The story is about asynchronous computing, not about clocks in general. Asynchronous computing is to synchronous computing as functional programming is to imperative programming. Sure you may have methods of synchronizing with external entities, but the internal processes are (mainly) asynchronous.
The brain is an excellent example of parallell asynchronous computing, since a neuron will only fire when its input-treshold has been reached. However, many internal processes in the brain may in fact be more or less synchronous, due to the fact that maybe it's an evolutionary advantage:-) So the basic idea is that a neuron is asynchronous in principle, but groups of them may find it easier to communicate synchronously.
Teach them something that is a meaningful addition to their lives, and they will not forget so easily throughout the generations. Also, consider the fact that not every individual is fit for the stubborn teacher-role. Teach many, and the lessons will have a better chance to stay in their society.
Funny. I always thought of CSS as a _player_ protection system. So that the big-dollar movie industry can have monopoly on the players (or authorization thereof) _and_ their films.
IMHO, the MPAA is the real criminals in this case.
How can linking to criminal content not be speech when the only difference is that you click on it, instead of copy&paste it into the URL-box in the browser? Also the internals of HTML support this view. If code is speech, and HTML is code. Then how can a link-tag not be speech? If code isn't speech, then how can mathematic formulas be speech? The only difference is that one is procedural while the other is functional.
Basically, there are no fundamental grounds for banning linking. Linking is a quote, and a quote is a mentioning of something or someone. If you make linking to criminal content illegal, you logically also illegalize speaking about criminal activities, criminal sites and criminals, even reporting it.
Oh wait! I hear you now: INTENT. Intent is the keyword here. Somehow, the judges and juries are supposed to read the vict.. criminal minds. What a nice curtain to hide behind when you've lost the argument, isn't it? So after all this talking we still have to use violence to sort things out. Besides, it will win you another election if you start a war..
Does the means REALLY justify the ends, when nobody feels safe putting something on the "World Wide Web"? What was great about the Internet is surely lost to lust for more money and power anyone else can spend their lifetimes.
"Eric Lander of the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge, Mass., said that if you look at our genome it is clear that "evolution... must make new genes from old parts.""
If this is so, combine the fact that race is not recorded in the genes: If evolution didn't create races, then what did? We certainly can't stem from the same primate Adam and Eve. Where's Missing Link these days?
It appears to me that evolution would automatically tend to simplify genes as much as possible. Basically so that a simple mutation of a gene could lead to a simple change in attribute of the individual. However, you can't switch race this way and it makes you wonder. Because emmigration and climate changes are nothing new under the sun..
I'd love to hear someone who knows about the subject explain this to me, in a calm and mellow voice;-)
And if they don't, they really deserve to learn why. I for one bought a CD-player instead of a DVD-player for my new PC, even though I was subsidized 80%. It may take a while longer, but people will start putting their feet down.
- Steeltoe
Re:What's wrong with good ol' RPC?
on
ESR On XML-RPC
·
· Score: 1
Cracker!
On a more serious note, what is the point of firewalls if the clients are wide-open to the world with various implementations of xmlrpcd?
Those servers are in the same network. Just like IRC, the servers are somewhat transparent minus delays in synchronisation. You will find very few differences between those servers.
Microsoft wants ideas, implementations from smaller companies and innovative people to be available to them. But it doesn't want to share all that it has receieved. In the end making it a one-way black hole system.
When a person is unable to share with others what he or she receives. That person becomes isolated and lonely. It seems this might apply to companies too.
If a judge rules the GPL as "unfair" to proprietary companies, which indeed might happen (anything can, especially stupidity!). Then the FSF should bring to court proprietary software providers and get all their proprietary IP marked as unfair too.
Basically, the GPL is nut'n bolted onto the existing IP laws. The license has been reviewed by many lawyers and has been worked on alot. Throw away the GPL, and you throw away IP too.
Also keep in mind that the GPL _grants_ you rights to distribute and use the code. You don't have to pay for GPLed code, unless you want to support the author(s)/distributors. While for shrink-wrapped license software you actually have to pay for the product and open it _before_ you can read the agreement.
Additionally, the other poster comparing IP laws with housing laws are completely misguided. These are two different set of laws. There's a good reason lawyers specialize.
Yes, it seems like MS think they can just rollback the world after each oopsie.. Hey! Wait a minute, maybe they can! Maybe that's how they have survived so many crappy products! If this is not proof, nothing is!
"Now, I also agree that if it was produced by taxpayer dollars, then if you want to do use it for Commercial gain, tough, you should re-impliment the code yourself."
Why is that? Why restrict the code with a license at all when you can just put the code in public domain? If companies must reimplement stuff already invented by the government, it's the customers of their products that have to pay in the end anyways. This puts free software to an unfair advantage, leading to a communist-state. Well almost, I think you know what I mean.;*) It could be interesting, but it would mean a more drastic change in society than just putting government software "open source". (You just wait for the flamefests in the Senate about the GPL and BSD...)
Think about the actual words for a moment. IP. Intellectual Property. Intellectual . Property. Intellectual.. Property.
