But he wasn't killed for being a criminal, he was killed for being a threat. This is the point. You try criminals, you eliminate threats.
So who decides who's a threat? Do you have a Star Chamber for that, or do you skip such formalities and just let your president decide who eats polonium or bombs?
I knew the US was decaying, but I didn't realize it was quite this close to the point of collapse.
What you're suggesting though, is that if a suspect pulls out a gun and points it at a police officer than that police officer should not be allowed to shoot that suspect, because that suspect has not had a trial.
So who did the guy have at gunpoint? Police officers aren't allowed to shoot wanted criminals walking on the street as a precaution against the possibility that they might pull a gun. And they definitely aren't allowed to decide one won't get a trial. Or at least the law doesn't allow them to; I'm beginning to suspect that means precious little in America.
Your claim that every bombing is an "assassination" is perhaps technically accurate, but misses some subtleties in what that word implies.
"Assasination" means you want someone dead so you kill them. Subtleties only come in as a way of lying to yourself about what you're doing.
Warming did not stop for 15 years, for chrissakes, and you're either a liar or a moron for restating it.
Not really. Notice the word "warmists" there? It's used as a tribal identifier. In other words, symbolset's post is actually a boast against a perceived other tribe - no different than "your mom's fat". The actual content of the message is not about your mother's body composition, nor Earth's climate, but rather "this is our territory!". It's only an unfortunate accident of evolution that we use the same mechanism for establishing dominance than we use for problem-solving.
It's quite fascinating how much of human communication is utterly unrelated to its nominal content. And it also explains why these discussions tend to degenerate into poo-flinging contest in short order.
First, what is wrong with a provider charging on both sides? If Netflix wants to push terabits of data through a network, why shouldn't the network owner be able to charge Netflix for that?
Because Netflix isn't pushing terabits of data. I'm pulling terabits of data, and I already paid my ISP for that.
Bandwidth is finite. How do you define "artificially slow down delivery" in a world of finite bandwidth and complex and continually changing network topologies? So Hulu and Netflix have to have the same performance to every customer? No matter what the physical network layout is between server and user?
"Artificially slow delivery" is a delivery that gets a lot faster as soon as the ISP gets paid its extortion money.
Also, while bandwidth is finite, that's your problem, not mine. You sold me a connection with a certain bandwidth, so make sure your network can handle it. Make whatever peering agreements you need, ensure that high-bandwidth sites have big fat pipes on their routes, etc. It's what you're paid for.
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot I'm talking to American business shill. Of course your corporate masters would rather just collect checks and never invest a single cent back to the company. But that tactic is self-destructive; even telcos won't have a captive audience forever. So maybe you should, y'know, actually try and become competitive rather than sue anyone who tries to break your regional monopolies?
Which just catches a limited subset of vulnerabilities.
Indeed. Everything catches only a limited subset of vulnerabilities in C. C isn't a good language for writing secure software. It's bad even for an umanaged language, since arrays don't store their size, so you need to go out of your way to prevent overflows. That's kinda my point.
Because you can't write exploitable code in a managed language?
You can write buggy code in anything, but by definition you can't write code that modifies memory it shouldn't have access to or otherwise puts the runtime in an undefined state in a managed language. That's what "managed" means.
The shuttles could still be made/maintained/used. They aren't, but that is a financial and political decision. It isn't as though they reached a magic expiration date and crumbled to dust. A new one could be built and used, no problem, if there was the money and will to do so.
There aren't many things that don't ultimately come down to will, money or both.
Imagine if you're the first person to think of routing cars around areas of high traffic in real time and develop a method to do so. Why shouldn't you be able to get a patent on the result -- routing cars around areas of high traffic for a reasonable amount of time?
Because "sure would be nice if all these cars didn't come here at once" is not an invention? You are not the first person to grasp the concept of load balancing. And indeed, radio has been broadcasting traffick reports for as long as I can remember.
And, if not, what "mechanism" should your patent be tied to?
The specific method you developed. Sure, that might mean an alternative method is trivial to develop and you get nothing - but guess what? All that means is that your "invention" was trivial in the first place.
