IANAAVE (I am not an anti-virus expert), but it seems to me that much of the bloat comes from the ever increasing virus signature database these engines have to keep in memory (especially for on-access real time scanning). Considering that there seems to be no end in site for these signature files and the high rate of virus mutation, virus signature tables seem to be an extremely antiquated and inefficient model for detection.
Of course, heuristics won't be a silver bullet as it brings its own set of problems (ie: false positives), but I think we'll see more of this used as time goes on. IANAB (I am not a biologist), but is seems that our body's immune system operates more on heuristics than some exhaustive chemical look up table. Considering the millions (billions?) of years nature has invested in our immune system I think we would do well to take a page from mother nature on this one.
I'm torn when it comes to software patents. Inventors need to have a LIMITED amount of time in which they can exclusively profit on their ideas. Without this, the only ones who would profit from invention would be those who can throw the most engineers at the idea (read M$). While I love open source, it simply doesn't work for all business models and I think it is a bit hypocritical to evangelize choice and freedom while seeking to deny the right one has to not share. I see nothing wrong in software that is only obtainable via purchase. However, I do believe the current patent system is fundamentally broken.
The way I see it, the patent system needs to be based on a series of rules derived from game theory with the players being government, inventors, industry. The trick in this is to structure the rules (laws) such that thing like patent trolling, extended patent life, and patent infringement are financially unprofitable for all players. I am not a patent lawyer, so I don't know how much of this (if any) is already in place but just not working.
Government: Obviously their role is to be the referee in the game. The government should be encouraged to grant patents and protect them by collecting fees for filings. I see government as, in a way, investing in inventors by promising to protect their ideas for a LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME in the courts. Not by providing lawyers, but buy providing the system (courts patent offices). However, the government also needs to be liable for approving patents that are invalid (ie: trivial, pre-existing, or filed by those who aren't in turn investing in the idea themselves). A way to do this may be to somehow fine government and inventors when a particular patent is deemed invalid. This would provide the checks and balances for the government to both encourage them to grant patents, but not to grant every patent.
Inventors: Inventors must be able to profit from their ideas (EXCLUSIVELY FOR A LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME) but should also be REQUIRED to invest in their idea themselves. Patent filing should also include a plan of investment which if not met either causes fines or forfeiture of the patent. The requirement for inventor investment should be handled on a case by case basis (ie: large companies can (should?) invest more than a smaller one). This system may need to provide a means of patent extension (people will underestimate the investment needed to develop the idea) but such extensions should be very limited (no perpetual extensions) and should be financially burdensome to discourage inventors from extending unless they really feel they can profit from the extension. Also, such extensions could (should?) be coupled with an increase in investment requirements (again making it financially impossible for patent trolls to exist).
Industry: The industry obviously wants patents to enter public domain as quickly as possible (so they can profit from it). They also want to protect their own ideas as well as prevent their competitiors from filing invalid patents. However, they should not be able to profit off of their competition's ideas during the LIMITED PATENT PERIOD. When a patent is filed, there should be a period of open peer review where the industry involved in the patent can provide feedback to the patent office about the validity of the patent. The patent office is not bound by such feedback but it is merely a resource for them to understand the indusrty as it pertains to this idea and would allow them to more quickly determine whether a patent is valid or not.
This is by no means a complete idea and I'm sure it is riddled with loop holes. However, I belive my main points are valid:
1. Using a game theory approach to get the 3 parties to play off of each other seems to be the way to go 2. Patent trolling needs to be fundamentally unprofitiable 3. Patents must have reasonable limited periods then go to public domain 4. Inventors must financially invest in their idea or risk losing the patent for it
I'd say the scientific quality of most comments on Slashdot constitute 0.00001 of what a real scientist would say. Assuming a generous 500 comments per topic, the scientific value of reading all the comments on a given topic results in about a two-hundredth part of what you can get by reading a single comment on the topic by a real expert.