Okay, maybe that didn't give you such a bad taste in _your_ mouth as it did in mine. How about the fact that without IP there's no _need_ for GPL. As I see it, the GPL exists because corporations protect their source with IP. Therefore, free software must also protect its source or else have its source absorbed one-way into proprietary solutions. However, without IP, people are free to do with what Intellectual content they get, hence no need for the GPL.
IOW, the GPL is fighting fire with fire, but when the fire is put out there's no need for the GPL-blaze. New and different fires may come up though, like encryption-mechanisms like DeCSS, and the action-reaction will continue until people start trusting eachother.
Gee, thank God CD-Rs sold will soon put money into the pockets of commercial music. You gave me quite a scare flaunting off your businessmodel like that. Almost had me convinced of the demise of commercialism in music.:-(
Music not made for money is not _worth_ listening to.
You can't compare IP equally with a physical thing. The two concepts are very different. IP is something that can be freely shared without decrease in value. In fact an increase in value occurs to the participants involved. While a physical object is something you either have to split up to share, or have all for yourself.
The people who think they should be allowed to control what people do with information bein
You complained about someone calling you a troll later in the discussion, but I was left with the same impression. However, maybe you just replied without thinking too much about the matter - a reaction. That's pretty common on here, so I guess you're okay;-)
No, a troll is something written/spoken with the intent to get as much focus as possible (passionate replies or counter-hits for instance), not to make a plausible argument. The technique usually used is to make outrageous claims that could pass as an extremist's view. However, when too obvious, it is not a troll because the replies are sensible.
A satire is a parody with an extra sour "edge" and cold-blooded analysis behind the effort, while a parody is meant to be genuinely funny. With a satire you usually laugh _at_ someone, but in a parody you may laugh _with_ someone described in it.
Slashdot Mirror
The story is about asynchronous computing, not about clocks in general. Asynchronous computing is to synchronous computing as functional programming is to imperative programming. Sure you may have methods of synchronizing with external entities, but the internal processes are (mainly) asynchronous.
:-) So the basic idea is that a neuron is asynchronous in principle, but groups of them may find it easier to communicate synchronously.
The brain is an excellent example of parallell asynchronous computing, since a neuron will only fire when its input-treshold has been reached. However, many internal processes in the brain may in fact be more or less synchronous, due to the fact that maybe it's an evolutionary advantage
- Steeltoe
Try to count seconds _asynchronously_ with your heart... It's not easy, I've tried :-)
- Steeltoe
You're assuming we're better off than them. Maybe we are, but taking a look out of my window.. Maybe not.
- Steeltoe
Teach them something that is a meaningful addition to their lives, and they will not forget so easily throughout the generations. Also, consider the fact that not every individual is fit for the stubborn teacher-role. Teach many, and the lessons will have a better chance to stay in their society.
- Steeltoe
Funny. I always thought of CSS as a _player_ protection system. So that the big-dollar movie industry can have monopoly on the players (or authorization thereof) _and_ their films.
IMHO, the MPAA is the real criminals in this case.
- Steeltoe
How can linking to criminal content not be speech when the only difference is that you click on it, instead of copy&paste it into the URL-box in the browser? Also the internals of HTML support this view. If code is speech, and HTML is code. Then how can a link-tag not be speech? If code isn't speech, then how can mathematic formulas be speech? The only difference is that one is procedural while the other is functional.
Basically, there are no fundamental grounds for banning linking. Linking is a quote, and a quote is a mentioning of something or someone. If you make linking to criminal content illegal, you logically also illegalize speaking about criminal activities, criminal sites and criminals, even reporting it.
Oh wait! I hear you now: INTENT. Intent is the keyword here. Somehow, the judges and juries are supposed to read the vict.. criminal minds. What a nice curtain to hide behind when you've lost the argument, isn't it? So after all this talking we still have to use violence to sort things out. Besides, it will win you another election if you start a war..
Does the means REALLY justify the ends, when nobody feels safe putting something on the "World Wide Web"? What was great about the Internet is surely lost to lust for more money and power anyone else can spend their lifetimes.
- Steeltoe
"We are the suckers who subsidize a billion chinese who get windows for free."
If a billion chinese use your product for free illegally, have you lost anything?
Do you really believe if they all paid, that the price would drop?
- Steeltoe
Ah, this one fell for the old Track 40 Floppy-trap. How hard can it be to spot spies these days when they carry 5 1/4" floppydiscs?
- Steeltoe
"Eric Lander of the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge, Mass., said that if you look at our genome it is clear that "evolution ... must make new genes from old parts.""
;-)
If this is so, combine the fact that race is not recorded in the genes: If evolution didn't create races, then what did? We certainly can't stem from the same primate Adam and Eve. Where's Missing Link these days?
It appears to me that evolution would automatically tend to simplify genes as much as possible. Basically so that a simple mutation of a gene could lead to a simple change in attribute of the individual. However, you can't switch race this way and it makes you wonder. Because emmigration and climate changes are nothing new under the sun..
