I would hope CentOS could keep up with a minor version update. CentOS was sluggish getting a major update out the door (6.0) which was understandable at the time.
I would much rather have them get it right than them get it first.
I didn't equate JVM to Java nor did anybody else..
The parent said "Dalvik is not Java" and I said it was similar to saying "JVM is not Java" and at the end of the post I mention "Dalvik instead of JVM". The reason for the similarity was Dalvik and JVM both are not Java.
The point was that when the grand parent mentioned "Dalvik java" the author meant Java running on Dalvik.
Dalvik is not Java. While the Java programming language is available for Dalvik, together with a subset of the J2SE library, the runtime itself is unrelated.
That's like saying JVM is not Java. I think the OP is still technically correct. Android does use Java albeit Java with a subset of libraries running on Dalvik instead of JVM.
I think I experienced something like this almost two decades ago. It didn't pan out. No one wanted to be limited to the least common denominator.
Anyway, the little detail I see in the two linked articles is that it's simply a standardized socket for a CPU mezzanine card that will mount to a motherboard that is little more than a x8 PCI express bus with some other peripheral devices/interfaces installed and power.
This position ignores the other effect of restrictions on the mentally ill... it discourages people from seeking help when they need it.
I think more people are worried about those who are currently in the mental health system and able to purchase a weapon than they are about a current gun owner becoming a mental patient.
This makes sense to me due to current gun owners being responsible and haven't committed a crime with a firearm, yet the ones who do commit crimes with firearms acquired their firearm just prior to the assault.
Except in CNET's case, the decision was driven by the parent's company litigation with Dish network. I can understand CBS' aversion to having one of its subsidiaries endorsing a product that its trying to stop in court. I'm not commenting on the merits of their case, but I can understand the situation they found themselves in. I always found CNET's "Best in Show" arbitrary and in fact one of their "Best in Show" was awarded twice (2012 & 2013) to the same product that has yet seen the light of day (The Razor Game Pad).
Also in CBS' case they didn't write an editorial against "The Hopper". They asked their subsidiary not to award it best in show. Whereas the Atlantic was actually presenting advertising as news.
You know there is a good chance that his untimely death wasn't connected to JSTOR. He seemed to be a brilliant individual. He could have been battling depression all this time and the environment he found himself in just exacerbated the problem. My thoughts and prayers go out to his family.
I think if you don't know all the facts then it is probably best to not say anything.
I think the large tablet is cool if was a smaller and cheaper implementation of Microsoft's surface technology (not their new tablets, the older touch UI). I think carrying a 20" tablet around is a bit much and prone to have a very small market.
I don't think the OP took locality in account, and you must admit in today's political environment it doesn't take much to make a federal case out of any issue.
For the record, the items that I went into detail were federal statues.
Thanks for the stereotype. I like to know where the "rest of the world" is since I've seen my european, aussie, and asian colleagues be just as gadget conscious as the rest of us.
In my state the "Right to work" legislation and the "At will" legislation is the same bill. I can see the cause for confusion of the GP, but in all practical terms I think it doesn't matter.
I was under the assumption that references to "the government" were pretty much defacto references to federal government, but I suppose I could have further clarified for the laymen who don't pay attention to politics. Sometimes I forget Slashdot has an international audience, many of whom are ignorant of American political lingo.
Of course, as an American, you don't really get to use that excuse.
I believe most people will equate the "government" as being either federal, state, or local. You don't see discussions limited to federal government on Slashdot. If you look back at what's been presented on Slashdot, you'll find plenty of stories that talk about state and local government actions as they relate to technology. Besides the first examples I gave you were federal, only the last example were state laws.
Now, now, there's no need to be petulant - it does nothing to move the discussion forward, and really only serves to makes yourself look like an uptight asshole who can't handle having a disagreement without getting all butthurt about it.
I'm the petulant one? I'm not the one declaring someone's comments as bullshit nor am I the one calling people asshole. All I do is give information. I can bring the horse to water but I can't make him drink.
By the way, moving the goal posts isn't the same as moving forward.
From its earliest days as a mob game, football was a violent sport. The 1894 Harvard-Yale game, known as the "Hampden Park Blood Bath", resulted in crippling injuries for four players; the contest was suspended until 1897. The annual Army-Navy game was suspended from 1894 to 1898 for similar reasons. One of the major problems was the popularity of mass-formations like the flying wedge, in which a large number of offensive players charged as a unit against a similarly arranged defense. The resultant collisions often led to serious injuries and sometimes even death.
Interestingly while the bloody Harvard-Yale game took place in 1894, the first use of a football helmet is attributed to George "Rose" Barclay. Who in 1896 wore straps and ear pieces to protect his ears. The late 1910's marks the first use of hardened leather on to of the head to deflect blows to the top of the head. Read some interesting stuff here.
