Apple appeals to a market segment that happily pays $5000 for a niche computer...
I have yet to see a $5000 iBook or iMac, which is what Apple sells most, mainly to students. And a quick tour through the Apple online store didn't turn up any $5000 Macs (athough I expect that built to order machines might approach that figure).
And what does it mean to be a 'niche' computer anyway? Macs seem pretty general purpose to me.
No Apple gets this one right. As Jobs said, the solution to music stealing is a behavioral not a technical one.
While famous papers are widely available, this is not true of all papers.
The sheer volume of pages published creates a real storage problem. Where to put all these pages. Libraries have but a finite amount of space.
A second problem is the price of many journals. Libraries have stopped subscribing to a number of journals because they simply can't afford it. Combine this with the proliferation of journals and many aren't even available in your library today, to say nothing of several hundred years from now.
Now if your point is that if there is one paper copy in one library then it is available well in a trivial sense your point is correct.
But if you are claiming that publishing an article in any journal in paper form guarantees easy availability four hundred years from now you are mistaken.
I never mentioned AOL, nor did I write on whether or not it was right for AOL or anyone else to provide such info. I will do so now.
If anyone had information relavent to the crimes committed then that info should be handed over to the proper authorities.
But that doesn't mean we should abandon strong privacy laws. Nor should info irrelevant to the investigation be made available in a blanket manner.
I can always ignore unjust laws.
No you can't. I don't dispute that you can ignore many, but not always. Nor can everyone ignore unjust laws.
Just one example from my post, if you were of Japanese desent it would have been pretty hard to ignore that fact that guys with guns were herding you to an internment camp.
Nor can you ignore that lack of laws. Take privacy for example. If there are no laws protecting privacy you will find it very hard to keep your medical records from being shared. Or your buying habits. Or your tax returns. I suppose you could become a hermit.
Yes governments abuse power. That was one of the main points of my post. But the second point, that we need laws to limit that power you seemed to have missed. McCarthyism ended because people began to stand up against him. Nixon was forced to resign because he was found to have broken laws. And today Muslims are not being herded up, because we recognize the abuses of the past. Clinton was hounded over a blowjob because we know that abuse of power is not acceptable.
My main point though, it that government will do what it wants, whether it's legal or not, and Constitutional or not.
Yes, but having laws on the books that specify what is legal and what is not allows for the reigning in of those abuses. Despite your defeatist attitude government is often forced to 'play by the rules'.
Politicians will pass laws that are unconstitutional, just so they can say their actions weren't illegal.
Except in the long run that doesn't work. Those laws are often challenged and eventually struck down.
Most people don't care, because they are idiots.
No, most people don't care because it doesn't directly affect them. They have other issues in their lives that are more important to them. It has nothing to do with their intelligence level. But that comment does perhaps give some insight into yours.
As does your claim, "The Libertarians have the best idea...". It is just another claim, and it is only your opinion that it is the best. What the libertarians want are no different from any other political group, they want what they think is best, where that often means what is best for them (ignoring, like most, that what is best for me may not be best for you). Personnaly I find them rather naive. But it is your claim that you know the best form of government that provides the insight into your intelligence level, mistaking opinion for fact.
Have you heard of The Sedition Act of 1798? Some of the "Founding Fathers" voted for it or supported it.
Yes. But I didn't think that most/. readers would be familiar with it. So I didn't mention it. It is an example of an failed attempt to take rights away.
Which is worse, one large group of selfish idiots or 50 smaller groups?
By your logic having one individual in charge would seem to be ideal. Of course, over history we've seen where that leads. And by claiming that everyone but you (or who disagrees with you) is an idiot just shows how lame your arguments are. You don't really understand how human societies work do you?
Here are some things that are legal (in the USA), but many people wouldn't want generally known about them:
Having an abortion.
Viewing pornographic videos.
Being an athiest.
Being a homosexual.
Seeing a psychiatrist.
Being a member of the communist party.
Needing Viagra.
I'm sure you can find other examples.
There are other things you might not want generally known. Again, I'm sure this is an incomplete list.
Being arrested for drunk driving.
Being a recovering alcoholic.
Having served time in jail.
Having AIDS.
Not being able to read.
Having had a sex change.
