I'm not saying anything about enforcing a standard of literal text. I'm just pointing out that there are valid reasons someone from another culture, language, or region might not immediately understand certain figures of speech without being generally illiterate.
If someone is writing for a narrow audience, then making the text accessible to everyone has little point. If the author was trying to make that sentence clear to everyone who understands literal English, it obviously didn't work. It's a balance between colorful, nuanced language and being clear to a wide enough audience.
The author was likely writing for native Anglophones who are generally familiar with the major business hubs of the United States. Making the reading more enjoyable for that audience may limit the understanding of people outside that audience. Where that balance is struck is up to the author and editor.
I firmly believe that most everything in life is a tradeoff of some sort. Figurative writing is only specific incarnation of a general rule.
What, you mean more Senators and Representatives who don't really think and just sputter out what someone was paid to tell them to say? I think we have enough of those already.;-)
Is some part of IE's scripting dependent upon a service that's running at a higher priority than the logged-in user's processes? Like something in Session 0 that could be targeted with a message? If your browser is letting untrusted code into a sandbox which is capable of privilege escalation, then code in the sandbox can probably be crafted to take advantage of that.
It's more like the 4004 or before. Don't trust the result on your handheld calculator if someone else has been in possession of it. It probably just says "boobies" if you turn it upside down.
Unless you're a lawyer (I know I'm not one), please forgive me for not taking your word that placing software on a computer I own and paying someone to use that computer in my place of business is "distribution" in the sense used in the GPL. A company is generally considered a single entity in the practice of its business, and you can't very well distribute something to yourself.
If the GPL actually required that a computer's owner provided source, a compiler, and access to install software to every employee using the software, then nobody would be using GPLed software in business. A business desktop user has no business compiling and installing things on the business machines.
If the employee is given a copy to take home, they probably do need to get the source. That, as I said, is a completely different issue.
Ah, but if it's a fundamental design flaw, can it be patched in a reasonable way? There are things to consider other than possibility. Cost is one. Whether or not the OS would be able to offer the same features, performance, and application compatibility after the patch as before are other factors. Changing the fundamental security design of an OS tends to change all three of those elements.
Well, if they can really get past "all memory protection safeguards", that means the code can just overwrite your running kernel. I doubt that sentence was really intended to say that, though. it probably means specifically the ones new to Vista over XP that were listed.
However, when you're a serious user of vertical-market software, you're always getting changes made. Even with closed-source, proprietary, commercial software the big customers who use it the most get the features for which they ask.
When you give a customer like that an open alternative, they'll have it modified by any consultant, freelance contractor, or in-house programmer they can. They then need to know what they can do with the modified versions and what they can't.
This still leaves any sort of Open Source Software in a clearer place than most closed-source software, though. Many companies don't know the exact number of licenses in use from day to day, when the EULA on their closed-source stuff changes between versions, or even how many licenses they're allowed to use. It's pretty common to forget that software product A is per installed seat but product B from the same vendor is per simultaneous use. Many shrink-wrap EULAs even have language which states the software vendor can change the terms of the license for the software you've already bought and started using without prior notice. There's nothing in any Free or Open license I've ever seen that's more difficult to keep track of than the myriad different EULAs that differ from vendor to vendor and often from product to product within a single vendor's product lines.
IANAL, but I don't think placing the binaries on company-owned computers for use by company employees is considered distribution. If the company gives an employee a copy for their own PC to work from home, that's a whole new can of worms.
Certain EULAs that were not otherwise outside of valid contract law were found to be binding in certain jurisdictions (I don't recall if it was states or Federal Court Districts, probably some of each). That doesn't mean that every EULA will be considered valid even in those same jurisdictions.
A contract has to meet certain legal requirements to be binding. A few off the top of my head include legal age of consent for the parties to it, consideration for product or service, not accepted under duress or coercion, and can't force either party to break statutory law as part of the contract.