It seems that the injuries and deaths were in the sport PRIOR to the introduction of helmets and padding. It took rule changes in 1905-1906 to make the game "safer", and it looks like we are due more rule changes to mitigate the problems we are discovering today.
Shut him down? For what? Selling something that someone somewhere might use to break a law? That's not a crime in itself, you know.
If the government could legally 'shut down' anyone and everyone capable of using a tool for crime, we'd all be in some seriously deep shit.
You gave a premise that the government could not legally 'shut down' anyone and everyone capable of using a tool for crime.
I gave three of where "the government" could and have. You didn't say what type of government - you said "the government".
I should of known that since you accused me of "bullshit" that you wouldn't accept counter examples to your statement. One day you may figure out Google.
"Drug paraphernalia" is illegal to sell because it contains traces of illegal drugs, not because of what it is.
Wishful thinking. Let me introduce you to 21 USC 863 specifically where it defines the term drug paraphernalia:
The term “drug paraphernalia” means any equipment, product, or material of any kind which is primarily intended or designed for use in manufacturing, compounding, converting, concealing, producing, processing, preparing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing into the human body a controlled substance, possession of which is unlawful under this subchapter. It includes items primarily intended or designed for use in ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing marijuana, [1] cocaine, hashish, hashish oil, PCP, methamphetamine, or amphetamines into the human body, such as—
(1) metal, wooden, acrylic, glass, stone, plastic, or ceramic pipes with or without screens, permanent screens, hashish heads, or punctured metal bowls;
(2) water pipes;
(3) carburetion tubes and devices;
(4) smoking and carburetion masks;
(5) roach clips: meaning objects used to hold burning material, such as a marihuana cigarette, that has become too small or too short to be held in the hand;
(6) miniature spoons with level capacities of one-tenth cubic centimeter or less;
(7) chamber pipes;
(8) carburetor pipes;
(9) electric pipes;
(10) air-driven pipes;
(11) chillums;
(12) bongs;
(13) ice pipes or chillers;
(14) wired cigarette papers; or
(15) cocaine freebase kits.
This statue was used as the basis for Operation Pipe Dreams where 55 people were indicted and charged for trafficking in illegal drug paraphernalia.
(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that —
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
consumer protection against malware laws in several states like California, Arizona, Indiana and others...
A) Again, such as? If you can't cite specific ordinance, I'm inclined to call bullshit.
Here's a page with some links to State ordinances related to malware
Thanks! It would be more accurate to call it a "Ruby on Rails" exploit since just because it uses Ruby doesn't make it Ruby's fault which is the point of my parent post.
Shut him down? For what? Selling something that someone somewhere might use to break a law? That's not a crime in itself, you know.
If the government could legally 'shut down' anyone and everyone capable of using a tool for crime, we'd all be in some seriously deep shit.
Explain laws against selling drug paraphernalia, subsections of the DMCA, or consumer protection against malware laws in several states like California, Arizona, Indiana and others...
Slashdot Mirror
Damn straight.
One of those line is not like the others. One of those line does not belong...
I use Scientific Linux but recommend both.
I would hope CentOS could keep up with a minor version update. CentOS was sluggish getting a major update out the door (6.0) which was understandable at the time.
I would much rather have them get it right than them get it first.
I didn't equate JVM to Java nor did anybody else..
The parent said "Dalvik is not Java" and I said it was similar to saying "JVM is not Java" and at the end of the post I mention "Dalvik instead of JVM". The reason for the similarity was Dalvik and JVM both are not Java.
The point was that when the grand parent mentioned "Dalvik java" the author meant Java running on Dalvik.
That's like saying JVM is not Java. I think the OP is still technically correct. Android does use Java albeit Java with a subset of libraries running on Dalvik instead of JVM.
I rather have an affordable and truly standardize blade server.
CNET jumped the shark when they started "reviewing" refrigerators, toast ovens, and other assorted kitchen appliances.
I think I experienced something like this almost two decades ago. It didn't pan out. No one wanted to be limited to the least common denominator.
Anyway, the little detail I see in the two linked articles is that it's simply a standardized socket for a CPU mezzanine card that will mount to a motherboard that is little more than a x8 PCI express bus with some other peripheral devices/interfaces installed and power.
I think more people are worried about those who are currently in the mental health system and able to purchase a weapon than they are about a current gun owner becoming a mental patient.
This makes sense to me due to current gun owners being responsible and haven't committed a crime with a firearm, yet the ones who do commit crimes with firearms acquired their firearm just prior to the assault.
Except in CNET's case, the decision was driven by the parent's company litigation with Dish network. I can understand CBS' aversion to having one of its subsidiaries endorsing a product that its trying to stop in court. I'm not commenting on the merits of their case, but I can understand the situation they found themselves in. I always found CNET's "Best in Show" arbitrary and in fact one of their "Best in Show" was awarded twice (2012 & 2013) to the same product that has yet seen the light of day (The Razor Game Pad).
