UPS and FedEx et al are usually used to ship items of size and/or value. Regular letter mail is a horse of a different color.
Exactly how is this going to work? No more corner mail boxes? You now have to go to the post office and present an ID to mail a letter? Or you have to present an ID to get stamps encoded with a particular bar code? No more stamp machines, and it's illegal to loan a stamp to your neighbor?
I routinely mail envelopes with no return address. If I do this in the future, am I going to be a criminal?
Yes and no. If you have my data, it's your responsibility to keep it protected. That being said, no system is foolproof. Particularly, it's impossible to completely protect data from insiders - people who have legitimate access to the data but choose to abuse that access.
The impossibility of absolute protection, however, doesn't relieve the company from responsibility. The company is responsible for taking all reasonable measures to protect my data. If they do not do so, they are (or at least should be) criminally negligent. If they do take reasonable precautions and a violation occurs anyway, they're at least responsible for notifying me that my information has been comprimised, identifying the vulnerability that led to the violation, and taking steps to ensure that it doesn't happen again.
Thanks. I absolutely HATE articles like the one linked to in the story. In essence, it says "There was a previous theory which doesn't work. But we're not going to explain what the previous theory was because you're probably too stupid to understand it anyway. Now, there's a new thoery. But you're too stupid to understand it too."
If it was only the original case, Red Hat wouldn't be bringing suit. SCO is also contacting customers of Red Hat (as well as other Linux versions), warning them that they're liable for copyright infringement or violation of trade secrets, and offering to sell them a license. That's why Red Hat is suing.
They don't have any legal claim for licensing revenues now. As has been repeatedly pointed out, a customer is not liable. If the NY Times prints a chapter from Harry Potter and gets sued for doing so, the people who have subscriptions to the NYT can't also be sued and forced to pay for the book. It doesn't work that way.
Uh, hello. Care to think this through a bit? Don't you think the DMCA constitutes the government interfering in the market? If the federal government wasn't interfering in the right of people to reverse engineer products like Lexmarks printer cartridges, this legislation wouldn't be necessary. I agree that the free market is a better solution than government interference most of the time, but Lexmark using the DMCA to stifle competition isn't the free market.
Certainly, simplifying the calculation removes information about the state of the simulation. So what? We don't have access to any more information than the simulation does; therefore we have no way to prove that the simulation's calculations are incorrect.
Your argument essentially boils down to the claim that we would be able to run our own simulation (either a computerized simulation or a pen-and-paper calculation), and compare the results of it to "reality." However, calculating the future state of a system necessarily relies upon determining the present state of the system. When we determine the present state to some degree of precision, we tell the simulation that it needs to pay more attention to those details.
Incorrect. All that needs to be simulated is what you actually perceive. In modern games, the engine calculates what can and can't be seen and doesn't draw the things that can't be seen. A simulation would use a much more sophisticated version of that algorithm. If you're looking through a microscope, microbes are individual simulated. If you aren't looking through the microscope, then they aren't simulated, or are simulated in the aggregate to calculate gross effects that might be perceivable (such as tainted meat causing food poisoning.)
Remember, the simulation has to know exactly what you're doing and what you're perceiving in order to feed the information to your brain. If you turn your head, that isn't a physical motion. The simulation detects the impulses that indicate you desire to turn your head, and adjusts your visual and physical feeds to simulate that motion. So it's certainly capable of determining that you are peering through a microscope and adjusting the level of detail accordingly. How detailed is the simulation? Precisely as detailed as it needs to be, but no more.
One interesting result of this is that observation would affect the behavior of the universe. Also, changes in the environment, such as the presence of a second slit in a screen, might alter the algorithm used to calculate the behavior of, oh, I don't know, maybe photons.
It appears that the warnings were delivered to the German arm of SCO, leading me to speculate that they were cautioning German companies who use Linux of possible culpability much as SCO has been doing in the US. I fail to see how disclosing their evidence can harm SCO's ability to to sue IBM. (They are required to provide the evidence to IBM prior to trial anyway.) What it will do is harm their ability to take advantage of the FUD their suit is causing. It also allows the Linux community to immediately get started in rewriting any code in the unlikely event that some part of their claims actually have merit.
Only way to disable them is to locate them in the clothing, and tear them out.
If you can locate them, seems like a few hard blows with a hammer against a suitably firm background should take care of things without doing any damage to the clothing.