Yes, I know, the first sentence of my comment above is similar to the Liar paradox (ie: If I state that all Slashdot comments have little to no substance and then use a Slashdot comment to do so, then what credibility does my statement have?)
IMHO the reason MS's internet search market share is source) is because much of its business practices, management, engineering, methodology has been mostly client-centered and doggedly hangs on to antiquated/hostile business practices (IP, DRM, anti-open source). Buying a competing internet company like Yahoo! isn't likely to have the effect they are looking for. I don't think MS inability to succeed in the internet sphere has anything to do with lack of resources. The methods, technologies, practices, solutions. etc. required to approach the market the way Yahoo!, Google, and other successful internet-based companies do just aren't compatible with the way MS runs things.
MS needs to change from the inside out. Buying the competition results in external change, which doesn't have the impact necessary to turn things around for MS in the internet market. If MS does buy/take-over Yahoo! I see a few likely scenarios (not an exhaustive list):
MS applies its existing client-centered/antiquated practices and the new Yahoo! falls apart
Given the disdain many Yahoo! employees have for MS, MS would have to replace a lot of skills which would likely result in 'infecting' Yahoo! with its practices (see #1)
MS doesn't touch Yahoo! (assuming they can avoid scenario #2) and merely plays a supportive role (which I don't think they'll be able to contain themselves to)
The only scenario above that MS has a prayer coming out ahead on this is #3. The problem with this is MS will have to take a hands-off approach to the acquisition (which it won't). Until MS accepts the fact the it is no longer the 80's/90's and the computational pendulum has swung back to the thin-client model (see PDAs, cellphones, mini-PCs, internet, etc.), they'll continue to engineer out-dated technologies and always be several steps behind companies that embrace market change. Again, this can only come from the inside out (looking at you Mr. Ballmer).
I voted for Ron Paul yesterday. I smoke pot... Enough said.
you would have to be a damned fool would vote for someone who would condone laws that would put you in prison for something you enjoy. Spoken like a true hedonist. "If I derive pleasure out of it, then it can't be wrong." I'm sure there are plenty of sexual deviants (molesters, rapists, etc.) and hate-crime perpetrators who would agree with you on this one.
When this country was founded, a man had the right to screw his life up any way he pleased. No more. Have you even read the constitution? The problem with this is the fact that very few of us, maybe you are an exception, live lives completely isolated from the rest of society. Very often when we screw up our life it brings others down with us.
I can't believe the parent actually got modded up.
That is weird that you mention that. The only thing I use Yahoo for is a junk email account that I give away liberally when an email address is required. Yet, for some reason, I ALWAYS ping yahoo.com first when troubleshooting connectivity.
I totally agree with your point that treating the human brain can have many unintended consequences. IANABS (I am not a brain surgeon), but having studied back propagation neural networks as an undergrad taught me that the human brain is MUCH MUCH more complex than we would like it to be. The perceptron model (and variations on it) are an oversimplification of the workings on the brain. Even if you modeled all of the synapses in the brain, you still have to deal with the fact that the brain itself is sits in a chemical bath of fluids and hormones which affect the way the synapses fire and communicate. This as well as many other biological differences makes completely understanding the human brain a very daunting task.
True enough, but I think many Alzheimer's patients and their families would be willing to risk it. Think of this as kind of a pace-maker for the brain.
Other than physical ailments resulting in regular/constant excruciating pain, I can't think of a worse condition to have than one that takes away even your most fundamental cognitive abilities and memories.
I would add the 'waitandsee' tag to this though. A wonderful development, but don't get hopes up too soon.
I think you mean UDP hole punching (aka: NAT traversal) not UPnP. UDP hole punching is used by the likes of Skype, Hamachi, torrent clients (look at the NAT traversal column in the table), p2p clients, and any other service that needs to listen on a port w/o having to rely on correct forwarding of traffic on intermediate nodes.
