I use it for all sorts of programmable etraction and reporting type tasks. Like I have a 83 line script that generates the dependency information for a set of supplied c source files recursively (ie checks the dependencies of all #include'd files [at least the #include "file.h" form) and outputs the results in makefile format. I also wrote a quick one at work once that would parse the file which listed the EEPROM datastructure locations and sizes in seemingly random order and then give me a list of free locations (and overlaps...)...
In some cases "winning" is worse than losing.... Governments do not exist to preserve themselves but instead to protect the people. IMHO a government that while protecting itself against a reasonable aggressor (which would cause minimal harm to the people if they are victorious) makes an enemy of the entire world to win, is not looking out for the common people's interests and has no right to rule (see "Declaration of Independence").
Also, if I were in a fight getting my butt kicked I would rather surrender than escalate the conflict (except in the case where I was fighting for my or someone else's life).
Viruses are really just lumps of DNA/RNA wrapped in proteins that happen to cause certain cells to produce more copies. Anything new thing a virus does is random, but after it has been filtered by natural selection it isn't technically random. If a new effect of a virus were to facilitate transmission, it would be selected for.
Genetics is confusing because it's backwards: the effect preceeds the cause. Nothing is done for a purpose, but some changes are kept or dropped for a purpose. (It's like a really weak bandpass filter, put a signal that is initially white-noise through it enough times and you will get a signal that perfectly fits in the pass-band --although in genetics the filter is changing, and noise is continuously added)
It's not that they provided a competing proprietary standard, but that they only provided a broken implementation of the open one. With openGL Microsoft did basically the same thing they did/are doing with Java (they shipped a broken VM and then now are trying to replace Java with C#). Microsoft only supports the very first version of the standard, which is from 1992. Most openGL applications require a newer version or extensions that are not present in the version that comes with windows. This paved the way nicely for DirectX which came out 3 years after openGL.
As far as tabbed browsing and whatnot goes, I'd agree with you (you'll pry my tabbed browsing from my cold dead fingers...). Tabbed browsing is somewhat different than the typical task. When browsing the web, the new tabs you open are all related to eachother in task. You create new tabs from within the application. Since these are internal new tasks it makes sense that they don't start up a separate application.
For tasks generated externally, this is not so good, since these can have little relation to the other tasks in the group, reducing organization [hmm.. where did I put that datasheet....--oh here it is, it popped up in my pr0n browser window...]....
And if I want to use the same program, but use completely different settings, to do completely different tasks (which may even be mutually exclusive), which is easier: running a different instance of the program exactly like I would if the other weren't running already, or using whatever godforsaken command structure the application designer has decided to impose on me to split the application and change parts of the configuration for new task I want to do, while still retaining the same configuration for the old task. (Furthermore which is easier for the developer [means fewer bugs] -- write the program to compete for external resources or write the program to compete for external resources, manage and allocate internal resources, provide configuration division between pseudoprocesses, provide functionality for splitting application, provide user interface and documentation for configuration division and splitting functionality)
Most of the times I see a program that doesn't allow more than one instance allowed it's either a) because the application doesn't respect shared resources correctly so if two are running they tend to clobber eachother (of course if you happen to be using another program that uses those resources [correctly] one or both of them will get clobbered anyway...) b) because the designers arbitrarily decided that only one instance should be allowed. (CAN BARELY CONTAIN RAGE....)
About IE: I'm not really sure what wrong with IE, but normal applications cannot take eachother down using shared libraries (at least on any sane operating system). I could have sworn that IE only runs in a single process (which controls multiple windows), but as I haven't really used IE in a while I can't really say.
In most cases dynamic libraries aren't really shared resources -- since code access is readonly and data is not shared. Memory is a shared resource, processsing time is a shared resource, disk space is a shared resource, network access is a shared resource, user input is a shared resource, screen space is a shared resource, various hardware devices and probably a few others...Other than memory (and maybe some hardware devices), there's not much I can think of that would let a process take down another one with it...
Uh.. I happen to think about it the other way around. Its adding another function to the application that masks the problem and allowing multiple instances that fixes the problem.
