I'm trying to figure out why the other replies think this is so unlikely. A quick Google says that carcass incineration may need temperatures above 850 C for two seconds (in the carcass interior) to ensure prion destruction. Diesel engines themselves do not put their fuels through this: the autoignition temperature is way below 850 C, the combustion flame is hotter than 850 C, but the fuel is not in the combustion chamber for long, and an exhaust gas temperature of 850 C means your engine is running hot enough to kill itself. Prions are hardy little buggers, and I don't see why breathing atomized prions would be better for you than eating them.
Premature optimization is the root of all blah blah blah. The web server isn't be running on Singularity anyway. OpenBSD shares a similar (albeit more human than mechanical) focus on correctness over performance, but nobody seems to think it is doomed to failure because of that.
I think "Singularity" is not worth a hill of beans, but mostly because its novel ideas have already been tried and made little headway. Java systems have applied similar approaches to securing multiple processes within an address space in the past; microkernels have applied similar approaches to communications between processes. To the best of my knowledge, neither have resulted in software that is used outside of the initially targeted niche. Singularity mostly looks like the application of those previously tried approaches to a Microsoft virtual machine.
The meaning of that comment in bold is pretty clear: The gotcha list was verified against previous versions of MySQL. The author does not know which still apply to version 5.0. The comment does NOT say that MySQL 5.0 fixes the gotchas; the question "does that mean they fixed the gotchas?" is entirely appropriate.
"The GPL allows you to modify and to use GPLed code in any way you please"
Ok, I would like to modify the code, then release it as a closed source, proprietary product.
I'm not sure what planet you come from, but where I come from, giving a copy of a work to someone else is not considered use or modification of the work.
You said "use completely freely" when you mean "use and redistribute without restriction". Perhaps in your world, bait and switch is a common or acceptable tactic, but some of us prefer to use words according to their meaning. The use of software is entirely separate from its (re-)distribution.
The GPL protects other users freedoms at the expense of any one individual's ability to use a piece of code completely freely.
That's absolutely wrong. The GPL allows you to modify and to use GPLed code in any way you please. What the GPL does not give you is the right to give the GPLed code to someone else without giving that person the same rights you got.
I have to wonder why people think the same old UNIX-vs-Linux flame war is interesting. One side claims that BSD-style licenses were responsible for UNIX forking incompatibly during the 1980s. The other side claims that strong copyleft licenses keep people from contributing. Both arguments contain some truth, but it's impossible to say that one or the other license is right for all applications because there are so many other factors that go into whether software ("free", "open source" or "proprietary") is successful. Unless you have a universe simulator and go back to re-run the last 15 years using a different license, arguing BSD vs GPL for existing software is Monday morning quarterbacking.
Darwinian evolution is not adequately captured by that interpretation of "survival of the fittest". It is about the long-term consequences of that tautology: adaptations which give individuals a competitive advantage eventually spread throughout the breeding population. It is about the variability of that tautology: in one environment, individual A might have better survival odds than individual B, but in another environment the situation is reversed. It is about both of those together: breeding populations that move into different environments will diverge and eventually may no longer be able to interbreed.
Notably, Darwinian evolution does not describe how those changes and adaptations might occur or how they propagate from parent to child. It presupposes that heritable variations exist or arise in the population. The discovery of DNA's structure, seventy some years after the publication of "The Origin of Species", provided the first glimpse at that mechanism.
"Intelligent Design" does not denote any single coherent theory. Many ID advocates inherently argue for a Young Earth model by arguing that evolution cannot produce the variety of species we see on Earth. Others argue that ID should be taught by (correctly but irrelevantly) pointing out that evolution does not explain where the first cells on Earth came from. At one level this is arguing against evolution, but at another level it uses evolution as the basis for the pro-ID argument.
