Really? That seems almost double-standardsy! But I guess necessary; the instant filing of all US held patents in the EU that would occur should this thing go through would bring the system down so fast it may as well have not gone through at all!...hmm, tha's an interesting idea!:-p
eugh, doesn't anyone read the posts they reply to, it sure as hell doesn't look like it.
Of cause an american corp could apply for a patent in EU, that's why they've got such a vested interest in getting them passed. BUT, what the original AC poster was saying was that existing US patents would automatically apply and 'override' EU patents, which is totally untrue, they would have to apply for patents like everybody else (and they will)
Hasn't this already happened, with another piece of software? I'm struggling to remember any details, so this post isn't exactly helpful - does anyone else remember recently a court ruling in favour of some GNU/GPL thing? I remember this comment (about the precident it sets) being made:-/
It all comes down to how you learn webpage construction. If you learned by reading through w3c docs, then yes. If you just learn as you go along, through experience, then you don't see it as that, you know what "is", and the standards are just pieces of advice, that have some relation to that.
Let's keep things realistic here (yes, I must be new here...), I'm currently working on a site, one part in particular works fine on IE, Konqueror, and Opera, but firefox renders it incorrectly. There are times when it's a pain getting something to render the same in opera while it's fine in the rest. There's differences in them all.
There may be a standards body, but that doesn't mean there's a standard.
A huge amount of websites designed for it? Whatever the politics, the security issues (not that I've personally had any with IE, but then I'm pretty careful), rightly or wrongly, I can't go a day without needing to switch to IE to see a website I've come across properly. (oh and not everyone cares about tabbed browsing!)
The NX bit says that code is not to be executed on a per-page (usually 4k) basis WITHIN AN EXECUTABLE SEGMENT. You can have non-executable segments, and you have been able to for over 20 years on the x86 processor range, without the NX bit. You'd just need to make sure your code segment doesn't reach as high as your stack segment, and that would solve most of the problems. (It's also possible to create executable read-only segments, so that code can't be changed once loaded in.)
Unfortunately, doing something like that this late into OS development can be quite tricky and could break some software.
But this is definitely down to the OS guys, not the chip guys. If ya don't believe, check the 386 white papers, look for details on the global descriptor table.
Running open source in your office is a noble gesture, but doesn't really help anyone else
Are you saying there's no actual benefit to using OSS? Is a company that moves over to OSS (esp free OSS) just performing a 'noble gesture', or could, for example, CUTTING COSTS, increase how competitive you can be?
If you spend less money on software for your staff to use, does that not leave you more money for more/better staff? If you spend less money on software for designing posters, does that not leave you more money to print more posters?
Does how efficiently your representative spends your money not effect who you choose to represent you?
yeah but these are *digital* cameras! This means you can do all sorts of high tech stuff like enhance a person who's taking up a single pixel to such a degree you could spot melanoma.. duh
as I replied to sibling poster of yours - the error appears to have been mine. Apparently where I read the music was written in the assembly language, all that actually meant was the music was generated by running a program written in assembly (which games/demo's used to do, nothing new/special here), and the software was on a different section of the vinyl (also nothing new/special here).
I misinterpreted as I assumed this story was interesting. I guess it isn't, and everyone who said "this isn't new cuz..." IS in fact right.
a) mp3: yes, but no one would record into the vinyl from an mp3, that would be a pretty dumb thing to do.
b) you could make music out of code that can be executed with enough thought. There are ASCII images that are perl scripts, or perl scripts that are also postscript printable. You could use NOP instructions as the bassline, then put instructions into the right places along the line to make clicks in the right places. Correctly time the clicks - you've got music.
c) I was wrong, this doesn't appear to be what they've done. They've just put a data section on the vinyl. Learning this made me lose all interest in the story, what they've done is hardly new, imaginative, blah blah... god knows why I got modded so high (oh yeah, this is slashdot!)
If you Listen To TFA, you'll realise that this isn't just software written to vinyl, this is software encoded in music, that happens to be written to vinyl. That is, the assembly code, when played back, actually SOUNDS like music. This is completely different from having a data section at the end of a vinyl disc (for all of you who have been using that as a "this has been done before with..." example).
'tho listening to some Speedy-J tracks, sounds like there some data encoded in those!
Stereo records groove is a kinda V, with one channel being movements in the / direction, and the other being movements in the \ direction. So, deeper (thus wider) grooves gives you a greater amplitude range, increasing signal-to-noise ratio, however it means you have less tracks-per-inch on the disc.
With noise generally being high end hiss, as well as the pops 'n clicks, on a low bit (4/8bit) and/or low frequency (eg, 8KHz) ADC, I would guess you could make the groove narrower and jam more info onto the disc before noise is a problem:-)
-2A
1) you don't have to understand something for it to exist. You don't even need to be capable of understanding something for it to exist. You don't need to be able to test something for it to exist. You don't even need to be aware that something exists for it to exist.
