I agree with you completely. Also, the poor artists did sign something so that hopefuly they would get fame. I don't realy like the way they are the "poor artists" "poor victims".
When we come down to money matters, they are business men, no artists. I suppose they signed a contract that was the best thing they could get to run their business.
I do however think the parent coment is correct about the right equation, but I think it's about the price and nothing else. If the price is too high for a music you like but you don't think it is worth the money, well.. We see..
Besides the respect problem you are talking about, there is also the fact that most people "prefer" to behave as rightly as posible, so I think if the costs weren't so high, the piracy problem would significantly reduce, to the point where they would *really* (that is, if they did at all) try to stop it, in order to protect the consumers from bad quality products..*sigh*
I don't know, but I think there might be an interesting study to be done about finding the "dead-lines" where people will prefer to buy an original over a copy. (It's a think line).
Taking into account how much is spent on copy protections schemes, on copyrights enforcements etc. and on losses anyway, maybe they would find out that they would have bigger benefits by just lowering their prices to a certain point.
En fín....
Hmm no you're note missing anything, but I djust don't think the situatios is *that* bad.
The article is very light n details, so who knows, but I really don't imagine it's about hardware compatibilities/cincompatibilities.
DirectX is efectively a standard, the fact is, one board will go UP TO this or that version.
The higher version your board support, the better the game (should) run, with better and faster effects.
Now when they say game developers will have to work seperately for both cards hm.. well first they always had to twaek their code so that it work with as many boards as posible. but anyway, I don'0t think it goes in the way "we are going to do a game for this board or this one or both".
It's more in the way "we are going to use stick to this version of DirectX instead of this one". the impact of this decision is that the game would run faster on one board or on another, or that they could use or not some specific effects.
They want this kind of super shading . ok, if they do it on software,it will be slow on both boards but everybody will see this nice looking shadow. if they chose the hardware way, maybe only one board will show it, maybe it will be disabled for the other, so you'll have a better looking game for one board, and an overall faster game, at the cost of pissing off the one that don't have the nice effect.
But I don't see it goes as deep as working completely focused on one or another board.
Also, lot of people say they should stack at the standards and all
this is of correct, but not at the cost of evolution.
Having a too static standard will allow better competition between boards, thus better prices, better performance etc.. yes and no.
It will, but it will be very limited, the only way to improve the boards would then be basically to improve the brute force. it's much better to add new concepts, or new way to represent the information so tat it can be more efficient/realistic at (posibly) a lower cost.
So, if you stick to this version of DirectX, you'll be able to draw x textures, and if you use this one, it will be y textures in 1 pass only.
Also, instead of giving raw plygons to the board, you can give it quadric parameters (again, if the board supports it) or things like that.
The game developer has to choose if he wants to do it this way or tis other way, and of course it will have to do with the support there is in the boards market, but even then, i is not "developing for this or that board".
Unfortunately, this won't work because they just won't hear our silence
(Unless everybody boycott which won't happen)
So maybe we should use some similar methods to e heard too
We could write a plugin that catch the popup, but instead of just blocking it and having us being silent, check the link, verify if it is already a known link, then potentially ask user confirmation, parse the linked page looking for some relevant mailto: tags and automagicaly let the link owner hear us.
Also, a mail would be sent in a central www.whatarepopupsgoodfor.org to gather useful statistics *evil grin*
Subject: Pop-up ads side effects
Dear ad-poper ( optional fuck you (customize your plugin !))
did you know how much you are being ignored thanks to your own abusive methods ?
It is my great pleasure to let you know that I just ignored you right now. I already ignored you 23 times before, so this time I actively ignored you without even having to follow your link.
How did I do that ?
Well, simple, I'm just using one of those new free plugins for MSIE (also exist for netscape, mozilla, etc..) that detect your pitiful attempt to annoy me ruining my browsing experience.
