Bzzzt: Wrong. Cyclists are protected a bit, e.g. liability has to be proven by the motorist. But I still had to pay when I crashed head-first into an oncoming car a few years ago. Which by the way was quite a crash. If I had worn a helmet I would probably have claimed it had saved my life....
Surely you can't mean humans aren't 'machines'? Why sould we be not be able to build intuition into a machine? How do you think our intuition and common sense work? Magic?
can't say I'm surprised. They have some strange legal notions in Belgium
Yeah, one stupid company and the whole country should be avoided. Expert advice, Wayne!
This is quite a sensible decision by the belgian court, I think. Several newspapers offer the news
of today for free on their websites, and let you pay for searching the archives.
Google caches those pages and offers them for free with their own ads added. Plain and simple copyright
violation, no arguing around it. But quite convenient of course...
Can anyone post a link to a good article outlining exactly what is and isn't legal in the UK WRT software patents?
Wikipedia has quite useful information as usual. In particular, it addresses the issue of art 52.3 that I left out ( a few posts up someone also mentions this ): the as such provisio, that leads to the dreaded discussion about whether software is 'technical'. No UK lawsuits are mentioned though, and I can't find any.
52.3: The provisions of paragraph 2 shall exclude patentability of the subject-matter or activities referred to in that provision only to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject-matter or activities as such.
Well, the official rules for European patents are quite clear, especiall Article 52 2c: ( see the European Patent Convention )
You should win every lawsuit over any of the 40.000 software patents that the European Patent Office issued illegaly the last few years. That is, according to my reading of the law; I'm afraid real lawyers read something entirely different in it....
Article 52
Patentable inventions
(1) European patents shall be granted for any inventions which
are susceptible of industrial application, which are new
and which involve an inventive step.
(2) The following in particular shall *not* be regarded as
inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1:
(a) discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical
methods;
(b) aesthetic creations;
(c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental
acts, playing games or doing business, and
programs for computers;
Ok, it seems you are right, there are 2 pots of money: one openly distributed, and another (larger) one for the government only to be spent if things look grim for their preferred outcome. That's not very nice, especially because they are not very upfront with it (I missed it). Still i'm not too concerned about it.
Therefore the government has made available about a million euros from a mysterious 'emergency fund' to be used in case the information spread about the constitution will be misleading.
Do you really think all this money will go to pro-constitution propaganda? That would be a bit too obvious. Actually, the money will be split among pro, contra and neutral lobbying groups, in a 4:4:2 split. See here.
Your statement that a 'nee' vote will be ignored is also unfounded, the two largest parties promised to back a 'nee' if enough people vote.
Clear code is also easier for the compiler to optimize. Reusing variables for different purposes means that the compiler can not optimize the use of the variable away into a register. It neeeds to save it after use so it is available for the second re-use. Names are local to a {} block in C so temporary variables can be optimized away if they only exist within such a block. Good code is also easy to optimize code.
Not true for modern compilers. They will easily allocate different registers for variables during different liveranges. Also limiting scope with {} blocks will yield nothing.
Why test the output of the cellular base station? Typical users aren't standing on the cell towers 60 Meters in the air, to get a better connection. This is, at best, a bad experiment. At worst, it's propaganda.
This research is a result of people worried about cell towers on top of their buildings etc.
I'm sceptical myself about this, but having read the reports in Dutch i must say it looks pretty thorough, certainly not propaganda. For propaganda, the Dutch government would have liked to present other results...
BTW, the tests were conducted at pretty low field strengths, (1 V/m), so it is a pretty spectaculair result the found a significant outcome out of a test group of 36 people.
I had no idea I could declare an identifer as type "register" and bypass the ram and use the cpu registers directly! Try that in any other language? For writing cad apps this is essential for speed.
You can't. You can only give a hint to the compiler to use a register. But modern compilers know much better which variables to put in registers, so they just ignore the hint.
