Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're confusing quantum encryption with quantum computing. Both adopt non-"normal" properties of physics at a quantum level (and hard to get a grasp on concepts like entanglement, superposition, infinate # of universes etc.) but they are different.
As I understand it, quantum cryptography involves the fact that a third party observer of information in transit *by definition* alters the content of the message by simply "sniffing" it. A recipient can therefore detect whether or not a message has been intercepted.
Quantum computing, on the other hand, involves setting a number of atoms (each being one quantum bit, or "qbit") in a "superposition" (a state where they're simulateously positive and negative, I think) in accordance with a particular formula (or "program") that corresponds to what you waht the computer to calculate. To determine the output of the "computer," readings are taken from the atoms to determine the probability of the correct solution in our universe.
Somehow or another, quantum computers allow you to do in parallel (because your kind of narrowing down the possible solutions for an infinate number of universes down to OUR universe) what traditionally has to be done sequentially through normal computing. The most obvious application for this is for trying lots of encryption keys simultaneously (or near simultaneously) to find the right one.
Sorry for the vagueness, I'm just trying to get a handle on it myself and I haven't read about it for a couple months so my memory is wearing down. There are lots of good resources and papers on this topic on the web though. -------------------
If the odd freak builds their own DA converter out of twigs and masking tape the RIAA isn't going to have a fit. Because in the kind of environment where that is necessary....they've already won. -------------------
After the last "Windows Rebate Day" debacle, it would be nice to see people valiantly representing the interests of freedom without looking like total idiots.
neither solaris or os/2 were/are known for their ease-of-use and user friendliness like Apple's OS. If people could have a Mac experience on their x86s, I could easily see them bailing on Windows.
Every time someone mentions the possibility of OS X for x86, everyone says "APPLE'S A HARDWARE COMPANY" and this would be the worst thing for them because they rely primarily on hardware sales, etc.
But if they released OS X for PCs...
(1) They could STILL sell the apple hardware. Some people might defect to cheaper hardware, but c'mon, Apple designs hardware like nobody's business, both in terms of form and feature-set, and I love the PPC platform. I'd continue to buy it.
(2) I think there's a company out there that makes a ton of money selling an operating system for x86, though the name escapes me. And they make plenty of $.
So.. apple releases OS X for x86 and becomes a major software company as WELL as a hardware company. The software side of the company alone has already been proven to be viable as a money-maker, so where's the problem?
I think a lot of the/. blase response to this article may come from a lack of familiarity with whatever the author is privy to. What exactly kind of dealings are going on? What are the implications?
Most importantly, what can we do about it? Is an alternate to ICANN (new.net?) the answer?
W
Off to icannwatch to read more... There are some FAQs and stuff there. -------------------
First off, I don't know what you mean by "open source" writing in the first place-- are you talking about writing something and then placing it in the public domain for free distribution? Or do you mean an "open-source" like writing PROCESS whereby a "project manager" writes a book with contributors from various sources?
Or, perhaps, you mean that all writing should be "free" (as in beer). Because if the literary work is the "compiled product," the real "source" of one's writing, insofar as I can tell, is the collection of experiences of an author.
I've already seen some responses here saying, "yeah, imagine if we had to pay for Shakespeare" or whatnot-- First point-- shakespeare was PAID for what he wrote, just not by you. Secondly, Shakespeare's plays and poems were not written in a write-something-and-pass-it-on fashion (unless you're one of those people that believe he didn't actually write anything). The "collaborative" elements that inspired his work came from other plays and writings that had come before him, world mythology and the history of civilization, and from his own personal experiences and trials and experimentations.
They did not come from a committee submitting literary "patches" for his sonnets.
If writing is to become a truly creative medium on a par with programming
Is this a joke? Are you also advocating open-source painting? If so, maybe you can help me get a paintbrush into MOMA-- I'd like to make a few improvements to some of the Picassos.
