There would be pretty big grounds for a lawsuit, I mean there is a huge difference between illegally pirating software and simply ignoring an unenforceable, and therefore invalid EULA clause.
Well, I think most phone monkies simply call the next number on the computer. A lot of places now call people automaticaly and then forward the phone call to an operator only if someone picks up. I guess on low-volume places might not use such tech, but if they are so low volume a 60 second check wouldn't kill anyone.
Pretty easily. 32 bit CPUs can run 64 bit code just fine, they just need to split the operations in two. But most programs hardly ever use 64-bit ints, so it's not really a big deal. Its entirely possible for a fast 32bit machine to beat a slower 64 bit machine for lots of purposes.
is anyone buying itanium chips? I think most of intel's fire in the server market comes from Xeon sales. The Opteron competes against the Xeon, not the itanium.
You have IE setup to automaticaly redirect you to MSN based searches. kuri5hin.org brings up the standard IE 'DNS error' for me. Try putting the http:// in front of the URL, at least
They are getting the numbers out of a database anyway. You think they really just sit there and pull numbers out of a phonebook? All they have to do is remove all the numbers from their DB that are in the NDCL.
There's no law that says patents should only be used in defense. These fuckers who sit on patents, or buy them only to prevent progress (kinda like SCO, I think a company that does this is named 'softbank', not sure though) are kind of defeating the purpose, but still patents are not even intended to be used in defense only.
And patents have nothing to do with the DMCA anyway
So is this the way the search engine competition will be won? Through patents and lawsuits?"
No, but it is the way the advertizement wars will be faught. If yahoo keeps up the lawsuits, they'll probably with happy getting some royalties from google.
Lets not forget that The FSF makes, and spends, quite a bit of money anyway. They spend quite a bit of money on running servers and stuff, probably more then bitkeeper.
Believe it or not, the American laws, the DMCA included, and the American Courts interpretation of those laws does not apply to the rest of world yet. Bush may eventually change that with his army, but for the time being, as Allan says, "reverse engineering for interoperability" is legal is most civilized countries (and even in some not-so-civilised ones).
Actually, it's not illegal in the US either. In fact, the DMCA explicitly allows reverse engineering of copyright controls for interoperability and cryptographic research. The DMCA doesn't say anything about things that don't have anything to do with copyright controls, but reverse engineering has always been legal in general.
An NP complete problem is one that takes non-polynomial time to find the optimal answer, but can be verified in polynomial time. A genetic algorithm is similar, you need to have a fast fitness algorithm, or an operator who does the selection for you. If neither of those things are practical, then you probably shouldn't use a GA.
On the other hand, there are a lot of things that you can use GAs for.
You know what I always found interesting. It's like these systems of thinking create newer systems of thinking. Evolution created Neural networks, and eventually created neural networks that can think and create things much faster then evolution (the human mind)
Then the human mind goes and creates digital computers, which again can do things the Neural network can't (and vise versa).
Anyway, just thought it was intresting.
Re:Why are they running Windows then?
on
Can .NET Really Scale?
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
A) This consultant, it sounds like, is largely or exclusively MS. He's not going to suggest Open Source software to his client because that will mean a loss in business. You can hardly blame him; you gotta go with what you know.
Sure you can. If he's not smart enough to figure out how to do what what these people want using the Microsoft 'suit' of software (windows, sql server, ASP) or the OSS one (Linux, apache, PHP, whatever), or the Java one (some servlet engine, jsp, etc) or whatever he really doesn't deserve the contract, IMO. That stuff isn't that hard to figure out.
The amount of money they'd save using OSS would be enough to buy at least one more whole box (SQL server ain't cheap)
SQL Server doesn't support C# triggers or a way to embed C# applications within the database
Actualy, SQL lets you embed actual binary code in the database, using 'extendedstored procedures'. You load up a DLL and the code runs inside MSSQL's memory space. (using a dll) Obviously its risky, but probably pretty fast. You could probably write a.net dll and use that in an extended stored procedure.
