I voted in the Iowa caucus 4 years ago, and plan to do so again this year. I've been called probably... 5 or 6 times so far to be polled. I haven't been called by automatic polls, although several of the democratic candidates have sent automatic messages to my cell. Very annoying.
Does anyone really belive that Ralsky dislikes this law? Sure, he'll need to stop hacking, but this legitimizes his operation. All he needs to do is comply with a few regulations and he 'CAN-SPAM' to his hearts content. More honorable industries suffer far more regulations.
Um yeah. There's no such thing as a "fact" in science, only evedence and theories that fit the evidence. It's conjecture to say that sant aclause does not exist, but that dosn't mean its resonable to belive he does.
Many ideas that seem to be the best choice end up being the worst. Think investing in enron...
Enron involved intelegent agents creating false information in a multi-agent environment. Are you claming that there is some agent out there trying to deliberately decive people w.r.t the structure of the brain?
we can talk about it in high-level terms but find it very difficult to express and pin those down to low-level structures and chemical releases.
This is also totaly wrong, at the low level the brain is very well understood. We know exactly how neurons and most neurotransmitters work.
The two tasks outlined above are wholly different: the hypothalamus is hard-wired to various glands that release chemicals. The Brocas area (which controls speech) talks to other parts of the brain which do the action. Since the Broca's area is composed soley of neurons connected to other neurons, theoretically any part of the brain can take over its function -- it isn't hard-wired to any other non-neurone structures in the brain.
bla bla bla. All of the brain is composed of "neurons connected to other neurons". There are no "non-neurone" structures. The only neurons that are connected to anything else are in the eyes, ears, nose, etc, and touch sensors throughout the body. And yes, neurons in diffrent parts of the brain have diffrent structuress A neuron in the cerebellar cortex (not cerebral) is aranged in a plane with hundreds branches on its axion. This is vastly diffrent then, say a bipolar neuron in the eye. In addition to structure the arangement of neurons in diffrent parts of the brain is diffrent as well. Your claim is like saying the CPU floating point unit is "just transistors" and so DRAM chips should be able to do the same thing.
Memories are probably not formed by making new 'connections' but by inhibiting or
uninhibiting connections that already exist. So for example, if two already connected
neurons are both fired at the same time, a certain chemical will be released, which causes
proteins to be created that cause the post-synaptic (i.e. the one that receives the signal) to
be more sensitive to the other one.
So you can't just look for new connections, but actually count the number of receptor
pathways in each synapse. Those pathways are individual molecules large enough to allow
individual ions through, so it's extreemly unlikely that you'd ever find them on any kind of
scan.
Wtf does "multiresolution" have to do with the word "holographic" would it kill people to learn how to communicate (i.e. not be retards?)
Anyway, we do know how the brain works. It's been studied for a century and more research goes on every day. No one has ever uncovered any evidence that its anything other then a neural network. If you look at a centuries worth of scientific research, "it only makes sense".
In fact, there are lots of localized, spesific parts of the brain that, if damaged do cause you to lose skills. Sure, if you knock out some of the cerebral cortex, you might be OK. But if you take out the hypothalimus (for example) you will not be able to record any new non-motor memories (a motor memory would be like learning to ride a bike or type).
btw, I don't have access to a spellchecker, sorry for any errors.
We have absolutly no idea how most memory works. A very small amount of knowlage has been gained about how we learn motor actions (for example, how to type, how to ride a bike, but thats about it)
We also know how some very simple invertibrets 'learn' things, but these beings have a hardwired nervious system (every neuron is connected to all the same neurons in each animal, like an electronic circuit, rather then being grown chaoticaly as in higher life forms)
To date, no one has ever found an engram, or a physical representation of a memory in a human.
Unless they can make these thing small enough so that the frequency is inaudible, or include lots and lots of sound dampening, you're going to be hearing an annoying buzz all the time.
With all the recent talk about multi core processors, will this sort of thing be relegated to hardware; or will there still be a need for software scheduler?
Well, only if you want to run only as many threads as you have CPUs. The windows machine I'm using right now has 37 processes, some I'm sure with multiple threads. I suppose you could have a hardware scheduler, but I don't think it would be a good idea. Scheduling doesn't take much time (certainly not this O(1) jobby), so you would lose a lot of flexibility without a lot of gain.