If I want to do two separate tasks which, while similar enough to be accomplished by the same program, are otherwise completely different: What sense would it make for me to have to use the same application? The tasks are completely different. Arguably the settings I set for one might not be optimal for the other (and if you have one for each instance, then you might as well have a separate application running). Why should they be forced to share threads and stack and heap space? Why should the crashing of one take down the other? Modern operating systems already share (readonly) memory between separate processes, so there are no resource savings in creating such a monstrosity.
Uh...That listing was ranked by ALL taxes, no just sales. If you look at the site it says "State/Local taxes as % of per capita income", which to me implies that they took all the taxes into account.
As for your links, they do nothing to prove your points. Both your links reference the "economic freedom" rankings created by Pacific Research. Unfortunately I could find no information to describe exactly how they calculated these rankings. In addition rankings are a poor measure to go by because they obscure the actual differences between adjacent ranks.
Given the two data sets, I find the Tax Foundation's data (from the CNN link) infinitely more meaningful than that of Pacific Research.
If you could provide some actual data on how "liberal states have economic environments that are the most likely to screw poor people out of higher wages and opportunity", I'd love to read about it. Especially since my experience seems the other way around...
But as for it being biased, I don't quite see where you're getting that from.
A satellite array can be directional in the same way antenna arrays such as those used in RADAR are currently. They all transmit the same signal, but each delays the signal by an amount dependant on the geometry of the formation, causing the interference pattern to create directionality.
I couldn't find a real good reference online, so this is all I can point to.
For a graphics library that's not a good license. It means that you can only write GPL programs (no BSD or public domain programs, no comercial programs). [Of course if you really want to, they'll let you pay for a comercial license...]
IMHO, libraries should be LGPL, so you can use them (unmodified) without having to license the program (whose entirety you wrote) a certain way.
So is it a good thing that America doesn't really produce anything anymore (other than guns, corn, music, and pizza [movies are being made in Australia these days, and software is made in India])?
Under a free market, America would be forced to get off their collective butts and do something. In the 1960s what did Japan do better than anyone else? Japan didn't have the political muscle America has to force people to accept one-sided trade regulations. Now where is Japan now?
Actually though, America does make some good stuff. Neal Stephenson probably doesn't mention that stuff because being cynical sells more techno-fiction (his stuff is not sci-fi -- it's not about technology. IMHO it's a very immature and shallow fiction that allows geeky losers to feel like their dicks are bigger than everyone else's, but that's beside the point...[Read some David Brin if you want a real Sci-Fi novel]). America makes planes, cars, food, electronics, and other items that are too numerous to mention.
You're right though, that in a free labor market, there is no reason for similarly qualified Asians to make less than Americans, but there's also no reason in a free trade market that a pound of rice costs more in American than in Asia. Sure everybody would get the same wages, but you'd also pay the same for products. (What sort of efficiency gains do you think we'd get once we stopped importing goods that were made here and then exported because they're that sold for that much cheaper over seas...) Besides in a free market, America itself would have an excellent position. We still have lots of room here for expansion, numerous resources on the continent, and educated population and a stable government. Japan is too crowded, China's governement is unpredictable, Europe's too crowded (though they're probably closest to the US), and the other nations either have stability problems or infrastructure issues.
It's because the global economy is a closed system. An increase in the efficiency of the economy increases the total amount of wealth available (this may be seen as the cost of the product falling as costs of production decrease [but this does not necessarily have to be the case]). This extra wealth flows to either the customers or owners who then use the extra money. This extra money goes back into the economy where it is multiplied (the amount of increase depends on the economy's efficiency). This increase in consumer capital makes new markets viable, leading to a growth in jobs.
How so? It's been a few years since high school economics, but I thought that free trade raises the amount of available luxuries due to the advantages in efficiencies of different countries. Sure suddenly removing all tariffs and trade rules would cause chaos, but eventually the market should settle out.
I don't quite see how this would cause workers to get paid nothing and get no benefits...You could be trying to make the same sort of outsourcing argument I see occasionally about "those foreigners taking our jobs", but I don't really understand that logic either since the net increase in efficiency achieved by hiring cheaper foreign labor should cause more jobs to open up than were taken.
Wrong. You OWN a copy of OS X. You can't legally make copies of OS X (aside from personal use), but you do OWN that copy.