Of course, if you want the benefits of TCP with this method, you then have to implement TCP over UDP to do this (which I know Hamachi does).
As the the line between cyberspace and 'meatspace' becomes thinner and thinner malicious behavior in cyberspace will have more and more serious consequences in real people's lives (not just financially).
Seeing as how I'm currently on a commuter train headed into Seattle, imagine if the entire railway (tracks/trains) were automated by a central command center (which they aren't as each train has a human operator). A disgruntled employee who works at the command center leaves a program that causes damage to the computers in the command center and results in the collision of a commuter train. Suddenly, this theoretical line between cyber and 'meat' space doesn't seem to exist anymore.
This is very much true for the medical field. This data is in and of itself life saving as it provides doctors with the information they need to do their job, which after all is saving lives. Deliberately causing damage to medical infrastructure should be treated the same as deliberately sabotaging medical instruments in a hospital or doctors office. This person deserves all the jail time the law can give them and should be banned permanently from the technical industry.
we have already won on FAXs and on Caller-ID. Next will be eMails and executable codes. NO SIGNATURE? NO EXECUTE.
Please tell me you are not referring to the concept commonly referred to as Trusted Computing, currently spearheaded by The Trusted Computing Group. For a list of members go here.
It's terribly ironic that for an article focusing on privacy rights you mention 'winning' and Trusted Computing in the same paragraph as Trusted Computing would enable companies/governments/organizations to systematically, universally, and without user interaction, perform such tasks as:
Digital rights management
Prevent users from being able to to modify software
What makes Trusted Computing so dangerous is that this is enforced at the hardware layer (usually in the CPU). This isn't a software implementation that will inevitably be hacked within a short period of time. This is the hardware of your own computer obeying 3rd party instructions before it obeys your instructions. Granted this requires the hardware is in your computer. But if widespread enough, people not running on hardware that is "Trusted" could be isolated and any communication from it to a "Trusted" system blocked. People would effectively be forced to "upgrade" to the "Trusted" platform in order to interact with the rest of the industry/country/world/etc (forgive the use of quotes here, but in Trust Computing words like upgrade, trust, and threat are often misleading).
BTW, if you weren't referring to the concept of Trusted Computing, then please just ignore my rant. Hopefully, though, someone finds some of this information enlightening and/or checks out some of those sources.
...about the ramifications (both good and bad) of TC can be found here.
The main problem I have with TC is the fact that it removes control over the hardware from the user and gives it to a 3rd party entity.
When I purchase hardware, I expect to have full control over it's capacities. If the hardware is capable of doing something, I should be able to do it. There's something a bit eerie about giving your computer a command/instruction and having it come back and tell you it could do it, but that it won't (2001: A Space Odyssey anyone!?).
My worry is that TC misinformation will be pushed so much that the idea of the user being in control of their hardware will be considered old fashioned. Well, it may be old fashioned, but it also has the side effect of being correct.
Now, I do think that TC has a place in the corporate world where there is no expectation of employees being able to do whatever they want on the computer (businesses have a right to control their own equipment). But the propagation of TC into the public or home is what doesn't set well with me.
One of my gripes early on with Eclipse was that it used a ton of memory. One tip to minimize the memory load is to CLOSE THE PROJECTS YOU'RE NOT WORKING ON. I had been using Eclipse for a year before this was pointed out to me. Now that I close all projects but the one I'm working on, Eclipse is about 2-3 times more responsive than before.
I don't know why this isn't brought to the user's attention (via a startup tool tip or something). "You currently have 60 projects. You should close projects you're not currently using." That said, Eclipse is a lot like Photoshop, it will use up whatever memory you give it. For me, the sweet spot seems to have 2GB in the machine I'm using.
I think the Eclipse vs. Visual Studio debate has a lot to do with languages being used than features (it seems to me that both have comparable features).
