What you fail to realize is that the Hurd developers don't CARE if you use it. They're doing this because it's fun to write operating systems (ok, maybe they're crazy -- but so's Linus). Competition with stuff that's already out there is WAY down on the list of things they worry about.
First, thanks for the post. You clearly have much experience.
I'd like to point out that, in the parlance of physics, the onset rate as well as transitions from positive to negative are known as "jerk." No, really.
Also, there's no deep difference between positive and negative G. They are merely accelerations in different directions. If the acceleration is skyward, we call that positive G, and if it is toward the ground we call it negative. Of course, it really depends on which way your body is facing.
I've been told this is due to the way sheets of glass were manufactured back then. They took a blob of glass, put it on the end of a rod, and rotated the rod very quickly. This flattened the glass into a thin disk. However, the disk was slightly thicker on the edge than in the middle.
Then they cut the glass disk into panes. They mounted the thicker end at the bottom of the window frame because that's obviously more stable than mounting it at the top.
Re:You post at -1?
on
Unix Isn't Dead
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
And it just keeps happening.
Don't you people realize I'm purposefully wasting your points? Why don't you exercise some restraint?
Some people are worrying about conservation of mass/energy/angular momentum/etc. If backward time travel were possible, maybe the laws of conservation should be amended to say: "Taken over the entire lifetime of the universe, the total energy, mass, angular momentum, momentum remain constant." In other words, the differential values of the conserved quantities, integrated over all space and all time must remain constant. Is this plausible?
But here's a chain of reasoning that seems to suggest travel into the past is impossible:
If travel into the past is possible, then in order to preserve causality, the "past" that is travelled to must be a different past in a different reality. Otherwise all the paradoxes that are spelled out in this thread could occur. But, if this is the case, then the aforementioned conservation law would be violated, since the matter/energy/momentum that vanished in this universe would reappear in a different one. Therefore time travel to the past is impossible.
To believe in time travel, we must either throw out the idea of causality, or the idea of conservation, or both. I'm not willing to do either, so I can't reasonably believe in time travel to the past.
Then again, maybe I'm just a stupid human who doesn't understand the universe, along with the rest of us humans...;)
However, if you're worried then you should be using 2048-bit original-style RSA PGP keys anyway (or 3072 or even 4096 bit new-style RSA keys). You might want to avoid the DH/DSS keys since the signature part cannot exceed 1024 bit....
DSS uses a method similar to ElGamal, which is NOT based on the difficulty of factorization. ElGamal (and DSS) are based on the difficulty of the discrete logarithm problem. Discrete logarithm systems are not affected by this "breakthrough," even if it is one.
Almost all of it is about optimization problems. I see little place for real-world issues like abstraction, concurrency, standardization, business problems (i.e. unstructured complexity).
The more front-page coverage these lunatics get, the more discussion they earn, the more powerful they become. Maybe the best way to deal with Scientology is to ignore it.
I wasn't calling everyone thieving losers, I was speaking to a particular individual (who won't even reveal his handle let alone his name).
I think many companies go out of their way to make their unlocking process as painless as possible. Other people on this thread posted very true stories about losing their license keys, upgrading and having to re-register, etc. It's unfortunate that people have to go through this, but I don't feel you can blame the software house for wanting to protect their interests. Many smaller companies just barely edge by, because they refuse to charge their customers ridiculous prices. To protect what little profit they do turn, they have to implement these systems to stop the few dishonest ones from taking advantage.
The fact is, if the copy protection is hard enough to break, people will opt to pay for the product rather than steal it -- maybe not in the gaming or shareware industries, but certainly in my industry.
It wasn't intended to be funny, but glad you see it that way.
The fact is there are a lot of software places that aren't huge corporations with infinite money. There are a total of 19 (20 now?) people who I work with, and we work our asses off to produce the best product possible. And we expect to be paid for our efforts, not because we're economic rapists but because we have lives (and many of us have families) that depend on income. The president of the company probably makes less than a low-level manager at some of the megacorps you refer to. Yes, we are the little guy, just like you, trying to make a living.
But that's exactly what I was saying. If MS thinks they can absolve themselves by license agreement, then they're wrong. In my example, the bank would be held liable, even though it's technically illegal for someone to rob the bank. And MS would still be held liable, even though their license agreement essentially says "you aren't allowed to use this feature to break into a system." You can't disavow responsiblity just because you told someone not to do it -- you need to STOP them from doing it.
I don't think that creates any legal protection for them. Trojan writers are criminals and you can't reasonably expect them to cease and desist because you added a stupid clause to your EULA.
If Mr. Rich Lately walked through the unlocked front door of a bank at midnight, strolled down the stairs, opened the vault (which has no locks) and made off with the life savings of a few thousand people, the bank could not just say "Well it's not our fault, it's illegal to steal, after all."
When oh when will the software publishers learn? COPY PROTECTION DOESN'T WORK. IT D O E S N ' T WORK! So long as the 'puter can execute the code, I can:
Blithering idiocy (that doesn't impress me in the slightest) deleted
Translation: "Please stop using copy protection so I don't have to go to all this trouble."
That's like asking the attendant at the gas station "Please, can you do me a favor and allow me to rob you WITHOUT a gun this time?"
If you're going to be a thief, then you're going to be made to jump through hoops. Tough luck for you, you thieving loser.
RedHat is not on the ball, apparently. I've been using it for several years now and I just burned 7.2 yesterday. I was planning to install it next week but now I'm not so sure that's a good idea. I'd like to play with KDE 3.0 without installing it myself.