Looked a bit further.. There are two structures deposited in the protein data bank: 1L2Q and 1L2R. But alas, they're not available yet, 'release on publication'.
Ah, but they are already taken. Like the IP-numbers of the old days.. Nature thought it wise to build some redundancy. Some popular amino acids have multiple encodings, so mutations can be meaningless. Plus you have the stop-codon of course.
I think an UTF8-like scheme would be safer, for future enhancements and the like.
Ok, I looked everywhere for details, couldn't find any. I don't have a science-subscription. What's the structure? Only info mentioned is that it at 1st looked like lysine.
BTW, there are many variations of amino-acids known, all made by post-processing. There are still only twenty directly coded for in DNA, AFAIK. This looks like something in-between, coded for by the stop-codon, but somehow this one is treated special.
Wo, there you pulled a fast one. The one natural mutation is only a slight modification to one gene (probably just one different amino acid in a protein). The two engineered changes you talk about are typically new genes, often from other organisms. Not that I disagree with you, but the engineered induced change is quite more substantial than the natural one. But, as you say, better controlled.
In this case the reporter missed that point entirely.
No he did not. Read this paragraph:
[...] The Microsoft spokesman, in acknowledging that fact, said it didn't contradict the company's many recent anti-open-source statements. He said that's because Microsoft's main objection has been to Linux, which has a more restrictive licensing arrangement than FreeBSD. Microsoft, though, hasn't previously suggested that there were benign forms of open-source software, and while singling out Linux for special criticism, has tended to criticize all open-source with the same broad brush.
Right. In the recent anti-GPL FUD, it tried to broaden the attack to all Open Source. Looks like it's backfiring now, especially to the general public who cannot see the nuances between GPL and other open source licenses. Now they read MS is using it themselves...
BTW, it looks to me like MS' campaign is kind of working. A lot of my not-into Linux friends ask me questions lately about the issues of using Linux at their work - the FUD is spreading! I hope it really is countered with articles like this one in the main stream press.
Why not more different level highschools?
on
Sean In The Middle
·
· Score: 1
As I understand the American highschool system, basically all children at the age of 12 go the same highschool, and no differentiation on skills/intelligence is done.
Here in the Netherlands we have several types of highschool, ranging from technical schools to the academic preperatory highschool. In the final year at primary schools, intelligence and skill-tests determine the appropriate secondary school. To achieve fairness, it is always possible to switch to a higher level school, often using an extra year.
In the final years of primary school, the low speed of education was really awful. And I had increasing problems with dummer and stronger classmates who liked to pick on me. It was a real relief to go to highschool at the age of 12 with only the smartest kids in my class. The only problems of the kind discussed here I ever had was with kids from other schools. And the education was at a lot higher level.
This system also has its disadvantages of course, mainly the sense of 'apartheid', and the danger that an early and possibly wrong selection has huge concequences. But all in all I really think our system is to be preferred, especially for geeks. If I imagine being in school at 16 with the same classmates I had at primary school, I think my life would be living hell.
Might be me... I have an MSc in biochemistry, really was into computers, so I landed a job as a computer consultant. But after a few years I really got bored by all the bussiness applications I had to deal with, i wanted back to science/research. I looked everywhere for a job as described here, but couldn't find one. Eventually I became a PhD student in computer science. I love the scientific programming, but I really hate the research part. I am still dragging it on, but for a job like this I'll readily drop out... So, if there's anything biochemical in the job, drop me a line...
I don't understand. I would think the hardest part of changing to Linux is writing all the device-drivers for NUMAplex and other special hardware in Origins. The processor part should be the easy part, since a MIPS port already exists for lower end SGIs (Indys). So.. why not support Linux for both MIPS and Itanium? By replacing processor boards, the Origin 3000 can be switched from MIPS R12k to Itanium, so the machines are essentially the same.
Next question: How much processors will Linux support? Origin can scale to 1024 cpu's, where multiple images of IRIX form one virtual OS. Last I heard, Linus was planning support for things like that, but I never heard much of it.
