We might expect the AIM protocol to experience the same fate as every other open, popular protocol.
Expect Microsoft to embrace this with a new client, integrate the client with the next release of IE, and add proprietary extensions to eventually subvert any other players in the field.
I'm not a big fan of AOL, but I'd rather have two big companies at each others throat than just one company controlling everything.
In advanced discrete mathematics class, we learned about a graph theory algorithm that was unsolved for many years. AT&T wanted it solved, because it was essential for telephone networks. They eventually gave a fat reward to some computer scientist who figured it out. Though the algorithm was fairly simple, we spent the entire semester building up our knowledge base so that we might understand it. It seemed important. Damn I wish I could remember its name.
Re:It's all been said before, just not this time
on
More Napster Updates
·
· Score: 1
Where was Napster blamed? Point it out to me.
Napster is what this whole discussion is about. If you aren't here to talk about napster, what was your point of posting in the first place?
That's the problem, that's there little water. The richness of iron oxide is much less of an issue. (BTW, I just said iron before because high iron oxide content -> high iron content.) Biological life evolved from the sea, which contained plenty of water for the operations of the cell to perform in. When organisms moved to land, they took the water with them. I do not think it is absolutely necessary that life must have so much water to exist. Viruses use very little water, though they are parasitic on water dependent organisms. Maybe engineering a non-parasitic version is impossible, or beyond human effort. That hasn't been verified yet, however.
The concept is nice, but earth only got its atmosphere from plants that occupy every nook and cranny of the globe. An atmosphere is BIG, its not like air conditioning a house, or even a space shuttle. I think the answer needs to be biological. Put some of those biochem companies to work producing a bacteria that will operate in an atmosphere that has a lot of iron and almost no water. Thats what we really need.
I tried versions up to 1.0 and still they had panel crashes every hour or so.
I was bored this weekend so I decided to download GNOME 1.2. It was like I didn't even have to install it, I'm so used to having to compile packages--the Helix packaging was a real nice touch. The stability surprised me--I finally decided (just now after 2 years) to move from KDE to GNOME. I have seen the panel crash once, but it suddenly resurrected itself from the grave, so it wasn't a problem. The two things that GNOME has going for it over KDE are looks and configurability. Some of the packaged themes are crappy but some are beautiful. Rather than having to open a special menu configurator, you can edit the menus just by opening one up and right-clicking on the menu (if you want to add something) or a menu-entry (if you want to edit or remove it). Very nice. I am very impressed given how skeptical I was of GNOME until now.
One problem, what if there are 1000 mom and pop shops with 1% of the gross income of the big company. Suddenly the company has less than 10% of the market share. I personally like the idea. But the problem is like a big animal fighting off thousands of bees. If one bee stings a bear, it might get a little peeved. But if thousands of bees attack a bear, the bear could easily die.
You do not differentiate between simply having a strong belief, and being religious. Then everyone who strongly believes "murder is wrong," is religious. Then the word 'religious' becomes meaningless--not even worth using.
But RMS is religious in another way. He pursues his beliefs and never lets up. But this is the same as saying, for example, that someone programs religiously.
You, on the other hand, want to describe RMS as no different than a Christian in his religiousness. A Christian is religious, however, because he believes in a religion. What is the religion that RMS believes in? Free Software? I think people would disagree that everyone who believes in Free Software is religious.
On the ACLU. They're motivation is, or at least should be, this: In a government sponsored activity, where religious views are allowed, so are anti-religious views, and where anti-religious views are not allowed, neither are religious views. In that way both sides get an equal playing field or no playing field at all. This keeps the government from playing favorites. Most fundamentalists do not mind the goverment playing favorites, as long as they are the favored.
On women: I find the act you described above personally disgusting. But I wasn't there, so I can't make a judgment. But assume it did happen as described. Despite what people think, however, a hypocrite can be believed sometimes. A smoker can tell others the dangers of smoking even if he continues smoking himself. A professor can speak of the injustice of the current social schema even if he is a contributing member. We could also look at it from the other direction. We should not disbelieve someone who says murder is wrong, even if he is murdering someone while saying it. We simply say that he is not following his own sound advice.