Having been bankrupt.
Most people don't like this because they believe, as do I, that as long as they don't break any laws it is (with few exceptions) nobody's damm business how they live their lives.
Maybe what you say may happen, if you did something wrong. Otherwise, it's "Move along, nothing to see here".
Perhaps you've heard of McCarthyism? If not check it out. Simply because one was suspected of associating with someone who exercised their free speech rights to support communism led to real consequences in one's life. Like loss of their job and inability to find work. Civil rights trampled to fight the red menance.
Perhaps you are aware of the practise during world war two of rounding up American citizens of Japanese decent and putting them in interment camps. If not you should brush up on your history. Civil rights trampled because of a knee jerk reaction.
Perhaps you've heard of J. Edgar Hoover, former director of the FBI? If not you may want to look him up. Kept files on politicians, celebraties, civil rights leaders, and more. Apparently wasn't afraid to use this info to get what he wanted. Civil rights trampled for personal power.
Perhaps you've heard of Richard M. Nixon? If not, do a little research on something called 'Watergate'. Seens Tricky Dicky had no qualms about using any info he good get to further his political ambitions. Civil rights trampled for political power.
Have you noticed a theme here? People who did nothing wrong suffering real consequences of those in power.
Government is made up of humans. Humans tend to focus on their own self interest. The writers of the US constitution recognized this and did tried to build safeguards against governmental abuse of power. Because they knew power would be abused. So they built in the checks and balances of three branches of government. And they penned the bill of rights to limit what government could do to individuals.
Now we again have calls for restrictions on civil liberties. I'm sure that the people asking for them believe that they are doing the right thing. They have a job to do and they want to do it well. They, like you, feel that those who have done nothing wrong have nothing to fear.
As the examples above show, they are wrong.
I believe it was Ben Franklin who once said, "Those who trade liberty for security wind up with neither."
I'm not willing to trade.
And yes, I know people directly impacted by the events of 9/11/02001.
Its been standard in Mac OS for Stuffit Expander to automatically extract archives once downloaded. Isn't this issue related more to Stuffit Expander than IE?"
We all know how hard it is to click on a link and read the article, so I did it for you.
From the MacInTouch web site:
"Every.hqx encoded classic application is decoded by Explorer itself (that's the default, Stuffit Expander isn't used) and then AUTOMATICALLY STARTED!"
I suggest that in the future you read the article in question before posting.
Steve M
Re:What can be done about terrorism?
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
No, these people are thinking, "Shit, now everyone is going to blame all of us right away."
This is a bit from an email from my brother as part of an ongoing discussion about yesterday's events:
I too have trouble with people looking at Middle Easterners in the US and blaming or feeling ill will toward them. I wish some high ranking government official would say, "if you blame them, then please blame all white people for Oklahoma City. Since that thought probably seems ridiculous to you, stop associating bad things with people just because they might look like people who are suspects".
At one time news outlets were reporting that US authorities thought that up to seven planes were hijacked and three were still in the air after the WTC, Pentagon, and PA crashes.
It was latter determined that this was not the case and only four planes had been hijacked.
Amid all the reports and the numbing effect of it all I did not pay very close attention to who or when these were reported, so I cannot provide citations.
This is an email I received from a coworker. She works in a building accross the street from the WTC. She takes the train to the WTC every morning.
Thanks Steve. Yes it was a very narrow escape for me yesterday. Everyday I take 7.50 train from Princeton to Newark.From Newark, I take a path train to WTC. Which takes me to WTC around 9 O' clock. Yesterday I decided to take the 7.56 to Newark that meant I took a later train to WTC which was the first one to be halted at Exchange Place, a stop before WTC. When we got out of the station, we could see one of the towers on fire and we were told that a plane had hit the building accidently and as we were watching we saw this plane hit the second tower and the tower exploded right in front of my eyes. There was panic, we were asked to clear the place and I ran along with others to the next station from where we were able to catch a path train from Hoboken to Newark. We were fortunate to connect a train from Newark to Princeton. Later we came to know that was the only train that came out of NY penn soon after the accident. Some of our friends are still stranded in NY. Had I taken the earlier train, I would have been walking right through WTC foyer to the streets as the second plane struck the building. I am bit shocked to see the horrible sights on TV and to think I could have been one of them makes me rather nervous.