In short, if you really believe all writing should be definition be collaborative, please forward your Slashdot password so i can submit better informed opinions.
I kinda feel like this is a troll or I'm just missing the sarcasm.
I think the easiest way to search and navigate through multiple types of software is via a Yahoo-style selection page that moves downward into a heirarchy. Doing so makes it really easy to find what you're looking for in just three clicks or so. It's far superior to the gopher-like category lists.
isn't dmoz.org's software open? I know its content is. -------------------
Yesterday, Eazel just announced Reef, yet another attempt to do the same thing Microsoft announced with.NET which is similar to Dave Hyatt's XUL (+CSS+JS) for the Mozilla project which promised to do what Java was supposed to do.
All this so I can subscribe to my word processor on a monthly basis?
Kinda depressing.
Seriously, can't we all get together and decide on a single system without everyone going off doing their own thing?
If word of mouth is spread via macintouch.com, maccnn.com, versiontracker.com, macfixit.com, the apple users groups, and other popular mac sites that there's a free word processor working natively in OS X, I can see a lot of people trying it out. Remember, right now there are hardly ANY native OS X apps, so people will be turning to the net for stuff to try.
It could gain momentum if it was available early with an easy install app.
Or was that just a generic slam against mac users?
W -------------------
As I understand it (from reading the list archives), it's being worked on as we speak, but... man, would it be nice to see it come out, especially since I understand Office for OS X isn't ready and won't be till the summer. (That's right, right?)
If we can get people using it on OS X (instead of Word, say), I'm sure even more developers could be attracted, which would help the project as a whole.
This is a golden opportunity, these next few months, while major developers take some time to roll out the big applications to show the power of Open-Source and free software.
Imagine what market/mindshare inroads can be made, if while waiting for an OS X version of Photoshop, Apple users, eager to try out some native OS X software, download and start playing with GIMP for Mac. Or maybe Abiword will get a build of OS X into their hands?
Hopefully soon it will be as common to see apps all packed up for OS X as it is to find an.RPM today...
The fact that it's fake doesn't make it any less hilarious. It makes it all the more brilliant. The other one they did about the guy who breaks stuff busted my shit up (and I knew it was fake at the time)...
I heard it wasn't Levis but some other company... the name slips my mind, but it was big in the 80s... Lee? Someone like that.
"Salk saw an opportunity to develop a vaccine against polio, and devoted himself to this work for the next eight years....When news of the discovery was made public on April 12, 1955, Salk was hailed as a miracle worker. He further endeared himself to the public by refusing to patent the vaccine. He had no desire to profit personally from the discovery, but merely wished to see the vaccine disseminated as widely as possible. "
How many thousands of lives were saved as a result of this decision?
what a great intro to this article in today's Salon. Looks like Bush didn't mean all that stuff he said about restricting Carbon Dioxide emissions during the campaign.
Good thing he didn't ask us to read his lips on that one.
Although the link is slashdotted to hell, I presume this has to do with the Playstation emulator (called the Virtual Play Station) that Connectix made for the Mac.
Connectix, incidentally, is a company that I suspect is comprised of aliens with advanced technology OR possibly someone with a time machine. Among their breakthrough offerings (breakthough at the time, anyway) -- RamDoubler, Speeddoubler, Virtual PC, and VPS.
I look at the enormous work going into something like Mozilla-- literally dozens of programmers working 24-7 on something like that. Lots of systems, lots of coordination.
I just have to wonder whether when funding on something like Mozilla or Nautilus gets pulled, does development continue? Does the software go on, realistically?
I only know about Trinity because I wrote to one of the developers after the announcement on gnome.org a few weeks ago. We were talking about whether gstreamer would make a good foundation for a free NLE. He told me there was already one in the works called Trinity, etc.
Information about Trinity isn't on the gstreamer page, as far as I know.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're confusing quantum encryption with quantum computing. Both adopt non-"normal" properties of physics at a quantum level (and hard to get a grasp on concepts like entanglement, superposition, infinate # of universes etc.) but they are different.
