I dislike religion because on the whole, religion produces negative things. (What? It produces hate, fear, andger, to name a few)
Faith, on the other hand, is a wonderful thing, and rarely are bad things attributed to pure Faith.
Most geek/nerds know and understand this important difference.
To draw from the bible (not to only interesting religious book, but a great example in our society...), What did Jesus think about religion? And then, what did he say about faith?
You have to remember that the purpose of a mass education system is to creat conformity... Not to teach skills (although it is a most useful side-effect, and probably one of the best ways to do both at the same time given a non-militant society..)
just about ANY public educational system is a system of indoctrination!
I don't believe that we are required to go through elementary school, etc because the State wants us to be able to do calculus.. Rather, the State wants children indoctrinated with a certain set of beliefs (in many cases Nationalism included), and interpersonal skills.
Mass education is a wonderful way to perpetuate a society, and it isn't because having the general populace be able to tell you that matter is made of atoms... etc. is a good thing!!
Many of the most sucessful people I know are successful despite the "education" they were given in school.
In short, the education you get in school is for the mostpart NOT what you are "taught" by the teachers...
This story reminds me of a story about a Senator in an estimeed Bible -belt state who proposed defining PI as 3 because it was absurd that it might be 3.14...
IN any case, evolution != change over time
Here is the defn: evolution \Ev`o*lu"tion\, n. [L. evolutio an unrolling: cf. F. ['e]volution evolution. See Evolve.] 1. The act of unfolding or unrolling; hence, in the process of growth; development; as, the evolution of a flower from a bud, or an animal from the egg.
2. A series of things unrolled or unfolded. ``The whole evolution of ages.'' --Dr. H. More.
3. (Geom.) The formation of an involute by unwrapping a thread from a curve as an evolute. --Hutton.
4. (Arith. & Alg.) The extraction of roots; -- the reverse of involution.
5. (Mil. & Naval) A prescribed movement of a body of troops, or a vessel or fleet; any movement designed to effect a new arrangement or disposition; a maneuver.
Those evolutions are best which can be executed with the greatest celerity, compatible with regularity. --Campbell.
6. (Biol.) (a) A general name for the history of the steps by which any living organism has acquired the morphological and physiological characters which distinguish it; a gradual unfolding of successive phases of growth or development. (b) That theory of generation which supposes the germ to pre["e]xist in the parent, and its parts to be developed, but not actually formed, by the procreative act; -- opposed to epigenesis.
7. (Metaph.) That series of changes under natural law which involves continuous progress from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous in structure, and from the single and simple to the diverse and manifold in quality or function. The pocess is by some limited to organic beings; by others it is applied to the inorganic and the psychical. It is also applied to explain the existence and growth of institutions, manners, language, civilization, and every product of human activity. The agencies and laws of the process are variously explained by different philosophrs.
The fact that controversial shouldn't stop it from being taught in schools! Frankly, I personally don't care about how I came into being other than knowing about my family's lineage for a few generations, but I find it offensive that the legislature would remove that word from the curriculum because some nuts find it offensive.
Wouldn't it be sufficient to teach both? Really, how long can it take?!
Hmm.. I understand eager execution to mean: Execute every possible branch before aliasing resolves, and if you're wrong, throw it out.
That is slightly different from what I was saying: (Well, what WAS I saying?!::) What I meant to say is that the transistor-size limit should have little or no impact on the scalability of inherently parallel algorithms/processes.
Eager execution provides a benefit (logarithmic with respect to number of branchs in improvement, if I remember correctly) to serial-coded programs, but (for obvious reasons) isn't as nice as something that is truley parallel.
OF course, you can apply eager-execution to each parallel pipeline as well... (pipeline in this case perhaps being a misnomer. Perhaps I should say Processing Unit..? )
Some applications that can benefit greatly from parallelism:
Most scientific computations. Graphics (how about a chip per pixel?) Pattern recognition AI processes (voting algorithms, genetic algorithms, the list goes on and on..)