It's not a crash, per se. It's a forced closure due to an illegal operation of one component of the browser with code in mshtml.dll.
An exception was thrown that was not properly caught.
I didn't rear end the person in front of me, per se. I just simply wasn't paying enough attention and failed to break.
But we all know that since Einstein believed in God he must be a narrow-minded, naive, simpleton. Someone like that couldn't possibly have validity in modern science so these people are wasting their time trying to confirm Einstein's theories.
[/sarcasm]
It is interesting how most people get flamed for their religious beliefs on Slashdot, but nobody is flaming Einstein here.
I realize you are very well-intentioned, but Dell is a business, not an open source community. What makes you think these things are mutually exclusive? Dell would be smart to pattern the structure of their Linux division after other successful companies that primarily work with and support open source.
I'm cucreantly oon a traedmill worksttatioan and I mu8tgst say that6y I lovwe it. It makeeks lossigsn weight so easty. Ittsw a littlwe buumpy but I dootn' think anyoeonq2 nottices.
Interestingly, clamav's weekly scan of my home Linux server caught Exploit.Win32.MS05-002.Gen in a few mp3 files and a tar.gz file. They weren't important files so I just deleted them. I have several Windows XP Professional machines that access it (the mp3s dir is used as the library root for windows media players).
BitDefender's description of their detection of this virus:
I wonder what the tipping point is where the cost of doing business with the RIAA becomes so large that we see a mass exodus of artists to smaller, independent recording houses and then distributing their work themselves via the internet. When the collective disdain artists (and other industries) hold towards the RIAA reaches critical mass this mass exodus will occur and people will look towards new technologies (internet based distribution, alternate recording houses, etc) and the industry will move on leaving the RIAA doggedly holding on to their antiquated business model.
Oh, and by the way RIAA, if you but lay a hand on NPR I will never buy one of your CD's again and will go around to everyone I know promoting artists that do not associate themselves with you. That's a promise.
Now if we could just find the large underground mutant generators, we will be able to instantaneously terraform Mars. Of course we'd need Arnold Schwarzenegger to spearhead this for us, but I think he's up to the task.
Re:Rails is Doomed
on
Rails Cookbook
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Slashdot Mirror
IANAAVE (I am not an anti-virus expert), but it seems to me that much of the bloat comes from the ever increasing virus signature database these engines have to keep in memory (especially for on-access real time scanning). Considering that there seems to be no end in site for these signature files and the high rate of virus mutation, virus signature tables seem to be an extremely antiquated and inefficient model for detection.
Of course, heuristics won't be a silver bullet as it brings its own set of problems (ie: false positives), but I think we'll see more of this used as time goes on. IANAB (I am not a biologist), but is seems that our body's immune system operates more on heuristics than some exhaustive chemical look up table. Considering the millions (billions?) of years nature has invested in our immune system I think we would do well to take a page from mother nature on this one.
I'm torn when it comes to software patents. Inventors need to have a LIMITED amount of time in which they can exclusively profit on their ideas. Without this, the only ones who would profit from invention would be those who can throw the most engineers at the idea (read M$). While I love open source, it simply doesn't work for all business models and I think it is a bit hypocritical to evangelize choice and freedom while seeking to deny the right one has to not share. I see nothing wrong in software that is only obtainable via purchase. However, I do believe the current patent system is fundamentally broken.
The way I see it, the patent system needs to be based on a series of rules derived from game theory with the players being government, inventors, industry. The trick in this is to structure the rules (laws) such that thing like patent trolling, extended patent life, and patent infringement are financially unprofitable for all players. I am not a patent lawyer, so I don't know how much of this (if any) is already in place but just not working.
