Not neccessarily. Good C optimization algorithms in a compiler (GCC3 is capable of some slick stuff) will produce smaller and faster code than most assembly coders, simply because it will perform optimizations coders may miss or not think of.
A simple example: It's faster to clear a register on x86 hardware by XOR'ing it with itself than it is to MOV a zero into it... even though the MOV might seem to a coder to be the most obvious thing to do.
From what I see, the "Linux camp" isn't trying to stop/destroy SCO's protest signs. They are, however, expressing their opinion of those signs and those who made them. Last time I checked, that was also protected by free speech.
It's great that you referred to the dictionary to make your point and all, but you intentionally misrepresented the definition by taking only the ambiguous reference that suited your argument. As another respondant to your post pointed out, "take" is not defined in a sufficiently unambiguous manner.
stealing
Steal \Steal\, v. t. [imp. Stole; p. p. Stolen; p. pr. & vb. n. Stealing.] [OE. stelen, AS. stelan; akin to OFries. stela, D. stelen, OHG. stelan, G. stehlen, Icel. stela, SW. stj["a]la, Dan. sti[ae]le, Goth. stilan.] 1. To take and carry away, feloniously; to take without right or leave, and with intent to keep wrongfully; as, to steal the personal goods of another.
\Steal"ing\, n. 1. The act of taking feloniously the personal property of another without his consent and knowledge; theft; larceny.
\Theft\, n. [OE. thefte, AS. [thorn]i['e]f[eth]e, [thorn][=y]f[eth]e, [thorn]e['o]f[eth]e. See Thief.] 1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.
larÂceÂny
The unlawful taking and removing of another's personal property with the intent of permanently depriving the owner; theft.
You cannot steal anything intangible like IP, by definition. There is a reason why patent and copyright law exists. You could not have missed the above information in the dictionary, so you probably realized you were wrong even if you didn't want to accept that you were.
Right: All this talk about deprivation of value being equivalent to theft is fallacy. Often intentional dishonesty, even.
Theft means directly depriving the owner of the property in question:
theft
\Theft\, n. [OE. thefte, AS. [thorn]i['e]f[eth]e, [thorn][=y]f[eth]e, [thorn]e['o]f[eth]e. See Thief.] 1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.
Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief. See Larceny, and the Note under Robbery.
That is not "theft" or "stealing". These two synonyms have a specific definition that does not apply to copyright infringement. No matter what you might think, you cannot steal someone's profits unless you explicitly take liquid assets from them.
You can deny someone compensation (profits) through copyright infringment, and this is what copyright law exists to punish.
I'm sorry if you feel the phrase "copyright infringment" doesn't have the verbal weight, or bite, that the word "stealing" does... but calling it such is incorrect.
They don't spin backwards, period. It's a silly rumour that keeps getting spread.
I really don't get why people keep clinging to this belief. Just pop open a running Gamecube sometime. You'll see the disc spinning clockwise (It's pretty safe to do this; the cube will simply complain via an on-screen message and spin down the disc).
Their copy-protection is actually rather simple... Instead of the standard DVD data format, they just use their own. Nothing but Nintendo systems could read it until now (and even then, I'll believe it when I see it). GC discs are otherwise completely normal mini-DVDs.
Affordable is not free. Censorship on the net and speed limits on the road, even when justifiable, are not freedom.
I was correcting HanzoSan three posts back, who implied that it would free once built. Nationalized net access could be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but like roads, it definitely isn't free in either sense.
Roads must be maintained. This is not free, and you continuously pay for it with your tax dollars. It would be the same with a government-run network infrastructure.
Litigation is great for stock price if you can convince enough people that you stand a good chance of winning. Stockholders love the sudden cash infusion.
SCO's stock price rocketed with their releases about the case and news of forthcoming proof earlier this month. The investors must have thought that SCO's chances were good and that licensing revenue would start rolling in, so they bought in.
Tech investors have gotten slightly wiser after the bust, and they realize that threatening Linus is suicide because of how much support he and his kernel have. Even if you don't know what Linux is, it still looks bad: "If you don't license our crap, we're going to kill this puppy."
Now a lot of the investors are getting out while they're ahead, and SCO's stock has dropped over 24% to about $6.60 at the time of this post.
That said, neither company seems all that diversified to me. Diversification would be one of these companies breaking into the fast food market or something similarly distant from computer graphics.
As a software engineer, I have to say that the perceived "skill" required to write a virus is blown way out of proportion.
