Google & NSA have been in bed together for ages. Heck, you know that thing called Google Earth? It used to be called Keyhole. NSA footed 10% of the bill on that.
Wrong agency. It was the CIA who funded Keyhole through INQTEL.
For users experiencing excessive OutOfMemory exceptions we provide a tool which overrides Visual Studio's memory allocation policy to ensure more continuous address space for Common Language Runtime.
Note that the problem is Visual Studio's memory allocation policy, not WOW or any other part of the operating system.
Memory fragmentation is a well known problem for C++ applications (or any other non-garbage-collected apps) and it affects all platforms equally.
Maybe that's why you were modded troll.
Builds via the command line begin to fail on the 64bit machine after a few runs without my having to load either VS 2008 or the Management studio (which also loads the runtime). So in this situation both resharper and VS 2008 are removed as factors. The issue has to be with the way the WOW system allocates memory because you can perform the same operations until you are blue in the face on a 2GB 32bit machine without an crashes. So mr. anonymous apologist for MSFT, what is broken? Is every tool that works fine in 32bit windows to blame or is it the OS? I blame the OS.
Doesnt the SDK specify the ability to just use it on one phone for testing or can they distribute it to other phones without another $99 dollar development tax per phone?
Im kinda pissed my tax dollars are used to develop of this shit locked in platform, but to also pay for the privilege is ridiculous. If this is the new NASA mentality, then perhaps we are better off cutting them down to size and letting private enterprise move into their space monopoly.
So let me get this straight, you are complaining about NASA spending 99 dollars? BTW. It is 299 dollars per institution for in-house corporate deployment. But 299 is nothing in comparison to the wages of a small team for just one hour of work. Compared to the cost of other projects or even the robots themselves, 299 dollars is nothing.
Whoever modded me a troll obviously did not read the links that I posted. It is a real issue and affected my development environment at work. My 32bit workstation is quite stable but a project that I am working on requires access to copies of production data so we have to do our development on VMs in a separate dev domain and the VM I was given is 64bit to match our target servers. I have useable stability on my VM several hours at a time as long as I run VS 2008 only through that wrapper program and don't kick off the full build script. Eventually, memory corruption problems will bring down either SQL 2008 management studio (has 32bit components) or my wrapped VS 2008 instance. Once the memory is corrupt, I have to reboot the VM.
I don't see memory fragmentation being a problem with 64-bit address spaces for a very, very long time. Unless a contiguous range of 2^40 addresses is just not enough.
My development VM only has 2GB allocated to it. The instability is exacerbated if I do a full build of the entire tree via command line as the build will call a bunch of 32bit commands. Most of our developers are still on 32bit machines which are quite stable but I was developing software to target a 64bit server farm so someone thought it a good idea for me to develop on a 64bit VM.
Opening up SQL Server 2008 management studio at the same time as even a patched VS 2008 instance can be problematic. Allocating 3GB to the VM would make things last a bit longer but it would still happen.
The 64bit address space is irrelevant to programs that are running under WOW since they are 32bit apps and even if they are made large address space aware, you will still have the fragmentation problem because of bugs in the the WOW subsystem.
BTW. If I were to do the same actions on a 32bit machine (physical or virtual), I would have no instability issues so it is definitely caused by the Windows on windows component of 64bit windows.
Wait, wait, don't tell me: Running an 8 year old development platform written by amateurs with an unsupported 3rd-party plugin in a 32-to-64-bit emulation layer on a modern operating system is unstable? Oh my fuck, it's Armageddon!
No, I am running VS 2008 and as I pointed out in another post, OS X can run 64bit apps in 32bit mode or visa versa no problem.
Here is a link to the more on the problems I was having and someone in the responses posted a link to a wrapper in memory patch to the fragmentation problem.
VS has never done this for me. Which version of Visual Studio are you talking about? Really VS.NET? Because that's 7 years old AFAIK.