Government:
Obviously their role is to be the referee in the game. The government should be encouraged to grant patents and protect them by collecting fees for filings. I see government as, in a way, investing in inventors by promising to protect their ideas for a LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME in the courts. Not by providing lawyers, but buy providing the system (courts patent offices). However, the government also needs to be liable for approving patents that are invalid (ie: trivial, pre-existing, or filed by those who aren't in turn investing in the idea themselves). A way to do this may be to somehow fine government and inventors when a particular patent is deemed invalid. This would provide the checks and balances for the government to both encourage them to grant patents, but not to grant every patent.
Inventors:
Inventors must be able to profit from their ideas (EXCLUSIVELY FOR A LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME) but should also be REQUIRED to invest in their idea themselves. Patent filing should also include a plan of investment which if not met either causes fines or forfeiture of the patent. The requirement for inventor investment should be handled on a case by case basis (ie: large companies can (should?) invest more than a smaller one). This system may need to provide a means of patent extension (people will underestimate the investment needed to develop the idea) but such extensions should be very limited (no perpetual extensions) and should be financially burdensome to discourage inventors from extending unless they really feel they can profit from the extension. Also, such extensions could (should?) be coupled with an increase in investment requirements (again making it financially impossible for patent trolls to exist).
Industry:
The industry obviously wants patents to enter public domain as quickly as possible (so they can profit from it). They also want to protect their own ideas as well as prevent their competitiors from filing invalid patents. However, they should not be able to profit off of their competition's ideas during the LIMITED PATENT PERIOD. When a patent is filed, there should be a period of open peer review where the industry involved in the patent can provide feedback to the patent office about the validity of the patent. The patent office is not bound by such feedback but it is merely a resource for them to understand the indusrty as it pertains to this idea and would allow them to more quickly determine whether a patent is valid or not.
This is by no means a complete idea and I'm sure it is riddled with loop holes. However, I belive my main points are valid:
1. Using a game theory approach to get the 3 parties to play off of each other seems to be the way to go
2. Patent trolling needs to be fundamentally unprofitiable
3. Patents must have reasonable limited periods then go to public domain
4. Inventors must financially invest in their idea or risk losing the patent for it
I'd say the scientific quality of most comments on Slashdot constitute 0.00001 of what a real scientist would say. Assuming a generous 500 comments per topic, the scientific value of reading all the comments on a given topic results in about a two-hundredth part of what you can get by reading a single comment on the topic by a real expert.
Yes, I know, the first sentence of my comment above is similar to the Liar paradox (ie: If I state that all Slashdot comments have little to no substance and then use a Slashdot comment to do so, then what credibility does my statement have?)
MS needs to change from the inside out. Buying the competition results in external change, which doesn't have the impact necessary to turn things around for MS in the internet market. If MS does buy/take-over Yahoo! I see a few likely scenarios (not an exhaustive list):
- MS applies its existing client-centered/antiquated practices and the new Yahoo! falls apart
- Given the disdain many Yahoo! employees have for MS, MS would have to replace a lot of skills which would likely result in 'infecting' Yahoo! with its practices (see #1)
- MS doesn't touch Yahoo! (assuming they can avoid scenario #2) and merely plays a supportive role (which I don't think they'll be able to contain themselves to)
The only scenario above that MS has a prayer coming out ahead on this is #3. The problem with this is MS will have to take a hands-off approach to the acquisition (which it won't). Until MS accepts the fact the it is no longer the 80's/90's and the computational pendulum has swung back to the thin-client model (see PDAs, cellphones, mini-PCs, internet, etc.), they'll continue to engineer out-dated technologies and always be several steps behind companies that embrace market change. Again, this can only come from the inside out (looking at you Mr. Ballmer).you would have to be a damned fool would vote for someone who would condone laws that would put you in prison for something you enjoy. Spoken like a true hedonist. "If I derive pleasure out of it, then it can't be wrong." I'm sure there are plenty of sexual deviants (molesters, rapists, etc.) and hate-crime perpetrators who would agree with you on this one.
