Re:From the article...
on
Time Travel
·
· Score: 1
As all neutrons are identical, this is a pretty pointless exercize. You can get the same results by dumping a lot of energy in a system into one point, have it created into a neutron, and then destroying the first neutron to make up the energy.
It's not only not a proof of time travel, it's not even a violation of thermodynamics. Though it is a pretty cool party trick.;)
Re:you just dont get it
on
Time Travel
·
· Score: 1
What do you mean, 'already'? How could it not 'already' have happened if it happened in the past?;)
Re:OMFG, this is the solution to the Fermii Parado
on
Time Travel
·
· Score: 1
That's not the only way to get rid of paradoxes. You can also keep changing the past randomly 'until' you happen to luck into the one that no one invents time travel in. (Until in quotes as this doesn't actually take 'time'.) But this isn't very likely.
The only way that we could ever met aliens, the ones that should have filled the universe up by now, is if for some reason they invented interstellar travel but not time machines. As we haven't met them, thus causing the Fermii 'paradox', we have to conclude that it's more likely for them not to exist than to exist in that form. (As their past will change randomly until one of those two things happens.)
Which is why I will be assassinating this guy as soon as possible.
Meanwhile, in a cave deep under New Jersey, a spammer has just finished typing info@johndaileysoftware.com as the From address of the spam they're about to send....
Get a fucking clue before you post next time, will you? You can type whatever the hell 'From' field you want on any email message you want, and that's where the bounces go. There is absolutely nothing the owner can do about it.
About keeping algorithms secret, that is a source of open debate. An algorithm could be very secure and carefully tested and analyzed, but never publically disclosed.
While that seems possible, that's near impossible to do in practice. About the only way to get algorithms tested is to hand them out to the public. Cryptologists don't personally care whether or not your supersekret code is 'good', it has to get though several levels of 'testing' before the top people will even look at it. They rely on people 'below' them (Slashdot, crypto newsgroups, etc) to filter out all the idiotic schemes. (Like this one, it didn't even make it past/., which is really sad.)
If you have a new algorithm, and aren't a real cryptologist, you has almost no chances of having a real one look at it until a lot of random people have looked at it and say 'Well, I don't see anything wrong with it'. You can't just walk up and order them to test it without paying them a lot of money.
Not to mention you shouldn't be relying on the algorithm being secret at all, as the very first publicly sold copy will even up being reverse engineered and everyone will know the algorithm anyway.
Of course this is only common sense. The default is privacy. I pay extra for a private number. That is stupid. Private should be the default.I should have to pay extra to be listed in a book.
Also for telemarketers... I pay for the phone line for me to be able to communicate with the world.
How did it wind up as a free adverstising and sales terminal to be located in my house where I would be called at random times to be sold random merchandise.
Who's right's are being violated? The telemarketers rights would be violated only if I had signed a contract for them to place an above described terminal in my house and then I never answeres it and bought anything.
But the telephone industry never made sense anyway. The lines on the pole should be owned by a common carrier company. (maybe price regulated) The phone companies that connect customers to the lines should be private enterprise. The default should be no listing in a book and no telemarketing.
Duh.
Though I prefer not to do business with morons who think they're competant to decide whether or not my browser is good enough, sadly I don't have time to find a new bank.
'Unlimited redistribution permitted.' is a license, though a very poorly worded anf vague one. If someone honestly means what that says, they should just public domain their work.
But most music/books/movies don't comes with a license of any sort. (In fact, shinkwrap book licenses are illegal.)
Taco is the boss, he just makes the announcements. If course he has some lackey respond to complaints.
However, if you have question about the policy at slashdot, the FAQ says to email michael, not Hemos. So either Hemos has something explictly to do with this or michael is on vacation.
I know, that's the entire fun. The jokes are usually lame, but the joy comes for watching people make complete fools of themselves.;)
And, you know, anonymous posting was disable before this story was posted. I'm still not sure that's just because of April Fool's. I'm know it wasn't disabled at 'advertiser request', I think there's another reason it's off besides the joke.
Personally, I use 'post anonymously' as a way to post at 0 instead of 1. I honestly am completely baffled as to why I can't post at 0 or even -1 if I want, but at least posting as an AC make it a little better.
No they aren't, anymore than the post office is a constitutional right.
The US government has the authority to create copyright laws 'To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;'.
There's no constitutional right to copyright at all, it's simply something that the government can set up, for certain purposes, if it wants.
Well, CSS is patented, so you can't make your own CD here, but there are several places in the world that don't recognize software patents, so you need to go there, make a CD with any PD'd work, and start selling it in the US.
(Before I cause any confusion, I must note only the encryption and not the decryption is patented.)
Also note that Eldred case could change all of this competely. It's not impossible that the courts will find retroactive copyright extentions are completely unconstitional (You cannot promote the creation of art by rewarding existing art, and in fact that works exactly the opposite way.), and 40+ years of content will instantly be public domained.
As a further note, I just realized some of those old movies, especially ones from WWII, have stock footage, which is in the public domain. Tada! It is 100% legal to rip those clips out of that DVD.
In addition to the 'freedom of speech' thing, you might want to take a look at the whole 'freedom of the press' thing. And then try to go to court and argue that the government can restrict what can be printed on printing presses because printing presses have no rights.
You remember incorrectly. Read the 10th amendment: 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'
Congress only has the rights to make laws pertaining to things they're explictly allowed to, the states are in charge of everything else.
Now, they've stretched this over the years, mainly in terms of the 'interstate commerce' clause, but note that to raise the drinking age to 21 they had to threaten to withhold federal highway support from states, as they clearly have no constitutional authority to change the drinking age.
