In actual practice, this number is way larger than necessary because it presumes an average of 5 not-immediately-constraint-breaking possibilities per square, which is not at all even close to true in practice (p.s: its still brute force when you check for constraint violations at each insertion, unlike what some folks are claiming)
Just a quick look shows that in this puzzle, there are three cases with only two possibilities: In row 6, the number 5 fits into two places only. Same in column 5. In column 2, the number 8. And a few more. And of course once those numbers are placed, it reduces the possibilities elsewhere.
You can't brute force a sudoku, it would take about 1450 billion years using a super duper computer using only brute force. But you could use different solving techniques. Quote Peter Norvig:
That's not brute force, that is stupid.
A simple brute force algorithm: With every puzzle, you can ask the questions: "Which digit goes into row r, column c", "where in row r does the digit d go", "where in column c does the digit d go", and "where in box b does the digit d go". There are 4 x 81 questions. Each number that is already given, 4 questions are answered. Check which answers are possible for each unanswered question, just by removing the possibilities that are ruled out directly by the rules of Sudoku (digits 1 to 9, no digit twice in the same row, column, or box). If there's a question without possible answer then there is no solution. If there's a question with one possible answer you pick that. Otherwise, you pick one of the questions with the smallest number of possible answers at random, and try all the possible answers in turn.
Thank you for putting someone who has been maintaining a link site into the same category with someone who sends letter bombs and murderers.
Where did I equate each? What I did was give an example where a crime is committed without the person committing it being anywhere near the place where it is committed, which demonstrates how the argument "he wasn't even in the USA" doesn't matter. You are confusing various things that could be argued about, like the location of the crime and the seriousness, so I had to unconfuse them.
It would seem then, to a lay man at least, that the UK is attempting to set precedent for extradition to the US for infraction of US laws while not on US soil, just or not, as would be required for JA's extradition.
"While not on US soil" doesn't matter, and has never mattered. In the legal sense, a crime isn't committed at the place where you are, but at the place where it has an effect. Now in the past these two places were most likely the same, but not always. Shooting a person on the other side of a border (which has actually happened), sending mail bombs, all meant that you could commit a crime in a country without stepping on its soil. And nerds may look at the location of servers in this case, which also doesn't matter. The effect of this crime was that someone in the USA ended up with a copy of software or movies or music that they didn't pay for, and that happened in the USA. Where the server is, or where the person running the server is, doesn't actually matter.
Because you have to commit a crime in the country which asks your goverment to extradite you. Thus you can't be extradited to face trial for selling nazi memorabilia in the UK even though it is illegal to do so in parts of Europe. However if you ran a web shop and were selling within a country where it was illegal you could be.
To clarify: You can and will be extradited within the EU for something that is a crime in one country but not another. So if you ship from UK to Germany, you can and will be extradited. If you ship from the USA to Germany, Germany will ask for extradition which will be denied; if you are then stupid enough to travel to the UK, you will be extradited.
So the UK will extradite car driving women to Saudi Arabia, where it's illegal for women to drive, for better oil purchase conditions too?
No, because (1) driving a car is not illegal according to UK law, so you wouldn't be extradited even if it was proven that she drove in Saudi Arabia. (2) because driving a car in the UK happens in the UK and has no effect outside, so she can't be extradited, just as even murdering a Saudi Arabian citizen in the UK would't get her extradited. (3) possibly not because it would be checked what is the punishment in Saudi Arabia vs. the punishment say for driving without a license in the UK, and if the punishment is deemed excessive, no extradition (so she would likely not be extradited for a proven theft in Saudi Arabia). (4) I don't know if there is an extradition treaty. (5) It can be decided that that extradition itself is a punishment which is too harsh for the crime, so you wouldn't be extradited for jumping a red traffic light in the USA, even when proven, even when the punishment is the same as in the UK.
So if you do something that is not a crime in your own country, but is in another, yet you never set foot in that country, you can now be extradited? Wouldn't that fall under persecution grounds for asylum? Maybe I should check with the Equadorian Embassy...