As I understand it, quantum cryptography involves the fact that a third party observer of information in transit *by definition* alters the content of the message by simply "sniffing" it. A recipient can therefore detect whether or not a message has been intercepted.
Quantum computing, on the other hand, involves setting a number of atoms (each being one quantum bit, or "qbit") in a "superposition" (a state where they're simulateously positive and negative, I think) in accordance with a particular formula (or "program") that corresponds to what you waht the computer to calculate. To determine the output of the "computer," readings are taken from the atoms to determine the probability of the correct solution in our universe.
Somehow or another, quantum computers allow you to do in parallel (because your kind of narrowing down the possible solutions for an infinate number of universes down to OUR universe) what traditionally has to be done sequentially through normal computing. The most obvious application for this is for trying lots of encryption keys simultaneously (or near simultaneously) to find the right one.
Sorry for the vagueness, I'm just trying to get a handle on it myself and I haven't read about it for a couple months so my memory is wearing down. There are lots of good resources and papers on this topic on the web though.
-------------------
I was thinking the same flamebait myself...
I mean, c'mon.
W
-------------------
If the odd freak builds their own DA converter out of twigs and masking tape the RIAA isn't going to have a fit. Because in the kind of environment where that is necessary....they've already won.
-------------------
Still, this sign is funny
W
-------------------
neither solaris or os/2 were/are known for their ease-of-use and user friendliness like Apple's OS. If people could have a Mac experience on their x86s, I could easily see them bailing on Windows.
W
-------------------
Every time someone mentions the possibility of OS X for x86, everyone says "APPLE'S A HARDWARE COMPANY" and this would be the worst thing for them because they rely primarily on hardware sales, etc.
But if they released OS X for PCs...
(1) They could STILL sell the apple hardware. Some people might defect to cheaper hardware, but c'mon, Apple designs hardware like nobody's business, both in terms of form and feature-set, and I love the PPC platform. I'd continue to buy it.
(2) I think there's a company out there that makes a ton of money selling an operating system for x86, though the name escapes me. And they make plenty of $.
So.. apple releases OS X for x86 and becomes a major software company as WELL as a hardware company. The software side of the company alone has already been proven to be viable as a money-maker, so where's the problem?
W
-------------------
I think a lot of the /. blase response to this article may come from a lack of familiarity with whatever the author is privy to. What exactly kind of dealings are going on? What are the implications?
Most importantly, what can we do about it? Is an alternate to ICANN (new.net?) the answer?
W
Off to icannwatch to read more... There are some FAQs and stuff there.
-------------------
Abstract:
Bonobo is the GNOME architecture for creating reusable software components and compound documents.
-------------------
Or, perhaps, you mean that all writing should be "free" (as in beer). Because if the literary work is the "compiled product," the real "source" of one's writing, insofar as I can tell, is the collection of experiences of an author. I've already seen some responses here saying, "yeah, imagine if we had to pay for Shakespeare" or whatnot-- First point-- shakespeare was PAID for what he wrote, just not by you. Secondly, Shakespeare's plays and poems were not written in a write-something-and-pass-it-on fashion (unless you're one of those people that believe he didn't actually write anything). The "collaborative" elements that inspired his work came from other plays and writings that had come before him, world mythology and the history of civilization, and from his own personal experiences and trials and experimentations.
They did not come from a committee submitting literary "patches" for his sonnets.
If writing is to become a truly creative medium on a par with programming
Is this a joke? Are you also advocating open-source painting? If so, maybe you can help me get a paintbrush into MOMA-- I'd like to make a few improvements to some of the Picassos.
In short, if you really believe all writing should be definition be collaborative, please forward your Slashdot password so i can submit better informed opinions.
I kinda feel like this is a troll or I'm just missing the sarcasm.
-------------------
Sorry..
-------------------
isn't dmoz.org's software open? I know its content is.