Now they also provide a EULA that has extra restrictions on what I can and can't do with the copy I OWN. Even if I don't accept the EULA, I still OWN the copy because I bought it. So based on copyright law, I can legally do whatever I want (except for certain activities prohibited by the DMCA) with my property.
The problem with your captcha is that you are passing an easily cracked hash of the answer along with the script as a hidden form element.
Recommendations: A. Your hash appears to not be very random (for solutions beginning with 32xxx the first two bytes of the hash are identical). What you need is a hash function that hashes the entire thing to produce all the bits of the hash. B. Don't send out the answer in a computer readable form -- hashed or not. It just makes it too darn easy.
That's odd. In my (Mozilla 1.7.10) browser their website only does side-to-side scrolling if I set my window to less than 661 pixels wide... (and that's with the text at 100% -- I usually surf at 90%...)
The point is not that "all these people could be using Linux". Really, I personally don't care what people want to use. I happen to use and enjoy Linux. Other people may not.
The point of this article was that Microsoft was using unethical and illegal monopolistic tactics to prevent consumers from selecting the most competitive product, and that this has resulted in a tangible cost to the industry as a whole. You can wave the "But people wouldn't use Linux" strawman as much as you want, but it doesn't really say much about the issue at hand. The point is that because of Microsoft's anticompetitive practices people are left with little product choice. If Microsoft was playing fairly, people would be able to choose an operating system like Linux, BSD, FreeDOS, or proprietary operating systems that would have been developed if they could have been marketed.
Or are you really trying to say that those "business practices" didn't have any effect on the market?
I believe that a lot of engineers are required to do something like this on a regular basis to keep their certifications. Where I was last working (before I went back to school), the engineers did this once a year. The presentations were usually interesting and related to the job. People would talk about new techniques to analyse power systems or new ways to use data from commonly used components. This sort of show and tell allows the old people to pass on old knowledge and the new people to pass on new techniques.
And in any case, it's a good excuse to take a break.
Given that men and women share more than 97.8% of their chromosomes, what is the probability that an evolved enhancement would only be expressed in one of them. Don't forget that men and women are the same species (we're not ants: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/0 3/1711204&tid=14). Almost any evolutionary pressure felt by a specific gender will be felt for the entire species.
The only true differences between the sexes are small ones (a couple hormones at key points in time). Although this does allow for some differences, they are limited to those caused by the hormones (namely musculature, hip size, breasts, pubic hair, etc). Based on this it seems unlikely that the apparent differences between the sexes are caused by anything other than environmental pressures such as tradition. QED
Picture a bunch of people sitting around a television watching the same show as a family. They laugh together at the jokes, comment on various aspects of the show and maybe discuss their day during the commercials. At one point in time the TV was the social center of the ideal American family.
Segments are great for protections since the compiler groups data into segments based on how the data is used (I think objdump calls them "sections" instead of segments). This works very well except in cases where you want to use virtual memory. It becomes a pain because the operating system has to somehow place different sized segments into memory efficiently. This is difficult because moving segments is slow, but may be necessary when the memory gets fragmented.
Paging works well for virtual memory, but sucks for providing protections. This is because pieces of memory aren't divided by function in a purely paged system, but instead are divided arbitrarily by the operating system. This means that you may have both code and data in a given page, so protection becomes more guesswork. Additionally this is really memory inefficient since page tables are really big (assuming a 32 bit address space with 4k page table entries, just the page table would take 4 MB of memory--And you need one of these for each program, plus the operating system...[this at a time when 640k was enough for everyone])
What the Intel processors do is use a hiearchical technique: They have a top level segment table whose entries point to a page table which points to the actual pages. The segment table has for a long time had two bits to control accesses (which is enough for read and write...). Back then they were more worried about programs interfering with each other than interfering with themselves (I guess they expected the programmers to do their own damn job [fortunately us hardware people have learned better]).
All of that is pure speculation. Maybe I need to upgrade my tinfoil hat, but I have a hard time seeing things from your perspective.
I doubt this is part of a data-mining conspiracy to determine the most effective method of brain-washing the masses. (This sort of forum would only attract the most interested parties who hold different views from the masses and are also the least likely to be persuaded.) Worst case, it may help them plan their timeline and budgetting.
