The article you posted does not bypass the same origin policy, as mentioned in the comments below the article.
The browser will still disallow cross-site attempts.
Straw-man argument. Of course the compiler can affect CPU performance. The point I was trying to make is that I agree with HarrySquatter's comments above - as far as I know, Intel is not forcing people to use their compiler.
Any other practices by Intel, anti-competitive or otherwise, don't apply to this particular chain of comments.
A dominant share of the compiler market or processor market?
That's really what I was getting at, not monopoly status.
The compiler favors Intel CPUs. There are other compilers out there that don't, I imagine. gcc is pretty popular, etc.
The issue raised above was whether Intel had an obligation to not cripple their product, and EndlessNameless responded with the anti-trust act. In this case, the product is not a CPU, but a compiler. I'm asking, does the anti-trust act apply to this issue, when there are plenty of competing compiler products out there.
I think khasim brings up a good point. If your argument hinges on quoting a statistic and inferring all sorts of things from that, it seems fair to invalid it with another statistic.
And does anyone seriously believe that someone willing to launch a DoS on a cell phone tower would be deterred because the jailbreaking process isn't legal?
The other one was a regex for validating phone numbers (at least in the US). It was based on standards from NANPA and ATIX. It worked great until a phone company "accidently" started issuing numbers using one of the exchange codes set aside for testing.
Take another example, I write an ftp application that stores login information in a file. It would be stupid to store all that data in plain text so anyone can see it, so you obscure it somehow. You could encrypt it for real, but then you'd need a master password just to start the ftp program, which most people would hate. So you obscure the data instead, it's a decent trade off that I'm willing to bet, most programs that store login information take.
This is fine, but don't assume that login information is in any way secure.
Security has always been about finding a balance between usability and security. They are somewhat opposing goals, and people have to make decisions about which is more important.
But obscurity adds such a SMALL layer of security, it's not something that should be touted. It gives people a false sense of security, which is more dangerous than no security at all. (If a bank told you they had no security, you would rightly not use their online banking services. If they falsely told you they were secure, and you used their system, bad things could happen).
Your argument boils down to "I think the rich should pay so others can get something for free. It's only right because the rich stand on the backs of the poor."
It is important to realize that Latin and Greek derived expressions in biomedical English have been coined by scientists for convenience and not by scholars based on classical grammar. The old Romans might have said to these scientists modulating their language: ``Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas,'' which means freely translated: ``Despite your lack of knowledge, still appreciated.''
I'm sure there aren't too many Romans out there turning in their graves at our appropriation and modification of their word.
Virii has been absorbed into present-day "tech talk" and modified to suit our purposes accordingly. Accept it as a NEW addition to our ever-changing language. The important thing is that it conveys a clear, concise, consistent concept (alliteration anyone?) -- that of "multiple viruses." And yes, "viruses" works too. But who wants to type 3 extra letters when a single "i" suffices:)? Plus it's easier to pronounce.
You mean an article posted to an "I've been wrongly convicted" newsletter calls into question the use of fingerprints in conviction?
Yes, I know it came from "The Recorder" (with edits to remove such lines as):
"To take the crown away from the heavyweight champ you must decisively outscore or knock him out," wrote supreme court Justice Michael Brennan, a New York trial judge who held hearings on fingerprint evidence. He denied the challenge.
[... discussion of a particular case, with a hearing to discuss fingerprinting...] The judge said he granted the Kelly-Frye hearing to learn about fingerprint evidence and the latest challenges to it. While Burt's arguments raised concerns, they were not ultimately persuasive. (bold added by me)
Regardless, even the original article uses weasel words like "Despite the increasing number of questions over the validity of fingerprints" without any sources to back these statements up (except for a law professor and the few defense lawyers interviewed for the article who - amazingly enough - were attempting to use a "fingerprints are no good" defense).
These people are just blowing smoke. THere is no evidence/analysis of any kind in this article.
Wouldn't the sky be colorless from outer space? Last I checked, pictures of the earth taken from space show land masses w/ normal coloring.
(assuming by "sky" you mean looking down at the earth from space).
I think the question that should have been asked is....why do large bodies of water look blue from outer space? Water is clear.
The answer (I'm pretty sure) is because it's reflecting the blue color of the sky caused by Rayleigh scattering:).