Shantha
My cousin, Maryann, worked in the WTC for the Port Authority of NY and NJ.
She was on her way to work, on a bus in NYC, when she saw the first plane hit. She, and the others on the bus thought it was an accident.
Then she saw the second plane hit and realized it was no accident.
She got out of the bus and started walking north. She went to the Port Authority Bus Terminal, but it was closed. As she worked for the Port Authority, they let her in to sit a while. She is short and overweight, and not used to all that walking.
She then heard that trains were leaving from Penn Station. So she walked on down and got on a very crowded train.
She didn't want to go home and be alone, so she went to my parent's who live a couple of miles from her home.
She told her story to my mom and dad. And cried and cried. She had worked there for over thirty years. She doesn't know how many of her freinds and coworkers are dead. She does know that her best friend is alive. She can't get the images out of her head.
Eventually her husband made it home and took Maryann to their house. Other cousins and friends came over to be with her, and a doctor cousin brought her a sedative.
It turns out one of the planes hit the floor she worked on.
I have not spoken with Maryann. My parents told me this story, thus it is a third hand story.
My parents and my cousins live in NJ. I live in NJ. I work in Torrance, CA. I fly out and back ever other week, Philadelphia to LA. My boss flies out every week to LA from Newark. It is possible that he and/or I new some of the flight crew (we've been back and forth for several years now). I'm sure I'll be quite nervous when I fly home, and each time I fly for quite some time to come.
I am a regular blood donor and last gave blood last Tuesday. Please give blood if you are able. Thanks.
Comcast has not given up as you can see from this news report.
Finally, Cox has emerged as a player for AT&T broadband, as detailed in this story.
I don't believe Comcast's effort s to divorce themselves from @Home and acquire AT&T broadband are related. Especially given that AT&T broadband is the major shareholder in @Home, so by buying AT&T broadband, Comcast would become @Home's largest shareholder.
I'm logging off for the night and won't be responding to this thread again, and arguing over definitions by a hypertechnical dissection of semantics got old in junior high anyway.
Yeah that's how intelligent adults (or AC's) cope with things they don't like. They take their ball and go home. Bye.
My background is in physics. I studied it in college. Perhaps if you stayed in school after junior high... but no matter.
Finding one Higgs boson means it is no longer theorectical. Just one. No no one will believe you if you don't explain how you did it. But you don't have to be continuously producing them.
And that is what they did here. They showed how to use this technique in practice. Thus it is no longer theorectical.
The technique was manifested in practice. It wasn't put into production nor does it appear to be all that useful. But they define the technique and they inplemented it. Just as Newton defined calculus and then used it to solve problems. Calculus turned out to be useful for solving other problems as well.
Here is another way to look at it. It is theoretically possible to use quantum computing techniques to solve a variety of problems. But in most cases it remains theorectical as the quantum computer has not been implemented.
Or perhaps you are confusing the non-theorectical vunerability with the as of yet only theorectical malicious uses.
Or perhaps I'm giving you too much credit. Since you seem unable to grasp the distinction between practical(real;concrete)/theorectical(unrealized; not yet seen in the universe) and practical(useful)/impractical(not useful).
And once they implemented a tinkertoy computer it was manifested in practice. It just takes one. Don't confuse the usefulness of the machine (is it practical to solve problems with it) with the implementation. Once it is implemented it is no longer theorectical, it is a practical implementation of the theory of machine computation.
I think it is a neat hack. I don't think any laws are needed as it seems there are no useful applications of the technique.
But saying that that because I open a service on my machine means that I have to put up with that service being co-opted for uses outside the 'spirit' for which it is intended is bullshit.
1. Of, relating to, governed by, or acquired through practice or action, rather than theory, speculation, or ideals: gained practical experience of sailing as a deck hand.
2. Manifested in or involving practice: practical applications of calculus.
3. Actually engaged in a specified occupation or a certain kind of work; practicing.
4. Capable of being used or put into effect; useful: practical knowledge of Japanese. See Usage Note at practicable.
5. Intended to serve a purpose without elaboration: practical low-heeled shoes.
6. Concerned with the production or operation of something useful: Woodworking is a practical art.
7. Level-headed, efficient, and unspeculative.
Being actually so in almost every respect; virtual: a practical disaster.