Essentially (Wow, I got way off track!) my what if was about processors that were able to tell what instructions aliased the others... Its more of a simple-parsing than anything else, but look at it this way:
You have two CPUs.. One does the actualy computations. This is a 64 or 128 or N bit monster.
You have a second, supervisory CPU, which does nothing but reorder instructions going into the main CPU.
In some major sense the "supervisory" CPU is much like a modern memory controller.
I think this could increase speed because the smaller CPU performs a very specific task on a very well-known dataset (i.e. the instruction bytes/bits of the instructions, and a little state.)
Really? The Moore's Law that I was taught was that compute-power doubles along exponential curve according to the curve.
(in this case every 18 months)
You're saying that Moore's law is that transistor-gate speeds double in that timeperiod??
I think some research is necessary...
whatis.com thinks Moore's law is: Moore's Law is that the pace of microchip technology change is such that the amount of data storage that a microchip can hold doubles every year or at least every 18 months. In 1965 when preparing a talk, Gordon Moore noticed that up to that time microchip capacity seemed to double each year. The pace of change having slowed down a bit over the past few years, the definition has changed (with Gordon Moore's approval) to reflect that the doubling occurs only every 18 months.
which is essentially what you said.
Maybe there should be a Moore's variation which states that compute-speed doubles every X... Its a more important indicator than gate-density, though not as easily measured..
Even if the Intel folk were right, and we couldn't make out gates any smaller (I bet we can, with bucky-tubes and those neato single-molecule gates), it wouldn't be the end of Moore's law.
FIrst of all, there is the whole bandwidth problem- We programmers have to worry about cache coherency, cache misses, time to load from disk, time to load from RAM... etc.
These things are the major bottleneck for many applications.
Furthermore, This "limit" would only limit single-processor designs.. There is still a large world on parallel-processing to consider.. What if the CPU could execute EVERY non-dependant, non-aliased branch at concurrently?
(We'd obviously need better compilers, and probably better languages..)
In any case to rehash: Even if the Intel engineers are right about the "gate limit", Plenty of other advances to discover..
The proper way of going about getting Bellsouth ADSL is to install Win9X on the desired computer, and HIDE your ethernet card!
Bellsouth says in its policies that it will SUPPLY you with one if you dn't have one. =) Free ethernet NIC.. Nice eh?
So, make sure you have no NIC in the comp when they come over.
And there are quite a few people who have done the whole bait&switch thing with Bellsouth.
I've not been able to get a straight answer out of the "authorities" at BST.
(but I do know that they had a good reason for similar restrictions on ISDN. It turned out that you could crash some of their hardware if you misconfigured your ISDN modem. I believe that the problem has been fixed since then, but I can imagine why BellSouth wouldn't want to publish the Whys of this particular restriction if the reason was similar...)
OF course, people running linux+ADSL are very UNlikely to be the "Hack the Planet" dorks.
I think that microsoft is stepping on its own toes by removing the unlimited-user/connections part of its license in exchange for the two tier, server/workstation approach.. ANd then raising the prices on both!
I use a fair amount of NT where I work, and I must admit that it isn't too bad, but trying to get anything unixy to compile can be a nightmare.
Simple things like a lack of "drand48()", and the fact that the winsock API is slightly different than "standard" BSD sockets. (And they ARE standard!)
Microsoft makes me scratch my head in puzzlement oftentimes.. They have a big enough market advantage that they could "win" almost as much as they do now, without playing the big bad FUD game.
Most of my lab has been moving to NT since many of our machines have been donated by MIcrosoft...
Personally, I strongly dislike the change, because I hate having everything buried under layers of menus and checkboxes. GImme a textfile and a man page over that GUI crud anyday!
(I remember looking for the one checkbox that was fouling up my options in MVC++ for days!)
Don't get me wrong, GUI is nice most of the time.. but its not very easy to search.. especially if you're not sure what you are looking for.