I'd love to hear someone who knows about the subject explain this to me, in a calm and mellow voice
- Steeltoe
I suspect you need to count in the "one hundred AMERICAN dollars" too if you want to win the prize. Dunno it's origin and such though. :-(
- Steeltoe
And if they don't, they really deserve to learn why. I for one bought a CD-player instead of a DVD-player for my new PC, even though I was subsidized 80%. It may take a while longer, but people will start putting their feet down.
- Steeltoe
Cracker!
On a more serious note, what is the point of firewalls if the clients are wide-open to the world with various implementations of xmlrpcd?
- Steeltoe
"void" is even better! ;*)
- Steeltoe
Atleast they don't have a cap on 100 hits on search results like regular Napster.
- Steeltoe
Those servers are in the same network. Just like IRC, the servers are somewhat transparent minus delays in synchronisation. You will find very few differences between those servers.
- Steeltoe
There's many good reasons, here's one of them:
Microsoft wants ideas, implementations from smaller companies and innovative people to be available to them. But it doesn't want to share all that it has receieved. In the end making it a one-way black hole system.
When a person is unable to share with others what he or she receives. That person becomes isolated and lonely. It seems this might apply to companies too.
- Steeltoe
Do you have some insight to back up your claims? Or else, it's just a _different_ claim.
- Steeltoe
If a judge rules the GPL as "unfair" to proprietary companies, which indeed might happen (anything can, especially stupidity!). Then the FSF should bring to court proprietary software providers and get all their proprietary IP marked as unfair too.
Basically, the GPL is nut'n bolted onto the existing IP laws. The license has been reviewed by many lawyers and has been worked on alot. Throw away the GPL, and you throw away IP too.
Also keep in mind that the GPL _grants_ you rights to distribute and use the code. You don't have to pay for GPLed code, unless you want to support the author(s)/distributors. While for shrink-wrapped license software you actually have to pay for the product and open it _before_ you can read the agreement.
Additionally, the other poster comparing IP laws with housing laws are completely misguided. These are two different set of laws. There's a good reason lawyers specialize.
- Steeltoe
Yes, it seems like MS think they can just rollback the world after each oopsie.. Hey! Wait a minute, maybe they can! Maybe that's how they have survived so many crappy products! If this is not proof, nothing is!
- Steeltoe
"Now, I also agree that if it was produced by taxpayer dollars, then if you want to do use it for Commercial gain, tough, you should re-impliment the code yourself."
;*) It could be interesting, but it would mean a more drastic change in society than just putting government software "open source". (You just wait for the flamefests in the Senate about the GPL and BSD...)
Why is that? Why restrict the code with a license at all when you can just put the code in public domain? If companies must reimplement stuff already invented by the government, it's the customers of their products that have to pay in the end anyways. This puts free software to an unfair advantage, leading to a communist-state. Well almost, I think you know what I mean.
- Steeltoe
Think about the actual words for a moment. IP. Intellectual Property. Intellectual . Property. Intellectual .. Property.
Okay, maybe that didn't give you such a bad taste in _your_ mouth as it did in mine. How about the fact that without IP there's no _need_ for GPL. As I see it, the GPL exists because corporations protect their source with IP. Therefore, free software must also protect its source or else have its source absorbed one-way into proprietary solutions. However, without IP, people are free to do with what Intellectual content they get, hence no need for the GPL.
IOW, the GPL is fighting fire with fire, but when the fire is put out there's no need for the GPL-blaze. New and different fires may come up though, like encryption-mechanisms like DeCSS, and the action-reaction will continue until people start trusting eachother.
- Steeltoe
Gee, thank God CD-Rs sold will soon put money into the pockets of commercial music. You gave me quite a scare flaunting off your businessmodel like that. Almost had me convinced of the demise of commercialism in music. :-(
Music not made for money is not _worth_ listening to.
- Steeltoe (in a sarcastic mood)
You can't compare IP equally with a physical thing. The two concepts are very different. IP is something that can be freely shared without decrease in value. In fact an increase in value occurs to the participants involved. While a physical object is something you either have to split up to share, or have all for yourself.
;-)
The people who think they should be allowed to control what people do with information bein
You complained about someone calling you a troll later in the discussion, but I was left with the same impression. However, maybe you just replied without thinking too much about the matter - a reaction. That's pretty common on here, so I guess you're okay
- Steeltoe
No, a troll is something written/spoken with the intent to get as much focus as possible (passionate replies or counter-hits for instance), not to make a plausible argument. The technique usually used is to make outrageous claims that could pass as an extremist's view. However, when too obvious, it is not a troll because the replies are sensible.
A satire is a parody with an extra sour "edge" and cold-blooded analysis behind the effort, while a parody is meant to be genuinely funny. With a satire you usually laugh _at_ someone, but in a parody you may laugh _with_ someone described in it.
Hope this helped.
- Steeltoe
"He asked, "How many HTTP clients do you know that have "HTTP" in their name?" You responded by giving him the name of a server. "
:-)
I was perfectly aware of that. I was not responding to him like a query, but to provoke some thought. How many pure http-clients exists anyways?
"A server is not a client."
Tell that to the XFree86-gang. They have polluted my mind. *grins*
- Steeltoe