You are wrong on a few accounts. First, what he did was a crime in his own country, just that he didn't commit the crime there. And you don't have to set foot in another country, he just have to commit a crime there. A similar situation would be sending a letter bomb from London to someone in New York which explodes there and kills a person. You haven't committed a crime in your own country (UK), but you have done something that is a crime in your own country (murder). You haven't set foot in the USA, but you will be extradited because the effect of your actions took place in the USA.
I can understand legitimate complaints about patent infringement. I can even almost understand some of the complaints Apple puts forth against Android devices. While I don't necessarily feel they should be winning the cases, I feel that they're at least operating within the system. My issue is with situations like this, where they're pressing for bans when the situation isn't even decided yet. They're just pressing to hurt the competitors as much as possible without actually having to prove foul play.
Pressing for bans is what everybody else does as well. Like Samsung, HTC, Motorola.
I steal your car. Should I be allowed to drive it until I am convicted in a court? That would obviously be unfair towards you. But for example in the Apple vs. Samsung case, Apple got an injunction but if they lost the case in the end, they would have to pay damages. And they had to pay a bond so that it is guaranteed that the money for paying damages is there if needed.
I recall that the NULL pointer is not numerically 0 on some systems.
NULL is not a pointer. NULL is a macro which evaluates to a null pointer constant. And a null pointer constant is either an integer constant expression with a value of 0, or such an expression cast to void*.
What you are thinking about is probably a null pointer. Completely different thing. But a null pointer is a pointer, and pointers are not anything numerically. They are pointers. Pointers and numbers are different things.
Now just as converting from int to float will (almost always) change the bits in a value that is converted, so can converting from int to a pointer type and back. It often doesn't, but it can.
Sure, pinpointing your location to a street corner isn't that hard, but consumer level GPS receivers can pinpoint you to within about 3 feet in most conditions. I doubt you can do that with signal strength measurements.
Anyone with access to Apple's WWDC videos should watch the video about improved mapping, which demonstrates nicely how in some parts of San Francisco GPS on its own is practically worthless. From experience, there are areas in London where it's the same.
No, $95 million is the bond. If Apple loses the court case, Samsung will get however much the court decides they should get. If it's up to $95 million, Samsung is paid out of the bond and the rest returned to Apple. If it is more, Samsung gets the bond and Apple has to hand over the rest.
Interesting... Then why on earth would Xerox have sued Apple for blatantly stealing these features without properly licensing them?
Because someone at Xerox thought that Xerox's deal with Apple hadn't worked out very well financially for Xerox and wanted to make more money. And they couldn't really go to court and say "hey, we made this deal where Apple is allowed to look at our features and copy them for some money, but we want more money", so they adjusted their claims in the court accordingly.
It's well established that "look and feel" are not protected by copyright (see Apple vs. Microsoft)
It's not protected by copyright if you are stupid enough to give the competitor a license - which Apple apparently had done. There's also about 20 years gone since then, so the legal landscape has changed.
Well, Assange stayed in the UK for 18 months on the grounds that Sweden would be much more US-friendly than even the UK, and would immediately extradite him. It looks like he now wants to do everything to ensure that nobody can ever falsify that theory. It would be terrible for him if the Swedish authorities just released him after two hours of questioning. The guy has pretty much painted himself into a corner by now.
I don't know about Swedish extradition law. In case of extradition from USA to Germany, the person who is extradited can only be taken to court for the things stated in the extradition papers. Should they then end up in jail in Germany, then Germany has no right to extradite them elsewhere either while the person is in jail, or when the jail sentence is over. So if the rape case was in Germany, he might go to jail, and after leaving jail he would have the right to go back to the UK, with no chance of being extradited to the USA in between.
The question asked was: "Apart from Apple and Samsung, is the handset market in trouble?" It seems that Apple makes huge profits, Samsung makes good profits, and the rest doesn't. If you say that total handset profit = profits of handset makers making profits, minus losses of handset makers making losses, then Apple and Samsung make over 100% of the total profit.
