Something similar happened on a system I was administrating, and it was because of faulty memory. I tested with memtest86 and found that there was a subtle defect in the motherboard memory chip configuration.
... I don't know, but knowing how to take screen shots and knowing about CTRL-Alt-Del to look at processor usage time is pretty amateur. Let's see some statistical comparisons that are actually meaningful.
Yeah? Let's see it from a professional. Why don't you do it? Do you not realize that he is stating his personal opinion based on his personal experience, did you get the impression this was claimed to be an impartial academic study?
Microsoft could announce that they're giving away all their products for free, donating all the patents they own to the FSF, and giving a free XBox to every Internet Explorer user, and folks would still find something to complain about.
Yes, but then you could refute those arguments easily; can you refute the arguments here? Because some people are paranoid and voice unfounded concerns does not mean there is nothing to be afraid of.
Maybe because we are worried, but a worry is not proof and locking them up on a "worry" would be cruel and unusual punishment?
Just to clarify: I think tracking these people all their lives is also cruel and unusual punishment. However, I think it can be part of their plea bargain, to be used by their lawyers not the DA.
Re:Long story short....
on
NeroLinux vs. K3b
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Analogies should be used to illustrate and explain a point, not to extrapolate from it or to come to conclusions or to give advice.
It is natural that the GNU/Linux community has higher expectations, and is more critical. Higher expectations is usually what makes people part of this community in the first place. If you want to appeal to this community, you have to play a better ball game. IMHO, the criticism is just and well placed. Most of us will not be content with what Windows users are content with, and it is good to let our voice be heard as much as possible.
It is very rare that you have to upgrade the kernel, check if you need to, before upgrading.
Nvidia drivers are kernel modules, so you need to run their installation program every time you upgrade the kernel, since hookups in the kernel may change and a module compiled for a given version of kernel may not work flawlessly with another version. This does not mean upgrade breaks video drivers, if you had to rewrite the drivers, then I would call it breaking.
You are barking at the wrong tree. If Nvidia release the source for their drivers, then it could be included in the kernel tree and you would not need to upgrade drivers seperately. That is not going to happen in foreseeable future. I do not think it is fair to blame Linus for this.
If you are familiar with Heisenberg's uncertainity principle, then maybe you know it has an alternative formulation in terms of energy and time, rather than canonical position and momentum. This is the basis of the uncertainity of time in radioactive decay. Radioactive decay has a cause, I do not think I wrote that it did not have. We actually understand it quite well: it is a transition, between two given states of a system, and we know which forces are involved. So, we know what energy ranges should be expected of the end products, and what is the probability distribution for the time of decay, but the exact time (or the exact energy) is unpredictable. This does not mean there is no cause, but knowing the cause does not provide a full description of the event in the classical sense. According to quantum mechanics, that is the full description, though. This is very hard to accept and even Einstein tried to defeat it throughout his career. Google for photon-box experiment.
With a minor in physics you will learn about these things inevitably. There was one piece of advice that was very useful for me, and I will repeat it "Quantum mechanics takes a long time to learn, start as early as possible". Good luck.
FYI, quoting does not require using quotes. To quote means: 1. a : to speak or write (a passage) from another usually with credit acknowledgment b : to repeat a passage from especially in substantiation or illustration, 4: to set off by quotation marks. (from m-w.com).
Let me rephrase: You left out an important piece of information while reproducing information elsewhere.
Your discussion of types of search is not only irrelevant but so ridicilous that it makes me think you are deliberately trying to mud the waters so people will not see the point.
There he was informed that if he was not willing to show ID he could fly, but only if he submitted to a far more intrusive search than what every passenger goes through at the security checkpoint. (emphasis mine)
No. It is not that we cannot predict, it is unpredictable. Think of uncertainity principle of Heisenberg: We cannot measure the momentum and position of a particle to arbitrary accuracy simultaneously. This is not because our equipment is incapable, it is a property of nature. The unpredictability of the decay of a radioactive isotope is similar.
I hate to have a holier than thou attitude but if you do not have a physics/chemistry background this is very hard to understand and accept. I would strongly recommend the adventures of Mr. Tompkins written by George Gamov (I am sure your local library has copies of this, or the books which form this one's content) for a pedagogical introduction, if you are interested in this. If you let me know what your education and interest level is I can point you to possibly more advanced but more technical texts.