The real problem is that Americans treat the patent system like they treat everything else: as a get-rich-quick scheme to escape the self-inflicted hell that's their "incentivizing" economy.
But if you take a bus or train ride without paying for a ticket, you can get fined hundreds of dollars even though the owners of the bus/train are not losing anything by some occasional freeloader -- same as an IP pirate.
Gasoline and space in the vehicle. Operating a fleet is an ongoing cost, unlike production of cultural items, which, ones produced, can last pretty much forever.
Also, try looking it another way: a man enters a grocery store and shoplifts a $1 candy bar. The man gained something without spending anything, which is theft, just like a pirate, who gained enjoyment from his pirated movie/song without paying anything to the owners of the content, so that also is theft.
So breathing is theft, since I gain oxygen without paying anyone anything? And unlike "intellectual property", an oxygen molecule consumed by me is actually unavailable to anyone else.
However, your example certainly demonstrates the worldview of copyright supporters: a world of permanent scarcity, propped up by artificial means if necessary, is the goal. What the heck is wrong with you?
So, it's theft if someone gains benefits of a paid product/service without paying, regardless of what it costs the owner to create it or whether he lost nothing by some unauthorized user. That's the correct definition.
"Gaining a benefit without paying" is not the definition of theft. It is not even remotely like the definition of theft, which is "taking someone else's property without permission". Your attempt to redefine the word simply shows that the real meaning does not cover copyright infringmenet, even in your eyes.
Just because you want me to pay, does not mean I have an obligation to do so.
If I don't mark it volatile then the sanity check gets optimized away, and the software is vulnerable.
Except it's just as vulnerable either way. Your sanity check never executes even if x and y are volatile, since the buffer overrun in somestuff() already transferred control to pwned() when somestuff() tried to return. All your sanity check does is give you a false sense of security.
Yes, yes, the real problem is in somestuff() where the buffer got overrun in the first place, but that's someone else's code or whatever.
Yes, and that problem is not solvable in C, no matter how many sanity checks you litter your code with. As soon as you execute any code from an untrusted source, you don't have any security. Any error puts the system into an undefined state, at which point all bets are off.
Most security related vulnerabilities arising from compiler optimization tend to revolve around the idea that you are defending against memory being modified externally that should not normally be modified or read from externally.
In other words, these vulnerabilities don't rise from compiler optimizations but from programmer errors. They only relate to compiler optimizations insofar that those optimizations interfere with ad-hock attempts to get managed language behaviour in an unmanaged language. Which is a bad idea in the first place; either write code that can be checked to be secure by static analysis tools, or switch to a real managed language.
Let's not play with words, then. Copyright infringement is "IP theft," by definition, with worse-than-theft penalties if you redistribute it to others.
If you don't want to play with words, stop doing so. Copyright infringement is not "IP theft", since no one's losing anything. Constant copyright extensions, however, are robbing the public domain of IP that should had long since fallen to it. They are also a cautionary demonstration of what happens when law becomes for sale to the highest bidder: it loses all respectability, thus all respect, and becomes utterly irrelevant.
Pity about those authors who become collateral damage in the copyright wars. But they should blame Disney for its Mickey Mouse Protection Acts, not the public for refusing to surrender the very concept of culture to the altar of corporate profit.
Copyright infringement leads to loss of revenue to the content owner, therefore it is a form of theft.
Opening a retail store leads to loss of revenue to other nearby retail stores, therefore it's a form of theft in your world.
No we can put it to "the man" and not be burdened by their silly rules! Being anti-establishment makes us so cool!
Bitcoin is simply digital cash. It allows two parties to engage in a transaction without requiring a permission from a third party. Does that count as "anti-establishment" in your book? Do you also "roll on the floor" when someone gets their wallet stolen, since obviously they were some kind of anarchist to carry cash with them in the first place?
All kinds of idiots...
anonymous people will rob you blind if you give them a chance
And keeping everyone under constant surveillance means your every action is subject to other people's approval, whether it actually concerns them in any way or not. East Germany was not a nice place to live. No panopticon ever is.
