* NT is only easier to install if you've got blessed hardware... I've seen (NT4) installation cheerily, deterministically crash during hardware probing on a remarkably normal hardware configuration.
* One would think the swap file recommendation might not give "magic" formulas, and instead say something to the effec that, "What you're doing will largely determine how much swap you need. While NT generally recommends XX MB of memory, total, and perhaps at least YY of swap, in which to simply run happily, running something like Word or Excel might -- depending on document size and complexity -- boost your needs to ZZ MB or so, and doing memory-intensive tasks like using Photoshop to edit large, detailed imagery could require far more."
* Aigh! He recommends enabling the guest account for file sharing, rather than doing it the right way?
* "No such thing as a bug-free program?" {shrug} cat" seems pretty reliable to me... Also, this seems to be a remarkably tolerant attitude (accepting the idea that releasing buggy SPs is perfectly OK?!).
* The article should probably mention hot-fixes, too. When they're security-related, they could be IMPORTANT.
Were these relatively "open" machines? That is, not set up as multi-user systems with sane file permissions and so forth? If they're not, then regardless of whether the *server* stores data, I'd be concerned about things like the swap file/partition, logs, initialization / configuration files, keystroke loggers, Trojans, etc.
'course, there are also sites that'll hose you by printing out the digits as you type 'em. Not good... but I digress.
If there *are* good file perms, then there shouldn't be access to other folks' cookies. Particularly if you use a network file system, and getting authenticated on that is harder than simply rebooting with your own boot disk. If there *aren't*, then cookies are arguably the least of your worries.
...that they also cite activation methods such as *sounds* produced by users, and TV remote controls, in addition to buttons. Maybe they're thinking of licensing set-top boxes or something.
From an architectual point of view, it seems pretty specific in breakdown of clients and servers/databases and communcation between such -- and, it's an interesting idea.
The one weakness is probably the existence of prior art, if any. I've not read the Java books cited earlier in the thread, but whether they match or not also depends upon the system design -- this is NOT just a patent on a cookie. If there is prior art, 'tho, well, tough luck Amazon...
And to all those who uselessly post, "Well, now I'm gonna patent this...":
Term #3 of the GPL would appear to agree with you.
Looks like 3.b offers an escape hatch.
-----------------------------------------
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) ---------------------------
Things like Perl and Tcl, for instance. If someone were to make a "shrink-wrapped" software package featuring strong cryptography via Perl, what would the department's policy be?
* 'bout funding: There are both merit- and need-based grants and loans available. Yes, it's pricey, but the school IS interested in getting the best... this may mean things like matching offers from other schools (think: schools like CWRU. At least in '94, they had a fairly insane policy of granting $12K/yr scholarships to those w/ SAT \ge 1400, IIRC.)
At least the cost of living isn't that high here.
* It IS possible to get your B.S. here, and do very well at it, w/ maybe one all-nighter a year. Ya gotta pace yourself, 'tho...
* Yes, it's Pittsburgh. Bring your umbrella, and for you SoCal-ers, it snows.:)
* If you're considering on coming here, ask those of us who've been here for a while.
Well, the Congress still needs to approve this particular appropriation, since apparently Bill does not feel like funding through executive order.
A Prez, however, a) probably is asked by Congress to submit a proposed budget covering its own executive offices, and b) can "introduce" any legislation it wants if it can find a single friendly sponsor in each house. b) is almost always possible; short of, say, requesting authority to personally interview (alone) and choose all Congressional secretaries, I doubt there's much that Bill can't find at least one guy to support.
There's also absolutely no restriction that states a bill has to be coherent, AFAIK, so the funding for FIDNET could be attached to a subsidy for studying the mating habits of tortoises, or whatever. The original bill sponsors also don't get any "extra" say, hence such things like riders onto popular bills and "poison-pill" amendments. And so forth.
Erm. Four years as an undergrad, in my second as a grad, and I could probably count the number of my courses that even had a single multiple-choice question in them on one hand -- and I'm not a freakish mutant...