Man, what the fuck are they talking about. "Feeding their families" is the last thing they need to worry about. This is about keeping their families well clothed, driving in nice cars, etc. If all they needed to do was keep them fed they could work at walmart or go on welfare. Either option would be better then contributing to a criminal enterprise.
By your logic, if someone stole a million dollars from a bank, it would be "ok" because they need to "feed their families" (caviar and champaign, I guess)
If speed's not important, why not use Perl or Java or something? High level languages protect against this kind of mistake. Of course you may be using C simply to use libraries that are only available for C.
You can use C libraries in Java, and I'm puretty sure Perl and Python and basicaly anything else as well. Sometimes it takes a bit of extra work (like wrapping it up in a windows DLL for Visual Basic in the extreme case) but generaly it's not that hard.
The specific errors in MySQL were dereferencing null pointers, failure to deallocate memory (memory leaks), and use an uninitialized variable. These aren't the only bugs that such an analysis can find; they're the ones that were found in MySQL. And they're definitely errors in logic.
And none of those can happen in Java, either. So by their mesure all java code should be 'perfict':P
I love java and all, but I don't think it's that great:)
I just want to see UL succeed, and Gtk way is easier to sell to commercial companies. Many companies would cringe if they were told that developing for Linux is more expensive than developing for Windows.
Dude, developing in house apps will still be free via the GPL. Not many companes actualy sell software, and those that do can either buy the license or use GTK.
Thirdly, big companies like Adobe can pay for Qt. But userlinux is targeting much smaller enterprises as well, and its doubtful if they can.
If you can't afford Qt, then you probably can't afford to pay programmers, or even to buy computers for them to program on.
The vast majority of bussness do their coding in house and don't release it. They can still do this with the GPL'd QT (although trolltech would like them to purchace a license). And if that's not good enough, they can still write KDE aps using GTK.
My understanding from what I have read is that if you are going to make a commercial product with QT, you need to buy a royalty license. Is that not the case?
You need to buy a per-seat license, not pay royalties. It's about twice as much as the cost of visual studio. But the important thing is the difference between commercial product and in-house software. The GPL allows you to write code inside the company and keep it 'personal'. You don't need to release it.
In fact, the way the GPL works, there's no way to prevent someone from using GPL'd code internally. It says right there in the first paragraph that you don't need to agree to the GPL to use the software, only to distribute the software.
The issue only comes up with companies that actually sell software. The vast majority of which do not.
Anyway, the way most companies are going, the code will probably be done in java, or used through a web browser anyway, making GUI development moot.
The license issue is not an issue for any business. I mean come on. We are talking about people who use windows for most of their work. Sure, in theory you can develop on windows without Visual Studio, but how many enterprises actually do? The Qt closed-source license fee is less then the cost of VS.net, and hell It's only about half a days worth of Programmer salary anyway. If you can afford to pay programmers, you can easily afford to buy Qt licenses. Or, you can run GTK apps in KDE. It's not like its difficult.
the cost of Qt is a complete non-issue for enterprise software.
Finally, if you are actually developing your own software, for release you're probably not going to need the same kind of 'hand holding' support packages from these companies.
You really think someone running windows isn't going to avoid KDE because the GPL isn't "free" enough for them, that they need LGPL?
UserLinux is targeted at the enterprise community. It probably (and hopefuly) be used by non-geeky types who simply use what is installed on their computers. You can see KDE go the same way as netscape if UserLinux ever becomes popular.
The reason that NS4.x died was because it sucked, plain and simple. Windows came with IE1, 2 and 3 and no one ever used them because they didn't have the features that netscape did. When IE4 came out, it was just better then netscape. The fact that it was installed helped, but NS was based on a bloated, shitty codebase that had been cramed with features without good engenering, and couldn't be fixed (mozilla, for example, is a totaly new codebase).
Netscape sowed the seeds of their own destruction.
Right now KDE is better. And it dosn't have the problems netscape did. In all honestly, I don't think userlinux will catch on untill Gnome is as good or better the KDE, or unless they use KDE.
Business don't give a fuck about needing to buy a $100 developer license to release closed code. Most of them aren't going to release closed source apps, and the GPL allows them to write internal applications and keep them secret.
and in any event, GTK is still an option for development on KDE based machines!
What business wants is a nice, consistent GUI, they don't care about GPL vs. LGPL vs. Closed source even. (Lots of them run windows). KDE is a smoother GUI, and better integrated. I honestly don't believe UserLinux will get that much traction if they stick with Gnome over KDE. KDE is much more 'professional' in terms of smoothness, etc. and that's what business care about.