When this country was founded, a man had the right to screw his life up any way he pleased. No more. Have you even read the constitution? The problem with this is the fact that very few of us, maybe you are an exception, live lives completely isolated from the rest of society. Very often when we screw up our life it brings others down with us. I can't believe the parent actually got modded up.
That is weird that you mention that. The only thing I use Yahoo for is a junk email account that I give away liberally when an email address is required. Yet, for some reason, I ALWAYS ping yahoo.com first when troubleshooting connectivity.
Nothing a quick edit of a hosts file can't fix.
Hi again!
I totally agree with your point that treating the human brain can have many unintended consequences. IANABS (I am not a brain surgeon), but having studied back propagation neural networks as an undergrad taught me that the human brain is MUCH MUCH more complex than we would like it to be. The perceptron model (and variations on it) are an oversimplification of the workings on the brain. Even if you modeled all of the synapses in the brain, you still have to deal with the fact that the brain itself is sits in a chemical bath of fluids and hormones which affect the way the synapses fire and communicate. This as well as many other biological differences makes completely understanding the human brain a very daunting task.
True enough, but I think many Alzheimer's patients and their families would be willing to risk it. Think of this as kind of a pace-maker for the brain.
Other than physical ailments resulting in regular/constant excruciating pain, I can't think of a worse condition to have than one that takes away even your most fundamental cognitive abilities and memories.
I would add the 'waitandsee' tag to this though. A wonderful development, but don't get hopes up too soon.
I think you mean UDP hole punching (aka: NAT traversal) not UPnP. UDP hole punching is used by the likes of Skype, Hamachi, torrent clients (look at the NAT traversal column in the table), p2p clients, and any other service that needs to listen on a port w/o having to rely on correct forwarding of traffic on intermediate nodes.
Of course, if you want the benefits of TCP with this method, you then have to implement TCP over UDP to do this (which I know Hamachi does).
As the the line between cyberspace and 'meatspace' becomes thinner and thinner malicious behavior in cyberspace will have more and more serious consequences in real people's lives (not just financially).
Seeing as how I'm currently on a commuter train headed into Seattle, imagine if the entire railway (tracks/trains) were automated by a central command center (which they aren't as each train has a human operator). A disgruntled employee who works at the command center leaves a program that causes damage to the computers in the command center and results in the collision of a commuter train. Suddenly, this theoretical line between cyber and 'meat' space doesn't seem to exist anymore.
This is very much true for the medical field. This data is in and of itself life saving as it provides doctors with the information they need to do their job, which after all is saving lives. Deliberately causing damage to medical infrastructure should be treated the same as deliberately sabotaging medical instruments in a hospital or doctors office. This person deserves all the jail time the law can give them and should be banned permanently from the technical industry.
It's terribly ironic that for an article focusing on privacy rights you mention 'winning' and Trusted Computing in the same paragraph as Trusted Computing would enable companies/governments/organizations to systematically, universally, and without user interaction, perform such tasks as:
- Digital rights management
- Prevent users from being able to to modify software
- Remove control over or access to data from users
- Strip away anonymity
- Leave backdoors into computer systems
- Remote 'bricking' of computer
- Forced upgrade/downgrade of system
Sources: (Trusted Computing, Can You Trust Your Computer, Trusted Computing FAQ, Trusted Computing: Promise and Risk)What makes Trusted Computing so dangerous is that this is enforced at the hardware layer (usually in the CPU). This isn't a software implementation that will inevitably be hacked within a short period of time. This is the hardware of your own computer obeying 3rd party instructions before it obeys your instructions. Granted this requires the hardware is in your computer. But if widespread enough, people not running on hardware that is "Trusted" could be isolated and any communication from it to a "Trusted" system blocked. People would effectively be forced to "upgrade" to the "Trusted" platform in order to interact with the rest of the industry/country/world/etc (forgive the use of quotes here, but in Trust Computing words like upgrade, trust, and threat are often misleading).
