If you just take a GPL project, add a new UI skin and sell it in binary form, judge will make you release the source notwithstanding the license ambiguities. If what you are doing is not clearly a derivative work (like code inspired by reading a textbook) or you have a reasonable fair use case (like using the client part of client/server stack which is complex and not documented except for existence of the code itself), it's a good thing that the license will not be enforced.
When he said he was talking about the same sort of limit as the speed of light he wasn't exaggerating. Unless there is some break through in our understanding of the physical universe this theory actually does spell out the fastest possible computer operation of flipping a single bit.
And here lies a pitfall. How often do you use an assembly instruction to flip a single bit? With power/size/communication efficiency of quantum computing, you will likely write software that operates on huge amounts of data at once. Like simulating the behavior of every neuron in a human brain in a single cycle. This will push Moore's law quite a bit further than a sequential bit-flipping computer.
Why do you need a laptop? Put a CPU several times more powerful than iPhone in glasses themselves and use a webcam/microphone to let you "type" on any flat surface or give voice commands. Sounds like another case of trying to glue in a new technology without thinking how to integrate it.
So the basic problem is that people don't understand what cloud computing is. If I have cash under my mattress, I presumably understand the urgency of keeping my home secure. If I keep money in the bank, I better understand what measures are in place to give me back my money in case of robbery, wire fraud or bank failure. This does mean keeping money in bank is bad. Neither FDIC negates the usefulness of keeping some money under the mattress or at least in a hard asset like gold or real estate. It just means that one has to keep track of modern financial and computing developments to avoid serious trouble.
Just like people lose their stuff on personal hard drives when not backed up, they will lose cloud data when not backed up. Both kinds of computing have merits, and long term persistence of data is not automatic with either. Most people do not place THAT hard a value on backups of their cell phones. They typically sync with a PC anyway. But any business that doesn't have weekly reliable offsite backups of their fundamental assets should be sued by shareholders/customers for irresponsibility weather they use cloud or not.
Open source's answer to Photoshop is still what, GIMP?
GIMP's target audience is programmers who want to add some artwork to their software without having to pay $700 or learning to think as artists rather than engineers. For this audience GIMP is not only a superior alternative on price - even big companies do not get a license just so someone can draw an icon - but also has a far easier learning curve. For example, there is a single way to define a shape - selection - rather than one set of operations to select and another to draw. Or just the fact that unlimited undos are enabled out of the box rather than running into a rude surprise with Photoshop.
Photoshop Elements is a better choice for non-technical home users, but there are also a number of basic open source tools for photo adjustment.
Photoshop is really only an answer for commercially successful artists with deep pockets. It's not an audience likely to contain a lot of programmers or one that is going to attract attention of a typical open source developer. However these artists could have a better product by pooling resources to produce an alternative not tied to any particular company. Since they don't, I guess they are happy with Photoshop.
It's under application's control not users. So someone who has a single bad experience with a buggy app will dump AT&T and Apple forever. There are already horror stories abound with overseas data roaming.
Just limit long-term data speed to whatever can be sustained and provide higher burst speed for basic web browsing.
What we can not have is laws that treat parties in transaction differently. Either caveat venditor - if I can not assume anything about the product, they can not assume anything about my payment. Or we both assume legal responsibility for material facts presented before the transaction.
Ok, it's a tie here. Less drivers are written for Linux, but once they are released, they remain available for posterity. You can still compile MFM hard drive support into the latest 64 bit kernel. On the other hand, Windows releases, especially 64 bit ones, tend to leave a lot of drivers behind. Vista was notorious for not working with things like "winprinters". So if you want to put your laptop through a couple of OS upgrades before trashing it, Linux is a better bet. In this case, you also have many more options of setting up a modern and responsive system on hardware which is a few years old.
Also, between NDIS wrappers and standardization of USB devices in a given class, actual problems are rare with hardware that you would buy today.
You cant say "will lack essential features" when you dont know what will be in there or what people who will actually use this version requires.
I expect it to be on par with various Windows starter editions and limit a document to 3 pages or something like that.
I very much doubt it will look "junky". Hate Microsoft all you want but you cannot deny that a lot of their success has to do with their "eye-candy".
How so? Microsoft gained the most market share in MS-DOS - Windows 95 time period. The success of their later OSes was inversely proportional to the amount eye candy. Their stock faltered in XP days and Vista was an unbelievable flop for such a dominant and experienced company. It would be more fair to say that their success is due to be the default OS preinstalled on cheap hardware that sort of works with a few crashes, reboots and viruses.
