The crypto stuff is kinda obvious... see for instance gnunet. For the actual p2p, take a look at this http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1170257 I know the author, he started doing this more than a decade ago.
Yeah, it's frustrating, you (we) have some good idea, just to find out a lot of people already had it way before. Sometimes centuries ago (for math stuff). On the other hand, we live in a world of awesome possibilities...;)
If yours was the way science operates we'd still operate out of caves.
Well, most people behave like this AC, and that's the reason science is slow in accepting fundamental changes. To be skeptical is obviously necessary, but what actually happens is people start dismissing evidence without the proper analysis. One example of what I'm saying is the "cold fusion fiasco"... after 20 years of ridiculing Fleischmann and Pons, and all those who tried to investigate the effect, now there is undeniable proof that a strange/anomalous heat effect exists. Yet, most people just jump to the conclusion that it is a scam, without bothering to analyze the claims. If this post receive some reply, it will probably be to assert how stupid I am to believe in this snake oil. Please, go on, be my guest.;)
I already read someone saying India's middle class was half of the population, and now this AC saying that it is 4% (and getting +2 insightful, oh/. y u disappoint me?).
Wikipedia[1] says it is around 25%, with 300 million people, backed by a report from Deutsche Bank.
To clean your "personal stuff" off of your work computer you should take a rag and some disinfectant and scrub real hard. But I doubt you'll be able to remove all the stuff. You shouldn't be watching porn at work anyway.
And what are the non-creative idiots going to do for a living?
Soon the creative idiots (supposedly like yourself) will follow the same trend. And then society will be forced to change dramatically. We already see the signs (e.g. occupy wall street), but the constrast is still not enough to make the majority of the population to stand against the system.
You could at least try to fake you were replying to raydobb's post. Replying to the first poster just for the sake of placement is extremely lame IMHO.
If I saw the above declaration, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a later command like:
post = "second";// Or perhaps some computed value
If the declaration had contained a const, this would be a syntax error, since the variable post has been declared a constant.
Nopz, what was declared as constant is the memory the pointer is pointing to. Example: 1: void f() { 2: const char *a="bla"; 3: a = "blu"; 4: a[0] = 0; 5: } >gcc -c t.c t.c: In function ‘f’: t.c:4:2: error: assignment of read-only location ‘*a’
Tip: avoid using snarky comments. When you're wrong it makes you look specially stupid.
I agree with your message (including the linguistic devaluation part), but...
(I am using entrepreneur in the literal sense of a middleman who seeks to profit without adding value; its meaning has been extended to "people who start productive businesses", which is part of the devaluation of linguistic currency that has helped getting us into this mess.)
enterprise
early 15c., "an undertaking," from O.Fr. enterprise "an undertaking," noun use of fem. pp. of entreprendre "undertake, take in hand," from entre- "between" + prendre "to take," contraction of prehendere (see prehensile). Abstract sense of "readiness to undertake challenges, spirit of daring" is from late 15c.
So no, entrepreneur is one who adds value by assuming the risks involved in the enterprise.
But the real point here is: economists continue to have no clue about the economy, yet are still taken in consideration for policies. What about asking some astrologers too?
[I'm overgeneralizing, but how to find the REAL economists, not the clueless ones?]
The obvious geek project: a gripper/manipulator that discards jitter in its input. I believe I read something about robotic surgical tools using this strategy. It has the added benefit of enabling scaled-down control, so you could e.g. write something on a grain of rice.
I didn't say anything about greed, or about the middleman being useless, or about piracy being right. I made just two claims, which stand on their own: 1 - no, the system is not good for the artists (e.g. http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/07/13/1737224/riaa-accounting-how-labels-avoid-paying-musicians) 2 - the system is excellent for the MAFIAA, to the point a major effort was needed to avoid legislation being passed that would corrupt the system even more.
Slashdot Mirror
The crypto stuff is kinda obvious... see for instance gnunet. For the actual p2p, take a look at this http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1170257
I know the author, he started doing this more than a decade ago.
Yeah, it's frustrating, you (we) have some good idea, just to find out a lot of people already had it way before. Sometimes centuries ago (for math stuff). ;)
On the other hand, we live in a world of awesome possibilities...
Well, if a reverse class-action lawsuit were feasible,
No, my EULA explicitly says you drop your right for a class-action lawsuit.
If yours was the way science operates we'd still operate out of caves.
