Math geeks that would need 128-bit double percision are a subset of all math geeks...
Perhaps you meant longdouble precision. Math geeks that can live with 32-bit floating point precision are also a small subset - most of those who do heavy math (not pixel processing) pretty much require 64-bit double precision. And that is not available in hardware from Cell (come to think of it, not for Alitvec, either)
By your arguement then people that bought games for Nintendo 64 were 'suckers' because they bought a game that was 'locked in' to a certain platform and wouldn't play on the Gamecube.
Bad analogy, bad! no cookie!
Seriously, though, you're misrepresenting the argument. Unlike games, music is not locked in to a certain platform; DRM, however, is.
And here's a kick about the 'burn to a CD' thing: you get to pay an anti-piracy levvy for the CD anyway so it's more money from your pocket. Yeah, it's a small amount - but your freedom is going away by the way of death from a thousand papercuts. Casting it as a mere issue of money is misguided at best. As one can see from the **AA behaviour lately, they'd very much like to erase the memory of fair use from the consumer programming. You should be paying for every additional copying process and be grateful for it.
Anyway, this topic has been rehashed to death many times over already, so count me into the crowd reacting wtf??? at this piece making front page.
I am arguing that 1) transparency is good; 2) if the Commission wanted to be transparent, it could be; and 3) generally, slashdot posters react emotionally with anger to MSFT, without reference to their actual behavior or logic.
1) obviously, but there are always exceptions. The best one can hope is transparency in the medium term (think Secret Service, where secrecy on th sort term is vital); it might seem like nitpicking, but blindly going to one extreme can be as damaging as blindly going to the other. However, it's not clear to me how relevant this is here, because
2) no, it could not be transparent if it goes against the rules of procedure. You can't go on making and unmaking procedure rules at will and still be taken seriously as an impartial authority. As I said, consider the possibility of MS deeming the documents in the Commission's possession to be private and not allowing them to go public. Whether this is just hypothetical or not remains to be seen. I'd be willing to give MS the benefit of the doubt if they weren't houting their openness through the roof. Remember before the last deadline when they made a big splash at a PR stunt about licensing source code for their interfaces while the EC people turned out quite surprised by the fact since (i) MS never told them about it officially and (ii) this was completely irrelevant for what MS actually had to provide (and did not)?
3) that is obvious - and works both ways. There's plenty of fact-free emotional reaction both pro and contra MS.
Make no mistake, MS ahs a lot to lose from an adverse ruling and they won't be fighting this fairly. If you think their opening of these documents was an honest move you're sorely deluded. Just look back at how the US antitrust trial went if you don't understand why.
Let's turn it around, and say that SCO wants certain documents kept secret in their case.
Let's turn this around a little more and say SCO requested that some of IBM's responses should be sealed because they contain SCO's "IP" - while on the other hand spinning the PR as to say that IBM does not have a valid response. They know nobody's going to shot them down for it, as nobody has access to the response to check their claims.
For all you know, if the EC can't, for whatever reason, put forth their own version of the facts, the whole timeline MS is quoting might be fabulation - remember, the trustee they nominated themselves said they did not conform to EC's requests - and now the trustee is no longer performing satisfactorily and should be replaced.
Understanding a system doesn't put you on par with the designer. This is my point, and you don't refute it.
Huh? understanding a system designed to be secure well enough to circumvent its security actually requires a better understanding than the designer's. You have not only to know the system, but to go further than the designer went in order to find a way in overlooked by an active attempt to eliminate vulnerabilities.
Breaking into a system not designed to be secure, on the other hand... well, flashback circa 2001 and all the Windows exploits written from vbs templates at the time.
Well, that's not saying much - Dothan reports itself as supporting PAE whenin fact that support is broken and Linux kernels that depend on it won't boot on Dothan machines.
Heh, I'm curious whose shitty boards are you talking about. Are there any CoreDuo machines shipping now (or soon) that do have VT enabled?