VS 2008 is a 32bit application and it is not even large address space aware so when it is running inside of WOW (windows on windows) in 64bit Server 2008 R2, you will get memory fragmentation fairly quickly because of memory allocation bugs within the Wow subsystem of the 64bit version of any MSFT OS. As Sir_Lewk points out, any 32bit application can cause this problem. The less memory you have, they faster you will notice it.
Other OSes like OS X and linux do not seem to have these sort of problems. I am able to run 64bit apps in Snow Leopard while running in 32bit kernel mode for driver compatibility. Not only does windows not run 32bit apps properly in 64bit mode but it cannot run 64bit apps in 32bit mode and the 64bit version is a completely separate build of the OS.
It was already known and acknowledged by Microsoft that their ASLR implementation on 32-bit Windows was rather weak, but apparently the 64-bit version of it can be bypassed as well, as all of the hacks of pwn2own on Windows 7 made use of return-to-libc attacks, which should be impossible on systems with address space layout randomization.
You can corrupt memory on 64-bit windows by just running MSFT's own development tools like VS.NET with resharper plug-in. VS.NET begins to corrupt the address space rather quickly. To run VS.NET with any amount of stability on 64bit windows, you have to run it through a third party wrapper application which patches VS in memory to make it large address space aware and stop the memory fragmentation.
Unless if you have coding skills sufficient to make a useful contribution and have the time and energy to do so, you should not give a rats ass as the consumer of the binary.
The availability of the source code guarantees that the software itself, including its binaries, continue to be available.
The GPL does not give you any additional rights as the end user than a binary under the BSD license.
Bullshit. The GPL ensures continued availability of the source code, which is a huge advantage for end users.
Most BSD licensed product remain fully open source because it is in their best interests to do so.
You mean like Microsoft and Apple, who have taken a lot of BSD source code and made proprietary, often incompatible versions? No thanks.
GPL tries to impose a philosophy whereas BSD relies on the free will of others to do the right thing. I prefer the BSD volunteer approach to the trap of the GPL.
Spare me your biased, ideological drivel.
Speaking for bullshit and ideological drivel, source code does not ensure the continued availability of binaries or source code. You are compelled to publish your source code back to the community but nobody is compelled to release binaries or make source code available outside of a repository. For end users, having to source code available is effectivity the same as having nothing available when said users would have to know how to compile the code including modifying any necessary make files for their platform after the first figured out how to access the code from the repository. There is nothing compelling the maintainer to continue publishing the repository as running servers costs money.
Most BSD code does remain open but it also allows incorporation of the code in closed source implementations. The advantage of this is that "open standards" like TC/IP receive consistent and widespread adoption. End users tend to benefit more from "open standards" than "open source" although BSD licensed open source can lead to quick adoption of open standards.
Guess which one helps prevent vendor lock-in? Answer: Open Standards. The end user gets to choose open source and/or one of many closed source implementations of the "same" standard.
Open Software can be proprietary if that software implements and protocol or file format without documenting it for others to re-implement and the code has a viral software license. No commercial closed source developer will touch the code for fear of contamination while a BSD licensed product can be open source and and become an open format/standard with both open and closed source implementations.
> Given that Microsoft has a closed app store model for Windows 7 (just like the iPhone) the chances are good Microsoft would not allow Mozilla to run anyway, even if they wanted to make a nice Silverlight based browser...
I wonder, will the Apple fanboys defend Microsoft for this?
(I, for one, hate the closed app stores on all platforms. I wouldn't have such a big problem if you could get apps (without jailbreaking) from somewhere other than their store, but I do have a big problem with using any device that restricts what I can run on it.)
Why would anyone but the most rabid MSFT fanboys defend this? Apple offers an API for "native" app and game development. What MSFT is doing is more akin to the PDK released by Palm OS which is also not fully "native".
Explain. All people involved in an Apache or BSD licensed project have the same rights and freedoms.
Oh, come on, does one have to be completely unambiguous here? Are you just not using context when you're reading at all? Let me try to clarify:
The Apache and BSD licenses ensure that all the contributors have a different set of freedoms [from those freedoms ensured by the GPL], and a different set of limitations placed on them [different from those limitations placed on them by the GPL].