Resetting the clock is not complicated, but the current system means there is a 61st second in a minute, as your quote of TFA mentions. People -- including software developers -- are strongly used to dealing with 60-second minutes, and software sometimes makes that assumption. It just requires attention (sometimes a lot of attention) and extra code (sometimes a lot of extra code) to get it right, but since very few people pay attention when a leap second happens, bugs are easily overlooked.
Since leap seconds are based on changes in the time period of Earth's rotation (the sidereal day), and the decay is both very slow and influenced by hard-to-predict factors, leap seconds are not reliably predictable. They can only be announced when they are necessary -- and so it is easy for the displayed time to drift if a leap second announcement is missed or ignored.
Leap hours, though, are different beasts. Virtually every piece of software in the world that displays time knows how to deal with the hour jumping forward or backward. That transition happens predictably and affects a huge number of users, so errors are easily noted.
Quite simply: Your message, after all, stated "I am not a native English speaker but I wanted to... Commit Digital Piracy...."
It is quite easy to take something out of context. Gun manufacturers create guns, in part to threaten or shoot other people -- in self-defense. Printers create printing presses to distribute copyrighted material -- with the consent of the copyright owner. If you leave out parts of the statement, the meaning is changed significantly.
You must have a better cable company than some of us do (or at least more faith in them). Because cable companies have monopolies granted by local government, consumers are at the mercy of the incumbent cable company in terms of service.
Take Adelphia (please!): In my neighborhood, the broadband choices are IDSL (144 kbps, $90/month), cable modem ($40-75/month) or satellite. If you want a static IP or more than 256 kbps upstream on the cable modem, it's $150/month for business class service. If Adelphia were obliged to share their lines, I rather suspect there would be better deals.
Living in the heart of northern Virginia's high-tech corridor, as I do, should give one more choices for broadband; I shudder to think what people elsewhere are locked into.
There is no such implication at all, simply a plain statement of fact: When anyone impinges on another's person or property, it is not freedom but violation. In first, second or third person, the message is the same. No "spirit of self-restraint" enters the question; that kind of subjective limitation on rights neuters the concept of a right.
Please name one serious, high-profile hacking case (to include authoring viriii & worms) in which the perpetrator was caught and didn't turn out to be a teenager or a still adolescent 20 something.
The first major one, the Morris Internet Worm, is a good example. I mentioned Cliff Stoll in my first post; he discovered an East German spy bouncing off his machines to get to other computers in the US. Are you also intentionally ignoring all the spam being spread by virus-infected machines?
Condescension towards a person -- calling them "a teenager or still adolescent 20-something" does nothing to reduce the damages they can cause, and does not to address why they cause the damage. A huge number of 20-somethings, and some teens, are mature and capable enough to run an extortion racket or resell a botnet to spammers.
What kind of systems do you administer? It's a sure bet that you don't deal with very high traffic services, or you would know better about the damages that attackers can do. There were recent articles on/. about the damages caused by DDoSers against a single online casino -- most of those costs are not paying for the bandwidth, but dealing with lost customers and lost profits (and trying to mitigate future attacks).
Kiddies can easily mount 1+ gbps of attacks, but it is very hard for normal systems to stay reachable by most of the world during such an attack.
Have you never heard the saying "Your freedom ends where my nose begins"? Swing your arms around all you want, but if you swing your arm into my nose, that is a crime. Breaking into someone's computer is morally and legally no more justified than breaking into their house. Nobody would care -- and the computer anti-virus industry would not exist -- if viruses were only targeted at willing victims.
Perhaps five or ten years ago it would have been plausible to say that computer criminals were largely breaking into others' machines for fun -- but even then, as Clifford Stoll discovered, there were exceptions. Then it turned into more of an organized enterprise. People controlling most of the infected machines on the Internet are NOT doing it out of curiosity or fun: They are doing it for power, and exploiting that for criminal enterprise.
In the past years, we have seen profit-seeking criminals discover how useful insecure systems are to them. The major disruptions now are not caused by simple thrill-seekers.
