Briefly, thank[fully]? Really? As opposed to a security-vulnerable closed source Java app, as so many seem to be nowadays? At least the perl community seems to try to fix their security issues in a relatively timely manner, and, being open source, theoretically someone else can come out with a patch if the perl devs were too slow to fix it.
(PHP and Python obviously suffer from the same benefits as Perl, though I don't know their communities as well.)
And perl couldn't be embedded in a web page - it could only produce them (CGI and CGI-like, such as mod_perl and FastCGI, though this allows them to serve as AJAX/REST servers/servlets as well).
And yet the major reason why I moved from Catalyst to the radeonhd (and then radeon) drivers was that they didn't crash. I'd rather have a few less FPS if it meant I could have more frames;-)
Counting lines of code is a measure of productivity. The more lines I need to type to get the same work done, the less productive I am for that functionality. If I can do the same work in half the lines of code without sacrificing readability and maintainability (I'd argue that often these are improved by cutting out boilerplate), then I'm more productive.
Every time I have to look at Java, I boggle at the volume of text they have to write for the simplest things. And then I'm happy I do most of my work in Perl.
But if the criminal doesn't know it's there, it's not much of a deterrant. Maybe those real alarms should use visible-spectrum lasers. Or maybe both. Too bad this is now patented, depending on the language, competitors may not be able to do anything. Then again, I think this solution really is novel, and is relatively deserving of patent licensing fees.
Its not like "using the wrong label!" has ever really held up as a useful argument.
I dunno about that. If you get pulled over for speeding, and the cop writes down "Tuesday" but it's Wednesday, that is liable to get the ticket thrown out.
But, other than that, yes, the courts are unlikely to be impressed by technical hocus-pocus acts.
Roll a D12 modulo 3 add one, no killing necessary.
Wow, that's way more obtuse than we ever did. We took a d6, divided the result by two, round up. And even that is an obtuse explanation for simple groupings: 1-2 = 1, 3-4 = 2, 5-6 = 3.
Rolling d12s were annoying - of all the dice, they were the most likely to accidentally roll off the table because they often just didn't stop. Even the d20s didn't have that problem. (d100's did, too, but I only ever knew one guy who was so pathetic in his attempt to fit in with us social rejects in high school that he bought a d100 and tried to show it off.)
But he's also setting up reads and writes in different threads (processes, actually). Opening a new file and starting to read it will happen while the other thread is still finishing its writes and closing (syncing) the previous file.
cp probably opens input, opens output, loops { reads input, writes output }, closes input, closes output. All in serial. Probably. (Well, the -p flag adds a bit more reading and writing, which, again, the tar solution would buffer between the processes.)
I'm not convinced that one method is necessarily much better than the other. That said, I use the tar solution largely because it does the job more portably: I can copy all the files, symlinks, permissions, etc., recursively, on more platforms, than cp (I'm pretty sure the -R and/or -p flags haven't existed everywhere that I've used it). Maybe that has changed, I've not looked for a while. Also, the tar command allows me to split up the work. Not just different processors, but different machines:
tar cf - . | ssh bigassserver 'cd/bigassdrive; tar xvf -'
(Or reverse it if I want to pull instead of push my data.) (Or both can be ssh to use my public keys to get access to two remote machines, though I think the performance will suck at this point.)
Does that hold true when the patent owner is not American?
That section of Texas tends to be a little xenophobic.
Assuming that to be true, which I'm not willing to grant, I'm expecting the lawyers to be middle-aged white men from Texas. I doubt that even the most racist jury would even notice.
Patents are supposed to be for "non-obvious" inventions- things which you can be reasonably sure someone else in the field wouldn't come up with in the same circumstances.
"Same circumstances" doesn't apply. Otherwise, simply being tasked with inventing something would generally make it non-patentable, as someone else in the same circumstances would likely end up inventing something quite similar. Or, the other extreme: everything is patentable on a narrow enough scale since no two people think identically.
Simplistically, it's supposed to be patentable when you get an "average" person (not everyone, especially not those at the brightest end, just a "reasonable skill level") skilled in the field, to say, "cool, I didn't think of that" when faced with the invention, rather than, "well, duh, of course."
