Well, I wanted to look up the ISS sightings timetable on spaceflight.nasa.gov the other day, but it's down. On the plus side it has motivated me to find an iFruit app that does the same thing, which is awesome.
It's a risk. I've backed five or six crowdfunded projects, the ones that funded seem to be doing okay. If one of them fails, well, that's the risk that I took. I'll be disappointed, I'll ask questons, but in the end it was my decision to risk the money.
I'm guessing they are using a flat projection, so claiming it's "accurate" is potentially questionable, depending on your definition of the word. Can any flat map be described as "accurate"? I guess it probably can, actually, as long as it is consistent and the projection is well defined. Just like a photograph or a painting of an object can be called "accurate" even though the object is actually three-dimensional.
Not at all. You only apply the "patch" when debugging symbols are off and optimisation is on, which would cover nearly any production build. Even if you left in debugging symbols, you would still have a hard time discovering it with a debugger since optimisation is supposed do change the output.
So you compile the compiler in debug mode (no patch), use that build to compile it again in normal mode, and the patch is gone. Problem solved. In any case, I didn't mean "compiled in debug mode", I mean an external debug tool that can hex dump and disassemble.
The remark: "I couldn't imagine filling the void in my life if I didn't have Linux." is Linus telling us: "They threatened to take Linux away from me so I complied with their demands."?
How would they do that? The could take Linus away from Linux ("disappear" him), but the other way around would be difficult. And I think people would start to ask questions if Linus disappeared into a black van.
Seems we need reminding of this classic by Ken Thompson... there are no changes in the distributed source code of either project
Someone would have found it with a debugger. Sure, they could change the compiler to insert code into a debugger to hide the patch. But this rapidly gets so complex and error-prone that the bloat would be noticed and it would fail to spot all debuggers and patch them all. It's an interesting theoretical attack, but not practical in the long run.
From Wikipedia: Captain James Colnett of the British Navy wrote of "the land tortoise which in whatever way it was dressed, was considered by all of us as the most delicious food we had ever tasted."[108] US Navy captain David Porter declared that, "after once tasting the Gallipagos tortoises, every other animal food fell off greatly in our estimation... The meat of this animal is the easiest of digestion, and a quantity of it, exceeding that of any other food, can be eaten without experiencing the slightest of inconvenience."[81] Darwin was less enthusiastic about the meat, writing "the breast-plate roasted (as the Gauchos do "carne con cuero"), with the flesh on it, is very good; and the young tortoises make excellent soup; but otherwise the meat to my taste is indifferent."
The galapagos tortoises were indescribably delicious. They all got eaten on the way back to Britain, where they were being taken for the purpose of scientific study and preservation. Not sure about the PP, but it was hunted for food. Being delicious is only an evolutionary advantage if the species is also domesticable.
It's not their music. They don't own the tracks. Are you suggesting that Spotify should ban any track that Ministry of Sound have licenced to include on a compilation album? This is the most popular music in the UK, that's why MoS put it on compilation albums. Spotify would be committing commercial suicide by banning that much music.
THAN! Not THEN! Than is a comparison, X is lower than Y. Then means subsequent, X happened then Y happened. I usually ignore this on twitter and forums, but when a news item gets it wrong then I get annoyed.
congratulations! You have just defined an infinite energy supply. Set up a transmitter with a number of devices large enough to produce more energy then it took to power the transmitter.
That would involve more devices than would fit into a spherical shell at any given distance from the transmitter. So yes, there is an upper limit before you start to hit serious signal degradation, but when that upper limit is billions of devices per transmitter, it is not worth worrying about. That little bit of signal that my RF device used was probably going to be absorbed by the steel frame of the building next to me anyway.
... It is possible to make a machine that produces parts that are to a higher tolerance than the machine itself, but it has to be a special purpose design that does one thing relally well, and is not suited to 3D printers.
I think that the best argument against that is to consider pre-printer tools. We have lots of specialized precision instruments these days. However, God did not create the original instruments 6000 years ago and leave them lying around the landscape.
That isn't an argument against my assertion at all. I already said it's possible to make a machine that makes higher precision machines. Transcription errors can be managed, but it takes effort, and it takes intervention from outside the system (the intelligent reaction to errors is one way, and gene-recombination plus natural selection is another brute force way).
I'm not saying that they reproduce themselves by analysing their own structure, of course they use plans. Yes, each part that Machine 1 produces should be more or less identical. But if you assemble those things into Machine 2, then the parts that it produces will be inferior to Machine 1's output. Make Machine 3 with them, and the parts that it produces will be even worse. You can't stop transcription errors, and they will compound upon themselves. This is basic information theory. You need some process to correct the errors, which is usually human intervention in the mechanical world, and is random gene recombination and natural selection in the natural world. It is possible to make a machine that produces parts that are to a higher tolerance than the machine itself, but it has to be a special purpose design that does one thing relally well, and is not suited to 3D printers.
Any self-replicating 3D printing system will introduce errors with each successive generation - if the manufacturing tolerance of the original is 1 in 1000 then the tolerance of a part produced by it will be 2 in 1000, third generation will be 3 in 1000, etc. until eventually you just have an unrecognizable blob of plastic that does nothing.
My point is that it should not be possible to extend the coverage of copyright law just by slapping an extra document next to what is covered.
If I inherit a sculpture from my grandfather, can I sell it? Well, that depends on what licence my grandfather had for the design of the sculpture. If someone gives me a sculpture, can I put it on the shelf behind the counter in my shop? That depends on what licence the person who gave it to me had to the design of the sculpture. Can I take a photo of myself with my birthday present? Well, that depends.
It's ridiculous, and I don't think that a judge would uphold that a licence on a design could restrict use of the physical object that that design describes.
Easy to circumvent. Fred downloads the pattern, in the process promising not to use it for commercial purposes. Fred prints it out, and gives the resulting object to Jim. Jim uses it in his company's display booth at a show. The designer is using the licence to extend copyright into areas that it should not extend.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I wanted to look up the ISS sightings timetable on spaceflight.nasa.gov the other day, but it's down. On the plus side it has motivated me to find an iFruit app that does the same thing, which is awesome.
...we have an immediate general election in order to try and get a government that can govern.
It's a risk. I've backed five or six crowdfunded projects, the ones that funded seem to be doing okay. If one of them fails, well, that's the risk that I took. I'll be disappointed, I'll ask questons, but in the end it was my decision to risk the money.
If they really wanted a rock star, they could get Brian May to take it over!
I'm guessing they are using a flat projection, so claiming it's "accurate" is potentially questionable, depending on your definition of the word. Can any flat map be described as "accurate"? I guess it probably can, actually, as long as it is consistent and the projection is well defined. Just like a photograph or a painting of an object can be called "accurate" even though the object is actually three-dimensional.
Not at all. You only apply the "patch" when debugging symbols are off and optimisation is on, which would cover nearly any production build. Even if you left in debugging symbols, you would still have a hard time discovering it with a debugger since optimisation is supposed do change the output.
So you compile the compiler in debug mode (no patch), use that build to compile it again in normal mode, and the patch is gone. Problem solved. In any case, I didn't mean "compiled in debug mode", I mean an external debug tool that can hex dump and disassemble.
The remark: "I couldn't imagine filling the void in my life if I didn't have Linux." is Linus telling us: "They threatened to take Linux away from me so I complied with their demands."?
How would they do that? The could take Linus away from Linux ("disappear" him), but the other way around would be difficult. And I think people would start to ask questions if Linus disappeared into a black van.
Seems we need reminding of this classic by Ken Thompson... there are no changes in the distributed source code of either project
Someone would have found it with a debugger. Sure, they could change the compiler to insert code into a debugger to hide the patch. But this rapidly gets so complex and error-prone that the bloat would be noticed and it would fail to spot all debuggers and patch them all. It's an interesting theoretical attack, but not practical in the long run.
From Wikipedia: ... The meat of this animal is the easiest of digestion, and a quantity of it, exceeding that of any other food, can be eaten without experiencing the slightest of inconvenience."[81] Darwin was less enthusiastic about the meat, writing "the breast-plate roasted (as the Gauchos do "carne con cuero"), with the flesh on it, is very good; and the young tortoises make excellent soup; but otherwise the meat to my taste is indifferent."
Captain James Colnett of the British Navy wrote of "the land tortoise which in whatever way it was dressed, was considered by all of us as the most delicious food we had ever tasted."[108] US Navy captain David Porter declared that, "after once tasting the Gallipagos tortoises, every other animal food fell off greatly in our estimation
The galapagos tortoises were indescribably delicious. They all got eaten on the way back to Britain, where they were being taken for the purpose of scientific study and preservation. Not sure about the PP, but it was hunted for food. Being delicious is only an evolutionary advantage if the species is also domesticable.
Being delicious to humans ensures your success as a species as long as humans exist.
It didn't help the Galapagos tortoises or the Passenger Pigeon.
It's not their music. They don't own the tracks. Are you suggesting that Spotify should ban any track that Ministry of Sound have licenced to include on a compilation album? This is the most popular music in the UK, that's why MoS put it on compilation albums. Spotify would be committing commercial suicide by banning that much music.
Heterolexical.
THAN! Not THEN! Than is a comparison, X is lower than Y. Then means subsequent, X happened then Y happened. I usually ignore this on twitter and forums, but when a news item gets it wrong then I get annoyed.
congratulations! You have just defined an infinite energy supply. Set up a transmitter with a number of devices large enough to produce more energy then it took to power the transmitter.
That would involve more devices than would fit into a spherical shell at any given distance from the transmitter. So yes, there is an upper limit before you start to hit serious signal degradation, but when that upper limit is billions of devices per transmitter, it is not worth worrying about. That little bit of signal that my RF device used was probably going to be absorbed by the steel frame of the building next to me anyway.
Yeah I guess you're right.
... It is possible to make a machine that produces parts that are to a higher tolerance than the machine itself, but it has to be a special purpose design that does one thing relally well, and is not suited to 3D printers.
I think that the best argument against that is to consider pre-printer tools. We have lots of specialized precision instruments these days. However, God did not create the original instruments 6000 years ago and leave them lying around the landscape.
That isn't an argument against my assertion at all. I already said it's possible to make a machine that makes higher precision machines. Transcription errors can be managed, but it takes effort, and it takes intervention from outside the system (the intelligent reaction to errors is one way, and gene-recombination plus natural selection is another brute force way).
Elite: Dangerous looked the same as Ubuntu Edge's progress in the early stages, and it got funded.
I'm not saying that they reproduce themselves by analysing their own structure, of course they use plans. Yes, each part that Machine 1 produces should be more or less identical. But if you assemble those things into Machine 2, then the parts that it produces will be inferior to Machine 1's output. Make Machine 3 with them, and the parts that it produces will be even worse. You can't stop transcription errors, and they will compound upon themselves. This is basic information theory. You need some process to correct the errors, which is usually human intervention in the mechanical world, and is random gene recombination and natural selection in the natural world. It is possible to make a machine that produces parts that are to a higher tolerance than the machine itself, but it has to be a special purpose design that does one thing relally well, and is not suited to 3D printers.
Any self-replicating 3D printing system will introduce errors with each successive generation - if the manufacturing tolerance of the original is 1 in 1000 then the tolerance of a part produced by it will be 2 in 1000, third generation will be 3 in 1000, etc. until eventually you just have an unrecognizable blob of plastic that does nothing.
I remember seeing this story before.
I disagree. Thanks.
My point is that it should not be possible to extend the coverage of copyright law just by slapping an extra document next to what is covered.
If I inherit a sculpture from my grandfather, can I sell it? Well, that depends on what licence my grandfather had for the design of the sculpture. If someone gives me a sculpture, can I put it on the shelf behind the counter in my shop? That depends on what licence the person who gave it to me had to the design of the sculpture. Can I take a photo of myself with my birthday present? Well, that depends.
It's ridiculous, and I don't think that a judge would uphold that a licence on a design could restrict use of the physical object that that design describes.
Easy to circumvent. Fred downloads the pattern, in the process promising not to use it for commercial purposes. Fred prints it out, and gives the resulting object to Jim. Jim uses it in his company's display booth at a show. The designer is using the licence to extend copyright into areas that it should not extend.
Probably engineered by the Tnuctipun.