Yes, and I'm sure you're next post will be that nobody on the face of the earth has ever EVAR claimed that:
1. Hurricane Katrina
2. "Superstorm"* Sandy
3. The smelt-made California Drought
4. 2011 Japanese Tsunami **
5. Back to back record years for agriculture in the midwest in 2013-2014 ***
were caused by global warming!!
* So named because it wasn't even strong enough to count as a real hurricane... while stronger storms have been known to hit NYC in the 19th and early 20th centuries!
** Yes, earthquakes are now caused by Global Warming. Get with the politcally correct program you denialist scum.
*** No wait, that's not post-apocalyptic bad sounding. Two consecutive years of weather patterns over an entire geographic region is just an insignificant random weather event...
Now, a not-particularly unusually strong hurricane that happens to hit a low-lying city that's in the middle of a region where you expect to see hurricanes over a 12 hour period... THAT'S CLIMATE CHANGE YOU DENIALIST SCUM!
Considering the first graphical web browser was written for the Next Operating system, I'm going to assume that your stupid little rant is to make you feel better about hating Windows (wow! aren't you a rebel!) and less about anything to do with software development... of which you obviously know nothing.
I was waiting for somebody to fall into the "BUT LIBRARIES!" trap...
You do realize that you just said that Windows 8 now follows the UNIX PHILOSOPHY because boy oh boy does it have libraries!
Oh... but you didn't really mean that you say? You meant.. MODULAR instead right? Well in that case, if you actually knew anything about SystemD, you would know that it *is* modular almost to a fault so that's no it either.
It sounds great in theory but... 1. If you really buy that principle and want to enforce it religiously, then please never use a web browser again (even Lynx!), not to mention any other complex program that isn't formed from a bunch of small "do one thing well!" utilities that are executed in a pipeline.
2. Please tear up your Richard Stallman fanclub cards because what little software he's written has mostly been Emacs and Emacs is the anti-UNIX based on the "pure" UNIX philosophy.
That't the issue: Every single person who hates SystemD because "UNIX PHILOSOPHY!!" has no problem violating that philosophy to actually get things done in a whole bunch of other areas. That's not even bringing up the fact that SystemD is.. wait for it... built from a bunch of individual utilities that can actually be used by non-systemd programs.
If it's a "software patent" where it's really just a financial transaction with an "on a computer" part added, then it's in trouble.
However, lots & lots of patents that include computing systems where software is in the mix will be perfectly fine as long as they are actually directed to technological improvements as opposed to business method + computer claims.
It's very common for a paper to get rejected on the initial go-around but for the journal in question to provide hints about how the problems with the paper could be addressed to make it publishable.
The bigger issue here appears to be that the followup process didn't happen in a thorough and rigorous manner or that all the extra data the journal requested ended up being manipulated/faked.
That's right, we can send Bennett over to our friends at ISIS and he can give them annoyling irrelevant advice about the exact type of eco-aware synthetic materials that they should use in their head-chopping knife scabbards. If we're lucky, they'll chop their own heads off in sheer frustration after they're done with him, and we'll kill 2 birds with one stone.
The 5820K is packing 6 cores and an unlocked multiplier for less than $400. If you don't absolutely need the full 8-core 5960X, then the 5820K is going to be a very powerful part at a reasonable price for the level of performance it delivers.
[quote]Right now I'm running two copies of Eclipse from a VM, displaying on the host machine's desktop using X-forwarding. Under Wayland, that'll require either pushing megabytes of pixels every time I scroll a window, or using some god-awful VNC crap.[/quote]
Let me fix that for you:
Using X-forwarding *right freaking now* you are pushing megabytes of pixels every time you scroll a window because every single modern toolkit operates that way and you have obviously got problems distinguishing between a simple tutorial on the 1985 version of xterm vs. how real applications that are forwarded over sockets in the real world actually behave.
1. Not that often for my desktop systems, but quite a bit for all those mobile devices out there. P.S. --> anybody who brags about ** years of uptime on a server deserves to be shot for failing to apply updates.
