Nobody should be allowed to just drop a legal case with no penalty after three years.
Not all cases that last 3 years do so because (at least) one side is purposefully delaying. They might last that long simply because they're complex, both in terms of who's right and how right they are. The whole point of there being courts is to decide which way that sort of thing swings, and you shouldn't be penalized for it.
Now, if you can prove that the case dragged on simply because one party was trying to outlast the other, that's abusing the court, which is a different ball game altogether...
Well, the intentions part is the problem, especially when the more cynical amongst us have doubts about whether there will be as much critical thinking as there will be criticism on the generally accept theories on those topics.
Nah, I wasn't trying to be clever and disagree while not openly doing so. I just found it slightly silly that "borrowing without asking permission" is legally acceptable (well, presumably in the US, I guess it might vary by country legislation). On the wifi thing, except for traffic accrued I have to pay for, potential impersonation/identity theft issues, and choking my connection rendering it unusable for me (but then that one is theft under the definition you described), I don't find it much of a problem. It's just that those three -- especially the second insofar as P2P and infringement charges are involved -- are pretty much enough to seal the case for me.
Except that general purpose CPUs aren't really particularly great for raytracing. GPUs are simply special-purpose processors designed with raster graphics in mind. The newest fad is, of course, using all that special-purpose horsepower in more imaginative ways, but it's still a raster graphics processor at heart.
Why is it that they're raster graphic special purpose processors? Because raster dominates the playfield. What's the logical conclusion there? As soon as raytraced graphics engines start becoming popular enough to write a standard library for them, a la OpenGL or Direct3D, nVidia and ATI will be marketing special-purpose raytracing processors, and intel will either radically shift their core market (general purpose CPUs), or be in the same position as it is today relative to games. The raytracing push has nothing to do with intel wanting to keep its present product line relevant.
I know people think you do, but you really don't. It's only theft if you deprive people of the thing. (...) It's only theft if you remove the thing so they can't use it, or 'use up' or damage the thing so you can't give it back.
(I hereby apologize for resorting to a car metaphor)
Let me get this straight: If I know for a fact you're sleeping, and then manage to open and start your car without damaging it, go for a ride, and then put the car back before you wake up in the morning, it's not a crime as long as I pay for the gas I spent? I mean, all that's left is charging me with "theft of tyre rubber".
Ok, perhaps the car lock and ignition key are an implicit way of saying "you don't have permission". Let's make it a bike, then. If I leave my bike leaning on a shop window while I go inside, it's legally acceptable for you to pick it up for a ride until I need it back unless I chain it to something? Is that what you're saying?
Either way, in the specific case of WiFi, there's most definitely a component that is the accrued traffic, which I have to pay for if I don't have an unlimited plan, and there's a case for identity theft (seeing as my wifi router/xDSL modem's MAC address and/or IP could be used to trace back your actions online to me).
As far as hacking, you should probably seal the machines with strong tape,
The trick here is that you're not trying to prevent tampering (which you can't, really), so much as you're trying to detect it. Rather than duct tape, which *will* get worn and torn a bit from being handled (I mean, how many people do you know that won't pick at it if they stay in the booth for more than a few seconds?), a great idea is candle wax.
You could find stuff like the hinges to the ballot box, and/or other such joints that must move to tamper with the physical paper trail, but really shouldn't move under ordinary usage. Then, melt a droplet of candle wax on top of the joints. If it's out of the way in a user inaccessible place, and especially if on top of a hinge with lots of "holds", it'll hold solid, and won't be diturbed unless someone tampers with the machine.
Just parse "dangerous" as "hostile", and your question ceases to have meaning. But yes, take a security vendor's assessment of the level of threat you're under with a grain of salt...
That is almost a good counterpoint, but for one thing: What you're effectively saying is not that the language itself is poor, or slow (in the usual "bytecode is slow" sense), but rather that the data structure itself is slow or poorly implemented, or whatever. The same data structure implemented in C with the same algorithms would yield the exact same performance bottlenecks. The problem with Java and.NET and similar architectures is that you have issues separating the concept of "Language" with the concept of "Library".