The fact that it doesn't even work this well is completely separate. You said "supposed to be", and that's not what it's supposed to be at all. What we'd like it to be is, of course, a whole 'nother discussion.
If you're dying from an uncurable disease anyway, and the only hope is a new stem cell treatment with unknown risks and side effects, why shouldn't you be allowed the choice to at least try a treatment that *might* extend your life (knowing the risks), as opposed to the alternative of *definitely* dying?
Well, as long as that's the criteria, why not allow anyone to sell anything to the dying on the pretense that it might extend their life? Cocaine, meth, tobacco, homeopathic remedies (i.e., water), waterboarding (uncomfortable, but who knows, it might extend your life!), seances, or real snake oil, anything might extend your life if you're already dying! All for the low, low price of $4999! No, we're not merely trying to drain your bank account, what's a few bucks if it might extend your life? And if it doesn't work, you won't need it anyway.
Or, maybe we should watch out for people making unsubstantiated claims in an attempt to swindle the desperate out of their money? Sure, they may not need the money anymore, but I'm sure they'd rather it go to their heirs than a swindler.
So, I'd rather medical advances were done in medical trials. I'd like to see more people accepted into the trials, sure, when it's based on proper risk acknowledgement, and not on the boatloads of cash being generated (that comes later if it's actually proven, and then we get into a "what the market will bear" situation).
Remember that capitalism only works if both sides of the transaction are properly informed. Fraud and deception defeat that, which is why anti-fraud laws are on the books: to allow capitalism to work. If you're selling an apple for $1, I may choose to buy that apple based on knowing what an apple is, and what $1 is worth to me. If, however, that apple, sold as produce, actually is made of plastic and weights, that's fraudulent. Or, if my $1 is a counterfeit, that's fraudulent as well (though it likely falls under different laws, it's illegal for much the same reason). If a desperate person is told by someone that there is a treatment that can, or even merely might, extend their lives, but has no evidence for it, we generally rely on the government to punish them if they're lying that there is even a chance of success. The FDA is simply going to enforce this.
Indeed. When TFS says "I am trying to convince a number of people to give Linux a chance", the question is "why?"
Simple: if they want my continued support on their computer issues, they need to be running something I can support. I've used Windows so little over the last ten years that trying to find the right dialog buried somewhere in the control panel is incredibly time consuming. And practically impossible over the phone.
Linux, regardless of distro, can generally be supported over the phone. Even if I'm not running the same distro, most config is the same, in/etc, and I can often see the text file locally. Yes, asking someone to bring up an editor may sound more complex than a dialog, but as long as it's something simpler than vi or emacs, it probably would still be easier than saying "click here, then find this tab, and click there, a new dialog comes up, click on this tab, and..."
I've always just called it "confirmation bias." I see it just as much in the left wing as the right, and nearly every other area of human interaction. Why should sciences be exempt?
The right to interview, select, and hire the professional that will be speaking on your behalf seems to be a natural extention of your own free speech.
There's also freedom of association, but I think that's likely a weak connection.
I always thought, that the fairest court of all, would be the one where the "prosecutor" (for lack of better term) would be searching for the "truth", not necessarily going for "conviction". This would remove the adversarial nature of the whole court process, it would be about discovering the "truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth".
This makes some sense. The state has significantly more resource available than your average accused and should always be interested in truth and justice, not convictions. Unfortunately, management gets in the way, and they want to measure something. Measuring convictions is way too easy to measure, nevermind that it measures the Wrong Thing.
The flip side is, that if you "did the crime" you'd be offered two choices. Plead or trial, with much stiffer penalties for trial than for pleading. How many trials are for people so obviously guilty that everyone in the court already knows they did it (film, witnesses, caught in the act etc) that get trials because they want the charade of a trial.
Again, fairly reasonable. Playing poker for time instead of money, makes sense.
To Temper the Prosecution's zeal, they would be held accountable for all the prosecutions they have, and if they get a "conviction" of someone who is later proved innocent (i.e. DNA proof), that they are tossed in Jail for the remainder of the plaintiffs sentence.