I am of course a civilized person (do not check this option if you checked the *fuck you* one)
and I wish to help you reconsider your methods by giving you a real tool to measure effectively how much you are being ignored:
please have a look at you're there
you'll see some nice and informative statistics about how much ou are being actively ignored by many others pissed off users
What is it to be "actively ignored" ?
Well, quite simple, everytime a popup window wants me to know more about you, the plugin takes care that I will not know about you at least for 3 weeks, by feeding my proxy with specific orders not to let me go to your site but instead displaying something like this
reminding me thus that for now you tried to annoy me 24 times, and it wasn't 3 weeks ago you last tried to
The proxy will also stop downloading less intrusive ads from your site by blocking any image linking to your site during that same period of time, puting this one instead.
If you try to annoy me more than 10 times in a month, my friends list will automaticaly be warned about you; having them ignoring you actively as well, although they didn't have to deal with you as much as their defined treshold yet
Thank you so much for your attention, and please note that I don't hate you, I won't boycot you, I just won't even know you as long as you try to be too intrusive
Have a nice day...(optional *fuck you*)
Regards,
an ex popup_victim (WAPUGF_ID: #314159265358979)
of course the mail should be sent anonymously to avoid privacy problems, but still, a unique "Whatarepopupsgoodfor" ID shall be provided, the same used to post statistics on the main site, just so that we do provide an effective mean to measure how much they are being ignored (how many people, how often blabla...)
also, without privacy concerns, each registered user could optionaly give some hints about himself to te engine, that would be very useful against X10, because they would see that they are the most actively ignored on the web, and, funier, they are most ignored by most otherwise inclined buyers (geek-profile, interest in electronic devices, books, blabla)
From the article: Thanks to Internet2, scientists have used the nanoManipulator to conduct experiments as far away as Redmond
"I can reproduce !" he said, "and I will !"
vodka: is yellow, red when I'm root (vodka is my machine and I rlogin a lot)
working directory is blue
also, if my terminal happens to be an xterm
(xterm, gnome-term and Eterm),
then the title of the term changes each times the PS1 is evaluated and looks like:
{13:34:23}[451]~/coco/bobo
there is probably a much better way to do it without 2 seds...
So, the trouble is,
Although a pgp key is unbreakable byt brute force means, anyone can sniff the key to decrypt the messages after the key exchange
Although you can sniff a key during the exchange, it's not that easy for everybody, so not anyone can break a pgp encrypted message
But, thanks to Quantum encryption, we can be assured the key exchanged was not sniffed, and then safely use a simple channel to echanged encrypted messages
But, thanks to Quantum computers, this very same key will be cracked in no time, without need to ever sniff it, thus making the cracking technology easier to anyone (with access to a Quantum computer)
It's amazing how quantum technology adresses all needs in crypto...
besides,
the idea of this cryptothing is not so much to encrypt things in a way that only a few person will be able to decrypt it, but to detect when somebody else is listening...
it is not a copy protection or an encryption scheme that is offered here (despite the misleading introduction), but a garantee of privacy. you have a conversation with a remote host, and you are garanteed noone else heard what was said. now if someone could hear it, well too bad.. maybe he will be able to decrypt what you said. the facct is, you will be aware of it.
So, then about the encryption stuff.. it's about the same problem it was before.. the new thing is just that when you send your dynamic key to the host, you can be sure only it have the key you sent, if you are warned "somebody was listening". you can change the key and again and again until the key is exchanged without anybody else listening.
so you could very easily dos it:)
(just by listening all the time)
Anyway, you don't have a better brute force cracking protection than before, you are just making sure that brute force cracking is the only way they can get the key...
Also, to get (just) sure of that is so hard and painful I don't think it will be aplicable yet to point->many points (Direct TV)
Anyway... it's possible I just didn't understand the whole process (very possible)
How in the world can you relate smart cards with privacy ???
It would be very easy to use smartcards to trace users even if the smartcard isn't designed for this purpose in the first place. (think cookies)
Let's face it: at the present time there's nothing under Linux that works as well as Microsoft Office. Period.
