If you have nothing to hide, once a court "asks" you for data, why not give it!
This is exactly the kind of attitude that leads to the erosion of civil liberties.
This is the kind of attitude that leads to lawlessness, every country has their own balance of protecting people from each other vs protecting people from the government. I am happy for my country's courts to force people to disclose information, if what they are found to have breaks laws then they should be punished. And before you get all high and mighty that the USs way is better lets not forget about illegal wiretaps, shipping us citizens of to gitmo where they are "enhancedly interrogated" in a legal limbo.
Now, since I tell the police to "F off" they probably think that I've got state secrets or kiddie porn (like you just assumed).
If you have nothing to hide, once a court "asks" you for data, why not give it! move it to the real world, if you have a perfect safe that can only be gotten into with your combination, what would happen? In the UK im fairly sure that if you didn't hand over the combination you would be charged with something and spend time in jail, the current ruling makes sense (in the UK)!
which is pointless as the fact you have truecrypt gives away that you have a hidden partition (and as its impossible to chain hidden partitions, you cant hid your data in a 3rd one)
But if you enter a valid URL firefox will always take you there even if there is no site, it only googles stuff if you type an invalid url, this is a fair assumption google.cm/ google dot com goes to a google results page
it can also be disabled completely keyword.enabled = false
Disabling the feature by default IS a good idea as it DOES protect the OS from undetectable root kits (blue pill styley), i suppose as the bios can be attacked from a compromised OS disabling it completely could provide further protection (that is if you ignore the fact they can simply replace the bios with a new one)
Seriously if anything the systems what an open standard (e.g unix), perhaps open libraries, but they guys in AI research already know this. you defiantly do not want a single closed OS controlled by some 3rd party. Having a common OS (in this case windows) may have helped pcs become widespread, but desktop computing would be in a much better place if programs where writing to a common API (e.g unix APIs) that multiple vendors implemented. HW drivers could also be written to a common API, so that the seperate parts of the AI can be contributed by different people and if any one part sucks it can be replaced easily (be it the pure-kernel, the drivers or the high level apps) As much as im a fan of linux, this is probably more of a job for microkernels such as minix or mach (ideally hurd)!
who the fuck moded you insightful! red, green, blue + red,blue,yellow = red,red,blue,blue,green,yellow if you select only the distinct colors (as GP did), you get red,blue,green,yellow if you count that list, you get FOUR colors
I wouldn't be so synical "i'm feeling lucky" and mozilla browser bar queries, both cost google in ad clicks but google provide them anyway, I would guess its because google isn't meant to be a caluclator and they included an advnaced version of units but its not that important to them. Getting into human language searches simply isn't worth it/a good idea, people should learn to search (learning to search should be/ is easy) a computer guessing what you meant to ask will never be as good as just asking the right question in the first place!
sig.ma caters to a different need than google, if a i google something i want links not info, i will then read about my chosen topic on a page dedicated to it! sure google could announce semantic.google.com which caters to what you want but it should never replace google's primary search!
SO much confusion, the author is clearly correct! A user can do whatever they want with what they have purchased, e.g link it to readline locally You can make both prop and GPL software available even with cLisp under GPL, the author can still distribute his files and cLisp aslong as they aren't packaged as one (hell you can package them as one anyway as distros do that all the time)
Lesser GPL is for inferior libraries, situations where the opensource library is inferior to widely used proprietary ones and getting contributions from proprietary users of the LGPL lib is better than sticking your head in the sand and pretending a GPL lib will catch up.
$Big_Bad_Corporation = Microsoft $Open_Source_License = BSD $Code = Networking_stack
BSD and other permissive licenses do not keep the code open, GPL is the major license that does, sure others are available and GPL has its flaws (overly complex for many situations), but there reason is a reason it can't be linked to permissive licenses
he GPL does not guarantee that someone has to give you anything back. In fact, there is no reciprocation requirement at all.
Is there any license that does have a reciprocation requirement? I imagine it would be a PITA to sort out, e.g A makes software that is modified by B then C, do C have to make the changes available to A or just to B? Upon receiving those changes if B decide not to use them do they have to make the changes available to A anyway?
Personally reciprocation is all I want in a license, however as GPL is so widely used it's easier to put stuff out under GPL and hope that somewhere down the chain somebody gives you your code back!
Exactly chromeOS is aiming at an emerging market not an existing one. I do however think this could really hurt Microsoft leverage, ATM everybody wants windows/MS-office because everybody knows windows/MS-office if that seal gets broken it will Microsoft position a lot, So if your a microsoft naysayer you may even claim chromeOS is the begining of the end for MS, I think its just the end of their monoply phase, as they will once again have to compete, medium term i see several threats: *windows maintained on every desk vs a couple of google servers and thin clients *office maintained on workstations vs google docs on a server (google docs has weaknesses vs ms-office but it also has advantages) *exchange vs gmail+gcalander *outlook vs wave
these could cause the death of micrsoft, however its unlikely that MS will sit idly buy and watch redmond crumble!