As much as it hurts to say it, Intellectual Property does exist for a reason. Copyrights and Trademarks are a necessary part of a free market. What keeps another company from rising up and selling their own version of "Microsoft Windows" in identical boxes but with very different contents. Without trademarks it is impossible for a consumer to be a discriminating buyer. Copyright was designed to prevent others from profiting from the works of an individual. It is completely concerned with "credit where it is due". Businesses couldn't care less about who produces "great idea X" because they're so busy trying to produce, market and sell "great idea X". This leaves the creator in poverty. Patents are designed to protect the creator.
IP is not supposed to be about "theft and control". It actually is supposed to be about incentive -- not the incentive to create theories or products or music, but the incentive to distribute it.
My understanding of current IP systems does lead me to believe they have some flaws. Additionally modern advances in communication systems lowered the bar on distribution costs. Based on the above analysis this suggests that the incentives may need to be reduced.
Since the WIPO's entire [stated] purpose is advocate changes to existing IP laws in such a way as to benefit its member nations citizens, it might be appropriate to mention these concerns to them. Their midrange plan expires this year so we could have an important impact on their future stated goals. Make suggestions like "Patents can only belong to people" or "Copyright only lasts X years" and then provide a reasonable argument for your case.
I know you crazy americans have no respect at all for the UN so I guess it's a bit much to expect you to trust them.
I don't have good literary skills. I have not adequately researched the topic, and have no real experience in this field. In addition I have no real standing in this field to draw upon for support: I'm a college student, not an engineer or businessman. I don't really know the way things are in the IP world aside from how it affects me personally. I could clothe myself in white-tower idealism and preach about morality and social conscience, but that doesn't really say as much as people in the field giving real-world examples.
Besides the current entries I read on the site are so well written they're intimidating. (It's even scarier than when I leave my parent's basement once a month to shower...)
Slashdot Mirror
I use it for all sorts of programmable etraction and reporting type tasks.
Like I have a 83 line script that generates the dependency information for a set of supplied c source files recursively (ie checks the dependencies of all #include'd files [at least the #include "file.h" form) and outputs the results in makefile format.
I also wrote a quick one at work once that would parse the file which listed the EEPROM datastructure locations and sizes in seemingly random order and then give me a list of free locations (and overlaps...)...
In some cases "winning" is worse than losing....
Governments do not exist to preserve themselves but instead to protect the people. IMHO a government that while protecting itself against a reasonable aggressor (which would cause minimal harm to the people if they are victorious) makes an enemy of the entire world to win, is not looking out for the common people's interests and has no right to rule (see "Declaration of Independence").
Also, if I were in a fight getting my butt kicked I would rather surrender than escalate the conflict (except in the case where I was fighting for my or someone else's life).
Viruses are really just lumps of DNA/RNA wrapped in proteins that happen to cause certain cells to produce more copies.
Anything new thing a virus does is random, but after it has been filtered by natural selection it isn't technically random.
If a new effect of a virus were to facilitate transmission, it would be selected for.
Genetics is confusing because it's backwards: the effect preceeds the cause. Nothing is done for a purpose, but some changes are kept or dropped for a purpose. (It's like a really weak bandpass filter, put a signal that is initially white-noise through it enough times and you will get a signal that perfectly fits in the pass-band --although in genetics the filter is changing, and noise is continuously added)
It's not that they provided a competing proprietary standard, but that they only provided a broken implementation of the open one.
With openGL Microsoft did basically the same thing they did/are doing with Java (they shipped a broken VM and then now are trying to replace Java with C#).
Microsoft only supports the very first version of the standard, which is from 1992. Most openGL applications require a newer version or extensions that are not present in the version that comes with windows. This paved the way nicely for DirectX which came out 3 years after openGL.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opengl#History
As far as tabbed browsing and whatnot goes, I'd agree with you (you'll pry my tabbed browsing from my cold dead fingers...). Tabbed browsing is somewhat different than the typical task. When browsing the web, the new tabs you open are all related to eachother in task. You create new tabs from within the application. Since these are internal new tasks it makes sense that they don't start up a separate application.