Heck, even in our CS classes, we sometimes give questions that include words like 'critique' and 'assess'. Why? 'coz we want to gauge understanding...
I would think that, if *anybody* would reject multiple-choice, it'd be an English department, since writing is so obviously fundamental to it. That's so utterly... FUBAR.
{shrug} I don't know about you, but at my high school, one could take courses that would actually force students to learn useful skills such as analytical, even-headed assessment. When you've got an hour to formulate and write a logical examination of even remotely complex historical issues, instead of simply regurgitating names, dates and quotes, that matters -- especially when you know that the teacher is perfectly willing to penalize responses that suffer excessively from a confirmatory bias...
...a firm background in mathematics and logic would obviously complement that. I'm not sure that many high schools really expose students to proving systems, symbolic logic and so forth, however, so that perhaps needs be supplied outside the system. Pity, that. ({sigh} Mentat training, anyone? Heh.)
It's also a decent way to boost writing skills. All the ideas and skills in the world don't mean jack if you're incapable of communicating, and arguably C or differential calculus are not suitable general-purpose languages for conversing with one's fellows.
This is particularly important because out there, you're going to be expected to be able to work with others...
For one thing, profs may let their TAs completely restructure and revamp the specifications and code. If your submission does not link or otherwise meet the specs, then you've got problems...
The other thing is that it's harder to automatically compare the structure of papers than it is the structure of programs. If you just rename variables and functions and so forth, it's not that unlikely it'll be noticed.
That surprised me. Archives of old papers are nothing new; that's been happening (in-person or online, or through group libraries) probably as long as there have been paper assignments.
On the other hand, who *writes* these custom papers? Odds are, there aren't that many people who'd be interested and clued enough to do such things as use specifics from the course (such as rare primary sources cited, or previous in-class discussion), that'd actually do a halfway decent job -- particularly if you're trying something obscure. Papers on, for instance, the ability, or possible lack thereof, of BGP4 routers to automatically recover from the theoretical instance of a maliciously configured router might be a tad less usual than a trite discussion on the evolution of western fortification technology during and following the Crusades.
Presumably not in a big computing facility, since they should have multiple sets of full-size tools for use (we ain't all elves...) -- and if somebody's a pro doing field work, or is in their own home, then odds are pretty good appropriate tools are owned, as well.
So, unless you're trying to fix a laptop while deep in the jungle...
--------------- User A: Damn! The ThinkPad is on the fritz! User B: No prob, mate, got mah handy-dandy Cybahknife here. User A: You're what? User B: Ah said, a Cybahknife. User A: What_ever_. Just fix the damn thing. User B: And lookee here, hold it here, I'll pop the battery port while you use the other end to ope' the beer can. User A: What the... User B:...and this thang here, pop it in the cork, and look! Lets all have some cognac! User A: Aiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeee!
as fanatical Gerber and Leatherman fans storm the area, trampling all the local wildlife, followed by folks claiming that their K-Bars are the only real knives and demonstrate by felling young trees. Eventually, tho', A and B enjoy some warm cognac, warmer (!) beer, and a fixed laptop.
One thing to note -- if memory serves, the National Socialists did not _expand_ their objectives throughout their rule, so much as follow an agenda that already had been largely outlined in "Mein Kampf".
I might be wrong about this, but my suspicion is that while the specific, detailed plans may not have been formed, Hitler and company had intended to eliminate or enslave pretty much everybody non-Aryan from the get-go. They'd planned almost everything else...
The difference here, is that Singer and supporters are most likely not planning genocide, and thus the comparisons are slightly specious.
Would your opinion change if this were limited to disorders that were known to either be fatal within a short period of time (i.e. not Huntington's, for instance), or those that lacked either the capacity for thought or to express it?
If you're focusing on viability and output, there are diseases which render infants essentially will not procreate at all due to longevity issues, or permanent dependence on 24/7 life support, and from a gene pool point of view don't matter.