If I spend years writing a program using no code other than my own, I
can release it under any license I want. If I incorporate BSD licensed
code into my program, I can still use any license I want, so long as I
preserve copyright notices. If, however, I want to include GPLed code in
my program, the GPL forces me to release my program under the GPL. It
has *infected* my program. This is where the term `viral' originates
with regard to the GPL.
This is not true. The GPL dosn't force you to do anything you don't want to do, but if you want to redistribute the GPL'd code then you have to GPL your code. There's a big diffrence
But I bet that 99% of the 'you're a winner' IMs will not be from microsoft, but rather spammers. I remember after Iwon.com setup there 'win every time you search' thing just about half the popups out there said 'you're a winner! click here to claim your prize'
I think a good number of pople will get these things and just assume they are some kind of spam...
BitTorrent was never "designed" as a piracy method, it just happened to be usefull for it, just like FTP and IRC. It does require a central server to 'get things started'.
I don't think the original intent of BT was warez. And unlike Napster or Kazza each file forms it's own network, so infringing traffic is totally separate from legitimate traffic.
Honestly, hosting a Bit Torrent seed for a copyrighted file is no different then hosting the file itself, other then the lowered bandwidth bill.
Shutting down BT wouldn't make any more sense then banning HTTP or SMTP, both of which can be used to infringe copyright. BitTorrent is hugely helpful for small content developers who want to distribute their work, especially if they become popular.
I don't see how bit torrent could be shut down. There's no legal reason for the developers to stop coding and distributing their files, and there's no reason to stop legitimate users and uses.
On the other hand, people who host seeds for files they don't own the copyright too are obviously in violation of copyright laws, and the copyright owners have every right to C&D them or take them to court.
Apparently the only thing that the LGPL causes is that you must not disallow reverse engineering and post-purchase modification.
In other words, if you use an LGPL'd library. You can't sell your software and then say "You can't reverse engineer this!" or "You can't modify the binary on your own computer!"
What exactly is it that prevents this with java? It seems to me that you can reverse-engineer java code without the source, or whatever.
Slashdot Mirror
There would be pretty big grounds for a lawsuit, I mean there is a huge difference between illegally pirating software and simply ignoring an unenforceable, and therefore invalid EULA clause.
Well, I think most phone monkies simply call the next number on the computer. A lot of places now call people automaticaly and then forward the phone call to an operator only if someone picks up. I guess on low-volume places might not use such tech, but if they are so low volume a 60 second check wouldn't kill anyone.
Can order CDs from cheapbytes most of the distros they have are less then $6.
How can you compair a Athlon to a G5?
Pretty easily. 32 bit CPUs can run 64 bit code just fine, they just need to split the operations in two. But most programs hardly ever use 64-bit ints, so it's not really a big deal. Its entirely possible for a fast 32bit machine to beat a slower 64 bit machine for lots of purposes.
is anyone buying itanium chips? I think most of intel's fire in the server market comes from Xeon sales. The Opteron competes against the Xeon, not the itanium.
and they expire pretty quickly, actualy...
You have IE setup to automaticaly redirect you to MSN based searches. kuri5hin.org brings up the standard IE 'DNS error' for me. Try putting the http:// in front of the URL, at least
They are getting the numbers out of a database anyway. You think they really just sit there and pull numbers out of a phonebook? All they have to do is remove all the numbers from their DB that are in the NDCL.
Patent law has always been about cornering the market. That's what it's for. that's the whole point
There's no law that says patents should only be used in defense. These fuckers who sit on patents, or buy them only to prevent progress (kinda like SCO, I think a company that does this is named 'softbank', not sure though) are kind of defeating the purpose, but still patents are not even intended to be used in defense only.
And patents have nothing to do with the DMCA anyway
So is this the way the search engine competition will be won? Through patents and lawsuits?"
No, but it is the way the advertizement wars will be faught. If yahoo keeps up the lawsuits, they'll probably with happy getting some royalties from google.
"We own the IP to linux. No, we won't show you why we think we own the IP, you'll have to trust us. Now give us money."
Lets not forget that The FSF makes, and spends, quite a bit of money anyway. They spend quite a bit of money on running servers and stuff, probably more then bitkeeper.
