We live in a universe where digital information can be copied easily. Any attempt to stop that state of affairs is imposing a contract on individuals not to do something that is easy to accomplish. How well do you think legislating against gravity would work? That is an observation about how natural copyright is. Whether or not copyright is a good idea is a separate question.
If the natural state of the universe allows me to copy something freely and without cost, then any limitation on that is a limitation on my natural freedom. I'm not saying that I support that point of view, so don't bother arguing it. But at least I can understand what their point of view is. You should try giving it some thought before launching your salvo of strawman arguments. There is more to the copyright debate than whether or not people can pirate your games.
Although casting your vote because you believe in their agenda that we should not have copyright in a modern state is perfectly acceptable. Luckily democracy means letting people choose how they vote, for whatever reasons that they think are acceptable. And guess what? They don't even have to get the approval of a vested interest like you.
The hash isn't necessary. If the trust relationship between two academic peers includes "worried about him modify the paper after I review it", there is no trust relationship.
No. You could not be more wrong I'm afraid. When I sign a review of somebodies work I am not recommending / trusting them as a person. I am recommending that single piece of work. People who trust me can then trust that the piece of work is good.
The hash is completely necessary because the trust relationship is slightly more fine grained than you assumed. It is not about trust between academic peers, it is trust in the work of an academic peer.
That already exists without a web of trust. There is a lot research already into analysing citation and co-citation graphs for the features that you mention. In network-analysis terms the links that you describe are called gateway nodes.
A degree in CS and a long enough memory to remember that deep pipelines looked like the way forward at the time, and that the increases in power as we went through a couple of fab nodes were unexpected.
You should have tried mapping the two different Expose functions to hot-corners at the bottom of the screen. If you want to switch apps you just move down to the dock, if you want to switch documents you move to a corner and your entire screen becomes a document selector. If you want to select between all documents in all applications then you hit the other corner. It may have been enough to make you more curious about your metrosexuality.
Although I use a mac, I come from a linux background so I just tend to use the keyboard for everything.
First Lesson in writing a Review
on
The Zen of SOA
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
If there is an acronym that you are going to use throughout your review, and it will be senseless without THEN DEFINE IT SOMEWHERE AT THE TOP!
No that doesn't do it at all. The patent is describing a more fine-grained security model than users/groups/permissions and as such allows the user to do things that can't be done with the standard posix file permissions. If memory serves tt's normally called capabilities, and although it has been around for at least 10 years, the patent probably predates it shipping in unix/nt systems.
In particular, if you try and describe capabilities using groups, lets say that you have two permissions that you want to give an application: B & C, how would you do this in normal posix permissions? A file can only be in a single group at a time. This problem is exactly why ACLs were bolted onto linux, and the patent describes another way of solving the problem.
It is not standard unix file permissions, even if it has already been around for a decade.
Until you can crack open their entire operation and show me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Google doesn't abuse their position in at least one way (because that's all it takes, then I'd let go some of my skepticism.
Ok, we get it. You think that Google is evil. But just so that we can judge the accuracy of your opinion, how many people / companies pass your arbitrarily high bar for evil? Can you name just one...
That's true. I knew quite a few imperative languages (C, asm, java, C++, basic etc) before I was introduced to Haskell. It was mind-bending. But I'm not convinced that it is actually harder - I think some of it is conditioning. Teaching a functional language to somebody without any experience of imperative constructs may turn out to be easier.
It sounds like you've missed the point. Not all languages operate on statements, with variables and assignment. These are common to imperative languages, which all fall under a single paradigm. The submitter asked which paradigm would be best to introduce someone to programming.
Your lack of experience in other paradigms (not meant as a slight, 99% of all mainstream work is done in imperative languages) means that you have a similar educational history to what the submitter is considering. You consider imperative languages to be the whole world, rather than just a subset of it.
Logic, or functional languages are very different. Learning them forces you to consider other approaches to programming than those that are evident in an imperative language. Making someone learn a functional language first can teach them a lot about programming in general. Especially when they move over to an imperative language, but they have a different bag of tricks to apply to problems.
One of the first languages that I learnt as a child was Logo. It's a bit of style these days, although it was fairly common back on 8-bit home computers. At the time I though of it as a bit weird in comparison to the other languages that I used, but it taught me to think about programming in a different way. It is only with the hindsight of 20 years and a degree that I can see that "weirdness" was because it was functional.