Yes, they finally bowed to pressure from "Rip, Mix, Burn" Apple campaign. Just like one day they will be forced to offer a fully functional productivity suite for under $100.
Wouldn't it be a pretty unusual regulation to prohibit a business for choosing its customers, especially in cases where there is a suspicion of activities illegal under local law and the access will be restored if the customer signs a statement that the activity is in fact legal?
x86 would go nowhere if only IBM could make PCs, only open OEM market achieved dominance of competitors like Apple or Commodore. If Intel is not letting other people release chipsets/motherboards for it's own processors but AMD is free for all, any technical advantages of Core/Xeon would not be enough to slowly erode the market share in favor of a more open product.
So I take it you would be outraged if a US hospital voluntarily provides free healthcare to a bunch of people? If you are an ISP and someone sends you a notice that you are hosting warez, you may decide to take it down even if you are not legally required to. Then your customer can make a case that the notice is bogus and you put it back. Pretty much like DMCA notices work anyway.
If you are against any sort of copyright, you can make your case and I may even agree with part of your reasoning. But ISP management which is not against all copyright will generally take down warez that it finds out about.
By experimenting with starter edition, non-technical users will conclude that MS Word is unstable (software with ads usually hangs while trying to load them), lacks essential features and of course looks junky. We can then take pity on them and offer to install "new Windows that comes with no ads and fully functional software".
You would think Microsoft would learn its lesson after shipping with a media player that doesn't play DVDs and can't rip/burn your own CDs to standard MP3s. Apple, take cue for a new "I am a Mac" ad featuring a comparison to iWork.
Actually DMCA takedown notice is a benign part of that act, unlike anti-circumvention provisions. A copyright owner sends a claim of a violation to ISP and ISP takes down the suspect material. If the site owner doesn't agree, he/she can file a counter-notice to get the material reinstated, in which case the parties would have to drop the matter or settle it in court. The author of the notice is liable for any damages resulting from misleading claims. In neither case is the ISP responsible for originally hosting or reinstating the material.
If your stuff in publicly available on the web, it's no use getting the court to shut down the site after millions downloaded a copy. On the other hand, the material can be easily reinstated and abusers punished for false claims. Given this cost/benefit ratio it would make sense for some ISPs to cooperate voluntarily. The evil part would be US or Canadian ISPs not heading counter-notices and unconditionally believing the words of a big corp vs their customer.
But then you end up with the equivalent of your low resolution desktop with somewhat prettier looking fonts but the same effective real estate. As for images, either your UI will be messed up by bigger fonts or textures will become jagged or blurry from being displayed at non-native resolution.
All right, how will a guy whose main skills are computer related be able to pay back victims of identity theft? Would it be, by any chance, by holding a profitable job where he works with computers? Or do you want to go back to debt prisons where people are kept, at taxpayers expense and without profitable occupation, until they pay back the debt?
In reality, most people will not be able to pay back the victims in their lifetime, let alone in the time after which we think is reasonable to stop punishing someone and let them move on with their lives. The second best option is to make them use whatever skills they have to better the society in general.
does it mean nobody should be ever given a chance? This guy acted pretty dumb, knowing that he be caught for sure. It's too bad someone else is now less likely to be given a chance to put their skills for good purpose after screwing up.
function f(A *a, A *b, int *c) { // Do lots of stuff with a and b
*c *= 2;// What did I just change? a->a? a->b? b->a? b->b? Something else? // Trash all the registers and reload everything from memory since I don't believe in type-safe pointers // Do more stuff with a and b, slower than Java/.Net code // Oh and my caller now has to discard a, b and c after every function call since I may have squirreled them away somewhere and // I am in a non-inlinable library. }
It should also come as absolutely no surprise that a C++ pointer based linked list running native locally on the OS performs faster than a.Net Generics List running as CLR in the.Net run-time environment.
I would be quite surprised actually. In C++, whenever you write to a pointer, compiler has to discard a lot of variables cached in registers because you could have been pointing to one of them for all it knows. Besides, a JIT compiler can take into account:
1. Your exact processor model and instruction set, for example i386 vs x86-64 or SSE1/2/3. 2. Weather or not your lists tend to be empty, one node or multiple nodes on average, to make the corresponding branch of "if (p->next) != null..." faster 3. Possibility of inlining your calls to system and 3rd party libraries for which the exact code may not be available until runtime.