While the usefulness of this hack is virtually nil, it has been put into practise. See definition 1 above.
Just like people dialing a wrong number are stealing your time and resources. But part of the deal in having a phone that other peopls can call you on is that OTHER PEOPLE CAN CALL YOU.
But the people dialing the wrong number are doing it unintentionally. These folks are intentionally using my resources.
It is one thing to waste my resources do to an honest mistake. It is another to intentionally do this. Those are called crank calls (or telemarketers).
Slashdot Mirror
Apple is the only computer manufacturer who's making money right now.
Both Aplle and Dell are making money. See this Business Week article.
Steve M
Apple appeals to a market segment that happily pays $5000 for a niche computer ...
I have yet to see a $5000 iBook or iMac, which is what Apple sells most, mainly to students. And a quick tour through the Apple online store didn't turn up any $5000 Macs (athough I expect that built to order machines might approach that figure).
And what does it mean to be a 'niche' computer anyway? Macs seem pretty general purpose to me.
No Apple gets this one right. As Jobs said, the solution to music stealing is a behavioral not a technical one.
Steve M
Would you give up 15 gigs?
Nomad makes a 20 gig version, same form factor. Same price ... as the iPod. See this this page.
Steve M
Innovative my ass.
From the Microsoft Press Dictionary:
Innovate [verb]: To copy what has been done by others.
Steve M
The Nomad is also available at the Apple online store for $249 ($10 more than ThinkGeek).
Steve M
From your original post:
I would guess a dual 800 because thats not my experience.
I was unaware Apple had released a dual CPU iBook. And I was unable to find that option in Apple's online store.
The ability to run all of these tasks at once would be greatly dependant on RAM (It looks like the iBook supports anywhere from 128MB to 640MB)
So why didn't you simply ask how much RAM was in the iBook (or Mac since you missed the iBook part) in your original post?
So to answer your question, you idiot, I missed the part that specified the amount of memory YOUR ibook has.
Zero RAM. I don't have an iBook. I have never had an ibook. I don't expect to ever have an iBook. I'll let you figure that one out.
So, you want to rethink that bit about who's the idiot in this thread? (I suppose an argument could be made that it is me for feeding a troll.)
Steve M
You dont say what machine your using.
Which part of On my 2001 iBook (with DVD drive) ... did you miss? It is the first line of the post you are replying to.
Or were you just a troll?
Steve M
Published papers are available virtually forever.
While famous papers are widely available, this is not true of all papers.
The sheer volume of pages published creates a real storage problem. Where to put all these pages. Libraries have but a finite amount of space.
A second problem is the price of many journals. Libraries have stopped subscribing to a number of journals because they simply can't afford it. Combine this with the proliferation of journals and many aren't even available in your library today, to say nothing of several hundred years from now.
Now if your point is that if there is one paper copy in one library then it is available well in a trivial sense your point is correct.
But if you are claiming that publishing an article in any journal in paper form guarantees easy availability four hundred years from now you are mistaken.
Steve M
I still wonder if you read my post ...
I never mentioned AOL, nor did I write on whether or not it was right for AOL or anyone else to provide such info. I will do so now.
If anyone had information relavent to the crimes committed then that info should be handed over to the proper authorities.
But that doesn't mean we should abandon strong privacy laws. Nor should info irrelevant to the investigation be made available in a blanket manner.
I can always ignore unjust laws.
No you can't. I don't dispute that you can ignore many, but not always. Nor can everyone ignore unjust laws.
Just one example from my post, if you were of Japanese desent it would have been pretty hard to ignore that fact that guys with guns were herding you to an internment camp.
Nor can you ignore that lack of laws. Take privacy for example. If there are no laws protecting privacy you will find it very hard to keep your medical records from being shared. Or your buying habits. Or your tax returns. I suppose you could become a hermit.
Yes governments abuse power. That was one of the main points of my post. But the second point, that we need laws to limit that power you seemed to have missed. McCarthyism ended because people began to stand up against him. Nixon was forced to resign because he was found to have broken laws. And today Muslims are not being herded up, because we recognize the abuses of the past. Clinton was hounded over a blowjob because we know that abuse of power is not acceptable.