At which point they will say no (for good reason).
The submitter will look for another job, and learn a hard lesson about the asymmetry in the employment market in academia where student researchers are largely interchangeable.
Although the GP is being quite contemptuous and arrogant (I suspect he is not a professor, but has met a few that he thinks behave like that), there is a grain of truth in what he is saying. The original submission is complaining about standard practice in academia.
As a PhD student you get to keep the rights to all of your work. This makes sense, you are the sole originator of the research and your only official contact is your advisor who can lob in ideas and support, but not do the work for you.
As a Research Assistant (or the equivalent lowest rung on the ladder where you are), you are suddenly in a very different situation. Somebody else is doing research, and you're doing the grunt work to make it happen. It would be ludicrous to keep the right to his work that is originated by others.
As you climb the ladder the balance shifts. Most Research Associates should be formulating, and carrying out their own research. There is more of an argument for them keeping rights (although, generally they don't).
The higher up you get the more real collaboration happens, at which point it becomes harder to assign ownership to the work. At that point institute ownership actually starts to make sense at the personal level.
Where I work, things are fairly relaxed. The institute owns everything on paper. In reality we can generally do what we want in terms of giving away rights ie gpl releases of software, and this is encouraged by the institute. For commercial spin-outs of research work there is case-by-case negotiation, but if a lot of resources have been supplied then a 40% stake would go to the institute. After they've stumped up patent fees this seems reasonable.
There is a very simple reason that the Top500 is full of Opteron systems. Until the i7 Intel did not have an integrated memory controller. Although the Core2 does more work per cycle, at lower power, and with better caching - there is a measurable difference in large memory bound workloads. The other factors were enough to make them faster on the desktop, but the lack of integrated memory controller was killing them in large-scale systems.
The i7 continues the advantages that Core2 had over the Opteron range, but adds that missing memory controller. It's not clear yet if it is good enough. The memory subsystem graphs in the article are interesting. Intel still has a faster, larger cache, but may lack raw bandwidth to main memory.
I'm not going to disagree with your comments on the impending death of the desktop (or agree with them either). But I will point out that people have been making exactly the same comments and predictions for 20 years. We still have desktop computers.
ok, I can sort of see your point, and of course I was being a little factious, but this is slashdot:) The historical role of middleman between the public and the talent is only eaking away slightly. Maybe in ten years it will be different. I guess that what I was saying was that sites likes piratebay give us an idea of what it could be like. There needs to be something else, there are recommendation sites, they do some of it. It's not there yet, so I'd retract a bit and say that it's possible that in some length of time the publicist may not be necessary. Maybe not yet, possible never, but just maybe not in a short while.
Actually I hadn't heard of it either. It was linked to from the Altair article on wikipedia:) There's a huge margin between the intro price of $5k and the list price of $14k. I figured that the GP was at least in a ballpark, somewhere, maybe even downtown;)
Weird. I wouldn't have thought that different generations would have different takes on ethics. But as a child of the 70s this is the first post that I've agreed with in this discussion so far.
I would add that the publisher entered into a implicit contract; in exchange for their monopoly over the supply of the good, they are ethically responsible for ensuring that it is available to anybody that wants it. Otherwise they are depriving you of a book, and the author of a sale.
By failure to uphold this covenant (in the ethical rather than legal sense) they make it necessary to seek out the book by other means. And a result when it is found, it should be done in a way that deprives them of payment.
Judging by his fragrant use of punctuation, capitalisation and the complete lack of any understanding of the basic concepts involved: you are arguing with a complete idiot. You can never beat him. He'll just drag you down to his level and use all of his experience against you.
The problem in the uk today (as described in TFA) is that we have separate teachers and graders. There is a free market for exam boards.
The result is that market forces cause the exam boards to set easier and easier exams. So your proposed "solution" is in fact, the very problem being discussed.
I would normally tell somebody as stupid as you to quit stealing oxygen at this point, but you wouldn't do something as "socialist" as that, would you? So how about you go and practice your "anarcho-capitalist" ideas on a) a desert island, or b) a failed state like somalia. See how that works out for you.
