You keep using those words.
I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
Ah, but what do you care if your contribution to the dilution helps to lose us an important tool to combat logical fallacies? You speak of their lost technology, while actively ignoring and destroying your own.
So, tell me. Which did you just exercise? Your freedom of speech or freedom of press? Because the LINE IS GONE. We ALL crossed it on our journey to the INFORMATION AGE. We're just having an open discussion in a public place, but really this is a copyrighted publication...
The laws need to be clarified because the world has changed and no amount of head burying will allow you to escape this fact -- Even worms have Twitter Feeds these days...
The founding fathers smathers -- They didn't have an Internet or Computers. I assure you the laws would have been very different if they had.
Yep, they set up a court system to arbitrate things... JUDGES should NOT be the last word in Law -- People Should Be! The founders also gave the people just ONE check to balance against the Judicial & Lawmaking branches: Jury Nullification -- Go ahead and try to use that in court. Guess what? THE JUDGES PRE-SCREEN JURORS FOR THAT. I was called for jury, the judge read a bit of law and asked us all to raise our hands if we would uphold this law -- No one raised their hands. Rather indignantly he said: "Well, I guess we'll just need a whole new batch of jurors!" -- I was nearly held in contempt of court for the outburst this caused me.
Don't talk to me about founding fathers -- You could power the whole nation by harnessing the speed at which they're rolling in their graves!
Arrest all children. EVERY LAST ONE. They all have been publicly making libelous claims of others, calling them "liars" with flaming trousers, other derisive terms are too profane for me to repeat in the presence of adults.
TIMES HAVE CHANGED. I'm sick of all the morons ignoring the fact that Computers have indeed revolutionized the way we function to a large degree.
Just because you hand every teen a phone doesn't mean they'll stop saying those things -- They'll text each other the naughty bits they'd show off to eachother in the broom closet, because they've always done this. People will say bad things in public about other people -- Hit up a pub and see for yourself. Now we have pubs that span the globe, we're still carrying on the same conversations, but it just happens to be digital now. Instead of passing notes in class or mailing letters people post on eachother's their social sites.
Hey, if it weren't for faster reliable transportation our "communities" would be a lot smaller. We wouldn't commute as far, maybe we wouldn't use so much cheap electronic SPEECH tools?
I'm fully aware of how Libel laws work. I don't need to discuss whether or not it's illegal to defame someone. What you need to think about is how MANY of the current laws need to be revised since we've entered the Information Age. Or, hell, let's conider EVERY SINGLE PERSON a publisher?! No... that's not what's really going on.
At what point is is proper to NOT bury your head in the sand, and instead do something about the situation? I suppose once we arrest all of your children or fine you heavily for name-calling... maybe then? No?
The real issue is: NO Sticks & Stones were Involved! PROVE DAMAGES. Otherwise GTFO the court!
Agreed. I mean, if the MPAA & RIAA can turn copyright law meant to keep greedy publishers in line against the people, then the people should all be considered publishers all the time, not just when the lobbyists chose.
No it doesn't. Well, not to me. I just encrypt my data and store it in.JPG,.TGA,.PNG image's exif or "developer's area" data, then upload it to Sourceforge, GitHub, PirateBay, etc. and share it with the whole world. Since the images can't be transcoded in my open source projects (or else SHA-1 hashes don't match in the repositories), the data is pristine, verifiability tamper proof, and everywhere for me to re-download, decrypt, and use (so long as my projects remain popular).
I didn't see anything prohibiting this practice in the EULA... Still, I thought it best if the data was actually used for something. Turns out encrypted data makes a really good and fast pseudo random number generator lookup table, although it does eat a bit of disk space.
Now, if you want to narrow your definition of "cloud" to only services that do re-encode and compress my data, not allowing encryption or lossless images -- Well, I'd argue that those aren't storage solutions so much as storage problems.
Lately I've been hosting my data with friends and family, and they host theirs with me. Altogether we've got quite a bit of redundancy and geographic coverage. While I may not be able to get as reliable a service "at home", at all of our homes, I've achieved even higher uptime over the past year than Sourceforge.org has had... My custom solution involving deduplication (hey, we're family we can ACTUALLY trust each-other with some things) and other FSYNC like features is not ready for prime-time yet, but when it is, I plan to TAKE BACK THE CLOUD -- For free.