My main point though, it that government will do what it wants, whether it's legal or not, and Constitutional or not.
Yes, but having laws on the books that specify what is legal and what is not allows for the reigning in of those abuses. Despite your defeatist attitude government is often forced to 'play by the rules'.
Politicians will pass laws that are unconstitutional, just so they can say their actions weren't illegal.
Except in the long run that doesn't work. Those laws are often challenged and eventually struck down.
Most people don't care, because they are idiots.
No, most people don't care because it doesn't directly affect them. They have other issues in their lives that are more important to them. It has nothing to do with their intelligence level. But that comment does perhaps give some insight into yours.
As does your claim, "The Libertarians have the best idea ...". It is just another claim, and it is only your opinion that it is the best. What the libertarians want are no different from any other political group, they want what they think is best, where that often means what is best for them (ignoring, like most, that what is best for me may not be best for you). Personnaly I find them rather naive. But it is your claim that you know the best form of government that provides the insight into your intelligence level, mistaking opinion for fact.
Have you heard of The Sedition Act of 1798? Some of the "Founding Fathers" voted for it or supported it.
Yes. But I didn't think that most /. readers would be familiar with it. So I didn't mention it. It is an example of an failed attempt to take rights away.
Which is worse, one large group of selfish idiots or 50 smaller groups?
By your logic having one individual in charge would seem to be ideal. Of course, over history we've seen where that leads. And by claiming that everyone but you (or who disagrees with you) is an idiot just shows how lame your arguments are. You don't really understand how human societies work do you?
I'd go on, but I've got to go catch a plane.
Steve M
Here are some things that are legal (in the USA), but many people wouldn't want generally known about them:
Having an abortion.
Viewing pornographic videos.
Being an athiest.
Being a homosexual.
Seeing a psychiatrist.
Being a member of the communist party.
Needing Viagra.
I'm sure you can find other examples.
There are other things you might not want generally known. Again, I'm sure this is an incomplete list.
Being arrested for drunk driving.
Being a recovering alcoholic.
Having served time in jail.
Having AIDS.
Not being able to read.
Having had a sex change.
Having been bankrupt.
Most people don't like this because they believe, as do I, that as long as they don't break any laws it is (with few exceptions) nobody's damm business how they live their lives.
Steve M
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you read my original post. But you may want to go back and reread both it and its parent.
Because you certainly missed my point.
Steve M
Maybe what you say may happen, if you did something wrong. Otherwise, it's "Move along, nothing to see here".
Perhaps you've heard of McCarthyism? If not check it out. Simply because one was suspected of associating with someone who exercised their free speech rights to support communism led to real consequences in one's life. Like loss of their job and inability to find work. Civil rights trampled to fight the red menance.
Perhaps you are aware of the practise during world war two of rounding up American citizens of Japanese decent and putting them in interment camps. If not you should brush up on your history. Civil rights trampled because of a knee jerk reaction.
Perhaps you've heard of J. Edgar Hoover, former director of the FBI? If not you may want to look him up. Kept files on politicians, celebraties, civil rights leaders, and more. Apparently wasn't afraid to use this info to get what he wanted. Civil rights trampled for personal power.
Perhaps you've heard of Richard M. Nixon? If not, do a little research on something called 'Watergate'. Seens Tricky Dicky had no qualms about using any info he good get to further his political ambitions. Civil rights trampled for political power.
Have you noticed a theme here? People who did nothing wrong suffering real consequences of those in power.
Government is made up of humans. Humans tend to focus on their own self interest. The writers of the US constitution recognized this and did tried to build safeguards against governmental abuse of power. Because they knew power would be abused. So they built in the checks and balances of three branches of government. And they penned the bill of rights to limit what government could do to individuals.
Now we again have calls for restrictions on civil liberties. I'm sure that the people asking for them believe that they are doing the right thing. They have a job to do and they want to do it well. They, like you, feel that those who have done nothing wrong have nothing to fear.
As the examples above show, they are wrong.
I believe it was Ben Franklin who once said, "Those who trade liberty for security wind up with neither."
I'm not willing to trade.
