It is a single novel, split into 6 books, often published in 3 volumes. It definitely is not a trilogy - that would imply that the separate movies/books make sense without knowing the prior movies/books. Not true!
It is a shame that they did not make 6 movies. It would have allowed them to make much fewer changes in the story.
The mirror scene with Frodo was a small fragment of the scouring filmed especially for that scene. I can confirm, Jackson says himself in the commentary with the extended edition of FOTR that scouring isn't included. Yeah I think it sucks too - no doubt its going to have the traditional Hollywood Ending when the ring is destroyed, cut to big celebration when Aragorn becomes king, and everyone lives happily ever after and none of the audience have any psycological challenges to deal with.
My dream is that Jackson actually did film the scouring scenes (or they can CGI them in later) and like in 'Brazil', there will be a sanitized version for the Yanks, and a 'real' version for the rest of us... Hmm, that will probably give me a 'Troll' mod:-)
The reasons for some people not using BK are not completely political. The BK license forbids people who use it from authoring competing source-control software. That is the controversial part.
The primary tree is on Linus' own machine, using BitKeeper. He periodically pushes this onto the public BitKeeper repostory. There is also a BittKeeper -> CVS gateway so that people who cannot use BitKeeper (or prefer not to) can grab patches via CVS.
My understanding is, there is no mechanism to feed changes occuring in the CVS tree back into the BK tree anyway, so changing the CVS repository would never have worked anyway, the next time the BK tree was exported to CVS it would (at worst) revert the change.
Even hacking into the BK tree and changing something there wouldn't work, it would simply cause Linus' next 'push' to fail. The only way to change something sucessfully would be to somehow get Linus to mistakenly accept a trojaned patch, or hack Linus' own machine. Even then, the changes would appear in the change log so it would be difficult to avoid getting noticed.
If you've never heard anything special about the number '2600' before, then googling around for '2600 magazine' or 'captain crunch' might be a good start.
Sure, but the point is that hand-counting the votes is a backup, and in the first instance, the computer vote is trustable. If you always had to hand-count the votes, there would be no point computerizing the system in the first place.
And that does mandate open-source.
Of course, there is no reason why said open-source software cannot be commercial. Indeed, most likely it would be.
THe link is slashdotted right now, but where did it suggest that there was any generic modifications going on? The report suggests they merely grafted a tomato plant onto a tobacco plant. This procedure has been done for hundreds (probably thousands) of years. Not even any science involved. Not modern science, anyway;)
Benfords law applies to quantities that depend on some scale, which is ultimately arbitary (for example, distance measured in 'feet' and so on). For a large enough sample, and the right sort of data, the distribution of first digits should not depend on which measuement scale you are using, ie the probability distribution is scale-invariant - and therefore a power law.
How does this apply to votes? The obvious unit of measurement (ie. units of '1 vote') is not scale invariant?
We've had 12 things in about an eight month period in Windows Server 2003 and with the equivalent level of attack in the previous generation we would have had over 100. We had 43, but adjusting for the level of intensity it's a factor of 10 difference. If we can get another factor of 10, which would get you down to 1.2, plus the improvements in the patching and updating, that's what people want.
Can anyone translate this into English? Even American English would do, I'm not fussy....
Or the other way around? SCO versus a lawyer funded on the cheap by a single developer (once they win the first case, the precedent lets them get through the other N-1 pretty quickly), or SCO versus a bunch of lawyers funded by a pool?
No, a real-time OS is completely opposite of what you want on a supercomputer!
Supercomputing is all about maximizing throughput, therefore you want to cache everything you can, and sacrifice worst-case performance to get improved average-case performance. eg, if you could increase the cache speed & latency in exchange for sacrificing main memory latency, then that would be a good tradeoff (as long as there is enough memory bandwidth). Very long time-slices is another technique.
For a real-time system, average-case performance is irrelevant and you want real guaranteed worst-case behaviour. For that, you actually want to disable the caching completely - it just increases the latency bounds.