There's nothing inherently special about a virus or a worm. They're actually very simple, and most malware writers today are not very talented. They produce bloated, barely functional software (scripts, for the most part today) that is only dangerous because the average user is so trusting. I remember when viruses were actually smaller than the files they infected...
Got coders in your firm? If they're capable of writing inter-operation layers for your apps or database frontends, then they're capable of writing viruses and worms far worse than bugbear. But chances are they don't, because it's a waste of time.
Those students don't need specialized virus-writing courses. A simple assembly course would put them lightyears ahead of the "bad guys" if they actually paid attention for once.
No, that's completely wrong. It does not spin backwards. It's physically a completely standard mini-DVD disc. Your PC can't read the them because they don't use the expected DVD data format. It's conceivable you could write some sort of driver to handle these discs, but that would be in violation of the DMCA.
I'm not sure that a specific political position applies in this case; there are fools of both sides of the fence
Since when are there only two political positions? For that matter, how is it relevent to the poorly-chosent statement I'm chastizing you about?
and I'd love to know how you arrived at the conclusion that I've made an assumption. I've given so such indication.
You stated this: The question is, would you afford others whose political positions are not in alignment with your own the same dignification? As if I were of the same political alignment as the poster you replied to, defending his statements and maligning yours based soley on the political alignment of both posters.
I simply observed that there doesn't seem to be much tolerance on your side, as was apparent from the "don't be stupid" remark.
Tolerance is one thing, but acceptance is another entirely. There's no politics whatsoever behind my comments to you. There was a rather large fallacy in the logic of your biting comment to the original poster, and you were vitriolic towards that poster's political ideals; the very thing you were accusing him/her (or by the wordage of your post, that entire political ideology) of: Amazing how a political ideology can try to cloak itself in an all-inclusive and peaceful shroud only to spew vitriolic hate about those who are different from them politically. I found that rather stupid, and interjected.
Wow, with that kind of reasoning, your comments are hateful as well, as long as we're reaching.
Good to see you've come to grips with what it was you were doing in the first place with that original post.;)
Boy I really look like the hateful one NOW, don't I?
Both you and the poster you originally replied to, actually. The Soviet Russia joke wouldn't have quite fit in this case. Not that I'd use such a tired cliche in the first place, though.
The question is, would you afford others whose political positions are not in alignment with your own the same dignification?
Of course. I've done just that. I might add that you don't even know what my political position is, though you seem to have made an assumption.
but don't memorize all those esoteric (= a good example itself!) words.
Obviously it's not a good example, as you used it yourself in lieu of a less elegant construct like "weird and exists to confuse me". Language is one of the few things that does require a lot of strict memorization to be useful. You need to be able to communicate quickly and effectively. At least in calculation or coding, you can use reference material for formulas or APIs without impacting the end result.
Amazing how a political ideology can try to cloak itself in an all-inclusive and peaceful shroud only to spew vitriolic hate about those who are different from them politically.
Don't be stupid, now. The spew came from a person, not a political ideology. Political ideologies have a hard time spewing anything, as they're not people and can't speak. It's hard to take you seriously when you acuse an abstract concept of vitriol, and in a rather venomous tone at that. Even if you were to correct yourself in that you refer to people who follow an ideology, it's still a baseless generalization.
No, according to the old old definitions it is not. But RISC doesn't mean "reduced" instruction set anymore, it means "reasonable".
Nope... The interpretation of the acronym may have changed in some circles, but the acronym itself hasn't. The R still stands for "reduced". I'm being pedantic, but it's better than leaving a spurious assertion stand.
It's funny... matron mothers? No problem. That's what the EMP cannon is for. Matron: "Don't come near!" *ZOT!!* *fzzt, crash* Me: "Yeah, and you got ugly kids lady!"
Nope, the matron mothers weren't scary. Neither were the rumblers, or the spiders, or even the overminds. It was those freaking monkeys. Those things creeped me right out.
Monkey: "eee-eee!" Me: "Where the hell's that coming from? Is that it moving over th..." *foosh-boom!* *15 nanites used in reconstruction* Me: Dammit!
The file-deleting trojan the RIAA is proposing will nuke your ligitimate songs even if they're not shared. There were rather vicious penalties for commiting such hacking/cracking crimes in north america, last I checked. I'm pretty sure I also saw something about virus and trojan writing being illegal.
Seeing as "freeze" and "silence" are bona-fide trojans and are being paraded by the RIAA, the bribes to get out of this one when it hits the courts ought to be expensive. Such hubris.
