damn near impossible if the source code is not available or has been lost

Imagine the following:

int A[10];
int* B = 0;

Evaluating A yields the address of the first element in the array. Evaluating the address of A also yields the address of the first element in the array.

&A == (int*)&A[0]
&A == A
(int*)&A[0] == A

All three of these expressions will evaluate to true

B = A;
B = (int*)
B=&A[0]

The above three statements are all equivalent because array references behave like pointers when they are evaluated as part of an expression.

Unlike pointers, the array reference itself is not assigned memory, only the array elements are assigned memory. The array reference is used as a handle to the first element in the array and all references are resolved at compile time. A pointer can be reseated (assigned a new value), an array cannot.

B = A; is valid

A = B; is not valid

looking at this another way

int A[10]; will consume 40 bytes of memory assuming a 4 byte integer

int* B = malloc(sizeof(int) * 10); will consume 44 bytes of memory assuming 4 byte integers and 4 byte addresses

The DHS was created in large part to address the inability of other agencies to communicate and work together.

Is Deus Ex merely considered "solid work" now?

I'm certain that it's different, but it is not fundamentally different. The person that you responded to did not claim that it is the same environment but rather one that has more or less the same toolset. All of them will still be built around a C-compiler, build tools, and a debugger.

I think that you may be off by a few decades

Excellent find. Thank you

I'd be incredibly surprised if the ruling was carte blanche as you describe. All that we have to go on is one press release and a news report, not the text of the ruling itself, so it's a bit premature to rush to judgement. Many of the stipulations that you suggest were most likely conditions imposed on Microsoft as a part of the ex parte TRO. Even if they weren't required to document some things they would be very wise to do so as it is sure to be brought up at the hearing. In any case, I find it unlikely that Microsoft would want to bite the hand that feeds.

I'm sure that you're absolutely correct about that. The vast majority of no-ip's customers are using the service legitimately, I'm certain of this. However, no-ip has certain legal responsibilities as a service provider and if they don't meet them their legitimate customers may end up getting caught in the crossfire.

For the record, I'm not taking a side as I have no idea what evidence Microsoft presented to get the ruling. I'm just pointing out the legal basis for what occurred.

Second level domains are controlled through top level domains. Do you know nothing about DNS?

property used to engage in criminal activity is subject to seizure and/or forfeiture. Domains have been seized in the past due to criminal activity but this has usually accompanied a criminal complaint by a law enforcement agency.

In this case, despite what the article may imply, Microsoft hasn't seized ownership of the domains. Rather, they used an ex parte temporary restraining order to seize control of the domains so that they may neutralize the source of the maliciousness. The ex-parte aspect is why no-ip wasn't notified. Microsoft managed to convince a judge to grant the order without informing the other party (most likely to prevent no-ip from notifying the malicious users). This will be followed up by a formal hearing, and full control of the domains will be restored to no-ip eventually.

If Microsoft abuses this, judges won't be so inclined to grant such requests in the future.

The core elements of PC firmware don't do anything particularly fancy, it's just software that tests components and configures the platform in a way that exposes a consistent interface and an interface itself is not patentable. Most of the heavy lifting is performed by the hardware (which is covered by other patents) and is accessed using documented methods (which is an interface, not patentable). It's unlikely that there would be sufficient novel material in the original IBM PC BIOS to warrant or defend a patent, and it would be rather simple to work around any tricks; as you mentioned, it was reimplemented from IBM's documentation and clean-room reverse engineering.

There are some patents for components that are not elements of the platform interface, such as securing access to, reprogramming, and validating the firmware code.

That's the gist of what D-Wave's designers were complaining about.

Here's an interesting work published by IBM that looks at some particularly hard problems

https://www.ibm.com/developerw...

No, you said that they haven't yet demonstrated anything quantum about it, and I provided you with a link proving otherwise.

It may not be more useful, compact, or flexible than an existing well known and well optimized method of completing the same task, but neither were early electromechanical machines or some of the earliest digital computers.

In order to qualify it as a failed project or a scam you'd need to clearly demonstrate that it doesn't do what it claims to do, not that it doesn't do it as well as you expected. Give it a few years and a few more iterations, if it shows no meaningful improvement then that claim can be revisited.

Not necessarily.

Using quantum annealing to solve non-linear multivariate optimization problems is theoretically faster than using traditional turing computation. It definitely needs more development to overcome a normal workstation or supercomputer, but it will most likely happen eventually.