Now Samsung doesn't do anything that others couldn't do, so this seems to be just a matter of better execution and marketing.
First, everyone who helped paying for his bail won't see their money back, because Assange is not at his bail address, thus violating bail conditions. And political asylum in Ecuador? Seriously? That would actually mean that eventually he would have to move to Ecuador, and to stay there. I'd rather spend a bit of time in Sweden than a lifetime in Ecuador. I don't think Ecuador is too much fun when your money runs out.
The worst part: Apple users don't like to admit that it's a real pain in the ass to launch an app on Mac OSX that is not docked, but the dock has limited space so you can't put everything there. Spotlight works if you can remember the name, but otherwise you're scouring the applications directory (which is usually a terrible mess) looking for that icon.
You just put the applications folder into the dock. Click on it, and all the apps are there. Well, that's the old fashioned method. The new one is to click on Launchpad. The folder method has the advantage that you can make a folder, put aliases to all the second-most-useful apps in there, and put that folder into the Dock.
While I know that some companies would like to push this notion on everybody, this probably depends on where a person lives, and whether or not violating terms of an EULA is considered to be against the law. In most places, afaik, it is not... and *CERTAINLY* does not cause every use to be copyright infringement... it only causes the usages to be unauthorized. Copyright infringement involves unauthorized copies, not unauthorized use.
You confuse a few things. You either agree to the EULA, or you don't. In many cases, acceptance of the EULA is part of the contract between you and the seller. Without acceptance of the EULA there is no valid contract. Without valid contract, you have no right to copy anything. Using software copies the software into RAM. That copy is legal if you have the right to use the software, it is copyright infringement if you don't. That's the part when you don't agree.
If you agree, that is of course not against the law, but it is a breach of the contract that you entered, and it will have consequences as the EULA says.
How do you propose using software without copying it into RAM? And it is absolutely known to the law makers that using software involves copying it into RAM, which is why they stated that a EULA cannot disallow to make certain copies (copying into RAM to run the software, and copying to a backup device) if you are authorised to use the software.
That's what the court does. Samsung was forced to give up their Galaxy phone design, so the consumer has now the choice between an iPhone and a Galaxy S3, which look quite different from each other. That's better than having the choice between two tablets that both look like an iPad. It is also beneficial for the consumer who wants to buy an iPad to know that a tablet that looks like an iPad is indeed an iPad.
A "hover" is a colloquial name for a vacuum cleaner in the UK, they are made by many many companies. Once upon a time, they weren't, they were simply a brand name for one particular vacuum cleaner manufacturer, but that's not so any more.
Whoosh... Nobody in the UK has ever called a vacuum cleaner a "hover". There is, however, a company named "Hoover", making vacuum cleaners that are usually green, which is why the Hoover building on the left side of the A40 going from the west into London is lighted green in the night. Looks quite pretty.
now if it is legal to lie on the internet, does that than mean lying about agreeing to a eula or other digital contract is valid if said agreement unlocks software after key exchange over the Internet?
Lying on the internet is not a crime per se anymore in this state, but fraud would still be a crime, including fraud that was committed by lying on the internet. You can't lie about agreeing to a Eula - you can only click on a button without agreeing, in which case you usually have no rights to the software in question, which makes every single use of the software copyright infringement. If there is an unlock of DRM restricted software, then there is a DMCA violation. Of course if things went to court, nobody can prove that you didn't agree, so you can always claim that you _did_ agree, with all the consequences of that. Which in the end means it doesn't matter much whether you agree or not when you click. (And of course if things went to court, you could always say that you didn't agree, even if you did, whatever is better for you. Copyright infringement + DMCA violation vs. whatever the EULA said).
Slashdot Mirror
In actual practice, this number is way larger than necessary because it presumes an average of 5 not-immediately-constraint-breaking possibilities per square, which is not at all even close to true in practice (p.s: its still brute force when you check for constraint violations at each insertion, unlike what some folks are claiming)
Just a quick look shows that in this puzzle, there are three cases with only two possibilities: In row 6, the number 5 fits into two places only. Same in column 5. In column 2, the number 8. And a few more. And of course once those numbers are placed, it reduces the possibilities elsewhere.