School violence is down, particularly gang related violence. The type of violence that is at higher levels now is mass murders in school. This is a different type than that which plagued schools in the early nineties, and administrators find it ten times scarier. With gang violence, someone knew Joe "Cap'n Yo Ass" Smith was in a gang, and if Smith was going to do something bad, at least a few people knew about it beforehand.
But with this new type of violence, nobody knows when something is going to happen. Usually, the people act alone, are extremely secretive, and do it for themselves, not a group that has to communicate with other people. It is even harder to predict because the cases of mass shootings are so diverse--it seems everyone that does it, does it for a different reason.
But the numbers of mass shootings are definitely on the rise--whether the such kids derive their inspiration from others who have done the same or references in popular culture remains to be seen.
I predict that most, if not all, of the effect is due to hearing in the news of other kids doing a mass shooting. Take for instance the movie "Natural Born Killers". If there was ever a movie to promote a mass shooting, NBK is it. Eventually, NBK was sued because one of these kids got some inspiration from it. But this kid did his deed years after the movie. Why weren't there more shootings before him motivated by the movie, when the movie had a greater audience? The reason is that the culture at the time, violent movies or no, did not promote mass shootings in any way. It just wasn't something that people did. No one would even think of doing it.
The first successful plane jacking for money happened in the early 70's. Before that, no one even had even really conceived of doing it. And those crinimals that had probably thought of it as hypothetical than as a rational crime to commit. But after it happened, many copy-cats tried the same thing, and we have had sporadic plane-jackings since.
Mass killings are here to stay for a while, but this is because they started in the first place, and kids realized it could be done, not because of any new entertainment media.
But this is only in the case that the Turing machine has a finite number of cells. That is, the memory of the computer is finite. Most Turing machines do not, but every computer I know of does.
A finite Turing machine can only have a finite number of states. The number of states is n*2^n, where the product of n comes from the number of positions of the reader, and the 2^n comes from the number of configurations of n binary cells.
Then, determining whether the algorithm does not halt is as simple as tracing it to see if any state repeats. If a state repeats, then the algorithm will continue forever. Otherwise, it will halt in less than n*2^n + 1 steps, because this is the maximum number of states it can go through before starting an infinite loop.
The "Halting Problem" is a misnomer, it depends on the requirement of Turing machines having infinite memory. No computational machine has infinite memory, so no real (as opposed to abstract) machine suffers from the halting problem.
The person in the rant said that whoever gets a certification is suddenly very valuable. That would indicate to me that the certification itself is very valuable. Whereas lemming hordes of people have MS certifications, a palsy 1500 have Red Hat certifications. Right now, demand for MS certs is medium, demand for Red Hat certs is high (compared to where they were last year). This would dictate that RedHat certs would cost more since it is harder to get them. This leads to the next point.
Sorry, but Red Hat is just a wee bit smaller than MS. They cannot yet afford to fly people all over the place. They cannot yet afford to have very low prices that come from immense volumes.
This whole rant seems like people who complain mom and pop shops can't compete with Walmart in price or availability. It takes little brainpower to realize why this is the case. But mom and pop shops have other benefits, such as more personalized service, and oftimes better product. So it just seems like a misplaced complaint to say that Red Hat cannot compete with MS in certain ways. They can't. Get over it.
I can't wait to have 58% of my university's bandwidth used up by piracy, AGAIN.
You contradict yourself. If free music becomes as popular as pirated music is now, then you will experience the same bandwidth problems, except this time it will all be legal.
I remember when I did not autoload images because of bandwidth problems on the internet. Well now the internet has grown up a little and graphics are a small load on the network.
Sooner or later, music will be chump change compared to movie streaming or whatever comes next. We should hope that the consequence of the extreme bandwidth usage is more bandwidth, rather than the despise of new technology.