Also in CBS' case they didn't write an editorial against "The Hopper". They asked their subsidiary not to award it best in show. Whereas the Atlantic was actually presenting advertising as news.
Speaking of which, the 50th anniversary of George Wallace's speech is today.
Sounds like he is about to try to sell us something by fear mongering and selling snake oil.
You know there is a good chance that his untimely death wasn't connected to JSTOR. He seemed to be a brilliant individual. He could have been battling depression all this time and the environment he found himself in just exacerbated the problem. My thoughts and prayers go out to his family.
I think if you don't know all the facts then it is probably best to not say anything.
I think the large tablet is cool if was a smaller and cheaper implementation of Microsoft's surface technology (not their new tablets, the older touch UI). I think carrying a 20" tablet around is a bit much and prone to have a very small market.
I don't think the OP took locality in account, and you must admit in today's political environment it doesn't take much to make a federal case out of any issue.
For the record, the items that I went into detail were federal statues.
Thanks for the stereotype. I like to know where the "rest of the world" is since I've seen my european, aussie, and asian colleagues be just as gadget conscious as the rest of us.
In my state the "Right to work" legislation and the "At will" legislation is the same bill. I can see the cause for confusion of the GP, but in all practical terms I think it doesn't matter.
No harm no foul.
I still don't understand why you consider jurisdiction significant.
I believe most people will equate the "government" as being either federal, state, or local. You don't see discussions limited to federal government on Slashdot. If you look back at what's been presented on Slashdot, you'll find plenty of stories that talk about state and local government actions as they relate to technology. Besides the first examples I gave you were federal, only the last example were state laws.
I'm the petulant one? I'm not the one declaring someone's comments as bullshit nor am I the one calling people asshole. All I do is give information. I can bring the horse to water but I can't make him drink.
By the way, moving the goal posts isn't the same as moving forward.
From wikipedia (which have links to the relevant sources):
From its earliest days as a mob game, football was a violent sport. The 1894 Harvard-Yale game, known as the "Hampden Park Blood Bath", resulted in crippling injuries for four players; the contest was suspended until 1897. The annual Army-Navy game was suspended from 1894 to 1898 for similar reasons. One of the major problems was the popularity of mass-formations like the flying wedge, in which a large number of offensive players charged as a unit against a similarly arranged defense. The resultant collisions often led to serious injuries and sometimes even death.
Interestingly while the bloody Harvard-Yale game took place in 1894, the first use of a football helmet is attributed to George "Rose" Barclay. Who in 1896 wore straps and ear pieces to protect his ears. The late 1910's marks the first use of hardened leather on to of the head to deflect blows to the top of the head. Read some interesting stuff here.
It seems that the injuries and deaths were in the sport PRIOR to the introduction of helmets and padding. It took rule changes in 1905-1906 to make the game "safer", and it looks like we are due more rule changes to mitigate the problems we are discovering today.
Let's go back to your post:
You gave a premise that the government could not legally 'shut down' anyone and everyone capable of using a tool for crime.
I gave three of where "the government" could and have. You didn't say what type of government - you said "the government".
I should of known that since you accused me of "bullshit" that you wouldn't accept counter examples to your statement. One day you may figure out Google.
Wishful thinking. Let me introduce you to 21 USC 863 specifically where it defines the term drug paraphernalia:
The term “drug paraphernalia” means any equipment, product, or material of any kind which is primarily intended or designed for use in manufacturing, compounding, converting, concealing, producing, processing, preparing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing into the human body a controlled substance, possession of which is unlawful under this subchapter. It includes items primarily intended or designed for use in ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing marijuana, [1] cocaine, hashish, hashish oil, PCP, methamphetamine, or amphetamines into the human body, such as—
(1) metal, wooden, acrylic, glass, stone, plastic, or ceramic pipes with or without screens, permanent screens, hashish heads, or punctured metal bowls; (2) water pipes; (3) carburetion tubes and devices; (4) smoking and carburetion masks; (5) roach clips: meaning objects used to hold burning material, such as a marihuana cigarette, that has become too small or too short to be held in the hand; (6) miniature spoons with level capacities of one-tenth cubic centimeter or less; (7) chamber pipes; (8) carburetor pipes; (9) electric pipes; (10) air-driven pipes; (11) chillums; (12) bongs; (13) ice pipes or chillers; (14) wired cigarette papers; or (15) cocaine freebase kits.
This statue was used as the basis for Operation Pipe Dreams where 55 people were indicted and charged for trafficking in illegal drug paraphernalia.
17 USC 1201 section (2) states:
(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that —
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
Here's a page with some links to State ordinances related to malware
Thanks! It would be more accurate to call it a "Ruby on Rails" exploit since just because it uses Ruby doesn't make it Ruby's fault which is the point of my parent post.
Explain laws against selling drug paraphernalia, subsections of the DMCA, or consumer protection against malware laws in several states like California, Arizona, Indiana and others...