No. There is no law of physics that determine when a radioactive decay occurs. Actually everything we know indicates a law cannot be formulated to determine that point in time, since it is not a well posed question. In other words, there is no way for us to determine this point in time, because it is not an observable (in the quantum mechanical sense).
For 9-11 American government had and still has everything to apologize for. At the very least, the American government created Usama bin Laden. Remember?
Just for the record I agree this is idiotic, but I do not agree with some of your comments.
Except that as a consumer / web searcher when I search for "Louis Vuitton" (not that I have ever even heard of that brand) I *want* to see everything about it and everything like it.
You still can, but they will not be sponsored links
Next thing you know they are going to prevent sites that are critical of a brand from buying search terms - i.e. say some site has important dirt on Nike regarding child labor allegations - is it going to be illegal for that site to buy an adword to show up when someone searches for Nike?
At least in the US, free speech protection is different for commercial and political speech. This does not necessarily set a precedent for those cases.
This being said, I find it really strange that the burden is solely on Google. A trademark is protected only in a given context, and this context can be determined much more easily by the company/person who buys the ad.
This still does not prevent fraudalent transfers if you do online banking and your computer is taken over by a trojan. It should be possible for a bank to simply restrict some actions to certain accounts. The burden should not be on the customer.
but the header files are included in the compiled executable. it does not matter if you cut and paste or use the C preprocessor to include these files, they are still copied over and the final product is hence a derived work. if you distribute the source code w/o compiling anything then you can say "I am not using any GPL'ed code, but using those GPL'ed code is a good way to use this source I provide."
You missed the point. If you take correlations into account, for two successive frames you may not need to compute all pixels independently in the second frame. Deciding whether a pixel changes is a part of computation.
I'd imagine rendering each pixel independently in a given frame would be extremely impractical anyways, they are not independent and you need to distribute the information that can be reused for adjacent pixels to different machines if you treat them independent.
The list is not in alphabetical order, even if it was, the proper way to refer to an acedemic work is First Author et al. or so-and-so collaboration. Being team leader may not mean much either. He may be writing the grant proposals and the students may be doing the actual work.
...Freedom meets being able to do what you want to do. It doesn't mean being able to do whatever somebody else thinks you should be doing. Maybe someone will abuse the privilege. That's part of what it means to give someone freedom: Allowing them to do things you don't approve of.
This is an extreme example but I think it is quite instructive on how to think about these issues: Think of slavery. Obviously disallowing human trade reduces some people's freedom. However it protects other people's rights. GPL does put restrictions on distribution of software, but does so to protect the author's and more importantly the general public's rights; the latter through the formation of a community and mindset. The creators and users of GPL think that, this benefit outweighs the restrictions brought. If you oppose this point of view, it is of course open to discussion; however, please note that simply removing more constraints does not always increase increase freedom.
no... their copyright would be invalid, since they are not the creator of the work they copyrighted. their application for copyright would have zero impact on the case of original creator's.
this is not a race condition, either. there are not two equally valid requests for a single resource, that you need to choose from. one person is the creator, the other is not. you are neither geek nor lawyer seemingly.
There are further security measures effective in those situations as well. chroot jails and restricted shells come to my mind. Not having a compiler installed and having a monolithic kernel with no module loading support also helps. Big university systems should have admins a lot more knowledable than me, so I expect them to have more stronger measures in place.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is not this is a patent by Amazon, the point is this is an absurd patent.
Something similar happened on a system I was administrating, and it was because of faulty memory. I tested with memtest86 and found that there was a subtle defect in the motherboard memory chip configuration.
Yeah? Let's see it from a professional. Why don't you do it? Do you not realize that he is stating his personal opinion based on his personal experience, did you get the impression this was claimed to be an impartial academic study?
Yes, but then you could refute those arguments easily; can you refute the arguments here? Because some people are paranoid and voice unfounded concerns does not mean there is nothing to be afraid of.
proof???
you use that word, but do you know what it means?
Just to clarify: I think tracking these people all their lives is also cruel and unusual punishment. However, I think it can be part of their plea bargain, to be used by their lawyers not the DA.
