You pay for police who try to enforce the drug laws and your house gets broken into by someone looking for something to sell to fund his habit.
I wouldn't need to pay for law enforcement if the thing wasn't illegal in the first place. And the burglary problem would be diminished because the cost of drugs would drop greatly. Most of the cost of drugs today is the cost of working around law enforcement.
I don't disagree with your way completely (it is better than making drugs illegal, in my opinion). But I think it won't be needed anyore, once prohibition stops.
2: You don't legalise selling drugs but the government supplies free drugs like I said.
The government would need to be sure they are always updated with the latest new drugs. Otherwise the dealers will start selling the "new and improved" drugs and will have incentives to make people addicted to their drugs, instead of the government drugs. Yes, it would be difficult to compete with free products (even if the free products are "inferior), but I think there will be demand for non-free products anyway.
BTW, I would be really pissed if government starts using the money they stole from me to pay for other people's addictions.
"Gpcode used 1024-bit RSA/128-bit RC4 to lock up victims' data, an uncrackable combination that left the world with only one solution: find the virus author to get the master key."
Congratulations! The poster was he *first* person ever to fact-check that article! Nobody ever thought of looking the actual places on Google Maps before!
Of course, the photos on Google Maps are *never* updated, so the facts he has "fact-checked" couldn't have changed.
And most important of all that: he has found false information on the Internet! That's a huge discovery! This is a so rare event.
Google has already done it: the researchers just need to make their papers publicly available *anywhere* on the Web, and you'll find the articles on Google Search and Google Scholar Search.
Google can't do much else if the authors aren't interested in making their works openly acessible.
Forbidding people to work if they don't earn a certain amount is *wrong*, even if only one person is harmed because the state forbid him to work. It's not about statistics.
Students, as an example, aren't accounted on unemployment statistics, but they are harmed when they can't find an occupation when they want to.
If I understood correctly, it is not a matter of having multiple outstanding requests, necessarily. You only need to make sure your (the attacker) reply to a request get to tghe caching server before the legitimate reply. The multiple requests for different names are needed only to make sure you can try again if your previous try didn't work.
But maybe your suggestion could make the attack slower, if you reduce the number of queries to the upstream server when you are getting flooded with requests for different names under the same zone.
I wonder why the parent is modded Insightful. You don't seem to have gotten the problem.
The problem is not the servers being able to redcirect you to a different address, but the fact that any person (not only the people that control the servers you query) can make you server direct people to anywhere.
The problem is not about trust, but not being able to make sure who you are really getting a message from. You can't even have a trust problem if you are not sure who is talking to you.
Are party supporters allowed to have their own opinion these days? Anecodatal evidence suggests that there is a hive mind forming.
It could be worse: the election process here in Brazil is *designed* to give power to parties as entities, not as "supporters of ideas". This means that the parties don't care about what their supporters believe, but instead what is needed to make the party grow and survive.
And it is impossible to *create* new parties here, today, unless you have an army of half a million people available to support you. You aren't even *allowed* to be a candidate for a small legislative role in a tiny town, unless you are being supported by one of the existing parties.
To be able to have a better living condition, people need to be able to create wealth by working. Living conditions can't be improved magically, if these same people still aren't able to create enough wealth to live.
People in Brazil have poor living conditions in part[1] because they don't have good education. I don't argue that the OLPC project will really help to improve education here (I even doubt most of people that work as teachers in public schools will know how to make good use of the laptops). But "improve the living conditions of these poor people" won't be possible if we don't start by (also) improving education.
I think that technology can, yes, "turn someone's makeshift hut into a real living quarters", because it _may_ (not necessarily will, but it may) improve education and improving education can make people able to live by themselves.
[1] I would mention that this is also because the State here mess too much with the economy and takes from people more than half of the product of their work. But this is another story.
So, my answer is, of course you should be able to 'marry' any consenting adult, but you should not be able to force me to recognise your relationship as marriage.
I wonder what "recognising a relationship as marriage" exactly means. Legally speaking, marriage is just an agreement/contract/whatever between two people. Of course, marriage can means a lot more for people, it may be seen as a "social institution" and etcetera. But in my opinion, regulating "social institutions" is not State's business, except in the "legal agreement between people" part.