I'm sorry but I can't feel any more sorry for these geniuses than I can the stupid bitch that sent her life savings to a Nigerian prince...you threw it away on a scam, learn from your stupidity and move on. this guy isn't gonna care anymore than the 419 guys care about who they scammed, so why go on about it?
So scams are okay because only stupid people fall for them? Got it. But I have to wonder: why limit this to just intellectual weaknesses? Surely the same principle works just as well for people who fail to have a horde of bloodthirsty Viking warriors guard their house (and thus deserve to have it looted), fail to drive a tank (and thus deserve to have a road-raging truck driver smash them to pulp) or fail to wear a chain mail all the time (and thus deserve to be stabbed by a mugger).
Or perhaps you meant it's okay to prey on weaknesses you don't think you have? In other words, it's okay to prey on people other than you, but not you? Which is fine, but other people aren't identical so their list of acceptable targets will leave you vulnerable. The way people have historically solved this is develop the concept of ethics where it's not okay to prey on anyone. Any deviation from this norm has tended to cause unnecessary strife.
So no, no one's asking you to feel anything for anyone. Just understand that if you approve of victimizing other people for any reason, even a "stupid bitch", you are weakening your own armor. Even a sociopath should be able to comprehend the concept of self-interest.
In fact, if you're working with molten steel, you're already into a level of industrial effort where casting is almost certainly a cheaper and faster choice.
If you're mass-producing the same part, undoubtedly. But casting means you have to have a mold, which means a considerable overhead if you switch parts. At the limit, if you only produce a given part once, it makes much more sense to 3D print it.
This differs from EVERY other retail position how?
Most retailers do it by making themselves the attractive option, rather than use law to make themselves the only option.
Steam or GoG.com aren't going to sue indie developers for selling directly to me. Nor are stores going to sue bakeries, should one keep a bread counter open. They don't have to; they provide sufficient convenience to consumer and producer alike to get their share of business fairly. That auto dealers don't, according to their own judgement, should tell everyone everything they need to know about them.
You can be a perfectly healthy social human being without broadcasting your photos and your every emotion to the world.
At least until employers decide that not having access to your private life is unacceptable, the state welfare system decides the same, and you get the choice of reporting all your doings and goings or starving to death under a bridge. Assuming the bridge hasn't collapsed from lack of maintenance, of course.
If I develop an exact description of the hardware down to the individual registers and control paths, that is called a simulator.
That would be called documentation, actually:^).
An emulator is a simulator that simulates another computer (an algorithm that's Turing complete - that is, can be made to compute any computable algorithm with the right input). A simulator is an emulator that emulates some non-computer process. And the only thing a Turing machine can do is run one of these.
The article is talking about a faster but less accurate emulator and calling it a simulator for whatever reason.
This is all business man, these artists get free bandwidth from Youtube and possibly the option to make a profit of ad revenues, all for nothing.
And the rest of us get a free lesson in corporate ethics in general and Google in particular. Hopefully that lesson means there's less people hurt with the next wave of monetization.
Also, since this once again proves that corporations can't be trusted, it might hopefully motivate research into converting everything to the P2P model.
Unfortunately, some people mistake "thinking for yourself" for "negating everything you hear". I don't know whether it's a relic of juvenile rebellion or a form of paranoia, but some people seem hellbent on "wanting to disbelieve", as I called it.
Neither. One of the purposes of argument in human society is establishing the pecking order - hence such terms as "win" or "lose" one - and some people are incapable of switching off their territorial instincts. Hence you have people, for example, come up with ever more elaborate and batshit insane theories in support of Young Earth Creationism, or make up absurd conspiracies about Barack Obama's birth certificate, or only listRepublican examples here:^).
Such people aren't stupid, they're just hellbent on "winning" the argument to the exclusion of any other goal. They aren't hearing "if you do this, there will be bad consequences", they're hearing "I am in charge here" and responding "no, I am!". If you've read Prometheus rising, it's an issue about someone using second-circuit territorial instincts and another using third-circuit symbolic logic talking and neither understanding what the other is really saying.