This is a very common mistake (I believe), and it's too sad it keeps on being spread
First, there is one thing to underline:
There is nothing under Linux that works as well as Microsoft Office to do a Microsoft Office Worknot a period
I really don't think we can win Microsoft at this game, simply because Microsoft writes and can change the rules whenever he wants to. Trying to do a better or a good enough 'Microsoft' Office, cannot work. If after n years of reverse engeneering, hacking, etc.. we get to a decent Linux Office 2000, it won't work with Microsoft office 2003. (well I don't think so)
On the other hand, I really don't see why would we want to do this. Doing a parrallel office, with as much compatibility as possible can be of interest, for the die hard Linux users that also want to do some office-like work, but not as a 'linux king of the desktop` goal.
I think putting linux onm the desktop is something we can do, but not trying to redo the office, and as a mattaer of fact, if this is the goal... I preffer the office, as it will always be the leader by definition. But I don't think the office s *that* good.
What we should try to do instead is (afair, it was what everybody tried to do before this 'desktop fever') find a better way to get job done, and of course, an easier one. Microsoft Office might be the first attempt to ease office work, that doesn't make it the best way to do it.
Now, what i think the problem is for Linux trying to get to the desktop, is that we don't have any solution. not that we don't have a better solution than Microsoft office. the attempts to make some excel like, or Word like or powerpoint like etc..
are bound to fail, not in their attempt to actually offer a good compatibility, but to be the way to put Linux in the desktop
In that sense, a klyx application, that offer something different (not necessarily new but I'm comparing to Microsoft Office tools), yet very useful and easy to use have a much brighter future imho.
So anyway, I think that instead of running (in different directions besides *sigh*) to reproduce a set of tools, we should try to think about some root problems. One root problem is not 'how to do a better microsoft office' but 'how to improve office work with a Linux powered network of pcs' another root problem is not 'how to achieve consistency' but rather 'how to make an easier, more intuitive and more optimal interface' (I'm not saying that consistency is not a perfect answer, maybe it is, but maybe not, I think it partly is anyway, but it's not the point)
Of course, I don't have the answer, not even useful starting ideas, but I'm sure it can be done, as long as the problem as been set. We might try I don't know with some RFCs something like that to propose general useful rules for an optimal Office Work, defining the basic concepts like data exchange, security, teamwork etc...
We should then come to define areas of necessity that need to be attended and create some very useful office tools enabling us to actually work better. despite many versions, I don't work *that* better with the new Microsoft Office than with a much older one.
Why can't I easily work as a team on a document like I would work on a cvs project ?
Why don't my office tools help me/make me enforce my quality politics ? ...
If we had an office consortium just like we have a w3c, and we would then develop for Linux (among others of course, but that's Linux it it about now) an implementation of those concepts, I really think we could win this game. It woud be a much more interesting/useful game anyway
We would then focus on creating much more useful tools, that soon or later would prove themselves much better than the Microsoft Office, thus becoming a standard that microsoft would have to embrace (ok ok and everybody's happy,hapy fairy tale ending:) etc...)
oh well..
*cheers*
:)
Well, seems we agree then
This part that still bugs you I realize might just be my mistake as we don't have *that* good definition of a theory, I imagine I must have made it-up
A theory, is (would be) a set of hypotheses, and a model of something.
I don't interchange theory or model (but that must be just me) because I feel they are different, and if they aren't, then I need another word for 'theory'
In your theory you give a complete explantation of "how things are". It is "your truth".
The model you give, is a way to represent (in mathematical language) or to aproximate your truth
Let's say you believe particles are little shiny balls (that's how we picture them generally)
You came to this idea because of some observations, thgat make it a plausible fact.
You have the theory of bouncy balls particles.
