One example is incorrect tense in multiple places. The summary started in the past tense "ordered to...", and switched to the non-past tense "throws a tantrum" and again used the non past tense "adds".
That's not necessarily wrong. The "ordered to" described a recent event in the past that led to the current event, while the present tense is used for the current news event, which matches the headline. It is a little bit odd, but I wouldn't call it incorrect.
Also, since you say, "One example", what are the others?
Apple are the new evil Microsoft when they swing their dicks around on patents, but it's just fine and dandy when it's Google or Samsung doing the same damn thing.
I'm not aware of any case where Google has used their patents offensively. Can you name one?
No, he is talking about the worst case for finding a solution that might or might not be exact.
The specific example he gave, "(optimal circuit design and layout) then the core algorithms are O(2^2^n)", was for exact solutions. In the real world, this problem is tackled with inexact solutions using heuristics.
O() notation is about algorithms, and the solution can be "good enough" (like floating point math), which is different than exact.
Yes, that's true in principle, but it gets a bit more complicated when talking about searching with some element of randomness, as is usually the case with AI-type problems.
Of the four things cited, none is "giant rock from space" which is pretty much more likely to kill us than the four mentioned combined.
In the next 100 years? No way. Rogue biotechnology is the scariest threat to me. I can just imagine some Dr. Evil cooking up a super-virus. The world is so inter-connected now, and technology is so accessible, that this becomes the likeliest of the bunch.
True AI doesn't exist beyond Ray Kurzweil's fantasies. Killer asteroids happen on the scale of millions of years. Climate change could be hugely disruptive (may have to relocate coastal cities), but not civilization ending.
Nuclear war is pretty scary too, but probably very survivable for the human species as a whole.
Really? Still smoking that "hope and change" dope, are you?
I never did in the first place.
Go read Douglas Adams, it's good for you. Or, if reading is not your forte, go watch The Simpsons (skip to 13:22).
Now that's funny, because I'm willing to bet the creators of those works believed in copyright.
Let's try something else: "Nothing short of a miracle can reverse this trend."
History has shown that if enough people care about an issue, the policies can change in response -- the key being that enough people have to actually care.
Nothing short of a violent and bloody revolution can reverse this trend.
This just isn't true. If the people really cared about this issue, they could get it changed via the ballot box. It's just that they don't care as much as you do, so you want to act like a psychopath who doesn't get his way.
There will be a time when they HAVE to support 64-bit under Windows.
Why is that? Even Windows 8 still supports 32-bit apps on 64-bit machines. I suppose at some point in the future they will HAVE to support it, but it isn't any time soon.
Any statement can be challenged. Facts are just statements where the evidence is supposed to be indisputable, and hence the belief is correspondingly strong. Sometimes what were once considered facts turn out to be wrong, and you would be right to not believe in them any more.
Ten feet from where I am sitting right now, a man is watching videos of packaging machines in operation and drawing the mechanisms on a CAD program. He is in the R&D department.
Research and development generally involves looking at what others have done before you. What comes out of it depends on how much you want to innovate or tweak for your own needs.
If decompliing or reverse engineering is the equivalent to having the source code, then why does the GPL require distribution of the source?
Absolutely. Stallman and the FSF demand source code:
"In order for freedoms 1 and 3 (the freedom to make changes and the freedom to publish the changed versions) to be meaningful, you must have access to the source code of the program. Therefore, accessibility of source code is a necessary condition for free software. Obfuscated "source code" is not real source code and does not count as source code."
Eliminating copyright would make the GPL impossible, no matter how people try to spin it.
"So what would be the effect of terminating this program's copyright after 5 years? [..] Thus, the Pirate Party's proposal would give proprietary software developers the use of GPL-covered source code after 5 years, but it would not give free software developers the use of proprietary source code, not after 5 years or even 50 years. The Free World would get the bad, but not the good. The difference between source code and object code and the practice of using EULAs would give proprietary software an effective exception from the general rule of 5-year copyright -- one that free software does not share."
My point was pretty obvious. It was a direct contradiction to your statement.
On what basis are you implying this is the case here?
That was pretty obvious too. A rich old dude with money in Belize is sleeping with a bunch of young girls who are obviously in it for the money. Even McAfee has no delusions about this.
Also I find it highly suspicious their ages are being mentioned at all. What exactly does his age or the ages of girls he's sleeping with have to do with him being accused of murder and running from the law?
Because the reporters and their readership find that bit of sensationalism interesting. He was also never formally accused of murder, but is wanted for questioning -- at least that's the official story.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, on patents they acquired from Motorola
As a response to patent attacks from both Microsoft and Apple against Android. Try again.
One example is incorrect tense in multiple places. The summary started in the past tense "ordered to...", and switched to the non-past tense "throws a tantrum" and again used the non past tense "adds".
That's not necessarily wrong. The "ordered to" described a recent event in the past that led to the current event, while the present tense is used for the current news event, which matches the headline. It is a little bit odd, but I wouldn't call it incorrect.
Also, since you say, "One example", what are the others?