And yes, I know people directly impacted by the events of 9/11/02001.
Steve M
Its been standard in Mac OS for Stuffit Expander to automatically extract archives once downloaded. Isn't this issue related more to Stuffit Expander than IE?"
We all know how hard it is to click on a link and read the article, so I did it for you.
From the MacInTouch web site: "Every .hqx encoded classic application is decoded by Explorer itself (that's the default, Stuffit Expander isn't used) and then AUTOMATICALLY STARTED!"
I suggest that in the future you read the article in question before posting.
Steve M
No, these people are thinking, "Shit, now everyone is going to blame all of us right away."
This is a bit from an email from my brother as part of an ongoing discussion about yesterday's events:
I too have trouble with people looking at Middle Easterners in the US and blaming or feeling ill will toward them. I wish some high ranking government official would say, "if you blame them, then please blame all white people for Oklahoma City. Since that thought probably seems ridiculous to you, stop associating bad things with people just because they might look like people who are suspects".
I hope some high ranking official does.
Steve M
At one time news outlets were reporting that US authorities thought that up to seven planes were hijacked and three were still in the air after the WTC, Pentagon, and PA crashes.
It was latter determined that this was not the case and only four planes had been hijacked.
Amid all the reports and the numbing effect of it all I did not pay very close attention to who or when these were reported, so I cannot provide citations.
Steve M
This is an email I received from a coworker. She works in a building accross the street from the WTC. She takes the train to the WTC every morning.
Thanks Steve. Yes it was a very narrow escape for me yesterday. Everyday I take 7.50 train from Princeton to Newark.From Newark, I take a path train to WTC. Which takes me to WTC around 9 O' clock. Yesterday I decided to take the 7.56 to Newark that meant I took a later train to WTC which was the first one to be halted at Exchange Place, a stop before WTC. When we got out of the station, we could see one of the towers on fire and we were told that a plane had hit the building accidently and as we were watching we saw this plane hit the second tower and the tower exploded right in front of my eyes. There was panic, we were asked to clear the place and I ran along with others to the next station from where we were able to catch a path train from Hoboken to Newark. We were fortunate to connect a train from Newark to Princeton. Later we came to know that was the only train that came out of NY penn soon after the accident. Some of our friends are still stranded in NY. Had I taken the earlier train, I would have been walking right through WTC foyer to the streets as the second plane struck the building. I am bit shocked to see the horrible sights on TV and to think I could have been one of them makes me rather nervous. Shantha
Steve M
My cousin, Maryann, worked in the WTC for the Port Authority of NY and NJ.
She was on her way to work, on a bus in NYC, when she saw the first plane hit. She, and the others on the bus thought it was an accident.
Then she saw the second plane hit and realized it was no accident.
She got out of the bus and started walking north. She went to the Port Authority Bus Terminal, but it was closed. As she worked for the Port Authority, they let her in to sit a while. She is short and overweight, and not used to all that walking.
She then heard that trains were leaving from Penn Station. So she walked on down and got on a very crowded train.
She didn't want to go home and be alone, so she went to my parent's who live a couple of miles from her home.
She told her story to my mom and dad. And cried and cried. She had worked there for over thirty years. She doesn't know how many of her freinds and coworkers are dead. She does know that her best friend is alive. She can't get the images out of her head.
Eventually her husband made it home and took Maryann to their house. Other cousins and friends came over to be with her, and a doctor cousin brought her a sedative.
It turns out one of the planes hit the floor she worked on.
I have not spoken with Maryann. My parents told me this story, thus it is a third hand story.
My parents and my cousins live in NJ. I live in NJ. I work in Torrance, CA. I fly out and back ever other week, Philadelphia to LA. My boss flies out every week to LA from Newark. It is possible that he and/or I new some of the flight crew (we've been back and forth for several years now). I'm sure I'll be quite nervous when I fly home, and each time I fly for quite some time to come.
I am a regular blood donor and last gave blood last Tuesday. Please give blood if you are able. Thanks.
Steve M
Comcast made an unsolicited bid that was well below what AT&T paid for the same assests.
Not surprisingly, AT&T rejected Comcast's offer.
You can read about it here.
Comcast has not given up as you can see from this news report.