If you think that "social institutions" are business of the State, I wouldn't call you a libertarian. If you don't think this, but think that the State should care about the gender of people that do an agreement that may be called "marriage", then again I wouldn't call a libertarian.
Service includes maintenance releases, updates, support, installation help, onsite repairs, telephone support, etc.
If I don't pay for software, odds are I can still use the software, but my service is going to be minimal at best.
You have just shown the point of this discussion: even if you don't see "software as a service" (and you may be correct), the point is that "what is worth paying in the software world are services, not the software itself", because reproducing software for other people has no cost, once the software is written, but the services around it (support, maintenance, etc.) are valuable and have costs.
How bout this: The reason why html sucks is because its almost impossible to write an html parser that will write to a device context without having a windowed app.
Just because the available html-rendering libraries for your platform suck (or maybe you didn't search enough), that doesn't necessarily mean that the language you are trying to parse sucks.
Until I read the parent comment, I was thinking that they have found some magic technique to project the image on a surface, that would be seen differently to different viewers (therefore different images to our eyes). I was impressed, and curious to know how they managed to do that.
Now I have seen the video, they just keep track of the observer, and show a different image when the observer moves. Nothing exceptional. I am very disappointed. This is NOT stereoscopic, as the parent says.
If you're seeking reassurance that some artifact won't be used to sabotage a project, just ring the doorbell and ask. There are much better ways to open a discussion than throwing a brick through the window.
Slashdot Mirror
I wish I could mod down individual paragraphs of articles.
Like our current financial crisis, the aging process might also be a product excessive deregulation.
-1, Off-topic
You pay for police who try to enforce the drug laws and your house gets broken into by someone looking for something to sell to fund his habit.
I wouldn't need to pay for law enforcement if the thing wasn't illegal in the first place. And the burglary problem would be diminished because the cost of drugs would drop greatly. Most of the cost of drugs today is the cost of working around law enforcement.
I don't disagree with your way completely (it is better than making drugs illegal, in my opinion). But I think it won't be needed anyore, once prohibition stops.
2: You don't legalise selling drugs but the government supplies free drugs like I said.
The government would need to be sure they are always updated with the latest new drugs. Otherwise the dealers will start selling the "new and improved" drugs and will have incentives to make people addicted to their drugs, instead of the government drugs. Yes, it would be difficult to compete with free products (even if the free products are "inferior), but I think there will be demand for non-free products anyway.
BTW, I would be really pissed if government starts using the money they stole from me to pay for other people's addictions.
I think we can generalize it as "people want to be free" (to propagate information, and to do business with whoever they want), then.
"Gpcode used 1024-bit RSA/128-bit RC4 to lock up victims' data, an uncrackable combination that left the world with only one solution: find the virus author to get the master key."
What about learning to do backups?
Congratulations! The poster was he *first* person ever to fact-check that article! Nobody ever thought of looking the actual places on Google Maps before!
Of course, the photos on Google Maps are *never* updated, so the facts he has "fact-checked" couldn't have changed.
And most important of all that: he has found false information on the Internet! That's a huge discovery! This is a so rare event.
Meh.
Most journals make you transfer copyright to them. Making your paper available is then illegal.
That's pure evil. Why do people keep submitting material to them? Journals that do that should lose their credibility.
It's changing, faster and faster.
I hope you are right.
Google has already done it: the researchers just need to make their papers publicly available *anywhere* on the Web, and you'll find the articles on Google Search and Google Scholar Search.
Google can't do much else if the authors aren't interested in making their works openly acessible.
Forbidding people to work if they don't earn a certain amount is *wrong*, even if only one person is harmed because the state forbid him to work. It's not about statistics.
Students, as an example, aren't accounted on unemployment statistics, but they are harmed when they can't find an occupation when they want to.
I think the next big web app is going to be a filter.
What about a sarch engine that has an algorithm to sort the results and show the most relevant ones first?
Oh, wait.
If I understood correctly, it is not a matter of having multiple outstanding requests, necessarily. You only need to make sure your (the attacker) reply to a request get to tghe caching server before the legitimate reply. The multiple requests for different names are needed only to make sure you can try again if your previous try didn't work.