God knows I don't have a social life. But then again, I've never found the idea of getting wasted on a weekend night appealing. I've also found that most people are simply so different from me that it is just not enjoyable to hang out with them. I don't spend time with my family since its so dysfunctional. So I guess I'm a loner.
But without the net, it would be much worse. I simply wouldn't be in touch with anyone. The net doesn't replace what I would have otherwise been doing, it creates something for me to do. I know this because at various points in my life without a computer, I would spend too much time watching TV or playing video games or what have you.
The study was done wrong. Those more likely to use the net are also more likely to be lonely in the first place. The study says that people who spend more time on line spend less time with friends. The reverse is what they really discovered. Those who spend more time with friends spend less time on the computer.
How many machines did they test this on? Also, they said old Pentiums were used. Would comparing the two operating systems on such old machines be a fair comparison? If indeed they only tested one machine per operating system, then it simply sounds like a matter of NT being put on a lemon of a machine. How can we blame an OS for the hardware faults it goes through? I love Linux, I just found that this article left a lot of unanswered questions.
If the MPAA succeeds, will a linux player for DVDs still be developed in the underground? Might there be a country beyond the influence of America that would allow it to be posted to the internet?
The biggest point mentioned was the issue of relative harm. The harm to the movie industry was judged irreparable, whereas the harm to the hacker community consisted of having to take down the source code. This is unfair. DVD is a big part of the future of computers. If we cannot use DVD because of the operating system we run, then we have been hurt. It may not sound like a big deal to miss out on watching movies, but consider it another way. If all Jewish people were banned from movie theaters, many people would be upset. It may not seem fair to compare religion and operating systems, but it is. Many Linux users have a strong ethical attachment to the operating system they use. They use it because they feel it is morally right. To force people to use another operating system would be like putting them against what they think is moral. Granted, DVD makers need not be required by law to provide players for every operating system, but they should at least allow people to spend their own time (and thus money) ensuring interoperability.
It all depends on the company. My friend works for a company that takes E-Commerce security very seriously. They use excellent passwords, never write down the info and destroy all written info of transactions. They have high encryption and only store the info (for record information) on servers not connected to an outside network. There is always a way but making it difficult deters most people from trying. The reason people do not rob banks is because of the level of difficulty. A person has to hold everyone up, or kil them, break the vault get away and hope the police do not catch you. Good Luck!! On the internet it is much easier. If you happen upon the name and password of just one company it can be devastating. I do not know if the hacker bypassed the security or luckily came upon the information. But all it takes is one company to be insecure to have terrible consequences on the public at large.
On the other hand, many AC posts are worth reading but are not moderated up. I realize the need to start AC at 0, but it should be easier to moderate them up to 1 or 2. For instance, when I see an AC at 1 I know its the same as a regular post at 2, so I read it. Moderators should be able to up an AC to 1 without using karma points. Furthermore, moderators should be able to bring an AC to 2 for 1 karma point, to 3 for 2 karma points, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Expect Microsoft to embrace this with a new client, integrate the client with the next release of IE, and add proprietary extensions to eventually subvert any other players in the field.
I'm not a big fan of AOL, but I'd rather have two big companies at each others throat than just one company controlling everything.
In Britian it's done with an 's'. There are more countries in the world than just the United States.
In advanced discrete mathematics class, we learned about a graph theory algorithm that was unsolved for many years. AT&T wanted it solved, because it was essential for telephone networks. They eventually gave a fat reward to some computer scientist who figured it out. Though the algorithm was fairly simple, we spent the entire semester building up our knowledge base so that we might understand it. It seemed important. Damn I wish I could remember its name.
That's the problem, that's there little water. The richness of iron oxide is much less of an issue. (BTW, I just said iron before because high iron oxide content -> high iron content.) Biological life evolved from the sea, which contained plenty of water for the operations of the cell to perform in. When organisms moved to land, they took the water with them. I do not think it is absolutely necessary that life must have so much water to exist. Viruses use very little water, though they are parasitic on water dependent organisms. Maybe engineering a non-parasitic version is impossible, or beyond human effort. That hasn't been verified yet, however.