Python 2.5.2 (r252:60911, Feb 21 2008, 13:11:45) [MSC v.1310 32 bit (Intel)] on win32 Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. >>> a = 2 >>> type(a) <type 'int'> >>> a = '2' >>> type(a) <type 'str'> >>> a + 2 Traceback (most recent call last): File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module> TypeError: cannot concatenate 'str' and 'int' objects >>> a * 4 'abcabcabcabc' >>>
Please note that at all points in time the interpreter knows the type of variable a. Note, further, that trying to sum a string and an int barfs. That's called strong (as opposed to weak) typing. Note, also, that I didn't declare the type of a at any point, and along the program it holds both an int and a string. Also, multiplying a string by an int has sensible semantics, so it yields a result. That's dynamic (as opposed to static) typing at work.
What sort of coffee machine do you have that is instant on? Most electric coffee machines I know actually wait 'til the water is hot enough to make a good brew before they'll light up the "ready" indicator.
What is unaccpetqable is to vary the standards for convictions (or at least to lower them) for more henious crimes. Which unfortunately seems to be the case. After all, no one will beat themselves up too much if the person they acquit for shoplifting does so again, but if that person were to kill someone...
Reversely, if anything, the standards for more heinous crimes should be stricter, not looser. Nailing an innocent in jail for, say, 6 months over petty theft is one thing; the harm you're causing by sentencing an innocent to 25 to life for first degree murder is a different league altogether, so the margin for mistake should be much tighter.
I't s not exactly the same, but in terms of what use you'd want to give it, I'd say that anonymous functions are what you're looking for. In my Lisp days I used them a fair bit, they're pretty decent in Python, and absolutely god-like in Mathematica (where they're called pure functions, and, together with the abbreviated functional programming operators, give way to code that makes Perl look as readable as a children's book)
That's silly. If it were E=mc^1 you wouldn't even blink. Linear scaling is something that's, well, obvious. But when you use a formula to express a relation that is defined as the integral of a perfect linear relation, you get a perfect square. Pretty simple stuff, eh?
As an example, the inverse of the time it takes to go from point A to point B doesn't scale ever so slightly supralinearly with speed, it scales in a perfectly linear fashion. Given that acceleration is the derivative of velocity over time, 1/time taken scales quadratically with acceleration. Not acceleration raised to a bit over, or a bit under, the power of 2, but precisely to the power of 2.
I don't think it's fair to expect people today to remember how XP ran in 2001 when it was released. Most users are not, and need not be, technically oriented, and it's been 7 bloody years (Microsoft's fault on that last bit;). While I personally don't expect things to run perfectly on the minimum required hardware, I do think it's fair to expect them to run decently though.
If the expression "minimum requirements" is defined as "the very least required to run", then the "minimum requirements" announced are probably a fair bit above what Vista actually demands to run, so that's not quite right. In fact, a google search for "Vista minimum requirements" yields a page on Microsoft's site called "Windows Vista recommended system requirements".
Now, you may say I'm splitting hairs or arguing semantics, but fact is, it says "recommended system requirements", and I say it's quite fair to demand companies make sure that the recommended specs suffice for a reasonable experience.
Next time read the article rather than posting about the summary.Where you read "But it said 2 were for, 2 against, and 80% couldn't come together on anything", we have:
Regarding those last 8 comments, there was a roughly 80/20 split between those who were dissatisfied and those who were satisfied. (The two for and 2 against were the remaining 4 comments, where consensus was reached that they were (or weren't) sufficiently addressed). How is that not "If 80% had said OOXML is not a good choice and it should not be backed by Norway"?
At most, it was a blanket statement where there are some exceptions. There might be some exceptions, but following the Thou/Thee/Thy/Thine to I/me/my/mine equivalence will get the vast majority of cases right.
In more detail, "Thou" is the nominative case of the second person singular. The nominative for the first person is "I". "Thee" is the oblique (or objective) case of "thou", same as "me" is the objective of "I". Though it can apparently take over most other cases, per the wikipedia article the oblique/objective case cannot be used as the nominative, so "If thee wouldst spend time" is wrong. "Thy" is, like "my", the genitive case, and "thine", like "mine" is the possessive.
I'm by no means an expert in old english grammar, but I fully expect that exceptions where one case is acceptable in place of another are valid for both first and second persons except where it might not make sense (such as singular inflection where imperative case is concerned).
Userspace and kernelspace are developer-speak, not something the average user really has to know.