Re:Who didn't see this coming?
on
SCO DOS'ed
·
· Score: 1
150mbit of bandwidth isn't much these days. A single OC3 will match that.
Slashdot Mirror
Not neccessarily. Good C optimization algorithms in a compiler (GCC3 is capable of some slick stuff) will produce smaller and faster code than most assembly coders, simply because it will perform optimizations coders may miss or not think of.
A simple example: It's faster to clear a register on x86 hardware by XOR'ing it with itself than it is to MOV a zero into it... even though the MOV might seem to a coder to be the most obvious thing to do.
From what I see, the "Linux camp" isn't trying to stop/destroy SCO's protest signs. They are, however, expressing their opinion of those signs and those who made them.
Last time I checked, that was also protected by free speech.
No knoppix build that I know of, but gentoogames does have a bootable RTCW:ET disc. Download instructions for it are right on their main page.
You cannot steal anything intangible like IP, by definition. There is a reason why patent and copyright law exists.
You could not have missed the above information in the dictionary, so you probably realized you were wrong even if you didn't want to accept that you were.
Right: All this talk about deprivation of value being equivalent to theft is fallacy. Often intentional dishonesty, even.
Theft means directly depriving the owner of the property in question:
(excerpt from dictionary.reference.com)
There are specific terms with specific laws to cover deprivation of perceived or possible value, precisely because it differs from theft.
No, that's not right.
That is not "theft" or "stealing". These two synonyms have a specific definition that does not apply to copyright infringement.
No matter what you might think, you cannot steal someone's profits unless you explicitly take liquid assets from them.
You can deny someone compensation (profits) through copyright infringment, and this is what copyright law exists to punish.
I'm sorry if you feel the phrase "copyright infringment" doesn't have the verbal weight, or bite, that the word "stealing" does... but calling it such is incorrect.
They don't spin backwards, period. It's a silly rumour that keeps getting spread.
I really don't get why people keep clinging to this belief. Just pop open a running Gamecube sometime. You'll see the disc spinning clockwise (It's pretty safe to do this; the cube will simply complain via an on-screen message and spin down the disc).
Their copy-protection is actually rather simple... Instead of the standard DVD data format, they just use their own. Nothing but Nintendo systems could read it until now (and even then, I'll believe it when I see it). GC discs are otherwise completely normal mini-DVDs.
You're missing the point.
Affordable is not free.
Censorship on the net and speed limits on the road, even when justifiable, are not freedom.
I was correcting HanzoSan three posts back, who implied that it would free once built. Nationalized net access could be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but like roads, it definitely isn't free in either sense.
Roads must be maintained. This is not free, and you continuously pay for it with your tax dollars.
It would be the same with a government-run network infrastructure.
IE6 SP1 isn't totally broken on these tests. It gets the two last palletized tests correct.
God damn but it freaking mangles everything else, though.
Microsoft's new Orange SPV which is the first commercially available Smartphone
All this time, I must have been imagining commercially available smartphones like the Handspring Treo and the Kyocera Smartphone.
Litigation is great for stock price if you can convince enough people that you stand a good chance of winning. Stockholders love the sudden cash infusion.
SCO's stock price rocketed with their releases about the case and news of forthcoming proof earlier this month. The investors must have thought that SCO's chances were good and that licensing revenue would start rolling in, so they bought in.
Tech investors have gotten slightly wiser after the bust, and they realize that threatening Linus is suicide because of how much support he and his kernel have. Even if you don't know what Linux is, it still looks bad: "If you don't license our crap, we're going to kill this puppy."
Now a lot of the investors are getting out while they're ahead, and SCO's stock has dropped over 24% to about $6.60 at the time of this post.
You know what nVidia's been up to, but apparently not what ATI's been doing.
In addition to consumer graphics products, ATI makes integrated chipsets and mobile graphics chips, as well as TV-tuners and professional products. ATI's chips also power Nintendo's Gamecube console and Triforce arcade system. They even make(made?) modems.
That said, neither company seems all that diversified to me. Diversification would be one of these companies breaking into the fast food market or something similarly distant from computer graphics.
As a software engineer, I have to say that the perceived "skill" required to write a virus is blown way out of proportion.
There's nothing inherently special about a virus or a worm. They're actually very simple, and most malware writers today are not very talented. They produce bloated, barely functional software (scripts, for the most part today) that is only dangerous because the average user is so trusting. I remember when viruses were actually smaller than the files they infected...
