diamondlovesyou

I am aware of these issues. I replied in-haste in-class, and didn't specify that I was only referring to library code. I instead used 'work', which was the wrong term; I apologize. Anyway, according to the GPL, using a GPL-ed library as a dependency in a larger codebase constitutes a derivative work (assuming distribution etc), thus requiring GPL-ing the whole larger codebase, which isn't cool (imo, of course).

Except the GPL doesn't just encourage open sourcing works which use the GPL work as a dependency; it makes the open sourcing of any library/program/what-have-you a MANDATORY condition for use of the GPL work. This has nothing to due with modification of the GPL work; the condition is still in effect when no modifications, proprietary or otherwise, are required in the GPL work.

I'm actually in agreement with Ballmer on this one: GPL is cancer. And I love contributing to OSS in general.

Sure, except the problem is "the last mile". 4g solves this by virtue, and they're offering it for free for this advantage.

Except they don't control external hosts. Cox Comm doesn't control that person hosting a server on AOL dialup.

In my case, at the University of Kansas, a lot of the time assignments will come from the required textbook (when not taken from some online system), so still kinda required. Homework is a teacher aid anyway (in a sense, though I do realize for many it is also a study aid), so why am I forced to pay outside of tuition? I don't pay for tests outside of tuition.

Either way, the intention is to make the person (ie the dept chair/professor) who selects the textbook/online homework/etc be the one to pay for it; otherwise there's no is pressure to use cheaper books (or rather the books with the best value/cost ratio).

Also, I presume that the universities would be able to bargain down to a lower price, due to gains had in mass production (as an analogy) or your usual volume ordering discounts reminiscent of Monoprice. This is especially true if the university buys access to N pdf every semester, which offer practically free distribution costs vs textbooks.

It ain't bad, but I have a Surface Pro 3 (the Surface's are awesome, btw).

Yeah, it's massive drawback. I prefer it anyway as it incentivises better features (at least I want it to): I can envision a reader that shows the edges of the pages so you can flip through many at a time (ie think of how the pages don't line up when the book is opened flat). I use the Microsoft Reader so I can use the pen so probably no such luck for me.

As a student, I've been fortunate in that most of the time I can find pdfs of the books I need, saving me a dime and the pain of the weight of a normal textbook. The two books I had to buy this semester were books I still bought online, and I still hate them: they're slow, don't work without the internet, constantly log me out (b/c timeouts), and why the fuck can't I cntl-C? Chemistry nomenclature is a bitch. Give me a pdf for use in my favorite pdf reader damnit!

The other stuff I fucking hate is the free resources given to professors (yay, fiscal budgeting!), but shifts the revenue stream to the student. For example, iClicker, which provides the server for free to the professor but makes the students buy a physical clicker ($50); when this service could just use the fucking web-browser and make the professor/university I pay tuition purchase this REQUIRED part of the course pay for the software. Or the online homework, which is also a purchased item (like $60-70 too). I don't pay for the organic chem lab equipment (and couldn't; that stuff is expensive!).

To be clear, I have not a problem with using these materials. I also don't mind paying for them. But I ONLY want to pay for it through tuition!

Also, why don't publishers work directly with universities so that every student is provided with a copy of textbook/homework? It seems to me that that would be a sure fire way to prevent lost sales due to the used textbook market/pirating. They could just get the university to purchase pdfs of the textbook for each student every year: it would drive down the incentive to pirate and would mean they didn't need to develop their own shitty-af reader. A win-win.

Anyway, to those still reading: sorry 'bout the language. This status quo drives me absolutely bonkers.

Too bad that has it's own issues. Android/Google definitely has the clout to be able to call the shots (ie force the processor manufacturer to issue them a CA cert for their own use), but what would happen if ARM then became a dominant server arch?

Also, putting code signing in the processor wouldn't fix the problem: code signing already happens in higher levels (ie higher than userland), so moving the verification a level up would likely take the exploitable bugs with it. The problem remains.

> * There's some legacy cruft (e.g., segment management) that's generally unused by anyone not in 16-bit mode.

x86 NaCl uses segments for sandboxing.

Asm.js is hardly human readable; which is rather the point (not sure why this is so highly coveted, since we use source code for this purpose and the minification counter argument is nonetheless true just as it is for Wasm, but I digress). And you can debug text wasm, if you're good enough.