On this forum, in a thread about the Linux kernel, what the user sees is besides the point. A perceived problem was pointed out, which lies specifically in the kernelspace/userspace barrier (namely, that some measure of GUI support should be shoehorned into the kernel). This problem is posted by someone technically minded to be discussed and "resolved" by other technically minded people, and user perception of where the problem lies is behind the point (the perception of the problem existing to begin with is a different, arguable, matter).
Directed at the OP, sorry but "I think Linux needs to seporate from its Unix haritage [sic]" is just silly. Linux is a kernel that implements a POSIX-like interface, and the whole eco-system around it is based precisely on the fact that it is a UNIX-like operating system. What you're suggesting is that you should keep the Linux name and come up with a completely new operating system that is not Linux in any way, shape, or form. Sure, there might be a market for such an operating system, but it's utterly devoid of sense to call that system "Linux".
Yes, and you can do the same with nethack too. Or probably any game that implements both perma-death and some sort of session persistence and doesn't go out of its way to record some sort of hash for every game you lost thus far so you can't recover it from backups. It's called save scumming, and frowned upon in the nethack community. Diablo II even offers a standard non-permadeath mode, so arguing that you can save scum on Hardcore Mode so it's not "true" perma-death is pretty asinine.
Bullshit. Just the same as raster graphics, the amount of time you spend per frame on ray-tracing is adjusted to your needs and desires. Take, say, a Pixar film. Those are mostly done with raster graphics, with key effects done with ray-tracing. How much time do you reckon it takes to render each of one of those films' frames? (Pixar films are all drawn with Photorealistic Renderman, which is based on the REYES algorithm, which reads like a fancy raster engine)
The part about computational power is another fine display of complete misrepresentation of reality. Raster graphics are this fast nowadays for two major reasons. The most obvious is because graphics cards entire massively parallel processors specialized in drawing raster graphics. It's pretty damn obvious that, given two techniques for the same result, the one for which you use a specialized processor will always be faster, which doesn't produce evidence that a technique is inherently faster than the other. The second, less obvious, is that raster graphics have been the focus of lots of research in recent years, which makes it a much more mature technology than ray-tracing. Once again, a more mature technology translates into better results, even if the core technique has no such advantage. What Intel is supposedly aiming for here is getting the specialized hardware and mindshare going for ray-tracing, which might lead to real-time ray tracing becoming a viable alternative for raster graphics.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody should be allowed to just drop a legal case with no penalty after three years.
Not all cases that last 3 years do so because (at least) one side is purposefully delaying. They might last that long simply because they're complex, both in terms of who's right and how right they are. The whole point of there being courts is to decide which way that sort of thing swings, and you shouldn't be penalized for it.
Now, if you can prove that the case dragged on simply because one party was trying to outlast the other, that's abusing the court, which is a different ball game altogether...
Well, the intentions part is the problem, especially when the more cynical amongst us have doubts about whether there will be as much critical thinking as there will be criticism on the generally accept theories on those topics.
Nah, I wasn't trying to be clever and disagree while not openly doing so. I just found it slightly silly that "borrowing without asking permission" is legally acceptable (well, presumably in the US, I guess it might vary by country legislation). On the wifi thing, except for traffic accrued I have to pay for, potential impersonation/identity theft issues, and choking my connection rendering it unusable for me (but then that one is theft under the definition you described), I don't find it much of a problem. It's just that those three -- especially the second insofar as P2P and infringement charges are involved -- are pretty much enough to seal the case for me.
Except that general purpose CPUs aren't really particularly great for raytracing. GPUs are simply special-purpose processors designed with raster graphics in mind. The newest fad is, of course, using all that special-purpose horsepower in more imaginative ways, but it's still a raster graphics processor at heart.
Why is it that they're raster graphic special purpose processors? Because raster dominates the playfield. What's the logical conclusion there? As soon as raytraced graphics engines start becoming popular enough to write a standard library for them, a la OpenGL or Direct3D, nVidia and ATI will be marketing special-purpose raytracing processors, and intel will either radically shift their core market (general purpose CPUs), or be in the same position as it is today relative to games. The raytracing push has nothing to do with intel wanting to keep its present product line relevant.