I had (well, I still have I gues) A PDA with a replaceable battery. There was one tiny quarter-inch switch to unlock the door, and tiny seam around it. The Ipod would not need to look much different in order to allow battery replacement, if it had been well designed.
The iPod is well designed. Look how small it is! Isn't that cool?
A couple months ago, apple was just telling people to throw their ipods away if the battery died. I mean come on, they didn't even plan for this. How is that not poor design? What good is a "cool and good looking" device if you have to throw it away in a year and a half? $99/year isn't a bad deal at this point though, but it's an obvious hack solution.
Go and buy an iPod competitor, which will either be bigger, have no hard drive, take longer to upload to, have a non solid-state controls, have jaggy edges, have a crap user interface, or some combination thereof.
Yeah, maybe. But it might also have the ability to record audio, either from a mic or an optical input, maybe it'll have the ability to edit play lists on the fly, maybe it'll have built in Ethernet, maybe it'll play OOG and FLAC, etc etc etc. The features of the iPod are not the end-all be all of mp3 players. There is a huge selection with differing feature sets. The iPods niche is rabid fanboy's who can't even conceive of buying a competing product, and don't look at what else is available.
My cellphone has a replaceable Lithium Ion battery, and it's worked fine for over 3.5 years. I let it de charge fully, give it partial charges, etc. It definetly stops charging when its full
Yes, my mp3 player does not have lots of storage. But there is no reason that something that does have a lot of storage must use internal batteries. Some PDAs do use replaceable batteries, and they work just as well as those that use internal ones. Minidisk players use replaceable batteries, but require a lot more energy then hard drives do.
You could use four or five gumstick batteries behind the hard drive, which only take up about a quarter of an inch in depth.
If MA could opt out of the USA's Taxation and federal funding system, they would be better off. MA residents pay more in taxes then they get back in services.
Slashdot Mirror
A virus that needs a website to be up in order to work? talk about lame. Some of these virus coders are the stupidest people alive, I sware.
Brits call us "yanks" all the time. For what its worth, and Mexicans call us "Estunadounidoenese" or "united statesian"
Tell that to all the pollsters calling my cell.
I voted in the Iowa caucus 4 years ago, and plan to do so again this year. I've been called probably... 5 or 6 times so far to be polled. I haven't been called by automatic polls, although several of the democratic candidates have sent automatic messages to my cell. Very annoying.
Does anyone really belive that Ralsky dislikes this law? Sure, he'll need to stop hacking, but this legitimizes his operation. All he needs to do is comply with a few regulations and he 'CAN-SPAM' to his hearts content. More honorable industries suffer far more regulations.
Conjecture != fact
Um yeah. There's no such thing as a "fact" in science, only evedence and theories that fit the evidence. It's conjecture to say that sant aclause does not exist, but that dosn't mean its resonable to belive he does.
Many ideas that seem to be the best choice end up being the worst. Think investing in enron...
Enron involved intelegent agents creating false information in a multi-agent environment. Are you claming that there is some agent out there trying to deliberately decive people w.r.t the structure of the brain?
we can talk about it in high-level terms but find it very difficult to express and pin those down to low-level structures and chemical releases.
This is also totaly wrong, at the low level the brain is very well understood. We know exactly how neurons and most neurotransmitters work.
The two tasks outlined above are wholly different: the hypothalamus is hard-wired to various glands that release chemicals. The Brocas area (which controls speech) talks to other parts of the brain which do the action. Since the Broca's area is composed soley of neurons connected to other neurons, theoretically any part of the brain can take over its function -- it isn't hard-wired to any other non-neurone structures in the brain.
bla bla bla. All of the brain is composed of "neurons connected to other neurons". There are no "non-neurone" structures. The only neurons that are connected to anything else are in the eyes, ears, nose, etc, and touch sensors throughout the body. And yes, neurons in diffrent parts of the brain have diffrent structuress A neuron in the cerebellar cortex (not cerebral) is aranged in a plane with hundreds branches on its axion. This is vastly diffrent then, say a bipolar neuron in the eye. In addition to structure the arangement of neurons in diffrent parts of the brain is diffrent as well. Your claim is like saying the CPU floating point unit is "just transistors" and so DRAM chips should be able to do the same thing.
Sorry, won't work.