Yet the Bible says nothing about humans doing the judgement in God's place. In fact, probably the most common quote against such judgement would be "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." (John 8:7 and the amazing power of Google)
Bah, taking things from the Bible out of context was the preferred argument of Christian fanatics throughout history. There are always some of those, but thankfully fewer nowadays. There is no reason why Qur'an thumping fanatics would be better or worse than Bible thumping ones. They just happen to live in different plces and at different times.
Because we will probably also lose Amsterdam and legal soft drugs? OTOH, a few thousand years of undersea cleaning might be enough for Downtown Manhattan, so you're right, not all is bad;-)
You know, you should try to at least be consistent. Did the monks preserve it or did they not? OTOH the Greeks produced something decomposible (to use your approach) - whereas the Dark Ages merely hosted the decomposition process of said decomposible things. Not all of them, mind you, some were not in their posession to let rot, others were destroyed earlier (Alexandria comes to mind). But one has to wonder how come decomposition happened so selectively - the Eastern and Southern sides of the Mediterrannean Sea were so much more rot-proof than the Northern one. Funny how it took an Arab (Averroes) to translate the writings of a Greek (Aristotle) into Latin for the Western Europe to rediscover Logic.
As to Petrarca, you should probably try to read about him before bashing. Unless you're of the opinion that everyone was wrong except modern students of History asserting a specific claim (including modern students of History asserting an opposing claim) on the grounds that... well... they or some others were often wrong. Do tell me, in your version of History, did the Monks spark off the Rennaissance as well? after all, they 'had' all the books that were suddenly 'rediscovered' at the time. Oh, I forgot, 'Rennaissance' is probably a misnomer too - since Europe already 'had' all the Antiquity's culture, what was there to be reborn?
Some of these manuscripts were translated into arab, which Averroes later translated into latin. This is probably were the faulty notion, that the arabs preserved all of the greek texts, came from.
Or perhaps from the fact that Arabs actually did something with them. Where Europeans had all but forgotten Aristotle, Arabs actually studied it, not merely copied over Greek gibberish. Even more - while upon reintroduction in the West Aristotle became something of a dogma, the Arabs had no restraint debating it and pointing out mistakes. I would say this qualifies as preservation in both letter and spirit. And what about Medicine? The heritage of Hippocrates and Galenus came back to Europe mainly through Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and in general through Arab physicians. I won't even touch Mathematics or Astronomy.
A manuscript that is only recopied to gather dust is for all intents and purposes a dead manuscript. The content is nore important than the form and the Arabs kept the content alive and moving forward for so much of what later become European science. And I for one am grateful for it (Christian as I am)
It's not called the "dark ages" because everyone was stupid, it's been called the "dark ages" for so long because we just haven't known a lot about the period.
Well, Petrarca called it Dark Ages in the XIV-th century and he certainly knew more about it than you seem to, as he actively tried to recover as many writings from Antiquity as he could. And the "Monks saved our culture" argument was dissected by a previous poster already. The scientific part, especially, went down the drain in Europe - the Arabs preserved and developed it in the first Millenium - and eventually passed it back through Spain (to monks, as well - and the parts monks cared for). Why, at the time Khayyam was solving cubic equations (XI-th century) Europe had little idea what Geometry meant because Euclid didn't parse as Latina Vulgata. "It's all Greek to me," eh? Mathematics, Physics, Medicine, Architecture - by all accounts Europe was the land of barbarians at the time and civilisation rested with the Moors. Even Literature, insofar as it pertained to non-religious writings. Why do you think so much Greek theater and poetry is lost nowadays? An please, a documented opinion for a change.
I'm not even going to compare the level of education in Ancient Greece to the Europe of the second half of the first Millenium, it's a complete joke. 'Look, Ma, I no longer know how to write so I've rediscovered this wonderful oral tradition to pass on poetry! later I'll invent minstrels, everyone will love it!' So yes, there was a reason for calling the Dark Ages dark and it's not the one you think it was.
Hmm... what happens if the bootloader gets corrupted? (hdd failure, for instance) There should be something like a stand-alone bootable medium that one can use to reset/deactivate the TPM. Otherwise you compound multiple points of failure into just this one.