2. I don't care if I only save 1 second: time savings are important.
TL;DR version: You spend around 20 years getting used to the old way of doing it and now you can't stand change.
My story: Been using Linux heavily since 2000. Arch adopted Systemd big-time in 2013 or so. I spent a little while learning the new commands, and now it's just as easy/hard/whatever as the old RC system was. Oh, but my boot times are way shorter than they used to be.
Nobody has been robbed. TSX today works exactly as well as TSX worked yesterday, and considering that Haswell has been on the market for over 1 year, I assure you that anybody who has been chomping at the bit to use TSX has been using TSX.
If the TSX erratum were trivially easy to trigger, then this article would have been posted last spring before Haswell even launched.
Intel has done the responsible thing by acknowledging the bug (trust me son, AMD & Nvidia often don't bother with that part of the process) and giving developers the OPTION to either use TSX as-is or disable it to ensure that it cannot cause instability no matter what weird operating conditions can occur.
Tell ya what, why don't you take all your nerd-rage over to AMD or ARM where they won't rob you of all kinds of advanced features that they just don't bother to implement at all.
You can still "play with this instruction" all you want.
What happened here is that a third party developer managed to uncover a corner case where certain interactions with TSX can lead to instability. In order to be safe, Intel acknowledged the bug (a refreshing response) and is now giving you the OPTION to disable TSX if you feel that it could impinge the stability of a production load.
So basically: Go ahead and play with TSX all you want, but be aware of the errata and that it's theoretically possible to hang your machine in some corner cases.
Uh.. given that sort of standard, no Android application has ever been developed since the x86 PCs that are used to develop 100% of Android applications lack practically all features of the ARM SoCs that run those applications (the only exceptions being the newer Baytrail Android tablets that are also x86).
Also: There's a space of about a million miles between "TSX ALWAYS FAILS EVERY SINGLE TIME NO EXCEPTIONS AND CAN NEVER BE USED EVAR!!" with "Oh, we found through extensive testing that under certain conditions TSX can cause issues. Don't use it for your nuclear power plant control system, but it's perfectly fine for non-critical testing. Oh, and just to be safe, we've made a microcode update to disable it."
Articles like this have been around since the 1980s and have appeared on Slashdot before in regards to practically every stealth aircraft in existence including at least the F-117 and the B2.
Here's the kicker though: The long-wave radars that can sort of track stealth aircraft aren't able to track them with the precision needed to get a missile up there to shoot one down. If an adversary already knows that you are sending planes into a general geographic region, then the long-wave radar doesn't really tell them anything that they didn't know already.
Anyone in the military who has dealt with stealth technology will tell you that "stealth" is much more than a coating or wing shape that magically makes your airplane disappear. It's a whole strategy that uses technology + suitable tactics to make stealth work in practical situations. Stealth aircraft are not completely invisible and do not have to be completely invisible to be effective.
Sorry, but I'm not going to get my panties in a bind that the NSA is spying on other countries' governments considering:
1. That's the NSA's freakin' job.
2. Anybody who thinks that the only country in the world that spies is the U.S. is either an idiot or a liar.
Uh... as somebody who knows a LOT more about patents than you do... what you just said is a complete (and likely intentionally disingenous) misreading of a relatively simple part of the statute that is merely there to prevent a substantial loss of patent term due to the bureaucracy at the USPTO taking too long to do their jobs (which they often do, being government bureaucrats).
Slashdot Mirror
Since this is GNOME, does anybody have a link to the official list of features that have been removed from this version?
Yes, and I'm sure you're next post will be that nobody on the face of the earth has ever EVAR claimed that:
1. Hurricane Katrina
2. "Superstorm"* Sandy
3. The smelt-made California Drought
4. 2011 Japanese Tsunami **
5. Back to back record years for agriculture in the midwest in 2013-2014 ***
were caused by global warming!!