For tasks generated externally, this is not so good, since these can have little relation to the other tasks in the group, reducing organization [hmm.. where did I put that datasheet....--oh here it is, it popped up in my pr0n browser window...]....
And if I want to use the same program, but use completely different settings, to do completely different tasks (which may even be mutually exclusive), which is easier: running a different instance of the program exactly like I would if the other weren't running already, or using whatever godforsaken command structure the application designer has decided to impose on me to split the application and change parts of the configuration for new task I want to do, while still retaining the same configuration for the old task. (Furthermore which is easier for the developer [means fewer bugs] -- write the program to compete for external resources or write the program to compete for external resources, manage and allocate internal resources, provide configuration division between pseudoprocesses, provide functionality for splitting application, provide user interface and documentation for configuration division and splitting functionality)
Most of the times I see a program that doesn't allow more than one instance allowed it's either
a) because the application doesn't respect shared resources correctly so if two are running they tend to clobber eachother (of course if you happen to be using another program that uses those resources [correctly] one or both of them will get clobbered anyway...)
b) because the designers arbitrarily decided that only one instance should be allowed. (CAN BARELY CONTAIN RAGE....)
About IE:
I'm not really sure what wrong with IE, but normal applications cannot take eachother down using shared libraries (at least on any sane operating system). I could have sworn that IE only runs in a single process (which controls multiple windows), but as I haven't really used IE in a while I can't really say.
In most cases dynamic libraries aren't really shared resources -- since code access is readonly and data is not shared. Memory is a shared resource, processsing time is a shared resource, disk space is a shared resource, network access is a shared resource, user input is a shared resource, screen space is a shared resource, various hardware devices and probably a few others...Other than memory (and maybe some hardware devices), there's not much I can think of that would let a process take down another one with it...
Uh.. I happen to think about it the other way around.
Its adding another function to the application that masks the problem and allowing multiple instances that fixes the problem.
If I want to do two separate tasks which, while similar enough to be accomplished by the same program, are otherwise completely different: What sense would it make for me to have to use the same application? The tasks are completely different. Arguably the settings I set for one might not be optimal for the other (and if you have one for each instance, then you might as well have a separate application running). Why should they be forced to share threads and stack and heap space? Why should the crashing of one take down the other?
Modern operating systems already share (readonly) memory between separate processes, so there are no resource savings in creating such a monstrosity.
Not to mention that since Ozone is a greenhouse gas, when the Ozone layer recovers it will contribute to global warming.
Uh...That listing was ranked by ALL taxes, no just sales.
If you look at the site it says "State/Local taxes as % of per capita income", which to me implies that they took all the taxes into account.
As for your links, they do nothing to prove your points. Both your links reference the "economic freedom" rankings created by Pacific Research. Unfortunately I could find no information to describe exactly how they calculated these rankings. In addition rankings are a poor measure to go by because they obscure the actual differences between adjacent ranks.
Given the two data sets, I find the Tax Foundation's data (from the CNN link) infinitely more meaningful than that of Pacific Research.
If you could provide some actual data on how "liberal states have economic environments that are the most likely to screw poor people out of higher wages and opportunity", I'd love to read about it. Especially since my experience seems the other way around...
But as for it being biased, I don't quite see where you're getting that from.
A satellite array can be directional in the same way antenna arrays such as those used in RADAR are currently. They all transmit the same signal, but each delays the signal by an amount dependant on the geometry of the formation, causing the interference pattern to create directionality.
I couldn't find a real good reference online, so this is all I can point to.
For a graphics library that's not a good license.
It means that you can only write GPL programs (no BSD or public domain programs, no comercial programs). [Of course if you really want to, they'll let you pay for a comercial license...]
IMHO, libraries should be LGPL, so you can use them (unmodified) without having to license the program (whose entirety you wrote) a certain way.
So is it a good thing that America doesn't really produce anything anymore (other than guns, corn, music, and pizza [movies are being made in Australia these days, and software is made in India])?
Under a free market, America would be forced to get off their collective butts and do something.
In the 1960s what did Japan do better than anyone else? Japan didn't have the political muscle America has to force people to accept one-sided trade regulations. Now where is Japan now?