How often do you walk through a doorway? How often do you walk through one of those anti-theft scanners? Do you really want retailers to be able to track and store who bought everything from your socks to your underwear when you walk through the door?
She is not technically inept. She is a technical genius compared to many of the people I know. To many of them, running sndconfig is so far out of their league it isn't even funny. The very concepts of dual booting or partitioning a hard drive for different OS's is as foreign to them as the idea of performing a transplant.
I'd say that Hitman (1 and 2) would fall into this category. Certainly, it's not preciesly an old-style adventure game but I'd say that's where its roots are.
I thoroughly enjoyed all six of Herber's Dune books. The new ones, collaborations between Brian(?) Herbert and someone else who's name escapes me at the moment are horrible. They aren't quite as bad as the RwR sequels, however. Not only was the writing weak, but the plot was ridiculous and obvious patchwork. Nothing in the original RwR hints at the blather that happens in the sequels. Reading them was a complete and utter waste of several hours of my time.
Nobody questions that Clarke made some accurate predictions. He also made a lot of inaccurate predictions. (At least, they're inaccurate to this point.) So have a lot of other writers. Everything from television to personal computers to genetic engineering appeared in the pages of sci-fi well before they made their way into reality. The question isn't whether or not Clarke predicted a few things. The question is whether he was significantly more accurate than his fellows. I don't believe he was.
You can say that the Wright brothers invented the airplane. However, they didn't invent it when they sat around talking about it. They didn't invent it when they built a prototype that didn't fly. They invented the airplane when they designed and built a machine that actually flew. Did Clark design and build a working satellite? If not, he didn't invent them any more than Da Vinci invented the airplane.
I have seen a lot of clueless statements posted on Slashdot, but I do believe this one tops them all. Congratulations on either a well-done troll or on achieving the pinnacle of cluelessness.
Uh, we already have. It's called "The Internet" and various ancillary systems and software. The problem is that certain forces don't WANT people to be able to easily create and and transfer content easily. What we want - ease of use, complete "fair use" rights, etc. is at odds with what they want - strict control on our ability to use the content. I strongly question whether it's possible even in theory to develop a system which satisfies both parties.
While I tend to agree that the potential to use this for a daily-use system is limited, nothing prevents you from booting the system from DVD and mounting/dev/hda1 to/usr and/dev/hda2 to/home (or whatever). Additionally, upon boot-up the system could read a configuration script from a CD-R, patching in-place any security holes and setting up your web server, IMAP server, etc.
If no scripts are run from the hard drive on system initialization, the potential for installing root kits is limited. What good does it do to have the root kit sitting on the hard drive if it isn't installed when the system boots?
LIS, probably impractical for a desktop system. But certainly doable for a server.
Actually, you not only have to use words that are commonly used in non-spam but you also have to avoid words that are commonly used in spam. So how do you convince someone to buy something without using words like "buy" "purchase" "special" "deal" "unique" etc? How do you convince people to come to your porn site without describing the pics you'll find there? Care to post an example spiel?
And if someone does find a way, you'll correct the filter and it will start to recognize the new format.
I don't claim that the Bayesian filter is in any way intelligent and actually recognizes the sales pitch. I do claim that sales pitches have certain characteristic word usages that can be identified by statistical analysis, and that the filter in effect recognizes those characteristics.
Well, if you read the article, you'd know that Linus doesn't necessarily think it's a bad idea. It may just be something he doesn't care about. It doesn't matter how long you've spent working on an idea if I don't care about the problem you're addressing.
An interesting idea that I haven't seen discussed is using this concept for more general uses. If we can sort spam from non-spam, how about business from personal? Technical from administrative? All you'd need is multiple databases of word probabilities, the ability to assign emails to multiple categories and a hierarchical method of sorting.
Might want to check your own medicine cabinet. Sure, Perl runs on more platforms. So what? How many of the worlds actual computers have Perl installed? Even better, how many of the worlds computers that are used daily to read email have perl installed? How many of them can run an.exe file? I'd suggest that the latter is orders of magnitude more than the former.
Read the referenced article. The only way to avoid the filter is to make your email sound like a normal message. In essence, the filter recognizes the sales pitch. If you remove the sales pitch to get your spam past the filter, you've removed the whole point of sending the spam.