So you model your bouncy balls particles, you believe they have these and these properties, they have color, smell, spin, mass, etc.. and you model their statistic behavior into a bunch of equations
Now some solutions to those equatios of course have to explain what we were seeing at first, bt they also lead to some other interesting observations that haven't been done before, those become testable hypotheses that, if verified will reinforce your theory of the bouncy balls particles. If the observations differ, you might 'polish' your model, add some properties, postulate there are some bigger bouncy balls, et...
Your truth is still "particles are bouncy balls"
Another theory will say "nope they are waves" and it will go through the same process
In the end one theory will be better than the other, and it will be adopted.
To unify forces, I think a proposed model of the universe is a 11 dimensions monster.
Maybe it will be easier to work with 4 forces and 5 dimensions only or,...
You chose your best model for your universe, but your "theory" is that "things are like that"
Dunno if I'm not confusing things even more, but basicaly, I would give a stronger meaning to theory than to model, where the theory wants to be the truth, giving a model that represents it the best it can, but, to the point, the theory is not necesarily "the truth", just a "truth wanabe"
oh well...
Ok, I guess then at some point you disolve into a turing machine, where it comes quite clear (or seems quite clear) that you can't
completely self-analyze a entire set of problems.
Well yes and no:)
yes, it's what I'm talking about, and I was lookign for this demosntration (it's being quite clear doesn't really satisfy me)
But I certainly don't 'disolve into a turing machine':) I was refering to the fact that many posts do that
Thus, my interest in finding this demonstration. thank's anyway:)
Hmm...
I really wonder what is your point.
Your conclusion seem to refute a point of mine "it will never prove your theory" saying "no theory is provable" when that's precisely my point.
Also, you're wrong, I didn't define hypothesis.
Here is a definition of theory:
- the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
- a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle
- most logical explanation of events that occur in nature or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
Theories:
- propose a central idea that connects observations.
- allow one to make predictions.
- encourage experimentation.
- suggest testable hypotheses.
- may be refuted then modified or abandoned.
- are never proven.
- must account for all observations.
- cannot be easily tested. (once easily and widely tested, theories become laws) ... more here
Anyway, I don't particulary agree with that very last point as I meant something slightly different, but nevertheless, I mainly think we were all wrong in the first place trying to be touchy about a so fuzzy definition:)
Anyway, your post (and the previous one) puzzle me and get me to the conclusion that in either case, i wasn't clear enough, as you do your best effort to prove me wrong when it seems you agree with me. (I mean, what you're saying sounds about what I was *trying* to say)
Ok, of course Einstein theory was tested in the way you mean it, ie, the model was tested, and yes, I know the experiment with the planes.
What I mean is, "the testable hypotheses" were tested, confirming the theory (not proving it).
Oh well.. I wonder how to make my point:) (really thought it was on the first post, but it's obvious I don't speak english that well)
Let's see: to cure a disease, one theory is about killing the germs with some plants extracts, while the other theory is about chasing demons with those very same extracts, and yet, another theory is that you must attract back the good spirits who love thoses extracts too.
So, with a very primitive knowledge, no way to actually prove germs even exists (you're just so sure), any of those theories is acceptable.
In the end, your predicion "I'll heal you with this" worked and confirmed your theory that demons don't like it.
In our more serious example, in the end, at the very end of universe exploration, we will be faced to the same kinds of limit as we are always limit to observe and interpret things. Finally, we will adopt the simplest, most useful model, but that won't make it "the truth" and certainly not for everybody.
I personally prefer an evolutionist theory, and at a larger scale a "godless" theory to explain the universe because it is simpler... cheaper...Although not necesarily "true"
So the whole point was that someone said "sadly it will still be a theory" and I understood he meant "in the end, that won't be any proof that this is how things are", and I happen to agree
But again, I think we started to be picky about a "theory definition" that wasn't the real point in the first place, and I did this very same mistake:) so i'm not criticizing any of you about it
Would just want to know if 'the point' is shared or not and why or why not:)
The only thing that really upset me is this:
>Ensteinian theory, as elegant as it might be is not tested
Nonsense. Not only is it tested, it's been confirmed.