Memories are probably not formed by making new 'connections' but by inhibiting or uninhibiting connections that already exist. So for example, if two already connected neurons are both fired at the same time, a certain chemical will be released, which causes proteins to be created that cause the post-synaptic (i.e. the one that receives the signal) to be more sensitive to the other one.
So you can't just look for new connections, but actually count the number of receptor pathways in each synapse. Those pathways are individual molecules large enough to allow individual ions through, so it's extreemly unlikely that you'd ever find them on any kind of scan.
Feel the need to yammer on like this?
Wtf does "multiresolution" have to do with the word "holographic" would it kill people to learn how to communicate (i.e. not be retards?)
Anyway, we do know how the brain works. It's been studied for a century and more research goes on every day. No one has ever uncovered any evidence that its anything other then a neural network. If you look at a centuries worth of scientific research, "it only makes sense".
In fact, there are lots of localized, spesific parts of the brain that, if damaged do cause you to lose skills. Sure, if you knock out some of the cerebral cortex, you might be OK. But if you take out the hypothalimus (for example) you will not be able to record any new non-motor memories (a motor memory would be like learning to ride a bike or type).
btw, I don't have access to a spellchecker, sorry for any errors.
We have absolutly no idea how most memory works. A very small amount of knowlage has been gained about how we learn motor actions (for example, how to type, how to ride a bike, but thats about it)
We also know how some very simple invertibrets 'learn' things, but these beings have a hardwired nervious system (every neuron is connected to all the same neurons in each animal, like an electronic circuit, rather then being grown chaoticaly as in higher life forms)
To date, no one has ever found an engram, or a physical representation of a memory in a human.
It's a long way off.
Unless they can make these thing small enough so that the frequency is inaudible, or include lots and lots of sound dampening, you're going to be hearing an annoying buzz all the time.
With all the recent talk about multi core processors, will this sort of thing be relegated to hardware; or will there still be a need for software scheduler?
Well, only if you want to run only as many threads as you have CPUs. The windows machine I'm using right now has 37 processes, some I'm sure with multiple threads. I suppose you could have a hardware scheduler, but I don't think it would be a good idea. Scheduling doesn't take much time (certainly not this O(1) jobby), so you would lose a lot of flexibility without a lot of gain.
Man, what the fuck are they talking about. "Feeding their families" is the last thing they need to worry about. This is about keeping their families well clothed, driving in nice cars, etc. If all they needed to do was keep them fed they could work at walmart or go on welfare. Either option would be better then contributing to a criminal enterprise.
By your logic, if someone stole a million dollars from a bank, it would be "ok" because they need to "feed their families" (caviar and champaign, I guess)
If speed's not important, why not use Perl or Java or something? High level languages protect against this kind of mistake. Of course you may be using C simply to use libraries that are only available for C.
You can use C libraries in Java, and I'm puretty sure Perl and Python and basicaly anything else as well. Sometimes it takes a bit of extra work (like wrapping it up in a windows DLL for Visual Basic in the extreme case) but generaly it's not that hard.
The specific errors in MySQL were dereferencing null pointers, failure to deallocate memory (memory leaks), and use an uninitialized variable. These aren't the only bugs that such an analysis can find; they're the ones that were found in MySQL. And they're definitely errors in logic.
:P
:)
And none of those can happen in Java, either. So by their mesure all java code should be 'perfict'
I love java and all, but I don't think it's that great
I just want to see UL succeed, and Gtk way is easier to sell to commercial companies. Many companies would cringe if they were told that developing for Linux is more expensive than developing for Windows.
Dude, developing in house apps will still be free via the GPL. Not many companes actualy sell software, and those that do can either buy the license or use GTK.
Thirdly, big companies like Adobe can pay for Qt. But userlinux is targeting much smaller enterprises as well, and its doubtful if they can.
If you can't afford Qt, then you probably can't afford to pay programmers, or even to buy computers for them to program on.
The vast majority of bussness do their coding in house and don't release it. They can still do this with the GPL'd QT (although trolltech would like them to purchace a license). And if that's not good enough, they can still write KDE aps using GTK.
My understanding from what I have read is that if you are going to make a commercial product with QT, you need to buy a royalty license. Is that not the case?
You need to buy a per-seat license, not pay royalties. It's about twice as much as the cost of visual studio. But the important thing is the difference between commercial product and in-house software. The GPL allows you to write code inside the company and keep it 'personal'. You don't need to release it.