Actually though, America does make some good stuff. Neal Stephenson probably doesn't mention that stuff because being cynical sells more techno-fiction (his stuff is not sci-fi -- it's not about technology. IMHO it's a very immature and shallow fiction that allows geeky losers to feel like their dicks are bigger than everyone else's, but that's beside the point...[Read some David Brin if you want a real Sci-Fi novel]).
America makes planes, cars, food, electronics, and other items that are too numerous to mention.
You're right though, that in a free labor market, there is no reason for similarly qualified Asians to make less than Americans, but there's also no reason in a free trade market that a pound of rice costs more in American than in Asia. Sure everybody would get the same wages, but you'd also pay the same for products. (What sort of efficiency gains do you think we'd get once we stopped importing goods that were made here and then exported because they're that sold for that much cheaper over seas...)
Besides in a free market, America itself would have an excellent position. We still have lots of room here for expansion, numerous resources on the continent, and educated population and a stable government. Japan is too crowded, China's governement is unpredictable, Europe's too crowded (though they're probably closest to the US), and the other nations either have stability problems or infrastructure issues.
It's because the global economy is a closed system.
An increase in the efficiency of the economy increases the total amount of wealth available (this may be seen as the cost of the product falling as costs of production decrease [but this does not necessarily have to be the case]). This extra wealth flows to either the customers or owners who then use the extra money. This extra money goes back into the economy where it is multiplied (the amount of increase depends on the economy's efficiency). This increase in consumer capital makes new markets viable, leading to a growth in jobs.
How so?
It's been a few years since high school economics, but I thought that free trade raises the amount of available luxuries due to the advantages in efficiencies of different countries.
Sure suddenly removing all tariffs and trade rules would cause chaos, but eventually the market should settle out.
I don't quite see how this would cause workers to get paid nothing and get no benefits...You could be trying to make the same sort of outsourcing argument I see occasionally about "those foreigners taking our jobs", but I don't really understand that logic either since the net increase in efficiency achieved by hiring cheaper foreign labor should cause more jobs to open up than were taken.
That's still better than what I've seen. Some people drop to shorthand when writing commments.
So on the "INC A" line the comment would be "inc A reg"
Wrong. You OWN a copy of OS X. You can't legally make copies of OS X (aside from personal use), but you do OWN that copy.
Now they also provide a EULA that has extra restrictions on what I can and can't do with the copy I OWN. Even if I don't accept the EULA, I still OWN the copy because I bought it. So based on copyright law, I can legally do whatever I want (except for certain activities prohibited by the DMCA) with my property.
The problem with your captcha is that you are passing an easily cracked hash of the answer along with the script as a hidden form element.
Recommendations:
A. Your hash appears to not be very random (for solutions beginning with 32xxx the first two bytes of the hash are identical). What you need is a hash function that hashes the entire thing to produce all the bits of the hash.
B. Don't send out the answer in a computer readable form -- hashed or not. It just makes it too darn easy.
That's odd. In my (Mozilla 1.7.10) browser their website only does side-to-side scrolling if I set my window to less than 661 pixels wide...
(and that's with the text at 100% -- I usually surf at 90%...)
The point is not that "all these people could be using Linux". Really, I personally don't care what people want to use. I happen to use and enjoy Linux. Other people may not.
The point of this article was that Microsoft was using unethical and illegal monopolistic tactics to prevent consumers from selecting the most competitive product, and that this has resulted in a tangible cost to the industry as a whole.
You can wave the "But people wouldn't use Linux" strawman as much as you want, but it doesn't really say much about the issue at hand.
The point is that because of Microsoft's anticompetitive practices people are left with little product choice. If Microsoft was playing fairly, people would be able to choose an operating system like Linux, BSD, FreeDOS, or proprietary operating systems that would have been developed if they could have been marketed.
Or are you really trying to say that those "business practices" didn't have any effect on the market?
I believe that a lot of engineers are required to do something like this on a regular basis to keep their certifications.
Where I was last working (before I went back to school), the engineers did this once a year. The presentations were usually interesting and related to the job. People would talk about new techniques to analyse power systems or new ways to use data from commonly used components. This sort of show and tell allows the old people to pass on old knowledge and the new people to pass on new techniques.
And in any case, it's a good excuse to take a break.