Back to the topic at hand: Bjorn said: Admittedly, this is a big step beyond "Linux is crud and Unix is dead." Still, maybe the time has come to set the standards for Linux news higher.
Many fellow geeks are probably as annoyed as I am when the airlines tell you to turn your laptop, cdplay, etc off during takeoff and landing.
While I understand why we might to turn off some of these devices for fear of radio-interference (which is what the french are worried about here), I don't believe that a cd-player puts out any amount of strong EM-waves...
And also related.. Certain Brazillian airlines don't let you use any electronics -at all-.. unless you're a first class passenger..
I really want to know what the difference between their devices and my devices is! (And don't tell me that the first-class cabin is "more" EM shielded than coach... unless that fabric curtain is steel-thread, the waves go both ways..)
Last thing: Many posts so far are along the lines of: Don't understand how the iBook could harm the french military's whatsoever, or block their whatsowhoosits.. Well, if the french are broadcasting in the 2.4 Ghz range with military amplitude (normally with lots of power!!), then the iBook's airport circuitry might get fried... Fun fun!! (WEll, those would have to be some STRONG waves, but its possible)
Maybe next time I'll get a first-class upgrade on that brazillian airline... I wonder if the magic that happens from flying first class wears off after you step off of the plane?
Its amazing. I don't understand how it could be so easy to crack what should be such a single-minded system..
Sounds like the bank is trying to do too much on one server..
Or maybe is it a lack of encryption issue?
If I can set up my linux box to accept packets with a simple service, and I proof the code enough, then I don't have to worry about anything but DoS attacks.. and the firewall should be handling that...
And if they are cracking your firewall, you need to hire a new admin, because the old one is incompetent.
You can't patent something that has already been in common use, or something that someone else can prove that they've done, or had before..
lmao, I can just see myself being trucked into the courtroom crying out "Prior Art! Prior Art!", and claiming all other genes-types as derivitive works of mine.. =)
(Thus proving that I'm "original" in the strictest sense of the word... lol )
Truthfully, from what my chemist friends explained to me, you patent a gene by sticking it into some "trivial" molecule, and then you patent that molecule. Since there are tons of variations on that theme, many patents are needed to cover the same gene (patenting the gene itself, as I understand is a problem, because of the prior art thing... Cannot patent something that exists in nature!! ) (But you can patent a variation.. that is how we get patents on certain plants.. Mix the breeds yourself, produce a new one, etc. get a patent!)
IT makes perfect sense... perfect BUSSINESS sense for Sun (or any other pre-linux corporate culture) to use linux any way they can in order to increase profits.
After all, that is what most (if not all) pubic companies are about: profits!
If SUN thinks that it can make a better profit by.. understating.. linux's effectiveness, then they will do it.... it makes perfect finantial sense..
If you're looking into gradshool, there are basically three things you want to consider 1) Are you going to get in. 2) What is their reputation in the field 3) Which professor do you want to work with.
#3 is VERY important if you're doing a Ph.D., and less important in some schools (like mine (Ga Tech)) if you're going for a masters.
MIT, CMU, Berkley all have great reputations in CS as gradschools, however many of the profs at those schools have been doing their thing for a long time- you might lose a bit of the flexibility that you'd get from another "lesser" institution. Ga Tech is currently ranked somewhere around 12th in CS as a whole, but it contains the GVU (Graphics Visualization + Usability), which is known throughout the industry (its a very good rep).
Now, I'm an undergrad, so I havn't had nearly as much firsthand expierene as the gradstudents here, however I've been working with them since I got here (I've been doing research though I'm an undergrad) as I'm on the gradschool track.
So, get to know the profs at each of the schools.. reading a few of their papers is HIGHLY recommended- it gives you some ideas on what you might want to do, and it looks impressive on the application when you know what you want to do, and with whom (this is what the profs say. Trust it. =) ).
whats the distinction? well, if you go to the store and you buy software.. you'd be a rightful possessor of that software (because you HAD a copy of it, and you payed for it). Right now, you pay money, and you are buying a license for the software.. but not the software itself... that way the software companies control the software.