* So named because it wasn't even strong enough to count as a real hurricane... while stronger storms have been known to hit NYC in the 19th and early 20th centuries!
** Yes, earthquakes are now caused by Global Warming. Get with the politcally correct program you denialist scum.
*** No wait, that's not post-apocalyptic bad sounding. Two consecutive years of weather patterns over an entire geographic region is just an insignificant random weather event...
Now, a not-particularly unusually strong hurricane that happens to hit a low-lying city that's in the middle of a region where you expect to see hurricanes over a 12 hour period... THAT'S CLIMATE CHANGE YOU DENIALIST SCUM!
I read Patently-O regularly. Good to see someone who actually knows what is going on on Slashdot for a change...
"Although the patent industry broadly speaking sees the Alice verdict as a death knell for patents"
OK, the only thing wrong with that little click-bait snipped is the lack of the words "nobody in" between "Although" and "the".
Considering the first graphical web browser was written for the Next Operating system, I'm going to assume that your stupid little rant is to make you feel better about hating Windows (wow! aren't you a rebel!) and less about anything to do with software development... of which you obviously know nothing.
I was waiting for somebody to fall into the "BUT LIBRARIES!" trap...
You do realize that you just said that Windows 8 now follows the UNIX PHILOSOPHY because boy oh boy does it have libraries!
Oh... but you didn't really mean that you say? You meant.. MODULAR instead right? Well in that case, if you actually knew anything about SystemD, you would know that it *is* modular almost to a fault so that's no it either.
It sounds great in theory but...
1. If you really buy that principle and want to enforce it religiously, then please never use a web browser again (even Lynx!), not to mention any other complex program that isn't formed from a bunch of small "do one thing well!" utilities that are executed in a pipeline.
2. Please tear up your Richard Stallman fanclub cards because what little software he's written has mostly been Emacs and Emacs is the anti-UNIX based on the "pure" UNIX philosophy.
That't the issue: Every single person who hates SystemD because "UNIX PHILOSOPHY!!" has no problem violating that philosophy to actually get things done in a whole bunch of other areas. That's not even bringing up the fact that SystemD is.. wait for it... built from a bunch of individual utilities that can actually be used by non-systemd programs.
If it's a "software patent" where it's really just a financial transaction with an "on a computer" part added, then it's in trouble.
However, lots & lots of patents that include computing systems where software is in the mix will be perfectly fine as long as they are actually directed to technological improvements as opposed to business method + computer claims.
It's very common for a paper to get rejected on the initial go-around but for the journal in question to provide hints about how the problems with the paper could be addressed to make it publishable.
The bigger issue here appears to be that the followup process didn't happen in a thorough and rigorous manner or that all the extra data the journal requested ended up being manipulated/faked.
The silly notion that splashing ARM across your chip means it will always win in low-power devices just got the final nail driven into its coffin.
and the GPU drivers have been mainlined in the Kernel for everyone to see for several months already.
Samsung: So big that it patent trolls itself.
That's right, we can send Bennett over to our friends at ISIS and he can give them annoyling irrelevant advice about the exact type of eco-aware synthetic materials that they should use in their head-chopping knife scabbards. If we're lucky, they'll chop their own heads off in sheer frustration after they're done with him, and we'll kill 2 birds with one stone.
The 5820K is packing 6 cores and an unlocked multiplier for less than $400. If you don't absolutely need the full 8-core 5960X, then the 5820K is going to be a very powerful part at a reasonable price for the level of performance it delivers.
[quote]Right now I'm running two copies of Eclipse from a VM, displaying on the host machine's desktop using X-forwarding. Under Wayland, that'll require either pushing megabytes of pixels every time I scroll a window, or using some god-awful VNC crap.[/quote]
Let me fix that for you:
Using X-forwarding *right freaking now* you are pushing megabytes of pixels every time you scroll a window because every single modern toolkit operates that way and you have obviously got problems distinguishing between a simple tutorial on the 1985 version of xterm vs. how real applications that are forwarded over sockets in the real world actually behave.