Last question: when will Linux be ported to their high-end graphics machines (Onyx)? Those machines use the same memory/bus architecture, only spiffier graphics boards...
Slashdot Mirror
Bzzzt: Wrong. Cyclists are protected a bit, e.g. liability has to be proven by the motorist. But I still had to pay when I crashed head-first into an oncoming car a few years ago. Which by the way was quite a crash. If I had worn a helmet I would probably have claimed it had saved my life....
Surely you can't mean humans aren't 'machines'? Why sould we be not be able to build intuition into a machine? How do you think our intuition and common sense work? Magic?
can't say I'm surprised. They have some strange legal notions in Belgium
Yeah, one stupid company and the whole country should be avoided. Expert advice, Wayne!
This is quite a sensible decision by the belgian court, I think. Several newspapers offer the news of today for free on their websites, and let you pay for searching the archives. Google caches those pages and offers them for free with their own ads added. Plain and simple copyright violation, no arguing around it. But quite convenient of course...
But Tamiflu was discovered by Gilead, a US company... So GP's theory still holds!
But how do you exchange the Fuji and the Everest, without creating an intermediary mountain?
(Hint: use xor)
Can anyone post a link to a good article outlining exactly what is and isn't legal in the UK WRT software patents?
Wikipedia has quite useful information as usual. In particular, it addresses the issue of art 52.3 that I left out ( a few posts up someone also mentions this ): the as such provisio, that leads to the dreaded discussion about whether software is 'technical'. No UK lawsuits are mentioned though, and I can't find any.
52.3: The provisions of paragraph 2 shall exclude patentability of the subject-matter or activities referred to in that provision only to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject-matter or activities as such .
Well, the official rules for European patents are quite clear, especiall Article 52 2c:
( see the European Patent Convention )
You should win every lawsuit over any of the 40.000 software patents that the European Patent Office issued illegaly the last few years. That is, according to my reading of the law; I'm afraid real lawyers read something entirely different in it....
Article 52
Patentable inventions
(1) European patents shall be granted for any inventions which
are susceptible of industrial application, which are new
and which involve an inventive step.
(2) The following in particular shall *not* be regarded as
inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1:
(a) discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical
methods;
(b) aesthetic creations;
(c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental
acts, playing games or doing business, and
programs for computers;
(d) presentations of information.
Ok, it seems you are right, there are 2 pots of money: one openly distributed, and another (larger) one for the government only to be spent if things look grim for their preferred outcome. That's not very nice, especially because they are not very upfront with it (I missed it). Still i'm not too concerned about it.
Do you really think all this money will go to pro-constitution propaganda? That would be a bit too obvious. Actually, the money will be split among pro, contra and neutral lobbying groups, in a 4:4:2 split. See here.
Your statement that a 'nee' vote will be ignored is also unfounded, the two largest parties promised to back a 'nee' if enough people vote.
Not true for modern compilers. They will easily allocate different registers for variables during different liveranges. Also limiting scope with {} blocks will yield nothing.
The newest C standard (C99) lets you declare variables everywhere, so the original poster is incorrect.
This research is a result of people worried about cell towers on top of their buildings etc.
I'm sceptical myself about this, but having read the reports in Dutch i must say it looks pretty thorough, certainly not propaganda. For propaganda, the Dutch government would have liked to present other results...
BTW, the tests were conducted at pretty low field strengths, (1 V/m), so it is a pretty spectaculair result the found a significant outcome out of a test group of 36 people.
You can't. You can only give a hint to the compiler to use a register. But modern compilers know much better which variables to put in registers, so they just ignore the hint.
I'm confused. I thought SGI was dropping support on MIPS, and switch to Itanium. Why are they releasing new MIPS processors?
Ah, thanks for the info! Found some more here.
The extended numbering (21st, 22nd) for this class sounds a bit unwarrented to me though. Although I can see the PR-perspective...