IANAL, so I can't really say what's what. Those are a few things to keep in mind if you ever need to talk to a lawyer about a contract or license, though. Your counsel should know much better than I.
This "changing legal requirements for running the same software" bit is obviously a crack at the GPLv2 to GPLv3 transition and similar license changes some projects go through.
Anyone speaking on behalf of IBM should realize that the EULAs for proprietary software change between versions all the time. Hell, many of them allow the publisher to retroactively change the terms of the EULA by posting the new wording to a website.
It isn't really fair to call one group out as being inferior for having clearer licenses that just happen to change more noticeably. It's the changes you don't notice until you're being sued that are the really painful ones, after all.
Anything for which they don't distribute binaries they don't have to distribute source. Improving the code only for in-house use means not needing to give any improvements back.
I think you mean there is no fourth possibility, because you listed three. There are a few more, though.
Someone makes us stop. A government, a group of revolutionaries, aliens from outer space, somebody's diety, or some cataclysmic event like an asteroid that has nothing to do with the climate could stop us. The insects and rodents could kill us all off with little-known tropical diseases because we changed the climate just enough for them to spread.
We could have a breakthrough that lets us create so much energy so much cheaper than fossil fuels that we change for economic reasons rather than conscious choice.
We could kill ourselves off with petty wars over what fossil fuels are left.
No matter the topic or whether there is basis to an argument for or against that topic, someone will want to blame someone else. Even in a situation in which there is nothing wrong and nobody took any chances that anything could go wrong, someone somewhere will be unhappy and blame someone else for their own perceived failure of whatever activity or venture. Some of those assigning blame will also claim a specifically selfish or evil motive on the part of the people they blame.
When something actually is wrong and there's evidence for it, more people become part of each of those groups. The core of those groups, that always find fault, will become louder and will actively recruit others.
It's sad, but it's human nature. Most of us have been part of the group finding fault where there is none in some circumstance. Many of us have assigned a motive to those we blamed. People like to have reasons when something goes wrong. Most of us hopefully don't do all of this that often, but a few people fall into this blaming trap all the time.
Actually, war is often not thought of as a failure of politics and diplomacy. It's often thought to be the crucial extreme of diplomacy. Many things can be accomplished with nice words and an unspoken threat that cannot be accomplished with nice words alone.
Even friendly diplomacy includes the idea that two groups want to stay friendly to avoid conflict. As things deteriorate, the chances of actual armed conflict rise. Hostile diplomacy often ends up with two sides in an uneasy peace specifically because the war is unpopular or would be devastating to both sides. Brinkmanship is a dangerous habit, but sometimes getting closer to war actually helps two sides talk.
The Cuban Missile Crisis was a good example of a war narrowly averted which ended up in better communication. Nuclear missiles were positioned within 90 miles of the US and submarines with nuclear-tipped torpedoes were there to help run the US blockade. In the end, not only was there thankfully no war but an open phone line between the White House and the Kremlin was established.
War might be the failing of other forms of diplomacy, but it can be thought of as part of the spectrum.
Well, using the name of a city in place of the types of businesses a city has is a bit of synecdoche. It's clear enough to a native speaker, and there is context in the particular sentence to boot. However, it's quite possible someone other than a native speaker of English could miss the subtlety. Perhaps someone with such difficulty should reconsider calling for additional proofreading, though.
Well, the standard "all else being equal" of course applies.
Going from 90nm and 65nm to 40nm and 32nm parts should help deal with a few issues, of course. Will two CPU cores and one GPU core at 40nm actually be any larger than four CPU cores at 65nm? The RV800 is a pretty small chip by itself already.
I'm not in the business, so I yield to you that you probably have better information and more insight on the topic. Given AMD's problems of late, it's probably prudent to bring up the possible downsides. Yet I think if they pull this chip off according to plan it's going to be great for laptops. There's always that "if" in the business, for any company, isn't there?
Was the last time you checked the EULA when Flash was a Macromedia product, or after Adobe bought Macromedia and released a new version? I'll admit I never read the EULA as my former employer owned the license and it was a company issue.