BTW, if you weren't referring to the concept of Trusted Computing, then please just ignore my rant. Hopefully, though, someone finds some of this information enlightening and/or checks out some of those sources.
...about the ramifications (both good and bad) of TC can be found here.
The main problem I have with TC is the fact that it removes control over the hardware from the user and gives it to a 3rd party entity.
When I purchase hardware, I expect to have full control over it's capacities. If the hardware is capable of doing something, I should be able to do it. There's something a bit eerie about giving your computer a command/instruction and having it come back and tell you it could do it, but that it won't (2001: A Space Odyssey anyone!?).
My worry is that TC misinformation will be pushed so much that the idea of the user being in control of their hardware will be considered old fashioned. Well, it may be old fashioned, but it also has the side effect of being correct.
Now, I do think that TC has a place in the corporate world where there is no expectation of employees being able to do whatever they want on the computer (businesses have a right to control their own equipment). But the propagation of TC into the public or home is what doesn't set well with me.
a glitch in human reasoning
One of my gripes early on with Eclipse was that it used a ton of memory. One tip to minimize the memory load is to CLOSE THE PROJECTS YOU'RE NOT WORKING ON. I had been using Eclipse for a year before this was pointed out to me. Now that I close all projects but the one I'm working on, Eclipse is about 2-3 times more responsive than before.
I don't know why this isn't brought to the user's attention (via a startup tool tip or something). "You currently have 60 projects. You should close projects you're not currently using." That said, Eclipse is a lot like Photoshop, it will use up whatever memory you give it. For me, the sweet spot seems to have 2GB in the machine I'm using.
I think the Eclipse vs. Visual Studio debate has a lot to do with languages being used than features (it seems to me that both have comparable features).
'God does not play dice'
But we all know that since Einstein believed in God he must be a narrow-minded, naive, simpleton. Someone like that couldn't possibly have validity in modern science so these people are wasting their time trying to confirm Einstein's theories.
[/sarcasm]
It is interesting how most people get flamed for their religious beliefs on Slashdot, but nobody is flaming Einstein here.
I'm cucreantly oon a traedmill worksttatioan and I mu8tgst say that6y I lovwe it. It makeeks lossigsn weight so easty. Ittsw a littlwe buumpy but I dootn' think anyoeonq2 nottices.
...this is the outcome.
BitDefender's description of their detection of this virus:
I wonder what the tipping point is where the cost of doing business with the RIAA becomes so large that we see a mass exodus of artists to smaller, independent recording houses and then distributing their work themselves via the internet. When the collective disdain artists (and other industries) hold towards the RIAA reaches critical mass this mass exodus will occur and people will look towards new technologies (internet based distribution, alternate recording houses, etc) and the industry will move on leaving the RIAA doggedly holding on to their antiquated business model.
Oh, and by the way RIAA, if you but lay a hand on NPR I will never buy one of your CD's again and will go around to everyone I know promoting artists that do not associate themselves with you. That's a promise.
Now if we could just find the large underground mutant generators, we will be able to instantaneously terraform Mars. Of course we'd need Arnold Schwarzenegger to spearhead this for us, but I think he's up to the task.
No...THIS is why Lisp never caught on:
(defun fibonacci (nn)
"Return 2 consecutive Fibonacci numbers."
(declare (type (integer 0) nn))
(case nn
(0 (values 0 0)) (1 (values 1 0)) (2 (values 1 1)) (3 (values 2 1))
(t (multiple-value-bind (mm rr) (floor nn 2)
(declare (integer mm) (type (integer 0 1) rr))
(multiple-value-bind (f0 f1) (fibonacci mm)
(declare (type (integer 0) f0 f1))
(if (zerop rr)
(values (* f0 (+ (* f1 2) f0))
(+ (* f0 f0) (* f1 f1)))
(values (+ (* f0 f0) (sqr (+ f0 f1)))
(* f0 (+ (* f1 2) f0)))))))))
Koders.com lets you search by license.