No, this is a plutonium bomb. If you take a ball of plutonium and shoot it with a bullet made of plutonium, it's going to tear itself apart before the bullet gets close enough. That will give you a small bang and lots of radiation, and a real waste of plutonium.
If you're persistent, you could probably set your web browser to go through a logging proxy and then record all its GetPageImage requests to get the jpeg files, and you could then browse those offline. But if not, I can't see any download link. You could download the applet, but you'd still have to be online to read the book itself.
Other than the LHC, who the hells needs that kind of bandwidth?
Evil overlords who want to build their own Borg collective? If 10^10 bits per second bandwidth is required (comparable to the bandwidth of the bundle connecting the brain hemispheres), then you get 100 drones per wire. (On the other hand, wired Borg would be really limited -- for obvious reasons.)
But intelligence is modeled by a normal distribution, which is symmetric and has skewness zero, meaning that the median is the mean.
(Of course, in reality, nobody can have an intelligence quotient < 0, but exceedingly few have > 200 either, so the point still stands for all practical purposes.)
If we are allowed to assume that all people are rational actors, then no one would rob him.
If we are allowed to assume that all people are rational actors, hardly anyone would bother voting, either, since the chance of altering the outcome with a single vote is so incredibly small. Clearly this is not the case.
The resulting OS is GNU/Linux, and your confusion is the reason why calling the OS "Linux" is wrong, it gives credit to Linus, and the Linux project, for the work of GNU people. People say it doesn't matter, but it does matter, in free software, attribution is all.
RMS, is that you?
If you fill the air tank up from an external electric compressor, how about..
from the sun, from falling water, from wind, from fissioning nuclei, or heck, even from coal (which pollutes, but isn't oil).
Not to mention black-box reverse engineering, be it for purposes reputable (figuring out what malware does and how to clear the infection from the entire bot network by saying the right thing on the right IRC channel, or getting the program to stop nagging you for the CD you own), to less so (getting the program to stop nagging you for the CD you don't own).
Sounds like that could be tricked... instead of downloading a single ISO file, download 35 20MB files at boosted speed. Write a script to automate it, even. Or am I wrong here? If they disregard connections and turn off the boost after 20MB from when you first connected, then just downloading 21MB and disregarding the results for the first 20 should return the correct results for bandwidth tests.
Or Lamport signatures. Well, for signing, at least. If all else fails, it's back to the days of number stations and couriers, since symmetric crypto will resist quantum computers fairly well (just double the key size to thwart Grover's algorithm).
Shortest path isn't NP-complete; Dijkstra's algorithm can solve shortest path in O(V^2) where V is the number of vertices in the graph.
Maybe you're thinking of the often repeated claim that one can find a Steiner tree (the determination of which is NP-complete) using soap and a physical setup. But that, too, is false.
Kieu tried to find a way to make quantum trickery (in ordinary quantum computers) calculate NP-complete problems (and a lot more) in polynomial time, but his hypercomputation algorithm was later disproved. So just as P = NP in classical computing seems to be very hard to prove or disprove in the general case, so appears its quantum mechanical analog to be, as well. (But as the paper states, some computers using exotic physics could be able to solve NP-complete problems easily; for instance, a time-traveling computer could solve PSPACE-complete problems without much difficulty, and if loop quantum gravity is true, a computer making use of it might be able to solve NP-complete problems as well.)
The small town effect, and its bigger brother, the Law of Jante, is proof enough of the dangers of zero privacy. If this is what the wisdom you seek for others will generate, then I question how wise it actually is; and if to consider other options beyond the binary points of oppression by the centralized or by the decentralized is to champion ignorance, then ignorance it will have to be.
Theory must, primarily, fit reality, and the effects I have pointed out are real enough. If the theory say people are too rational to twist and use formerly private information to threaten conformity, and reality shows that is what happens, then it is not reality that is wrong.
When people are deviant in a way that materially threatens the group, it is fitting and good that the group deal with them internally.
It doesn't stop at those who materially threaten the group. Those who hold too different an opinion get targeted too; they may be threatening to the group's idea of decency or of some other standard, even if they are not materially threatening, and from the most frail of reasons, it quickly escalates. Or as the quote goes, give me six lines written by the most honorable of men, and I will find an excuse in them to hang him.
Technology has made a number of behaviors that were previously threatening benign, and that should be taken into account.
They might have made behaviors benign, but have they made the people wise enough to recognize so, even instinctively? The law you talk about is damped; it takes time for a law to be passed, and a law is not a measure against a single concrete case. Yet, in an environment with no privacy, we have to be certain that it is not possible for a demagogue to gather just the right pieces, just the right lines with which to hang the man, and then draw the support of the crowd; and we have to be certain that those dynamics will not arise, as seemingly emergent action, from the group itself. To guarantee this is a very tall order, for not all that which alienates is illegal or ought to be, and not all that which riles the crowd constitutes material harm.
Slashdot Mirror
No, this is a plutonium bomb. If you take a ball of plutonium and shoot it with a bullet made of plutonium, it's going to tear itself apart before the bullet gets close enough. That will give you a small bang and lots of radiation, and a real waste of plutonium.
That's the pr0n your watching, not your hard drive dude.
Sounds like this article should be called The Joy of the Flesh Drive.
Even passwords fall short. Encryption, biometrics, etc... pfft... you're not safe unless annihilation is ensured.
Hook it up to the South African flamethrower car alarm; that should do it! (If you can get them to start making those again.)