You can't brute force a sudoku, it would take about 1450 billion years using a super duper computer using only brute force. But you could use different solving techniques. Quote Peter Norvig:
That's not brute force, that is stupid.
A simple brute force algorithm: With every puzzle, you can ask the questions: "Which digit goes into row r, column c", "where in row r does the digit d go", "where in column c does the digit d go", and "where in box b does the digit d go". There are 4 x 81 questions. Each number that is already given, 4 questions are answered. Check which answers are possible for each unanswered question, just by removing the possibilities that are ruled out directly by the rules of Sudoku (digits 1 to 9, no digit twice in the same row, column, or box). If there's a question without possible answer then there is no solution. If there's a question with one possible answer you pick that. Otherwise, you pick one of the questions with the smallest number of possible answers at random, and try all the possible answers in turn.
That will find an answer quite quickly.
Why a complicated solution with an LCD screen on the window? Just a mechanical gadget, that moves a coin sized item.
Thank you for putting someone who has been maintaining a link site into the same category with someone who sends letter bombs and murderers.
Where did I equate each? What I did was give an example where a crime is committed without the person committing it being anywhere near the place where it is committed, which demonstrates how the argument "he wasn't even in the USA" doesn't matter. You are confusing various things that could be argued about, like the location of the crime and the seriousness, so I had to unconfuse them.
It would seem then, to a lay man at least, that the UK is attempting to set precedent for extradition to the US for infraction of US laws while not on US soil, just or not, as would be required for JA's extradition.
"While not on US soil" doesn't matter, and has never mattered. In the legal sense, a crime isn't committed at the place where you are, but at the place where it has an effect. Now in the past these two places were most likely the same, but not always. Shooting a person on the other side of a border (which has actually happened), sending mail bombs, all meant that you could commit a crime in a country without stepping on its soil. And nerds may look at the location of servers in this case, which also doesn't matter. The effect of this crime was that someone in the USA ended up with a copy of software or movies or music that they didn't pay for, and that happened in the USA. Where the server is, or where the person running the server is, doesn't actually matter.
Because you have to commit a crime in the country which asks your goverment to extradite you. Thus you can't be extradited to face trial for selling nazi memorabilia in the UK even though it is illegal to do so in parts of Europe. However if you ran a web shop and were selling within a country where it was illegal you could be.
To clarify: You can and will be extradited within the EU for something that is a crime in one country but not another. So if you ship from UK to Germany, you can and will be extradited. If you ship from the USA to Germany, Germany will ask for extradition which will be denied; if you are then stupid enough to travel to the UK, you will be extradited.
So the UK will extradite car driving women to Saudi Arabia, where it's illegal for women to drive, for better oil purchase conditions too?
No, because (1) driving a car is not illegal according to UK law, so you wouldn't be extradited even if it was proven that she drove in Saudi Arabia. (2) because driving a car in the UK happens in the UK and has no effect outside, so she can't be extradited, just as even murdering a Saudi Arabian citizen in the UK would't get her extradited. (3) possibly not because it would be checked what is the punishment in Saudi Arabia vs. the punishment say for driving without a license in the UK, and if the punishment is deemed excessive, no extradition (so she would likely not be extradited for a proven theft in Saudi Arabia). (4) I don't know if there is an extradition treaty. (5) It can be decided that that extradition itself is a punishment which is too harsh for the crime, so you wouldn't be extradited for jumping a red traffic light in the USA, even when proven, even when the punishment is the same as in the UK.
So if you do something that is not a crime in your own country, but is in another, yet you never set foot in that country, you can now be extradited? Wouldn't that fall under persecution grounds for asylum? Maybe I should check with the Equadorian Embassy...