Given that men and women share more than 97.8% of their chromosomes, what is the probability that an evolved enhancement would only be expressed in one of them.0 3/1711204&tid=14).
Don't forget that men and women are the same species (we're not ants: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/
Almost any evolutionary pressure felt by a specific gender will be felt for the entire species.
The only true differences between the sexes are small ones (a couple hormones at key points in time). Although this does allow for some differences, they are limited to those caused by the hormones (namely musculature, hip size, breasts, pubic hair, etc). Based on this it seems unlikely that the apparent differences between the sexes are caused by anything other than environmental pressures such as tradition. QED
Picture a bunch of people sitting around a television watching the same show as a family. They laugh together at the jokes, comment on various aspects of the show and maybe discuss their day during the commercials.
At one point in time the TV was the social center of the ideal American family.
Grab a book on Computer Architecture.
Segments are great for protections since the compiler groups data into segments based on how the data is used (I think objdump calls them "sections" instead of segments). This works very well except in cases where you want to use virtual memory. It becomes a pain because the operating system has to somehow place different sized segments into memory efficiently. This is difficult because moving segments is slow, but may be necessary when the memory gets fragmented.
Paging works well for virtual memory, but sucks for providing protections. This is because pieces of memory aren't divided by function in a purely paged system, but instead are divided arbitrarily by the operating system. This means that you may have both code and data in a given page, so protection becomes more guesswork. Additionally this is really memory inefficient since page tables are really big (assuming a 32 bit address space with 4k page table entries, just the page table would take 4 MB of memory--And you need one of these for each program, plus the operating system...[this at a time when 640k was enough for everyone])
What the Intel processors do is use a hiearchical technique: They have a top level segment table whose entries point to a page table which points to the actual pages. The segment table has for a long time had two bits to control accesses (which is enough for read and write...). Back then they were more worried about programs interfering with each other than interfering with themselves (I guess they expected the programmers to do their own damn job [fortunately us hardware people have learned better]).
I was under the impression this only worked for frames in the same window..
All of that is pure speculation. Maybe I need to upgrade my tinfoil hat, but I have a hard time seeing things from your perspective.
I doubt this is part of a data-mining conspiracy to determine the most effective method of brain-washing the masses. (This sort of forum would only attract the most interested parties who hold different views from the masses and are also the least likely to be persuaded.) Worst case, it may help them plan their timeline and budgetting.
As much as it hurts to say it, Intellectual Property does exist for a reason. Copyrights and Trademarks are a necessary part of a free market.
What keeps another company from rising up and selling their own version of "Microsoft Windows" in identical boxes but with very different contents. Without trademarks it is impossible for a consumer to be a discriminating buyer.
Copyright was designed to prevent others from profiting from the works of an individual. It is completely concerned with "credit where it is due". Businesses couldn't care less about who produces "great idea X" because they're so busy trying to produce, market and sell "great idea X". This leaves the creator in poverty.
Patents are designed to protect the creator.
IP is not supposed to be about "theft and control". It actually is supposed to be about incentive -- not the incentive to create theories or products or music, but the incentive to distribute it.
My understanding of current IP systems does lead me to believe they have some flaws.
Additionally modern advances in communication systems lowered the bar on distribution costs. Based on the above analysis this suggests that the incentives may need to be reduced.
Since the WIPO's entire [stated] purpose is advocate changes to existing IP laws in such a way as to benefit its member nations citizens, it might be appropriate to mention these concerns to them. Their midrange plan expires this year so we could have an important impact on their future stated goals.
Make suggestions like "Patents can only belong to people" or "Copyright only lasts X years" and then provide a reasonable argument for your case.
I know you crazy americans have no respect at all for the UN so I guess it's a bit much to expect you to trust them.
I don't have good literary skills. I have not adequately researched the topic, and have no real experience in this field.
In addition I have no real standing in this field to draw upon for support: I'm a college student, not an engineer or businessman. I don't really know the way things are in the IP world aside from how it affects me personally. I could clothe myself in white-tower idealism and preach about morality and social conscience, but that doesn't really say as much as people in the field giving real-world examples.
Besides the current entries I read on the site are so well written they're intimidating. (It's even scarier than when I leave my parent's basement once a month to shower...)