The disclaimers are important. Still, it was an excellent review: critical, fair-handed, and detailed.
loosing the war
We've already lost the war on lose/loose, but now we have no word for loose. I suggest looce.
Apple are the new evil Microsoft when they swing their dicks around on patents, but it's just fine and dandy when it's Google or Samsung doing the same damn thing.
I'm not aware of any case where Google has used their patents offensively. Can you name one?
So what, in particular, is wrong with the grammar?
No, he is talking about the worst case for finding a solution that might or might not be exact.
The specific example he gave, "(optimal circuit design and layout) then the core algorithms are O(2^2^n)", was for exact solutions. In the real world, this problem is tackled with inexact solutions using heuristics.
O() notation is about algorithms, and the solution can be "good enough" (like floating point math), which is different than exact.
Yes, that's true in principle, but it gets a bit more complicated when talking about searching with some element of randomness, as is usually the case with AI-type problems.
The only reason we have law is to protect those with less resources from those with more.
Oh bullshit. Or do you think it shouldn't be against the law for somebody poorer than you to steal your stuff?
Of the four things cited, none is "giant rock from space" which is pretty much more likely to kill us than the four mentioned combined.
In the next 100 years? No way. Rogue biotechnology is the scariest threat to me. I can just imagine some Dr. Evil cooking up a super-virus. The world is so inter-connected now, and technology is so accessible, that this becomes the likeliest of the bunch.
True AI doesn't exist beyond Ray Kurzweil's fantasies. Killer asteroids happen on the scale of millions of years. Climate change could be hugely disruptive (may have to relocate coastal cities), but not civilization ending.
Nuclear war is pretty scary too, but probably very survivable for the human species as a whole.
Then elect a candidate that isn't. That's the whole point. If you can't do it, then the people don't care enough.
Those nasty dreadlocks he's sporting are a crime by themselves.
Really? Still smoking that "hope and change" dope, are you?
I never did in the first place.
Go read Douglas Adams, it's good for you.
Or, if reading is not your forte, go watch The Simpsons (skip to 13:22).
Now that's funny, because I'm willing to bet the creators of those works believed in copyright.
Let's try something else: "Nothing short of a miracle can reverse this trend."
History has shown that if enough people care about an issue, the policies can change in response -- the key being that enough people have to actually care.
Getting a laptop with Linux or no OS costs more money because of shovelware and economy of scale.
Nothing short of a violent and bloody revolution can reverse this trend.
This just isn't true. If the people really cared about this issue, they could get it changed via the ballot box. It's just that they don't care as much as you do, so you want to act like a psychopath who doesn't get his way.
There will be a time when they HAVE to support 64-bit under Windows.
Why is that? Even Windows 8 still supports 32-bit apps on 64-bit machines. I suppose at some point in the future they will HAVE to support it, but it isn't any time soon.
So the "going far" is supposed to be because she fled with him? He was her sugar daddy. What did she have to go back to?
Any statement can be challenged. Facts are just statements where the evidence is supposed to be indisputable, and hence the belief is correspondingly strong. Sometimes what were once considered facts turn out to be wrong, and you would be right to not believe in them any more.
So you're saying that you don't believe in facts?
I think a lot if it has to do with the dearth of good music coming out today...actually since the 90's I'd say.
You're Getting Old
Ten feet from where I am sitting right now, a man is watching videos of packaging machines in operation and drawing the mechanisms on a CAD program. He is in the R&D department.
Research and development generally involves looking at what others have done before you. What comes out of it depends on how much you want to innovate or tweak for your own needs.
If decompliing or reverse engineering is the equivalent to having the source code, then why does the GPL require distribution of the source?
Absolutely. Stallman and the FSF demand source code:
"In order for freedoms 1 and 3 (the freedom to make changes and the freedom to publish the changed versions) to be meaningful, you must have access to the source code of the program. Therefore, accessibility of source code is a necessary condition for free software. Obfuscated "source code" is not real source code and does not count as source code."
Eliminating copyright would make the GPL impossible, no matter how people try to spin it.
Stallman said so himself:
"So what would be the effect of terminating this program's copyright after 5 years? [..] Thus, the Pirate Party's proposal would give proprietary software developers the use of GPL-covered source code after 5 years, but it would not give free software developers the use of proprietary source code, not after 5 years or even 50 years. The Free World would get the bad, but not the good. The difference between source code and object code and the practice of using EULAs would give proprietary software an effective exception from the general rule of 5-year copyright -- one that free software does not share."
What's your point?
My point was pretty obvious. It was a direct contradiction to your statement.
On what basis are you implying this is the case here?
That was pretty obvious too. A rich old dude with money in Belize is sleeping with a bunch of young girls who are obviously in it for the money. Even McAfee has no delusions about this.
Funny how umbrella issues like "feminism" aren't an all-or-nothing proposition.
McAfee is a documented, serial liar. You can't believe a damn thing he says.
Also I find it highly suspicious their ages are being mentioned at all. What exactly does his age or the ages of girls he's sleeping with have to do with him being accused of murder and running from the law?
Because the reporters and their readership find that bit of sensationalism interesting. He was also never formally accused of murder, but is wanted for questioning -- at least that's the official story.