Of course, it doesn't help that many nominally pro-science people are really just trying to establish their dominance over religious and other nutjobs. The resulting angry chimp noises are great entertainment, but sadly affects how people behave towards the issues used as clubs in those fights.
Re:Bitcoin fees will have to grow eventually ...
on
Expedia To Accept Bitcoin
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Doesn't work that way for miners. Their hardware has a max capacity that they are already running at.
The effort required to mine a block is (almost) independent of the number of transactions in it. Mining happens against a tree hash of all the transactions in the block, so the only difference between mining a block with 1 transaction and a block with 1,000,000 is generating that tree. And that is something desktop computers do routinely, for example magnet links used for P2P are based on hash trees. So a larger amount of transactions always leads to a larger total reward for mining.
A bigger technical challenge is whether a broadcast network can handle transaction rates resulting from large-scale adoption.
BitCoin is MORE expensive to actually process than a CC transaction, and it gets WORSE over time.
Do you have any actual numbers to back this assertion?
As popularity grows, so will fees.
But as the market grows, volatility decreases, which makes it possible to deal directly in Bitcoin. This is very different from credit cards where network effect limits competition.
Some rare event -- presumably an unlikely mutation.
Granting us what, exactly speaking? To the best of my knowledge no human capability is actually unique. Only their combination is. And let's not forget that world used to have more than one human species, strongly implying that life had simply reached a treshold and it was just a matter of who crosses over first.
Don't think of them falling over, think of them moving off center. Once the sun is off center, even a little bit, it tends to pull the nearer part of the ringworld more strongly than the more distant parts.
Yes, and the whole idea is that those parts also receive more solar radiation, pushing them away.
OTOH, possibly a "light enough ring" would be stable at particular levels and directions of solar radiation emissions. But those aren't predictable over the long term, and also aren't stable.
Over the long term, a star stable enough to live around will radiate the same amount in each direction. That's good enough for us.
Also, if it's "light enough" then nobody can live on it.
Why not? A ringworld doesn't create gravity through mass, it creates it through centrifugal force.
Slashdot Mirror
So who decides who's a threat? Do you have a Star Chamber for that, or do you skip such formalities and just let your president decide who eats polonium or bombs?
I knew the US was decaying, but I didn't realize it was quite this close to the point of collapse.
So who did the guy have at gunpoint? Police officers aren't allowed to shoot wanted criminals walking on the street as a precaution against the possibility that they might pull a gun. And they definitely aren't allowed to decide one won't get a trial. Or at least the law doesn't allow them to; I'm beginning to suspect that means precious little in America.
"Assasination" means you want someone dead so you kill them. Subtleties only come in as a way of lying to yourself about what you're doing.
Not really. Notice the word "warmists" there? It's used as a tribal identifier. In other words, symbolset's post is actually a boast against a perceived other tribe - no different than "your mom's fat". The actual content of the message is not about your mother's body composition, nor Earth's climate, but rather "this is our territory!". It's only an unfortunate accident of evolution that we use the same mechanism for establishing dominance than we use for problem-solving.
It's quite fascinating how much of human communication is utterly unrelated to its nominal content. And it also explains why these discussions tend to degenerate into poo-flinging contest in short order.
Because Netflix isn't pushing terabits of data. I'm pulling terabits of data, and I already paid my ISP for that.
"Artificially slow delivery" is a delivery that gets a lot faster as soon as the ISP gets paid its extortion money.
Also, while bandwidth is finite, that's your problem, not mine. You sold me a connection with a certain bandwidth, so make sure your network can handle it. Make whatever peering agreements you need, ensure that high-bandwidth sites have big fat pipes on their routes, etc. It's what you're paid for.
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot I'm talking to American business shill. Of course your corporate masters would rather just collect checks and never invest a single cent back to the company. But that tactic is self-destructive; even telcos won't have a captive audience forever. So maybe you should, y'know, actually try and become competitive rather than sue anyone who tries to break your regional monopolies?
Or even the entire country.
Indeed. Everything catches only a limited subset of vulnerabilities in C. C isn't a good language for writing secure software. It's bad even for an umanaged language, since arrays don't store their size, so you need to go out of your way to prevent overflows. That's kinda my point.
You can write buggy code in anything, but by definition you can't write code that modifies memory it shouldn't have access to or otherwise puts the runtime in an undefined state in a managed language. That's what "managed" means.
There aren't many things that don't ultimately come down to will, money or both.
Because we're talking about vital infrastructure. It needs to be planned based on what maximizes benefits for the society, not someone's bonuses.
Play monopoly with organic snake oil sales or something, not the electric grid.
Because "sure would be nice if all these cars didn't come here at once" is not an invention? You are not the first person to grasp the concept of load balancing. And indeed, radio has been broadcasting traffick reports for as long as I can remember.
The specific method you developed. Sure, that might mean an alternative method is trivial to develop and you get nothing - but guess what? All that means is that your "invention" was trivial in the first place.
The real problem is that Americans treat the patent system like they treat everything else: as a get-rich-quick scheme to escape the self-inflicted hell that's their "incentivizing" economy.
Gasoline and space in the vehicle. Operating a fleet is an ongoing cost, unlike production of cultural items, which, ones produced, can last pretty much forever.
So breathing is theft, since I gain oxygen without paying anyone anything? And unlike "intellectual property", an oxygen molecule consumed by me is actually unavailable to anyone else.
However, your example certainly demonstrates the worldview of copyright supporters: a world of permanent scarcity, propped up by artificial means if necessary, is the goal. What the heck is wrong with you?
"Gaining a benefit without paying" is not the definition of theft. It is not even remotely like the definition of theft, which is "taking someone else's property without permission". Your attempt to redefine the word simply shows that the real meaning does not cover copyright infringmenet, even in your eyes.
Just because you want me to pay, does not mean I have an obligation to do so.
Except it's just as vulnerable either way. Your sanity check never executes even if x and y are volatile, since the buffer overrun in somestuff() already transferred control to pwned() when somestuff() tried to return. All your sanity check does is give you a false sense of security.
Yes, and that problem is not solvable in C, no matter how many sanity checks you litter your code with. As soon as you execute any code from an untrusted source, you don't have any security. Any error puts the system into an undefined state, at which point all bets are off.
In other words, these vulnerabilities don't rise from compiler optimizations but from programmer errors. They only relate to compiler optimizations insofar that those optimizations interfere with ad-hock attempts to get managed language behaviour in an unmanaged language. Which is a bad idea in the first place; either write code that can be checked to be secure by static analysis tools, or switch to a real managed language.
If you don't want to play with words, stop doing so. Copyright infringement is not "IP theft", since no one's losing anything. Constant copyright extensions, however, are robbing the public domain of IP that should had long since fallen to it. They are also a cautionary demonstration of what happens when law becomes for sale to the highest bidder: it loses all respectability, thus all respect, and becomes utterly irrelevant.
Pity about those authors who become collateral damage in the copyright wars. But they should blame Disney for its Mickey Mouse Protection Acts, not the public for refusing to surrender the very concept of culture to the altar of corporate profit.
Opening a retail store leads to loss of revenue to other nearby retail stores, therefore it's a form of theft in your world.
Bitcoin is simply digital cash. It allows two parties to engage in a transaction without requiring a permission from a third party. Does that count as "anti-establishment" in your book? Do you also "roll on the floor" when someone gets their wallet stolen, since obviously they were some kind of anarchist to carry cash with them in the first place?
All kinds of idiots...
And keeping everyone under constant surveillance means your every action is subject to other people's approval, whether it actually concerns them in any way or not. East Germany was not a nice place to live. No panopticon ever is.
So scams are okay because only stupid people fall for them? Got it. But I have to wonder: why limit this to just intellectual weaknesses? Surely the same principle works just as well for people who fail to have a horde of bloodthirsty Viking warriors guard their house (and thus deserve to have it looted), fail to drive a tank (and thus deserve to have a road-raging truck driver smash them to pulp) or fail to wear a chain mail all the time (and thus deserve to be stabbed by a mugger).