Got coders in your firm? If they're capable of writing inter-operation layers for your apps or database frontends, then they're capable of writing viruses and worms far worse than bugbear. But chances are they don't, because it's a waste of time.
Those students don't need specialized virus-writing courses. A simple assembly course would put them lightyears ahead of the "bad guys" if they actually paid attention for once.
No, that's completely wrong. It does not spin backwards. It's physically a completely standard mini-DVD disc.
Your PC can't read the them because they don't use the expected DVD data format. It's conceivable you could write some sort of driver to handle these discs, but that would be in violation of the DMCA.
I'm not sure that a specific political position applies in this case; there are fools of both sides of the fence
;)
Since when are there only two political positions? For that matter, how is it relevent to the poorly-chosent statement I'm chastizing you about?
and I'd love to know how you arrived at the conclusion that I've made an assumption. I've given so such indication.
You stated this:
The question is, would you afford others whose political positions are not in alignment with your own the same dignification?
As if I were of the same political alignment as the poster you replied to, defending his statements and maligning yours based soley on the political alignment of both posters.
I simply observed that there doesn't seem to be much tolerance on your side, as was apparent from the "don't be stupid" remark.
Tolerance is one thing, but acceptance is another entirely. There's no politics whatsoever behind my comments to you. There was a rather large fallacy in the logic of your biting comment to the original poster, and you were vitriolic towards that poster's political ideals; the very thing you were accusing him/her (or by the wordage of your post, that entire political ideology) of:
Amazing how a political ideology can try to cloak itself in an all-inclusive and peaceful shroud only to spew vitriolic hate about those who are different from them politically.
I found that rather stupid, and interjected.
Wow, with that kind of reasoning, your comments are hateful as well, as long as we're reaching.
Good to see you've come to grips with what it was you were doing in the first place with that original post.
Boy I really look like the hateful one NOW, don't I?
Both you and the poster you originally replied to, actually. The Soviet Russia joke wouldn't have quite fit in this case.
Not that I'd use such a tired cliche in the first place, though.
The question is, would you afford others whose political positions are not in alignment with your own the same dignification?
Of course. I've done just that.
I might add that you don't even know what my political position is, though you seem to have made an assumption.
but don't memorize all those esoteric (= a good example itself!) words.
Obviously it's not a good example, as you used it yourself in lieu of a less elegant construct like "weird and exists to confuse me".
Language is one of the few things that does require a lot of strict memorization to be useful. You need to be able to communicate quickly and effectively. At least in calculation or coding, you can use reference material for formulas or APIs without impacting the end result.
Amazing how a political ideology can try to cloak itself in an all-inclusive and peaceful shroud only to spew vitriolic hate about those who are different from them politically.
Don't be stupid, now. The spew came from a person, not a political ideology. Political ideologies have a hard time spewing anything, as they're not people and can't speak.
It's hard to take you seriously when you acuse an abstract concept of vitriol, and in a rather venomous tone at that. Even if you were to correct yourself in that you refer to people who follow an ideology, it's still a baseless generalization.
No, according to the old old definitions it is not. But RISC doesn't mean "reduced" instruction set anymore, it means "reasonable".
Nope... The interpretation of the acronym may have changed in some circles, but the acronym itself hasn't. The R still stands for "reduced".
I'm being pedantic, but it's better than leaving a spurious assertion stand.
It's funny... matron mothers? No problem. That's what the EMP cannon is for.
Matron: "Don't come near!"
*ZOT!!* *fzzt, crash*
Me: "Yeah, and you got ugly kids lady!"
Nope, the matron mothers weren't scary. Neither were the rumblers, or the spiders, or even the overminds. It was those freaking monkeys. Those things creeped me right out.
Monkey: "eee-eee!"
Me: "Where the hell's that coming from? Is that it moving over th..."
*foosh-boom!* *15 nanites used in reconstruction*
Me: Dammit!
The file-deleting trojan the RIAA is proposing will nuke your ligitimate songs even if they're not shared.
There were rather vicious penalties for commiting such hacking/cracking crimes in north america, last I checked. I'm pretty sure I also saw something about virus and trojan writing being illegal.
Seeing as "freeze" and "silence" are bona-fide trojans and are being paraded by the RIAA, the bribes to get out of this one when it hits the courts ought to be expensive. Such hubris.
150mbit of bandwidth isn't much these days. A single OC3 will match that.
It may be a new patch, but I'm not sure why Ingo bothered when grsecurity already does what exec-shield does, and far more.