Slashdot Mirror
We live in a universe where digital information can be copied easily. Any attempt to stop that state of affairs is imposing a contract on individuals not to do something that is easy to accomplish. How well do you think legislating against gravity would work? That is an observation about how natural copyright is. Whether or not copyright is a good idea is a separate question.
If the natural state of the universe allows me to copy something freely and without cost, then any limitation on that is a limitation on my natural freedom. I'm not saying that I support that point of view, so don't bother arguing it. But at least I can understand what their point of view is. You should try giving it some thought before launching your salvo of strawman arguments. There is more to the copyright debate than whether or not people can pirate your games.
Although casting your vote because you believe in their agenda that we should not have copyright in a modern state is perfectly acceptable. Luckily democracy means letting people choose how they vote, for whatever reasons that they think are acceptable. And guess what? They don't even have to get the approval of a vested interest like you.
No. You could not be more wrong I'm afraid. When I sign a review of somebodies work I am not recommending / trusting them as a person. I am recommending that single piece of work. People who trust me can then trust that the piece of work is good.
The hash is completely necessary because the trust relationship is slightly more fine grained than you assumed. It is not about trust between academic peers, it is trust in the work of an academic peer.
That already exists without a web of trust. There is a lot research already into analysing citation and co-citation graphs for the features that you mention. In network-analysis terms the links that you describe are called gateway nodes.
A degree in CS and a long enough memory to remember that deep pipelines looked like the way forward at the time, and that the increases in power as we went through a couple of fab nodes were unexpected.
What are you basing your uninformed opinion on?
You should have tried mapping the two different Expose functions to hot-corners at the bottom of the screen. If you want to switch apps you just move down to the dock, if you want to switch documents you move to a corner and your entire screen becomes a document selector. If you want to select between all documents in all applications then you hit the other corner. It may have been enough to make you more curious about your metrosexuality.
Although I use a mac, I come from a linux background so I just tend to use the keyboard for everything.
If there is an acronym that you are going to use throughout your review, and it will be senseless without THEN DEFINE IT SOMEWHERE AT THE TOP!
Then that sounds like prior art for most of the patent.
No that doesn't do it at all. The patent is describing a more fine-grained security model than users/groups/permissions and as such allows the user to do things that can't be done with the standard posix file permissions. If memory serves tt's normally called capabilities, and although it has been around for at least 10 years, the patent probably predates it shipping in unix/nt systems.
In particular, if you try and describe capabilities using groups, lets say that you have two permissions that you want to give an application: B & C, how would you do this in normal posix permissions? A file can only be in a single group at a time. This problem is exactly why ACLs were bolted onto linux, and the patent describes another way of solving the problem.
It is not standard unix file permissions, even if it has already been around for a decade.
Ok, we get it. You think that Google is evil. But just so that we can judge the accuracy of your opinion, how many people / companies pass your arbitrarily high bar for evil? Can you name just one...
That's true. I knew quite a few imperative languages (C, asm, java, C++, basic etc) before I was introduced to Haskell. It was mind-bending. But I'm not convinced that it is actually harder - I think some of it is conditioning. Teaching a functional language to somebody without any experience of imperative constructs may turn out to be easier.
It sounds like you've missed the point. Not all languages operate on statements, with variables and assignment. These are common to imperative languages, which all fall under a single paradigm. The submitter asked which paradigm would be best to introduce someone to programming.
Your lack of experience in other paradigms (not meant as a slight, 99% of all mainstream work is done in imperative languages) means that you have a similar educational history to what the submitter is considering. You consider imperative languages to be the whole world, rather than just a subset of it.
Logic, or functional languages are very different. Learning them forces you to consider other approaches to programming than those that are evident in an imperative language. Making someone learn a functional language first can teach them a lot about programming in general. Especially when they move over to an imperative language, but they have a different bag of tricks to apply to problems.
One of the first languages that I learnt as a child was Logo. It's a bit of style these days, although it was fairly common back on 8-bit home computers. At the time I though of it as a bit weird in comparison to the other languages that I used, but it taught me to think about programming in a different way. It is only with the hindsight of 20 years and a degree that I can see that "weirdness" was because it was functional.
At which point they will say no (for good reason).
The submitter will look for another job, and learn a hard lesson about the asymmetry in the employment market in academia where student researchers are largely interchangeable.
