Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:GPL vs LPGL (Score 1) 286

They can talk to each other, depending how they do it. Just having two programs chatting doesn't always make them a "single system".

Can I release a non-free program that's designed to load a GPL-covered plug-in?

It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins. For instance, if the program uses only simple fork and exec to invoke and communicate with plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate programs, so the license of the plug-in makes no requirements about the main program.

If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. In order to use the GPL-covered plug-ins, the main program must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license, and that the terms of the GPL must be followed when the main program is distributed for use with these plug-ins.

If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication between them is limited to invoking the ‘main’ function of the plug-in with some options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline case.

Comment Re:Charges? (Score 1) 225

I can't either, but based on the list of initial charges: Conspiracy to Traffic in Narcotics, Conspiracy to Traffic in Forged Documents, Conspiracy to Hack (or whatever the legal term for hackery is), Money Laundering, Engaging in a Continuing Criminal Enterprise aka "Kingpin" charges, Conspiracy to Commit Identity Theft, and Conspiracy to Traffic in Stolen Information. The "hacking, identity theft, stolen information" was viewed as too reduntant so two of them were dropped. I can't find which one remained, though.

Comment Re:Simple question (Score 3, Informative) 110

In case you haven't looked at the pictures: Take a look. So, is it true that the internals are lopsided so that that one engine actually is thrusting colinear with the center of mass, like you seem to assume? Nope! If the internals were lopsided then the wings would need to be asymmetric or it would suffer some pretty serious torque when gliding. The reason the engine is offset is that the origional design called for two engines. This was overkill for the amount of thrust required, so they cut one out. It would have taken some redesign to have the single engine back in the center, and since it gimbles far enough that it can still produce a thrust vector colinear with the center of mass, there was no reason to do so.

So to answer the actual question "It works by turning the engine a little bit to compensate".

Comment Re:How do you pee? (Score 1) 288

It's not a kill switch that destroys your computer. It's a kill switch that shuts it down after flushing the disk cache (under the assumption that, as a career criminal with a vested interest in keeping your evidence locked down, you have an encrypted file system). So if you go use the bathroom, your PC turns off. If you have a SSD it will take you literally several seconds to boot again and remount your encrypted file system. Slightly inconvenient, but much better than if the police are able to rip your laptop away and attach a robotic device / intern that fucks with the mouse to keep the screensaver from unmounting the encrypted file system before they've had the time to duplicate the contents.

Comment Re:Mo-tiv-a-tion (Score 1) 583

Well, that's simple. The First AI will have a single purpose: To define a better better. Once it defines a better better, it will iterate and define a "better better" better, and then a ""better better" better" better. Repeat until your definition of better converges upon the best better. Now you can define "best" as "the thing that maximizes better". Now you just need to write a programming AI and tell it to program a better programming AI until it achieves the best programming AI. The last step is to ask the best programming AI to write the best general purpose AI. It may prove necessary to interleave these steps, so that the programming AI uses an intermediate definition of better to create a somewhat better programming AI and also a better better betterer AI. Otherwise the better betterer may come up with a definition of better that is so much better that the better betterer itself needs to be better before it can use it!

Comment Re:"Protected Corporate Speak"? (Score 1) 95

"Protected Corporate Speech" according to Ars Technica's editorialization. The decision itself doesn't use such a term, because it would be totally meaningless. And at any rate, most of the things said were not said by EA, but by a number of officers and executives of EA, and they were sued personally. So the majority of the claims were not about corporate speech at all. They also were not ruled "protected", they were ruled "inactionable" (under the SEC regulations against misleading investors).

Comment Re:I really don't my vital body parts to be on wif (Score 1) 183

The heart in TFA is self-regulating. It has sensors that monitor assorted vital stats and automatically adjust the heart rate as needed. According to TFA it's sophisticated enough that if your loved one enters the room the artificial heart will speed up, just like a real heart would do. The Transhumanist journalist seems to think that's a good start, but it would be even better if you could use a cellphone to override the automatic pulse so you could prevent yourself from getting over-excited, or force it into overdrive because you know you're about to go for a run / have sex. I don't know. I think my real heart does just fine in those situations. For "calming you down" I don't think induced bradycardia should go on the list. If that belongs on any list, it would be the top 10 ways to make you think you're dying.

Comment Re:E-mail? (Score 1) 346

Why? They employees doing the test were already cleared to work with the client data, or it would "violate all security policies" to have them doing the work using the old flowcharts. If you gave them fake data you would firstly also need a control group so you can be sure the fake data is just as challenging as real data (with real data you can just compare performance to the established average). And second, you're wasting time on your test! Even if the workflow ends up being less efficient so you get less work done per month, you still got some work done! If it was fake data, you would not be getting any work done while testing the new workflow.

Comment Re:You get what you pay for... (Score 1) 346

This was an email about a test, not a test about an email. The email was a summary report on testing they had been doing on their "internal processes". AKA they had a new checklist or flowchart or whatever, and they were making sure that this new process meets the federal reporting requirements, while also not sucking (or whatever other requirements they have for an "internal process").

Dinosaurs aren't extinct. They've just learned to hide in the trees.