Probably, the price would need to be closer to $10 to make a serious impact on piracy. At that level, Microsoft wouldn't be making much profit, and of course it opens up all sorts of interesting possibilities to re-export cheap and legal(? MS would surely fight it but the WTO might have something to say) copies of Windows back to more lucrative MS markets.
To save you the bother, I will summarize it briefly:
They need to the the piracy rate down so they can meet previously-agreed WTO and WIPO limits. They are having lots of trouble stopping piracy because of (I guess) cultural reasons, the population simply don't recognize "piracy" as being wrong. Mandating OSS is percieved as the only realistic way of achieving the desired reduction in piracy.
Kinda ironic really, that the WIPO are basically forcing OSS onto them:-)
Of course. "Secret knowledge" has been around (literally) forever. Typically held by the shaman/priesthood, who didn't allow the plebs access to their secret voodoo incantations - typically by keeping them in a different language that the plebs do not understand.
But that is a very different concept to the modern notion that ideas and knowledge are on a par with physical property, and this "intellectual property" can be bought, sold, rented and licensed.
With respect to the British Patent Office link, recognising authorship of works, pioneered by the Greeks and Romans, has nothing to do with "intellectual property".
Without "intellectual property," friend, you'd be reading this article on a soot-darkened cave wall.
Really? I think the term "intellectual property" was not even coined until looong after humans left the caves. Unless you mean, not the term itself but the concept of "intellectual property"? On that too I would dispute you; even in modern law there is no such overall concept, and in my experience (I am a postdoctorial research fellow in theoretical physics) the whole notion of "intellectual property" is anti-intellectual and only slows down progress.
What the hell is a "standard english voice[s] without accents"??? Every person from the USA I ever encounted has a TREMENDOUS accent! Can you provide any evidence that accent has such a big factor on recognition rates? Indeed, can you back up any of the figures (70%, 40%, 90% blah blah blah) with any facts at all?
If you use Linux, the GPL says you can keep using Linux even if the code is found to be proprietary and the GPL goes into its "failsafe mode".
This is an important point that I think most people are missing. The particular clause you are referring to is otherwise known as the "Liberty or Death" clause - if you cannot simultaneously satisfy all of the constraints of the GPL then you cannot distribute the software at all. Your rights in that case fall back to what is granted under pure copyright law (ie. basically no rights at all).
However, you need to keep in mind that the GPL covers distribution only, you are always free to use GPL software for any purpose you like even if you don't accept the license (although of course you need to accept the license if you want to distribute it).
So in fact the GPL says nothing about whether you can or cannot continue to use it after SCO comes after you. That is up to copyright laws (or other relevant laws). Other than this point, I agree completely.
Slashdot Mirror
It is a shame that they did not make 6 movies. It would have allowed them to make much fewer changes in the story.
My dream is that Jackson actually did film the scouring scenes (or they can CGI them in later) and like in 'Brazil', there will be a sanitized version for the Yanks, and a 'real' version for the rest of us... Hmm, that will probably give me a 'Troll' mod :-)
*lived* being the operative word here.
A: None. Capitalism only rewards inventors when they are forced into it by the law. So much for all of this 'we respect IP rights' crap.
What the fuck are you on, man?
Unfortunately this is too true. The days when you could read a decent technical discussion on slashdot have unfortunately long gone :-(
The reasons for some people not using BK are not completely political. The BK license forbids people who use it from authoring competing source-control software. That is the controversial part.
The primary tree is on Linus' own machine, using BitKeeper. He periodically pushes this onto the public BitKeeper repostory. There is also a BittKeeper -> CVS gateway so that people who cannot use BitKeeper (or prefer not to) can grab patches via CVS.
My understanding is, there is no mechanism to feed changes occuring in the CVS tree back into the BK tree anyway, so changing the CVS repository would never have worked anyway, the next time the BK tree was exported to CVS it would (at worst) revert the change.
Even hacking into the BK tree and changing something there wouldn't work, it would simply cause Linus' next 'push' to fail. The only way to change something sucessfully would be to somehow get Linus to mistakenly accept a trojaned patch, or hack Linus' own machine. Even then, the changes would appear in the change log so it would be difficult to avoid getting noticed.