It seems that by moving the discussion to "value", you have created an argument that's impossible to argue for or against, because it's built upon an undefinable value (or at least a value that's impossible to get everyone to agree on).
What is "value?" It varies for different people. It could be price, looks, ease of ordering the product, tech support, etc.
I think you've touched upon the key disagreement between Mac and Windows apologists, in that there are often different definitions of value being used.
I believe you are confusing microevolution and macroevolution (speciation).
Even the article you linked mentions this distinction:
Most people agree that bacteria evolve in small ways (microevolution), but there is some controversy around the idea of speciation (macroevolution).
Most *competent* opponents of evolution theory won't argue microevolution, as it's an easily observable process. The real debate involves macroevolution, where new species arise that can no longer interbreed. This is also talked about in the article you linked to.
Yes, something was missed.
Linus wasn't referring to that section of the draft.
According to the article, he objects to a part of section 1:
"Complete Corresponding Source Code also includes any encryption or authorization codes necessary to install and/or execute the source code of the work, perhaps modified by you, in the recommended or principal context of use, such that its functioning in all circumstances is identical to that of the work, except as altered by your modifications...."
Torvald says this "is the one that seems to disallow digitally signed binaries (or rather: you can sign the binaries any way you want, but you have to make your private keys available)."
"White phosphorus is a conventional munition. It is not a chemical weapon. They are not outlawed or illegal."
...
A spokesman at the U.K. Ministry of Defence told the BBC that the use of white phosphorus was permitted in battle situations where there were no civilians near a target area.
Because one professor somewhere suggests that it "could be considered a chemical weapon if it was deliberately aimed at civilians" does not make it so. Notice the language used - "Could be considered" -he's not even willing to make it an absolute here.
This article is based on the OPINION (not factual) of a professor of peace studies, and corroborated by...oh wait...nothing?
Also, let's assume for a second that we do consider the professor's statement a fact. Is there evidence of deliberate targeting of civilians?
Italian documentary makers covering the battle for Fallujah have claimed that an unknown number of Iraqi women and children died of phosphorus burns during the assault.
What's that? An unknown number of civilians! Why, this uncorroborated account that doesn't mention intent PROVES that the American military deliberately targeted civilians.
Raytracing builds the image by tracing rays from light sources within the image to determine each pixel.
GPUs use a vector-based system to render polygons and then map textures, colors, etc to them.
Slashdot Mirror
The article you posted does not bypass the same origin policy, as mentioned in the comments below the article. The browser will still disallow cross-site attempts.
Straw-man argument. Of course the compiler can affect CPU performance. The point I was trying to make is that I agree with HarrySquatter's comments above - as far as I know, Intel is not forcing people to use their compiler.
Any other practices by Intel, anti-competitive or otherwise, don't apply to this particular chain of comments.
A dominant share of the compiler market or processor market?
That's really what I was getting at, not monopoly status.
The compiler favors Intel CPUs. There are other compilers out there that don't, I imagine. gcc is pretty popular, etc.
The issue raised above was whether Intel had an obligation to not cripple their product, and EndlessNameless responded with the anti-trust act. In this case, the product is not a CPU, but a compiler. I'm asking, does the anti-trust act apply to this issue, when there are plenty of competing compiler products out there.
Wouldn't this only apply if Intel had a monopoly on compilers?
Statistics aren't everything. [snip]
The 1.5% says to me [snip]
Did your first point just invalidate your second?
I think khasim brings up a good point. If your argument hinges on quoting a statistic and inferring all sorts of things from that, it seems fair to invalid it with another statistic.
And does anyone seriously believe that someone willing to launch a DoS on a cell phone tower would be deterred because the jailbreaking process isn't legal?
Asking
if( someObject )
will return true if someObject is defined, regardless of whether someObject = true/false, so you have to compare it to a value.
Cmdr Taco - this wasn't in the upcoming patch notes! :(. Can blue post on this please?
They totally stealth nerfed 6 digit UIDs
We have found our solution to global warming!
Heat the earth up with our emissions, cool it down with nuclear winter. Rinse and repeat.
