Assuming the increase of intelligence is always accompanied by the decrease of entropy, the amount of Intelligence in the Universe must not be increasing due to the second law of Thermodynamics.
Just a 1 cent thought. Someone please tell me I'm wrong, and why.
As for the "make the API public" point, I have a small modification for it - it is:
MS can still keep some API undocumented - however, their hands must be bound not to make use of those API.
So, you cannot use something you did not document.
One other point:
What will prevent the company to take away those undocumented API and integrating with the application themselves?
MS Office 2005 will be touted as "using only published API" but its own code may be entering the kernel mode to perform the undocumented OS stuffs previously existed as "undocumented OS API"
Now they are just a part of the application.
Thus in the end we'll have buggier, more bloated applications from MS that effectively still uses those undocumented OS stuffs that others don't know.
So an additional requirement is that their application must not enter the kernel mode...
Point 1: aggreeing wholeheartedly - however, there's a flaw in your analogy - nowadays, you can consider radio a crucial part of the car itself, without which you won't know about accidents, road conditions, weather, etc. - thus a radio is legitimate to be a part of the car itself. But IE? Ha.
Point 2: Ok, so I'm allowed to use my browser. You must be one of those who have more than 40 Gb of hard disk. For me, it matters if something I don't use clobber up MY space. It is totally ridiculous that I CANNOT REMOVE IT.
That said, if they provide:
1. A way to uninstall
2. Freedom for hardware vendors to change default install setting,
Then I wouldn't have any problem with the bundling.
With large organizations that require some security certifications on their book (read: governments) this kind of certifications is a crucial plus on our side.
Eventually, more people will use Linux because of the certification. And it is the ultimate source of improvement I can think of.
OK, so easy access to guns is not the CAUSE of the problem...
But now those stupid people are treating the "symtoms" anyway, we must adapt and choose between treating the stupid symtoms (itches) and the major symtoms (pain).
To me it seems gun control problem is a good-enough symtom to start working at.
You might say:
Q: it still won't prevent people from killing. A: sure, but compare the murder rate between us and some other country where access to gun is more restricted.
Q: so we have to ban knives, ropes, water,....as well! A: you have to judge for yourself what the PURPOSE OF EXISTENCE of these tools are. Are ropes invented so that people can hurt other people with it? How about guns - are they invented to do anything than harm?
Been to its web site. Seems to be a VERY clean-looking scripting language (looks somewhat like structured BASIC to me, just more powerful).
Honestly, I think Visual Basic is a good scripting language if you look at the language constructs alone. (flame shield!!) No open braces, forced indentation, etc. scope is implicitly defined.
It's how I am looking at LUA now. Someone who's done anything with it please post and let us know your experience with it...
Brief definition of Real-Time: "response time some predefined threshold"
Does the choice between IA or AMD or PowerPC or Alpha or anything that is fast enough matter now?
Thanks to Moore's Law, I don't think so - merely two year ago, the high-end was 300 Mhz. Now we have 1Ghz.
As long as the real time requirements of most applications do not follow Moore's Law as well, chances are you can pick your favorite processor.
The OS seems to matter tho - different scheduling algorithms, and even quantum length, largely determine the "worst case response time". That's what makes QNX a realtime OS, Windows CE not, despite what some people may want you to believe.
So far, the requirements of the OS seems to be...
1. do not use RAM as cache 2. programs must all fit in physical memory 3. a right scheduler with quantum suitable for real-time
So I'd say as long as you have a real-time-oriented OS, it does not really matter what processor you use.
It is our choice to install another browser - however, a machine with two browsers installed, especially when each of them requires at least 20Mb of hard disk space, is not what the majority of people consider "lean" - and any John Doe can tell you "I already have one browser, why do I have to install another?"
The point is, MS does not give us the ability of not including IE in the installation or the ability to uninstall IE like any other app.
And, having one browser already installed prevented some lazy people from installing the browser of their choice - to forgo their choices easier - if there is a browser that (even just barely) works, I can sacrifice a bit for my choice because installing another one takes so much trouble.