Also, a roman once said the same thing or a greek. That the young people of today are a generation that look down on the world and are showing no moral principels or showing problems with language and spelling and all the hoo haa he could drag up. And this was BC.
Yeah, and what happened after that? look up Europe's history starting about the time when the Western Roman Empire collapsed. Feel free to go all the way up to the Middle Ages if you like.
Methinks you need to work up a better argument, sonny.
Your time never dilates. You would be seeing it go faster than light... well, actually you wouldn't because it can't accelerate past c.
That said, 1.5M rpm for 1m diameter gives a tangential velocity of ~4,712 km/min = 282,74 km/s which is about 94.3% of c; that's a mass enhancement factor of about 3 for the fastest-moving part. Still, the total required energy even according to plain classical mechanics is of the order of 10^20 Joules. Good luck to whoever is trying for the working prototype;-)
Worse yet, he's saying electrons in a molecule have randomly-aligned spins that he can control. Someone failed baby Quantum Mechanics here and made the/. front page for it.
(to nitpick on your post - you can have an electron pair with both Sz components equal - in a triplet state; you get the right commutation rules from an antisymmetric spatial part; anyway, in principle there exist states where all electrons in an atom would have the same Sz number, but good luck on even creating one of them, nevermind stability; as you said, you need different quantum numbers and that eventually means orbital ones - which would yield highly excited states)
People can recognize their own mistakes. So could the Church.
yeah, but if people need timescales similar to the Church's for vindicting Galileo, you'll need a serious boost to the average lifespan to get some mistakes recognized:)
Well, I can only speak for myself here, so "you" will actually be "just me":-) I guess the first thing to do would be checking the happiness-o-meter; I gather the reading on that is positive so far. Then there's the info gathering part: if it is possible to have a constructive attitude about patents from within (read: ideally avoid them; but in practice even enough open-mindedness so that discussions might change this patenting policy for the better[*]) then by all means staying looks like a good option. If that's a pipe dream... well, it depends, of course. If quitting is an option, then I would vote for that. Otherwise you're either going to get indifferent to all the software patenting issue (which is fine if you can live with the idea; myself, I'd rather not end up like that) or you're going to become conflicted about your work - not a good position either. (There migh be an option of getting 'mostly harmless' patents if such a thing exists - that would probably imply your company only uses patents defensively, but unless it's a big enough player you never know what patent shark might end up buying your patents and start suing people around.) On the quitting side I would think the main advantage would be if you make the decision early so you can make job-hunting easier - especially since you said you don't have to deal with patents *yet*.
[*] for starters, the idea of quantifying performance by quantity of patents says nothing about quality of work - or indeed validity of the patents altogether, given how USPTO works these days. Time spent filing patents for bogus 'inventions' could be better spent elsewhere. Also, some types of work are less likely to have enough non-obvious ideas than others, so at least a non-uniform treatment should be in order.
Well, to sum up a confusing rant, given that the system is broken, the options that I could live with would be either to try and change something from the inside, or refuse to play. From a quality point of view I think the first option is better - if you just leave, there will probably be someone else to file the type of patents that you refused to (the code-monkey effect); but if you manage to change something about it then you might help make a small difference in the big picture. When protesting from outside it's hard not to get branded as a pink commie hippy that knows nothing about the needs of modern software development; that's one reason why fighting software patents is so difficult. On the other hand, changes proposed from within the industry tend to be taken a lot more seriously. So adding your own snowflake to that avalanche should be more efficient, if possible.
I think that you missed the point of the post, he's not so much whining, but looking for advice.
I have to agree with the GP in spirit (although the form he put it in could have been less harsh). This is hardly a request for advice, as there is not enough info about PatentThis' situation for anyone to give one. At most, he wants to hear about similar cases (yeah, good luck sorting through/. posts for people who actually faced your situation, dude!) but guess what, that's not too helpful. The GP is quite correct, there's no magic answer to this that would fit everyone. Well, unless 'open your eyes, look at your problem and think about what you see' would qualify.