Where does due process come into the picture? (Answer: it doesn't, since due process is about a person being able to protect himself against one-sided legal action.) The Constitution provides no penalties for libel, and corporations generally have as little ground as public figures do when it comes to making defamation claims. The joke has a nugget of truth in that in America, everything that is not prohibited is permitted.
You also confuse the company's claim that the posts are defamatory with that actually being the case. Since the company refused to identify -- even as an example -- any post on the site that was defamatory, I doubt even they believe they have a case that would stand up in court. They just want to scare people into compliance.
Re:Is anyone else curious what SSA trees are?
on
GCC 4.0.0 Released
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Single static assignment is a way the compiler can rewrite the code (usually for optimization purposes) so each "variable" being analyzed is only written once. This makes a lot of optimizations easier to do, since it eliminates aliasing due to the programmer assigning different values to the same variable. You'd probably learn these things if you would RTFA.
A private letter to the party involved is not libel. Remarking on indisputable facts[1] is not libel. Publicly claiming somebody infringes your copyright before you have a court ruling generally is libel, but I see no evidence that GPL-Violations.org does that.
[1]- Examples that are defensible in the US would include "We found strings in Xyzzy Router that almost exactly match strings in our software" or "We believe it is unlikely to produce this machine code without using our code as the source." European law varies, IANAL, get real legal advice if you want to walk close to that line, et al.
You're making an entirely unwarranted assumption: That GPL developers routinely infringe others' copyrights. Most developers I know are very respectful of any copyrights on a work.
I suspect the fraction of free software developers who infringe many copyrights is lower than the fraction of general internet users who infringe many copyrights, just because the former tend to be more familiar with the law and what it takes to produce a copyrightable work.
Don't confuse GPL developers with file traders just because they both read Slashdot.
If you want DV, buy a DV device. If you want PVR, buy a PVR device. They intentionally do not target the same needs. DV is lossy compression, so you get hosed if you want to do much per-frame processing, and using DVCPRO50 (which does have higher image quality) requires a lot more from the host computer to capture versus 2-6 Mbps in a PVR.
"OMG, gcc doesn't support Python and ML! What a travesty! gcc does not serve my needs!"
Read the quote critically, not with blind acceptance. What it usually means when there are no peer-reviewed publications: An anonymous gang of people chosen by the researcher, gathered from the arse ends of civilization, presented with only the facts that the researcher wished to give them, were convinced.
Finding a hundred "noosphere"[1] advocates does not mean their claims have been (or can be) scientifically examined and tested.
[1]- Substitute creation science, anti-global-warming, or any religion, as you desire,
That's bollocks. The article points out that the selection of events as "major" seems to be done after looking at the RNG output ("You are selecting your data.") rather than blind.
The Global Consciousness Project's web site does not emphasize what you say it claims. It emphasizes the data points that support the affirmative hypothesis. There are no graphs showing how many "hits" there were during, say, all of September 2001 -- just on the 11th.
So your saying that black holes release energy that help themselves grow? Does this just loop forever?
It says "regulate," not "accelerate" or "encourage." Even in more prosaic domains like Earth-bound policy, regulation often limits what is done rather than broadening it. If you Read The Fine Article, one of the authors is quoted explaining this outpouring of energy pushes back on infalling mass.
On a different note, perhaps as a Carnegie Mellon alumnus I am biased, but I find it interesting that the top billing went to a woman. This is the kind of interesting and relevant research result that could attract more women to "hard" science fields.
It is pretty standard for both complaints and cross-complaints to include a prayer to award costs. SCO's complaint and IBM's response both did that. Even if IBM had no cross-claims, after winning on the merits of the current suit, they could use a malicious prosecution suit to recover their costs.
The US legal system does have recourse for someone who is wrongfully dragged into a lawsuit and wins. There are several related torts; malicious prosecution and abuse of process are two of the major ones.
Depending on state law, you can sue the original plaintiff and attorney if there was no reasonable basis for the original claims, and be awarded your costs for both actions. It is not automatic, and therefore encourages reasonable actions rather than conservative actions. A bigger part of the problem is the gullibility and emotion of juries.
Even if the malicious plaintiff goes bankrupt, their attorney(s) may be on the hook for your costs -- the attorney is supposed to know all the facts that support the plaintiff's case, and provide proper counsel as to the likelihood the plaintiff would have prevailed.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm trying to figure out why the other replies think this is so unlikely. A quick Google says that carcass incineration may need temperatures above 850 C for two seconds (in the carcass interior) to ensure prion destruction. Diesel engines themselves do not put their fuels through this: the autoignition temperature is way below 850 C, the combustion flame is hotter than 850 C, but the fuel is not in the combustion chamber for long, and an exhaust gas temperature of 850 C means your engine is running hot enough to kill itself. Prions are hardy little buggers, and I don't see why breathing atomized prions would be better for you than eating them.
Premature optimization is the root of all blah blah blah. The web server isn't be running on Singularity anyway. OpenBSD shares a similar (albeit more human than mechanical) focus on correctness over performance, but nobody seems to think it is doomed to failure because of that.
I think "Singularity" is not worth a hill of beans, but mostly because its novel ideas have already been tried and made little headway. Java systems have applied similar approaches to securing multiple processes within an address space in the past; microkernels have applied similar approaches to communications between processes. To the best of my knowledge, neither have resulted in software that is used outside of the initially targeted niche. Singularity mostly looks like the application of those previously tried approaches to a Microsoft virtual machine.
The meaning of that comment in bold is pretty clear: The gotcha list was verified against previous versions of MySQL. The author does not know which still apply to version 5.0. The comment does NOT say that MySQL 5.0 fixes the gotchas; the question "does that mean they fixed the gotchas?" is entirely appropriate.
You said "use completely freely" when you mean "use and redistribute without restriction". Perhaps in your world, bait and switch is a common or acceptable tactic, but some of us prefer to use words according to their meaning. The use of software is entirely separate from its (re-)distribution.
That's absolutely wrong. The GPL allows you to modify and to use GPLed code in any way you please. What the GPL does not give you is the right to give the GPLed code to someone else without giving that person the same rights you got.
I have to wonder why people think the same old UNIX-vs-Linux flame war is interesting. One side claims that BSD-style licenses were responsible for UNIX forking incompatibly during the 1980s. The other side claims that strong copyleft licenses keep people from contributing. Both arguments contain some truth, but it's impossible to say that one or the other license is right for all applications because there are so many other factors that go into whether software ("free", "open source" or "proprietary") is successful. Unless you have a universe simulator and go back to re-run the last 15 years using a different license, arguing BSD vs GPL for existing software is Monday morning quarterbacking.
Darwinian evolution is not adequately captured by that interpretation of "survival of the fittest". It is about the long-term consequences of that tautology: adaptations which give individuals a competitive advantage eventually spread throughout the breeding population. It is about the variability of that tautology: in one environment, individual A might have better survival odds than individual B, but in another environment the situation is reversed. It is about both of those together: breeding populations that move into different environments will diverge and eventually may no longer be able to interbreed.
Notably, Darwinian evolution does not describe how those changes and adaptations might occur or how they propagate from parent to child. It presupposes that heritable variations exist or arise in the population. The discovery of DNA's structure, seventy some years after the publication of "The Origin of Species", provided the first glimpse at that mechanism.
"Intelligent Design" does not denote any single coherent theory. Many ID advocates inherently argue for a Young Earth model by arguing that evolution cannot produce the variety of species we see on Earth. Others argue that ID should be taught by (correctly but irrelevantly) pointing out that evolution does not explain where the first cells on Earth came from. At one level this is arguing against evolution, but at another level it uses evolution as the basis for the pro-ID argument.