The point is that GPL, Apache, and BSD are all "symmetric" with respect to their contributors. And because they are "symmetric", all of them just come down to just drawing the lines differently between freedoms and limitations. None of them can give you more freedom than any other.
You may not care about the freedoms that the GPL gives you and that the Apache license doesn't, but lots of other people do.
Unless if you have coding skills sufficient to make a useful contribution and have the time and energy to do so, you should not give a rats ass as the consumer of the binary. The GPL does not give you any additional rights as the end user than a binary under the BSD license. Most BSD licensed product remain fully open source because it is in their best interests to do so. GPL tries to impose a philosophy whereas BSD relies on the free will of others to do the right thing.
I prefer the BSD volunteer approach to the trap of the GPL.
One different than the one I do. Because your freedom seems to come with restrictions.
Freedom always comes with restrictions if it is just and equal, because your freedom to do something often implies a restriction or cost for me. The GPL ensures that all the contributors have a common set of freedoms, but those translate into restrictions as well.
The Apache and BSD licenses ensure that all the contributors have a different set of freedoms, and a different set of limitations placed on them.
Explain. All people involved in an Apache or BSD licensed project have the same rights and freedoms.
You cannot be sure what century an object is from with Carbon-14 dating let alone the year so it is useless for wines. This is without factoring in the possibility of cosmic rays speeding up the decay to make it appear older than it actually is.
It is possible that our scientists could be mostly wrong about everything.
And pretty much every scientist out there agrees with you. It's the religious people who can't admit they're wrong, and that's the reason they shouldn't speak for us. Humility would indeed be the best practice.
So you would agree then that people like Richard Dawkins are no longer scientists but rather ideologues who have allowed their personal world views cloud their ability to conduct unbiased scientific research or represent the scientific community? What many anglophones seems to be unaware of is that there is no conflict between religion and science outside of countries like England and the US. Scientists are perfectly capable of doing their jobs without allowing the beliefs of lack there of influence their work. This problem seems to be a very "english" one.
Paul Davies,
chairman of the SETI Post-Detection Taskgroup, is a likely ambassador.
Why would we want a religious philosopher to speak to aliens on our behalf?
So, you assume that atheists are correct and that aliens, assuming they even exist would be atheists? Are you trying to make an ass out of u and me? If aliens exist, you have no way of knowing how they view the universe. It is possible that our scientists could be mostly wrong about everything.
Who would you suggest? An obnoxious pompous prick like Dawkins? He could potentially ignite an interstellar war if the aliens were offended by either what he said or his attitude. That guy is way too full of himself.
What you need in an ambassador is humility. Davies seems to be keen on learning how the universe works, ie. real science, rather than trying to prove the non-existence of god.
I own a Kindle 2 and for several hours of reading there's no contest between it and any computer screen I've ever seen. The Kindle wins hands down.
That's not hype, that's personal experience.
Yes hype. Most people read books or a kindle in sufficient light because both paper and displays like the kindle are reflective surfaces requiring ambient light in order to see them. I have observed that a lot of people like to use their computer LCDs at full brightness in either rooms with no lights on or a light level that would be insufficient to read from paper. Those people will suffer from eye strain. Even though you might not read a lot in a movie, being in a movie theatre will cause some eye strain and it will take time to adjust to the outside light levels.
I work on computers for approximately 8 hours a day as a software developer and I have to not only read and compose email but also read and compose documentation from time to time. I can read pages and pages of a text without my eyes getting too tired because I have light overhead and light coming from a window next to my desk on the top floor of our building. Sufficient light and taking breaks is key in preventing eye strain whether you are reading on a screen, on epaper or a paper book.
Poor lighting causes eye strain. The reason why people don't get eye strain from e-paper as much is because is "requires" ambient light in order for you to see the screen. Don't use the blacklit display as a replacement for sufficient lighting and your eyes will be fine.