Or perhaps you meant it's okay to prey on weaknesses you don't think you have? In other words, it's okay to prey on people other than you, but not you? Which is fine, but other people aren't identical so their list of acceptable targets will leave you vulnerable. The way people have historically solved this is develop the concept of ethics where it's not okay to prey on anyone. Any deviation from this norm has tended to cause unnecessary strife.
So no, no one's asking you to feel anything for anyone. Just understand that if you approve of victimizing other people for any reason, even a "stupid bitch", you are weakening your own armor. Even a sociopath should be able to comprehend the concept of self-interest.
If you're mass-producing the same part, undoubtedly. But casting means you have to have a mold, which means a considerable overhead if you switch parts. At the limit, if you only produce a given part once, it makes much more sense to 3D print it.
Most retailers do it by making themselves the attractive option, rather than use law to make themselves the only option.
Steam or GoG.com aren't going to sue indie developers for selling directly to me. Nor are stores going to sue bakeries, should one keep a bread counter open. They don't have to; they provide sufficient convenience to consumer and producer alike to get their share of business fairly. That auto dealers don't, according to their own judgement, should tell everyone everything they need to know about them.
At least until employers decide that not having access to your private life is unacceptable, the state welfare system decides the same, and you get the choice of reporting all your doings and goings or starving to death under a bridge. Assuming the bridge hasn't collapsed from lack of maintenance, of course.
Eat your heart out, East Germany.
That would be called documentation, actually :^).
An emulator is a simulator that simulates another computer (an algorithm that's Turing complete - that is, can be made to compute any computable algorithm with the right input). A simulator is an emulator that emulates some non-computer process. And the only thing a Turing machine can do is run one of these.
The article is talking about a faster but less accurate emulator and calling it a simulator for whatever reason.
And the rest of us get a free lesson in corporate ethics in general and Google in particular. Hopefully that lesson means there's less people hurt with the next wave of monetization.
Also, since this once again proves that corporations can't be trusted, it might hopefully motivate research into converting everything to the P2P model.
Neither. One of the purposes of argument in human society is establishing the pecking order - hence such terms as "win" or "lose" one - and some people are incapable of switching off their territorial instincts. Hence you have people, for example, come up with ever more elaborate and batshit insane theories in support of Young Earth Creationism, or make up absurd conspiracies about Barack Obama's birth certificate, or only listRepublican examples here :^).
Such people aren't stupid, they're just hellbent on "winning" the argument to the exclusion of any other goal. They aren't hearing "if you do this, there will be bad consequences", they're hearing "I am in charge here" and responding "no, I am!". If you've read Prometheus rising, it's an issue about someone using second-circuit territorial instincts and another using third-circuit symbolic logic talking and neither understanding what the other is really saying.
Of course, it doesn't help that many nominally pro-science people are really just trying to establish their dominance over religious and other nutjobs. The resulting angry chimp noises are great entertainment, but sadly affects how people behave towards the issues used as clubs in those fights.
The effort required to mine a block is (almost) independent of the number of transactions in it. Mining happens against a tree hash of all the transactions in the block, so the only difference between mining a block with 1 transaction and a block with 1,000,000 is generating that tree. And that is something desktop computers do routinely, for example magnet links used for P2P are based on hash trees. So a larger amount of transactions always leads to a larger total reward for mining.
A bigger technical challenge is whether a broadcast network can handle transaction rates resulting from large-scale adoption.
Or one could integrate the various filters from, say, ScummVM. Making low-res pixel art look good is a problem that's been pretty much solved.
Do you have any actual numbers to back this assertion?
But as the market grows, volatility decreases, which makes it possible to deal directly in Bitcoin. This is very different from credit cards where network effect limits competition.
Granting us what, exactly speaking? To the best of my knowledge no human capability is actually unique. Only their combination is. And let's not forget that world used to have more than one human species, strongly implying that life had simply reached a treshold and it was just a matter of who crosses over first.
Yes, and the whole idea is that those parts also receive more solar radiation, pushing them away.
Over the long term, a star stable enough to live around will radiate the same amount in each direction. That's good enough for us.
Why not? A ringworld doesn't create gravity through mass, it creates it through centrifugal force.