Cue GTA 2009. .. and GTA 2010, GTA 2011, GTA 2012, GTA 2013...
[Insert Slashdot-obligatory reference to "Trusting Trust" here.]
Because they don't agree with the GP's reasoning, and because they want to use that information as power (just as the article says).
Hush, you can't go and say Nuclear like that! It's External Pulsed Plasma Propulsion, natch.
Not all people are Maggie Thatcher clones.
(Which is probably just as well.)
From the mosquito noise, it looks suspiciously like the applet downloads a bunch of JPEGs. Doing a bit of analysis with tcpdump shows that it requests URLs of the form: http://browseinside.harpercollins.com/Services/GetPage.aspx?isbn13=9780060558123&pageguid=684604239068659&reqtype=0 which then gives an image URL which gives the picture (yup, a JPEG).
If you're persistent, you could probably set your web browser to go through a logging proxy and then record all its GetPageImage requests to get the jpeg files, and you could then browse those offline. But if not, I can't see any download link. You could download the applet, but you'd still have to be online to read the book itself.
Nah, look at his user page. Most of his posts are at 0, some are at -1.
How about MOND?
Other than the LHC, who the hells needs that kind of bandwidth?
Evil overlords who want to build their own Borg collective? If 10^10 bits per second bandwidth is required (comparable to the bandwidth of the bundle connecting the brain hemispheres), then you get 100 drones per wire. (On the other hand, wired Borg would be really limited -- for obvious reasons.)
But intelligence is modeled by a normal distribution, which is symmetric and has skewness zero, meaning that the median is the mean.
(Of course, in reality, nobody can have an intelligence quotient < 0, but exceedingly few have > 200 either, so the point still stands for all practical purposes.)
If we are allowed to assume that all people are rational actors, then no one would rob him.
If we are allowed to assume that all people are rational actors, hardly anyone would bother voting, either, since the chance of altering the outcome with a single vote is so incredibly small. Clearly this is not the case.
And they're so nifty you can go back in time with them, too! (But, alas, only back to when the wormhole was first created, for wormholes.)
The resulting OS is GNU/Linux, and your confusion is the reason why calling the OS "Linux" is wrong, it gives credit to Linus, and the Linux project, for the work of GNU people. People say it doesn't matter, but it does matter, in free software, attribution is all.
RMS, is that you?
If you fill the air tank up from an external electric compressor, how about..
from the sun, from falling water, from wind, from fissioning nuclei, or heck, even from coal (which pollutes, but isn't oil).
I suppose this is the point at which one remarks upon the amusing end result of doing ;)
mplayer -dumpstream http://download.microsoft.com/download/4/4/b/44bf323f-0132-4775-bf9e-4b719646b54f/episode1_100.wmv
which then returns
Everything done. Thank you for downloading a media file containing proprietary and patented technology Core dumped
Not to mention black-box reverse engineering, be it for purposes reputable (figuring out what malware does and how to clear the infection from the entire bot network by saying the right thing on the right IRC channel, or getting the program to stop nagging you for the CD you own), to less so (getting the program to stop nagging you for the CD you don't own).
So the moral of the analogy is this... let the programmers govern!
Sounds like that could be tricked... instead of downloading a single ISO file, download 35 20MB files at boosted speed. Write a script to automate it, even. Or am I wrong here? If they disregard connections and turn off the boost after 20MB from when you first connected, then just downloading 21MB and disregarding the results for the first 20 should return the correct results for bandwidth tests.
Or Lamport signatures. Well, for signing, at least.
If all else fails, it's back to the days of number stations and couriers, since symmetric crypto will resist quantum computers fairly well (just double the key size to thwart Grover's algorithm).
Shortest path isn't NP-complete; Dijkstra's algorithm can solve shortest path in O(V^2) where V is the number of vertices in the graph.
Maybe you're thinking of the often repeated claim that one can find a Steiner tree (the determination of which is NP-complete) using soap and a physical setup. But that, too, is false.
Kieu tried to find a way to make quantum trickery (in ordinary quantum computers) calculate NP-complete problems (and a lot more) in polynomial time, but his hypercomputation algorithm was later disproved. So just as P = NP in classical computing seems to be very hard to prove or disprove in the general case, so appears its quantum mechanical analog to be, as well. (But as the paper states, some computers using exotic physics could be able to solve NP-complete problems easily; for instance, a time-traveling computer could solve PSPACE-complete problems without much difficulty, and if loop quantum gravity is true, a computer making use of it might be able to solve NP-complete problems as well.)
The small town effect, and its bigger brother, the Law of Jante, is proof enough of the dangers of zero privacy. If this is what the wisdom you seek for others will generate, then I question how wise it actually is; and if to consider other options beyond the binary points of oppression by the centralized or by the decentralized is to champion ignorance, then ignorance it will have to be.
Theory must, primarily, fit reality, and the effects I have pointed out are real enough. If the theory say people are too rational to twist and use formerly private information to threaten conformity, and reality shows that is what happens, then it is not reality that is wrong.
They might have made behaviors benign, but have they made the people wise enough to recognize so, even instinctively? The law you talk about is damped; it takes time for a law to be passed, and a law is not a measure against a single concrete case. Yet, in an environment with no privacy, we have to be certain that it is not possible for a demagogue to gather just the right pieces, just the right lines with which to hang the man, and then draw the support of the crowd; and we have to be certain that those dynamics will not arise, as seemingly emergent action, from the group itself. To guarantee this is a very tall order, for not all that which alienates is illegal or ought to be, and not all that which riles the crowd constitutes material harm.