I'm sorry, and with all due respect, your argument is hilarious, NIMBY, and goes against the Open Web movement's goal of "...a special role for public, cooperative, and standard World Wide Web communications", which you claim to love, and I assume, support (as do I). Wasm has a required text format in the spec itself, expressly for individuals such as yourself, so wasm is still for the Open Web.

I'd say most accidents are the result of the driver "not noticing", especially in the current majority of cars which lack autopilot, so even if this edge case exists in the future, having an autopilot is still an improvement.

A monitor is not a life critical device, unless another critical device depends on the monitor's telemetry. Bluetooth is perfectly adequate in this case.

Opened devtools, deleted a few elements, unchecked "overflow: hidden" on <body>, read article.

It has to do with late game mechanics, which is dominated by team fights. Thus if one team has only 4 effective players, that team will lose, even if this team did everything else perfectly and the opposing team stumbled around early game.

LoL is heavily team focused w.r.t. strategy.

But why not just export a C interface from Rust, and use that from PSX?

Agreed, though, I'd say they act like that because they answer to the higher ups in the organisations they're apart of, and aren't properly independent. Thus there is no self-interested incentive to take the rank-and-file's side. I'm not sure why HR or IGs are ever assigned the task of 'representing' agents in the first place; it just seems like a conflict of interest.

Also, the plural of inspector general is inspectors general, not inspector generals.

I wish. Unfortunately, even though that is the better option, it is more risky: everyone (meaning businesses in this case) already pay taxes to support roads, thus using them, even if it's less efficient, is "free". Plus, all businesses are connected to a road. Compared to building and maintaining infrastructure for a rail network, where you're limited to customers you've built rail to. So I'd wager the "last mile" would likely continue to be truck based, even if rail use exploded.

To be fair though, the rail networks here in North America are seen as the most developed freight networks in the world (I wish we had more passenger service though; my daily commute to KU and back is a pain): 2863 Gt-km (NA), 2451 (China), 2351 (Russia), vs 391 (EU).

> It's always easy to point out obvious mistakes after the fact.

Fukushima's obvious issue was known before it before it became a mistake. We aren't discussing unknowns.

> Nothing is black or white, but Fukushima happened in an advanced country and to me this shows it can happen anywhere.

Right; fortunately we have reactor designs now that are intrinsically failsafe (ie the failsafes rely on physical laws, and thus can't fail). Why don't we use them? Funding/politics. As you said, nothing is black and white.

> Doesn't mean we should panic and shut down all plants today, but I think in the long term we should try to transition to other more controllable forms of energy.

What other forms of energy? Chemical energy is limited and is just as hard to make safe (coal/oil is really bad (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_the_co...), which are arguably just as bad if not worse than nuclear power). Wind/solar is limited without storage; even with storage it's still limited.

(Not OP, but I agree) Possession isn't a crime and calling it as such is imparting intent in a way which isn't rigorously general: what about a High School counselor who confiscates hard drugs (b/c why do we care about weed) from a troubled student? What you're asking is that an inherently flawed system classify and judge intent based what is perceived about a situation involving something that could be dangerous, and then assign punishment based on that. What if the counselor was a twenty five year old male or an elderly lady? What if they were black? If the smartest among us can only barely decide without bias, how can we expect the average man or woman to do so? Nonetheless, let us define possession of a possibly dangerous Thing as a crime.

The only time intent can be proven is once the act, presumably a harmful one for the sake of my argument, is committed; but then there is no justice to be had anyway because entropy is lost, thus only revenge and/or correction is left. But back to my counter argument, the possibility for harm is a flimsy definition of a crime and runs against the principle of reasonable doubt; cars are pretty harmful, I myself drive past children I could deliberately run over and probably kill on my way to class (college) everyday (I'm not going to do this; but then again you only have my word...) and thousands of people die in them and by them every year; my point is that guns/cars have other legitimate uses and the same could be said of things everyone already has possession of.

Also, your previous arguments that owned hardware which is at least somewhat controlled by the owner (otherwise, who controls it "owns" it), thereby implants guilt onto the owner is also, well, incorrect. While true that the individual or organisation are generally responsible for the operation or neglect of their hardware, in the case of hardware whose explicit purpose is to service requests to uncontrollable and external parties and is thus to a certain extent designed to be deliberately neglected, can't be held responsible for crimes for which they had no participation in: I am not responsible for the crimes of someone who stole my car beforehand (the involvement of theft makes this example a bit shaky, I'll admit, but my point is to convey the separation of responsibility between owner and controller, in that as the owner I didn't encourage the controller, the thief etc, to steal my car). That said, imparting a bit of responsibility onto owners is still a Good Thing (see workers comp.), because it incentivizes safer workplaces/hardware: the difference is that in the aforementioned case, barring proof of intent or neglect, it's not a proper crime, it's just monetary damages (ie civil).