Believe it or not, the American laws, the DMCA included, and the American Courts interpretation of those laws does not apply to the rest of world yet. Bush may eventually change that with his army, but for the time being, as Allan says, "reverse engineering for interoperability" is legal is most civilized countries (and even in some not-so-civilised ones).
Actually, it's not illegal in the US either. In fact, the DMCA explicitly allows reverse engineering of copyright controls for interoperability and cryptographic research. The DMCA doesn't say anything about things that don't have anything to do with copyright controls, but reverse engineering has always been legal in general.
An NP complete problem is one that takes non-polynomial time to find the optimal answer, but can be verified in polynomial time. A genetic algorithm is similar, you need to have a fast fitness algorithm, or an operator who does the selection for you. If neither of those things are practical, then you probably shouldn't use a GA.
On the other hand, there are a lot of things that you can use GAs for.
You know what I always found interesting. It's like these systems of thinking create newer systems of thinking. Evolution created Neural networks, and eventually created neural networks that can think and create things much faster then evolution (the human mind)
Then the human mind goes and creates digital computers, which again can do things the Neural network can't (and vise versa).
Anyway, just thought it was intresting.
A) This consultant, it sounds like, is largely or exclusively MS. He's not going to suggest Open Source software to his client because that will mean a loss in business. You can hardly blame him; you gotta go with what you know.
Sure you can. If he's not smart enough to figure out how to do what what these people want using the Microsoft 'suit' of software (windows, sql server, ASP) or the OSS one (Linux, apache, PHP, whatever), or the Java one (some servlet engine, jsp, etc) or whatever he really doesn't deserve the contract, IMO. That stuff isn't that hard to figure out.
The amount of money they'd save using OSS would be enough to buy at least one more whole box (SQL server ain't cheap)
SQL Server doesn't support C# triggers or a way to embed C# applications within the database
.net dll and use that in an extended stored procedure.
Actualy, SQL lets you embed actual binary code in the database, using 'extendedstored procedures'. You load up a DLL and the code runs inside MSSQL's memory space. (using a dll) Obviously its risky, but probably pretty fast. You could probably write a
If I spend years writing a program using no code other than my own, I can release it under any license I want. If I incorporate BSD licensed code into my program, I can still use any license I want, so long as I preserve copyright notices. If, however, I want to include GPLed code in my program, the GPL forces me to release my program under the GPL. It has *infected* my program. This is where the term `viral' originates with regard to the GPL.
This is not true. The GPL dosn't force you to do anything you don't want to do, but if you want to redistribute the GPL'd code then you have to GPL your code. There's a big diffrence
But I bet that 99% of the 'you're a winner' IMs will not be from microsoft, but rather spammers. I remember after Iwon.com setup there 'win every time you search' thing just about half the popups out there said 'you're a winner! click here to claim your prize'
I think a good number of pople will get these things and just assume they are some kind of spam...
BitTorrent was never "designed" as a piracy method, it just happened to be usefull for it, just like FTP and IRC. It does require a central server to 'get things started'.
I don't think the original intent of BT was warez. And unlike Napster or Kazza each file forms it's own network, so infringing traffic is totally separate from legitimate traffic.
Honestly, hosting a Bit Torrent seed for a copyrighted file is no different then hosting the file itself, other then the lowered bandwidth bill.
Shutting down BT wouldn't make any more sense then banning HTTP or SMTP, both of which can be used to infringe copyright. BitTorrent is hugely helpful for small content developers who want to distribute their work, especially if they become popular.
I don't see how bit torrent could be shut down. There's no legal reason for the developers to stop coding and distributing their files, and there's no reason to stop legitimate users and uses.
On the other hand, people who host seeds for files they don't own the copyright too are obviously in violation of copyright laws, and the copyright owners have every right to C&D them or take them to court.
Apparently the only thing that the LGPL causes is that you must not disallow reverse engineering and post-purchase modification.
In other words, if you use an LGPL'd library. You can't sell your software and then say "You can't reverse engineer this!" or "You can't modify the binary on your own computer!"
What exactly is it that prevents this with java? It seems to me that you can reverse-engineer java code without the source, or whatever.
What about isbn.nu? That site's been around for years and does much the same thing as this booklist site.