Although the GP is being quite contemptuous and arrogant (I suspect he is not a professor, but has met a few that he thinks behave like that), there is a grain of truth in what he is saying. The original submission is complaining about standard practice in academia.
As a PhD student you get to keep the rights to all of your work. This makes sense, you are the sole originator of the research and your only official contact is your advisor who can lob in ideas and support, but not do the work for you.
As a Research Assistant (or the equivalent lowest rung on the ladder where you are), you are suddenly in a very different situation. Somebody else is doing research, and you're doing the grunt work to make it happen. It would be ludicrous to keep the right to his work that is originated by others.
As you climb the ladder the balance shifts. Most Research Associates should be formulating, and carrying out their own research. There is more of an argument for them keeping rights (although, generally they don't).
The higher up you get the more real collaboration happens, at which point it becomes harder to assign ownership to the work. At that point institute ownership actually starts to make sense at the personal level.
Where I work, things are fairly relaxed. The institute owns everything on paper. In reality we can generally do what we want in terms of giving away rights ie gpl releases of software, and this is encouraged by the institute. For commercial spin-outs of research work there is case-by-case negotiation, but if a lot of resources have been supplied then a 40% stake would go to the institute. After they've stumped up patent fees this seems reasonable.
There is a very simple reason that the Top500 is full of Opteron systems. Until the i7 Intel did not have an integrated memory controller. Although the Core2 does more work per cycle, at lower power, and with better caching - there is a measurable difference in large memory bound workloads. The other factors were enough to make them faster on the desktop, but the lack of integrated memory controller was killing them in large-scale systems.
The i7 continues the advantages that Core2 had over the Opteron range, but adds that missing memory controller. It's not clear yet if it is good enough. The memory subsystem graphs in the article are interesting. Intel still has a faster, larger cache, but may lack raw bandwidth to main memory.
I'm not going to disagree with your comments on the impending death of the desktop (or agree with them either). But I will point out that people have been making exactly the same comments and predictions for 20 years. We still have desktop computers.
ok, I can sort of see your point, and of course I was being a little factious, but this is slashdot :) The historical role of middleman between the public and the talent is only eaking away slightly. Maybe in ten years it will be different. I guess that what I was saying was that sites likes piratebay give us an idea of what it could be like. There needs to be something else, there are recommendation sites, they do some of it. It's not there yet, so I'd retract a bit and say that it's possible that in some length of time the publicist may not be necessary. Maybe not yet, possible never, but just maybe not in a short while.
Actually I hadn't heard of it either. It was linked to from the Altair article on wikipedia :) There's a huge margin between the intro price of $5k and the list price of $14k. I figured that the GP was at least in a ballpark, somewhere, maybe even downtown ;)
I see your 1975 microcomputer and raise you a 1971 microcomputer. So, what's your point?
That fact that torrents are available of this work without the intervention of a corporate middleman defeats your point somewhat.
Weird. I wouldn't have thought that different generations would have different takes on ethics. But as a child of the 70s this is the first post that I've agreed with in this discussion so far.
I would add that the publisher entered into a implicit contract; in exchange for their monopoly over the supply of the good, they are ethically responsible for ensuring that it is available to anybody that wants it. Otherwise they are depriving you of a book, and the author of a sale.
By failure to uphold this covenant (in the ethical rather than legal sense) they make it necessary to seek out the book by other means. And a result when it is found, it should be done in a way that deprives them of payment.
Judging by his fragrant use of punctuation, capitalisation and the complete lack of any understanding of the basic concepts involved: you are arguing with a complete idiot. You can never beat him. He'll just drag you down to his level and use all of his experience against you.
You are a complete idiot.
The problem in the uk today (as described in TFA) is that we have separate teachers and graders. There is a free market for exam boards.
The result is that market forces cause the exam boards to set easier and easier exams. So your proposed "solution" is in fact, the very problem being discussed.
I would normally tell somebody as stupid as you to quit stealing oxygen at this point, but you wouldn't do something as "socialist" as that, would you? So how about you go and practice your "anarcho-capitalist" ideas on a) a desert island, or b) a failed state like somalia. See how that works out for you.
How does that work exactly? Given that your integrated Nvidia part is still a hardware accelerator.
One core?