There are many proprietary commercial Flash clones that produce SWF files. There are also many freeware (closed source but free to use) and open source packages.
Two commercial packages have general-purpose timeline/programming IDEs similar to the genuine article. One is SWiSH Max from SWiSHzone (silly capitalization is theirs, not mine). Another is Namo FreeMotion from .
Many people say that Swish Max is much easier to use than Flash, but I didn't really care for the demo. To buy it is $150 so I might iinvest in it since there are some things it can do that my software can't.
FreeMotion 2008 is practically a clone of an older Flash version -- Macromedia Flash MX 2004. It has a similar interface, supports ActionScript 1 and 2, and outputs to Flash 6 or 7 formats. It doesn't work with FLA files but it does open existing published SWF files for editing. It does almost everything Flash MX 2004 does, but it won't work well with much of the stuff produced in Flash 8 or 9. I own a copy of FreeMotion 2008 (the default version on the Namo website is still 2006, so make sure you get the right version). It was only $59.95 to purchase a fully licensed download, but I opted to extend my download rights from 30 days to 2 years for another $4.95 just in case my backups get lost.
There are programs from Eltima Software and SoThink that turn SWF files into FLA files for use by official Macromedia or Adobe Flash. I've only used the trial versions of these, both of which are somewhat crippled. I'm not sure which I prefer, since the most interesting features are the ones that don't work in the trial versions.
There are many specialized Flash creators with visual interfaces. Some focus on educational software, while some focus on banners, media players, photo galleries, or games. Some are commercial while others are OSS or freeware.
There are also a number of textual Flash tools. Some work with XML. Some use ActionScipt directly. Some are libraries for C/C++, Python, PHP, or Perl. HaXe has a standard library supporting Flash features and will compile codee to SWF.
I personally use FreeMotion when a timeline is really handy or there's a good ActionScript 1 or 2 library that works with it which would make my life really easy. I use HaXe for any Flash work I want to approach from ground-up programming perspective. I've tinkered with MTASC but I haven't used it seriously. I've yet to dabble with Flex.
If I keep getting more requests for updates to more recent Flash stuff designed elsewhere, I might need to break down and buy CS3.3 (well, probably take an old-version discount on CS3 somewhere actually). I don't do very much Flash work right now, though, and the price on the Adobe stuff is steep. The OSS stuff is nice, and the lower-end commercial stuff works for many things.
I could probably get used to the Swish Max IDE for the price difference, though. Anyone know the limitations on ActionScript compatibility and Flash Player 9 output of version 2?
In the USA you can be taken to court for breathing the air someone else wanted to waft over their property. It doesn't mean there's any merit to the suit.
Microsoft often uses code names publicly for long periods. "Cairo" and "Longhorn" come to mind.
If Microsoft didn't have a long record of doing everything in their power to confuse people about their competition and trying to unfairly discredit the competition, they wouldn't be suspected of it so readily.
Yes, because we all know there are other OSes out there called Leopard...
Your post is funny, though. Quite a nice little parody. I'm glad someone is intentionally missing the point rather than just missing it haphazardly.;-)
one processor die two processor dies one chip socket two chip sockets
Fewer parts means lower cost. TFA didn't say, but it's entirely possible to put a PCIe controller or a HyperTransport link on a processor die, too (that's where HT links are now). If they dedicate a link directly from the CPU cores to the GPU core without going out to the chipset and back, then you eliminate all the traces on the motherboard for machines that aren't doing AMD's hybrid graphics. If the motherboards need fewer traces on them, they can be smaller and simpler. They can also use less power, as transmitting info across the chip will use a lower voltage than to a separate device.
Slashdot Mirror
"I doubt that sentence was really intended to say that, though."
I'm not saying anything about enforcing a standard of literal text. I'm just pointing out that there are valid reasons someone from another culture, language, or region might not immediately understand certain figures of speech without being generally illiterate.