I mean... reverse domain name lookups exist. I guess you'll still need to use an encrypted proxy like TOR?
(Wait, doesn't TOR encrypt your DNS requests?)
So, any CA can create a cert for any site (or even EVERY site via *.* -- WHO THOUGHT THIS WAS A GOOD IDEA?!). This means EVERY SINGLE CA must remain 100% secure all the time in order for us to be able to trust the CA system.
Now, this was pointed out from the beginning. "There is not a single point of failure -- No! There are MANY points of failure, any of which means a complete breakdown!"
A web of trust is the only real competing system, and still here we are, not even trying that out on a large scale. Say what you will, but know that all trust tree hierarchies are doomed to fail.
Come at me CA apologists. All your certs aren't belong to you.
Since then, the toll of high-stake events that could potentially have been better anticipated if improved predictive computer models had been available — like the Columbia disaster, Hurricane Katrina and the World Trade Center collapse after the 9/11 terrorist attacks — has catapulted research on uncertainty quantification to the scientific and engineering forefronts
How sure are we that the tolls could have been better anticipated?
We should leverage a super computer to calculate the potential that each high-stake event can be better anticipated by a super computer model. Then simply pool our resources and use greater predictive computing power for the events we have the most potential to anticipate.
I put it to you that once such a model can be computed, it will be trivial to use predictive computer models to determine which super computer will predict the the most accurate results. Thus, we can leave it alone to the task of the predicting, knowing that it has a potentially better chance of anticipating the anticipation.
Furthermore, we could use the predictive models to better anticipate which researcher will be able to quantify the amount of uncertainty quantification needed to quantify quantum uncertainty; They would also be the ones who could finally tell us what quantity of Schrödinger's cat is undead.
This is why GPL3 is better than the GPL2. Wouldn't it be nice if we could just use the existing copyright law to enforce this instead of waiting for legislature to do so?
It's really too bad that Linus hates the GPL3. He sees it as preventing MFGs from doing things with their hardware -- This is wrong, they can do whatever they like, but they must give us the keys to do what we like too. (Just like GPL2 re: source code -- boot ROM encryption = part of the source, IMHO). The concept of the GPLv3 is really no different than GPLv2 -- Users Need Software Freedom.
Device MFGs & Carriers discovered an exploit in v2.0 series of GPL, and leveraged it.Instead of patching the bug in Linux, Linus ignores it and pretends that's what he meant to do... Like Peewee Herman: "I was sloppy with copyright assignments and now I can't upgrade to v3 even if I wanted too -- Not because I was young and naive and lacked foresight, but because: I meant to do that."
Well, it's Linus's code so he can do what he wants license wise -- Actually, it's minimally his, it's mostly every other contributor's code now, according to Copyright laws. He never required assignment, so no, he CAN'T do whatever he wants license wise. Some would say: "Well, he knew that when he started out." Seriously? No. Honestly? You expect me to believe that a SOFTWARE developer, agreed to have some aspect that could never be upgraded even if exploits were found? Is that what I'm supposed to believe? I'm going to have to call on Occam's Razor for this one. Either Linus was ignorantly foolishly, or willfully so.
That's why it was such a big deal that "at your option, any later version" got left out. I stopped contributing when this was brought to light after Linus stated is opinion on the trivialization issue. I seriously think he realized it couldn't be fixed easily, and instead of working to fix the issue he decided that it was right not to do so.
Now I work on and use the next best thing -- HURD. This kernel may go nowhere, in fact it has some deep flaws but so does Linux... Any progress is better than nothing. You don't want to use out-dated and bug-ridden code, why would you settle for out-dated and bug ridden licenses? I prefer to be able to patch both my software and licenses against exploits. I mean, just look at Apple & BSD. Do we want that for Linux? No? Well, too bad. Welcome to Android.
