I think we're both partially right. Windows on ARM will probably not be a viable option for some (most?) business user who often rely on old legacy software written 10+ years ago that was never properly maintained. Those companies will just stick with Intel. The popular consumer products on the other hand are maintained pretty heavily; the ISVs want to sell a new version every year. I was exaggerating with "just recompile" but for most applications it won't be very difficult or time consuming. I frequently have to migrate legacy unix applications to Linux, from SPARC and Power to X86; it isn't really that difficult and much of the process can even be automated. I have that much experience in Windows programming but I guess it will be similar. In any case it will be far more easy to migrate from Windows on x86 to Windows on ARM than to any other plattform. So if you want to get into the mobile/ tablet market Windows on ARM might be your best bet.
presuming that ISV's are going to care about Windows 8 on ARM. That is extremely speculative at this point particularly in light of the tepid response WP7 has had.
Right. Microsoft seems to lose all battles on new business areas for the last couple of years. Let's hope that trend continues.
If microsoft provides the Win32 API on ARM it will only take a recompile to make them run on ARM. It doesn't really matter that the x86 binaries that exist today do not run on ARM.
All they know is that a computer running W7 has connected to the internet with a given IP address. Not exactly the most useful information.
You should take a look at what information your browser sends out when requesting a document via HTTP. And then read https://panopticlick.eff.org/browser-uniqueness.pdf to see how accurately you can be identified by this information. "Among browsers that support Flash or Java, the situation is worse, with the average browser carrying at least 18.8 bits of identifying information. 94.2% of browsers with Flash or Java were unique in our sample."
Sending rockets or drones into Yemen to kill this guy is an act of war against Yemen. Pure and simple.
All you are arguing is that it is difficult to win "the war on terror". Well D'oh! But you forget one crucial point: the goal of the war on terror is not to win it but to fight it. Whatever. I guess we disagree on how this should be handled and this discussion won't change that.
No. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution. Just like with "trial by jury", or "presumption of innocence" the US governance simply ignores the rule of law. I think we both agree on that, no? You're arguing that these actions are justified; I think the ends don't justify the means. The government can not be trusted. We have to constantly hold their feet to the fire or we'll lose those freedoms all the muslims hate us for.
Do you see the connection between the last sentence and your Göbbels reference? Al-Qaeda are our enemies but the government isn't our friend.
He lives in Yemen, the US is not at war with Yemen, and the government doesn’t have a blank check to kill terrorism suspects wherever they are in the world. If US forces meet him on the battlefield it's obviously a different story.
Your question was: Care to indicate a case where a US citizen has been denied his right to trial by jury, or denied "presumption of innocence"?
Anwar al-Awlaki meets both criteria. I'm not going to defend him because im my mind he is a disgusting piece of shit and deserves everything bad that is coming to him. But just putting out a contract on him? Don't you feel that this is -- and if only just a bit -- like the same thing that makes al-Awlaki so despicable?
Punishment is an accepted step in teaching children how to behave, last I checked.
It is accepted but it doesn't really work, neither in animals nor in humans. This has been known for a couple of decades and has become mainstream knowledge in the last couple of years. Check Wikipedia for example: "In experiments with laboratory animals and studies with children, punishment decreases the likelihood of a previously reinforced response only temporarily, and it can produce other "emotional" behavior (wing-flapping in pigeons, for example) and physiological changes (increased heart rate, for example) that have no clear equivalents in reinforcement."
Are you assuming that majority of/. readers are on Indian side?
No. I assume - or at least hope - that the majority of/. realizes that there is no Indian side or Pakistan side but rather a small group of criminal thugs side and a very large victims side. And there is a third group that some call the useful idiots. This third group helps and supports ("useful") the thugs, most of them with out even noticing it ("idiots"), by asserting that there is some larger than life trait that some of the thugs and some of the victims share, for example being "Indian" or "Pakistani", and that the victims and the thugs that share this trait should really band together and that the victims should support "their" thugs instead of siding with the other victims to stop all thugs on both sides.