The concept is nice, but earth only got its atmosphere from plants that occupy every nook and cranny of the globe. An atmosphere is BIG, its not like air conditioning a house, or even a space shuttle. I think the answer needs to be biological. Put some of those biochem companies to work producing a bacteria that will operate in an atmosphere that has a lot of iron and almost no water. Thats what we really need.
One problem, what if there are 1000 mom and pop shops with 1% of the gross income of the big company. Suddenly the company has less than 10% of the market share. I personally like the idea. But the problem is like a big animal fighting off thousands of bees. If one bee stings a bear, it might get a little peeved. But if thousands of bees attack a bear, the bear could easily die.
But RMS is religious in another way. He pursues his beliefs and never lets up. But this is the same as saying, for example, that someone programs religiously.
You, on the other hand, want to describe RMS as no different than a Christian in his religiousness. A Christian is religious, however, because he believes in a religion. What is the religion that RMS believes in? Free Software? I think people would disagree that everyone who believes in Free Software is religious.
On the ACLU. They're motivation is, or at least should be, this: In a government sponsored activity, where religious views are allowed, so are anti-religious views, and where anti-religious views are not allowed, neither are religious views. In that way both sides get an equal playing field or no playing field at all. This keeps the government from playing favorites. Most fundamentalists do not mind the goverment playing favorites, as long as they are the favored.
On women: I find the act you described above personally disgusting. But I wasn't there, so I can't make a judgment. But assume it did happen as described. Despite what people think, however, a hypocrite can be believed sometimes. A smoker can tell others the dangers of smoking even if he continues smoking himself. A professor can speak of the injustice of the current social schema even if he is a contributing member. We could also look at it from the other direction. We should not disbelieve someone who says murder is wrong, even if he is murdering someone while saying it. We simply say that he is not following his own sound advice.
A genuinely funny link.
But with this new type of violence, nobody knows when something is going to happen. Usually, the people act alone, are extremely secretive, and do it for themselves, not a group that has to communicate with other people. It is even harder to predict because the cases of mass shootings are so diverse--it seems everyone that does it, does it for a different reason.
But the numbers of mass shootings are definitely on the rise--whether the such kids derive their inspiration from others who have done the same or references in popular culture remains to be seen.
I predict that most, if not all, of the effect is due to hearing in the news of other kids doing a mass shooting. Take for instance the movie "Natural Born Killers". If there was ever a movie to promote a mass shooting, NBK is it. Eventually, NBK was sued because one of these kids got some inspiration from it. But this kid did his deed years after the movie. Why weren't there more shootings before him motivated by the movie, when the movie had a greater audience? The reason is that the culture at the time, violent movies or no, did not promote mass shootings in any way. It just wasn't something that people did. No one would even think of doing it.
The first successful plane jacking for money happened in the early 70's. Before that, no one even had even really conceived of doing it. And those crinimals that had probably thought of it as hypothetical than as a rational crime to commit. But after it happened, many copy-cats tried the same thing, and we have had sporadic plane-jackings since.
Mass killings are here to stay for a while, but this is because they started in the first place, and kids realized it could be done, not because of any new entertainment media.
But this is only in the case that the Turing machine has a finite number of cells. That is, the memory of the computer is finite. Most Turing machines do not, but every computer I know of does.
A finite Turing machine can only have a finite number of states. The number of states is n*2^n, where the product of n comes from the number of positions of the reader, and the 2^n comes from the number of configurations of n binary cells.
Then, determining whether the algorithm does not halt is as simple as tracing it to see if any state repeats. If a state repeats, then the algorithm will continue forever. Otherwise, it will halt in less than n*2^n + 1 steps, because this is the maximum number of states it can go through before starting an infinite loop.