Your point is good, although depending on the company attitude he might not want to let people know about his dislike for patents before making certain that there will not be unintended negative effects. From the very little he mentions ('I work at a company where they are the norm') it might very well be that a cautious approach is in order.
the biggest thing I see here is to stay away from the AMD powered MSI Megabook S270.
That manages to last only 1hour 26 minutes without anything connected. The intel variants clocked roughly 3 to 4 hours.
Well, look at it this way:
AMD Sempron: Battery 27.2 Wh Running time 1:26 Intel Yonah: Battery 49.8 Wh Running time 4:24 Intel Dothan: Battery 50.2 Wh Running time 3:08
So, aside from the fact that Semprons are not optimized for low power (CPU and chipset) the AMD laptop is in the same ballpark as the corresponding generation of Intel.
why would you be shuddering about students warping AT&T into BSD?
The correct answer to that is related to the "when?" question. In the 'old days' security-minded programming was the exception, not the rule - and students were less likely to be aware of it. Heck, textbooks would teach use of scanf(), gets() and so on. Besides, factor in limited hardware resources (memory, cpu speed,...) and you'll realize that old code was designed with significantly different priorities from today's code.
As the article goes on to state, when an item is censored Google will tell you it has censored the searched item to comply with local laws. This sort of censorship where you know something is being kept from you is much less scary than the type where you simply don't know what is being kept from you.
And how long until the Chinese government will require Google to remove the 'censored to comply with local laws' notification? it's not like that would be a difficult step to take once they see that Google would prefer to play by their rules rather than leave.
Google just placed itself in the perfect position between the Chinese carrot and stick. Let's see how it plays out (unless that info will get censored too) At least, they have MS and Y! to keep them company.
Slashdot Mirror
Math geeks that would need 128-bit double percision are a subset of all math geeks...
Perhaps you meant longdouble precision. Math geeks that can live with 32-bit floating point precision are also a small subset - most of those who do heavy math (not pixel processing) pretty much require 64-bit double precision. And that is not available in hardware from Cell (come to think of it, not for Alitvec, either)
By your arguement then people that bought games for Nintendo 64 were 'suckers' because they bought a game that was 'locked in' to a certain platform and wouldn't play on the Gamecube.
Bad analogy, bad! no cookie!
Seriously, though, you're misrepresenting the argument. Unlike games, music is not locked in to a certain platform; DRM, however, is.
And here's a kick about the 'burn to a CD' thing: you get to pay an anti-piracy levvy for the CD anyway so it's more money from your pocket. Yeah, it's a small amount - but your freedom is going away by the way of death from a thousand papercuts. Casting it as a mere issue of money is misguided at best. As one can see from the **AA behaviour lately, they'd very much like to erase the memory of fair use from the consumer programming. You should be paying for every additional copying process and be grateful for it.
Anyway, this topic has been rehashed to death many times over already, so count me into the crowd reacting wtf??? at this piece making front page.
I am arguing that 1) transparency is good; 2) if the Commission wanted to be transparent, it could be; and 3) generally, slashdot posters react emotionally with anger to MSFT, without reference to their actual behavior or logic.
1) obviously, but there are always exceptions. The best one can hope is transparency in the medium term (think Secret Service, where secrecy on th sort term is vital); it might seem like nitpicking, but blindly going to one extreme can be as damaging as blindly going to the other. However, it's not clear to me how relevant this is here, because
2) no, it could not be transparent if it goes against the rules of procedure. You can't go on making and unmaking procedure rules at will and still be taken seriously as an impartial authority. As I said, consider the possibility of MS deeming the documents in the Commission's possession to be private and not allowing them to go public. Whether this is just hypothetical or not remains to be seen. I'd be willing to give MS the benefit of the doubt if they weren't houting their openness through the roof. Remember before the last deadline when they made a big splash at a PR stunt about licensing source code for their interfaces while the EC people turned out quite surprised by the fact since (i) MS never told them about it officially and (ii) this was completely irrelevant for what MS actually had to provide (and did not)?