The bottom line of my comment is that US designate armed groups around the world as "terrorist organizations" or "freedom fighters" as they please, not in the relation to the actual situation.
[...]American supporters of freedom fighters in Kashmir[...]
The freedom fighters you talk of are the Lashkar-e-Taiba. Their glorious fight for freedom includes among others the 1998 Wandhama massacre, the 2000 Chittisinghpura massacre, the 2002 Kaluchak massacre, the 2003 Nadimarg massacre, the 2005 Delhi bombings, the 2006 Doda massacre, and the 2006 Mumbai train bombings.
[...]when they were sentenced to 30 to life
From your link: "On June 6, 2006, a jury unanimously found Chandia guilty. He was sentenced to 15 years in prison, with three years of supervised release at the end of his incarceration".
Why do you think the subsidies for fossil fuel are lower than for nuclear energy? Do you have any numbers? Do these numbers include exemption from any compensation in case a nuclear power plant blows up? Do they include nuclear waste handling? Do they include research and development?
Can't speak for Canada, but the reason Germany never build nuclear weapons was that the US asked them (and other NATO allies) not to build them in the early 70s and even implemented procedures so that Germany could use US' nuclear weapons in case the Warsaw Pact attacked. This played a major role in the establishment of the international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
if you tried to formulate an overarching philosophical theory about the scientific method, that philosophical theory would likely support the church rather than Galileo.
Please name one (1) testable prediction that the church made.
He defended the church's action in the Galileo affair by claiming that the church "took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo's doctrine. Its verdict against Galileo was rational and just". And after that he criticizes science, not religion, as a repressing ideology.
He defended the effectivity of astrology and and dismissed the predominantly negative attitudes of scientists towards such phenomena as "elitist or racist"
Why should anybody spend any significant amount of time studiing his philosophy?
But that doesn't make "2+2=4" a theorem at any sensible level, not even a lemma, but rather the definition of the symbols being used.
No. 4 is defined as the succesor of 3 not as "2 + 2". You proof 2 + 2 = 4 by showing that 2 + 2 = 3 + 1 (using the defintion of 3, 2, 1 and +) and then use the defintion of 4 as the succesor of 3: 2 + 2 = 3 + 1 = 4.
Anyway, a theorem of set theory may turn out to be used as an axiom for arithmetic
No. A theorem is a theorem, an axiom is an axiom. Both words are well defined in mathematics. A theorem is a statement that has been proven on the basis of previously established statements. An axiom is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but postulatet as "true".
Over ZZ3 (integers modulo 3), 2+2=1.
And 1 = 4 mod 3 so 2 + 2 = 4 (= 1) in ZZ3. What's your point?
Nice reductio ad absurdum. Of course if you only want to reduce violence you could just stop dumping nuclear waste into the pirates fishing grounds so they don't have to become pirates.
that would maybe cause them to be less violent
Their violence is not the cause of the problem. But they are stupid enough to escalate the violence, just like us.
In the end only results do matter. Even if we are "morally" (whatever that means) far superior to the pirates the pirates are still more violent today than they were before the shootings. By escalating the violence we -- quel surprise -- escalated the violence. The fact that we are "more moral" and the pirates are at fault doesn't really matter.
Slashdot Mirror
I think we're both partially right. Windows on ARM will probably not be a viable option for some (most?) business user who often rely on old legacy software written 10+ years ago that was never properly maintained. Those companies will just stick with Intel. The popular consumer products on the other hand are maintained pretty heavily; the ISVs want to sell a new version every year. I was exaggerating with "just recompile" but for most applications it won't be very difficult or time consuming. I frequently have to migrate legacy unix applications to Linux, from SPARC and Power to X86; it isn't really that difficult and much of the process can even be automated. I have that much experience in Windows programming but I guess it will be similar. In any case it will be far more easy to migrate from Windows on x86 to Windows on ARM than to any other plattform. So if you want to get into the mobile/ tablet market Windows on ARM might be your best bet.
presuming that ISV's are going to care about Windows 8 on ARM. That is extremely speculative at this point particularly in light of the tepid response WP7 has had.
