much of a problem working out any difficulties with people buying subscriptions off them, but I imagine there must be just as many relevant laws.
This is just laziness. Plenty of companies manage to allow international entrants to their competitions.
'National'? USA you mean. Now that we have stories posted under multiple topics, can we have very US-specific stuff like this posted with the US topic so that it can be filtered out please.
Ahh standard/. . You know very little yet you post anyway.
I admit I am not omniscient. Apologies for trying to improve my knowledge of the situation by asking for information rather than doing the noble thing and festering in my own ignorance. However, after having now discovered who Canopy are I don't see how it invalidates any of the points in my post.
SCO is not fighting Linux
Then why are they creating signs equating Linux with piracy/Nazism/Communism etc.? Why this page? Why the constant threats against Linux users? The whole mess is about alleged SCO IP in Linux code in case you weren't paying attention.
I work across the street from SCO. I was at the protest.
Do we have a guarantee of this? Or was it posted by a SCO employee?
It was very hot that day so Canopy provided drinks for everyone
Who is Canopy (excuse my ignorance)?
It's like when you're in a bar watching a football game and there are folks rooting for the other team in the bar
Sports teams don't usually sue each other though. Instead they find out who is the best on the field of play. The equivalent here would be SCO and Linux competing to see who can produce the best code.
but people can disagree without hating each other
Creating a poster insuating Linux == Communism == Fascism is not a reasonable disagrement imho. It sounds like hatred to me, or very unprofessional at the very least. I would be seriously worried if I was a SCO shareholder when they are allowing their employees to represent their company like this.
Re:Why I'm Not Really Worried...
on
My Visit to SCO
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Sometimes, stickup artists like SCO pick the wrong victim...
Great quote from the essay:
For SCO to attack IBM using IP is somewhat like trying to eat a live tiger
Not necessarly strange; it has been common in human cultures to associate eating something with assimilating the attributes of the eaten, or desirables attributes associated to the eaten.
This meme still exists in our culture today, albeit in a sanitised form - just look at NetHack.
So you would think that the system actually recognices that some sort of life is looking at it and only then simulates exactly - or even recognizes intelligent life?
Er. I suppose it would depend on what sort of intelligent life - are your conscious beings independent of your simulation (independent in the sense of "brain in a jar" or The Matrix)? If so, the easiest way to create a simulation would be to only have exist the bits that are actually being observed, and use statistical models to model everything as much as possible and only model things directly at the atomic (etc.) level if it is actually being observed at that level. In which scenario I suppose quantum computation is accessing the hardware on which the simulation is running to the greatest extent possible. It occurs to me that there is no reason why the universe shouldn't work in this manner even if it isn't a simulation.
If, on the other hand, conscious life is an emergent property of the simulation, things get a bit more complicated. To reduce computation you'd have to somehow measure the consciousness level of an organism to decide if it could collapse waveforms I guess.
'Observed' is the way Gribbin talks about it in his book.
Since I am getting my knowledge from pop science books you can deduce that IANAQP so I may be talking bollocks here. However, it seems to me that having particles in a superposition of states until you look at them makes it easier to calculate what they are doing from a statistical point of view for many particles.
I think this means that you don't think you need to calculate all possiblities for an event in a simulation. You should just be able to leave the situtation undetermined except for a statistical generalisation and only work out what exactly happens when required (for example, when someone looks at it.)
The above is probably all wrong, but this sort of thing would be exactly the kind of bug I would expect to see in a simulation.
Well the supposed simulation that is our universe does not need to be a complete, or even a good, simulation of the, er, metaverse it exists in. By 'our universe' I mean the totality of everything we can possibly observe.
wrt physical laws, the universe our simulation exists in might be set up in a way that allows simulations to exist that are more complex than their containers. Why not?
Lan parties schman parties. After we acquire the carrier, the next step is to get some bombers. SCO, M$, the MPAA, they'll all pay us some respect then.