Slashdot Mirror
UPS and FedEx et al are usually used to ship items of size and/or value. Regular letter mail is a horse of a different color.
Exactly how is this going to work? No more corner mail boxes? You now have to go to the post office and present an ID to mail a letter? Or you have to present an ID to get stamps encoded with a particular bar code? No more stamp machines, and it's illegal to loan a stamp to your neighbor?
I routinely mail envelopes with no return address. If I do this in the future, am I going to be a criminal?
Yes and no. If you have my data, it's your responsibility to keep it protected. That being said, no system is foolproof. Particularly, it's impossible to completely protect data from insiders - people who have legitimate access to the data but choose to abuse that access.
The impossibility of absolute protection, however, doesn't relieve the company from responsibility. The company is responsible for taking all reasonable measures to protect my data. If they do not do so, they are (or at least should be) criminally negligent. If they do take reasonable precautions and a violation occurs anyway, they're at least responsible for notifying me that my information has been comprimised, identifying the vulnerability that led to the violation, and taking steps to ensure that it doesn't happen again.
Thanks. I absolutely HATE articles like the one linked to in the story. In essence, it says "There was a previous theory which doesn't work. But we're not going to explain what the previous theory was because you're probably too stupid to understand it anyway. Now, there's a new thoery. But you're too stupid to understand it too."
If it was only the original case, Red Hat wouldn't be bringing suit. SCO is also contacting customers of Red Hat (as well as other Linux versions), warning them that they're liable for copyright infringement or violation of trade secrets, and offering to sell them a license. That's why Red Hat is suing.
They don't have any legal claim for licensing revenues now. As has been repeatedly pointed out, a customer is not liable. If the NY Times prints a chapter from Harry Potter and gets sued for doing so, the people who have subscriptions to the NYT can't also be sued and forced to pay for the book. It doesn't work that way.
Uh, hello. Care to think this through a bit? Don't you think the DMCA constitutes the government interfering in the market? If the federal government wasn't interfering in the right of people to reverse engineer products like Lexmarks printer cartridges, this legislation wouldn't be necessary. I agree that the free market is a better solution than government interference most of the time, but Lexmark using the DMCA to stifle competition isn't the free market.
Certainly, simplifying the calculation removes information about the state of the simulation. So what? We don't have access to any more information than the simulation does; therefore we have no way to prove that the simulation's calculations are incorrect.
Your argument essentially boils down to the claim that we would be able to run our own simulation (either a computerized simulation or a pen-and-paper calculation), and compare the results of it to "reality." However, calculating the future state of a system necessarily relies upon determining the present state of the system. When we determine the present state to some degree of precision, we tell the simulation that it needs to pay more attention to those details.
Incorrect. All that needs to be simulated is what you actually perceive. In modern games, the engine calculates what can and can't be seen and doesn't draw the things that can't be seen. A simulation would use a much more sophisticated version of that algorithm. If you're looking through a microscope, microbes are individual simulated. If you aren't looking through the microscope, then they aren't simulated, or are simulated in the aggregate to calculate gross effects that might be perceivable (such as tainted meat causing food poisoning.)
Remember, the simulation has to know exactly what you're doing and what you're perceiving in order to feed the information to your brain. If you turn your head, that isn't a physical motion. The simulation detects the impulses that indicate you desire to turn your head, and adjusts your visual and physical feeds to simulate that motion. So it's certainly capable of determining that you are peering through a microscope and adjusting the level of detail accordingly. How detailed is the simulation? Precisely as detailed as it needs to be, but no more.
One interesting result of this is that observation would affect the behavior of the universe. Also, changes in the environment, such as the presence of a second slit in a screen, might alter the algorithm used to calculate the behavior of, oh, I don't know, maybe photons.
It appears that the warnings were delivered to the German arm of SCO, leading me to speculate that they were cautioning German companies who use Linux of possible culpability much as SCO has been doing in the US. I fail to see how disclosing their evidence can harm SCO's ability to to sue IBM. (They are required to provide the evidence to IBM prior to trial anyway.) What it will do is harm their ability to take advantage of the FUD their suit is causing. It also allows the Linux community to immediately get started in rewriting any code in the unlikely event that some part of their claims actually have merit.
Just out of curiosity, how many children do you think were protected from abuse by imprisoning the professor?
Only way to disable them is to locate them in the clothing, and tear them out.