For people who haven't used a browser (thus have no "favorite"), if you have to choose between an installed browser and a not-installed browser, which would you choose?
MS prevented vendors from even MENTIONING the other browser, do these people even know they actually have a choice? This is what I call "brainwashing".
I'd be fine if MS lets people uninstall their stuff and stop preventing vendors to NOT MENTION their competitors, or let vendors install the competing product instead of (NOT ON TOP OF) theirs.
Yes! It was exactly what I did...oh well...and filling the map with chests was great - They act like lightbulbs;)
AFAIK LB cannot be killed in U4 but it is possible in U5 / U6 when he's asleep.
But it is not nearly as fun as U3 where you can kill all people in a city, get a LOT of money from there, especially by fighting guards, then get away from the city then back - everything's back to normal. Fun eh?
I've played it two times, one on a real Apple with real mockingboard (damn near completion before the disks went dead), and one on ApplePC emulator 4 years later...
I could still tell the difference between the real mockingboard and the emulated one...the real one sounded so much better...anyway. It is sad to see him go...
Anyone who have actually USED cphack before Mattel noticed, and have produced a list of blocked sites?
Instead of publishing cphack itself, we can publish the OUTPUT of cphack, which would achieve the same effect (at least in the short run) and Mattel can do nothing about it (output is NOT a derivative work).
We can also bruteforce the web with CyberPatrol and make up a list of blocked sites. It would be a perfectly legal way to make the list available, sidestepping any Mattel censoring attempts.
Then let's mirror the list instead - it is more direct anyway!
Made up of C, H, O atoms? Burns O2 and output CO2 as fuel?
I somehow feel that these PHYSICAL aspects are not what defines our consciousness. It is something else - that is, consciousness without a "biological" body is entirely possible at least in MY theory;)
Maybe conscious rocks just have become extinct some billion years ago because of "survival of the fittest". Maybe they're still around (but you have no mean to communicate with it - but it brings another question - can consciousness exist without any physical communication channel?)
Based on these assumptions, the existance of "ghosts" and "soul" is entirely probable. Just inject some "souls" into robots and they'll become alive - they'll make use of the sight, voice, articulation, computational ability WE BUILD into them.
I better stop here as I realized I'm wandering into sci-fi...well, a lot of sci-fi's 40 years ago had come true today...
Quantum computers, sort of?. Is there any articles on this? One interesting thing...
Some people have tried to argue that the human brain is strictly more powerful than Turing machines by using Godel's incompleteness theorem and derivatives (e.g. Roger Penrose). i.e. AI will not accomplish what we can do, if we do it on computers in its present form.
Is there any light on this issue with quantum computers? Is it "strictly more powerful" than Turing machine, or is it just a faster and smaller (no matter how faster and smaller) version of what we already have now?
The sure way to make good use of Napster's search engine on various kinds of files is to wrap the file with "Id3" information (i.e. song name, artist, etc. on an mp3 file)
Would it mean anyone who want to temper with id3 tags will be able to falsify files and fool Wrapster pretty easily.
It would create another bunch of script-kiddie-wannabes...I have always been wondering...things have become easier and easier to hack and screw up over time (in this case, the only "h4x0R t00l" you need to modify id3 tags is WinAmp). THIS worries me.
I have no complaint from hacks by "professionals" - first I'm not their target and second good hacks are often admirable technical feats.
But by your 3l33t wanna-be neighbor?? "Hey, I've found the door to hackordom using WinAmp!!" Yikes.
Slashdot Mirror
Assuming the increase of intelligence is always accompanied by the decrease of entropy, the amount of Intelligence in the Universe must not be increasing due to the second law of Thermodynamics.
Just a 1 cent thought. Someone please tell me I'm wrong, and why.
As for the "make the API public" point, I have a small modification for it - it is:
MS can still keep some API undocumented - however, their hands must be bound not to make use of those API.
So, you cannot use something you did not document.
One other point:
What will prevent the company to take away those undocumented API and integrating with the application themselves?
MS Office 2005 will be touted as "using only published API" but its own code may be entering the kernel mode to perform the undocumented OS stuffs previously existed as "undocumented OS API"
Now they are just a part of the application.