3) that is obvious - and works both ways. There's plenty of fact-free emotional reaction both pro and contra MS.
Make no mistake, MS ahs a lot to lose from an adverse ruling and they won't be fighting this fairly. If you think their opening of these documents was an honest move you're sorely deluded. Just look back at how the US antitrust trial went if you don't understand why.
Let's turn it around, and say that SCO wants certain documents kept secret in their case.
Let's turn this around a little more and say SCO requested that some of IBM's responses should be sealed because they contain SCO's "IP" - while on the other hand spinning the PR as to say that IBM does not have a valid response. They know nobody's going to shot them down for it, as nobody has access to the response to check their claims.
For all you know, if the EC can't, for whatever reason, put forth their own version of the facts, the whole timeline MS is quoting might be fabulation - remember, the trustee they nominated themselves said they did not conform to EC's requests - and now the trustee is no longer performing satisfactorily and should be replaced.
Understanding a system doesn't put you on par with the designer. This is my point, and you don't refute it.
... well, flashback circa 2001 and all the Windows exploits written from vbs templates at the time.
Huh? understanding a system designed to be secure well enough to circumvent its security actually requires a better understanding than the designer's. You have not only to know the system, but to go further than the designer went in order to find a way in overlooked by an active attempt to eliminate vulnerabilities.
Breaking into a system not designed to be secure, on the other hand
Well, that's not saying much - Dothan reports itself as supporting PAE whenin fact that support is broken and Linux kernels that depend on it won't boot on Dothan machines.
Heh, I'm curious whose shitty boards are you talking about. Are there any CoreDuo machines shipping now (or soon) that do have VT enabled?
Yet the Bible says nothing about humans doing the judgement in God's place. In fact, probably the most common quote against such judgement would be "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." (John 8:7 and the amazing power of Google)
Bah, taking things from the Bible out of context was the preferred argument of Christian fanatics throughout history. There are always some of those, but thankfully fewer nowadays. There is no reason why Qur'an thumping fanatics would be better or worse than Bible thumping ones. They just happen to live in different plces and at different times.
Ok, why again is this a bad thing?
;-)
Because we will probably also lose Amsterdam and legal soft drugs? OTOH, a few thousand years of undersea cleaning might be enough for Downtown Manhattan, so you're right, not all is bad
So the rich people started to hire these nice German fellows to fight for them instead. It didn't really work out.
...
Heh, nowadays you'd call that outsourcing. Oh wait
You know, you should try to at least be consistent. Did the monks preserve it or did they not? OTOH the Greeks produced something decomposible (to use your approach) - whereas the Dark Ages merely hosted the decomposition process of said decomposible things. Not all of them, mind you, some were not in their posession to let rot, others were destroyed earlier (Alexandria comes to mind). But one has to wonder how come decomposition happened so selectively - the Eastern and Southern sides of the Mediterrannean Sea were so much more rot-proof than the Northern one. Funny how it took an Arab (Averroes) to translate the writings of a Greek (Aristotle) into Latin for the Western Europe to rediscover Logic.
... well ... they or some others were often wrong. Do tell me, in your version of History, did the Monks spark off the Rennaissance as well? after all, they 'had' all the books that were suddenly 'rediscovered' at the time. Oh, I forgot, 'Rennaissance' is probably a misnomer too - since Europe already 'had' all the Antiquity's culture, what was there to be reborn?
As to Petrarca, you should probably try to read about him before bashing. Unless you're of the opinion that everyone was wrong except modern students of History asserting a specific claim (including modern students of History asserting an opposing claim) on the grounds that
Some of these manuscripts were translated into arab, which Averroes later translated into latin. This is probably were the faulty notion, that the arabs preserved all of the greek texts, came from.
Or perhaps from the fact that Arabs actually did something with them. Where Europeans had all but forgotten Aristotle, Arabs actually studied it, not merely copied over Greek gibberish. Even more - while upon reintroduction in the West Aristotle became something of a dogma, the Arabs had no restraint debating it and pointing out mistakes. I would say this qualifies as preservation in both letter and spirit. And what about Medicine? The heritage of Hippocrates and Galenus came back to Europe mainly through Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and in general through Arab physicians. I won't even touch Mathematics or Astronomy.