If you've never heard anything special about the number '2600' before, then googling around for '2600 magazine' or 'captain crunch' might be a good start.
Err, surely the bad guys can already see every possible bug?
And that does mandate open-source.
Of course, there is no reason why said open-source software cannot be commercial. Indeed, most likely it would be.
THe link is slashdotted right now, but where did it suggest that there was any generic modifications going on? The report suggests they merely grafted a tomato plant onto a tobacco plant. This procedure has been done for hundreds (probably thousands) of years. Not even any science involved. Not modern science, anyway;)
Wow, that judgement truely encapsulates all of the fine principles of the US legal system. Screw reality, just go with the money. I like it!
How does this apply to votes? The obvious unit of measurement (ie. units of '1 vote') is not scale invariant?
? The problem was buggy firmware by LG, surely LG would fix it for free? Why buy new drives?
Can anyone translate this into English? Even American English would do, I'm not fussy....
Or the other way around? SCO versus a lawyer funded on the cheap by a single developer (once they win the first case, the precedent lets them get through the other N-1 pretty quickly), or SCO versus a bunch of lawyers funded by a pool?
Supercomputing is all about maximizing throughput, therefore you want to cache everything you can, and sacrifice worst-case performance to get improved average-case performance. eg, if you could increase the cache speed & latency in exchange for sacrificing main memory latency, then that would be a good tradeoff (as long as there is enough memory bandwidth). Very long time-slices is another technique.
For a real-time system, average-case performance is irrelevant and you want real guaranteed worst-case behaviour. For that, you actually want to disable the caching completely - it just increases the latency bounds.
Probably, the price would need to be closer to $10 to make a serious impact on piracy. At that level, Microsoft wouldn't be making much profit, and of course it opens up all sorts of interesting possibilities to re-export cheap and legal(? MS would surely fight it but the WTO might have something to say) copies of Windows back to more lucrative MS markets.
They need to the the piracy rate down so they can meet previously-agreed WTO and WIPO limits. They are having lots of trouble stopping piracy because of (I guess) cultural reasons, the population simply don't recognize "piracy" as being wrong. Mandating OSS is percieved as the only realistic way of achieving the desired reduction in piracy.
Kinda ironic really, that the WIPO are basically forcing OSS onto them :-)
But that is a very different concept to the modern notion that ideas and knowledge are on a par with physical property, and this "intellectual property" can be bought, sold, rented and licensed.
With respect to the British Patent Office link, recognising authorship of works, pioneered by the Greeks and Romans, has nothing to do with "intellectual property".
Really? I think the term "intellectual property" was not even coined until looong after humans left the caves. Unless you mean, not the term itself but the concept of "intellectual property"? On that too I would dispute you; even in modern law there is no such overall concept, and in my experience (I am a postdoctorial research fellow in theoretical physics) the whole notion of "intellectual property" is anti-intellectual and only slows down progress.
The FBI does indeed have a "terrorism watch list", but it is completely useless. Apparantly there are 13 million people on it!
What the hell is a "standard english voice[s] without accents"??? Every person from the USA I ever encounted has a TREMENDOUS accent! Can you provide any evidence that accent has such a big factor on recognition rates? Indeed, can you back up any of the figures (70%, 40%, 90% blah blah blah) with any facts at all?
This is an important point that I think most people are missing. The particular clause you are referring to is otherwise known as the "Liberty or Death" clause - if you cannot simultaneously satisfy all of the constraints of the GPL then you cannot distribute the software at all. Your rights in that case fall back to what is granted under pure copyright law (ie. basically no rights at all).
However, you need to keep in mind that the GPL covers distribution only, you are always free to use GPL software for any purpose you like even if you don't accept the license (although of course you need to accept the license if you want to distribute it).
So in fact the GPL says nothing about whether you can or cannot continue to use it after SCO comes after you. That is up to copyright laws (or other relevant laws). Other than this point, I agree completely.