It is natural that the GNU/Linux community has higher expectations, and is more critical. Higher expectations is usually what makes people part of this community in the first place. If you want to appeal to this community, you have to play a better ball game. IMHO, the criticism is just and well placed. Most of us will not be content with what Windows users are content with, and it is good to let our voice be heard as much as possible.
or, they might have updated their webpage after realizing someone was using senseless titles for higher ranks.
With a minor in physics you will learn about these things inevitably. There was one piece of advice that was very useful for me, and I will repeat it "Quantum mechanics takes a long time to learn, start as early as possible". Good luck.
Let me rephrase: You left out an important piece of information while reproducing information elsewhere.
Your discussion of types of search is not only irrelevant but so ridicilous that it makes me think you are deliberately trying to mud the waters so people will not see the point.
There he was informed that if he was not willing to show ID he could fly, but only if he submitted to a far more intrusive search than what every passenger goes through at the security checkpoint. (emphasis mine)
I hate to have a holier than thou attitude but if you do not have a physics/chemistry background this is very hard to understand and accept. I would strongly recommend the adventures of Mr. Tompkins written by George Gamov (I am sure your local library has copies of this, or the books which form this one's content) for a pedagogical introduction, if you are interested in this. If you let me know what your education and interest level is I can point you to possibly more advanced but more technical texts.
No. There is no law of physics that determine when a radioactive decay occurs. Actually everything we know indicates a law cannot be formulated to determine that point in time, since it is not a well posed question. In other words, there is no way for us to determine this point in time, because it is not an observable (in the quantum mechanical sense).
For 9-11 American government had and still has everything to apologize for. At the very least, the American government created Usama bin Laden. Remember?
Except that as a consumer / web searcher when I search for "Louis Vuitton" (not that I have ever even heard of that brand) I *want* to see everything about it and everything like it.
You still can, but they will not be sponsored links
Next thing you know they are going to prevent sites that are critical of a brand from buying search terms - i.e. say some site has important dirt on Nike regarding child labor allegations - is it going to be illegal for that site to buy an adword to show up when someone searches for Nike?
At least in the US, free speech protection is different for commercial and political speech. This does not necessarily set a precedent for those cases.
This being said, I find it really strange that the burden is solely on Google. A trademark is protected only in a given context, and this context can be determined much more easily by the company/person who buys the ad.
This still does not prevent fraudalent transfers if you do online banking and your computer is taken over by a trojan. It should be possible for a bank to simply restrict some actions to certain accounts. The burden should not be on the customer.
If they have access to information of who registered what domain name, they can weed out link farmers much more easily.
what the hell is armadillo porn??
but the header files are included in the compiled executable. it does not matter if you cut and paste or use the C preprocessor to include these files, they are still copied over and the final product is hence a derived work. if you distribute the source code w/o compiling anything then you can say "I am not using any GPL'ed code, but using those GPL'ed code is a good way to use this source I provide."
I'd imagine rendering each pixel independently in a given frame would be extremely impractical anyways, they are not independent and you need to distribute the information that can be reused for adjacent pixels to different machines if you treat them independent.
RTFA carefully, eh?
...Freedom meets being able to do what you want to do. It doesn't mean being able to do whatever somebody else thinks you should be doing. Maybe someone will abuse the privilege. That's part of what it means to give someone freedom: Allowing them to do things you don't approve of.
This is an extreme example but I think it is quite instructive on how to think about these issues: Think of slavery. Obviously disallowing human trade reduces some people's freedom. However it protects other people's rights. GPL does put restrictions on distribution of software, but does so to protect the author's and more importantly the general public's rights; the latter through the formation of a community and mindset. The creators and users of GPL think that, this benefit outweighs the restrictions brought. If you oppose this point of view, it is of course open to discussion; however, please note that simply removing more constraints does not always increase increase freedom.
this is not a race condition, either. there are not two equally valid requests for a single resource, that you need to choose from. one person is the creator, the other is not. you are neither geek nor lawyer seemingly.
There are further security measures effective in those situations as well. chroot jails and restricted shells come to my mind. Not having a compiler installed and having a monolithic kernel with no module loading support also helps. Big university systems should have admins a lot more knowledable than me, so I expect them to have more stronger measures in place.