Stop buying into the hype. Do people work in offices on e-paper displays all day? No. Eye strain does not occur if you take frequent breaks and work in a well lit environment.
Would you care to explain how you might implement a GSM (or wifi, for that matter) radio transmitter and receiver, in only software?
Apple used a set of Infineon chips (Infineon Digital Baseband Processor and Infineon UMTS Transceiver) for GSM and a Broadcom chip for WiFi. The Infineon chips were bonafide licensed products and along with the Broadcom WiFi chipset. Apple also paid a license for WiFi in the same way as they had done for all of their airport base stations and airport cards in their computers. They were fully licensed. Nokia has no legal claim for WiFi against Apple since they had already paid license fees to the legal license holders.
Apple is willing to pay a reasonable license fee to Nokia but that fee would be a flat fee per unit rather than a percentage of the sale price of a handset because the majority of the price of the iPhone comes from IP owned by Apple rather than Nokia. The chips themselves are already licensed.
Shit, here in the US Churches don't even have to pay *tax*. And of course, you can't be discriminated against based on your religion. Nothing says you can't be discriminated against based on a lack of religion though. Make no law respecting an establishment of religion, my ass.
Another fun fact. Charities do not pay tax either. You Americans hate social programs like universal health care so non-profit organizations like churches help the poor, sick and homeless when taxpayers like you are unwilling to pay the state to do it. The "Make no law respecting an establishment of religion" refers to a state religion like the Church of England. It does not prevent the state from co-operating with already established religions.
Note that the patents Nokia are using against Apple are not Software patents, but real technology patents. The fact that Apple has nothing but software patents to respond with is a signal about how fragile Apple in fact is, with no real "valuable" intellectual property.
Would you care to explain how Nokia's patents are not software patents when they are implemented by software? Care to explain how Nokia has a right to now claim that all of Apple's product line is infringing when Apple has "licensed" WiFi from the standards group? How can Nokia make claims against a company that has legally licensed Wifi technology?
As you long as voters in the US continue to support the two main parties and uphold the two party system, nothing will ever change.
You would be better off with a benevolent dictator because at least you could then exert the right to a violent revolution to overthrow the government should they turn into a tyrant.
Here are some apt quotes from Thomas Jefferson:
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms.
Notice how you supposedly have a democracy and yet you fear your government and you no sense of liberty? Democracy does not guarantee liberty.
Notice how you now have large cities and how corrupt they are? Notice how some of your own people are trying to remove the right to bare arms? Notice how your government wastes money on all sorts of welfare including corporate welfare (bailouts and grants)?
Yeah, speak for yourself. I LIKE fascism, and I DON'T WANT to be allowed to do whatever I want with the hardware I buy!
Wow, seriously. If you really want to so much "freedom" to screw up your tablet, either get another tablet and quit your whining or roll up your sleeves to port a linux environment to the iPad. It can be done but don't go crying to Apple when it either breaks your hardware or does not live up to the usability of the iPhone OS. Have you never heard of the KISS principle? No?
What with all the other tablets coming out that let me install whatever the hell I want on them, I see no reason to be stuck with the programs Apple deems "appropriate" for me.
Obviously, this is just my opinion and only applies to myself.
Then you will have to install Kaspersky's software as well. Are you sure that you want that? The computer is a "wild west" environment but do you seriously have to have every device completely open to everything good or bad?
Apple is probably waiting until they implement multitasking in the next OS, so that they can have Kaspersky's software constantly running in the background constantly using 50% of the CPU to block malware.
No, see this AC's post for why it will never happen:
Opening things up for Kaspersky would cause a need for their software but the current state of lock down means that there is no need for their software on the iPhone platform. I don't want to see kernel level access for third party developers on the iPhone ever.
Slashdot Mirror
Google & NSA have been in bed together for ages. Heck, you know that thing called Google Earth? It used to be called Keyhole. NSA footed 10% of the bill on that.
Wrong agency. It was the CIA who funded Keyhole through INQTEL.
I did follow your links.
Note that the problem is Visual Studio's memory allocation policy, not WOW or any other part of the operating system.
