I'm not an American but that doesn't prevent me from feeling deeply disturbed by the thing going on out there. I'm affected by the DMCA insanity in a very absurd way: for quite a few times I was searching some physics-related topics on Google, only to be greeted by an almost empty list of non-useful results and a notice that basically said "Sorry, we have the search results, but because of the DMCA, we can't show you."
I mean, the heck. If there's some evil commie zombie terrorist ripping the good guys off by pushing physics-related web pages online, then why does a mindless search bot have to be silenced? Impressive. You guys can even make Google shut up. This would be the wet dream of the Chinese government.
And now they want *more*? As if it's not been crazy enough.
This is insane. Seriously, you guys of the USA have been great. It makes me sad seeing you on the verge of falling into a Kafkaesque fiasco. And I fully understand what's happening to you may as well strike us someday.
But we separate the source code we're working on and the Makefile (or some other sort of "metadata") as two different text files for a reason. I prefer my photo album as just a bunch of photo files with external metadata (index, date, tag, etc) for the same reason. The reason is this: in the real world, small bits of resources gathered in a meaningful manner in accord with some standard tend to work better than an obscure serialization of "objects" as instances of some do-everything class.
To put it in context, I want to do a simple git clone and get a bunch of files with metadata stored in the.git directory, rather than having to the possibly expensive de-serialize, only to serialize again for patching one single line in a text file. *Especially* not when the said serializer application is blurred into the OS/FS level.
So again, software engineers are attempting to dictate what a user should want.
The problem is that many users (a normal one, not a Slashdot one, in your words) inherently want things that are logically too inconsistent to hold up in the real world (I'd also like a pony, wouldn't I?) Therefore it is fruitless trying to cater to every whim of the User, especially not at the OS/FS level where the "business logic" is of vital importance.
In the end, it is not important what a user think a file is -- at least not important at the FS level. If an application handling a file-based view of data (like OneNote) fails the user's expectations, it's the app's fault, and capitalism + natural selection should take care of its fate. The modern filesystems already do a good job which they're supposed to do, and should be left alone.
Modern distros do that by calling a script from cron that invokes tmpwatch in a way specified by the user. But that's not the point. The point is that UNIX philosophy values the property of "doing one thing and doing it well" and abhors over-integration of functionalities. If you want automated, event-driven operations on the files, grab an application that exclusively performs the job. Just leave the filesystem and OS alone.
No matter what the idiotic buffoons like Krugman say, this is one of the the most outrageous crap of the so-called post-Bretton Woods world, I believe.
Basically USA chose to hem itself in a position of so tremendous responsibility that no single nation in the world can bear. I'm not advocating immediate return to gold standard but if this is not a lesson for those who trust the government to act rationally and responsibly, I don't know what else would be one.
This is impressive discovery, but it's no longer news. The paper was published in April 2010: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys1636 Admittedly the authors only recently uploaded a copy to arXiv on October 17, but can we not pretend this is some breaking news for nerds?
I'm not a security expert, just an enthusiastic, so what scarce bits I understood from the article may be wrong but they're here. The attack is a side-channel exploit. It doesn't matter what underlying encryption algorithm one actually use as long as it's a block cipher. The exploit relies on two things, i.e. the cipher-blocking chaining (CBC) and the error messages returned by the server. The CBC has weakness, i.e. a recursion relation between the ciphertext and the plaintext that allows the latter to be figured out by the attacker. The error messages returned by the server are usually too informative so that the attacker can use the information to find the initial values required to break CBC. I guess both CBC and this smart behavior of the error handling are mandated by the standard, and that's why they're calling for a rewrite of the standard itself.
> Electronics typically don't give shits nor giggles about static fields, unless magnetic forces due to said fields mechanically damage the devices in question
If the mag fields are strong enough you'll see synchrotron or even curvature radiations XD
We all know that patents are an innovation booster. You don't want to stifle innovation, do you? Then just introduce a "tax loophole tax" that tax the very action of evading tax.
Today's software products come with a "disclaimer of liability" notice as part of the license, which usually denies any assurance of quality, value ("merchantability"), usefulness ("fitness for a particular purpose"), "express or implied", blahblahblah.