Should I try something different? I'd hate to relearn the boot system (/etc/rc.d) AGAIN, I already did that once when I switched from Slackware to Redhat. I might be a programmer, but I ain't no sysadmin and it would be nice not to have to f*ck with 99% of the system just to get things the way I want them...
Slashdot Mirror
What you fail to realize is that the Hurd developers don't CARE if you use it. They're doing this because it's fun to write operating systems (ok, maybe they're crazy -- but so's Linus). Competition with stuff that's already out there is WAY down on the list of things they worry about.
I'd like to point out that, in the parlance of physics, the onset rate as well as transitions from positive to negative are known as "jerk." No, really.
Also, there's no deep difference between positive and negative G. They are merely accelerations in different directions. If the acceleration is skyward, we call that positive G, and if it is toward the ground we call it negative. Of course, it really depends on which way your body is facing.
Then they cut the glass disk into panes. They mounted the thicker end at the bottom of the window frame because that's obviously more stable than mounting it at the top.
Don't you people realize I'm purposefully wasting your points? Why don't you exercise some restraint?
Morons.
For christ's sake, mod me down. If you don't, the world will explode.
Mod me down, fucknuts.
God, I could do this all day.
Sex with a mare? Why would I want to have sex with a dark, basalt-rich region of the lunar surface?
Why don't you people grow up? Wait for the good comments, and mod them up. Why not be constructive? You're just wasting your points.
What did you do to deserve such recognition?
Sure, I'm biased toward free software. But doesn't everyone have their biases? This is ridiculous.
Sorry that I called you "idiot." I've been reading K5 recently and my policy (call it stupid) has been to reserve sarcasm for /. only.
Human language is a chaotic, natural system. To attempt to apply hard-and-fast rules to it seems silly.
Main Entry: prove
Pronunciation: 'prüv
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): proved; proved or proven
You can say it either way. It's standard usage. Idiot.
But here's a chain of reasoning that seems to suggest travel into the past is impossible:
If travel into the past is possible, then in order to preserve causality, the "past" that is travelled to must be a different past in a different reality. Otherwise all the paradoxes that are spelled out in this thread could occur. But, if this is the case, then the aforementioned conservation law would be violated, since the matter/energy/momentum that vanished in this universe would reappear in a different one. Therefore time travel to the past is impossible.
To believe in time travel, we must either throw out the idea of causality, or the idea of conservation, or both. I'm not willing to do either, so I can't reasonably believe in time travel to the past.
Then again, maybe I'm just a stupid human who doesn't understand the universe, along with the rest of us humans... ;)
DSS uses a method similar to ElGamal, which is NOT based on the difficulty of factorization. ElGamal (and DSS) are based on the difficulty of the discrete logarithm problem. Discrete logarithm systems are not affected by this "breakthrough," even if it is one.
Well, you see, that stuff isn't difficult.
Is it even legal to sign away your brain by contract? Are these contract clauses even legally binding?
The more front-page coverage these lunatics get, the more discussion they earn, the more powerful they become. Maybe the best way to deal with Scientology is to ignore it.
I think many companies go out of their way to make their unlocking process as painless as possible. Other people on this thread posted very true stories about losing their license keys, upgrading and having to re-register, etc. It's unfortunate that people have to go through this, but I don't feel you can blame the software house for wanting to protect their interests. Many smaller companies just barely edge by, because they refuse to charge their customers ridiculous prices. To protect what little profit they do turn, they have to implement these systems to stop the few dishonest ones from taking advantage.
The fact is, if the copy protection is hard enough to break, people will opt to pay for the product rather than steal it -- maybe not in the gaming or shareware industries, but certainly in my industry.
I didn't say it was shareware -- I said it was a small company. Our product starts at $250 and is most certainly not shareware.
The fact is there are a lot of software places that aren't huge corporations with infinite money. There are a total of 19 (20 now?) people who I work with, and we work our asses off to produce the best product possible. And we expect to be paid for our efforts, not because we're economic rapists but because we have lives (and many of us have families) that depend on income. The president of the company probably makes less than a low-level manager at some of the megacorps you refer to. Yes, we are the little guy, just like you, trying to make a living.
But that's exactly what I was saying. If MS thinks they can absolve themselves by license agreement, then they're wrong. In my example, the bank would be held liable, even though it's technically illegal for someone to rob the bank. And MS would still be held liable, even though their license agreement essentially says "you aren't allowed to use this feature to break into a system." You can't disavow responsiblity just because you told someone not to do it -- you need to STOP them from doing it.
Answer this one for me: if no one ever paid the programmers for their products, who would write the programs you are so keen on stealing?
If Mr. Rich Lately walked through the unlocked front door of a bank at midnight, strolled down the stairs, opened the vault (which has no locks) and made off with the life savings of a few thousand people, the bank could not just say "Well it's not our fault, it's illegal to steal, after all."
Blithering idiocy (that doesn't impress me in the slightest) deleted
Translation: "Please stop using copy protection so I don't have to go to all this trouble."
That's like asking the attendant at the gas station "Please, can you do me a favor and allow me to rob you WITHOUT a gun this time?"
If you're going to be a thief, then you're going to be made to jump through hoops. Tough luck for you, you thieving loser.
Should I try something different? I'd hate to relearn the boot system (/etc/rc.d) AGAIN, I already did that once when I switched from Slackware to Redhat. I might be a programmer, but I ain't no sysadmin and it would be nice not to have to f*ck with 99% of the system just to get things the way I want them...