Looked a bit further.. There are two structures deposited in the protein data bank: 1L2Q and 1L2R. But alas, they're not available yet, 'release on publication'.
Ah, but they are already taken. Like the IP-numbers of the old days.. Nature thought it wise to build some redundancy. Some popular amino acids have multiple encodings, so mutations can be meaningless. Plus you have the stop-codon of course.
I think an UTF8-like scheme would be safer, for future enhancements and the like.
BTW, there are many variations of amino-acids known, all made by post-processing. There are still only twenty directly coded for in DNA, AFAIK. This looks like something in-between, coded for by the stop-codon, but somehow this one is treated special.
Try the printer-friendly version
Wo, there you pulled a fast one. The one natural mutation is only a slight modification to one gene (probably just one different amino acid in a protein). The two engineered changes you talk about are typically new genes, often from other organisms. Not that I disagree with you, but the engineered induced change is quite more substantial than the natural one. But, as you say, better controlled.
No he did not. Read this paragraph:
[...] The Microsoft spokesman, in acknowledging that fact, said it didn't contradict the company's many recent anti-open-source statements. He said that's because Microsoft's main objection has been to Linux, which has a more restrictive licensing arrangement than FreeBSD. Microsoft, though, hasn't previously suggested that there were benign forms of open-source software, and while singling out Linux for special criticism, has tended to criticize all open-source with the same broad brush.
Right. In the recent anti-GPL FUD, it tried to broaden the attack to all Open Source. Looks like it's backfiring now, especially to the general public who cannot see the nuances between GPL and other open source licenses. Now they read MS is using it themselves...
BTW, it looks to me like MS' campaign is kind of working. A lot of my not-into Linux friends ask me questions lately about the issues of using Linux at their work - the FUD is spreading! I hope it really is countered with articles like this one in the main stream press.
Here in the Netherlands we have several types of highschool, ranging from technical schools to the academic preperatory highschool. In the final year at primary schools, intelligence and skill-tests determine the appropriate secondary school. To achieve fairness, it is always possible to switch to a higher level school, often using an extra year.
In the final years of primary school, the low speed of education was really awful. And I had increasing problems with dummer and stronger classmates who liked to pick on me. It was a real relief to go to highschool at the age of 12 with only the smartest kids in my class. The only problems of the kind discussed here I ever had was with kids from other schools. And the education was at a lot higher level.
This system also has its disadvantages of course, mainly the sense of 'apartheid', and the danger that an early and possibly wrong selection has huge concequences. But all in all I really think our system is to be preferred, especially for geeks. If I imagine being in school at 16 with the same classmates I had at primary school, I think my life would be living hell.
Might be me... I have an MSc in biochemistry, really was into computers, so I landed a job as a computer consultant. But after a few years I really got bored by all the bussiness applications I had to deal with, i wanted back to science/research. I looked everywhere for a job as described here, but couldn't find one. Eventually I became a PhD student in computer science. I love the scientific programming, but I really hate the research part. I am still dragging it on, but for a job like this I'll readily drop out... So, if there's anything biochemical in the job, drop me a line...
I don't understand. I would think the hardest part of changing to Linux is writing all the device-drivers for NUMAplex and other special hardware in Origins. The processor part should be the easy part, since a MIPS port already exists for lower end SGIs (Indys). So.. why not support Linux for both MIPS and Itanium? By replacing processor boards, the Origin 3000 can be switched from MIPS R12k to Itanium, so the machines are essentially the same.
Next question: How much processors will Linux support? Origin can scale to 1024 cpu's, where multiple images of IRIX form one virtual OS. Last I heard, Linus was planning support for things like that, but I never heard much of it.
Last question: when will Linux be ported to their high-end graphics machines (Onyx)? Those machines use the same memory/bus architecture, only spiffier graphics boards...
Xpdf fuckware is the same post. The follow-up posts offer a nice seemingly convergent discussion.