Resetting the clock is not complicated, but the current system means there is a 61st second in a minute, as your quote of TFA mentions. People -- including software developers -- are strongly used to dealing with 60-second minutes, and software sometimes makes that assumption. It just requires attention (sometimes a lot of attention) and extra code (sometimes a lot of extra code) to get it right, but since very few people pay attention when a leap second happens, bugs are easily overlooked.
Since leap seconds are based on changes in the time period of Earth's rotation (the sidereal day), and the decay is both very slow and influenced by hard-to-predict factors, leap seconds are not reliably predictable. They can only be announced when they are necessary -- and so it is easy for the displayed time to drift if a leap second announcement is missed or ignored.
Leap hours, though, are different beasts. Virtually every piece of software in the world that displays time knows how to deal with the hour jumping forward or backward. That transition happens predictably and affects a huge number of users, so errors are easily noted.
Quite simply: Your message, after all, stated "I am not a native English speaker but I wanted to... Commit Digital Piracy...."
It is quite easy to take something out of context. Gun manufacturers create guns, in part to threaten or shoot other people -- in self-defense. Printers create printing presses to distribute copyrighted material -- with the consent of the copyright owner. If you leave out parts of the statement, the meaning is changed significantly.
You must have a better cable company than some of us do (or at least more faith in them). Because cable companies have monopolies granted by local government, consumers are at the mercy of the incumbent cable company in terms of service.
Take Adelphia (please!): In my neighborhood, the broadband choices are IDSL (144 kbps, $90/month), cable modem ($40-75/month) or satellite. If you want a static IP or more than 256 kbps upstream on the cable modem, it's $150/month for business class service. If Adelphia were obliged to share their lines, I rather suspect there would be better deals.
Living in the heart of northern Virginia's high-tech corridor, as I do, should give one more choices for broadband; I shudder to think what people elsewhere are locked into.
There is no such implication at all, simply a plain statement of fact: When anyone impinges on another's person or property, it is not freedom but violation. In first, second or third person, the message is the same. No "spirit of self-restraint" enters the question; that kind of subjective limitation on rights neuters the concept of a right.
The first major one, the Morris Internet Worm, is a good example. I mentioned Cliff Stoll in my first post; he discovered an East German spy bouncing off his machines to get to other computers in the US. Are you also intentionally ignoring all the spam being spread by virus-infected machines?
Condescension towards a person -- calling them "a teenager or still adolescent 20-something" does nothing to reduce the damages they can cause, and does not to address why they cause the damage. A huge number of 20-somethings, and some teens, are mature and capable enough to run an extortion racket or resell a botnet to spammers.
What kind of systems do you administer? It's a sure bet that you don't deal with very high traffic services, or you would know better about the damages that attackers can do. There were recent articles on /. about the damages caused by DDoSers against a single online casino -- most of those costs are not paying for the bandwidth, but dealing with lost customers and lost profits (and trying to mitigate future attacks).
Kiddies can easily mount 1+ gbps of attacks, but it is very hard for normal systems to stay reachable by most of the world during such an attack.
Have you never heard the saying "Your freedom ends where my nose begins"? Swing your arms around all you want, but if you swing your arm into my nose, that is a crime. Breaking into someone's computer is morally and legally no more justified than breaking into their house. Nobody would care -- and the computer anti-virus industry would not exist -- if viruses were only targeted at willing victims.
Perhaps five or ten years ago it would have been plausible to say that computer criminals were largely breaking into others' machines for fun -- but even then, as Clifford Stoll discovered, there were exceptions. Then it turned into more of an organized enterprise. People controlling most of the infected machines on the Internet are NOT doing it out of curiosity or fun: They are doing it for power, and exploiting that for criminal enterprise.
In the past years, we have seen profit-seeking criminals discover how useful insecure systems are to them. The major disruptions now are not caused by simple thrill-seekers.
Where does due process come into the picture? (Answer: it doesn't, since due process is about a person being able to protect himself against one-sided legal action.) The Constitution provides no penalties for libel, and corporations generally have as little ground as public figures do when it comes to making defamation claims. The joke has a nugget of truth in that in America, everything that is not prohibited is permitted.