I've seen what path Linus has chosen, and I don't like it at all. IMHO, the kernel itself is not important, it just needs to marshal my applications (many of which run on BSD/OSX/Linux/HURD & Win -- I support user freedoms). What's important is whether my contributions will serve my interests in the future, or be used against me in an effort to limit my freedoms.
Yes. The practice of breeding diplomatic relations into being has been part of our culture since the first of our homosapien ancestors screwed a Neanderthal.
If it worked for Cave-Folks it'll work for the Federation of Planets. Why fix something that's not broken?
Children, be sure to take home these permission slips and get your parents to sign them. We'll spend an ENTIRE day the next FOUR WEEKS touring various fluid simulation sites.
vs
Children, Please download the Fluid Simulation Software to your workstations or laptops. Please load, and view each of the 20 simulation demos before our next class either in the Lab, or AT HOME. Each situation faces a water problem. RE-ARRANGE THE LANDSCAPES in the simulation and see if you can solve the problems.
Since when do Children need Five Nines of accuracy to learn about fluid dynamics? You can run the simplified sims on your home computer... You: Look, but don't touch, and try to learn. Me: Here, have a hands-on experience.
If you're talking about much smaller scale sims, well then, good luck setting them all up each time the banks wash away. It'll devolve into a splashing mud-slinging free-for all. Great fun, but less learning. Trust me, I've tried.
It's fun to think about ownership -- That's a term that means nothing to the rest of the Universe. The software companies have taken this to heart too.
I suppose you thought people owned the proprietary software they purchased too?
P.S. Just place the.EXE in a.ZIP. Practically all OSs come with decompression programs standard now.
The Warez folk used to comprize a much smaller community, and they cracked software to distribute it on BSSs. Many thought it was just fun to do, and several groups actually became very competitive at it! Often "flaming" other crackers in the software's opening text or graphics.
Crackers were thought to have more status than others who created a two week old or month old crack if it only took them a week after the software was released to crack it. A "day" rating was born. Thus the crack released just one week after the software was released was was known as a "7day" crack... A "3day" Crack would be even better!
Sometimes, Crackers would get hold of early-release software (back when Beta meant something similar to VHS), other times the Anti-Copy Protection software was just really easy to crack; This allowed for a crack to be released on the same day as the software was officially released: Thus, the best crack you could do (or the worst copy-protection you could use) resulted in a Zero Day crack.
Today "Zero Day" has become to mean a crack that software developers found in the wild, and had Zero-Days of forewarning about.
Much like "cloud" (which symbolizes unknown, untrusted or unreliable spaces in a network diagram), and many other terms: Zero-Day used to mean something before it was added to the BuzzWord bingo.
This is a great application of the "gamification" buzzword I've heard bandied about recently.
So long as the reward structure doesn't represent Skinner Boxification, I'm fine with this.
However, does everything need to be a game? If it was more like work would people perform the task for free? How do you know unless you try?
Are not many real world systems very similar to playing games anyhow?
This just in: Corporations help the Gambling Addicted advance the Economic Research via new game dubbed "The Stock Market".
They don't seem to think somebody tries to read the scores on an SD TV anymore, or at least nobody has tried it. It's basically impossible.
Car commercials have exploited this (fine print that's just word like smudges) on just about any screen thanks to digital trans-coding -- Which also tries to make the optimum "improvements" based on how humans see... (implying that we can't see the fine print normally?)
I say screw AA; Give me higher quality render / display instead. On a high enough plank-unit-per-pixel-per resolution display and render output quantum effects will perform all the blurring you need -- well this or older eyeballs.
Maybe I'll worry about "Jaggies" when I get my ocular implants.
Slashdot Mirror
Which begs the question
You keep using those words.
I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
Ah, but what do you care if your contribution to the dilution helps to lose us an important tool to combat logical fallacies?
You speak of their lost technology, while actively ignoring and destroying your own.
Let me know when you get to the one with Tina Turner in it...
"Every-Man Enter, One Percent Leaves!" --Wait... that's not the Thunder Dome, it's Capitol Hill.
The laws need to be clarified because the world has changed and no amount of head burying will allow you to escape this fact -- Even worms have Twitter Feeds these days...
The founding fathers smathers -- They didn't have an Internet or Computers. I assure you the laws would have been very different if they had.