Memory fragmentation is a well known problem for C++ applications (or any other non-garbage-collected apps) and it affects all platforms equally.
Maybe that's why you were modded troll.
Builds via the command line begin to fail on the 64bit machine after a few runs without my having to load either VS 2008 or the Management studio (which also loads the runtime). So in this situation both resharper and VS 2008 are removed as factors. The issue has to be with the way the WOW system allocates memory because you can perform the same operations until you are blue in the face on a 2GB 32bit machine without an crashes. So mr. anonymous apologist for MSFT, what is broken? Is every tool that works fine in 32bit windows to blame or is it the OS? I blame the OS.
Doesnt the SDK specify the ability to just use it on one phone for testing or can they distribute it to other phones without another $99 dollar development tax per phone?
Im kinda pissed my tax dollars are used to develop of this shit locked in platform, but to also pay for the privilege is ridiculous. If this is the new NASA mentality, then perhaps we are better off cutting them down to size and letting private enterprise move into their space monopoly.
So let me get this straight, you are complaining about NASA spending 99 dollars? BTW. It is 299 dollars per institution for in-house corporate deployment. But 299 is nothing in comparison to the wages of a small team for just one hour of work. Compared to the cost of other projects or even the robots themselves, 299 dollars is nothing.
Whoever modded me a troll obviously did not read the links that I posted. It is a real issue and affected my development environment at work. My 32bit workstation is quite stable but a project that I am working on requires access to copies of production data so we have to do our development on VMs in a separate dev domain and the VM I was given is 64bit to match our target servers. I have useable stability on my VM several hours at a time as long as I run VS 2008 only through that wrapper program and don't kick off the full build script. Eventually, memory corruption problems will bring down either SQL 2008 management studio (has 32bit components) or my wrapped VS 2008 instance. Once the memory is corrupt, I have to reboot the VM.
???
I don't see memory fragmentation being a problem with 64-bit address spaces for a very, very long time. Unless a contiguous range of 2^40 addresses is just not enough.
My development VM only has 2GB allocated to it. The instability is exacerbated if I do a full build of the entire tree via command line as the build will call a bunch of 32bit commands. Most of our developers are still on 32bit machines which are quite stable but I was developing software to target a 64bit server farm so someone thought it a good idea for me to develop on a 64bit VM.
Opening up SQL Server 2008 management studio at the same time as even a patched VS 2008 instance can be problematic. Allocating 3GB to the VM would make things last a bit longer but it would still happen.
Here is a blog posting on the issue. VS 2008 is 32bit and even 2010 will be 32bit. It is also not large address space aware and the WOW subsystem has some memory allocation bugs in it.
http://stevenharman.net/blog/archive/2008/04/29/hacking-visual-studio-to-use-more-than-2gigabytes-of-memory.aspx
The 64bit address space is irrelevant to programs that are running under WOW since they are 32bit apps and even if they are made large address space aware, you will still have the fragmentation problem because of bugs in the the WOW subsystem.
BTW. If I were to do the same actions on a 32bit machine (physical or virtual), I would have no instability issues so it is definitely caused by the Windows on windows component of 64bit windows.
Wait, wait, don't tell me: Running an 8 year old development platform written by amateurs with an unsupported 3rd-party plugin in a 32-to-64-bit emulation layer on a modern operating system is unstable? Oh my fuck, it's Armageddon!
No, I am running VS 2008 and as I pointed out in another post, OS X can run 64bit apps in 32bit mode or visa versa no problem.
Here is a link to the more on the problems I was having and someone in the responses posted a link to a wrapper in memory patch to the fragmentation problem.
http://stevenharman.net/blog/archive/2008/04/29/hacking-visual-studio-to-use-more-than-2gigabytes-of-memory.aspx
VS has never done this for me. Which version of Visual Studio are you talking about? Really VS.NET? Because that's 7 years old AFAIK.