The bad part of ammending the law like this is that it'd become much MUCH more difficult to make a profit from consumer software... (is that necessarily a bad thing?)
Well, the easy way to change all of this so that the software companies can't screw people over is to ammend copyright law so that it says: rightful possers instead of owners. If you've read the copyright laws over, or you've had a class o IP you'd know what I'm talking about. I welcome anyone to elaborate for me.. =)
Actually, this could work. Make a virus that simply does "normal" things... and then you increase the complexity of the problem, while perhaps making it increasingly more difficult to do "standard" work without setting off the behaviour-alarm.
I can see it now... the immune system killing the TCP/IP stack because a virus pretended it was it.. ' Hmm.. vital organ rejection anyone?
Furthermore, the closer the virus parallels to the user's behaviour, the more processing time the "immune system" has to do, possibly breaking it because of computational restrictions..
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm..
In my mind, though the dictionary definition didn't state it, evolution is forward change, and devolution is "backwards" change.
The presence of a word with a"direction" leads me to think that the first has an opposite direction..
Your comment about it happening slowly is interesting: It only happens slowly onb a large-scale organism.. (or appears to do so).
Organisms with short lifespans evolve quite quickly! (Look at bacterium and fruit flies!!)
I dislike religion because on the whole, religion produces negative things.
(What? It produces hate, fear, andger, to name a few)
Faith, on the other hand, is a wonderful thing, and rarely are bad things attributed to pure Faith.
Most geek/nerds know and understand this important difference.
To draw from the bible (not to only interesting religious book, but a great example in our society...), What did Jesus think about religion?
And then, what did he say about faith?
Darwinian evolution is flawed.
The concept of evolution isn't.
(imho, of course, and it is humble =) )
You have to remember that the purpose of a mass education system is to creat conformity... Not to teach skills (although it is a most useful side-effect, and probably one of the best ways to do both at the same time given a non-militant society..)
Oh please!
just about ANY public educational system is a system of indoctrination!
I don't believe that we are required to go through elementary school, etc because the State wants us to be able to do calculus.. Rather, the State wants children indoctrinated with a certain set of beliefs (in many cases Nationalism included), and interpersonal skills.
Mass education is a wonderful way to perpetuate a society, and it isn't because having the general populace be able to tell you that matter is made of atoms... etc. is a good thing!!
Many of the most sucessful people I know are successful despite the "education" they were given in school.
In short, the education you get in school is for the mostpart NOT what you are "taught" by the teachers...
This story reminds me of a story about a Senator in an estimeed Bible -belt state who proposed defining PI as 3 because it was absurd that it might be 3.14...
IN any case, evolution != change over time
Here is the defn:
evolution \Ev`o*lu"tion\, n. [L. evolutio an unrolling: cf. F. ['e]volution evolution. See Evolve.] 1. The act of unfolding or unrolling; hence, in the process of growth; development; as, the evolution of a flower from a bud, or an animal from the egg.
2. A series of things unrolled or unfolded. ``The whole evolution of ages.'' --Dr. H. More.
3. (Geom.) The formation of an involute by unwrapping a thread from a curve as an evolute. --Hutton.
4. (Arith. & Alg.) The extraction of roots; -- the reverse of involution.
5. (Mil. & Naval) A prescribed movement of a body of troops, or a vessel or fleet; any movement designed to effect a new arrangement or disposition; a maneuver.
Those evolutions are best which can be executed with the greatest celerity, compatible with regularity. --Campbell.
6. (Biol.) (a) A general name for the history of the steps by which any living organism has acquired the morphological and physiological characters which distinguish it; a gradual unfolding of successive phases of growth or development. (b) That theory of generation which supposes the germ to pre["e]xist in the parent, and its parts to be developed, but not actually formed, by the procreative act; -- opposed to epigenesis.