I don't know anyone who doesn't know about what you're talking about, so after I (did my poor best
to) separated the theory from its hypotheses, you should have understood that what I meant by "theory" is a bit different than yours, but that's it
Oh well... wonder if it was clear this time:)
I'm not sure whether you understand the term "theory." Einsteinian relativity is a theory. Maxwellian quantum mechanics is theory. A theory is a hypothesis which has been proposed and scientifically tested.
I'm pretty sure you actally don't.
Facing facts that are not yet explained, people postulate theories trying to explain it.
Any plausible explanation is wellcome as a theory, the more evidences you find that are compatible with a a theory and not compatible with another will tend to make this one theory more likely than the other etc..
Anyway, I don't think you actually test the theory.
Ensteinian theory, as elegant as it might be is not tested, and I seriously doubdt it could be tested some day. The theory, once formulated to explain some phenomenon has its own "side-effects" so that it allows you to say "if this is true, we should also observe this an this". Great.. it happens.. the theory sounds like a good one.
But you didn't test it. what you test is the model.
As perfect as your model can be, unless you can prove that it's impossible to have two or more "working" "perfect" models, it will never prove your theory. It will give it a lot more credit, right and will make it the 'official' theory, but it will still be a theory (the best one for now, and if the model is that perfect, you probably won't look for another, until your perfect model gets incompatible with another perfect model that noone would have think they might be related)
So you might have a working eveolutionist model that confirms your evolutionist theory, you will predict things succesfuly thank's to your model, and creationist people will take it and beneffit from it, because they don't have a good model to back-up their theory. But that won't make them accept the theory if they still prefer their own.
Well, Al your points are correct
In fact, don't you think they are so obvious ?
Don't you think they are so much ?
I reacted the same at the start of the article, but... I don't know.. it's too much of "I'm better than you, and my big brother is stronger than yours etc.."
Besides, they claim they want to discourage all the "pirates wanabes" with their psychological approach, but they do so by mainly attacking specific real pirates ??
Sounds to me that what they really want to do is to make pirates angry instead of scared, they even challange them !
They don't have to scare everybody.. This is as useless as impossible. Once a pirated version of something is out, you really can't stop it. The best way is still to try to prevent the first pirate to unprotect and give away his work.
So I think they are after the big fish...
They just do everything they can to make them mad, I wouldn't b surprised if they's start to build a honney-pot...maybe letting kow who are their clients, selling their own fake software hings like that, that will be the most wanted cracks in the crackers comunity just for the taste of vengeance:)
But of course they could be as dumb as you demonstrated they are and I'm just being over-paranoid
In either case, there is nothing to be afraid of:)
I don't see a so fuzzy line here, as long as you're talking about the job.
It would be harder to draw a line between the general involved skills and how would you consider a person (more of an artist or more of a programer..)
Anyway, for game creation, the jobs are pretty well clasified as you mention them yourself
Artists and Programers will "preview" the game
Programers will code the engine,
Artists will use the engine to create the game (storyline, maps, music, voices, etc.. etc..)
Sales dep will ruin their work by sarifiying plot and stability to realease it as soon as possible
Now about skills involved, it probably won't hurt any artist to have some programing skills to design some more suitable maps or whatever...
Likewise, it won't hurt the programer to be an artist, in fact, for game programing, I think most are. Still, the line isn't fuzzy about the current job. If the main engine programer happens to also be a profesional guitarist, for that job, he was a programer.
Your concept of *CONCEPT* is flawed
besides,
- Visual representation is actually more harmful than helpful for Mathematics
- Music theory doesn't happen to be very mathematical just by some strange coincidence
Also, you're confusing understanding and creativity...