If someone is writing for a narrow audience, then making the text accessible to everyone has little point. If the author was trying to make that sentence clear to everyone who understands literal English, it obviously didn't work. It's a balance between colorful, nuanced language and being clear to a wide enough audience.
The author was likely writing for native Anglophones who are generally familiar with the major business hubs of the United States. Making the reading more enjoyable for that audience may limit the understanding of people outside that audience. Where that balance is struck is up to the author and editor.
I firmly believe that most everything in life is a tradeoff of some sort. Figurative writing is only specific incarnation of a general rule.
What, you mean more Senators and Representatives who don't really think and just sputter out what someone was paid to tell them to say? I think we have enough of those already. ;-)
Is some part of IE's scripting dependent upon a service that's running at a higher priority than the logged-in user's processes? Like something in Session 0 that could be targeted with a message? If your browser is letting untrusted code into a sandbox which is capable of privilege escalation, then code in the sandbox can probably be crafted to take advantage of that.
It's more like the 4004 or before. Don't trust the result on your handheld calculator if someone else has been in possession of it. It probably just says "boobies" if you turn it upside down.
Unless you're a lawyer (I know I'm not one), please forgive me for not taking your word that placing software on a computer I own and paying someone to use that computer in my place of business is "distribution" in the sense used in the GPL. A company is generally considered a single entity in the practice of its business, and you can't very well distribute something to yourself.
If the GPL actually required that a computer's owner provided source, a compiler, and access to install software to every employee using the software, then nobody would be using GPLed software in business. A business desktop user has no business compiling and installing things on the business machines.
If the employee is given a copy to take home, they probably do need to get the source. That, as I said, is a completely different issue.
It's called "juxtaposition". Look it up.
Ah, but if it's a fundamental design flaw, can it be patched in a reasonable way? There are things to consider other than possibility. Cost is one. Whether or not the OS would be able to offer the same features, performance, and application compatibility after the patch as before are other factors. Changing the fundamental security design of an OS tends to change all three of those elements.
Well, if they can really get past "all memory protection safeguards", that means the code can just overwrite your running kernel. I doubt that sentence was really intended to say that, though. it probably means specifically the ones new to Vista over XP that were listed.
What you say is true.
However, when you're a serious user of vertical-market software, you're always getting changes made. Even with closed-source, proprietary, commercial software the big customers who use it the most get the features for which they ask.
When you give a customer like that an open alternative, they'll have it modified by any consultant, freelance contractor, or in-house programmer they can. They then need to know what they can do with the modified versions and what they can't.
This still leaves any sort of Open Source Software in a clearer place than most closed-source software, though. Many companies don't know the exact number of licenses in use from day to day, when the EULA on their closed-source stuff changes between versions, or even how many licenses they're allowed to use. It's pretty common to forget that software product A is per installed seat but product B from the same vendor is per simultaneous use. Many shrink-wrap EULAs even have language which states the software vendor can change the terms of the license for the software you've already bought and started using without prior notice. There's nothing in any Free or Open license I've ever seen that's more difficult to keep track of than the myriad different EULAs that differ from vendor to vendor and often from product to product within a single vendor's product lines.
IANAL, but I don't think placing the binaries on company-owned computers for use by company employees is considered distribution. If the company gives an employee a copy for their own PC to work from home, that's a whole new can of worms.
Certain EULAs that were not otherwise outside of valid contract law were found to be binding in certain jurisdictions (I don't recall if it was states or Federal Court Districts, probably some of each). That doesn't mean that every EULA will be considered valid even in those same jurisdictions.
A contract has to meet certain legal requirements to be binding. A few off the top of my head include legal age of consent for the parties to it, consideration for product or service, not accepted under duress or coercion, and can't force either party to break statutory law as part of the contract.
IANAL, so I can't really say what's what. Those are a few things to keep in mind if you ever need to talk to a lawyer about a contract or license, though. Your counsel should know much better than I.