7. (Metaph.) That series of changes under natural law which involves continuous progress from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous in structure, and from the single and simple to the diverse and manifold in quality or function. The pocess is by some limited to organic beings; by others it is applied to the inorganic and the psychical. It is also applied to explain the existence and growth of institutions, manners, language, civilization, and every product of human activity. The agencies and laws of the process are variously explained by different philosophrs.
The fact that controversial shouldn't stop it from being taught in schools! Frankly, I personally don't care about how I came into being other than knowing about my family's lineage for a few generations, but I find it offensive that the legislature would remove that word from the curriculum because some nuts find it offensive.
Wouldn't it be sufficient to teach both?
Really, how long can it take?!
Hmm.. I understand eager execution to mean:
::) What I meant to say is that the transistor-size limit should have little or no impact on the scalability of inherently parallel algorithms/processes.
Execute every possible branch before aliasing resolves, and if you're wrong, throw it out.
That is slightly different from what I was saying:
(Well, what WAS I saying?!
Eager execution provides a benefit (logarithmic with respect to number of branchs in improvement, if I remember correctly) to serial-coded programs, but (for obvious reasons)
isn't as nice as something that is truley parallel.
OF course, you can apply eager-execution to each parallel pipeline as well...
(pipeline in this case perhaps being a misnomer. Perhaps I should say Processing Unit..? )
Some applications that can benefit greatly from parallelism:
Most scientific computations.
Graphics (how about a chip per pixel?)
Pattern recognition
AI processes (voting algorithms, genetic algorithms, the list goes on and on..)
Essentially (Wow, I got way off track!) my what if was about processors that were able to tell what instructions aliased the others... Its more of a simple-parsing than anything else, but look at it this way:
You have two CPUs.. One does the actualy computations. This is a 64 or 128 or N bit monster.
You have a second, supervisory CPU, which does nothing but reorder instructions going into the main CPU.
In some major sense the "supervisory" CPU is much like a modern memory controller.
I think this could increase speed because the smaller CPU performs a very specific task on a very well-known dataset (i.e. the instruction bytes/bits of the instructions, and a little state.)
Really?
The Moore's Law that I was taught was that compute-power doubles along exponential curve according to the curve.
(in this case every 18 months)
You're saying that Moore's law is that transistor-gate speeds double in that timeperiod??
I think some research is necessary...
whatis.com thinks Moore's law is:
Moore's Law is that the pace of microchip technology change is such that the amount of data storage that a microchip can hold doubles every year or at least every 18 months. In 1965 when preparing a talk, Gordon Moore noticed that up to that time microchip capacity seemed to double each year. The pace of change having slowed down a bit over the past few years, the definition has changed (with Gordon Moore's approval) to reflect that the doubling occurs only every 18 months.
which is essentially what you said.
Maybe there should be a Moore's variation which states that compute-speed doubles every X... Its a more important indicator than gate-density, though not as easily measured..
Even if the Intel folk were right, and we couldn't make out gates any smaller (I bet we can, with bucky-tubes and those neato single-molecule gates), it wouldn't be the end of Moore's law.
FIrst of all, there is the whole bandwidth problem- We programmers have to worry about cache coherency, cache misses, time to load from disk, time to load from RAM... etc.
These things are the major bottleneck for many applications.
Furthermore, This "limit" would only limit single-processor designs..
There is still a large world on parallel-processing to consider.. What if the CPU could execute EVERY non-dependant, non-aliased branch at concurrently?
(We'd obviously need better compilers, and probably better languages..)
In any case to rehash: Even if the Intel engineers are right about the "gate limit", Plenty of other advances to discover..
heh.
It is better said that it is a FUNDAMENTAL leap... =)
Definitely the best solution!
Breaking up Microsoft is a LOT less effective than this would be- although the Sentaor would agree that it would make for excellent PR.
If the public cries out for a fine, an interesting penalty would be to give some profits back to those corporations that got screwed.