Slashdot Mirror
If you just take a GPL project, add a new UI skin and sell it in binary form, judge will make you release the source notwithstanding the license ambiguities. If what you are doing is not clearly a derivative work (like code inspired by reading a textbook) or you have a reasonable fair use case (like using the client part of client/server stack which is complex and not documented except for existence of the code itself), it's a good thing that the license will not be enforced.
When he said he was talking about the same sort of limit as the speed of light he wasn't exaggerating. Unless there is some break through in our understanding of the physical universe this theory actually does spell out the fastest possible computer operation of flipping a single bit.
And here lies a pitfall. How often do you use an assembly instruction to flip a single bit? With power/size/communication efficiency of quantum computing, you will likely write software that operates on huge amounts of data at once. Like simulating the behavior of every neuron in a human brain in a single cycle. This will push Moore's law quite a bit further than a sequential bit-flipping computer.
Why do you need a laptop? Put a CPU several times more powerful than iPhone in glasses themselves and use a webcam/microphone to let you "type" on any flat surface or give voice commands. Sounds like another case of trying to glue in a new technology without thinking how to integrate it.
So the basic problem is that people don't understand what cloud computing is. If I have cash under my mattress, I presumably understand the urgency of keeping my home secure. If I keep money in the bank, I better understand what measures are in place to give me back my money in case of robbery, wire fraud or bank failure. This does mean keeping money in bank is bad. Neither FDIC negates the usefulness of keeping some money under the mattress or at least in a hard asset like gold or real estate. It just means that one has to keep track of modern financial and computing developments to avoid serious trouble.
Just like people lose their stuff on personal hard drives when not backed up, they will lose cloud data when not backed up. Both kinds of computing have merits, and long term persistence of data is not automatic with either. Most people do not place THAT hard a value on backups of their cell phones. They typically sync with a PC anyway. But any business that doesn't have weekly reliable offsite backups of their fundamental assets should be sued by shareholders/customers for irresponsibility weather they use cloud or not.
Open source's answer to Photoshop is still what, GIMP?
GIMP's target audience is programmers who want to add some artwork to their software without having to pay $700 or learning to think as artists rather than engineers. For this audience GIMP is not only a superior alternative on price - even big companies do not get a license just so someone can draw an icon - but also has a far easier learning curve. For example, there is a single way to define a shape - selection - rather than one set of operations to select and another to draw. Or just the fact that unlimited undos are enabled out of the box rather than running into a rude surprise with Photoshop.
Photoshop Elements is a better choice for non-technical home users, but there are also a number of basic open source tools for photo adjustment.
Photoshop is really only an answer for commercially successful artists with deep pockets. It's not an audience likely to contain a lot of programmers or one that is going to attract attention of a typical open source developer. However these artists could have a better product by pooling resources to produce an alternative not tied to any particular company. Since they don't, I guess they are happy with Photoshop.
It's under application's control not users. So someone who has a single bad experience with a buggy app will dump AT&T and Apple forever. There are already horror stories abound with overseas data roaming.
Just limit long-term data speed to whatever can be sustained and provide higher burst speed for basic web browsing.
What we can not have is laws that treat parties in transaction differently. Either caveat venditor - if I can not assume anything about the product, they can not assume anything about my payment. Or we both assume legal responsibility for material facts presented before the transaction.
There is just no punch
Is the situation really better in windows, where drivers are only available while the device is still sold?
Come on, everybody knows what kind of ads gamers really want.
Ok, it's a tie here. Less drivers are written for Linux, but once they are released, they remain available for posterity. You can still compile MFM hard drive support into the latest 64 bit kernel. On the other hand, Windows releases, especially 64 bit ones, tend to leave a lot of drivers behind. Vista was notorious for not working with things like "winprinters".
So if you want to put your laptop through a couple of OS upgrades before trashing it, Linux is a better bet. In this case, you also have many more options of setting up a modern and responsive system on hardware which is a few years old.
Also, between NDIS wrappers and standardization of USB devices in a given class, actual problems are rare with hardware that you would buy today.
You cant say "will lack essential features" when you dont know what will be in there or what people who will actually use this version requires.
I expect it to be on par with various Windows starter editions and limit a document to 3 pages or something like that.
I very much doubt it will look "junky". Hate Microsoft all you want but you cannot deny that a lot of their success has to do with their "eye-candy".
