johncolanduoni

141 ms·

1621.
by johncolanduoni 10y ago
Or a license that gives you that explicit right (like the MIT license does).
1622.
by johncolanduoni 10y ago
You can't make the original code not-MIT-licensed, since the author already released it as such (and even they cannot make it not-MIT-licensed). But you can release it (with or without modifications) under another license as long as it
1623.
by johncolanduoni 10y ago
Apache 2.0: > each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and o
1624.
by johncolanduoni 10y ago
The whole reason that this license change is coming up is that some people in the project (and I assume Apple as well) want to provide some level of protection from patent infringement cases for the users of LLVM. The ability to sublicense
1625.
by johncolanduoni 10y ago
The Apache 2.0 provides a patent grant, and the whole reason they were looking for a new license was to add a patent grant. So if Apple wants to sue anyone who uses LLVM for patent infringement, why are they spending so much money on lawyer
1626.
by johncolanduoni 10y ago
I'm confused. The post he's responding to is just saying that they want to move to the Apache 2.0 license if possible. Chris certainly doesn't seem to be assuming they can just flick a switch and make it happen, considering h
1627.
by johncolanduoni 10y ago
The whole point of the switch to Apache 2.0 was the patent grant. The old code will not be effectively under the Apache 2.0 license as far as this clause is concerned because the patent grant is a restriction on the copyright holder, not
1628.
by johncolanduoni 10y ago
Are you sure it's actually at Fort Worth? I know that they bought the one that's that's at USC's Information Sciences Institute, but I hadn't heard that the bought another one. As far as I know they've just pai
1629.
by johncolanduoni 10y ago
A non-general quantum computer could still be considered to be a "quantum computer" in the way that physicists use the term. We'd definitely consider a computer that could "only" run Shor's algorithm to be one,
1630.
by johncolanduoni 10y ago
> I can't believe so many people use this to "prove" that it's not a quantum computer. This is a complete and utter non sequitur. That's not why I'm saying it's probably not a quantum computer. It'
1631.
by johncolanduoni 10y ago
Not if the entanglement is partitioned into very small groups of qubits. That's the only thing we have even circumstantial evidence of, and it doesn't appear to gain us much over classical computers. This is especially bad for the
1632.
by johncolanduoni 10y ago
I'm parroting the information I've gotten from hearing people who work with the D-Wave describe their research, reading their papers, and friends who work in the area. So no, I didn't just read a popsci headline that tickled
1633.
by johncolanduoni 10y ago
Look at it from the perspective of the people who have bought their computers (e.g. Google, Lockheed). Suppose there's any remote chance this is the first step towards scalable quantum computing. If that's the case, getting your r
1634.
by johncolanduoni 10y ago
Yes, but you don't get to just input any optimization problem into the dwave. The problem is that the specific kind of optimization that the dwave can do (even ignoring the fact that the output doesn't correspond directly with a s
1635.
by johncolanduoni 10y ago
I don't think you should be downvoted, but if you have a hard-on for spending a lot of money on a helium cooled computer for these problems, you'd be better off retrofitting a mid-level PC with helium cooling and overclocking it.
1636.
by johncolanduoni 10y ago
Nope, D-Wave is still sponsoring research to find problems where the D-Wave beats consumer PCs (I think the iPad Pro might actually be competitive with it now).
1637.
by johncolanduoni 10y ago
Theres a lot of reasons this isn't possible, let alone probable. 1. The "algorithms" are input by the users, not dwave. Moreover, you don't even have a way to input an NP-complete problem. You can only input the setup fo
1638.
by johncolanduoni 10y ago
I mean, the wires are only relevant to the control of the machinery (not the actual computation) and these aren't photonic quantum computers anyway. What's the point of putting a bunch of optical fibers with electronic emitters an
1639.
by johncolanduoni 10y ago
Their only innovation seems to be "more qubits that haven't even be demonstrated to be qubits", so I'm a bit sceptical that their future endeavors will do much. Either the team or their management is insisting they ignor
1640.
by johncolanduoni 10y ago
If you mean in a "quantum computer" sense, no. They're slower than classical alternatives for sure, and significant entanglement has yet to be demonstrated. Even theoretically, D-Wave has yet to produce any reasons to believe
1641.
by johncolanduoni 10y ago
I'm curious if this would be ruled as murder in any jurisdictions. Reading the U.S. federal definition[1], I don't see any reason why it wouldn't apply as long as intent could be proved, but IANAL. [1]: https://www
1642.
by johncolanduoni 10y ago
Not really. Do you imagine social and economic classes and their relationship/attitudes toward another wouldn't be affected by this? Even if all it does is increase envy of the people who can't afford the treatments for their
1643.
by johncolanduoni 10y ago
> Sometimes it surprises me that professional software engineers deal with systems design tradeoffs every day in their own work, but then fail to see that systems design logic also applies to human institutions. I think it's because
1644.
by johncolanduoni 10y ago
> Most of the time laws are designed to prevent vigilantism That's quite a claim! I also don't see how that doesn't apply to virtually every law surrounding civil cases. If I pay for a service and you don't give it to
1645.
by johncolanduoni 10y ago
> good tooling on all platforms Eh... I've run into loads of trouble with F# and Mono, and with .NET Core you have to deal with platform fragmentation if you use any NuGet packages. Editors are pretty good across platforms now (as l
1646.
by johncolanduoni 10y ago
Chrome doesn't have their own certificate store, instead they use the platform's certificate store with some logic layered on top (e.g. requiring new Symantec certificates to be in the certificate transparency logs). So an update
1647.
by johncolanduoni 10y ago
What about that doesn't sound like propagation? I guess you could try and be pedantic and claim since there's no "push" it's not propagation, but this exact phenomena in DNS is called propagation all the time. Also
1648.
by johncolanduoni 10y ago
Is the .NET stack and tooling any more a language feature? You were happy to argue that tooling was important a moment ago. In any case, when choosing a language for a project which doesn't fit your requirements because maybe the too
1649.
by johncolanduoni 10y ago
... which is still in a fairly early state, like I said. And NGEN doesn't help the issue of runtime dependence at all. I'm not really a fan of Go, but being able to write small tools in it without pulling in a huge runtime is a bi
1650.
by johncolanduoni 10y ago
Yeah but publicly traded companies have to do that in an effort to protect shareholders, not the general public. The logic is very different.

More ›