Finally, Cox has emerged as a player for AT&T broadband, as detailed in this story.
I don't believe Comcast's effort s to divorce themselves from @Home and acquire AT&T broadband are related. Especially given that AT&T broadband is the major shareholder in @Home, so by buying AT&T broadband, Comcast would become @Home's largest shareholder.
Steve
I'm logging off for the night and won't be responding to this thread again, and arguing over definitions by a hypertechnical dissection of semantics got old in junior high anyway.
Yeah that's how intelligent adults (or AC's) cope with things they don't like. They take their ball and go home. Bye.
My background is in physics. I studied it in college. Perhaps if you stayed in school after junior high ... but no matter.
Finding one Higgs boson means it is no longer theorectical. Just one. No no one will believe you if you don't explain how you did it. But you don't have to be continuously producing them.
And that is what they did here. They showed how to use this technique in practice. Thus it is no longer theorectical.
The technique was manifested in practice. It wasn't put into production nor does it appear to be all that useful. But they define the technique and they inplemented it. Just as Newton defined calculus and then used it to solve problems. Calculus turned out to be useful for solving other problems as well.
Here is another way to look at it. It is theoretically possible to use quantum computing techniques to solve a variety of problems. But in most cases it remains theorectical as the quantum computer has not been implemented.
Or perhaps you are confusing the non-theorectical vunerability with the as of yet only theorectical malicious uses.
Or perhaps I'm giving you too much credit. Since you seem unable to grasp the distinction between practical(real;concrete)/theorectical(unrealized; not yet seen in the universe) and practical(useful)/impractical(not useful).
And once they implemented a tinkertoy computer it was manifested in practice. It just takes one. Don't confuse the usefulness of the machine (is it practical to solve problems with it) with the implementation. Once it is implemented it is no longer theorectical, it is a practical implementation of the theory of machine computation.
Oh well, I guess I'll never know.
Steve M
2. Manifested in or involving practice: practical applications of calculus.
Did you read the article? They did this. They manifested it in practice.
3. Actually engaged in a specified occupation or a certain kind of work; practicing.
Again, they were actually engaged in doing this.
6. Concerned with the production or operation of something useful: Woodworking is a practical art.
Again, read the story. They solved their problem using this technique.
It has been put into practice. It is no longer just theorectical.
I do agree that it is not useful, but neither are virii or DOS attacks. Two other non-theorectical resource theives.
Steve M
Who said anything about laws?
I think it is a neat hack. I don't think any laws are needed as it seems there are no useful applications of the technique.
But saying that that because I open a service on my machine means that I have to put up with that service being co-opted for uses outside the 'spirit' for which it is intended is bullshit.
Steve M
OK.
practical (prkt-kl) adj.
1. Of, relating to, governed by, or acquired through practice or action, rather than theory, speculation, or ideals: gained practical experience of sailing as a deck hand.
2. Manifested in or involving practice: practical applications of calculus.
3. Actually engaged in a specified occupation or a certain kind of work; practicing.
4. Capable of being used or put into effect; useful: practical knowledge of Japanese. See Usage Note at practicable.
5. Intended to serve a purpose without elaboration: practical low-heeled shoes.
6. Concerned with the production or operation of something useful: Woodworking is a practical art.
7. Level-headed, efficient, and unspeculative. Being actually so in almost every respect; virtual: a practical disaster.
While the usefulness of this hack is virtually nil, it has been put into practise. See definition 1 above.
Steve M
Yeah, and your point would be?
Steve M
Being an asshole isn't illegal. Nor did it prevent you from posting on /. But if it did the level of discource would rise significantly.
Read the thread to try and figure out my point, which you completely missed.
And while you're at it you may want to read the story. In which you'll find out that they really did this. Actual not theoretical.
I must be having a bad day to be responding to clueless fucking morons.
Steve M
Just like people dialing a wrong number are stealing your time and resources. But part of the deal in having a phone that other peopls can call you on is that OTHER PEOPLE CAN CALL YOU.
But the people dialing the wrong number are doing it unintentionally. These folks are intentionally using my resources.
It is one thing to waste my resources do to an honest mistake. It is another to intentionally do this. Those are called crank calls (or telemarketers).
Steve M