Right. Microsoft seems to lose all battles on new business areas for the last couple of years. Let's hope that trend continues.
If microsoft provides the Win32 API on ARM it will only take a recompile to make them run on ARM. It doesn't really matter that the x86 binaries that exist today do not run on ARM.
All they know is that a computer running W7 has connected to the internet with a given IP address. Not exactly the most useful information.
You should take a look at what information your browser sends out when requesting a document via HTTP. And then read https://panopticlick.eff.org/browser-uniqueness.pdf to see how accurately you can be identified by this information. "Among browsers that support Flash or Java, the situation is worse, with the average browser carrying at least 18.8 bits of identifying information. 94.2% of browsers with Flash or Java were unique in our sample."
Sending rockets or drones into Yemen to kill this guy is an act of war against Yemen. Pure and simple.
All you are arguing is that it is difficult to win "the war on terror". Well D'oh! But you forget one crucial point: the goal of the war on terror is not to win it but to fight it. Whatever. I guess we disagree on how this should be handled and this discussion won't change that.
We are at "war" with al-Qaeda.
No. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution. Just like with "trial by jury", or "presumption of innocence" the US governance simply ignores the rule of law. I think we both agree on that, no? You're arguing that these actions are justified; I think the ends don't justify the means. The government can not be trusted. We have to constantly hold their feet to the fire or we'll lose those freedoms all the muslims hate us for.
Do you see the connection between the last sentence and your Göbbels reference? Al-Qaeda are our enemies but the government isn't our friend.
He lives in Yemen, the US is not at war with Yemen, and the government doesn’t have a blank check to kill terrorism suspects wherever they are in the world. If US forces meet him on the battlefield it's obviously a different story.
Your question was: Care to indicate a case where a US citizen has been denied his right to trial by jury, or denied "presumption of innocence"? Anwar al-Awlaki meets both criteria. I'm not going to defend him because im my mind he is a disgusting piece of shit and deserves everything bad that is coming to him. But just putting out a contract on him? Don't you feel that this is -- and if only just a bit -- like the same thing that makes al-Awlaki so despicable?
Sure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targeted_killing#Pending.3B_U.S._citizen_Anwar_al-Awlaki
Punishment is an accepted step in teaching children how to behave, last I checked.
It is accepted but it doesn't really work, neither in animals nor in humans. This has been known for a couple of decades and has become mainstream knowledge in the last couple of years. Check Wikipedia for example: "In experiments with laboratory animals and studies with children, punishment decreases the likelihood of a previously reinforced response only temporarily, and it can produce other "emotional" behavior (wing-flapping in pigeons, for example) and physiological changes (increased heart rate, for example) that have no clear equivalents in reinforcement."
Space-based isn't even required. Neither are 20 year R&D. Just pave the Sahara with solar panels and you're done. "If just 0.3% of the Saharan Desert was used for a concentrating solar plant, it would produce enough power to provide all of Europe with clean renewable energy."
TFA is light on details but the court filing states that all push notifications, e-mail checking etc. were turned off on the iPhone.
Are you assuming that majority of /. readers are on Indian side?
No. I assume - or at least hope - that the majority of /. realizes that there is no Indian side or Pakistan side but rather a small group of criminal thugs side and a very large victims side. And there is a third group that some call the useful idiots. This third group helps and supports ("useful") the thugs, most of them with out even noticing it ("idiots"), by asserting that there is some larger than life trait that some of the thugs and some of the victims share, for example being "Indian" or "Pakistani", and that the victims and the thugs that share this trait should really band together and that the victims should support "their" thugs instead of siding with the other victims to stop all thugs on both sides.
The bottom line of my comment is that US designate armed groups around the world as "terrorist organizations" or "freedom fighters" as they please, not in the relation to the actual situation.
Agreed. Why do you make the same mistake?
Troll?
[...]American supporters of freedom fighters in Kashmir[...]