OF course, the above has many of its own complications, which is why I like the open interface idea more than anything else!!
Open API is almost as good as open-source, and in the commercial environment it might actually make more sense.
Wait a sec.
The proper way of going about getting Bellsouth ADSL is to install Win9X on the desired computer, and HIDE your ethernet card!
Bellsouth says in its policies that it will SUPPLY you with one if you dn't have one. =)
Free ethernet NIC.. Nice eh?
So, make sure you have no NIC in the comp when they come over.
And there are quite a few people who have done the whole bait&switch thing with Bellsouth.
I've not been able to get a straight answer out of the "authorities" at BST.
(but I do know that they had a good reason for similar restrictions on ISDN. It turned out that you could crash some of their hardware if you misconfigured your ISDN modem. I believe that the problem has been fixed since then, but I can imagine why BellSouth wouldn't want to publish the Whys of this particular restriction if the reason was similar...)
OF course, people running linux+ADSL are very UNlikely to be the "Hack the Planet" dorks.
Here here...
I think that microsoft is stepping on its own toes by removing the unlimited-user/connections part of its license in exchange for the two tier, server/workstation approach.. ANd then raising the prices on both!
I use a fair amount of NT where I work, and I must admit that it isn't too bad, but trying to get anything unixy to compile can be a nightmare.
Simple things like a lack of "drand48()", and the fact that the winsock API is slightly different than "standard" BSD sockets. (And they ARE standard!)
Microsoft makes me scratch my head in puzzlement oftentimes.. They have a big enough market advantage that they could "win" almost as much as they do now, without playing the big bad FUD game.
Most of my lab has been moving to NT since many of our machines have been donated by MIcrosoft...
Personally, I strongly dislike the change, because I hate having everything buried under layers of menus and checkboxes. GImme a textfile and a man page over that GUI crud anyday!
(I remember looking for the one checkbox that was fouling up my options in MVC++ for days!)
Don't get me wrong, GUI is nice most of the time.. but its not very easy to search.. especially if you're not sure what you are looking for.
Back to the topic at hand:
Bjorn said:
Admittedly, this is a big step beyond "Linux is crud and Unix is dead." Still, maybe the time has come to set the standards for Linux news higher.
OH yeah.
Many fellow geeks are probably as annoyed as I am when the airlines tell you to turn your laptop, cdplay, etc off during takeoff and landing.
While I understand why we might to turn off some of these devices for fear of radio-interference (which is what the french are worried about here), I don't believe that a cd-player puts out any amount of strong EM-waves...
And also related.. Certain Brazillian airlines don't let you use any electronics -at all-
I really want to know what the difference between their devices and my devices is! (And don't tell me that the first-class cabin is "more" EM shielded than coach... unless that fabric curtain is steel-thread, the waves go both ways..)
Last thing: Many posts so far are along the lines of: Don't understand how the iBook could harm the french military's whatsoever, or block their whatsowhoosits.. Well, if the french are broadcasting in the 2.4 Ghz range with military amplitude (normally with lots of power!!), then the iBook's airport circuitry might get fried... Fun fun!! (WEll, those would have to be some STRONG waves, but its possible)
Maybe next time I'll get a first-class upgrade on that brazillian airline... I wonder if the magic that happens from flying first class wears off after you step off of the plane?
Its amazing.
I don't understand how it could be so easy to crack what should be such a single-minded system..
Sounds like the bank is trying to do too much on one server..
Or maybe is it a lack of encryption issue?
If I can set up my linux box to accept packets with a simple service, and I proof the code enough, then I don't have to worry about anything but DoS attacks.. and the firewall should be handling that...
And if they are cracking your firewall, you need to hire a new admin, because the old one is incompetent.