2) You're saying that the moment before the first person was ever shot with a bullet, that we weren't vulnerable to bullets, and at the moment of bullet impact, some magic happened that made us all vulnerable... do you actually read what you write?
3) You did it again! "A vulnerability that is not discovered is not a vulnerability" - let's break that down:
When something is a vulnerability that is not discovered... when something can correctly be described using the definition of what a vulnerability is, AND can be described as not having been discovered.
Stop trying to be clever and philosophical, this is basic language we're talking about. It's not as complicated as you're trying to make it. Something cannot be something AND NOT the same thing. Therefore, a vulnerability, with any property you assign it (sevear, minor, serious, funny, discovered or not), HAS to be a vulnerability, otherwise you could not (correctly) describe it as being one.
I think now I'm going to go and do something more productive, like teach a dead fish why it's wrong to throw stones on pluto.
Saying that something is not a vulnerability unless it's exploited is a valid logically sound statement (even though it's not true). But to say that a vulnerability is not a vulnerability is not valid, logical, and not even a statement (a statement is something that asserts a truth or fact, something that contradicts itself therefore cannot be a statement).
How do you think that anyone can take anything you say seriously if you try to say something AND contradict it, within the same sentense???
A vulnerability cannot be a none-vulnerability, it's a breach of definition. As for:
you can't touch, see, feel, smell, taste or hear one
Those of us who don't reach up our arses for thoughts have this amazing ability to recognise the existance of things that aren't just every day objects, we've moved past "A is for Apple". And that's totally ignoring the fact that we CAN *physically* test laws of *physics* (notice how similar those words are? Do you think there could be a link?).
And if my arse contains more profound thoughts than other's brains, why shouldn't I reach up there?
Why do you remind me of the video that everybody's seen of the monkey trying to drink it's piss? Nope, it's a mystery.
I'm vulnerable to high speed bullets ripping my flesh apart... yet I've never been shot! I bet you're one of those people who think that trees fall silently when there's no person around to hear them aren't you?
A vulnerability that is undiscovered is not a vulnerability.
That sentense contradicts itself. It's like saying "this statement is false", there's absolutely no logic behind it. You can't define something as being something that you define it to not be.
And on another note, where exactly in the dictionary definition of the world 'vulnerability' does it say that human knowledge is a requisit of something being a vulnerability? Or are you just deciding to assign new meanings to words?
"A law of Physics isn't a law of Physics until somebody discovers it." After all, if it doesn't help us understand our world, what good is it?
Laws of physics are the way our universe works, they just ARE, seperately to whether we know or understand them, whether they're helpful to us or not, they just ARE. By your logic the universe couldn't exist before we learnt to understand it, because there were no laws of physics.
Next time you feel the need to think, reach inside your brain not inside your arse.
Slashdot Mirror
We say this about many countries; "country x is great, too bad americans live there" :-p
Really? That seems almost double-standardsy! But I guess necessary; the instant filing of all US held patents in the EU that would occur should this thing go through would bring the system down so fast it may as well have not gone through at all! ...hmm, tha's an interesting idea! :-p
-2A
eugh, doesn't anyone read the posts they reply to, it sure as hell doesn't look like it.
Of cause an american corp could apply for a patent in EU, that's why they've got such a vested interest in getting them passed. BUT, what the original AC poster was saying was that existing US patents would automatically apply and 'override' EU patents, which is totally untrue, they would have to apply for patents like everybody else (and they will)
-2A
And here's me doing the same, with transparency, but in full screen mode!
:-p
http://heavy.panakos.co.uk/fullscreen.png
-2A
Hasn't this already happened, with another piece of software? I'm struggling to remember any details, so this post isn't exactly helpful - does anyone else remember recently a court ruling in favour of some GNU/GPL thing? I remember this comment (about the precident it sets) being made :-/
-2A
It all comes down to how you learn webpage construction. If you learned by reading through w3c docs, then yes. If you just learn as you go along, through experience, then you don't see it as that, you know what "is", and the standards are just pieces of advice, that have some relation to that.
Let's keep things realistic here (yes, I must be new here...), I'm currently working on a site, one part in particular works fine on IE, Konqueror, and Opera, but firefox renders it incorrectly. There are times when it's a pain getting something to render the same in opera while it's fine in the rest. There's differences in them all.
There may be a standards body, but that doesn't mean there's a standard.
-2A
-2A
The NX bit says that code is not to be executed on a per-page (usually 4k) basis WITHIN AN EXECUTABLE SEGMENT. You can have non-executable segments, and you have been able to for over 20 years on the x86 processor range, without the NX bit. You'd just need to make sure your code segment doesn't reach as high as your stack segment, and that would solve most of the problems. (It's also possible to create executable read-only segments, so that code can't be changed once loaded in.)
Unfortunately, doing something like that this late into OS development can be quite tricky and could break some software.
But this is definitely down to the OS guys, not the chip guys. If ya don't believe, check the 386 white papers, look for details on the global descriptor table.
-2A
in other news: lollipop share prices go up!