VS 2008 is a 32bit application and it is not even large address space aware so when it is running inside of WOW (windows on windows) in 64bit Server 2008 R2, you will get memory fragmentation fairly quickly because of memory allocation bugs within the Wow subsystem of the 64bit version of any MSFT OS. As Sir_Lewk points out, any 32bit application can cause this problem. The less memory you have, they faster you will notice it.
See this page for information on the problem:
http://stevenharman.net/blog/archive/2008/04/29/hacking-visual-studio-to-use-more-than-2gigabytes-of-memory.aspx
Here is a fix for the problem:
http://confluence.jetbrains.net/display/ReSharper/OutOfMemoryException+Fix
Other OSes like OS X and linux do not seem to have these sort of problems. I am able to run 64bit apps in Snow Leopard while running in 32bit kernel mode for driver compatibility. Not only does windows not run 32bit apps properly in 64bit mode but it cannot run 64bit apps in 32bit mode and the 64bit version is a completely separate build of the OS.
It was already known and acknowledged by Microsoft that their ASLR implementation on 32-bit Windows was rather weak, but apparently the 64-bit version of it can be bypassed as well, as all of the hacks of pwn2own on Windows 7 made use of return-to-libc attacks, which should be impossible on systems with address space layout randomization.
You can corrupt memory on 64-bit windows by just running MSFT's own development tools like VS.NET with resharper plug-in. VS.NET begins to corrupt the address space rather quickly. To run VS.NET with any amount of stability on 64bit windows, you have to run it through a third party wrapper application which patches VS in memory to make it large address space aware and stop the memory fragmentation.
"a Blackberry or an iPhone"
No android selection? That sucks. Still, can't complain if it's free, I suppose!
No Android because there is no active sync support, no hardware level encryption, and unencrypted removable storage.
http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=4475
Unless if you have coding skills sufficient to make a useful contribution and have the time and energy to do so, you should not give a rats ass as the consumer of the binary.
The availability of the source code guarantees that the software itself, including its binaries, continue to be available.
The GPL does not give you any additional rights as the end user than a binary under the BSD license.
Bullshit. The GPL ensures continued availability of the source code, which is a huge advantage for end users.
Most BSD licensed product remain fully open source because it is in their best interests to do so.
You mean like Microsoft and Apple, who have taken a lot of BSD source code and made proprietary, often incompatible versions? No thanks.
GPL tries to impose a philosophy whereas BSD relies on the free will of others to do the right thing. I prefer the BSD volunteer approach to the trap of the GPL.
Spare me your biased, ideological drivel.
Speaking for bullshit and ideological drivel, source code does not ensure the continued availability of binaries or source code. You are compelled to publish your source code back to the community but nobody is compelled to release binaries or make source code available outside of a repository. For end users, having to source code available is effectivity the same as having nothing available when said users would have to know how to compile the code including modifying any necessary make files for their platform after the first figured out how to access the code from the repository. There is nothing compelling the maintainer to continue publishing the repository as running servers costs money.
Most BSD code does remain open but it also allows incorporation of the code in closed source implementations. The advantage of this is that "open standards" like TC/IP receive consistent and widespread adoption. End users tend to benefit more from "open standards" than "open source" although BSD licensed open source can lead to quick adoption of open standards.
Guess which one helps prevent vendor lock-in? Answer: Open Standards. The end user gets to choose open source and/or one of many closed source implementations of the "same" standard.
Open Software can be proprietary if that software implements and protocol or file format without documenting it for others to re-implement and the code has a viral software license. No commercial closed source developer will touch the code for fear of contamination while a BSD licensed product can be open source and and become an open format/standard with both open and closed source implementations.
> Given that Microsoft has a closed app store model for Windows 7 (just like the iPhone) the chances are good Microsoft would not allow Mozilla to run anyway, even if they wanted to make a nice Silverlight based browser...
I wonder, will the Apple fanboys defend Microsoft for this?
(I, for one, hate the closed app stores on all platforms. I wouldn't have such a big problem if you could get apps (without jailbreaking) from somewhere other than their store, but I do have a big problem with using any device that restricts what I can run on it.)