This "changing legal requirements for running the same software" bit is obviously a crack at the GPLv2 to GPLv3 transition and similar license changes some projects go through.
Anyone speaking on behalf of IBM should realize that the EULAs for proprietary software change between versions all the time. Hell, many of them allow the publisher to retroactively change the terms of the EULA by posting the new wording to a website.
It isn't really fair to call one group out as being inferior for having clearer licenses that just happen to change more noticeably. It's the changes you don't notice until you're being sued that are the really painful ones, after all.
Anything for which they don't distribute binaries they don't have to distribute source. Improving the code only for in-house use means not needing to give any improvements back.
I think you mean there is no fourth possibility, because you listed three. There are a few more, though.
Someone makes us stop. A government, a group of revolutionaries, aliens from outer space, somebody's diety, or some cataclysmic event like an asteroid that has nothing to do with the climate could stop us. The insects and rodents could kill us all off with little-known tropical diseases because we changed the climate just enough for them to spread.
We could have a breakthrough that lets us create so much energy so much cheaper than fossil fuels that we change for economic reasons rather than conscious choice.
We could kill ourselves off with petty wars over what fossil fuels are left.
No matter the topic or whether there is basis to an argument for or against that topic, someone will want to blame someone else. Even in a situation in which there is nothing wrong and nobody took any chances that anything could go wrong, someone somewhere will be unhappy and blame someone else for their own perceived failure of whatever activity or venture. Some of those assigning blame will also claim a specifically selfish or evil motive on the part of the people they blame.
When something actually is wrong and there's evidence for it, more people become part of each of those groups. The core of those groups, that always find fault, will become louder and will actively recruit others.
It's sad, but it's human nature. Most of us have been part of the group finding fault where there is none in some circumstance. Many of us have assigned a motive to those we blamed. People like to have reasons when something goes wrong. Most of us hopefully don't do all of this that often, but a few people fall into this blaming trap all the time.
Actually, war is often not thought of as a failure of politics and diplomacy. It's often thought to be the crucial extreme of diplomacy. Many things can be accomplished with nice words and an unspoken threat that cannot be accomplished with nice words alone.
Even friendly diplomacy includes the idea that two groups want to stay friendly to avoid conflict. As things deteriorate, the chances of actual armed conflict rise. Hostile diplomacy often ends up with two sides in an uneasy peace specifically because the war is unpopular or would be devastating to both sides. Brinkmanship is a dangerous habit, but sometimes getting closer to war actually helps two sides talk.
The Cuban Missile Crisis was a good example of a war narrowly averted which ended up in better communication. Nuclear missiles were positioned within 90 miles of the US and submarines with nuclear-tipped torpedoes were there to help run the US blockade. In the end, not only was there thankfully no war but an open phone line between the White House and the Kremlin was established.
War might be the failing of other forms of diplomacy, but it can be thought of as part of the spectrum.
More water vapor hopefully means more clouds, and clouds reflect back sunlight, too.
Rising water levels in the oceans means more water to dissolve the CO2 (although the temperature of the water is important, too).
There are multiple negative feedback loops. I'm not saying there are enough, but there is more than the one.
Well, using the name of a city in place of the types of businesses a city has is a bit of synecdoche. It's clear enough to a native speaker, and there is context in the particular sentence to boot. However, it's quite possible someone other than a native speaker of English could miss the subtlety. Perhaps someone with such difficulty should reconsider calling for additional proofreading, though.
Well, the standard "all else being equal" of course applies.
Going from 90nm and 65nm to 40nm and 32nm parts should help deal with a few issues, of course. Will two CPU cores and one GPU core at 40nm actually be any larger than four CPU cores at 65nm? The RV800 is a pretty small chip by itself already.
I'm not in the business, so I yield to you that you probably have better information and more insight on the topic. Given AMD's problems of late, it's probably prudent to bring up the possible downsides. Yet I think if they pull this chip off according to plan it's going to be great for laptops. There's always that "if" in the business, for any company, isn't there?
