And women remain an minority in computer science programs, both undergraduate and graduate level, from the highest to the lowest rated schools. "Only men" are stupid enough to undertake a rigorous academic program, successfully complete it, and go on to solve challenging problems indeed.
Not to say anything about women or what they are capable of, but it is ludicrous to suggest that female superiority is the reason so few women are in computer science programs. TFA's author clearly has a screw loose.
Only people who forget how often they say things that can be construed as threats. I was suspended from my middle school for "threatening" to use a weapon from Star Trek on a teacher; do you really want to walk around terrified to say anything except "Hi," "How are you?" and "Nice weather we're having" because everyone is petrified of each other?
Seriously, her life is pretty much ruined now, regardless of the fact that no charges were filed. Her name is out there as someone who was in trouble for threatening to stab people.
It sets a bad precedent though. Now we have to be afraid about venting our anger or telling certain jokes, because someone might think that we are serious and will kill someone? There is a line from Joe Dirt, something to the effect of "I'll stab you in the face with a soldering iron" -- if I set that as my status, do I have to worry about facing the police before I enter an electronics lab?
Honestly, we need to back off and lower our sensitivity a bit. I know, every time there is a murder somewhere, everyone assumes that they are next, regardless of the facts. Yes, there was recently a murder at a school in New York; the guy who did it had a history of threatening people around him with knives. That does not mean that everyone who says they want to vent their anger is going to kill people.
I was a preteen and I was suspended from my school because they thought I had threatened a teacher by jokingly referring to using a weapon from star trek on her.
No, the company designed a compiler that performed a lot of optimizations for the particular instruction set they implemented, and then hard coded the compiler to not actually apply those optimizations on their competitors' implementations. The optimizations would have worked, and Intel had the compiler deliberately not apply them.
There is no conspiracy; Intel just broke the law. If you are competing with me, you have to follow the law, no matter how much you want me out of the game.
The compiler performed optimizations for x86, which work equally well on their competitors' CPUs. However, the compiler was hard coded to not actually apply optimizations on non-Intel hardware.
"I'm not saying that tapping an officer on the shoulder is assault,"
Good, because legally it is battery.
"it probably isn't a good ideal to initiate physical contact by surprising them with a tap on the shoulder from behind when they might have a (quite reasonable) expectation of being attacked."
Sure, I can agree with that. Do not touch police officers, ever.
"Also, cursing at an officer isn't assault but why be a jerk?"
We have the right to be jerks, that's why. Failing to exercise our rights means that we will eventually lose them.
"Cops have a difficult job"
So do plenty of other people. What makes police officers special is that they can legally hold a person against that person's will; this is a dangerous right to grant anyone, of course, so we have all kinds of laws protecting innocent people from cops.
"in my experience are pretty friendly even under adverse conditions."
Some cops are friendly and firmly believe in protecting the public, whom they serve. However, we no longer live in a world where the police only arrest dangerous people. There are too many laws on the books, and it is now difficult to be a law abiding citizen. Police officers are paid overtime regardless of whether or not they were clocking those extra hours interrogating a real criminal. DAs and other public, political figures want to look "tough on crime," and put pressure on the police to be more aggressive; and of course, appearing to be "part of the war on terror" is all to appealing to police departments.
Again, we grant the police the right to do things that would be illegal for the rest of us. We must be extremely careful about giving out such a right, and remain on the alert for any possible abuses.
So, you are pretty much admitting that we now live in tyranny? Honestly, how is it acceptable for the police to lock someone in jail simply for refusing to obey a command?
"always assume that government officials are assholes. Do what they ask, obey their orders, don't be a smartass - as a result, you will generally speaking be OK."
Yes, because that always helps...
"Is that a laptop in your bag?" "Yes." "Turn it on please...what is this about an encryption passphrase? Please write that down here." "I really am not comfortable with giving that out." "Well, that is suspicious, and I am giving your laptop to DHS. You can have it back whenever we decide to send it to you."
I hope that somewhere in the appeals process, the judge rules that none of the software patents are valid. If Apple and Nokia just hurt each other, they will take it out on consumers -- every penny paid in royalties for an iPhone or a Nokia phone will be passed right on along to consumers, and there will be one more case of software patents being upheld available for future patent trolls.
Government works are never copyrighted, but the government has some limited ability to declare information to be so critical to national security that it must be kept secret for our own safety. For example, if you happen to find a nuclear weapon design document, with detail technical specifications, the government can bar you from publishing it.
It used to be that this law only applied to nuclear secrets and information related to the location of nuclear subs (and so forth), but these days terrorism is an excuse to keep all sorts of other things secret.
"It seems that the problem is that word "unlimited.""
Precisely. If my ISP told me up front that I am paying for a maximum amount of data transferred per month, I would have no problem with it. When they tell me my plan is "unlimited," I assume they mean, "as much as you want and your equipment can handle."
Probably an effort to gain new customers who did not already have experience with IBM products. "iSeries" sounds a lot more inviting than "AS/400" when you are presenting to a bunch of managers.
"Hardware isn't special in requiring money/time to develop so why is it that this question only really gets asked when an open philosophy is applied to physical objects?"
Because it takes money to produce copies of hardware, far more than the small utility costs (power etc.) needed to copy software.
Thus begging the question, why does Yahoo not put out a statement to the general public explaining this? The public is entitled to know the circumstances under which they do not have a right to privacy.
No, Yahoo would rather mislead the general public into thinking that they never give out such information.
Slashdot Mirror
And women remain an minority in computer science programs, both undergraduate and graduate level, from the highest to the lowest rated schools. "Only men" are stupid enough to undertake a rigorous academic program, successfully complete it, and go on to solve challenging problems indeed.