It may not work legally. But it's Buyer Beware anyway. It's so ubiquitous and repeated so frequently that it is getting into the culture.
1. This is old news. 2. Amplified signal power in your direction == amplified noise for your neighbors in other directions. 3. This is probably illegal in many jurisdictions. 4. Nerds don't measure "signal strength" in "bars". Use S/N or leave/.. 5. ??? 6. Profit!!
By the way, don't forget arXiv, if you're really interested in the actual research. It is where people upload the preprint versions of their papers so that they can be accessed by the public. However the articles are (mostly) unedited, raw material not yet passed peer review. It does contain some noise and rubbish, but you can get a pretty good impression of what the scientists are doing by having a look at it.
Since you're especially interested in physics, I'd recommend magazines like Physics Today, which I guess is accessible from decent libraries in both online and dead-tree formats. It's not a research journal and is intended for the general audience, but is somewhat more advanced than the material you usually find online. The American Physical Society also carries an on-line journal "Physics" which is free to read and provides a view into what physicists from around the globe are doing. It provides commentary and explanations to notable articles published in the Physical Review journals that are only open to subscribers.
Slashdot Mirror
Man, I *love* stealing from shops!
They're not ivory-tower hermits out of touch with reality. Greed has clouded their eyes.
Hopefully, greed leads to foolishness, and a fool and his money are soon parted. Which may in turn explain why they're so desperately whining.
I'm not an American but that doesn't prevent me from feeling deeply disturbed by the thing going on out there. I'm affected by the DMCA insanity in a very absurd way: for quite a few times I was searching some physics-related topics on Google, only to be greeted by an almost empty list of non-useful results and a notice that basically said "Sorry, we have the search results, but because of the DMCA, we can't show you."
I mean, the heck. If there's some evil commie zombie terrorist ripping the good guys off by pushing physics-related web pages online, then why does a mindless search bot have to be silenced? Impressive. You guys can even make Google shut up. This would be the wet dream of the Chinese government.
And now they want *more*? As if it's not been crazy enough.
This is insane. Seriously, you guys of the USA have been great. It makes me sad seeing you on the verge of falling into a Kafkaesque fiasco. And I fully understand what's happening to you may as well strike us someday.
But we separate the source code we're working on and the Makefile (or some other sort of "metadata") as two different text files for a reason. I prefer my photo album as just a bunch of photo files with external metadata (index, date, tag, etc) for the same reason. The reason is this: in the real world, small bits of resources gathered in a meaningful manner in accord with some standard tend to work better than an obscure serialization of "objects" as instances of some do-everything class.
To put it in context, I want to do a simple git clone and get a bunch of files with metadata stored in the .git directory, rather than having to the possibly expensive de-serialize, only to serialize again for patching one single line in a text file. *Especially* not when the said serializer application is blurred into the OS/FS level.
So again, software engineers are attempting to dictate what a user should want.
The problem is that many users (a normal one, not a Slashdot one, in your words) inherently want things that are logically too inconsistent to hold up in the real world (I'd also like a pony, wouldn't I?) Therefore it is fruitless trying to cater to every whim of the User, especially not at the OS/FS level where the "business logic" is of vital importance.
In the end, it is not important what a user think a file is -- at least not important at the FS level. If an application handling a file-based view of data (like OneNote) fails the user's expectations, it's the app's fault, and capitalism + natural selection should take care of its fate. The modern filesystems already do a good job which they're supposed to do, and should be left alone.
Modern distros do that by calling a script from cron that invokes tmpwatch in a way specified by the user. But that's not the point. The point is that UNIX philosophy values the property of "doing one thing and doing it well" and abhors over-integration of functionalities. If you want automated, event-driven operations on the files, grab an application that exclusively performs the job. Just leave the filesystem and OS alone.
No matter what the idiotic buffoons like Krugman say, this is one of the the most outrageous crap of the so-called post-Bretton Woods world, I believe.