While I'm not exactly a barrister on retainer for a nether power...
I *do* have to disagree with you here; frequently, the ends *do* justify the means. In fact, this is commonly recognized, if not often admitted, in society. The character of intent is a admissible and admirable purpose in society.
For instance, even you would probably agree that teaching somebody basic electronics and chemistry, with the intent of training them to construct explosive devices for use in killing civillians for the sole purpose of extortion, would generally be considered wrong. Training, however, the same person with basic electronics, chemistry, biology and more, however, is a commonly accepted practice in high schools. The difference is intent.
For all you know, it may be perfectly ethical for somebody to kill me. After all, what do you know of my capabilities or intent? While I may, truly, be what I claim to be -- a mildly eccentric graduate student -- verifying that might be non trivial, and even with that information there is no evidence that, say, I am not evil incarnate. Were I to pose a dire threat to society, perhaps trading threatening skills or information as currency among those who violently oppose it, then another principle takes over: that of self-defense. Here, we have a recognition of means.
Killing me without reason would, most likely, be wrong on most moral compasses; doing so on the basis that I *may* be evil, the same. However, if I were to lash out against society via bomb or bullet, it would be as justified to stop me through incarceration or worse as it would be unjustifiable to randomly incarcerate the innocent; or would you rather that the many sacrifice *their* rights and lives, upholding one principle so that one may throw down the rest?
If you wish to make moral judgements, then to ignore the ends is willful blindness.
The big issues with a breakup would, arguably, be how.
Consider first that the Gov't has approximately zero reason to demand that MS products be open-sourced in any way. Why?
* Not everything used by MS is written there, or owned by them. * They've got patent-sharing arrangements with other companies, already. Lots of entanglements there, too. * They're MS's major revenue stream -- specifically, the Office and OS groups, really. A number of divisions are not profitable, IIRC. In Bill's shoes, if the Gov't did this, there's not much reason for Mr. Gates to not simply start the process of shutting down the company and refusing to sell, develop or support any of its products anymore -- which would NOT be a good thing for the hordes of people utterly dependent on MS software.
Separating those two groups -- or, arguably more relevant to the lawsuit -- IE and the OS group, might be more interesting. If one wanted to go as far as that, actually.
The other remedies of requiring open APIs (which exist to a degree, methinks) -- which would have to be permanently open by consent decree -- and explicitly forbidding bundling deals or punitive pricing with manufacturers may possibly achieve similar desired effects with less chaos.
'coz you can put those additional bits to good use, that's why. Figure bits for the register index (e.g. 128 int/128 FP registers => 7 bits per argument => 21 bits already. Add bits for predication (64 1-bit registers, for instance). Then add bits for the opcodes themselves...)
You might get away with fewer bits if you have a small (e.g. x86-style) register file and no fancyness. But otherwise... it's gonna hurt.
For one thing, those 21264 instructions are actually just 32-bits long IIRC ('tho they manipulate 64-bit data).
For another, it's got very limited predication support (conditional moves, again IIRC), in constrast to IA-64/EPIC.
It's also more fun if you've got a (large) register file that can be treated as arbitrarily large 'coz overflow gets mapped to memory -- if you don't mind the cycles, 'natch.
You cannot summarize the 'goodness' of an architecture or processor with just the # of bits it manipulates at a time, or the MHz of the processor.
Slashdot Mirror
* NT is only easier to install if you've got blessed hardware... I've seen (NT4) installation cheerily, deterministically crash during hardware probing on a remarkably normal hardware configuration.
* One would think the swap file recommendation might not give "magic" formulas, and instead say something to the effec that, "What you're doing will largely determine how much swap you need. While NT generally recommends XX MB of memory, total, and perhaps at least YY of swap, in which to simply run happily, running something like Word or Excel might -- depending on document size and complexity -- boost your needs to ZZ MB or so, and doing memory-intensive tasks like using Photoshop to edit large, detailed imagery could require far more."
* Aigh! He recommends enabling the guest account for file sharing, rather than doing it the right way?
* "No such thing as a bug-free program?" {shrug} cat" seems pretty reliable to me... Also, this seems to be a remarkably tolerant attitude (accepting the idea that releasing buggy SPs is perfectly OK?!).
* The article should probably mention hot-fixes, too. When they're security-related, they could be IMPORTANT.
Yadda yadda.
Were these relatively "open" machines? That is, not set up as multi-user systems with sane file permissions and so forth? If they're not, then regardless of whether the *server* stores data, I'd be concerned about things like the swap file/partition, logs, initialization / configuration files, keystroke loggers, Trojans, etc.
'course, there are also sites that'll hose you by printing out the digits as you type 'em. Not good... but I digress.
If there *are* good file perms, then there shouldn't be access to other folks' cookies. Particularly if you use a network file system, and getting authenticated on that is harder than simply rebooting with your own boot disk. If there *aren't*, then cookies are arguably the least of your worries.
...that they also cite activation methods such as *sounds* produced by users, and TV remote controls, in addition to buttons. Maybe they're thinking of licensing set-top boxes or something.
From an architectual point of view, it seems pretty specific in breakdown of clients and servers/databases and communcation between such -- and, it's an interesting idea.
The one weakness is probably the existence of prior art, if any. I've not read the Java books cited earlier in the thread, but whether they match or not also depends upon the system design -- this is NOT just a patent on a cookie. If there is prior art, 'tho, well, tough luck Amazon...
And to all those who uselessly post, "Well, now I'm gonna patent this...":
Get a life.
Term #3 of the GPL would appear to agree with you.
Looks like 3.b offers an escape hatch.
-----------------------------------------
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
received the program in object code or executable form with such
an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
---------------------------
Things like Perl and Tcl, for instance. If someone were to make a "shrink-wrapped" software package featuring strong cryptography via Perl, what would the department's policy be?
Please, *please* tell me that we're not in for a season of "W3rld5 m05t D4ng3rUZ H4x0r d00dZ -- C4uGhT 0n T4p3" specials from FOX...
Hmmmm. A listener to the "Jim Quinn" show?
Couple misc notes from fellow CMU student:
:)
* 'bout funding: There are both merit- and need-based grants and loans available. Yes, it's pricey, but the school IS interested in getting the best... this may mean things like matching offers from other schools (think: schools like CWRU. At least in '94, they had a fairly insane policy of granting $12K/yr scholarships to those w/ SAT \ge 1400, IIRC.)
At least the cost of living isn't that high here.
* It IS possible to get your B.S. here, and do very well at it, w/ maybe one all-nighter a year. Ya gotta pace yourself, 'tho...
* Yes, it's Pittsburgh. Bring your umbrella, and for you SoCal-ers, it snows.
* If you're considering on coming here, ask those of us who've been here for a while.
Well, the Congress still needs to approve this particular appropriation, since apparently Bill does not feel like funding through executive order.
A Prez, however, a) probably is asked by Congress to submit a proposed budget covering its own executive offices, and b) can "introduce" any legislation it wants if it can find a single friendly sponsor in each house. b) is almost always possible; short of, say, requesting authority to personally interview (alone) and choose all Congressional secretaries, I doubt there's much that Bill can't find at least one guy to support.
There's also absolutely no restriction that states a bill has to be coherent, AFAIK, so the funding for FIDNET could be attached to a subsidy for studying the mating habits of tortoises, or whatever. The original bill sponsors also don't get any "extra" say, hence such things like riders onto popular bills and "poison-pill" amendments. And so forth.
{shrug}
Wouldn't you want a processor that looks like a Borg Cube? :)
Multiple-choice exams?
Erm. Four years as an undergrad, in my second as a grad, and I could probably count the number of my courses that even had a single multiple-choice question in them on one hand -- and I'm not a freakish mutant...
Heck, even in our CS classes, we sometimes give questions that include words like 'critique' and 'assess'. Why? 'coz we want to gauge understanding...
I would think that, if *anybody* would reject multiple-choice, it'd be an English department, since writing is so obviously fundamental to it. That's so utterly... FUBAR.
{shrug} I don't know about you, but at my high school, one could take courses that would actually force students to learn useful skills such as analytical, even-headed assessment. When you've got an hour to formulate and write a logical examination of even remotely complex historical issues, instead of simply regurgitating names, dates and quotes, that matters -- especially when you know that the teacher is perfectly willing to penalize responses that suffer excessively from a confirmatory bias...
...a firm background in mathematics and logic would obviously complement that. I'm not sure that many high schools really expose students to proving systems, symbolic logic and so forth, however, so that perhaps needs be supplied outside the system. Pity, that. ({sigh} Mentat training, anyone? Heh.)
It's also a decent way to boost writing skills. All the ideas and skills in the world don't mean jack if you're incapable of communicating, and arguably C or differential calculus are not suitable general-purpose languages for conversing with one's fellows.
This is particularly important because out there, you're going to be expected to be able to work with others...
And so forth.
Hmmm. I don't believe it said anything about crippling, but this not an administration known for coherent policy...
I do seem to remember an official using the phrase "diddle with Milosevic's bank accounts" or something like that. {shrug}
Of course, it could be disinformation.
* It _may_ get some reporters off your back -- those who'd be saying "No? Then why not?" if the DOD denied trying it.
* It might concern the Belgrade regime, who are left to wonder if they really *can* trust their systems.
See this Salon article on computerized essay analysis and the ETS.
...but it's harder to cheat with source.
For one thing, profs may let their TAs completely restructure and revamp the specifications and code. If your submission does not link or otherwise meet the specs, then you've got problems...
The other thing is that it's harder to automatically compare the structure of papers than it is the structure of programs. If you just rename variables and functions and so forth, it's not that unlikely it'll be noticed.
...but if it's a common topic, there's probably a pre-written paper. That is, it doesn't need to be specifically written for that customer.
The ones that would likely need custom writing are the more unusual ones.
That surprised me. Archives of old papers are nothing new; that's been happening (in-person or online, or through group libraries) probably as long as there have been paper assignments.
On the other hand, who *writes* these custom papers? Odds are, there aren't that many people who'd be interested and clued enough to do such things as use specifics from the course (such as rare primary sources cited, or previous in-class discussion), that'd actually do a halfway decent job -- particularly if you're trying something obscure. Papers on, for instance, the ability, or possible lack thereof, of BGP4 routers to automatically recover from the theoretical instance of a maliciously configured router might be a tad less usual than a trite discussion on the evolution of western fortification technology during and following the Crusades.
...is this meant to be used?
...and this thang here, pop it in the cork, and look! Lets all have some cognac!
::
Presumably not in a big computing facility, since they should have multiple sets of full-size tools for use (we ain't all elves...) -- and if somebody's a pro doing field work, or is in their own home, then odds are pretty good appropriate tools are owned, as well.
So, unless you're trying to fix a laptop while deep in the jungle...
---------------
User A: Damn! The ThinkPad is on the fritz!
User B: No prob, mate, got mah handy-dandy Cybahknife here.
User A: You're what?
User B: Ah said, a Cybahknife.
User A: What_ever_. Just fix the damn thing.
User B: And lookee here, hold it here, I'll pop the battery port while you use the other end to ope' the beer can.
User A: What the...
User B:
User A: Aiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeee!
as fanatical Gerber and Leatherman fans storm the area, trampling all the local wildlife, followed by folks claiming that their K-Bars are the only real knives and demonstrate by felling young trees. Eventually, tho', A and B enjoy some warm cognac, warmer (!) beer, and a fixed laptop.
:: fade to black
Didn't they use the Gom Jabbar, tho'? Not a nice test...
One thing to note -- if memory serves, the National Socialists did not _expand_ their objectives throughout their rule, so much as follow an agenda that already had been largely outlined in "Mein Kampf".