You are wrong on a few accounts. First, what he did was a crime in his own country, just that he didn't commit the crime there. And you don't have to set foot in another country, he just have to commit a crime there. A similar situation would be sending a letter bomb from London to someone in New York which explodes there and kills a person. You haven't committed a crime in your own country (UK), but you have done something that is a crime in your own country (murder). You haven't set foot in the USA, but you will be extradited because the effect of your actions took place in the USA.
I can understand legitimate complaints about patent infringement. I can even almost understand some of the complaints Apple puts forth against Android devices. While I don't necessarily feel they should be winning the cases, I feel that they're at least operating within the system. My issue is with situations like this, where they're pressing for bans when the situation isn't even decided yet. They're just pressing to hurt the competitors as much as possible without actually having to prove foul play.
Pressing for bans is what everybody else does as well. Like Samsung, HTC, Motorola.
I steal your car. Should I be allowed to drive it until I am convicted in a court? That would obviously be unfair towards you. But for example in the Apple vs. Samsung case, Apple got an injunction but if they lost the case in the end, they would have to pay damages. And they had to pay a bond so that it is guaranteed that the money for paying damages is there if needed.
I recall that the NULL pointer is not numerically 0 on some systems.
NULL is not a pointer. NULL is a macro which evaluates to a null pointer constant. And a null pointer constant is either an integer constant expression with a value of 0, or such an expression cast to void*.
What you are thinking about is probably a null pointer. Completely different thing. But a null pointer is a pointer, and pointers are not anything numerically. They are pointers. Pointers and numbers are different things.
Now just as converting from int to float will (almost always) change the bits in a value that is converted, so can converting from int to a pointer type and back. It often doesn't, but it can.
Sure, pinpointing your location to a street corner isn't that hard, but consumer level GPS receivers can pinpoint you to within about 3 feet in most conditions. I doubt you can do that with signal strength measurements.
Anyone with access to Apple's WWDC videos should watch the video about improved mapping, which demonstrates nicely how in some parts of San Francisco GPS on its own is practically worthless. From experience, there are areas in London where it's the same.
First, redo the Mac Pro.
Interesting how the first thing on your list to do is something that won't benefit Apple as a company very much at all.
At which point Samsung will have $95M...
No, $95 million is the bond. If Apple loses the court case, Samsung will get however much the court decides they should get. If it's up to $95 million, Samsung is paid out of the bond and the rest returned to Apple. If it is more, Samsung gets the bond and Apple has to hand over the rest.
Interesting... Then why on earth would Xerox have sued Apple for blatantly stealing these features without properly licensing them?
Because someone at Xerox thought that Xerox's deal with Apple hadn't worked out very well financially for Xerox and wanted to make more money. And they couldn't really go to court and say "hey, we made this deal where Apple is allowed to look at our features and copy them for some money, but we want more money", so they adjusted their claims in the court accordingly.
It's well established that "look and feel" are not protected by copyright (see Apple vs. Microsoft)
It's not protected by copyright if you are stupid enough to give the competitor a license - which Apple apparently had done. There's also about 20 years gone since then, so the legal landscape has changed.
Jobs didn't want third-party code on the iPhone,
More like: Apple didn't have an SDK that was in good enough shape to hand it out to third-party developers.
Well, Assange stayed in the UK for 18 months on the grounds that Sweden would be much more US-friendly than even the UK, and would immediately extradite him. It looks like he now wants to do everything to ensure that nobody can ever falsify that theory. It would be terrible for him if the Swedish authorities just released him after two hours of questioning. The guy has pretty much painted himself into a corner by now.
I don't know about Swedish extradition law. In case of extradition from USA to Germany, the person who is extradited can only be taken to court for the things stated in the extradition papers. Should they then end up in jail in Germany, then Germany has no right to extradite them elsewhere either while the person is in jail, or when the jail sentence is over. So if the rape case was in Germany, he might go to jail, and after leaving jail he would have the right to go back to the UK, with no chance of being extradited to the USA in between.
Look at apple's profits.