Well, most people behave like this AC, and that's the reason science is slow in accepting fundamental changes. To be skeptical is obviously necessary, but what actually happens is people start dismissing evidence without the proper analysis. ;)
One example of what I'm saying is the "cold fusion fiasco"... after 20 years of ridiculing Fleischmann and Pons, and all those who tried to investigate the effect, now there is undeniable proof that a strange/anomalous heat effect exists. Yet, most people just jump to the conclusion that it is a scam, without bothering to analyze the claims. If this post receive some reply, it will probably be to assert how stupid I am to believe in this snake oil. Please, go on, be my guest.
I already read someone saying India's middle class was half of the population, and now this AC saying that it is 4% (and getting +2 insightful, oh /. y u disappoint me?).
Wikipedia[1] says it is around 25%, with 300 million people, backed by a report from Deutsche Bank.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_living_in_India
Not only in the preview. :p
But this doesn't work: a test (kore ha a test desu)
from the launch-scrub-til-søndag dept.
For fuck sake, implement the damn utf8 thing already! [It even appears correct in the preview!]
[insert Fry's image here] Hmm, not sure if on purpose... or if never had math.
Or we'll live in 1984. Hard to predict, but the distopian way seems closer each day.
To clean your "personal stuff" off of your work computer you should take a rag and some disinfectant and scrub real hard. But I doubt you'll be able to remove all the stuff. You shouldn't be watching porn at work anyway.
... in the Higgs field.
And what are the non-creative idiots going to do for a living?
Soon the creative idiots (supposedly like yourself) will follow the same trend. And then society will be forced to change dramatically. We already see the signs (e.g. occupy wall street), but the constrast is still not enough to make the majority of the population to stand against the system.
The rocks have been lying around for 100 million years
Heresy! God created them smelly 6 thousand years ago!
You could at least try to fake you were replying to raydobb's post. Replying to the first poster just for the sake of placement is extremely lame IMHO.
Don't know much about C, do we? ;-)
He does, you not so much.
If I saw the above declaration, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a later command like:
post = "second"; // Or perhaps some computed value
If the declaration had contained a const, this would be a syntax error, since the variable post has been declared a constant.
Nopz, what was declared as constant is the memory the pointer is pointing to. Example:
1: void f() {
2: const char *a="bla";
3: a = "blu";
4: a[0] = 0;
5: }
>gcc -c t.c
t.c: In function ‘f’:
t.c:4:2: error: assignment of read-only location ‘*a’
Tip: avoid using snarky comments. When you're wrong it makes you look specially stupid.
I agree with your message (including the linguistic devaluation part), but...
(I am using entrepreneur in the literal sense of a middleman who seeks to profit without adding value; its meaning has been extended to "people who start productive businesses", which is part of the devaluation of linguistic currency that has helped getting us into this mess.)
From http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=enterprise:
enterprise
early 15c., "an undertaking," from O.Fr. enterprise "an undertaking," noun use of fem. pp. of entreprendre "undertake, take in hand," from entre- "between" + prendre "to take," contraction of prehendere (see prehensile). Abstract sense of "readiness to undertake challenges, spirit of daring" is from late 15c.
So no, entrepreneur is one who adds value by assuming the risks involved in the enterprise.
Too late, the AC before you already did that.
But the real point here is: economists continue to have no clue about the economy, yet are still taken in consideration for policies. What about asking some astrologers too?
[I'm overgeneralizing, but how to find the REAL economists, not the clueless ones?]
The obvious geek project: a gripper/manipulator that discards jitter in its input. I believe I read something about robotic surgical tools using this strategy. It has the added benefit of enabling scaled-down control, so you could e.g. write something on a grain of rice.
If I had the time I'd do it myself!
Didn't pass the "interpretation reading skills" exam, didja? Where did I say it was ok to not pay the artist? Here, read this -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2925975&cid=40374301
I didn't say anything about greed, or about the middleman being useless, or about piracy being right. I made just two claims, which stand on their own:
1 - no, the system is not good for the artists (e.g. http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/07/13/1737224/riaa-accounting-how-labels-avoid-paying-musicians)
2 - the system is excellent for the MAFIAA, to the point a major effort was needed to avoid legislation being passed that would corrupt the system even more.
This system has worked very well for fans and artists.
No, it's been superb for the middleman, the famous MAFIAA.
I agree with you in everything, but for the sake of my OCD I'll be pedantic about:
3) No authentication is really possible of the recipient.
'Possible' is too strong a word for this case. One could exchange encryption key pairs beforehand.
I use DarkyROM, which bundles Google Talk 2.
Probably the problem is your Android version. After I upgraded mine to 2.3 the audio calls started to work.
"[...] assuming Microsoft can play its cards right."
In other words, to launch a Nokia Android phone. :p
Unless they use the unlucky ones for mass-marketed "art": http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/06/04/1819225/artists-catcopter-causes-a-stir
(I love cats, but I couldn't stop laughing at that...)