Why would anyone but the most rabid MSFT fanboys defend this? Apple offers an API for "native" app and game development. What MSFT is doing is more akin to the PDK released by Palm OS which is also not fully "native".
Explain. All people involved in an Apache or BSD licensed project have the same rights and freedoms.
Oh, come on, does one have to be completely unambiguous here? Are you just not using context when you're reading at all? Let me try to clarify:
The point is that GPL, Apache, and BSD are all "symmetric" with respect to their contributors. And because they are "symmetric", all of them just come down to just drawing the lines differently between freedoms and limitations. None of them can give you more freedom than any other.
You may not care about the freedoms that the GPL gives you and that the Apache license doesn't, but lots of other people do.
Unless if you have coding skills sufficient to make a useful contribution and have the time and energy to do so, you should not give a rats ass as the consumer of the binary. The GPL does not give you any additional rights as the end user than a binary under the BSD license. Most BSD licensed product remain fully open source because it is in their best interests to do so. GPL tries to impose a philosophy whereas BSD relies on the free will of others to do the right thing.
I prefer the BSD volunteer approach to the trap of the GPL.
One different than the one I do. Because your freedom seems to come with restrictions.
Freedom always comes with restrictions if it is just and equal, because your freedom to do something often implies a restriction or cost for me. The GPL ensures that all the contributors have a common set of freedoms, but those translate into restrictions as well.
The Apache and BSD licenses ensure that all the contributors have a different set of freedoms, and a different set of limitations placed on them.
Explain. All people involved in an Apache or BSD licensed project have the same rights and freedoms.
You cannot be sure what century an object is from with Carbon-14 dating let alone the year so it is useless for wines. This is without factoring in the possibility of cosmic rays speeding up the decay to make it appear older than it actually is.
It is possible that our scientists could be mostly wrong about everything.
And pretty much every scientist out there agrees with you. It's the religious people who can't admit they're wrong, and that's the reason they shouldn't speak for us. Humility would indeed be the best practice.
So you would agree then that people like Richard Dawkins are no longer scientists but rather ideologues who have allowed their personal world views cloud their ability to conduct unbiased scientific research or represent the scientific community? What many anglophones seems to be unaware of is that there is no conflict between religion and science outside of countries like England and the US. Scientists are perfectly capable of doing their jobs without allowing the beliefs of lack there of influence their work. This problem seems to be a very "english" one.
Why would we want a religious philosopher to speak to aliens on our behalf?
So, you assume that atheists are correct and that aliens, assuming they even exist would be atheists? Are you trying to make an ass out of u and me? If aliens exist, you have no way of knowing how they view the universe. It is possible that our scientists could be mostly wrong about everything.
Who would you suggest? An obnoxious pompous prick like Dawkins? He could potentially ignite an interstellar war if the aliens were offended by either what he said or his attitude. That guy is way too full of himself.
What you need in an ambassador is humility. Davies seems to be keen on learning how the universe works, ie. real science, rather than trying to prove the non-existence of god.
Hype?
I own a Kindle 2 and for several hours of reading there's no contest between it and any computer screen I've ever seen. The Kindle wins hands down.
That's not hype, that's personal experience.
Yes hype. Most people read books or a kindle in sufficient light because both paper and displays like the kindle are reflective surfaces requiring ambient light in order to see them. I have observed that a lot of people like to use their computer LCDs at full brightness in either rooms with no lights on or a light level that would be insufficient to read from paper. Those people will suffer from eye strain. Even though you might not read a lot in a movie, being in a movie theatre will cause some eye strain and it will take time to adjust to the outside light levels.
I work on computers for approximately 8 hours a day as a software developer and I have to not only read and compose email but also read and compose documentation from time to time. I can read pages and pages of a text without my eyes getting too tired because I have light overhead and light coming from a window next to my desk on the top floor of our building. Sufficient light and taking breaks is key in preventing eye strain whether you are reading on a screen, on epaper or a paper book.