We could vote on where to send it next using/. polls: a) Redmond b) The Gulf c) Cowboy Neal's house
Don't worry, you only got it wrong by a factor of about 3000! You'd have been closer if you'd said it was 1GHz:-P
A bit of low-level knowledge is always good but I don't think it's essential. I think it'll become less useful as time goes on as well. Most code written today does not get anywhere near pushing the hardware it runs on. Of course it depends on what you want to do - if you want to kernel-hack or write Doom 4 for a living then disregard the above.
learning assembler will give kids a far better grasp of what a computer actually does
Who the fuck do you think was supporting Saddam right up until he invaded Kuwait? Although I have to say how impressed I am with USA's condemnation of that terrorist regime Saudi Arabia. The US certainly don't give them special treatment just because it's in their interests to do so.
It was a plagiarized school report over a decade old!
Calling it a 'school report' is slightly misleading - it was a doctoral thesis. It wasn't a decade old, either - the problem with it was that the thesis was based on public domain material 10 years old and it was published as if it was based on up to date secret intelligence. 'Plagiarised' is correct though.
Most people in Europe think it was a good thing to get rid of someone who was a Very Bad Man (tm). -... whilst being appalled at the cost to human life, the rule of international law and global security.
We're not too bothered about secondary motives (some claim oil, others claim more military bases, etc).
Is that the royal we? Don't speak for me - I am bothered about it.
England didn't hesitate to defend the Falklands after being invaded by Argentina.
That would be the UK, not 'England'. Are you sure you're British? It's also interesting to note how much the US valued the UK as allies in that war.
Well France would know, having provided the WMD to Iraq in the first place.
Now I know you're trolling. Who sold WMD to the Iraqis?
would not make crazy terrorists intent on killing Western people go away.
And why are they wanting to kill Western people? I don't see too many fundamentalists threatening Switzerland. The easiest way to create terrorists is to kill their families.
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand /.'s lawyers don't seem to have too much of a problem working out any difficulties with people buying subscriptions off them, but I imagine there must be just as many relevant laws.
This is just laziness. Plenty of companies manage to allow international entrants to their competitions.
No Dizzy?
'National'? USA you mean. Now that we have stories posted under multiple topics, can we have very US-specific stuff like this posted with the US topic so that it can be filtered out please.
Ahh standard /. . You know very little yet you post anyway.
I admit I am not omniscient. Apologies for trying to improve my knowledge of the situation by asking for information rather than doing the noble thing and festering in my own ignorance. However, after having now discovered who Canopy are I don't see how it invalidates any of the points in my post.
SCO is not fighting Linux
Then why are they creating signs equating Linux with piracy/Nazism/Communism etc.? Why this page? Why the constant threats against Linux users? The whole mess is about alleged SCO IP in Linux code in case you weren't paying attention.
I work across the street from SCO. I was at the protest.
Do we have a guarantee of this? Or was it posted by a SCO employee?
It was very hot that day so Canopy provided drinks for everyone
Who is Canopy (excuse my ignorance)?
It's like when you're in a bar watching a football game and there are folks rooting for the other team in the bar
Sports teams don't usually sue each other though. Instead they find out who is the best on the field of play. The equivalent here would be SCO and Linux competing to see who can produce the best code.
but people can disagree without hating each other
Creating a poster insuating Linux == Communism == Fascism is not a reasonable disagrement imho. It sounds like hatred to me, or very unprofessional at the very least. I would be seriously worried if I was a SCO shareholder when they are allowing their employees to represent their company like this.
Sometimes, stickup artists like SCO pick the wrong victim...
Great quote from the essay:
For SCO to attack IBM using IP is somewhat like trying to eat a live tiger
Yes, but I particularly like to go caving. Does that count as 'outdoors'?
Really a good hunch, this one...
Yeah. What shares does Bill Baxter hold?
The scary thing (or amusing, possibly) is that these allegations are presumably SCO's best pieces of evidence of IP violation.
I second your comment about the crack. Come on SCO, share the wealth.
...and have the icon as a great big steaming pile of shit.
My guess is Microsoft.
Not necessarly strange; it has been common in human cultures to associate eating something with assimilating the attributes of the eaten, or desirables attributes associated to the eaten.
This meme still exists in our culture today, albeit in a sanitised form - just look at NetHack.
So you would think that the system actually recognices that some sort of life is looking at it and only then simulates exactly - or even recognizes intelligent life?
Er. I suppose it would depend on what sort of intelligent life - are your conscious beings independent of your simulation (independent in the sense of "brain in a jar" or The Matrix)? If so, the easiest way to create a simulation would be to only have exist the bits that are actually being observed, and use statistical models to model everything as much as possible and only model things directly at the atomic (etc.) level if it is actually being observed at that level. In which scenario I suppose quantum computation is accessing the hardware on which the simulation is running to the greatest extent possible. It occurs to me that there is no reason why the universe shouldn't work in this manner even if it isn't a simulation.
If, on the other hand, conscious life is an emergent property of the simulation, things get a bit more complicated. To reduce computation you'd have to somehow measure the consciousness level of an organism to decide if it could collapse waveforms I guess.
the word "observed" is misleading
'Observed' is the way Gribbin talks about it in his book.
Since I am getting my knowledge from pop science books you can deduce that IANAQP so I may be talking bollocks here. However, it seems to me that having particles in a superposition of states until you look at them makes it easier to calculate what they are doing from a statistical point of view for many particles.
I think this means that you don't think you need to calculate all possiblities for an event in a simulation. You should just be able to leave the situtation undetermined except for a statistical generalisation and only work out what exactly happens when required (for example, when someone looks at it.)
The above is probably all wrong, but this sort of thing would be exactly the kind of bug I would expect to see in a simulation.
Well the supposed simulation that is our universe does not need to be a complete, or even a good, simulation of the, er, metaverse it exists in. By 'our universe' I mean the totality of everything we can possibly observe.
wrt physical laws, the universe our simulation exists in might be set up in a way that allows simulations to exist that are more complex than their containers. Why not?
somday one will notice some inconsistency
You mean like the slit experiment where the system seems to know whether it is being observed or not?
First, we won't ever have the computing power to simulate a universe.
How do you know the 'real world' isn't a lot bigger than our universe and the physical laws significantly different?
Lan parties schman parties. After we acquire the carrier, the next step is to get some bombers. SCO, M$, the MPAA, they'll all pay us some respect then.
/. polls:
We could vote on where to send it next using
a) Redmond
b) The Gulf
c) Cowboy Neal's house
Don't worry, you only got it wrong by a factor of about 3000! You'd have been closer if you'd said it was 1GHz :-P
A bit of low-level knowledge is always good but I don't think it's essential. I think it'll become less useful as time goes on as well. Most code written today does not get anywhere near pushing the hardware it runs on. Of course it depends on what you want to do - if you want to kernel-hack or write Doom 4 for a living then disregard the above.
learning assembler will give kids a far better grasp of what a computer actually does
Possibly true, but is this necessarily the goal?
950Hz!? I think you're a bit out there. IIRC the Speccy clock speed was about 3 point something MHz.
"Computon" sounds like the name of a robot from a cheesy 1980s kids' TV series.
"Beware! I am the mighty Computon!"
Who the fuck do you think was supporting Saddam right up until he invaded Kuwait? Although I have to say how impressed I am with USA's condemnation of that terrorist regime Saudi Arabia. The US certainly don't give them special treatment just because it's in their interests to do so.
It was a plagiarized school report over a decade old!
Calling it a 'school report' is slightly misleading - it was a doctoral thesis. It wasn't a decade old, either - the problem with it was that the thesis was based on public domain material 10 years old and it was published as if it was based on up to date secret intelligence. 'Plagiarised' is correct though.
Most people in Europe think it was a good thing to get rid of someone who was a Very Bad Man (tm). ... whilst being appalled at the cost to human life, the rule of international law and global security.
-
We're not too bothered about secondary motives (some claim oil, others claim more military bases, etc).
Is that the royal we? Don't speak for me - I am bothered about it.
England didn't hesitate to defend the Falklands after being invaded by Argentina.
That would be the UK, not 'England'. Are you sure you're British? It's also interesting to note how much the US valued the UK as allies in that war.
Well France would know, having provided the WMD to Iraq in the first place.
Now I know you're trolling. Who sold WMD to the Iraqis?
would not make crazy terrorists intent on killing Western people go away.
And why are they wanting to kill Western people? I don't see too many fundamentalists threatening Switzerland. The easiest way to create terrorists is to kill their families.
You're getting mixed up with credit cards. And stop hole-punching them.