The freedom fighters you talk of are the Lashkar-e-Taiba. Their glorious fight for freedom includes among others the 1998 Wandhama massacre, the 2000 Chittisinghpura massacre, the 2002 Kaluchak massacre, the 2003 Nadimarg massacre, the 2005 Delhi bombings, the 2006 Doda massacre, and the 2006 Mumbai train bombings.
[...]when they were sentenced to 30 to life
From your link: "On June 6, 2006, a jury unanimously found Chandia guilty. He was sentenced to 15 years in prison, with three years of supervised release at the end of his incarceration".
Why do you think the subsidies for fossil fuel are lower than for nuclear energy? Do you have any numbers? Do these numbers include exemption from any compensation in case a nuclear power plant blows up? Do they include nuclear waste handling? Do they include research and development?
Can't speak for Canada, but the reason Germany never build nuclear weapons was that the US asked them (and other NATO allies) not to build them in the early 70s and even implemented procedures so that Germany could use US' nuclear weapons in case the Warsaw Pact attacked. This played a major role in the establishment of the international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
the requirement of the GPL to publish source code of any changes you make to a GPL'ed codebase.
This is not a requirement of the GPL.
I would consider WebM to now be open source
WebM is a specification, not an implementation. WebM can not be "open source". There is however an open source (BSD license) implementation available.
Where is the specification?
Here
Do I have to use the GPL'ed code base in order to implement it
There is no "GPL'ed code base". Never was.
Comparing H264 and WebM is kind of stupid. One is a codec the other a container format.
The language doesn't really matter. Have a look at Peter Norvig's sudoku solver for a very elegant, small, and really fast implementation in python.
I agree. But the verdict against Galileo was neither rational nor just like Feyerabend claims.
if you tried to formulate an overarching philosophical theory about the scientific method, that philosophical theory would likely support the church rather than Galileo.
Please name one (1) testable prediction that the church made.
Church to Galileo: "Stop publishing your ideas or we will torture and kill you"
Feyerabend: "Science, not religion, is as a repressing ideology"
Church to Galileo: "The sun revolves around the earth because I said so."
Feyerabend: "The church acted rational."
I haven't read any of his books so maybe I'm just ignorant, but Feyerabend looks like your everyday troll.
He defended the church's action in the Galileo affair by claiming that the church "took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo's doctrine. Its verdict against Galileo was rational and just". And after that he criticizes science, not religion, as a repressing ideology.
He defended the effectivity of astrology and and dismissed the predominantly negative attitudes of scientists towards such phenomena as "elitist or racist"
Why should anybody spend any significant amount of time studiing his philosophy?
But that doesn't make "2+2=4" a theorem at any sensible level, not even a lemma, but rather the definition of the symbols being used.
No. 4 is defined as the succesor of 3 not as "2 + 2". You proof 2 + 2 = 4 by showing that 2 + 2 = 3 + 1 (using the defintion of 3, 2, 1 and +) and then use the defintion of 4 as the succesor of 3: 2 + 2 = 3 + 1 = 4.
Anyway, a theorem of set theory may turn out to be used as an axiom for arithmetic
No. A theorem is a theorem, an axiom is an axiom. Both words are well defined in mathematics. A theorem is a statement that has been proven on the basis of previously established statements. An axiom is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but postulatet as "true".
Over ZZ3 (integers modulo 3), 2+2=1.
And 1 = 4 mod 3 so 2 + 2 = 4 (= 1) in ZZ3. What's your point?
Nice reductio ad absurdum. Of course if you only want to reduce violence you could just stop dumping nuclear waste into the pirates fishing grounds so they don't have to become pirates.
that would maybe cause them to be less violent
Their violence is not the cause of the problem. But they are stupid enough to escalate the violence, just like us.
In the end only results do matter. Even if we are "morally" (whatever that means) far superior to the pirates the pirates are still more violent today than they were before the shootings. By escalating the violence we -- quel surprise -- escalated the violence. The fact that we are "more moral" and the pirates are at fault doesn't really matter.
Oh ... right. You could try the new "service pack". I hear it fixes a lot of the current Windows 7 things :)