How so? Microsoft gained the most market share in MS-DOS - Windows 95 time period. The success of their later OSes was inversely proportional to the amount eye candy. Their stock faltered in XP days and Vista was an unbelievable flop for such a dominant and experienced company. It would be more fair to say that their success is due to be the default OS preinstalled on cheap hardware that sort of works with a few crashes, reboots and viruses.
Yes, they finally bowed to pressure from "Rip, Mix, Burn" Apple campaign. Just like one day they will be forced to offer a fully functional productivity suite for under $100.
Wouldn't it be a pretty unusual regulation to prohibit a business for choosing its customers, especially in cases where there is a suspicion of activities illegal under local law and the access will be restored if the customer signs a statement that the activity is in fact legal?
x86 would go nowhere if only IBM could make PCs, only open OEM market achieved dominance of competitors like Apple or Commodore. If Intel is not letting other people release chipsets/motherboards for it's own processors but AMD is free for all, any technical advantages of Core/Xeon would not be enough to slowly erode the market share in favor of a more open product.
So I take it you would be outraged if a US hospital voluntarily provides free healthcare to a bunch of people? If you are an ISP and someone sends you a notice that you are hosting warez, you may decide to take it down even if you are not legally required to. Then your customer can make a case that the notice is bogus and you put it back. Pretty much like DMCA notices work anyway.
As for intimidation, the owner of the material can just say no and the filer of the notice will be fined if obvious fair use of the material applies.
If you are against any sort of copyright, you can make your case and I may even agree with part of your reasoning. But ISP management which is not against all copyright will generally take down warez that it finds out about.
Enjoy!
http://www.onlinepolicy.org/action/legpolicy/opg_v_diebold/
By experimenting with starter edition, non-technical users will conclude that MS Word is unstable (software with ads usually hangs while trying to load them), lacks essential features and of course looks junky. We can then take pity on them and offer to install "new Windows that comes with no ads and fully functional software".
You would think Microsoft would learn its lesson after shipping with a media player that doesn't play DVDs and can't rip/burn your own CDs to standard MP3s. Apple, take cue for a new "I am a Mac" ad featuring a comparison to iWork.
Actually DMCA takedown notice is a benign part of that act, unlike anti-circumvention provisions. A copyright owner sends a claim of a violation to ISP and ISP takes down the suspect material. If the site owner doesn't agree, he/she can file a counter-notice to get the material reinstated, in which case the parties would have to drop the matter or settle it in court. The author of the notice is liable for any damages resulting from misleading claims. In neither case is the ISP responsible for originally hosting or reinstating the material.
If your stuff in publicly available on the web, it's no use getting the court to shut down the site after millions downloaded a copy. On the other hand, the material can be easily reinstated and abusers punished for false claims. Given this cost/benefit ratio it would make sense for some ISPs to cooperate voluntarily. The evil part would be US or Canadian ISPs not heading counter-notices and unconditionally believing the words of a big corp vs their customer.
But then you end up with the equivalent of your low resolution desktop with somewhat prettier looking fonts but the same effective real estate. As for images, either your UI will be messed up by bigger fonts or textures will become jagged or blurry from being displayed at non-native resolution.
All right, how will a guy whose main skills are computer related be able to pay back victims of identity theft? Would it be, by any chance, by holding a profitable job where he works with computers? Or do you want to go back to debt prisons where people are kept, at taxpayers expense and without profitable occupation, until they pay back the debt?
In reality, most people will not be able to pay back the victims in their lifetime, let alone in the time after which we think is reasonable to stop punishing someone and let them move on with their lives. The second best option is to make them use whatever skills they have to better the society in general.
does it mean nobody should be ever given a chance? This guy acted pretty dumb, knowing that he be caught for sure. It's too bad someone else is now less likely to be given a chance to put their skills for good purpose after screwing up.
It should also come as absolutely no surprise that a C++ pointer based linked list running native locally on the OS performs faster than a .Net Generics List running as CLR in the .Net run-time environment.
I would be quite surprised actually. In C++, whenever you write to a pointer, compiler has to discard a lot of variables cached in registers because you could have been pointing to one of them for all it knows. Besides, a JIT compiler can take into account:
1. Your exact processor model and instruction set, for example i386 vs x86-64 or SSE1/2/3. ..." faster
2. Weather or not your lists tend to be empty, one node or multiple nodes on average, to make the corresponding branch of "if (p->next) != null
3. Possibility of inlining your calls to system and 3rd party libraries for which the exact code may not be available until runtime.