*grunt* must... lick... something...
If you spend less money on software for your staff to use, does that not leave you more money for more/better staff? If you spend less money on software for designing posters, does that not leave you more money to print more posters?
Does how efficiently your representative spends your money not effect who you choose to represent you?
I say go for it.
-2A
yeah but these are *digital* cameras! This means you can do all sorts of high tech stuff like enhance a person who's taking up a single pixel to such a degree you could spot melanoma.. duh
-2A
thought it was gonna be a "we don't want big brother watching us!" story!
as I replied to sibling poster of yours - the error appears to have been mine. Apparently where I read the music was written in the assembly language, all that actually meant was the music was generated by running a program written in assembly (which games/demo's used to do, nothing new/special here), and the software was on a different section of the vinyl (also nothing new/special here).
I misinterpreted as I assumed this story was interesting. I guess it isn't, and everyone who said "this isn't new cuz..." IS in fact right.
-2A
a) mp3: yes, but no one would record into the vinyl from an mp3, that would be a pretty dumb thing to do.
b) you could make music out of code that can be executed with enough thought. There are ASCII images that are perl scripts, or perl scripts that are also postscript printable. You could use NOP instructions as the bassline, then put instructions into the right places along the line to make clicks in the right places. Correctly time the clicks - you've got music.
c) I was wrong, this doesn't appear to be what they've done. They've just put a data section on the vinyl. Learning this made me lose all interest in the story, what they've done is hardly new, imaginative, blah blah... god knows why I got modded so high (oh yeah, this is slashdot!)
-2A
As we all know, the moon is made of cheese, which means "the man in the moon" is a greyscale image stored in cheese.
Already done!
-2A
Compared to "sounds like a modem", it's not that subjective at all! Even Aphex and Squarepusher's craziest shit is obviously not modem noise.
-2A
If you Listen To TFA, you'll realise that this isn't just software written to vinyl, this is software encoded in music, that happens to be written to vinyl. That is, the assembly code, when played back, actually SOUNDS like music. This is completely different from having a data section at the end of a vinyl disc (for all of you who have been using that as a "this has been done before with..." example).
'tho listening to some Speedy-J tracks, sounds like there some data encoded in those!
-2A
Stereo records groove is a kinda V, with one channel being movements in the / direction, and the other being movements in the \ direction. So, deeper (thus wider) grooves gives you a greater amplitude range, increasing signal-to-noise ratio, however it means you have less tracks-per-inch on the disc. With noise generally being high end hiss, as well as the pops 'n clicks, on a low bit (4/8bit) and/or low frequency (eg, 8KHz) ADC, I would guess you could make the groove narrower and jam more info onto the disc before noise is a problem :-)
-2A
that will be offloaded to your AVPU (Anti-Virus Processing Unit)
1) you don't have to understand something for it to exist. You don't even need to be capable of understanding something for it to exist. You don't need to be able to test something for it to exist. You don't even need to be aware that something exists for it to exist.
2) You're saying that the moment before the first person was ever shot with a bullet, that we weren't vulnerable to bullets, and at the moment of bullet impact, some magic happened that made us all vulnerable... do you actually read what you write?
3) You did it again! "A vulnerability that is not discovered is not a vulnerability" - let's break that down:
When something is a vulnerability that is not discovered... when something can correctly be described using the definition of what a vulnerability is, AND can be described as not having been discovered.
Stop trying to be clever and philosophical, this is basic language we're talking about. It's not as complicated as you're trying to make it. Something cannot be something AND NOT the same thing. Therefore, a vulnerability, with any property you assign it (sevear, minor, serious, funny, discovered or not), HAS to be a vulnerability, otherwise you could not (correctly) describe it as being one.
I think now I'm going to go and do something more productive, like teach a dead fish why it's wrong to throw stones on pluto.
How do you think that anyone can take anything you say seriously if you try to say something AND contradict it, within the same sentense???
A vulnerability cannot be a none-vulnerability, it's a breach of definition. As for: Those of us who don't reach up our arses for thoughts have this amazing ability to recognise the existance of things that aren't just every day objects, we've moved past "A is for Apple". And that's totally ignoring the fact that we CAN *physically* test laws of *physics* (notice how similar those words are? Do you think there could be a link?). Why do you remind me of the video that everybody's seen of the monkey trying to drink it's piss? Nope, it's a mystery.
I'm vulnerable to high speed bullets ripping my flesh apart... yet I've never been shot! I bet you're one of those people who think that trees fall silently when there's no person around to hear them aren't you?
And on another note, where exactly in the dictionary definition of the world 'vulnerability' does it say that human knowledge is a requisit of something being a vulnerability? Or are you just deciding to assign new meanings to words?
Laws of physics are the way our universe works, they just ARE, seperately to whether we know or understand them, whether they're helpful to us or not, they just ARE. By your logic the universe couldn't exist before we learnt to understand it, because there were no laws of physics.
Next time you feel the need to think, reach inside your brain not inside your arse.