I did something similar with javascript a few years ago. The javascript is used to codify the RFC BNF, which then generates the regex.
http://www.digitalxen.net/files/emailValidation.js
The other one was a regex for validating phone numbers (at least in the US). It was based on standards from NANPA and ATIX. It worked great until a phone company "accidently" started issuing numbers using one of the exchange codes set aside for testing.
http://www.digitalxen.net/files/phoneValidation.js
A deliciously onion-y story. :(.
Damn, they got me too. I was calling my co-workers over to see the latest Diebold mistake
Security has always been about finding a balance between usability and security. They are somewhat opposing goals, and people have to make decisions about which is more important.
But obscurity adds such a SMALL layer of security, it's not something that should be touted. It gives people a false sense of security, which is more dangerous than no security at all. (If a bank told you they had no security, you would rightly not use their online banking services. If they falsely told you they were secure, and you used their system, bad things could happen).
Your argument boils down to "I think the rich should pay so others can get something for free. It's only right because the rich stand on the backs of the poor."
ScaryLet me preface by saying I just finished Atlas Shrugged.
Who decides what's best for everyone?
How do you decide what "best" means?
Who is included in "everyone"?
The problem isn't with the iPod. It's with iTunes. Apple is locking out other hardware makers from being able to play music purchased from iTunes.
I'm sure there aren't too many Romans out there turning in their graves at our appropriation and modification of their word.
Virii has been absorbed into present-day "tech talk" and modified to suit our purposes accordingly. Accept it as a NEW addition to our ever-changing language. The important thing is that it conveys a clear, concise, consistent concept (alliteration anyone?) -- that of "multiple viruses." And yes, "viruses" works too. But who wants to type 3 extra letters when a single "i" suffices :)? Plus it's easier to pronounce.
Whoa, whoa, whoa...
You mean an article posted to an "I've been wrongly convicted" newsletter calls into question the use of fingerprints in conviction?
Yes, I know it came from "The Recorder" (with edits to remove such lines as):
Regardless, even the original article uses weasel words like "Despite the increasing number of questions over the validity of fingerprints" without any sources to back these statements up (except for a law professor and the few defense lawyers interviewed for the article who - amazingly enough - were attempting to use a "fingerprints are no good" defense).
These people are just blowing smoke. THere is no evidence/analysis of any kind in this article.
Wouldn't the sky be colorless from outer space? Last I checked, pictures of the earth taken from space show land masses w/ normal coloring. (assuming by "sky" you mean looking down at the earth from space). I think the question that should have been asked is....why do large bodies of water look blue from outer space? Water is clear. The answer (I'm pretty sure) is because it's reflecting the blue color of the sky caused by Rayleigh scattering :).
It seems that by moving the discussion to "value", you have created an argument that's impossible to argue for or against, because it's built upon an undefinable value (or at least a value that's impossible to get everyone to agree on).
What is "value?" It varies for different people. It could be price, looks, ease of ordering the product, tech support, etc.
I think you've touched upon the key disagreement between Mac and Windows apologists, in that there are often different definitions of value being used.
I believe you are confusing microevolution and macroevolution (speciation).
Even the article you linked mentions this distinction:
Most *competent* opponents of evolution theory won't argue microevolution, as it's an easily observable process. The real debate involves macroevolution, where new species arise that can no longer interbreed. This is also talked about in the article you linked to.
The comment was in response to the parent comment here: http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=180787&t hreshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=14958810
from LeonGeeste.
It wasn't about the original article. So you are correct, they are different guys.
All joking aside, it sounds like the SMS service being created will be used for more than just indictments. From the article:
So, more of a general "correspondence with government offices" SMS service than just for sending indictments.Because one professor somewhere suggests that it "could be considered a chemical weapon if it was deliberately aimed at civilians" does not make it so. Notice the language used - "Could be considered" -he's not even willing to make it an absolute here.
This article is based on the OPINION (not factual) of a professor of peace studies, and corroborated by...oh wait...nothing?
Also, let's assume for a second that we do consider the professor's statement a fact. Is there evidence of deliberate targeting of civilians?
What's that? An unknown number of civilians! Why, this uncorroborated account that doesn't mention intent PROVES that the American military deliberately targeted civilians.
*Yawn*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_processing_u nit/
Raytracing builds the image by tracing rays from light sources within the image to determine each pixel. GPUs use a vector-based system to render polygons and then map textures, colors, etc to them.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raytracing/