Basically USA chose to hem itself in a position of so tremendous responsibility that no single nation in the world can bear. I'm not advocating immediate return to gold standard but if this is not a lesson for those who trust the government to act rationally and responsibly, I don't know what else would be one.
This is impressive discovery, but it's no longer news. The paper was published in April 2010: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys1636 Admittedly the authors only recently uploaded a copy to arXiv on October 17, but can we not pretend this is some breaking news for nerds?
If you're interested, also check out this paper by Drs. A. G. Cohen and S. L. Glashow: http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.181803
That Letter discussed the implication of superluminal neutrinos and why the OPERA result were not likely to support them. Full text is open to PRL subscribers but there's a link to the accompanying free magazine "Physics" http://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.181803
The details are here --> http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2046707.2046756 (as posted by a commenter below) Subscription is required to read the full paper, I suppose.
I'm not a security expert, just an enthusiastic, so what scarce bits I understood from the article may be wrong but they're here. The attack is a side-channel exploit. It doesn't matter what underlying encryption algorithm one actually use as long as it's a block cipher. The exploit relies on two things, i.e. the cipher-blocking chaining (CBC) and the error messages returned by the server. The CBC has weakness, i.e. a recursion relation between the ciphertext and the plaintext that allows the latter to be figured out by the attacker. The error messages returned by the server are usually too informative so that the attacker can use the information to find the initial values required to break CBC. I guess both CBC and this smart behavior of the error handling are mandated by the standard, and that's why they're calling for a rewrite of the standard itself.
You forgot the "get off my LAWWWWWWN" part.
> Electronics typically don't give shits nor giggles about static fields, unless magnetic forces due to said fields mechanically damage the devices in question
If the mag fields are strong enough you'll see synchrotron or even curvature radiations XD
> Plus: Astrolabe has very little money
Neither did SCO. Guess who's behind this whole brouhaha? /conspiracy theorist mode
It's called fraud. And since it's a deliberate act of fabricating "data" it cannot be legitimately covered by those DISCLAIMER terms.
[standard IANAL disclaimer here]
Others have given pretty many examples. It may be worthwhile to mention the Web, from CERN http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/About/webstory-en.html
We all know that patents are an innovation booster. You don't want to stifle innovation, do you? Then just introduce a "tax loophole tax" that tax the very action of evading tax.
You dawg..
Today's software products come with a "disclaimer of liability" notice as part of the license, which usually denies any assurance of quality, value ("merchantability"), usefulness ("fitness for a particular purpose"), "express or implied", blahblahblah.
It may not work legally. But it's Buyer Beware anyway. It's so ubiquitous and repeated so frequently that it is getting into the culture.
Gaah, I meant "in the same direction". Lameness on me...
1. This is old news. /..
2. Amplified signal power in your direction == amplified noise for your neighbors in other directions.
3. This is probably illegal in many jurisdictions.
4. Nerds don't measure "signal strength" in "bars". Use S/N or leave
5. ???
6. Profit!!
Car analogy please?
This is definitely "stuff that matters" especially for the people in the affected regions.
By the way, don't forget arXiv, if you're really interested in the actual research. It is where people upload the preprint versions of their papers so that they can be accessed by the public. However the articles are (mostly) unedited, raw material not yet passed peer review. It does contain some noise and rubbish, but you can get a pretty good impression of what the scientists are doing by having a look at it.
Since you're especially interested in physics, I'd recommend magazines like Physics Today, which I guess is accessible from decent libraries in both online and dead-tree formats. It's not a research journal and is intended for the general audience, but is somewhat more advanced than the material you usually find online. The American Physical Society also carries an on-line journal "Physics" which is free to read and provides a view into what physicists from around the globe are doing. It provides commentary and explanations to notable articles published in the Physical Review journals that are only open to subscribers.
You may also want to check some open-access journals such as the New Journal of Physics, and the upcoming Physical Review X (no content yet). But reading "real" research papers doesn't usually makes you feel it's "engaging"..
That's because they're built on it. Basically they're just adding their own UI or extensions to IE 6.
As a Chinese, I'd say it's mostly a result of Chinese government plundering from the citizens rather than selling you cheap crap.