Just to be clear, we agree that something like smallpox should stay locked up. But then every sane and rational person should agree with that: they would have to live (note sane and rational) in the same world with smallpox on the loose. But then if it did get out, due to it's infectious and self-replicating nature, the result would be disastrous. In any case, such eventuality would either be the work of an insane or troubled person (whose actions aren't rational anyway, thus can't be called 'our' fault, presuming attempts to prevent the release were made) or an accident. In all cases, punishment isn't the answer (except in the accidental case, the answer is instead institutionalization). Nonetheless, the solution to prevention of eventuality in this case is access limiting. Thus it is an acceptable solution. (I consider this to be a satisfactory rationale). But even quarantined diseases are still studied!

One last thing: brandishing a weapon is a crime by way of implied speech: it is threat. Thus brandishing a weapon is an action, and is thus not just possession. Which means it doesn't count.

TL/DR: The condition (possession -> guilt) is false. Punishment for such possession is unwarranted. Control is implicitly limited by sane and rational owners in the case of dangerous Things (perhaps with the help of others).

Assuming the market allows this. Ie demand may favor ownership so much that companies can't lease and remain competitive.

This law doesn't give ownership of the asteroid, it gives ownership of the mined resources (emphasis mine):

> Any asteroid resources obtained in outer space are the property of the entity that obtained them, which shall be entitled to all property rights to them, consistent with applicable federal law and existing international obligations.

No, we don't. If the DA's office has other evidence you've committed a crime, and know that some encrypted device in your possession has additional evidence, the DA's office can legally compel you to turn over the keys.

The only time you're protected is if the key in question is password protected AND you only memorized the key (ie didn't write it down anywhere). Then you can plead the fifth.

The value isn't just in the final product; it's also present in the paycheques that paid for it etc.

That said, investors will find ways to spend their money regardless (it's in their best interests to do so).

Would they still prefer the burbs if those issues weren't issues? They're just the hipsters who jumped ship (I mean no disrespect; they selflessly gave up the city life they otherwise wanted) before it got cool (and conditions improved).

> I would have been happy to see NaCl-minus-Pepper standardized[...]

If there was no standard API, then sites would have a different API they had to use for each browser. Then we're back to the `UserAgent` days.

Unfortunately, I think it must be an all or nothing ordeal :/

> [...]browsers could then choose what superset of APIs to expose to that sandbox.

Pepper can already do that. All Pepper APIs are retrieved by calling a function provided to the module at start with a single string argument (ie `"PPB_Audio;1.1"` or `"PPB_Audio;1.0"` or `"PPB_FileSystem;1.0"`). It's impossible to use PPAPI without first getting the specific interface structures from that function.

> They are sandboxed "machine independent" binary blobs that chrome translates into the local architecture, see https://developer.chrome.com/native-client for details.

NaCl is not PNaCl. NaCl blobs don't require translation and aren't machine independent at all.

> The downloaded code is bytecode at an abstraction level a bit below C but quite a bit above assembly.

You just described PNaCl, not NaCl. NaCl is architecture specific and already sandboxed (ie the SFI part of NaCl), whereas PNaCl is not.

Using my fork [1] (you'll have to build it yourself, sorry), you can create Emscripten bins. After building your program, run `$NACL_SDK_ROOT/toolchain/linux_pnacl/bin/pnacl-thaw $RUSTC_OUT` on the output (rustc emits stable pexe's by default) and then run `$EMSCRIPTEN/emcc -o $RUSTC_OUT.html $RUSTC_OUT`. Volia.

I make no guarantees that it'll all work however; I don't test Rust->JS like I do Rust->PNaCl.

[1]: https://github.com/DiamondLovesYou/rust.git

EDIT: Grammar.

Yes, but the standard crates don't really use any of the glibc specific Stuff. I found it not too difficult when I ported Rust to use `newlibc`, for use with PNaCl. I have even managed to build a PNaCl version of `rustc` itself.