(I hereby apologize for resorting to a car metaphor)
Let me get this straight: If I know for a fact you're sleeping, and then manage to open and start your car without damaging it, go for a ride, and then put the car back before you wake up in the morning, it's not a crime as long as I pay for the gas I spent? I mean, all that's left is charging me with "theft of tyre rubber".
Ok, perhaps the car lock and ignition key are an implicit way of saying "you don't have permission". Let's make it a bike, then. If I leave my bike leaning on a shop window while I go inside, it's legally acceptable for you to pick it up for a ride until I need it back unless I chain it to something? Is that what you're saying?
Either way, in the specific case of WiFi, there's most definitely a component that is the accrued traffic, which I have to pay for if I don't have an unlimited plan, and there's a case for identity theft (seeing as my wifi router/xDSL modem's MAC address and/or IP could be used to trace back your actions online to me).
Was the "Gay vs Nazi" "Left vs Right" analogy a purposeful joke or did you just strike lucky there?
Somehow your directions sound about right for a "bloke down the pub".
He was just being considerate, and saving you a character so you could splurge on "losing".
The trick here is that you're not trying to prevent tampering (which you can't, really), so much as you're trying to detect it. Rather than duct tape, which *will* get worn and torn a bit from being handled (I mean, how many people do you know that won't pick at it if they stay in the booth for more than a few seconds?), a great idea is candle wax.
You could find stuff like the hinges to the ballot box, and/or other such joints that must move to tamper with the physical paper trail, but really shouldn't move under ordinary usage. Then, melt a droplet of candle wax on top of the joints. If it's out of the way in a user inaccessible place, and especially if on top of a hinge with lots of "holds", it'll hold solid, and won't be diturbed unless someone tampers with the machine.
Just parse "dangerous" as "hostile", and your question ceases to have meaning. But yes, take a security vendor's assessment of the level of threat you're under with a grain of salt...
That is almost a good counterpoint, but for one thing: What you're effectively saying is not that the language itself is poor, or slow (in the usual "bytecode is slow" sense), but rather that the data structure itself is slow or poorly implemented, or whatever. The same data structure implemented in C with the same algorithms would yield the exact same performance bottlenecks. The problem with Java and .NET and similar architectures is that you have issues separating the concept of "Language" with the concept of "Library".
Here's a short Python session
Please note that at all points in time the interpreter knows the type of variable a. Note, further, that trying to sum a string and an int barfs. That's called strong (as opposed to weak) typing. Note, also, that I didn't declare the type of a at any point, and along the program it holds both an int and a string. Also, multiplying a string by an int has sensible semantics, so it yields a result. That's dynamic (as opposed to static) typing at work.
What sort of coffee machine do you have that is instant on? Most electric coffee machines I know actually wait 'til the water is hot enough to make a good brew before they'll light up the "ready" indicator.
So, in between my Orc Shaman and Blood Elf Paladin, no wonder my weight fluctuates a lot!
Reversely, if anything, the standards for more heinous crimes should be stricter, not looser. Nailing an innocent in jail for, say, 6 months over petty theft is one thing; the harm you're causing by sentencing an innocent to 25 to life for first degree murder is a different league altogether, so the margin for mistake should be much tighter.
I't s not exactly the same, but in terms of what use you'd want to give it, I'd say that anonymous functions are what you're looking for. In my Lisp days I used them a fair bit, they're pretty decent in Python, and absolutely god-like in Mathematica (where they're called pure functions, and, together with the abbreviated functional programming operators, give way to code that makes Perl look as readable as a children's book)
That's silly. If it were E=mc^1 you wouldn't even blink. Linear scaling is something that's, well, obvious. But when you use a formula to express a relation that is defined as the integral of a perfect linear relation, you get a perfect square. Pretty simple stuff, eh?
As an example, the inverse of the time it takes to go from point A to point B doesn't scale ever so slightly supralinearly with speed, it scales in a perfectly linear fashion. Given that acceleration is the derivative of velocity over time, 1/time taken scales quadratically with acceleration. Not acceleration raised to a bit over, or a bit under, the power of 2, but precisely to the power of 2.
I don't think it's fair to expect people today to remember how XP ran in 2001 when it was released. Most users are not, and need not be, technically oriented, and it's been 7 bloody years (Microsoft's fault on that last bit ;). While I personally don't expect things to run perfectly on the minimum required hardware, I do think it's fair to expect them to run decently though.