Was the last time you checked the EULA when Flash was a Macromedia product, or after Adobe bought Macromedia and released a new version? I'll admit I never read the EULA as my former employer owned the license and it was a company issue.
There are many proprietary commercial Flash clones that produce SWF files. There are also many freeware (closed source but free to use) and open source packages.
Two commercial packages have general-purpose timeline/programming IDEs similar to the genuine article. One is SWiSH Max from SWiSHzone (silly capitalization is theirs, not mine). Another is Namo FreeMotion from .
Many people say that Swish Max is much easier to use than Flash, but I didn't really care for the demo. To buy it is $150 so I might iinvest in it since there are some things it can do that my software can't.
FreeMotion 2008 is practically a clone of an older Flash version -- Macromedia Flash MX 2004. It has a similar interface, supports ActionScript 1 and 2, and outputs to Flash 6 or 7 formats. It doesn't work with FLA files but it does open existing published SWF files for editing. It does almost everything Flash MX 2004 does, but it won't work well with much of the stuff produced in Flash 8 or 9. I own a copy of FreeMotion 2008 (the default version on the Namo website is still 2006, so make sure you get the right version). It was only $59.95 to purchase a fully licensed download, but I opted to extend my download rights from 30 days to 2 years for another $4.95 just in case my backups get lost.
There are programs from Eltima Software and SoThink that turn SWF files into FLA files for use by official Macromedia or Adobe Flash. I've only used the trial versions of these, both of which are somewhat crippled. I'm not sure which I prefer, since the most interesting features are the ones that don't work in the trial versions.
There are many specialized Flash creators with visual interfaces. Some focus on educational software, while some focus on banners, media players, photo galleries, or games. Some are commercial while others are OSS or freeware.
There are also a number of textual Flash tools. Some work with XML. Some use ActionScipt directly. Some are libraries for C/C++, Python, PHP, or Perl. HaXe has a standard library supporting Flash features and will compile codee to SWF.
For a partial list of OSS software that works with Flash files or is used to support development of them, take a look at the projects page of the OS Flash Project.
I personally use FreeMotion when a timeline is really handy or there's a good ActionScript 1 or 2 library that works with it which would make my life really easy. I use HaXe for any Flash work I want to approach from ground-up programming perspective. I've tinkered with MTASC but I haven't used it seriously. I've yet to dabble with Flex.
If I keep getting more requests for updates to more recent Flash stuff designed elsewhere, I might need to break down and buy CS3.3 (well, probably take an old-version discount on CS3 somewhere actually). I don't do very much Flash work right now, though, and the price on the Adobe stuff is steep. The OSS stuff is nice, and the lower-end commercial stuff works for many things.
I could probably get used to the Swish Max IDE for the price difference, though. Anyone know the limitations on ActionScript compatibility and Flash Player 9 output of version 2?
In the USA you can be taken to court for breathing the air someone else wanted to waft over their property. It doesn't mean there's any merit to the suit.
Microsoft often uses code names publicly for long periods. "Cairo" and "Longhorn" come to mind.
If Microsoft didn't have a long record of doing everything in their power to confuse people about their competition and trying to unfairly discredit the competition, they wouldn't be suspected of it so readily.
Yes, because we all know there are other OSes out there called Leopard...
Your post is funny, though. Quite a nice little parody. I'm glad someone is intentionally missing the point rather than just missing it haphazardly. ;-)
one processor die two processor dies
one chip socket two chip sockets
Fewer parts means lower cost. TFA didn't say, but it's entirely possible to put a PCIe controller or a HyperTransport link on a processor die, too (that's where HT links are now). If they dedicate a link directly from the CPU cores to the GPU core without going out to the chipset and back, then you eliminate all the traces on the motherboard for machines that aren't doing AMD's hybrid graphics. If the motherboards need fewer traces on them, they can be smaller and simpler. They can also use less power, as transmitting info across the chip will use a lower voltage than to a separate device.