Woah, Nelly. That's almost like penalising me the cost of fixing a bug for having written one. A bit extreme. Yes, if there is evidence of malicious prosecution, I don't think prosecutorial immunity should apply. However, mistakes are made, and you don't throw someone in jail for mistakes. Even today, police officers and prosecutors will decline charges over mistakes (at least if they're in a good mood). Don't make them more snarky, please.
And if prosecutorial misconduct is proven, "remainder of the plaintiff's sentence" is only going to make them stall and/or obstruct. It's a new criminal charge, it gets its own time. But I could go for a karmic "the greater of 2 years and the time served by the maliciously prosecuted".
All Lawyers would be "public" lawyers, and would be assigned randomly to one side or the other side of the case. Lawyers with extensive experience and a proven record would be eligible for Judgeships.
I'm sure it isn't a perfect system, but I suspect that it would function better than the crapshoot and Lawyer Wars we have now.
Unfortunately, at least in the US, "free speech" would prevent this aspect.
I completely agree. Any alcohol in my system, whatsoever, and I don't drive. I take a look at when I plan to depart, and have no more than one drink per hour that I plan on being there. Further, no alcohol for the last hour. Simple rules. By the time I get to the car, I'm as stone-cold sober as when I arrived. (For some people, this is still too much, depends on body mass, etc.).
However, translating my own rules on that to the law? No. If you're talking about a "zero-tolerance" law for drivers who are not of legal drinking age, that I can understand as a combination of two laws (license-to-drive and consumption-of-alcohol), and I could be convinced of a graduated system through about 25 (when most peoples' brains are finished growing). Beyond that, no. The law should be entirely based on the best currently-available medical science. (Which, of course, it isn't now, either.)
I'm still a firm believer in due process. And we don't have that today, either. (Thanks a lot, MADD. Where's the ACLU on this?)
It's been long known that the best way to catch a criminal is to pretend to be one. (Some might argue that the government is already doing a damned good job of that.) Getting them to show their hand (having a cop as a witness to the crime) and/or confess their misdeeds voluntarily is pretty much the best way to get a conviction.
This is why you get undercover cops buying drugs, joining gangs, etc. Stings are perfectly legal, and, if they follow the rules as laid out by the courts, seem pretty reasonable. As long as the cops don't entice someone into committing a crime, they're clear. Pretending to be a fence and accepting stolen goods is not entrapment, but pretending to be a fence and telling someone to steal something to sell to you is. If "carderprofit.cc" merely accepted the trade of stolen card info, it's a sting. If they recruited people to target specific venues ("I hear ebay.ca's admin password is XXXX, why don't you nab us some of those cards?"), that's entrapment.
You're not very good at cost-benefit analysis, are you.
If we go with your admittedly-made-up numbers, the fence would pay for itself in 3 years, assuming 100% effectiveness. Assuming 50% effectiveness, 6 years. Assuming 10%, 10 years. And, for a government program, that's pretty good payback times, though that might also be pretty high effectiveness for a government program, too.
How long do you think it'll take the austerity programs to pay for themselves?
I don't quite get why the law can't handle this without running afoul of the second amendment, either. In Canada, I regularly see "fire bans" - when the conditions are poor (i.e., dry tinder), even fires that require and have received permits are not allowed. Open-pit fires are banned. (BBQs, being enclosed, are still permitted.) A similar fire ban, not targetting firearms per se, should pass muster just fine, as long as it allows for emergency use (self-defense), active militia use (again, largely defense), and firing ranges and such.
Slashdot Mirror
Talk about nit-picking. You know what he meant, but you had to pick on how he said it instead.
Is this any better? "Unencrypted HTTP is on its way to becomming a legacy protocol."
(Typo left in so you can ignore my point, too, and instead nit pick on something else.)
Briefly, thank[fully]? Really? As opposed to a security-vulnerable closed source Java app, as so many seem to be nowadays? At least the perl community seems to try to fix their security issues in a relatively timely manner, and, being open source, theoretically someone else can come out with a patch if the perl devs were too slow to fix it.