You also confuse the company's claim that the posts are defamatory with that actually being the case. Since the company refused to identify -- even as an example -- any post on the site that was defamatory, I doubt even they believe they have a case that would stand up in court. They just want to scare people into compliance.
Single static assignment is a way the compiler can rewrite the code (usually for optimization purposes) so each "variable" being analyzed is only written once. This makes a lot of optimizations easier to do, since it eliminates aliasing due to the programmer assigning different values to the same variable. You'd probably learn these things if you would RTFA.
A private letter to the party involved is not libel. Remarking on indisputable facts[1] is not libel. Publicly claiming somebody infringes your copyright before you have a court ruling generally is libel, but I see no evidence that GPL-Violations.org does that.
[1]- Examples that are defensible in the US would include "We found strings in Xyzzy Router that almost exactly match strings in our software" or "We believe it is unlikely to produce this machine code without using our code as the source." European law varies, IANAL, get real legal advice if you want to walk close to that line, et al.
You're making an entirely unwarranted assumption: That GPL developers routinely infringe others' copyrights. Most developers I know are very respectful of any copyrights on a work.
I suspect the fraction of free software developers who infringe many copyrights is lower than the fraction of general internet users who infringe many copyrights, just because the former tend to be more familiar with the law and what it takes to produce a copyrightable work.
Don't confuse GPL developers with file traders just because they both read Slashdot.
If you want DV, buy a DV device. If you want PVR, buy a PVR device. They intentionally do not target the same needs. DV is lossy compression, so you get hosed if you want to do much per-frame processing, and using DVCPRO50 (which does have higher image quality) requires a lot more from the host computer to capture versus 2-6 Mbps in a PVR.
"OMG, gcc doesn't support Python and ML! What a travesty! gcc does not serve my needs!"
Read the quote critically, not with blind acceptance. What it usually means when there are no peer-reviewed publications: An anonymous gang of people chosen by the researcher, gathered from the arse ends of civilization, presented with only the facts that the researcher wished to give them, were convinced.
Finding a hundred "noosphere"[1] advocates does not mean their claims have been (or can be) scientifically examined and tested.
[1]- Substitute creation science, anti-global-warming, or any religion, as you desire,
That's bollocks. The article points out that the selection of events as "major" seems to be done after looking at the RNG output ("You are selecting your data.") rather than blind.
The Global Consciousness Project's web site does not emphasize what you say it claims. It emphasizes the data points that support the affirmative hypothesis. There are no graphs showing how many "hits" there were during, say, all of September 2001 -- just on the 11th.
It says "regulate," not "accelerate" or "encourage." Even in more prosaic domains like Earth-bound policy, regulation often limits what is done rather than broadening it. If you Read The Fine Article, one of the authors is quoted explaining this outpouring of energy pushes back on infalling mass.
On a different note, perhaps as a Carnegie Mellon alumnus I am biased, but I find it interesting that the top billing went to a woman. This is the kind of interesting and relevant research result that could attract more women to "hard" science fields.
It is pretty standard for both complaints and cross-complaints to include a prayer to award costs. SCO's complaint and IBM's response both did that. Even if IBM had no cross-claims, after winning on the merits of the current suit, they could use a malicious prosecution suit to recover their costs.
The US legal system does have recourse for someone who is wrongfully dragged into a lawsuit and wins. There are several related torts; malicious prosecution and abuse of process are two of the major ones.
Depending on state law, you can sue the original plaintiff and attorney if there was no reasonable basis for the original claims, and be awarded your costs for both actions. It is not automatic, and therefore encourages reasonable actions rather than conservative actions. A bigger part of the problem is the gullibility and emotion of juries.
Even if the malicious plaintiff goes bankrupt, their attorney(s) may be on the hook for your costs -- the attorney is supposed to know all the facts that support the plaintiff's case, and provide proper counsel as to the likelihood the plaintiff would have prevailed.