Thus in the end we'll have buggier, more bloated applications from MS that effectively still uses those undocumented OS stuffs that others don't know.
So an additional requirement is that their application must not enter the kernel mode...
Point 1: aggreeing wholeheartedly - however, there's a flaw in your analogy - nowadays, you can consider radio a crucial part of the car itself, without which you won't know about accidents, road conditions, weather, etc. - thus a radio is legitimate to be a part of the car itself. But IE? Ha.
Point 2: Ok, so I'm allowed to use my browser. You must be one of those who have more than 40 Gb of hard disk. For me, it matters if something I don't use clobber up MY space. It is totally ridiculous that I CANNOT REMOVE IT.
That said, if they provide:
1. A way to uninstall
2. Freedom for hardware vendors to change default install setting,
Then I wouldn't have any problem with the bundling.
With large organizations that require some security certifications on their book (read: governments) this kind of certifications is a crucial plus on our side.
Eventually, more people will use Linux because of the certification. And it is the ultimate source of improvement I can think of.
OK, so easy access to guns is not the CAUSE of the problem...
But now those stupid people are treating the "symtoms" anyway, we must adapt and choose between treating the stupid symtoms (itches) and the major symtoms (pain).
To me it seems gun control problem is a good-enough symtom to start working at.
You might say:
Q: it still won't prevent people from killing.
A: sure, but compare the murder rate between us and some other country where access to gun is more restricted.
Q: so we have to ban knives, ropes, water,....as well!
A: you have to judge for yourself what the PURPOSE OF EXISTENCE of these tools are. Are ropes invented so that people can hurt other people with it? How about guns - are they invented to do anything than harm?
Thank you.
Take away all the tags ane leave the link. Can MPAA accuse them of linking anymore?
Listing the sites is obviously speech.
I am a lawyer
Been to its web site. Seems to be a VERY clean-looking scripting language (looks somewhat like structured BASIC to me, just more powerful).
Honestly, I think Visual Basic is a good scripting language if you look at the language constructs alone. (flame shield!!) No open braces, forced indentation, etc. scope is implicitly defined.
It's how I am looking at LUA now. Someone who's done anything with it please post and let us know your experience with it...
Thanks
>Not counting things like VMWare, Plex86 and
>others, running an OS straight ontop of an other
>is impossible.
Running an OS straight ontop of another OS has been nothing new since the day Emacs was invented =)
Brief definition of Real-Time:
"response time some predefined threshold"
Does the choice between IA or AMD or PowerPC or Alpha or anything that is fast enough matter now?
Thanks to Moore's Law, I don't think so - merely two year ago, the high-end was 300 Mhz. Now we have 1Ghz.
As long as the real time requirements of most applications do not follow Moore's Law as well, chances are you can pick your favorite processor.
The OS seems to matter tho - different scheduling algorithms, and even quantum length, largely determine the "worst case response time". That's what makes QNX a realtime OS, Windows CE not, despite what some people may want you to believe.
So far, the requirements of the OS seems to be...
1. do not use RAM as cache
2. programs must all fit in physical memory
3. a right scheduler with quantum suitable for real-time
So I'd say as long as you have a real-time-oriented OS, it does not really matter what processor you use.
It is our choice to install another browser - however, a machine with two browsers installed, especially when each of them requires at least 20Mb of hard disk space, is not what the majority of people consider "lean" - and any John Doe can tell you "I already have one browser, why do I have to install another?"
The point is, MS does not give us the ability of not including IE in the installation or the ability to uninstall IE like any other app.
And, having one browser already installed prevented some lazy people from installing the browser of their choice - to forgo their choices easier - if there is a browser that (even just barely) works, I can sacrifice a bit for my choice because installing another one takes so much trouble.
For people who haven't used a browser (thus have no "favorite"), if you have to choose between an installed browser and a not-installed browser, which would you choose?
MS prevented vendors from even MENTIONING the other browser, do these people even know they actually have a choice? This is what I call "brainwashing".
