I like these specific things. Anything that enables parents to make informed choices of what they consider suitable for their children is better than blanket "No kids" rules.
The difference the OP missed was that (I presume) you prevent your customer from giving your work away (or reselling it). That's why your's isn't open source. To be OS, the creator mustn't restrict the client from further redistribution.
But those were possible because the (lack of) license / copyright on the information enabled the guardians of that information to make a succesful "Knowledge Grab"
A CSS key is 5 bytes. How anyone can think that it's possible to "steal" 5 bytes is beyond me. 5 bytes do not have any protection under copyright law because it's not an original work. It's probably possible for 5 bytes to be protected under trade secret law, but CSS hasn't been a trade secret since DeCSS was released and mirrored all over the net.
Given that 5 bytes covers 32,768 possiblities, would it not have been possible to brute force this fairly easily anyway?
Looks like the Free/Open Source Software movement is very close to closing up one of the most noticeable software gaps remaining from its glorious efforts
Let me remind you that Einstein's paper about special relativity took only one (or was it two) pages.
And why was that? Because it was (essentially) a rider to the 1905 paper "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper" (On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies") which was considerably longer
In "The Road Ahead", Bill Gates himself wrote enthusiastically about the "software ecosystem" that surrounded Microsoft in its early years. It made a huge contribution to the success of Windows, by creating an application-rich environment. The same kind of ecosystem now surrounds Open Source and it is growing quickly. I am amazed by its potential. It could completely undermine Microsoft's monopoly, and it probably will. -- Samba, Soccer and Open Source
Microsoft has a horrible position to defend; they have created a monster of complexity by enabling such an open model. Whilst it is true that we as consumers have seen the benefits of lower prices and mounting capability, there has been a price to pay. When the foundation is so shaky, you cannot be certain whether you will derive benefit from an update or whether in fact it will cause untold grief. -- Further problems associated with Service Pack 2?
Doesn't read like a Gartner-style MS schill to me...
Whatever happened to the most elegant and simplist solution being the likely right explaination?
Well, besides the fact that that that's bollocks... this explanation isn't elegant or simple. In fact, it's hardly there at all. At the cutting edge of physics, relativity and quantum mechanics aren't about lengthy, hand-waving arguments. If you want to discredit GR and black-holes take the equations and manipulate them into either a contradiction or a hypothesis that contradicts observations. You can't invalidate one theory because it contradicts another theory, unless you're absolutely sure the latter theory is 100% correct.
the theory of quantum mechanics only works well when gravity is so weak that it can be neglected
But there are plenty of other theories that do cope with GR-type gravity : Loop quantum gravity, string theory, twistor theory.... The problem is that there are too many GR-compatible quantum theories, not too few.
That means that there may well be far far more work on this than four pages
I'm sure there is, but I'm amazed that Nature has run a piece before the major work has been published. And I bloody hope that the arguments presented there are better than the hand-waving ones in the precis.
Four fucking pages?!? The guy claims to comprehensively contradict some of the best known and most studied concepts in astro-physics, and his proof covers FOUR PAGES? And contains almost no equations?
You'll forgive me, but given that people have observed things that appear in every measurable way to be black holes, I want a hell of a lot more convincing evidence than that to reject their existence.
Have I finally lost touch with the computing industry or is this just not funny? Even though this kind of joke has been done to death, I had hoped for a smile to at least cross my lips.
It suffers from what many of these do. It's a single joke (and a nice enough one at that, with a salting of satire) spread much too thinly over a moderately lengthy document, without being consistently funny or inventive.
As a member of the "Honesty In Reporting" committee, I recommend the following emendation to slashdot's boiler plate text
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early... but let's face it, it's going to be another appallingly lame April Fool, so frankly, I wouldn't bother.
Slashdot Mirror
Tim Hortons, baby.
It isn't about enjoyment, and it's not about sexual development.
It's about consent. And, like it or not, in the US children below the age of majority are not considered sufficiently well informed to give consent.
Which is a good thing.
The difference the OP missed was that (I presume) you prevent your customer from giving your work away (or reselling it). That's why your's isn't open source. To be OS, the creator mustn't restrict the client from further redistribution.
I'm shocked... shocked!... that hardware review sites would make a half-assed job of their review just in order to be the first to publish.
Whatever next!?!?
So lets see : An independent investigation by a Columbia university panel says one thing. A load of bloggers say something else.
Yes, my analytical mind tells me the bloggers have more credibility. I think I'll believe them.
But those were possible because the (lack of) license / copyright on the information enabled the guardians of that information to make a succesful "Knowledge Grab"
OK. You can stop replying to this now.
I'm a cretin.
OP
Oh, wow. How did I screw that up. Jesus, where's my "Take that post back and never let anyone else see it" button.
I think this would not be a good time to reveal I've a higher degree in Mathematics.
Which you ain't.
Four fucking pages?!? The guy claims to comprehensively contradict some of the best known and most studied concepts in astro-physics, and his proof covers FOUR PAGES? And contains almost no equations?
You'll forgive me, but given that people have observed things that appear in every measurable way to be black holes, I want a hell of a lot more convincing evidence than that to reject their existence.
On Linux, acroread tells me the document is encrypted, so quite what the purpose of posting the link is, I'm not entirely sure...
Must try harder.
A. Farrel has put out a Request For Comments paper I still think he'll regret leaving Wigan Warriors to try his hand at Rugby Union with Saracens...
Oh, hell, no-one's going to get this joke.
... that slashdot once ran an April Fools piece that was both funny and plausible. It was 1997, if I remember correctly.
Of course, it's entirely possible that this recollection is a hoax, too.