Yep, they set up a court system to arbitrate things... JUDGES should NOT be the last word in Law -- People Should Be! The founders also gave the people just ONE check to balance against the Judicial & Lawmaking branches: Jury Nullification -- Go ahead and try to use that in court. Guess what? THE JUDGES PRE-SCREEN JURORS FOR THAT. I was called for jury, the judge read a bit of law and asked us all to raise our hands if we would uphold this law -- No one raised their hands. Rather indignantly he said: "Well, I guess we'll just need a whole new batch of jurors!" -- I was nearly held in contempt of court for the outburst this caused me.
Don't talk to me about founding fathers -- You could power the whole nation by harnessing the speed at which they're rolling in their graves!
Arrest all children. EVERY LAST ONE. They all have been publicly making libelous claims of others, calling them "liars" with flaming trousers, other derisive terms are too profane for me to repeat in the presence of adults.
TIMES HAVE CHANGED. I'm sick of all the morons ignoring the fact that Computers have indeed revolutionized the way we function to a large degree.
Just because you hand every teen a phone doesn't mean they'll stop saying those things -- They'll text each other the naughty bits they'd show off to eachother in the broom closet, because they've always done this. People will say bad things in public about other people -- Hit up a pub and see for yourself. Now we have pubs that span the globe, we're still carrying on the same conversations, but it just happens to be digital now. Instead of passing notes in class or mailing letters people post on eachother's their social sites.
Hey, if it weren't for faster reliable transportation our "communities" would be a lot smaller. We wouldn't commute as far, maybe we wouldn't use so much cheap electronic SPEECH tools?
I'm fully aware of how Libel laws work. I don't need to discuss whether or not it's illegal to defame someone. What you need to think about is how MANY of the current laws need to be revised since we've entered the Information Age. Or, hell, let's conider EVERY SINGLE PERSON a publisher?! No... that's not what's really going on.
At what point is is proper to NOT bury your head in the sand, and instead do something about the situation? I suppose once we arrest all of your children or fine you heavily for name-calling... maybe then? No?
The real issue is: NO Sticks & Stones were Involved! PROVE DAMAGES. Otherwise GTFO the court!
"Freedom of the Press" now goes to the guy with the big red button.
Agreed. I mean, if the MPAA & RIAA can turn copyright law meant to keep greedy publishers in line against the people, then the people should all be considered publishers all the time, not just when the lobbyists chose.
"Becomes less obvious"
No it doesn't. Well, not to me. I just encrypt my data and store it in .JPG, .TGA, .PNG image's exif or "developer's area" data, then upload it to Sourceforge, GitHub, PirateBay, etc. and share it with the whole world. Since the images can't be transcoded in my open source projects (or else SHA-1 hashes don't match in the repositories), the data is pristine, verifiability tamper proof, and everywhere for me to re-download, decrypt, and use (so long as my projects remain popular).
I didn't see anything prohibiting this practice in the EULA... Still, I thought it best if the data was actually used for something. Turns out encrypted data makes a really good and fast pseudo random number generator lookup table, although it does eat a bit of disk space.
Now, if you want to narrow your definition of "cloud" to only services that do re-encode and compress my data, not allowing encryption or lossless images -- Well, I'd argue that those aren't storage solutions so much as storage problems.
Lately I've been hosting my data with friends and family, and they host theirs with me. Altogether we've got quite a bit of redundancy and geographic coverage. While I may not be able to get as reliable a service "at home", at all of our homes, I've achieved even higher uptime over the past year than Sourceforge.org has had... My custom solution involving deduplication (hey, we're family we can ACTUALLY trust each-other with some things) and other FSYNC like features is not ready for prime-time yet, but when it is, I plan to TAKE BACK THE CLOUD -- For free.
I mean... reverse domain name lookups exist. I guess you'll still need to use an encrypted proxy like TOR?
(Wait, doesn't TOR encrypt your DNS requests?)
So, any CA can create a cert for any site (or even EVERY site via *.* -- WHO THOUGHT THIS WAS A GOOD IDEA?!). This means EVERY SINGLE CA must remain 100% secure all the time in order for us to be able to trust the CA system.
