It more or less followed the percentage in local population -- Communists didn't care. Of course, propaganda workers of glorious US were more than happy to project their own racism onto their "enemies", and thrown accusation of racism and genocide as if they had nothing else to say.
This is a total nonsense. It's one of the cornerstone of Communist ideology that conflict in society happen between social classes, not ethnic groups, and racism is an effort to derail class struggle toward infighting within working class. So if a Communist suggested this, he would not likely remain Communist for long (not to mention that propaganda of ethnic hatred was a crime in USSR, similar to anti-Nazi laws in Europe and hate speech in US, except with stronger penalties).
USSR government indeed encouraged large families, however there was no ethnic discrimination involved. If anything, Russians traditionally had smaller families and were faster moving into cities than population of Asian part of the country, so they would get less benefit from any policy that encouraged larger numbers of children.
There is also a matter of Stalin being Georgian, Khruschev being Ukrainian, Brezhnev being Moldovan...
What one may want to do is adding tracking data at some other layer that uses change-notification mechanism for indexing. However for the sake of everything that is, was, will or might be holy, stop trying to resurrect "everything is a database, and files are collections of records" model of early IBM and Digital operating systems. It was hated and replaced with a modern "named chunks of bytes in a tree" for a reason.
Unless you can somehow benefit from being able to quickly deploy a datacenter somewhere, the only benefit of a container is that you can create a permanent datacenter in the parking lot. Then you won't have to pay rent for the floor space and can spend years promising your neighbors and building's owners to remove those damn containers really soon now.
The USSR tried something similar with Soviets and a Benevolent Dictator but when their economic system collapsed, their government fell too.
Except that it didn't. "USSR economy collapsed" is US propaganda formula, invented to justify supposed effectiveness of Reagan-style economy and foreign policy US practiced at the time.
USSR "collapse" was a political act originated and performed by heads of three largest USSR members -- Russia, Ukraine and Belarus, who decided that the only way to get rid of incompetent people in central government (that included, among others, oh-so-loved-in-US Gorbachev) is to dissolve the whole union and pass the power to already existing structures of former 15 USSR members, three of whom they represented.
There was neither an economic cause or reason for this, nor USSR dissolution was accompanied with any changes in economic policy. Structure and condition of the economy, and economic policy pre-dissolution and post-dissolution were exactly the same, so dissolution merely erected more trade barriers between now-independent states, creating greater opportunities for corruption.
If anything, all attempts of economic reforms greatly weakened USSR and ex-USSR economies that were in accelerating decline since late-80's Gorbachev's reforms until 1998 when after a massive crisis many of "free market" policies were reversed. Compared to this, mild recession of 80's (one that spooked Gorbachev in the first place) is something that should've been better simply waited out.
If your life is going to depend on some software, would you trust a person who voted for Bush twice, to have sufficient reasoning abilities and understanding of logic to develop it?
In C a union of boiling oil and CEOs means that in some place you might have a bunch of CEOs, but it also may be a vat of boiling oil, and there is no way to check.
Yes, because people who do that will get fired without getting a chance to make pseudo-working code after months of making random changes until it passes.
That's because those people aren't hired through dumb recruiting services. Just as well you won't see C programmers being hired, and most of code currently running on anything is written in it.
Where "essential patent claims" and "contributor version" are defined at excruciating length over the course of the rest of the section.
But does "contribution in the software" in Microsoft license mean the same? What happens with code under both licenses if none of the original code is recognizable yet patented functionality is preserved? As I understand it, GPL has all-encompassing "can't re-license under any other terms but this license" mechanism, and license is tied to the body of licensed code, not its individual parts, patches or projects, therefore everything can be modified (up to being replaced) or re-used in other projects unless it's intended to be distributed under different license.
GPLV3 says:
A contributor's "essential patent claims" are all patent claims owned or controlled by the contributor, whether already acquired or hereafter acquired, that would be infringed by some manner, permitted by this License, of making, using, or selling its contributor version, but do not include claims that would be infringed only as a consequence of further modification of the contributor version.
so the patent claims are licensed to all users as they WOULD be infringed by making derivative work if the patent grant did not exist, but they apply to all GPL'ed work, not only for some selected stretch of source code that can be demonstrated that it IS a derivative work that can be traced to some original "contribution in the software". User can re-implement some contribution that triggered patent grant, and as long as new code would not infringe on any other claims of the same patent or other patents, patent grant still applies. Patents are still a massive minefield, but simple reimplementation of functionality is safe.
A version that limits the scope of patent grant allows crippling of the original contribution that can not be overcome by others because they do not have patent grant that applies to new code, so unless Microsoft has something that prevents this problem, "copyright backwards" and "this code is too good to be still covered" still applies.
(I am not a lawyer, however I am a software developer who has to avoid licensing conflicts in his everyday work).
How exactly does that make it bad for software? If a test server crashes, how much damage is done?
Damage is done later, when a server is hit by a bug that never shown up in tests. If all airplanes went into production after a successful flight of a prototype, without any design verification, every airport would have to be rebuilt every few years due to massive numbers of crashes. To think of it, that's exactly the quality people expect from modern software.
Oh, testing in itself is fine -- as yet another level of assurance that you didn't do anything wrong. Relying on tests is wrong because tests can't possibly present sufficient checks to guarantee anything, not without becoming much more complex than anything they test (and then what assures that they aren't wrong?).
At first I thought to ridicule your notion that rank beginners should be taught software engineering theory.
BAD software engineering theory, to boot.
Just imagine test-driven aerospace engineering. Test-driven civil engineering. Test-driven economics (okay, I take it back, that's Libertarian idea of letting everyone build "free market" by trial and error and not get wiped out or enslaved in the process). Test-driven medicine. All those area use massive amount of experiments, observation and verification, yet none would find it acceptable to abandon theory, rig up some testing contraption that may or may not be mis-designed and buggy by itself, then do job half-assedly and introduce random changes until tests pass. Or at least this is how "test-driven development" is usually implemented.
I know one area where test-driven development worked extremey well -- biological evolution. Enjoy your ten million years long development cycles. And cancer. I mean, in products of such development.
Where in TFA is it written that this formation prevents feeding? They simply state that this formation doesn't seem to make feeding easier or more efficient, more probably less so. This is a reason to rule out feeding as the cause for this formation. That's it, that's all they are saying.
Really? You mean, any behavior related to feeding must minimize the effort for opening one's mouth, and if it doesn't, it can't be a part of feeding process? Great logic indeed.
A chain may easier move through surfaces covered with food, organize the feeding process to reduce collisions and uncovered areas, use itself as a brush, propel itself through water or other substances... Unless those things spend their whole lives with their mouth sealed, those activities can be of a great help in a feeding process, and the only reason why it was suggested that it's "unlikely" is based on two mutually exclusive statements -- that chain is permanent, and that an individual has some kind of horrible trouble feeding while in chain.
The formation might be useful for something else - they suggest defence during migration - and that advantage probably offsets the small or nonexistent difficulties during feeding.
So does it or doesn't it mean that those organisms have to break the chain when not migrating, when feeding, etc? How does it explain extremely small number of unattached individuals found? What is known about feeding behavior, potential enemies -- anything relevant to those things at all?
Why don't those biologists realize that their reasoning is pure undiluted shit, and they have absolutely no idea what that chain it is really for, so it warrants further study instead of jumping to conclusions based on blatantly invalid reasoning?
This is "copyright backwards" -- you have to make sure that your code IS A DERIVATIVE WORK to get patent grant. You will be in violation if you developed it "too independently" from Microsoft.
He and his colleagues found 22 complete or partial chains, but only one solitary specimen.
2):
But unlike those lobster trains, these fossil arthropod chains, dated to the early Cambrian, appear to have been almost unbreakable. The animals collectively show signs of twisting, turning, bending and telescoping, all without coming apart.
3):
Feeding behavior is an unlikely reason since each individual's mouth is covered by the tail of the preceding arthropod.
Hello? Had someone's brain cells formed chains and migrated out of his skull? Is logic now optional for biologists?
If the formation was permanent, and individual organisms were able to survive, they definitaly were somehow capable of feeding while in chain, so it would be dumb to claim that chain could not be related to feeding because it supposedly makes it impossible. Either, chain is not permanent, observation in (1) is incomplete and (2) is false, or chain does not prevent feeding, so (2) is nonsense.
How in the world someone can write those two things few sentences apart? What brings us to
3):
"When you're dealing with 525-million-year-old animals, it's not like math where five plus five is ten. There are a lot of interesting discussions to have," explains Siveter.
The problem is certainly related to the lack of logic, however I think, it shouldn't be blamed on 525 million years old animals.
The same way how he figures out the proper procedure to open extra-armored, welded over the whole perimeter plastic packaging that most of cheap computer peripherals now come in (expensive ones, counterintuitively come in easy-to-open-and-steal cardboard boxes with plastic or foam spacers). I cut those things with scissors that should be straightened and re-sharpened after each such procedure.
It doesn't matter how because it only should be done once.
Slashdot Mirror
Jews? (I am Jewish).
It more or less followed the percentage in local population -- Communists didn't care. Of course, propaganda workers of glorious US were more than happy to project their own racism onto their "enemies", and thrown accusation of racism and genocide as if they had nothing else to say.
This is a total nonsense. It's one of the cornerstone of Communist ideology that conflict in society happen between social classes, not ethnic groups, and racism is an effort to derail class struggle toward infighting within working class. So if a Communist suggested this, he would not likely remain Communist for long (not to mention that propaganda of ethnic hatred was a crime in USSR, similar to anti-Nazi laws in Europe and hate speech in US, except with stronger penalties).
USSR government indeed encouraged large families, however there was no ethnic discrimination involved. If anything, Russians traditionally had smaller families and were faster moving into cities than population of Asian part of the country, so they would get less benefit from any policy that encouraged larger numbers of children.
There is also a matter of Stalin being Georgian, Khruschev being Ukrainian, Brezhnev being Moldovan...
In other words -- shut up, moron.
Pool is closed due to fake plumbers.
more research is needed to determine whether doctors must deceive patients in order for placebos to work
SNOW OWL! SNOW OWL! SNOW OWL!
(with words "O RLY" overlayed on the photo)
What one may want to do is adding tracking data at some other layer that uses change-notification mechanism for indexing. However for the sake of everything that is, was, will or might be holy, stop trying to resurrect "everything is a database, and files are collections of records" model of early IBM and Digital operating systems. It was hated and replaced with a modern "named chunks of bytes in a tree" for a reason.
It doesn't.
Unless you can somehow benefit from being able to quickly deploy a datacenter somewhere, the only benefit of a container is that you can create a permanent datacenter in the parking lot. Then you won't have to pay rent for the floor space and can spend years promising your neighbors and building's owners to remove those damn containers really soon now.
The USSR tried something similar with Soviets and a Benevolent Dictator but when their economic system collapsed, their government fell too.
Except that it didn't. "USSR economy collapsed" is US propaganda formula, invented to justify supposed effectiveness of Reagan-style economy and foreign policy US practiced at the time.
USSR "collapse" was a political act originated and performed by heads of three largest USSR members -- Russia, Ukraine and Belarus, who decided that the only way to get rid of incompetent people in central government (that included, among others, oh-so-loved-in-US Gorbachev) is to dissolve the whole union and pass the power to already existing structures of former 15 USSR members, three of whom they represented.
There was neither an economic cause or reason for this, nor USSR dissolution was accompanied with any changes in economic policy. Structure and condition of the economy, and economic policy pre-dissolution and post-dissolution were exactly the same, so dissolution merely erected more trade barriers between now-independent states, creating greater opportunities for corruption.
If anything, all attempts of economic reforms greatly weakened USSR and ex-USSR economies that were in accelerating decline since late-80's Gorbachev's reforms until 1998 when after a massive crisis many of "free market" policies were reversed. Compared to this, mild recession of 80's (one that spooked Gorbachev in the first place) is something that should've been better simply waited out.
...are eager to punch George W. Bush in the face. News at 11.
If your life is going to depend on some software, would you trust a person who voted for Bush twice, to have sufficient reasoning abilities and understanding of logic to develop it?
You don't understand.
In C a union of boiling oil and CEOs means that in some place you might have a bunch of CEOs, but it also may be a vat of boiling oil, and there is no way to check.
You want to be in the same union with MCSE Windows admins who don't know how a private IP address looks like?
Yes, because people who do that will get fired without getting a chance to make pseudo-working code after months of making random changes until it passes.
MS is the first U.S. industrial company in ten years to get a AAA credit rating from S&P and Moody's. It's a damn short list these days.
"Industrial"? Really?
I see, this is by the same classification where McDonald's is a manufacturing company because it makes sandwiches.
That's because those people aren't hired through dumb recruiting services. Just as well you won't see C programmers being hired, and most of code currently running on anything is written in it.
their upcoming TMG server
Upcoming product is making them billions already?
Looks like Microsoft hires retarded astroturfers now.
Where "essential patent claims" and "contributor version" are defined at excruciating length over the course of the rest of the section.
But does "contribution in the software" in Microsoft license mean the same? What happens with code under both licenses if none of the original code is recognizable yet patented functionality is preserved? As I understand it, GPL has all-encompassing "can't re-license under any other terms but this license" mechanism, and license is tied to the body of licensed code, not its individual parts, patches or projects, therefore everything can be modified (up to being replaced) or re-used in other projects unless it's intended to be distributed under different license.
GPLV3 says:
A contributor's "essential patent claims" are all patent claims owned or controlled by the contributor, whether already acquired or hereafter acquired, that would be infringed by some manner, permitted by this License, of making, using, or selling its contributor version, but do not include claims that would be infringed only as a consequence of further modification of the contributor version.
so the patent claims are licensed to all users as they WOULD be infringed by making derivative work if the patent grant did not exist, but they apply to all GPL'ed work, not only for some selected stretch of source code that can be demonstrated that it IS a derivative work that can be traced to some original "contribution in the software". User can re-implement some contribution that triggered patent grant, and as long as new code would not infringe on any other claims of the same patent or other patents, patent grant still applies. Patents are still a massive minefield, but simple reimplementation of functionality is safe.
A version that limits the scope of patent grant allows crippling of the original contribution that can not be overcome by others because they do not have patent grant that applies to new code, so unless Microsoft has something that prevents this problem, "copyright backwards" and "this code is too good to be still covered" still applies.
(I am not a lawyer, however I am a software developer who has to avoid licensing conflicts in his everyday work).
How exactly does that make it bad for software? If a test server crashes, how much damage is done?
Damage is done later, when a server is hit by a bug that never shown up in tests. If all airplanes went into production after a successful flight of a prototype, without any design verification, every airport would have to be rebuilt every few years due to massive numbers of crashes. To think of it, that's exactly the quality people expect from modern software.
Oh, testing in itself is fine -- as yet another level of assurance that you didn't do anything wrong. Relying on tests is wrong because tests can't possibly present sufficient checks to guarantee anything, not without becoming much more complex than anything they test (and then what assures that they aren't wrong?).
(Considering I'm almost 30, I program computers for a good living, and I've never used it, I'm thinking: it ain't.)
Considering I'm almost 40, I program computers for a living and have to use it all the time, I am thinking you are a some kind of web developer.
At first I thought to ridicule your notion that rank beginners should be taught software engineering theory.
BAD software engineering theory, to boot.
Just imagine test-driven aerospace engineering. Test-driven civil engineering. Test-driven economics (okay, I take it back, that's Libertarian idea of letting everyone build "free market" by trial and error and not get wiped out or enslaved in the process). Test-driven medicine. All those area use massive amount of experiments, observation and verification, yet none would find it acceptable to abandon theory, rig up some testing contraption that may or may not be mis-designed and buggy by itself, then do job half-assedly and introduce random changes until tests pass. Or at least this is how "test-driven development" is usually implemented.
I know one area where test-driven development worked extremey well -- biological evolution. Enjoy your ten million years long development cycles. And cancer. I mean, in products of such development.
Where in TFA is it written that this formation prevents feeding? They simply state that this formation doesn't seem to make feeding easier or more efficient, more probably less so. This is a reason to rule out feeding as the cause for this formation. That's it, that's all they are saying.
Really? You mean, any behavior related to feeding must minimize the effort for opening one's mouth, and if it doesn't, it can't be a part of feeding process? Great logic indeed.
A chain may easier move through surfaces covered with food, organize the feeding process to reduce collisions and uncovered areas, use itself as a brush, propel itself through water or other substances... Unless those things spend their whole lives with their mouth sealed, those activities can be of a great help in a feeding process, and the only reason why it was suggested that it's "unlikely" is based on two mutually exclusive statements -- that chain is permanent, and that an individual has some kind of horrible trouble feeding while in chain.
The formation might be useful for something else - they suggest defence during migration - and that advantage probably offsets the small or nonexistent difficulties during feeding.
So does it or doesn't it mean that those organisms have to break the chain when not migrating, when feeding, etc? How does it explain extremely small number of unattached individuals found? What is known about feeding behavior, potential enemies -- anything relevant to those things at all?
Why don't those biologists realize that their reasoning is pure undiluted shit, and they have absolutely no idea what that chain it is really for, so it warrants further study instead of jumping to conclusions based on blatantly invalid reasoning?
This is "copyright backwards" -- you have to make sure that your code IS A DERIVATIVE WORK to get patent grant. You will be in violation if you developed it "too independently" from Microsoft.
they definitaly were
"they definitely were", of course.
1):
He and his colleagues found 22 complete or partial chains, but only one solitary specimen.
2):
But unlike those lobster trains, these fossil arthropod chains, dated to the early Cambrian, appear to have been almost unbreakable. The animals collectively show signs of twisting, turning, bending and telescoping, all without coming apart.
3):
Feeding behavior is an unlikely reason since each individual's mouth is covered by the tail of the preceding arthropod.
Hello? Had someone's brain cells formed chains and migrated out of his skull? Is logic now optional for biologists?
If the formation was permanent, and individual organisms were able to survive, they definitaly were somehow capable of feeding while in chain, so it would be dumb to claim that chain could not be related to feeding because it supposedly makes it impossible. Either, chain is not permanent, observation in (1) is incomplete and (2) is false, or chain does not prevent feeding, so (2) is nonsense.
How in the world someone can write those two things few sentences apart? What brings us to
3):
"When you're dealing with 525-million-year-old animals, it's not like math where five plus five is ten. There are a lot of interesting discussions to have," explains Siveter.
The problem is certainly related to the lack of logic, however I think, it shouldn't be blamed on 525 million years old animals.
The same way how he figures out the proper procedure to open extra-armored, welded over the whole perimeter plastic packaging that most of cheap computer peripherals now come in (expensive ones, counterintuitively come in easy-to-open-and-steal cardboard boxes with plastic or foam spacers). I cut those things with scissors that should be straightened and re-sharpened after each such procedure.
It doesn't matter how because it only should be done once.