If you can locate them, seems like a few hard blows with a hammer against a suitably firm background should take care of things without doing any damage to the clothing.
How often do you walk through a doorway? How often do you walk through one of those anti-theft scanners? Do you really want retailers to be able to track and store who bought everything from your socks to your underwear when you walk through the door?
She is not technically inept. She is a technical genius compared to many of the people I know. To many of them, running sndconfig is so far out of their league it isn't even funny. The very concepts of dual booting or partitioning a hard drive for different OS's is as foreign to them as the idea of performing a transplant.
I'd say that Hitman (1 and 2) would fall into this category. Certainly, it's not preciesly an old-style adventure game but I'd say that's where its roots are.
I thoroughly enjoyed all six of Herber's Dune books. The new ones, collaborations between Brian(?) Herbert and someone else who's name escapes me at the moment are horrible. They aren't quite as bad as the RwR sequels, however. Not only was the writing weak, but the plot was ridiculous and obvious patchwork. Nothing in the original RwR hints at the blather that happens in the sequels. Reading them was a complete and utter waste of several hours of my time.
Nobody questions that Clarke made some accurate predictions. He also made a lot of inaccurate predictions. (At least, they're inaccurate to this point.) So have a lot of other writers. Everything from television to personal computers to genetic engineering appeared in the pages of sci-fi well before they made their way into reality. The question isn't whether or not Clarke predicted a few things. The question is whether he was significantly more accurate than his fellows. I don't believe he was.
You can say that the Wright brothers invented the airplane. However, they didn't invent it when they sat around talking about it. They didn't invent it when they built a prototype that didn't fly. They invented the airplane when they designed and built a machine that actually flew. Did Clark design and build a working satellite? If not, he didn't invent them any more than Da Vinci invented the airplane.
I have seen a lot of clueless statements posted on Slashdot, but I do believe this one tops them all. Congratulations on either a well-done troll or on achieving the pinnacle of cluelessness.
Uh, we already have. It's called "The Internet" and various ancillary systems and software. The problem is that certain forces don't WANT people to be able to easily create and and transfer content easily. What we want - ease of use, complete "fair use" rights, etc. is at odds with what they want - strict control on our ability to use the content. I strongly question whether it's possible even in theory to develop a system which satisfies both parties.
While I tend to agree that the potential to use this for a daily-use system is limited, nothing prevents you from booting the system from DVD and mounting /dev/hda1 to /usr and /dev/hda2 to /home (or whatever). Additionally, upon boot-up the system could read a configuration script from a CD-R, patching in-place any security holes and setting up your web server, IMAP server, etc.
If no scripts are run from the hard drive on system initialization, the potential for installing root kits is limited. What good does it do to have the root kit sitting on the hard drive if it isn't installed when the system boots?
LIS, probably impractical for a desktop system. But certainly doable for a server.
Actually, you not only have to use words that are commonly used in non-spam but you also have to avoid words that are commonly used in spam. So how do you convince someone to buy something without using words like "buy" "purchase" "special" "deal" "unique" etc? How do you convince people to come to your porn site without describing the pics you'll find there? Care to post an example spiel?
And if someone does find a way, you'll correct the filter and it will start to recognize the new format.
I don't claim that the Bayesian filter is in any way intelligent and actually recognizes the sales pitch. I do claim that sales pitches have certain characteristic word usages that can be identified by statistical analysis, and that the filter in effect recognizes those characteristics.
Well, if you read the article, you'd know that Linus doesn't necessarily think it's a bad idea. It may just be something he doesn't care about. It doesn't matter how long you've spent working on an idea if I don't care about the problem you're addressing.
An interesting idea that I haven't seen discussed is using this concept for more general uses. If we can sort spam from non-spam, how about business from personal? Technical from administrative? All you'd need is multiple databases of word probabilities, the ability to assign emails to multiple categories and a hierarchical method of sorting.
Might want to check your own medicine cabinet. Sure, Perl runs on more platforms. So what? How many of the worlds actual computers have Perl installed? Even better, how many of the worlds computers that are used daily to read email have perl installed? How many of them can run an .exe file? I'd suggest that the latter is orders of magnitude more than the former.
Read the referenced article. The only way to avoid the filter is to make your email sound like a normal message. In essence, the filter recognizes the sales pitch. If you remove the sales pitch to get your spam past the filter, you've removed the whole point of sending the spam.