Now, this was pointed out from the beginning. "There is not a single point of failure -- No! There are MANY points of failure, any of which means a complete breakdown!"
A web of trust is the only real competing system, and still here we are, not even trying that out on a large scale. Say what you will, but know that all trust tree hierarchies are doomed to fail.
Come at me CA apologists. All your certs aren't belong to you.
Since then, the toll of high-stake events that could potentially have been better anticipated if improved predictive computer models had been available — like the Columbia disaster, Hurricane Katrina and the World Trade Center collapse after the 9/11 terrorist attacks — has catapulted research on uncertainty quantification to the scientific and engineering forefronts
How sure are we that the tolls could have been better anticipated?
We should leverage a super computer to calculate the potential that each high-stake event can be better anticipated by a super computer model. Then simply pool our resources and use greater predictive computing power for the events we have the most potential to anticipate.
I put it to you that once such a model can be computed, it will be trivial to use predictive computer models to determine which super computer will predict the the most accurate results. Thus, we can leave it alone to the task of the predicting, knowing that it has a potentially better chance of anticipating the anticipation.
Furthermore, we could use the predictive models to better anticipate which researcher will be able to quantify the amount of uncertainty quantification needed to quantify quantum uncertainty; They would also be the ones who could finally tell us what quantity of Schrödinger's cat is undead.
What exactly does dinosaur drawings have to do with any of this?
How much space will this take up?
I hope NONE. Otherwise they'll screw up my standard unit of measure: Libraries of Congress.
*his opinion on the tivoization issue
Heh, the word's not in the spellcheck dictionary? Hmm, bug-report #2...
This is why GPL3 is better than the GPL2. Wouldn't it be nice if we could just use the existing copyright law to enforce this instead of waiting for legislature to do so?
It's really too bad that Linus hates the GPL3. He sees it as preventing MFGs from doing things with their hardware -- This is wrong, they can do whatever they like, but they must give us the keys to do what we like too. (Just like GPL2 re: source code -- boot ROM encryption = part of the source, IMHO). The concept of the GPLv3 is really no different than GPLv2 -- Users Need Software Freedom.
Device MFGs & Carriers discovered an exploit in v2.0 series of GPL, and leveraged it.Instead of patching the bug in Linux, Linus ignores it and pretends that's what he meant to do... Like Peewee Herman: "I was sloppy with copyright assignments and now I can't upgrade to v3 even if I wanted too -- Not because I was young and naive and lacked foresight, but because: I meant to do that."
Well, it's Linus's code so he can do what he wants license wise -- Actually, it's minimally his, it's mostly every other contributor's code now, according to Copyright laws. He never required assignment, so no, he CAN'T do whatever he wants license wise. Some would say: "Well, he knew that when he started out." Seriously? No. Honestly? You expect me to believe that a SOFTWARE developer, agreed to have some aspect that could never be upgraded even if exploits were found? Is that what I'm supposed to believe? I'm going to have to call on Occam's Razor for this one. Either Linus was ignorantly foolishly, or willfully so.
That's why it was such a big deal that "at your option, any later version" got left out. I stopped contributing when this was brought to light after Linus stated is opinion on the trivialization issue. I seriously think he realized it couldn't be fixed easily, and instead of working to fix the issue he decided that it was right not to do so.
Now I work on and use the next best thing -- HURD. This kernel may go nowhere, in fact it has some deep flaws but so does Linux... Any progress is better than nothing. You don't want to use out-dated and bug-ridden code, why would you settle for out-dated and bug ridden licenses? I prefer to be able to patch both my software and licenses against exploits. I mean, just look at Apple & BSD. Do we want that for Linux? No? Well, too bad. Welcome to Android.
I've seen what path Linus has chosen, and I don't like it at all. IMHO, the kernel itself is not important, it just needs to marshal my applications (many of which run on BSD/OSX/Linux/HURD & Win -- I support user freedoms). What's important is whether my contributions will serve my interests in the future, or be used against me in an effort to limit my freedoms.
MALWARE EXISTS.
There. Your arguments are now invalid. The malware doesn't void your warranty, and can do whatever the hell it wants.