(PHP and Python obviously suffer from the same benefits as Perl, though I don't know their communities as well.)
And perl couldn't be embedded in a web page - it could only produce them (CGI and CGI-like, such as mod_perl and FastCGI, though this allows them to serve as AJAX/REST servers/servlets as well).
And yet the major reason why I moved from Catalyst to the radeonhd (and then radeon) drivers was that they didn't crash. I'd rather have a few less FPS if it meant I could have more frames ;-)
I type ~60 wpm for normal text, and writing code is not much worse. Try again.
Counting lines of code is a measure of productivity. The more lines I need to type to get the same work done, the less productive I am for that functionality. If I can do the same work in half the lines of code without sacrificing readability and maintainability (I'd argue that often these are improved by cutting out boilerplate), then I'm more productive.
Every time I have to look at Java, I boggle at the volume of text they have to write for the simplest things. And then I'm happy I do most of my work in Perl.
But if the criminal doesn't know it's there, it's not much of a deterrant. Maybe those real alarms should use visible-spectrum lasers. Or maybe both. Too bad this is now patented, depending on the language, competitors may not be able to do anything. Then again, I think this solution really is novel, and is relatively deserving of patent licensing fees.
Its not like "using the wrong label!" has ever really held up as a useful argument.
I dunno about that. If you get pulled over for speeding, and the cop writes down "Tuesday" but it's Wednesday, that is liable to get the ticket thrown out.
But, other than that, yes, the courts are unlikely to be impressed by technical hocus-pocus acts.
Oh, no, not that at all. No, you'll only have to pay royalties on duplicating their patented work.
You know, like procreating.
Or cell division.
Roll a D12 modulo 3 add one, no killing necessary.
Wow, that's way more obtuse than we ever did. We took a d6, divided the result by two, round up. And even that is an obtuse explanation for simple groupings: 1-2 = 1, 3-4 = 2, 5-6 = 3.
Rolling d12s were annoying - of all the dice, they were the most likely to accidentally roll off the table because they often just didn't stop. Even the d20s didn't have that problem. (d100's did, too, but I only ever knew one guy who was so pathetic in his attempt to fit in with us social rejects in high school that he bought a d100 and tried to show it off.)
But he's also setting up reads and writes in different threads (processes, actually). Opening a new file and starting to read it will happen while the other thread is still finishing its writes and closing (syncing) the previous file.
cp probably opens input, opens output, loops { reads input, writes output }, closes input, closes output. All in serial. Probably. (Well, the -p flag adds a bit more reading and writing, which, again, the tar solution would buffer between the processes.)
I'm not convinced that one method is necessarily much better than the other. That said, I use the tar solution largely because it does the job more portably: I can copy all the files, symlinks, permissions, etc., recursively, on more platforms, than cp (I'm pretty sure the -R and/or -p flags haven't existed everywhere that I've used it). Maybe that has changed, I've not looked for a while. Also, the tar command allows me to split up the work. Not just different processors, but different machines: tar cf - . | ssh bigassserver 'cd /bigassdrive; tar xvf -'
(Or reverse it if I want to pull instead of push my data.) (Or both can be ssh to use my public keys to get access to two remote machines, though I think the performance will suck at this point.)
I was actually expecting Shatner to start with "Mars... The NEXT ... frontier."
Does that hold true when the patent owner is not American?
That section of Texas tends to be a little xenophobic.
Assuming that to be true, which I'm not willing to grant, I'm expecting the lawyers to be middle-aged white men from Texas. I doubt that even the most racist jury would even notice.
Patents are supposed to be for "non-obvious" inventions- things which you can be reasonably sure someone else in the field wouldn't come up with in the same circumstances.
"Same circumstances" doesn't apply. Otherwise, simply being tasked with inventing something would generally make it non-patentable, as someone else in the same circumstances would likely end up inventing something quite similar. Or, the other extreme: everything is patentable on a narrow enough scale since no two people think identically.
Simplistically, it's supposed to be patentable when you get an "average" person (not everyone, especially not those at the brightest end, just a "reasonable skill level") skilled in the field, to say, "cool, I didn't think of that" when faced with the invention, rather than, "well, duh, of course."
The fact that it doesn't even work this well is completely separate. You said "supposed to be", and that's not what it's supposed to be at all. What we'd like it to be is, of course, a whole 'nother discussion.
If you're dying from an uncurable disease anyway, and the only hope is a new stem cell treatment with unknown risks and side effects, why shouldn't you be allowed the choice to at least try a treatment that *might* extend your life (knowing the risks), as opposed to the alternative of *definitely* dying?
Well, as long as that's the criteria, why not allow anyone to sell anything to the dying on the pretense that it might extend their life? Cocaine, meth, tobacco, homeopathic remedies (i.e., water), waterboarding (uncomfortable, but who knows, it might extend your life!), seances, or real snake oil, anything might extend your life if you're already dying! All for the low, low price of $4999! No, we're not merely trying to drain your bank account, what's a few bucks if it might extend your life? And if it doesn't work, you won't need it anyway.
Or, maybe we should watch out for people making unsubstantiated claims in an attempt to swindle the desperate out of their money? Sure, they may not need the money anymore, but I'm sure they'd rather it go to their heirs than a swindler.
So, I'd rather medical advances were done in medical trials. I'd like to see more people accepted into the trials, sure, when it's based on proper risk acknowledgement, and not on the boatloads of cash being generated (that comes later if it's actually proven, and then we get into a "what the market will bear" situation).
Remember that capitalism only works if both sides of the transaction are properly informed. Fraud and deception defeat that, which is why anti-fraud laws are on the books: to allow capitalism to work. If you're selling an apple for $1, I may choose to buy that apple based on knowing what an apple is, and what $1 is worth to me. If, however, that apple, sold as produce, actually is made of plastic and weights, that's fraudulent. Or, if my $1 is a counterfeit, that's fraudulent as well (though it likely falls under different laws, it's illegal for much the same reason). If a desperate person is told by someone that there is a treatment that can, or even merely might, extend their lives, but has no evidence for it, we generally rely on the government to punish them if they're lying that there is even a chance of success. The FDA is simply going to enforce this.
Indeed. When TFS says "I am trying to convince a number of people to give Linux a chance", the question is "why?"
Simple: if they want my continued support on their computer issues, they need to be running something I can support. I've used Windows so little over the last ten years that trying to find the right dialog buried somewhere in the control panel is incredibly time consuming. And practically impossible over the phone.
Linux, regardless of distro, can generally be supported over the phone. Even if I'm not running the same distro, most config is the same, in /etc, and I can often see the text file locally. Yes, asking someone to bring up an editor may sound more complex than a dialog, but as long as it's something simpler than vi or emacs, it probably would still be easier than saying "click here, then find this tab, and click there, a new dialog comes up, click on this tab, and ..."
I've always just called it "confirmation bias." I see it just as much in the left wing as the right, and nearly every other area of human interaction. Why should sciences be exempt?
Yes, and there were only 7 Harry Potter books, but 8 movies. (Goblet of Fire could have used the two-movie treatment as well, so could have been 9.)
Meanwhile, Lord of the Rings was 6 books in 3 parts, and 3 movies. (Some of them could have also been split up.)
And then there's the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, which was 5 books in one movie.
Your point is?
I'm just guessing here, but I suspect that the OP probably doesn't care about offending any "citizens of the U.S.A.".
But now that you've pointed out how he'll be offending Canadians, he's probably got his panties in a knot.
The right to interview, select, and hire the professional that will be speaking on your behalf seems to be a natural extention of your own free speech.
There's also freedom of association, but I think that's likely a weak connection.
I always thought, that the fairest court of all, would be the one where the "prosecutor" (for lack of better term) would be searching for the "truth", not necessarily going for "conviction". This would remove the adversarial nature of the whole court process, it would be about discovering the "truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth".
This makes some sense. The state has significantly more resource available than your average accused and should always be interested in truth and justice, not convictions. Unfortunately, management gets in the way, and they want to measure something. Measuring convictions is way too easy to measure, nevermind that it measures the Wrong Thing.
The flip side is, that if you "did the crime" you'd be offered two choices. Plead or trial, with much stiffer penalties for trial than for pleading. How many trials are for people so obviously guilty that everyone in the court already knows they did it (film, witnesses, caught in the act etc) that get trials because they want the charade of a trial.
Again, fairly reasonable. Playing poker for time instead of money, makes sense.
To Temper the Prosecution's zeal, they would be held accountable for all the prosecutions they have, and if they get a "conviction" of someone who is later proved innocent (i.e. DNA proof), that they are tossed in Jail for the remainder of the plaintiffs sentence.
Woah, Nelly. That's almost like penalising me the cost of fixing a bug for having written one. A bit extreme. Yes, if there is evidence of malicious prosecution, I don't think prosecutorial immunity should apply. However, mistakes are made, and you don't throw someone in jail for mistakes. Even today, police officers and prosecutors will decline charges over mistakes (at least if they're in a good mood). Don't make them more snarky, please.
And if prosecutorial misconduct is proven, "remainder of the plaintiff's sentence" is only going to make them stall and/or obstruct. It's a new criminal charge, it gets its own time. But I could go for a karmic "the greater of 2 years and the time served by the maliciously prosecuted".
All Lawyers would be "public" lawyers, and would be assigned randomly to one side or the other side of the case. Lawyers with extensive experience and a proven record would be eligible for Judgeships.
I'm sure it isn't a perfect system, but I suspect that it would function better than the crapshoot and Lawyer Wars we have now.
Unfortunately, at least in the US, "free speech" would prevent this aspect.
I completely agree. Any alcohol in my system, whatsoever, and I don't drive. I take a look at when I plan to depart, and have no more than one drink per hour that I plan on being there. Further, no alcohol for the last hour. Simple rules. By the time I get to the car, I'm as stone-cold sober as when I arrived. (For some people, this is still too much, depends on body mass, etc.).
However, translating my own rules on that to the law? No. If you're talking about a "zero-tolerance" law for drivers who are not of legal drinking age, that I can understand as a combination of two laws (license-to-drive and consumption-of-alcohol), and I could be convinced of a graduated system through about 25 (when most peoples' brains are finished growing). Beyond that, no. The law should be entirely based on the best currently-available medical science. (Which, of course, it isn't now, either.)
I'm still a firm believer in due process. And we don't have that today, either. (Thanks a lot, MADD. Where's the ACLU on this?)
It's been long known that the best way to catch a criminal is to pretend to be one. (Some might argue that the government is already doing a damned good job of that.) Getting them to show their hand (having a cop as a witness to the crime) and/or confess their misdeeds voluntarily is pretty much the best way to get a conviction.
This is why you get undercover cops buying drugs, joining gangs, etc. Stings are perfectly legal, and, if they follow the rules as laid out by the courts, seem pretty reasonable. As long as the cops don't entice someone into committing a crime, they're clear. Pretending to be a fence and accepting stolen goods is not entrapment, but pretending to be a fence and telling someone to steal something to sell to you is. If "carderprofit.cc" merely accepted the trade of stolen card info, it's a sting. If they recruited people to target specific venues ("I hear ebay.ca's admin password is XXXX, why don't you nab us some of those cards?"), that's entrapment.
So, no, it's not illegal.
It should at least have been C111
You're not very good at cost-benefit analysis, are you.
If we go with your admittedly-made-up numbers, the fence would pay for itself in 3 years, assuming 100% effectiveness. Assuming 50% effectiveness, 6 years. Assuming 10%, 10 years. And, for a government program, that's pretty good payback times, though that might also be pretty high effectiveness for a government program, too.
How long do you think it'll take the austerity programs to pay for themselves?
I don't quite get why the law can't handle this without running afoul of the second amendment, either. In Canada, I regularly see "fire bans" - when the conditions are poor (i.e., dry tinder), even fires that require and have received permits are not allowed. Open-pit fires are banned. (BBQs, being enclosed, are still permitted.) A similar fire ban, not targetting firearms per se, should pass muster just fine, as long as it allows for emergency use (self-defense), active militia use (again, largely defense), and firing ranges and such.