1. Not that often for my desktop systems, but quite a bit for all those mobile devices out there. P.S. --> anybody who brags about ** years of uptime on a server deserves to be shot for failing to apply updates.
2. I don't care if I only save 1 second: time savings are important.
TL;DR version: You spend around 20 years getting used to the old way of doing it and now you can't stand change.
My story: Been using Linux heavily since 2000. Arch adopted Systemd big-time in 2013 or so. I spent a little while learning the new commands, and now it's just as easy/hard/whatever as the old RC system was. Oh, but my boot times are way shorter than they used to be.
Nobody has been robbed.
TSX today works exactly as well as TSX worked yesterday, and considering that Haswell has been on the market for over 1 year, I assure you that anybody who has been chomping at the bit to use TSX has been using TSX.
If the TSX erratum were trivially easy to trigger, then this article would have been posted last spring before Haswell even launched.
Intel has done the responsible thing by acknowledging the bug (trust me son, AMD & Nvidia often don't bother with that part of the process) and giving developers the OPTION to either use TSX as-is or disable it to ensure that it cannot cause instability no matter what weird operating conditions can occur.
Tell ya what, why don't you take all your nerd-rage over to AMD or ARM where they won't rob you of all kinds of advanced features that they just don't bother to implement at all.
You can still "play with this instruction" all you want.
What happened here is that a third party developer managed to uncover a corner case where certain interactions with TSX can lead to instability. In order to be safe, Intel acknowledged the bug (a refreshing response) and is now giving you the OPTION to disable TSX if you feel that it could impinge the stability of a production load.
So basically: Go ahead and play with TSX all you want, but be aware of the errata and that it's theoretically possible to hang your machine in some corner cases.
Uh.. given that sort of standard, no Android application has ever been developed since the x86 PCs that are used to develop 100% of Android applications lack practically all features of the ARM SoCs that run those applications (the only exceptions being the newer Baytrail Android tablets that are also x86).
Also: There's a space of about a million miles between "TSX ALWAYS FAILS EVERY SINGLE TIME NO EXCEPTIONS AND CAN NEVER BE USED EVAR!!" with "Oh, we found through extensive testing that under certain conditions TSX can cause issues. Don't use it for your nuclear power plant control system, but it's perfectly fine for non-critical testing. Oh, and just to be safe, we've made a microcode update to disable it."
Articles like this have been around since the 1980s and have appeared on Slashdot before in regards to practically every stealth aircraft in existence including at least the F-117 and the B2.
Here's the kicker though: The long-wave radars that can sort of track stealth aircraft aren't able to track them with the precision needed to get a missile up there to shoot one down. If an adversary already knows that you are sending planes into a general geographic region, then the long-wave radar doesn't really tell them anything that they didn't know already.
Anyone in the military who has dealt with stealth technology will tell you that "stealth" is much more than a coating or wing shape that magically makes your airplane disappear. It's a whole strategy that uses technology + suitable tactics to make stealth work in practical situations. Stealth aircraft are not completely invisible and do not have to be completely invisible to be effective.
Sorry, but I'm not going to get my panties in a bind that the NSA is spying on other countries' governments considering:
1. That's the NSA's freakin' job.
2. Anybody who thinks that the only country in the world that spies is the U.S. is either an idiot or a liar.
Uh... as somebody who knows a LOT more about patents than you do... what you just said is a complete (and likely intentionally disingenous) misreading of a relatively simple part of the statute that is merely there to prevent a substantial loss of patent term due to the bureaucracy at the USPTO taking too long to do their jobs (which they often do, being government bureaucrats).
Fascinating, so what part of patents having a fixed maximum 20 year lifetime is not "limited time" to you?
Are you still stuck with Windows 95 where anything beyond 49.5 days is considered infinity because the computer crashes?
But But But... the "science is settled"!!
So therefore, this satellite is redundant and must be a propaganda tool put in place by Big Evil Republican Oil concerns.