-------------------
Yesterday, Eazel just announced Reef, yet another attempt to do the same thing Microsoft announced with .NET which is similar to Dave Hyatt's XUL (+CSS+JS) for the Mozilla project which promised to do what Java was supposed to do.
All this so I can subscribe to my word processor on a monthly basis?
Kinda depressing.
Seriously, can't we all get together and decide on a single system without everyone going off doing their own thing?
Answer: No.
-------------------
but kinda funny.
-------------------
If word of mouth is spread via macintouch.com, maccnn.com, versiontracker.com, macfixit.com, the apple users groups, and other popular mac sites that there's a free word processor working natively in OS X, I can see a lot of people trying it out. Remember, right now there are hardly ANY native OS X apps, so people will be turning to the net for stuff to try.
It could gain momentum if it was available early with an easy install app.
Or was that just a generic slam against mac users?
W
-------------------
As I understand it (from reading the list archives), it's being worked on as we speak, but... man, would it be nice to see it come out, especially since I understand Office for OS X isn't ready and won't be till the summer. (That's right, right?)
If we can get people using it on OS X (instead of Word, say), I'm sure even more developers could be attracted, which would help the project as a whole.
W
-------------------
Imagine what market/mindshare inroads can be made, if while waiting for an OS X version of Photoshop, Apple users, eager to try out some native OS X software, download and start playing with GIMP for Mac. Or maybe Abiword will get a build of OS X into their hands?
Hopefully soon it will be as common to see apps all packed up for OS X as it is to find an .RPM today...
W
-------------------
I have no idea what this was about, who it's by, or how it relates to anything. But it's the first offtopic post I've enjoyed in a long time.
W
-------------------
The fact that it's fake doesn't make it any less hilarious. It makes it all the more brilliant. The other one they did about the guy who breaks stuff busted my shit up (and I knew it was fake at the time)...
I heard it wasn't Levis but some other company... the name slips my mind, but it was big in the 80s... Lee? Someone like that.
W
-------------------
"Salk saw an opportunity to develop a vaccine against polio, and devoted himself to this work for the next eight years....When news of the discovery was made public on April 12, 1955, Salk was hailed as a miracle worker. He further endeared himself to the public by refusing to patent the vaccine. He had no desire to profit personally from the discovery, but merely wished to see the vaccine disseminated as widely as possible. "
How many thousands of lives were saved as a result of this decision?
W
-------------------
Good thing he didn't ask us to read his lips on that one.
W
-------------------
Although the link is slashdotted to hell, I presume this has to do with the Playstation emulator (called the Virtual Play Station) that Connectix made for the Mac.
Connectix, incidentally, is a company that I suspect is comprised of aliens with advanced technology OR possibly someone with a time machine. Among their breakthrough offerings (breakthough at the time, anyway) -- RamDoubler, Speeddoubler, Virtual PC, and VPS.
W
-------------------
Here's my scenario...
AOL pulls finding. Mozilla shuts down or becomes volunteer only.
The focus would shift from the Mozilla "platform" to the Mozilla "browser", starting with Galeon and its brethren.
There'd probably be enough energy to wrap gecko in a browser shell for each of the major OSs.
Anything more substantial than that would really shock me.
-------------------
Will their software go on? I mean, really?
I look at the enormous work going into something like Mozilla-- literally dozens of programmers working 24-7 on something like that. Lots of systems, lots of coordination.
I just have to wonder whether when funding on something like Mozilla or Nautilus gets pulled, does development continue? Does the software go on, realistically?
W
-------------------
Who's captain cisco?
And what's the meaning of "gateway to america" in the window?
W
-------------------
I only know about Trinity because I wrote to one of the developers after the announcement on gnome.org a few weeks ago. We were talking about whether gstreamer would make a good foundation for a free NLE. He told me there was already one in the works called Trinity, etc.
Information about Trinity isn't on the gstreamer page, as far as I know.
W
-------------------