But maybe your suggestion could make the attack slower, if you reduce the number of queries to the upstream server when you are getting flooded with requests for different names under the same zone.
I wonder why the parent is modded Insightful. You don't seem to have gotten the problem.
The problem is not the servers being able to redcirect you to a different address, but the fact that any person (not only the people that control the servers you query) can make you server direct people to anywhere.
The problem is not about trust, but not being able to make sure who you are really getting a message from. You can't even have a trust problem if you are not sure who is talking to you.
Are party supporters allowed to have their own opinion these days? Anecodatal evidence suggests that there is a hive mind forming.
It could be worse: the election process here in Brazil is *designed* to give power to parties as entities, not as "supporters of ideas". This means that the parties don't care about what their supporters believe, but instead what is needed to make the party grow and survive.
And it is impossible to *create* new parties here, today, unless you have an army of half a million people available to support you. You aren't even *allowed* to be a candidate for a small legislative role in a tiny town, unless you are being supported by one of the existing parties.
How about asking your local Hollywood or Blockbuster folks if you could run your few discs through their fancy machine?
The video rental stores in my neighbourhood even offer this as a service, for about $5.
Curitiba is probably too far away 8), but I think you will probably find stores that offer this service where you live.
Well, I am brazilian and I think that what they did was included on the definition of "make out". :)
Then I've found that according to Wiktionary, it means "To kiss or to make love".
That's an ambiguous definition.
To be able to have a better living condition, people need to be able to create wealth by working. Living conditions can't be improved magically, if these same people still aren't able to create enough wealth to live.
People in Brazil have poor living conditions in part[1] because they don't have good education. I don't argue that the OLPC project will really help to improve education here (I even doubt most of people that work as teachers in public schools will know how to make good use of the laptops). But "improve the living conditions of these poor people" won't be possible if we don't start by (also) improving education.
I think that technology can, yes, "turn someone's makeshift hut into a real living quarters", because it _may_ (not necessarily will, but it may) improve education and improving education can make people able to live by themselves.
[1] I would mention that this is also because the State here mess too much with the economy and takes from people more than half of the product of their work. But this is another story.
I wonder what "recognising a relationship as marriage" exactly means. Legally speaking, marriage is just an agreement/contract/whatever between two people. Of course, marriage can means a lot more for people, it may be seen as a "social institution" and etcetera. But in my opinion, regulating "social institutions" is not State's business, except in the "legal agreement between people" part.
If you think that "social institutions" are business of the State, I wouldn't call you a libertarian. If you don't think this, but think that the State should care about the gender of people that do an agreement that may be called "marriage", then again I wouldn't call a libertarian.
You have just shown the point of this discussion: even if you don't see "software as a service" (and you may be correct), the point is that "what is worth paying in the software world are services, not the software itself", because reproducing software for other people has no cost, once the software is written, but the services around it (support, maintenance, etc.) are valuable and have costs.
Is it the elbonian MP3 player?
Republicans don't favor less government control by any means. Look who has been controlling Congress and the white house this decade.
I think people didn't mean "government control" by "controlling the government", but "control by the government".
How bout this: The reason why html sucks is because its almost impossible to write an html parser that will write to a device context without having a windowed app.
Just because the available html-rendering libraries for your platform suck (or maybe you didn't search enough), that doesn't necessarily mean that the language you are trying to parse sucks.
Isn't this article supposed to be on topic "It's funny. Laugh."?
Until I read the parent comment, I was thinking that they have found some magic technique to project the image on a surface, that would be seen differently to different viewers (therefore different images to our eyes). I was impressed, and curious to know how they managed to do that.
Now I have seen the video, they just keep track of the observer, and show a different image when the observer moves. Nothing exceptional. I am very disappointed. This is NOT stereoscopic, as the parent says.
Isn't this the kind of thing where you trade amazing resolution for something else?
Yes, for money.
how about asking Borland if we may write something their patent covers?
2 94.aspx
Someone on Borland suggested it, too:
http://blogs.borland.com/dcc/archive/2005/05/12/4
From the URL above:
If you're seeking reassurance that some artifact won't be used to sabotage a project, just ring the doorbell and ask. There are much better ways to open a discussion than throwing a brick through the window.