I might be wrong about this, but my suspicion is that while the specific, detailed plans may not have been formed, Hitler and company had intended to eliminate or enslave pretty much everybody non-Aryan from the get-go. They'd planned almost everything else...
The difference here, is that Singer and supporters are most likely not planning genocide, and thus the comparisons are slightly specious.
Would your opinion change if this were limited to disorders that were known to either be fatal within a short period of time (i.e. not Huntington's, for instance), or those that lacked either the capacity for thought or to express it?
If you're focusing on viability and output, there are diseases which render infants essentially will not procreate at all due to longevity issues, or permanent dependence on 24/7 life support, and from a gene pool point of view don't matter.
While I'm not exactly a barrister on retainer for a nether power...
I *do* have to disagree with you here; frequently, the ends *do* justify the means. In fact, this is commonly recognized, if not often admitted, in society. The character of intent is a admissible and admirable purpose in society.
For instance, even you would probably agree that teaching somebody basic electronics and chemistry, with the intent of training them to construct explosive devices for use in killing civillians for the sole purpose of extortion, would generally
be considered wrong. Training, however, the same person with basic electronics, chemistry, biology and more, however, is a commonly accepted practice in high schools. The difference is intent.
For all you know, it may be perfectly ethical for somebody to kill me. After all, what do you know of my capabilities or intent? While I may, truly, be what I claim to be -- a mildly eccentric graduate student -- verifying that might be non trivial, and even with that information there is no evidence that, say, I am not evil incarnate. Were I to pose a dire threat to society, perhaps trading threatening skills or information as currency among those who violently oppose it, then another principle takes over: that of self-defense. Here, we have a recognition of means.
Killing me without reason would, most likely, be wrong on most moral compasses; doing so on the basis that I *may* be evil, the same. However, if I were to lash out against society via bomb or bullet, it would be as justified to stop me through incarceration or worse as it would be unjustifiable to randomly incarcerate the innocent; or would you rather that the many sacrifice *their* rights and lives, upholding one principle so that one may throw down the rest?
If you wish to make moral judgements, then to ignore the ends is willful blindness.
The big issues with a breakup would, arguably, be how.
Consider first that the Gov't has approximately zero reason to demand that MS products be open-sourced in any way. Why?
* Not everything used by MS is written there, or owned by them.
* They've got patent-sharing arrangements with other companies, already. Lots of entanglements there, too.
* They're MS's major revenue stream -- specifically, the Office and OS groups, really. A number of divisions are not profitable, IIRC. In Bill's shoes, if the Gov't did this, there's not much reason for Mr. Gates to not simply start the process of shutting down the company and refusing to sell, develop or support any of its products anymore -- which would NOT be a good thing for the hordes of people utterly dependent on MS software.
Separating those two groups -- or, arguably more relevant to the lawsuit -- IE and the OS group, might be more interesting. If one wanted to go as far as that, actually.
The other remedies of requiring open APIs (which exist to a degree, methinks) -- which would have to be permanently open by consent decree -- and explicitly forbidding bundling deals or punitive pricing with manufacturers may possibly achieve similar desired effects with less chaos.
'coz you can put those additional bits to good use, that's why. Figure bits for the register index (e.g. 128 int/128 FP registers => 7 bits per argument => 21 bits already. Add bits for predication (64 1-bit registers, for instance). Then add bits for the opcodes themselves...)
You might get away with fewer bits if you have a small (e.g. x86-style) register file and no fancyness. But otherwise... it's gonna hurt.
Hell yes!
For one thing, those 21264 instructions are actually just 32-bits long IIRC ('tho they manipulate 64-bit data).
For another, it's got very limited predication support (conditional moves, again IIRC), in constrast to IA-64/EPIC.
It's also more fun if you've got a (large) register file that can be treated as arbitrarily large 'coz overflow gets mapped to memory -- if you don't mind the cycles, 'natch.
You cannot summarize the 'goodness' of an architecture or processor with just the # of bits it manipulates at a time, or the MHz of the processor.