I would rather use E-Paper, tables are good and all but they are hard on the eyes after a while. http://novelwhore.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/e-paper.jpg
Poor lighting causes eye strain. The reason why people don't get eye strain from e-paper as much is because is "requires" ambient light in order for you to see the screen. Don't use the blacklit display as a replacement for sufficient lighting and your eyes will be fine.
Stop buying into the hype. Do people work in offices on e-paper displays all day? No. Eye strain does not occur if you take frequent breaks and work in a well lit environment.
Would you care to explain how you might implement a GSM (or wifi, for that matter) radio transmitter and receiver, in only software?
Apple used a set of Infineon chips (Infineon Digital Baseband Processor and Infineon UMTS Transceiver) for GSM and a Broadcom chip for WiFi. The Infineon chips were bonafide licensed products and along with the Broadcom WiFi chipset. Apple also paid a license for WiFi in the same way as they had done for all of their airport base stations and airport cards in their computers. They were fully licensed. Nokia has no legal claim for WiFi against Apple since they had already paid license fees to the legal license holders.
Apple is willing to pay a reasonable license fee to Nokia but that fee would be a flat fee per unit rather than a percentage of the sale price of a handset because the majority of the price of the iPhone comes from IP owned by Apple rather than Nokia. The chips themselves are already licensed.
Shit, here in the US Churches don't even have to pay *tax*. And of course, you can't be discriminated against based on your religion. Nothing says you can't be discriminated against based on a lack of religion though. Make no law respecting an establishment of religion, my ass.
Another fun fact. Charities do not pay tax either. You Americans hate social programs like universal health care so non-profit organizations like churches help the poor, sick and homeless when taxpayers like you are unwilling to pay the state to do it. The "Make no law respecting an establishment of religion" refers to a state religion like the Church of England. It does not prevent the state from co-operating with already established religions.
Note that the patents Nokia are using against Apple are not Software patents, but real technology patents. The fact that Apple has nothing but software patents to respond with is a signal about how fragile Apple in fact is, with no real "valuable" intellectual property.
Would you care to explain how Nokia's patents are not software patents when they are implemented by software? Care to explain how Nokia has a right to now claim that all of Apple's product line is infringing when Apple has "licensed" WiFi from the standards group? How can Nokia make claims against a company that has legally licensed Wifi technology?
You would be better off with a benevolent dictator because at least you could then exert the right to a violent revolution to overthrow the government should they turn into a tyrant.
Here are some apt quotes from Thomas Jefferson:
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms.
Notice how you supposedly have a democracy and yet you fear your government and you no sense of liberty? Democracy does not guarantee liberty.
Notice how you now have large cities and how corrupt they are? Notice how some of your own people are trying to remove the right to bare arms? Notice how your government wastes money on all sorts of welfare including corporate welfare (bailouts and grants)?
Yeah, speak for yourself. I LIKE fascism, and I DON'T WANT to be allowed to do whatever I want with the hardware I buy!
Wow, seriously. If you really want to so much "freedom" to screw up your tablet, either get another tablet and quit your whining or roll up your sleeves to port a linux environment to the iPad. It can be done but don't go crying to Apple when it either breaks your hardware or does not live up to the usability of the iPhone OS. Have you never heard of the KISS principle? No?
What with all the other tablets coming out that let me install whatever the hell I want on them, I see no reason to be stuck with the programs Apple deems "appropriate" for me.
Obviously, this is just my opinion and only applies to myself.
Then you will have to install Kaspersky's software as well. Are you sure that you want that? The computer is a "wild west" environment but do you seriously have to have every device completely open to everything good or bad?
Apple is probably waiting until they implement multitasking in the next OS, so that they can have Kaspersky's software constantly running in the background constantly using 50% of the CPU to block malware.
No, see this AC's post for why it will never happen:
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1579552&cid=31446920
Opening things up for Kaspersky would cause a need for their software but the current state of lock down means that there is no need for their software on the iPhone platform. I don't want to see kernel level access for third party developers on the iPhone ever.