The "Halting Problem" is a misnomer, it depends on the requirement of Turing machines having infinite memory. No computational machine has infinite memory, so no real (as opposed to abstract) machine suffers from the halting problem.
Sorry, but Red Hat is just a wee bit smaller than MS. They cannot yet afford to fly people all over the place. They cannot yet afford to have very low prices that come from immense volumes.
This whole rant seems like people who complain mom and pop shops can't compete with Walmart in price or availability. It takes little brainpower to realize why this is the case. But mom and pop shops have other benefits, such as more personalized service, and oftimes better product. So it just seems like a misplaced complaint to say that Red Hat cannot compete with MS in certain ways. They can't. Get over it.
You contradict yourself. If free music becomes as popular as pirated music is now, then you will experience the same bandwidth problems, except this time it will all be legal.
I remember when I did not autoload images because of bandwidth problems on the internet. Well now the internet has grown up a little and graphics are a small load on the network.
Sooner or later, music will be chump change compared to movie streaming or whatever comes next. We should hope that the consequence of the extreme bandwidth usage is more bandwidth, rather than the despise of new technology.
But without the net, it would be much worse. I simply wouldn't be in touch with anyone. The net doesn't replace what I would have otherwise been doing, it creates something for me to do. I know this because at various points in my life without a computer, I would spend too much time watching TV or playing video games or what have you.
The study was done wrong. Those more likely to use the net are also more likely to be lonely in the first place. The study says that people who spend more time on line spend less time with friends. The reverse is what they really discovered. Those who spend more time with friends spend less time on the computer.
How many machines did they test this on? Also, they said old Pentiums were used. Would comparing the two operating systems on such old machines be a fair comparison? If indeed they only tested one machine per operating system, then it simply sounds like a matter of NT being put on a lemon of a machine. How can we blame an OS for the hardware faults it goes through? I love Linux, I just found that this article left a lot of unanswered questions.
How come Be, the less popular OS, gets Real G2 and Flash macromedia, when Linux can't get either?
A well thought out and insightful essay.
If the MPAA succeeds, will a linux player for DVDs still be developed in the underground? Might there be a country beyond the influence of America that would allow it to be posted to the internet?
The biggest point mentioned was the issue of relative harm. The harm to the movie industry was judged irreparable, whereas the harm to the hacker community consisted of having to take down the source code. This is unfair. DVD is a big part of the future of computers. If we cannot use DVD because of the operating system we run, then we have been hurt. It may not sound like a big deal to miss out on watching movies, but consider it another way. If all Jewish people were banned from movie theaters, many people would be upset. It may not seem fair to compare religion and operating systems, but it is. Many Linux users have a strong ethical attachment to the operating system they use. They use it because they feel it is morally right. To force people to use another operating system would be like putting them against what they think is moral. Granted, DVD makers need not be required by law to provide players for every operating system, but they should at least allow people to spend their own time (and thus money) ensuring interoperability.
It all depends on the company. My friend works for a company that takes E-Commerce security very seriously. They use excellent passwords, never write down the info and destroy all written info of transactions. They have high encryption and only store the info (for record information) on servers not connected to an outside network. There is always a way but making it difficult deters most people from trying. The reason people do not rob banks is because of the level of difficulty. A person has to hold everyone up, or kil them, break the vault get away and hope the police do not catch you. Good Luck!! On the internet it is much easier. If you happen upon the name and password of just one company it can be devastating. I do not know if the hacker bypassed the security or luckily came upon the information. But all it takes is one company to be insecure to have terrible consequences on the public at large.
On the other hand, many AC posts are worth reading but are not moderated up. I realize the need to start AC at 0, but it should be easier to moderate them up to 1 or 2. For instance, when I see an AC at 1 I know its the same as a regular post at 2, so I read it. Moderators should be able to up an AC to 1 without using karma points. Furthermore, moderators should be able to bring an AC to 2 for 1 karma point, to 3 for 2 karma points, etc.