Not to say anything about women or what they are capable of, but it is ludicrous to suggest that female superiority is the reason so few women are in computer science programs. TFA's author clearly has a screw loose.
Only people who forget how often they say things that can be construed as threats. I was suspended from my middle school for "threatening" to use a weapon from Star Trek on a teacher; do you really want to walk around terrified to say anything except "Hi," "How are you?" and "Nice weather we're having" because everyone is petrified of each other?
Seriously, her life is pretty much ruined now, regardless of the fact that no charges were filed. Her name is out there as someone who was in trouble for threatening to stab people.
It sets a bad precedent though. Now we have to be afraid about venting our anger or telling certain jokes, because someone might think that we are serious and will kill someone? There is a line from Joe Dirt, something to the effect of "I'll stab you in the face with a soldering iron" -- if I set that as my status, do I have to worry about facing the police before I enter an electronics lab?
Honestly, we need to back off and lower our sensitivity a bit. I know, every time there is a murder somewhere, everyone assumes that they are next, regardless of the facts. Yes, there was recently a murder at a school in New York; the guy who did it had a history of threatening people around him with knives. That does not mean that everyone who says they want to vent their anger is going to kill people.
I was a preteen and I was suspended from my school because they thought I had threatened a teacher by jokingly referring to using a weapon from star trek on her.
No, the company designed a compiler that performed a lot of optimizations for the particular instruction set they implemented, and then hard coded the compiler to not actually apply those optimizations on their competitors' implementations. The optimizations would have worked, and Intel had the compiler deliberately not apply them.
There is no conspiracy; Intel just broke the law. If you are competing with me, you have to follow the law, no matter how much you want me out of the game.
The compiler performed optimizations for x86, which work equally well on their competitors' CPUs. However, the compiler was hard coded to not actually apply optimizations on non-Intel hardware.
How can a party that regulates morality possibly advocate personal choice or liberty? Are we speaking the same language here?
I cannot really say, I never dealt much with Foxit.
Yes.
XPDF and Ghostscript.
Acrobat and Reader are bloated. Try something a little lighter like XPDF or Okular.
Do I even need to rant, or does the story make it clear why proprietary software is a problem?
They will claim a $10bn loss, in fact, since they did not make that $20bn.
"I'm not saying that tapping an officer on the shoulder is assault,"
Good, because legally it is battery.
"it probably isn't a good ideal to initiate physical contact by surprising them with a tap on the shoulder from behind when they might have a (quite reasonable) expectation of being attacked."
Sure, I can agree with that. Do not touch police officers, ever.
"Also, cursing at an officer isn't assault but why be a jerk?"
We have the right to be jerks, that's why. Failing to exercise our rights means that we will eventually lose them.
"Cops have a difficult job"
So do plenty of other people. What makes police officers special is that they can legally hold a person against that person's will; this is a dangerous right to grant anyone, of course, so we have all kinds of laws protecting innocent people from cops.
"in my experience are pretty friendly even under adverse conditions."
Some cops are friendly and firmly believe in protecting the public, whom they serve. However, we no longer live in a world where the police only arrest dangerous people. There are too many laws on the books, and it is now difficult to be a law abiding citizen. Police officers are paid overtime regardless of whether or not they were clocking those extra hours interrogating a real criminal. DAs and other public, political figures want to look "tough on crime," and put pressure on the police to be more aggressive; and of course, appearing to be "part of the war on terror" is all to appealing to police departments.
Again, we grant the police the right to do things that would be illegal for the rest of us. We must be extremely careful about giving out such a right, and remain on the alert for any possible abuses.
So, you are pretty much admitting that we now live in tyranny? Honestly, how is it acceptable for the police to lock someone in jail simply for refusing to obey a command?
"always assume that government officials are assholes. Do what they ask, obey their orders, don't be a smartass - as a result, you will generally speaking be OK."
Yes, because that always helps...
"Is that a laptop in your bag?" "Yes." "Turn it on please...what is this about an encryption passphrase? Please write that down here." "I really am not comfortable with giving that out." "Well, that is suspicious, and I am giving your laptop to DHS. You can have it back whenever we decide to send it to you."
I hope that somewhere in the appeals process, the judge rules that none of the software patents are valid. If Apple and Nokia just hurt each other, they will take it out on consumers -- every penny paid in royalties for an iPhone or a Nokia phone will be passed right on along to consumers, and there will be one more case of software patents being upheld available for future patent trolls.
Government works are never copyrighted, but the government has some limited ability to declare information to be so critical to national security that it must be kept secret for our own safety. For example, if you happen to find a nuclear weapon design document, with detail technical specifications, the government can bar you from publishing it.
It used to be that this law only applied to nuclear secrets and information related to the location of nuclear subs (and so forth), but these days terrorism is an excuse to keep all sorts of other things secret.
"It seems that the problem is that word "unlimited.""
Precisely. If my ISP told me up front that I am paying for a maximum amount of data transferred per month, I would have no problem with it. When they tell me my plan is "unlimited," I assume they mean, "as much as you want and your equipment can handle."
What about places that might have a need for both SPICEs?
When I saw this story, I thought, "When did Red Hat enter the engineering design market?!"
Probably an effort to gain new customers who did not already have experience with IBM products. "iSeries" sounds a lot more inviting than "AS/400" when you are presenting to a bunch of managers.
"Hardware isn't special in requiring money/time to develop so why is it that this question only really gets asked when an open philosophy is applied to physical objects?"
Because it takes money to produce copies of hardware, far more than the small utility costs (power etc.) needed to copy software.
Yes, I know that, I was being hyperbolic.
Thus begging the question, why does Yahoo not put out a statement to the general public explaining this? The public is entitled to know the circumstances under which they do not have a right to privacy.
No, Yahoo would rather mislead the general public into thinking that they never give out such information.