You can't patent something that has already been in common use, or something that someone else can prove that they've done, or had before..
lmao, I can just see myself being trucked into the courtroom crying out "Prior Art! Prior Art!",
and claiming all other genes-types as derivitive works of mine.. =)
(Thus proving that I'm "original" in the strictest sense of the word... lol )
Truthfully, from what my chemist friends explained to me, you patent a gene by sticking it into some "trivial" molecule, and then you patent that molecule. Since there are tons of variations on that theme, many patents are needed to cover the same gene (patenting the gene itself, as I understand is a problem, because of the prior art thing... Cannot patent something that exists in nature!! ) (But you can patent a variation.. that is how we get patents on certain plants.. Mix the breeds yourself, produce a new one, etc. get a patent!)
IT makes perfect sense... perfect BUSSINESS sense for Sun (or any other pre-linux corporate culture) to use linux any way they can in order to increase profits.
After all, that is what most (if not all) pubic companies are about: profits!
If SUN thinks that it can make a better profit by
If you're looking into gradshool, there are basically three things you want to consider
1) Are you going to get in.
2) What is their reputation in the field
3) Which professor do you want to work with.
#3 is VERY important if you're doing a Ph.D., and less important in some schools (like mine (Ga Tech)) if you're going for a masters.
MIT, CMU, Berkley all have great reputations in CS as gradschools, however many of the profs at those schools have been doing their thing for a long time- you might lose a bit of the flexibility that you'd get from another "lesser" institution. Ga Tech is currently ranked somewhere around 12th in CS as a whole, but it contains the GVU (Graphics Visualization + Usability), which is known throughout the industry (its a very good rep).
Now, I'm an undergrad, so I havn't had nearly as much firsthand expierene as the gradstudents here, however I've been working with them since I got here (I've been doing research though I'm an undergrad) as I'm on the gradschool track.
So, get to know the profs at each of the schools.. reading a few of their papers is HIGHLY recommended- it gives you some ideas on what you might want to do, and it looks impressive on the application when you know what you want to do, and with whom (this is what the profs say. Trust it. =) ).
Best of luck, and I'll be joining you soon!!
Thad's wearable is unobtrusive from my point of view (I'm a student at Ga Tech), and pretty cool.
There are some interesting rumors about what he got to do with it over at MIT.
What I meant to say was:
rightful possessors
whats the distinction?
well, if you go to the store and you buy software.. you'd be a rightful possessor of that software (because you HAD a copy of it, and you payed for it).
Right now, you pay money, and you are buying a license for the software.. but not the software itself...
that way the software companies control the software.
The bad part of ammending the law like this is that it'd become much MUCH more difficult to make a profit from consumer software...
(is that necessarily a bad thing?)
Well, the easy way to change all of this so that the software companies can't screw people over is to ammend copyright law so that it says:
rightful possers
instead of owners.
If you've read the copyright laws over, or you've had a class o IP you'd know what I'm talking about.
I welcome anyone to elaborate for me.. =)
Ohh Ohh.. that REALLY cracks me up..
I wonder if its some NT admin...?
Actually, this could work.
Make a virus that simply does "normal" things...
and then you increase the complexity of the problem, while perhaps making it increasingly more difficult to do "standard" work without setting off the behaviour-alarm.
I can see it now... the immune system killing the TCP/IP stack because a virus pretended it was it..
'
Hmm.. vital organ rejection anyone?
Furthermore, the closer the virus parallels to the user's behaviour, the more processing time the "immune system" has to do, possibly breaking it because of computational restrictions..
Fun stuff.
Nope, you're right..
Aside from just knowing you're right, the article agrees with you saying:
Airplanes and rockets that get the X-designation are experimental, high-speed vehicles...
I still want to know why we don't boost up the main tanks from each shuttle mission, and put them in a parking orbit...
I can think of many uses for such things, even if they're not airtight/spaceworthy...
And I'm glad that Nasa is considering more replacements for the Shuttle.
the Shuttle is cool and all, but its not designed NEARLY as well as it should have been imho. Too expensive for what it does!
On that note, Go NASA!!
(but get some publicity this time, its the key to the Moneys that the politicians have been sucking from ya!)