I'd be fine if MS lets people uninstall their stuff and stop preventing vendors to NOT MENTION their competitors, or let vendors install the competing product instead of (NOT ON TOP OF) theirs.
Actually no, we got the lands filled with chests by *FIGHTING MONSTERS*.
Yes! It was exactly what I did...oh well...and filling the map with chests was great - They act like lightbulbs ;)
AFAIK LB cannot be killed in U4 but it is possible in U5 / U6 when he's asleep.
But it is not nearly as fun as U3 where you can kill all people in a city, get a LOT of money from there, especially by fighting guards, then get away from the city then back - everything's back to normal. Fun eh?
I've played it two times, one on a real Apple with real mockingboard (damn near completion before the disks went dead), and one on ApplePC emulator 4 years later...
I could still tell the difference between the real mockingboard and the emulated one...the real one sounded so much better...anyway. It is sad to see him go...
Oops, HTML error...here is the link:
Lord British Slams X-Box
Is it a coincidence? Is EA in bed with M$ ?
Is a bug. When the thing is out, I'll try my best to workaround the bug or better yet debug it, even without the source. Enuf said.
I think disassembling for interoperability with discs from another region is explicitly allowed by laws.
Great. Now where's my pinball machine with a newest tilt sensor powered by Palm IIIc?
Anyone who have actually USED cphack before Mattel noticed, and have produced a list of blocked sites?
Instead of publishing cphack itself, we can publish the OUTPUT of cphack, which would achieve the same effect (at least in the short run) and Mattel can do nothing about it (output is NOT a derivative work).
We can also bruteforce the web with CyberPatrol and make up a list of blocked sites. It would be a perfectly legal way to make the list available, sidestepping any Mattel censoring attempts.
Then let's mirror the list instead - it is more direct anyway!
Made up of C, H, O atoms? Burns O2 and output CO2 as fuel?
;)
I somehow feel that these PHYSICAL aspects are not what defines our consciousness. It is something else - that is, consciousness without a "biological" body is entirely possible at least in MY theory
Maybe conscious rocks just have become extinct some billion years ago because of "survival of the fittest". Maybe they're still around (but you have no mean to communicate with it - but it brings another question - can consciousness exist without any physical communication channel?)
Based on these assumptions, the existance of "ghosts" and "soul" is entirely probable. Just inject some "souls" into robots and they'll become alive - they'll make use of the sight, voice, articulation, computational ability WE BUILD into them.
I better stop here as I realized I'm wandering into sci-fi...well, a lot of sci-fi's 40 years ago had come true today...
I've said it last time but nobody seems to have noticed. So I'll say it again.
Can the web pulls something like the Usenet Death Penalty on MicroSystems and Mattel?
Or companies that threatens the existence of free speech with their lawyers?
Quantum computers, sort of?. Is there any articles on this? One interesting thing...
Some people have tried to argue that the human brain is strictly more powerful than Turing machines by using Godel's incompleteness theorem and derivatives (e.g. Roger Penrose). i.e. AI will not accomplish what we can do, if we do it on computers in its present form.
Is there any light on this issue with quantum computers? Is it "strictly more powerful" than Turing machine, or is it just a faster and smaller (no matter how faster and smaller) version of what we already have now?
The sure way to make good use of Napster's search engine on various kinds of files is to wrap the file with "Id3" information (i.e. song name, artist, etc. on an mp3 file)
Would it mean anyone who want to temper with id3 tags will be able to falsify files and fool Wrapster pretty easily.
It would create another bunch of script-kiddie-wannabes...I have always been wondering...things have become easier and easier to hack and screw up over time (in this case, the only "h4x0R t00l" you need to modify id3 tags is WinAmp). THIS worries me.
I have no complaint from hacks by "professionals" - first I'm not their target and second good hacks are often admirable technical feats.
But by your 3l33t wanna-be neighbor??
"Hey, I've found the door to hackordom using WinAmp!!" Yikes.
"used to"? So what are you doing now, is it any more effective than /dev/null?
Doesn't work all the time - there's something called "in-memory" cookie that cannot be set permissions.
Only if we can turn off memory-based cookies...