In fact, the way the GPL works, there's no way to prevent someone from using GPL'd code internally. It says right there in the first paragraph that you don't need to agree to the GPL to use the software, only to distribute the software.
The issue only comes up with companies that actually sell software. The vast majority of which do not.
Anyway, the way most companies are going, the code will probably be done in java, or used through a web browser anyway, making GUI development moot.
The license issue is not an issue for any business. I mean come on. We are talking about people who use windows for most of their work. Sure, in theory you can develop on windows without Visual Studio, but how many enterprises actually do? The Qt closed-source license fee is less then the cost of VS.net, and hell It's only about half a days worth of Programmer salary anyway. If you can afford to pay programmers, you can easily afford to buy Qt licenses. Or, you can run GTK apps in KDE. It's not like its difficult.
the cost of Qt is a complete non-issue for enterprise software.
Finally, if you are actually developing your own software, for release you're probably not going to need the same kind of 'hand holding' support packages from these companies.
You really think someone running windows isn't going to avoid KDE because the GPL isn't "free" enough for them, that they need LGPL?
UserLinux is targeted at the enterprise community. It probably (and hopefuly) be used by non-geeky types who simply use what is installed on their computers. You can see KDE go the same way as netscape if UserLinux ever becomes popular.
The reason that NS4.x died was because it sucked, plain and simple. Windows came with IE1, 2 and 3 and no one ever used them because they didn't have the features that netscape did. When IE4 came out, it was just better then netscape. The fact that it was installed helped, but NS was based on a bloated, shitty codebase that had been cramed with features without good engenering, and couldn't be fixed (mozilla, for example, is a totaly new codebase).
Netscape sowed the seeds of their own destruction.
Right now KDE is better. And it dosn't have the problems netscape did. In all honestly, I don't think userlinux will catch on untill Gnome is as good or better the KDE, or unless they use KDE.
Business don't give a fuck about needing to buy a $100 developer license to release closed code. Most of them aren't going to release closed source apps, and the GPL allows them to write internal applications and keep them secret.
and in any event, GTK is still an option for development on KDE based machines!
What business wants is a nice, consistent GUI, they don't care about GPL vs. LGPL vs. Closed source even. (Lots of them run windows). KDE is a smoother GUI, and better integrated. I honestly don't believe UserLinux will get that much traction if they stick with Gnome over KDE. KDE is much more 'professional' in terms of smoothness, etc. and that's what business care about.
it requires a single, cheap developer license. It's like $100 or something. And you can still develop in house aps for it, or use GTK with KDE.
I had (well, I still have I gues) A PDA with a replaceable battery. There was one tiny quarter-inch switch to unlock the door, and tiny seam around it. The Ipod would not need to look much different in order to allow battery replacement, if it had been well designed.
The iPod is well designed. Look how small it is! Isn't that cool?
A couple months ago, apple was just telling people to throw their ipods away if the battery died. I mean come on, they didn't even plan for this. How is that not poor design? What good is a "cool and good looking" device if you have to throw it away in a year and a half? $99/year isn't a bad deal at this point though, but it's an obvious hack solution.
Go and buy an iPod competitor, which will either be bigger, have no hard drive, take longer to upload to, have a non solid-state controls, have jaggy edges, have a crap user interface, or some combination thereof.
Yeah, maybe. But it might also have the ability to record audio, either from a mic or an optical input, maybe it'll have the ability to edit play lists on the fly, maybe it'll have built in Ethernet, maybe it'll play OOG and FLAC, etc etc etc. The features of the iPod are not the end-all be all of mp3 players. There is a huge selection with differing feature sets. The iPods niche is rabid fanboy's who can't even conceive of buying a competing product, and don't look at what else is available.
My cellphone has a replaceable Lithium Ion battery, and it's worked fine for over 3.5 years. I let it de charge fully, give it partial charges, etc. It definetly stops charging when its full
Yes, my mp3 player does not have lots of storage. But there is no reason that something that does have a lot of storage must use internal batteries. Some PDAs do use replaceable batteries, and they work just as well as those that use internal ones. Minidisk players use replaceable batteries, but require a lot more energy then hard drives do.
You could use four or five gumstick batteries behind the hard drive, which only take up about a quarter of an inch in depth.
If MA could opt out of the USA's Taxation and federal funding system, they would be better off. MA residents pay more in taxes then they get back in services.
Over all, Mass is subsidizing the rest of the country. They put out more money in taxes then they take in services, including the big dig.