A manuscript that is only recopied to gather dust is for all intents and purposes a dead manuscript. The content is nore important than the form and the Arabs kept the content alive and moving forward for so much of what later become European science. And I for one am grateful for it (Christian as I am)
Apparently the currently shipping CoreDuo machines do not have virtualisation enabled. See here.
It's not called the "dark ages" because everyone was stupid, it's been called the "dark ages" for so long because we just haven't known a lot about the period.
Well, Petrarca called it Dark Ages in the XIV-th century and he certainly knew more about it than you seem to, as he actively tried to recover as many writings from Antiquity as he could. And the "Monks saved our culture" argument was dissected by a previous poster already. The scientific part, especially, went down the drain in Europe - the Arabs preserved and developed it in the first Millenium - and eventually passed it back through Spain (to monks, as well - and the parts monks cared for). Why, at the time Khayyam was solving cubic equations (XI-th century) Europe had little idea what Geometry meant because Euclid didn't parse as Latina Vulgata. "It's all Greek to me," eh? Mathematics, Physics, Medicine, Architecture - by all accounts Europe was the land of barbarians at the time and civilisation rested with the Moors. Even Literature, insofar as it pertained to non-religious writings. Why do you think so much Greek theater and poetry is lost nowadays? An please, a documented opinion for a change.
I'm not even going to compare the level of education in Ancient Greece to the Europe of the second half of the first Millenium, it's a complete joke. 'Look, Ma, I no longer know how to write so I've rediscovered this wonderful oral tradition to pass on poetry! later I'll invent minstrels, everyone will love it!' So yes, there was a reason for calling the Dark Ages dark and it's not the one you think it was.
Hmm ... what happens if the bootloader gets corrupted? (hdd failure, for instance) There should be something like a stand-alone bootable medium that one can use to reset/deactivate the TPM. Otherwise you compound multiple points of failure into just this one.
Also, a roman once said the same thing or a greek. That the young people of today are a generation that look down on the world and are showing no moral principels or showing problems with language and spelling and all the hoo haa he could drag up. And this was BC.
Yeah, and what happened after that? look up Europe's history starting about the time when the Western Roman Empire collapsed. Feel free to go all the way up to the Middle Ages if you like.
Methinks you need to work up a better argument, sonny.
Your time never dilates. You would be seeing it go faster than light ... well, actually you wouldn't because it can't accelerate past c.
;-)
That said, 1.5M rpm for 1m diameter gives a tangential velocity of ~4,712 km/min = 282,74 km/s which is about 94.3% of c; that's a mass enhancement factor of about 3 for the fastest-moving part. Still, the total required energy even according to plain classical mechanics is of the order of 10^20 Joules. Good luck to whoever is trying for the working prototype
Worse yet, he's saying electrons in a molecule have randomly-aligned spins that he can control. Someone failed baby Quantum Mechanics here and made the /. front page for it.
(to nitpick on your post - you can have an electron pair with both Sz components equal - in a triplet state; you get the right commutation rules from an antisymmetric spatial part; anyway, in principle there exist states where all electrons in an atom would have the same Sz number, but good luck on even creating one of them, nevermind stability; as you said, you need different quantum numbers and that eventually means orbital ones - which would yield highly excited states)
MDIs might be better for specialists who can open a single application and work in it most of the day.
:)
Ah, I *knew* someone would bring up Emacs sooner or later
People can recognize their own mistakes. So could the Church.