The question asked was: "Apart from Apple and Samsung, is the handset market in trouble?" It seems that Apple makes huge profits, Samsung makes good profits, and the rest doesn't. If you say that total handset profit = profits of handset makers making profits, minus losses of handset makers making losses, then Apple and Samsung make over 100% of the total profit.
Now Samsung doesn't do anything that others couldn't do, so this seems to be just a matter of better execution and marketing.
First, everyone who helped paying for his bail won't see their money back, because Assange is not at his bail address, thus violating bail conditions. And political asylum in Ecuador? Seriously? That would actually mean that eventually he would have to move to Ecuador, and to stay there. I'd rather spend a bit of time in Sweden than a lifetime in Ecuador. I don't think Ecuador is too much fun when your money runs out.
The worst part: Apple users don't like to admit that it's a real pain in the ass to launch an app on Mac OSX that is not docked, but the dock has limited space so you can't put everything there. Spotlight works if you can remember the name, but otherwise you're scouring the applications directory (which is usually a terrible mess) looking for that icon.
You just put the applications folder into the dock. Click on it, and all the apps are there. Well, that's the old fashioned method. The new one is to click on Launchpad. The folder method has the advantage that you can make a folder, put aliases to all the second-most-useful apps in there, and put that folder into the Dock.
But what you really do is to use Spotlight.
"Does this make me look fat?"
For the (untrue) answer to that question, you might claim self defence.
While I know that some companies would like to push this notion on everybody, this probably depends on where a person lives, and whether or not violating terms of an EULA is considered to be against the law. In most places, afaik, it is not... and *CERTAINLY* does not cause every use to be copyright infringement... it only causes the usages to be unauthorized. Copyright infringement involves unauthorized copies, not unauthorized use.
You confuse a few things. You either agree to the EULA, or you don't. In many cases, acceptance of the EULA is part of the contract between you and the seller. Without acceptance of the EULA there is no valid contract. Without valid contract, you have no right to copy anything. Using software copies the software into RAM. That copy is legal if you have the right to use the software, it is copyright infringement if you don't. That's the part when you don't agree.
If you agree, that is of course not against the law, but it is a breach of the contract that you entered, and it will have consequences as the EULA says.
How do you propose using software without copying it into RAM? And it is absolutely known to the law makers that using software involves copying it into RAM, which is why they stated that a EULA cannot disallow to make certain copies (copying into RAM to run the software, and copying to a backup device) if you are authorised to use the software.
Won't someone PLEASE think of the consumer?
That's what the court does. Samsung was forced to give up their Galaxy phone design, so the consumer has now the choice between an iPhone and a Galaxy S3, which look quite different from each other. That's better than having the choice between two tablets that both look like an iPad. It is also beneficial for the consumer who wants to buy an iPad to know that a tablet that looks like an iPad is indeed an iPad.
A "hover" is a colloquial name for a vacuum cleaner in the UK, they are made by many many companies. Once upon a time, they weren't, they were simply a brand name for one particular vacuum cleaner manufacturer, but that's not so any more.
Whoosh... Nobody in the UK has ever called a vacuum cleaner a "hover". There is, however, a company named "Hoover", making vacuum cleaners that are usually green, which is why the Hoover building on the left side of the A40 going from the west into London is lighted green in the night. Looks quite pretty.
now if it is legal to lie on the internet, does that than mean lying about agreeing to a eula or other digital contract is valid if said agreement unlocks software after key exchange over the Internet?
Lying on the internet is not a crime per se anymore in this state, but fraud would still be a crime, including fraud that was committed by lying on the internet. You can't lie about agreeing to a Eula - you can only click on a button without agreeing, in which case you usually have no rights to the software in question, which makes every single use of the software copyright infringement. If there is an unlock of DRM restricted software, then there is a DMCA violation. Of course if things went to court, nobody can prove that you didn't agree, so you can always claim that you _did_ agree, with all the consequences of that. Which in the end means it doesn't matter much whether you agree or not when you click. (And of course if things went to court, you could always say that you didn't agree, even if you did, whatever is better for you. Copyright infringement + DMCA violation vs. whatever the EULA said).