If the expression "minimum requirements" is defined as "the very least required to run", then the "minimum requirements" announced are probably a fair bit above what Vista actually demands to run, so that's not quite right. In fact, a google search for "Vista minimum requirements" yields a page on Microsoft's site called "Windows Vista recommended system requirements".
Now, you may say I'm splitting hairs or arguing semantics, but fact is, it says "recommended system requirements", and I say it's quite fair to demand companies make sure that the recommended specs suffice for a reasonable experience.
Because "consensus" means "everybody agrees". By definition, 80% isn't consensus. Kind of like a trial by jury, where all the jurors have to agree
Next time read the article rather than posting about the summary.Where you read "But it said 2 were for, 2 against, and 80% couldn't come together on anything", we have:
Regarding those last 8 comments, there was a roughly 80/20 split between those who were dissatisfied and those who were satisfied. (The two for and 2 against were the remaining 4 comments, where consensus was reached that they were (or weren't) sufficiently addressed). How is that not "If 80% had said OOXML is not a good choice and it should not be backed by Norway"?At most, it was a blanket statement where there are some exceptions. There might be some exceptions, but following the Thou/Thee/Thy/Thine to I/me/my/mine equivalence will get the vast majority of cases right.
In more detail, "Thou" is the nominative case of the second person singular. The nominative for the first person is "I". "Thee" is the oblique (or objective) case of "thou", same as "me" is the objective of "I". Though it can apparently take over most other cases, per the wikipedia article the oblique/objective case cannot be used as the nominative, so "If thee wouldst spend time" is wrong. "Thy" is, like "my", the genitive case, and "thine", like "mine" is the possessive.
I'm by no means an expert in old english grammar, but I fully expect that exceptions where one case is acceptable in place of another are valid for both first and second persons except where it might not make sense (such as singular inflection where imperative case is concerned).
Tell that to the several dead characters I have saved in my HDD.
On this forum, in a thread about the Linux kernel, what the user sees is besides the point. A perceived problem was pointed out, which lies specifically in the kernelspace/userspace barrier (namely, that some measure of GUI support should be shoehorned into the kernel). This problem is posted by someone technically minded to be discussed and "resolved" by other technically minded people, and user perception of where the problem lies is behind the point (the perception of the problem existing to begin with is a different, arguable, matter).
Directed at the OP, sorry but "I think Linux needs to seporate from its Unix haritage [sic]" is just silly. Linux is a kernel that implements a POSIX-like interface, and the whole eco-system around it is based precisely on the fact that it is a UNIX-like operating system. What you're suggesting is that you should keep the Linux name and come up with a completely new operating system that is not Linux in any way, shape, or form. Sure, there might be a market for such an operating system, but it's utterly devoid of sense to call that system "Linux".
Yes, and you can do the same with nethack too. Or probably any game that implements both perma-death and some sort of session persistence and doesn't go out of its way to record some sort of hash for every game you lost thus far so you can't recover it from backups. It's called save scumming, and frowned upon in the nethack community. Diablo II even offers a standard non-permadeath mode, so arguing that you can save scum on Hardcore Mode so it's not "true" perma-death is pretty asinine.
Bullshit. Just the same as raster graphics, the amount of time you spend per frame on ray-tracing is adjusted to your needs and desires. Take, say, a Pixar film. Those are mostly done with raster graphics, with key effects done with ray-tracing. How much time do you reckon it takes to render each of one of those films' frames? (Pixar films are all drawn with Photorealistic Renderman, which is based on the REYES algorithm, which reads like a fancy raster engine)
The part about computational power is another fine display of complete misrepresentation of reality. Raster graphics are this fast nowadays for two major reasons. The most obvious is because graphics cards entire massively parallel processors specialized in drawing raster graphics. It's pretty damn obvious that, given two techniques for the same result, the one for which you use a specialized processor will always be faster, which doesn't produce evidence that a technique is inherently faster than the other. The second, less obvious, is that raster graphics have been the focus of lots of research in recent years, which makes it a much more mature technology than ray-tracing. Once again, a more mature technology translates into better results, even if the core technique has no such advantage. What Intel is supposedly aiming for here is getting the specialized hardware and mindshare going for ray-tracing, which might lead to real-time ray tracing becoming a viable alternative for raster graphics.