:)
yeah, but if people need timescales similar to the Church's for vindicting Galileo, you'll need a serious boost to the average lifespan to get some mistakes recognized
Well, I can only speak for myself here, so "you" will actually be "just me" :-) I guess the first thing to do would be checking the happiness-o-meter; I gather the reading on that is positive so far. Then there's the info gathering part: if it is possible to have a constructive attitude about patents from within (read: ideally avoid them; but in practice even enough open-mindedness so that discussions might change this patenting policy for the better[*]) then by all means staying looks like a good option. If that's a pipe dream ... well, it depends, of course. If quitting is an option, then I would vote for that. Otherwise you're either going to get indifferent to all the software patenting issue (which is fine if you can live with the idea; myself, I'd rather not end up like that) or you're going to become conflicted about your work - not a good position either. (There migh be an option of getting 'mostly harmless' patents if such a thing exists - that would probably imply your company only uses patents defensively, but unless it's a big enough player you never know what patent shark might end up buying your patents and start suing people around.) On the quitting side I would think the main advantage would be if you make the decision early so you can make job-hunting easier - especially since you said you don't have to deal with patents *yet*.
[*] for starters, the idea of quantifying performance by quantity of patents says nothing about quality of work - or indeed validity of the patents altogether, given how USPTO works these days. Time spent filing patents for bogus 'inventions' could be better spent elsewhere. Also, some types of work are less likely to have enough non-obvious ideas than others, so at least a non-uniform treatment should be in order.
Well, to sum up a confusing rant, given that the system is broken, the options that I could live with would be either to try and change something from the inside, or refuse to play. From a quality point of view I think the first option is better - if you just leave, there will probably be someone else to file the type of patents that you refused to (the code-monkey effect); but if you manage to change something about it then you might help make a small difference in the big picture. When protesting from outside it's hard not to get branded as a pink commie hippy that knows nothing about the needs of modern software development; that's one reason why fighting software patents is so difficult. On the other hand, changes proposed from within the industry tend to be taken a lot more seriously. So adding your own snowflake to that avalanche should be more efficient, if possible.
I think that you missed the point of the post, he's not so much whining, but looking for advice.
/. posts for people who actually faced your situation, dude!) but guess what, that's not too helpful. The GP is quite correct, there's no magic answer to this that would fit everyone. Well, unless 'open your eyes, look at your problem and think about what you see' would qualify.
I have to agree with the GP in spirit (although the form he put it in could have been less harsh). This is hardly a request for advice, as there is not enough info about PatentThis' situation for anyone to give one. At most, he wants to hear about similar cases (yeah, good luck sorting through
Your point is good, although depending on the company attitude he might not want to let people know about his dislike for patents before making certain that there will not be unintended negative effects. From the very little he mentions ('I work at a company where they are the norm') it might very well be that a cautious approach is in order.
the biggest thing I see here is to stay away from the AMD powered MSI Megabook S270.
That manages to last only 1hour 26 minutes without anything connected.
The intel variants clocked roughly 3 to 4 hours.
Well, look at it this way:
AMD Sempron: Battery 27.2 Wh Running time 1:26
Intel Yonah: Battery 49.8 Wh Running time 4:24
Intel Dothan: Battery 50.2 Wh Running time 3:08
So, aside from the fact that Semprons are not optimized for low power (CPU and chipset) the AMD laptop is in the same ballpark as the corresponding generation of Intel.
why would you be shuddering about students warping AT&T into BSD?
...) and you'll realize that old code was designed with significantly different priorities from today's code.
The correct answer to that is related to the "when?" question. In the 'old days' security-minded programming was the exception, not the rule - and students were less likely to be aware of it. Heck, textbooks would teach use of scanf(), gets() and so on. Besides, factor in limited hardware resources (memory, cpu speed,
As the article goes on to state, when an item is censored Google will tell you it has censored the searched item to comply with local laws. This sort of censorship where you know something is being kept from you is much less scary than the type where you simply don't know what is being kept from you.
And how long until the Chinese government will require Google to remove the 'censored to comply with local laws' notification? it's not like that would be a difficult step to take once they see that Google would prefer to play by their rules rather than leave.
Google just placed itself in the perfect position between the Chinese carrot and stick. Let's see how it plays out (unless that info will get censored too) At least, they have MS and Y! to keep them company.
Yer better off not meetin'em Ukrainian pirates. It's the blackest of all seas they sail on, arrr ...