If you're going to be correctin people, you need to correct them correctly. Copying music without permission is not a license violation, it's a copyright violation.
Sounds like you've fallen for the whole 'all content is licensed, not purchased' crap software companies have been claiming for decades, and have actaully started applying it to other medias who themselves don't even claim that.
No matter what the legal status of 'purchased-but-we-didn't-really-mean-it' software sold in stores, music is not even claimed to be sold this way. You outright own a copy of the work, and all your rights and restrictions are from copyright law, not a 'license'.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not only not a proof of time travel, it's not even a violation of thermodynamics. Though it is a pretty cool party trick. ;)
What do you mean, 'already'? How could it not 'already' have happened if it happened in the past? ;)
The only way that we could ever met aliens, the ones that should have filled the universe up by now, is if for some reason they invented interstellar travel but not time machines. As we haven't met them, thus causing the Fermii 'paradox', we have to conclude that it's more likely for them not to exist than to exist in that form. (As their past will change randomly until one of those two things happens.)
Which is why I will be assassinating this guy as soon as possible.
Discworld is cool, fool!
Get a fucking clue before you post next time, will you? You can type whatever the hell 'From' field you want on any email message you want, and that's where the bounces go. There is absolutely nothing the owner can do about it.
While that seems possible, that's near impossible to do in practice. About the only way to get algorithms tested is to hand them out to the public. Cryptologists don't personally care whether or not your supersekret code is 'good', it has to get though several levels of 'testing' before the top people will even look at it. They rely on people 'below' them (Slashdot, crypto newsgroups, etc) to filter out all the idiotic schemes. (Like this one, it didn't even make it past /., which is really sad.)
If you have a new algorithm, and aren't a real cryptologist, you has almost no chances of having a real one look at it until a lot of random people have looked at it and say 'Well, I don't see anything wrong with it'. You can't just walk up and order them to test it without paying them a lot of money.
Not to mention you shouldn't be relying on the algorithm being secret at all, as the very first publicly sold copy will even up being reverse engineered and everyone will know the algorithm anyway.
Of course this is only common sense. The default is privacy. I pay extra for a private number. That is stupid. Private should be the default.I should have to pay extra to be listed in a book. Also for telemarketers... I pay for the phone line for me to be able to communicate with the world. How did it wind up as a free adverstising and sales terminal to be located in my house where I would be called at random times to be sold random merchandise. Who's right's are being violated? The telemarketers rights would be violated only if I had signed a contract for them to place an above described terminal in my house and then I never answeres it and bought anything. But the telephone industry never made sense anyway. The lines on the pole should be owned by a common carrier company. (maybe price regulated) The phone companies that connect customers to the lines should be private enterprise. The default should be no listing in a book and no telemarketing. Duh.
I don't mean that in a bad way, but, seriously, you're simply not paying any attention what-so-ever if you think no one's complaining.
Alright, who let the Anonymous Morons back in?
Though I prefer not to do business with morons who think they're competant to decide whether or not my browser is good enough, sadly I don't have time to find a new bank.
As an aside, hey, look, we got anoymous posting back!
Geez, a whole story about you and you don't even show up. ;)
Or at least he hid it somewhere beside right above the posting buttons.
But most music/books/movies don't comes with a license of any sort. (In fact, shinkwrap book licenses are illegal.)
However, if you have question about the policy at slashdot, the FAQ says to email michael, not Hemos. So either Hemos has something explictly to do with this or michael is on vacation.
They're dead serious, they've even turned off anonymous posting. Logout and check.
And, you know, anonymous posting was disable before this story was posted. I'm still not sure that's just because of April Fool's. I'm know it wasn't disabled at 'advertiser request', I think there's another reason it's off besides the joke.
Personally, I use 'post anonymously' as a way to post at 0 instead of 1. I honestly am completely baffled as to why I can't post at 0 or even -1 if I want, but at least posting as an AC make it a little better.
No, sorry, I just misremembered. There apparently aren't any patents on CSS, sorry for the confusion.
Erm, BTW, why can't I post anonymously anymore?
The US government has the authority to create copyright laws 'To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;'.
There's no constitutional right to copyright at all, it's simply something that the government can set up, for certain purposes, if it wants.
(Before I cause any confusion, I must note only the encryption and not the decryption is patented.)
Also note that Eldred case could change all of this competely. It's not impossible that the courts will find retroactive copyright extentions are completely unconstitional (You cannot promote the creation of art by rewarding existing art, and in fact that works exactly the opposite way.), and 40+ years of content will instantly be public domained.
As a further note, I just realized some of those old movies, especially ones from WWII, have stock footage, which is in the public domain. Tada! It is 100% legal to rip those clips out of that DVD.
In addition to the 'freedom of speech' thing, you might want to take a look at the whole 'freedom of the press' thing. And then try to go to court and argue that the government can restrict what can be printed on printing presses because printing presses have no rights.
The DMCA only applies to digital copies of digital works.
Congress only has the rights to make laws pertaining to things they're explictly allowed to, the states are in charge of everything else.
Now, they've stretched this over the years, mainly in terms of the 'interstate commerce' clause, but note that to raise the drinking age to 21 they had to threaten to withhold federal highway support from states, as they clearly have no constitutional authority to change the drinking age.
Sounds like you've fallen for the whole 'all content is licensed, not purchased' crap software companies have been claiming for decades, and have actaully started applying it to other medias who themselves don't even claim that.
No matter what the legal status of 'purchased-but-we-didn't-really-mean-it' software sold in stores, music is not even claimed to be sold this way. You outright own a copy of the work, and all your rights and restrictions are from copyright law, not a 'license'.