Please, keep pretending that infinite banana you eat for breakfast each day isn't Satan's cock.
Freedom. Security. Decide.
It is not clear whether Savage/Hyneman or Belleci/Imahara/Byron were conducting the experiment.
They can't tell who's who anymore? Sounds like the Freaky Friday myth is CONFIRMED!
Yes. The practice of breeding diplomatic relations into being has been part of our culture since the first of our homosapien ancestors screwed a Neanderthal.
If it worked for Cave-Folks it'll work for the Federation of Planets. Why fix something that's not broken?
'Merging Tsunami' Amplified Destruction In Japan
The last time I merged two SVN branches it more than just amplified the clusterfsck -- The process itself caused caused quite a bit of its own.
It was 70 years ago today that Japan, without declaring war prior, attacked Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.
I'm sorry, we can't accept that answer. Please state your question in the form of a question.
Children, be sure to take home these permission slips and get your parents to sign them. We'll spend an ENTIRE day the next FOUR WEEKS touring various fluid simulation sites.
vs
Children, Please download the Fluid Simulation Software to your workstations or laptops. Please load, and view each of the 20 simulation demos before our next class either in the Lab, or AT HOME. Each situation faces a water problem. RE-ARRANGE THE LANDSCAPES in the simulation and see if you can solve the problems.
Since when do Children need Five Nines of accuracy to learn about fluid dynamics? You can run the simplified sims on your home computer... You: Look, but don't touch, and try to learn. Me: Here, have a hands-on experience.
If you're talking about much smaller scale sims, well then, good luck setting them all up each time the banks wash away. It'll devolve into a splashing mud-slinging free-for all. Great fun, but less learning. Trust me, I've tried.
Your Account. Their Server. Their Choice.
It's fun to think about ownership -- That's a term that means nothing to the rest of the Universe. The software companies have taken this to heart too.
I suppose you thought people owned the proprietary software they purchased too?
P.S. Just place the .EXE in a .ZIP. Practically all OSs come with decompression programs standard now.
The Warez folk used to comprize a much smaller community, and they cracked software to distribute it on BSSs. Many thought it was just fun to do, and several groups actually became very competitive at it! Often "flaming" other crackers in the software's opening text or graphics.
Crackers were thought to have more status than others who created a two week old or month old crack if it only took them a week after the software was released to crack it. A "day" rating was born. Thus the crack released just one week after the software was released was was known as a "7day" crack... A "3day" Crack would be even better!
Sometimes, Crackers would get hold of early-release software (back when Beta meant something similar to VHS), other times the Anti-Copy Protection software was just really easy to crack; This allowed for a crack to be released on the same day as the software was officially released: Thus, the best crack you could do (or the worst copy-protection you could use) resulted in a Zero Day crack.
Today "Zero Day" has become to mean a crack that software developers found in the wild, and had Zero-Days of forewarning about.
Much like "cloud" (which symbolizes unknown, untrusted or unreliable spaces in a network diagram), and many other terms: Zero-Day used to mean something before it was added to the BuzzWord bingo.
This is a great application of the "gamification" buzzword I've heard bandied about recently.
So long as the reward structure doesn't represent Skinner Boxification, I'm fine with this.
However, does everything need to be a game? If it was more like work would people perform the task for free? How do you know unless you try?
Are not many real world systems very similar to playing games anyhow?
This just in: Corporations help the Gambling Addicted advance the Economic Research via new game dubbed "The Stock Market".
They don't seem to think somebody tries to read the scores on an SD TV anymore, or at least nobody has tried it. It's basically impossible.
Car commercials have exploited this (fine print that's just word like smudges) on just about any screen thanks to digital trans-coding -- Which also tries to make the optimum "improvements" based on how humans see... (implying that we can't see the fine print normally?)
I say screw AA; Give me higher quality render / display instead. On a high enough plank-unit-per-pixel-per resolution display and render output quantum effects will perform all the blurring you need -- well this or older eyeballs.
Maybe I'll worry about "Jaggies" when I get my ocular implants.
Contrary to popular belief, it is not always illegal to scream "FIRE" in a theater.
Consider the following: