...a maximum of 4 years in prison and $6,400 fine for every copy distributed without copyright owner's permission.
Cop: Let's make a deal, you plead guilty of first degree murder and you get free on parole after 20 years... or else we charge you for these 100 illegally distributed movies and you get 400 years.
What happens to the legal status of GPL'ed projects when some company manages to retroactively claim a patent on some double click feature? At that point, does it not become illegal to distribute the software under the terms of the GPL? Won't that invalidate the whole license for that software package?
No license can do anything about that. The only thing the GPL does is that it at least prevents the patent owner from indirectly owning the software (they wouldn't be allowed to distribute unless they give everyone rights on the patent).
Why is it so hard to admit there's a problem (isn't it the first step to fixing it?)? Even with the money part out of that, the US is still way down the list. It's not the immigrants either. In Canada (ranked 3rd, though I think there's a lot of room for improvement), you have almost the same number of immigrants (the ones from Haiti tend to go to Quebec which is usually better than the canadian average) and it doesn't matter.
So I think the first thing would be for the US to admit that something *may* be wrong. Then go fix it instead of saying the study is wrong.
I wonder if would be more beneficial to rank the US states individually along side of countries that organize their education at the national level.
Could be done in theory, but you'd have to do that for other countries as well and it would be a mess. For example, in Canada, education is also run at the province level.
I'd be curious to see what this would look like if you excluded immigrants - I suspect the US would place a lot higher relative to highly homogenous societies like the ones at the top.
I actually wouldn't be surprised if the immigrants actually had a higher average.
Except that: 1) How do they know the IPs of honeypots? Unlike harvesters, honeypots are passive. 2) All it would mean is that as long as you're hosting a honeypot too, the rest of your site is safe.
Patents are to promote innovation and reward inventors NOT allow lazy rich companies to 'rent-seek' from others.
Unlike what many people think, this is not the original idea behind patents. The original idea was to provide an incentive for inventors to disclose how their inventions work (instead of keeping that secret). In return, the inventor is allowed a time-limited monopoly.
Because if there were, I think we would know by now and people would stop worriying about the fact that e.g. the concrete is cracking at the place where they dumped the stuff.
Hell, look at the pyramids, they seem to have held up allright and I'd like to think we've managed to improve our construction techniques over thousands of years.
Hey, you solved the problem all by yourself. I think you should let the world know that you finally have the solution.
Last time I saw a post like this is was claiming that the risk of running a plant was just too high. Nevermind the person couldn't actually quantify the risk or compare it to anything else.
Please argue with what I said and not what you heard other people saying. I'm not too worried about operating a power plant, just about the waste.
I have followed the link. Can you just point out one that is not experimental? When I see dozens of them that have been operating for a long time with no problems, I'll be convinced (really).
Looks promising, but it doesn't seems to be ready for global use. When a large number of breeder reactors will have been in service for several years with no problem, then I think it should be considered. I have nothing against nuclear energy in itself, only as far as it's being played with without a clear (proven) long-term plan.
Storing small amount of nuclear waste is still a lot easier than storing huge amounts of carbon dioxide.
But CO2 leaks are not quite as bad for the environments.
You just need to find solid rock and take nessissary precautions for ground water....except that nobody has been able to do that and make sure everything can stay in such a place for centuries. Oh, and you need many storage places like that unless you want to move that stuff over large distances (which is another risk).
So you'd rather stick with fossil fuels where we spew the crap into the atmosphere?
Did I ever say that? I'm just concerned that right now, this stuff keeps piling up and nobody has any clue about what to do with it in the long term. I do believe it is worth continuing research in nuclear power (not ban it), but right now, it's not in a state where it can solve all energy problems. So far, the only really safe (but only partial) solution is to reduce energy consumption. I am aware that it is not very popular, especially in the US.
I suppose you also solved the rocket reliability issue. Chernobyl was already bad enough, I can't imagine a rocket full of wastes blowing up at several kilometers altitute.
Because we're playing with stuff we don't understand and nobody has any idea of all the long-term effects. In this case, the best thing to do is to be really careful.
I'm not that much worried about power plant accidents. What worries me is that nobody has yet found anything to do with the wastes. Oh and there's no really sure way of stocking tons of wastes for centuries either.
Over time, if the attitude and behaviour of the US increases in hostility, the US will find itself more and more isolated and possible facing sanctions or trade embargoes.
No, it's going to be much simpler. The US will just declare a general trade embargoe on the rest of the world. As a non American, I'm not feeling that bad about Bush anymore since he's still been destroying his own country faster than any other country in the world.
That's still besides the point. If (e.g.) Bin Laden says everyone should pray, does it mean that suddenly American people should stop praying? It's not because someone is bad that everything he says is wrong.
During every single instruction, an (unexpected?) exception might take place, and every single instruction might be changed from what the author has intended (and tested) when somebody changed the definitions of what those methods were inherited from.
Exceptions are thrown explicitly, not by "every single instruction". So as long as you're not calling throw yourself or calling a function that is allowed to throw, there can be no exceptions.
Yes, I've been experiencing that too while optimizing Speex. The main reason I think is that the gcc folks have been working on optimizing x87 code for more than 10 years, while SSE is pretty recent. Actually, until around 3.3, -mfpmath=sse would simply generate bad code on Speex. Anyway, I guess it just means that more work should be put on improving scalar SSE code, not just dumping the idea.
Couple facts about SSE: 1) You can use it in scalar mode, in which case it's almost like x87, only a bit faster because: a) It doesn't use a braindead register model (stack) b) On P4, you can do a mul and an add in parallel with SSE, but not with x87 2) You can use SSE intrinsics. It's not as easy as "normal" programming, but easier than assembly and almost the same speed. 3) Unaligned access is possible. It's slower than aligned access, but overall better than non-vectorized code. 4) Trig is so slow that SSE/x87 doesn't matter (unless you write approximations, in which case SSE will also be faster).
Slashdot Mirror
...a maximum of 4 years in prison and $6,400 fine for every copy distributed without copyright owner's permission.
Cop: Let's make a deal, you plead guilty of first degree murder and you get free on parole after 20 years... or else we charge you for these 100 illegally distributed movies and you get 400 years.
...I WILL shoot first, and ask questions later, and I will be completely within my rights to do so.
Perhaps the US laws are different, but in my country, shooting someone that is not directly threatening your life is illegal.
What happens to the legal status of GPL'ed projects when some company manages to retroactively claim a patent on some double click feature? At that point, does it not become illegal to distribute the software under the terms of the GPL? Won't that invalidate the whole license for that software package?
No license can do anything about that. The only thing the GPL does is that it at least prevents the patent owner from indirectly owning the software (they wouldn't be allowed to distribute unless they give everyone rights on the patent).
...a visionary way ahead of his time...
;-)
Well, if he wasn't "ahead of his time", I think you could call him a historian
Why is it so hard to admit there's a problem (isn't it the first step to fixing it?)? Even with the money part out of that, the US is still way down the list. It's not the immigrants either. In Canada (ranked 3rd, though I think there's a lot of room for improvement), you have almost the same number of immigrants (the ones from Haiti tend to go to Quebec which is usually better than the canadian average) and it doesn't matter.
So I think the first thing would be for the US to admit that something *may* be wrong. Then go fix it instead of saying the study is wrong.
I wonder if would be more beneficial to rank the US states individually along side of countries that organize their education at the national level.
Could be done in theory, but you'd have to do that for other countries as well and it would be a mess. For example, in Canada, education is also run at the province level.
I'd be curious to see what this would look like if you excluded immigrants - I suspect the US would place a lot higher relative to highly homogenous societies like the ones at the top.
I actually wouldn't be surprised if the immigrants actually had a higher average.
ifconfig ethN hw ether 01:23:45:67:89:AB
Except that:
1) How do they know the IPs of honeypots? Unlike harvesters, honeypots are passive.
2) All it would mean is that as long as you're hosting a honeypot too, the rest of your site is safe.
Nothing about disclosure.
It's implied. Patents become public as soon as they are granted.
Patents are to promote innovation and reward inventors NOT allow lazy rich companies to 'rent-seek' from others.
Unlike what many people think, this is not the original idea behind patents. The original idea was to provide an incentive for inventors to disclose how their inventions work (instead of keeping that secret). In return, the inventor is allowed a time-limited monopoly.
Why isn't there?
Because if there were, I think we would know by now and people would stop worriying about the fact that e.g. the concrete is cracking at the place where they dumped the stuff.
Hell, look at the pyramids, they seem to have held up allright and I'd like to think we've managed to improve our construction techniques over thousands of years.
Hey, you solved the problem all by yourself. I think you should let the world know that you finally have the solution.
Last time I saw a post like this is was claiming that the risk of running a plant was just too high. Nevermind the person couldn't actually quantify the risk or compare it to anything else.
Please argue with what I said and not what you heard other people saying. I'm not too worried about operating a power plant, just about the waste.
I have followed the link. Can you just point out one that is not experimental? When I see dozens of them that have been operating for a long time with no problems, I'll be convinced (really).
Looks promising, but it doesn't seems to be ready for global use. When a large number of breeder reactors will have been in service for several years with no problem, then I think it should be considered. I have nothing against nuclear energy in itself, only as far as it's being played with without a clear (proven) long-term plan.
Storing small amount of nuclear waste is still a lot easier than storing huge amounts of carbon dioxide.
...except that nobody has been able to do that and make sure everything can stay in such a place for centuries. Oh, and you need many storage places like that unless you want to move that stuff over large distances (which is another risk).
But CO2 leaks are not quite as bad for the environments.
You just need to find solid rock and take nessissary precautions for ground water.
So you'd rather stick with fossil fuels where we spew the crap into the atmosphere?
Did I ever say that? I'm just concerned that right now, this stuff keeps piling up and nobody has any clue about what to do with it in the long term. I do believe it is worth continuing research in nuclear power (not ban it), but right now, it's not in a state where it can solve all energy problems. So far, the only really safe (but only partial) solution is to reduce energy consumption. I am aware that it is not very popular, especially in the US.
I suppose you also solved the rocket reliability issue. Chernobyl was already bad enough, I can't imagine a rocket full of wastes blowing up at several kilometers altitute.
Because we're playing with stuff we don't understand and nobody has any idea of all the long-term effects. In this case, the best thing to do is to be really careful.
I'm not that much worried about power plant accidents. What worries me is that nobody has yet found anything to do with the wastes. Oh and there's no really sure way of stocking tons of wastes for centuries either.
Yes I think that is enough to discredit anything and everything he has to say when it comes to "what he thinks"
It may discredit anything he says. It doesn't automatically makes it wrong, which is is what the parent of my previous post was refering to.
Over time, if the attitude and behaviour of the US increases in hostility, the US will find itself more and more isolated and possible facing sanctions or trade embargoes.
No, it's going to be much simpler. The US will just declare a general trade embargoe on the rest of the world. As a non American, I'm not feeling that bad about Bush anymore since he's still been destroying his own country faster than any other country in the world.
That's still besides the point. If (e.g.) Bin Laden says everyone should pray, does it mean that suddenly American people should stop praying? It's not because someone is bad that everything he says is wrong.
During every single instruction, an (unexpected?) exception might take place, and every single instruction might be changed from what the author has intended (and tested) when somebody changed the definitions of what those methods were inherited from.
Exceptions are thrown explicitly, not by "every single instruction". So as long as you're not calling throw yourself or calling a function that is allowed to throw, there can be no exceptions.
Yes, I've been experiencing that too while optimizing Speex. The main reason I think is that the gcc folks have been working on optimizing x87 code for more than 10 years, while SSE is pretty recent. Actually, until around 3.3, -mfpmath=sse would simply generate bad code on Speex. Anyway, I guess it just means that more work should be put on improving scalar SSE code, not just dumping the idea.
Couple facts about SSE:
1) You can use it in scalar mode, in which case it's almost like x87, only a bit faster because:
a) It doesn't use a braindead register model (stack)
b) On P4, you can do a mul and an add in parallel with SSE, but not with x87
2) You can use SSE intrinsics. It's not as easy as "normal" programming, but easier than assembly and almost the same speed.
3) Unaligned access is possible. It's slower than aligned access, but overall better than non-vectorized code.
4) Trig is so slow that SSE/x87 doesn't matter (unless you write approximations, in which case SSE will also be faster).