I can't envision IT reaching that point in the next 50 years. Aditionally most of the places IT is heading smartphones, TVs, smart devices, etc, tend to not interfere with Microsoft core market (corporate office suite)
but fundamentally we don't really understand what's going on at the level of the atom, much less at the level of its constituent parts.
The problem with most atoms is they deal with a lot of objects (e.g n-body problems), we do however grok hydrogen and have a thorough understanding of the rules of the game. While we probably will get a huge discovery on how the insides of an atom work (and perhaps an other on how the insides of however whatever we find in that works), we know how electrons and photons interact with eachother well enough to construct QC that use these as building blocks.
The Bernoulli principle was know about since 1738 but it took till 1903 to get planes to fly using the principle
the quantum realm is somehow superior to the classical one
The quantum realm is superior to the classical one, all classical stuff is just a subset of quantum stuff. A ball bouncing off a wall not only obeys the laws of classical physics it also follows those of quantum mechanics.
whereas in the classical universe, we find real things instead
There is only one universe, there are different 'realms/domains' but fundamentally everything obeys the laws of quantum mechanics and the classical universe is just you see on the surface, the "real things" are quantum objects. It happens that for stuff we experience in everyday life stuff follows a more strict set of rules.
One of the basic postulates of Quantum Mechanics is that several interpretations seem to fit equally well,
Its not a postulate, (there are 4 postulates, they are un-testable (from within QM theory) assumptions NOT results) it's simply a result of people wanting an answer to something that is impossible to know.
the math itself doesn't show a preference.
The maths doesn't deal with objects it only ever deals with probabilities, all the interpretations are philosophical ramblings that try and explain what the probabilities mean.
I that the universe at our level seems deterministic only because the underlying state is so purely probabilistic
I think the world is pretty probabilistic and it would be pretty hard to explain the actions of most living beings in a deterministic way!
I personally prefer the word "reification" (Latinate for 'thing becoming')
That assumes that stuff turns into classical objects (which they do not) and it undermines any holgraphic (e.g we only see one outcome) interpretations
Slashdot Mirror
If you have nothing to hide, once a court "asks" you for data, why not give it!
This is exactly the kind of attitude that leads to the erosion of civil liberties.
This is the kind of attitude that leads to lawlessness, every country has their own balance of protecting people from each other vs protecting people from the government. I am happy for my country's courts to force people to disclose information, if what they are found to have breaks laws then they should be punished. And before you get all high and mighty that the USs way is better lets not forget about illegal wiretaps, shipping us citizens of to gitmo where they are "enhancedly interrogated" in a legal limbo.
Now, since I tell the police to "F off" they probably think that I've got state secrets or kiddie porn (like you just assumed).
If you have nothing to hide, once a court "asks" you for data, why not give it!
move it to the real world, if you have a perfect safe that can only be gotten into with your combination, what would happen? In the UK im fairly sure that if you didn't hand over the combination you would be charged with something and spend time in jail, the current ruling makes sense (in the UK)!
GPL vs non-GPL
do you want to allow closed forks of your code:
YES -> look at other licenses
NO -> look at (l/a)GPL (and other similar licenses)
right now that I've sorted that out will everybody just STFU!
which is pointless as the fact you have truecrypt gives away that you have a hidden partition (and as its impossible to chain hidden partitions, you cant hid your data in a 3rd one)
But if you enter a valid URL firefox will always take you there even if there is no site, it only googles stuff if you type an invalid url, this is a fair assumption
google.cm/ google dot com goes to a google results page
it can also be disabled completely
keyword.enabled = false
For example? Seriously my question wasn't rhetorical or anything!
The fact that they are not popular is an indication that people don't like them.
I doubt its that simple, id guess that the licenses where confusing to use and using them with other copy-left licenses caused problems!
Disabling the feature by default IS a good idea as it DOES protect the OS from undetectable root kits (blue pill styley), i suppose as the bios can be attacked from a compromised OS disabling it completely could provide further protection (that is if you ignore the fact they can simply replace the bios with a new one)
Seriously if anything the systems what an open standard (e.g unix), perhaps open libraries, but they guys in AI research already know this. you defiantly do not want a single closed OS controlled by some 3rd party. Having a common OS (in this case windows) may have helped pcs become widespread, but desktop computing would be in a much better place if programs where writing to a common API (e.g unix APIs) that multiple vendors implemented. HW drivers could also be written to a common API, so that the seperate parts of the AI can be contributed by different people and if any one part sucks it can be replaced easily (be it the pure-kernel, the drivers or the high level apps) As much as im a fan of linux, this is probably more of a job for microkernels such as minix or mach (ideally hurd)!
who the fuck moded you insightful!
red, green, blue + red,blue,yellow = red,red,blue,blue,green,yellow
if you select only the distinct colors (as GP did), you get red,blue,green,yellow
if you count that list, you get FOUR colors
I wouldn't be so synical "i'm feeling lucky" and mozilla browser bar queries, both cost google in ad clicks but google provide them anyway, I would guess its because google isn't meant to be a caluclator and they included an advnaced version of units but its not that important to them. Getting into human language searches simply isn't worth it/a good idea, people should learn to search (learning to search should be/ is easy) a computer guessing what you meant to ask will never be as good as just asking the right question in the first place!
sig.ma caters to a different need than google, if a i google something i want links not info, i will then read about my chosen topic on a page dedicated to it!
sure google could announce semantic.google.com which caters to what you want but it should never replace google's primary search!
SO much confusion, the author is clearly correct!
A user can do whatever they want with what they have purchased, e.g link it to readline locally
You can make both prop and GPL software available
even with cLisp under GPL, the author can still distribute his files and cLisp aslong as they aren't packaged as one (hell you can package them as one anyway as distros do that all the time)
host it in the EU where soft-where patents don't count for shit!
Lesser GPL is for inferior libraries, situations where the opensource library is inferior to widely used proprietary ones and getting contributions from proprietary users of the LGPL lib is better than sticking your head in the sand and pretending a GPL lib will catch up.
$Big_Bad_Corporation = Microsoft
$Open_Source_License = BSD
$Code = Networking_stack
BSD and other permissive licenses do not keep the code open, GPL is the major license that does, sure others are available and GPL has its flaws (overly complex for many situations), but there reason is a reason it can't be linked to permissive licenses
he GPL does not guarantee that someone has to give you anything back. In fact, there is no reciprocation requirement at all.
Is there any license that does have a reciprocation requirement? I imagine it would be a PITA to sort out, e.g
A makes software that is modified by B then C,
do C have to make the changes available to A or just to B?
Upon receiving those changes if B decide not to use them do they have to make the changes available to A anyway?
Personally reciprocation is all I want in a license, however as GPL is so widely used it's easier to put stuff out under GPL and hope that somewhere down the chain somebody gives you your code back!
doesn't it have to have an IP to be internet connected, if its pacemaker->external montior->internet then the monitor must have an ip anyway!
sounds like poor drivers what OS where you using?
Exactly chromeOS is aiming at an emerging market not an existing one. I do however think this could really hurt Microsoft leverage, ATM everybody wants windows/MS-office because everybody knows windows/MS-office if that seal gets broken it will Microsoft position a lot, So if your a microsoft naysayer you may even claim chromeOS is the begining of the end for MS, I think its just the end of their monoply phase, as they will once again have to compete, medium term i see several threats:
*windows maintained on every desk vs a couple of google servers and thin clients
*office maintained on workstations vs google docs on a server (google docs has weaknesses vs ms-office but it also has advantages)
*exchange vs gmail+gcalander
*outlook vs wave
these could cause the death of micrsoft, however its unlikely that MS will sit idly buy and watch redmond crumble!
I can't envision IT reaching that point in the next 50 years. Aditionally most of the places IT is heading smartphones, TVs, smart devices, etc, tend to not interfere with Microsoft core market (corporate office suite)
while $chrome_OS_market_share < 0.80:
echo "no"
#you'll probably never get here
if $google_engage_in_anticompetitive_behaviour: #e.g harassing oems
echo "yes"
else:
echo "no"
Your doing it wrong, i have no such errors file a bug report if you want it fixed (thats why its alpha/beta software)
as for gp, just because to versions have the same number does not make them equal, flash on linux still sucks!
In a shock move by the GOP, they have announced that dog's deserve the right to vote!
but fundamentally we don't really understand what's going on at the level of the atom, much less at the level of its constituent parts.
The problem with most atoms is they deal with a lot of objects (e.g n-body problems), we do however grok hydrogen and have a thorough understanding of the rules of the game. While we probably will get a huge discovery on how the insides of an atom work (and perhaps an other on how the insides of however whatever we find in that works), we know how electrons and photons interact with eachother well enough to construct QC that use these as building blocks.
The Bernoulli principle was know about since 1738 but it took till 1903 to get planes to fly using the principle
the quantum realm is somehow superior to the classical one
The quantum realm is superior to the classical one, all classical stuff is just a subset of quantum stuff. A ball bouncing off a wall not only obeys the laws of classical physics it also follows those of quantum mechanics.
whereas in the classical universe, we find real things instead
There is only one universe, there are different 'realms/domains' but fundamentally everything obeys the laws of quantum mechanics and the classical universe is just you see on the surface, the "real things" are quantum objects. It happens that for stuff we experience in everyday life stuff follows a more strict set of rules.
One of the basic postulates of Quantum Mechanics is that several interpretations seem to fit equally well,
Its not a postulate, (there are 4 postulates, they are un-testable (from within QM theory) assumptions NOT results) it's simply a result of people wanting an answer to something that is impossible to know.
the math itself doesn't show a preference.
The maths doesn't deal with objects it only ever deals with probabilities, all the interpretations are philosophical ramblings that try and explain what the probabilities mean.
I that the universe at our level seems deterministic only because the underlying state is so purely probabilistic
I think the world is pretty probabilistic and it would be pretty hard to explain the actions of most living beings in a deterministic way!
I personally prefer the word "reification" (Latinate for 'thing becoming')
That assumes that stuff turns into classical objects (which they do not) and it undermines any holgraphic (e.g we only see one outcome) interpretations