Well:) thanks but no thanks, you don't answer my question
What I want is mahematics and computer science nothing else:)
I'm talking about something I think I saw at school (loong time ago *sigh*):) and I'm defenitely not in bio-anyting:)
And self-analyzing is aboslutely not something human beings do everyday (I'm talking about succesful self-analyzing (i.e. you actually find out "what is this all about")) I'm pretty sure nobody suceeded there:)
thanx anyway...
cheerz..
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with you completely. Also, the poor artists did sign something so that hopefuly they would get fame. I don't realy like the way they are the "poor artists" "poor victims".
When we come down to money matters, they are business men, no artists. I suppose they signed a contract that was the best thing they could get to run their business.
I do however think the parent coment is correct about the right equation, but I think it's about the price and nothing else. If the price is too high for a music you like but you don't think it is worth the money, well.. We see..
Besides the respect problem you are talking about, there is also the fact that most people "prefer" to behave as rightly as posible, so I think if the costs weren't so high, the piracy problem would significantly reduce, to the point where they would *really* (that is, if they did at all) try to stop it, in order to protect the consumers from bad quality products..*sigh*
I don't know, but I think there might be an interesting study to be done about finding the "dead-lines" where people will prefer to buy an original over a copy. (It's a think line).
Taking into account how much is spent on copy protections schemes, on copyrights enforcements etc. and on losses anyway, maybe they would find out that they would have bigger benefits by just lowering their prices to a certain point.
En fín....
Wow ! what a nice collection of typos !!
Shame on me !
My sincere apologies to all of you grammar/spelling nazis I deserve your wrath...
Hmm no you're note missing anything, but I djust don't think the situatios is *that* bad.
The article is very light n details, so who knows, but I really don't imagine it's about hardware compatibilities/cincompatibilities. DirectX is efectively a standard, the fact is, one board will go UP TO this or that version.
The higher version your board support, the better the game (should) run, with better and faster effects.
Now when they say game developers will have to work seperately for both cards hm.. well first they always had to twaek their code so that it work with as many boards as posible. but anyway, I don'0t think it goes in the way "we are going to do a game for this board or this one or both".
It's more in the way "we are going to use stick to this version of DirectX instead of this one". the impact of this decision is that the game would run faster on one board or on another, or that they could use or not some specific effects. They want this kind of super shading . ok, if they do it on software,it will be slow on both boards but everybody will see this nice looking shadow. if they chose the hardware way, maybe only one board will show it, maybe it will be disabled for the other, so you'll have a better looking game for one board, and an overall faster game, at the cost of pissing off the one that don't have the nice effect.
But I don't see it goes as deep as working completely focused on one or another board.
Also, lot of people say they should stack at the standards and all
this is of correct, but not at the cost of evolution.
Having a too static standard will allow better competition between boards, thus better prices, better performance etc.. yes and no.
It will, but it will be very limited, the only way to improve the boards would then be basically to improve the brute force. it's much better to add new concepts, or new way to represent the information so tat it can be more efficient/realistic at (posibly) a lower cost. So, if you stick to this version of DirectX, you'll be able to draw x textures, and if you use this one, it will be y textures in 1 pass only.
Also, instead of giving raw plygons to the board, you can give it quadric parameters (again, if the board supports it) or things like that.
The game developer has to choose if he wants to do it this way or tis other way, and of course it will have to do with the support there is in the boards market, but even then, i is not "developing for this or that board".
Unfortunately, this won't work because they just won't hear our silence
(Unless everybody boycott which won't happen)
So maybe we should use some similar methods to e heard too
We could write a plugin that catch the popup, but instead of just blocking it and having us being silent, check the link, verify if it is already a known link, then potentially ask user confirmation, parse the linked page looking for some relevant mailto: tags and automagicaly let the link owner hear us.
Also, a mail would be sent in a central www.whatarepopupsgoodfor.org to gather useful statistics *evil grin*
Subject: Pop-up ads side effects
Dear ad-poper ( optional fuck you (customize your plugin !))
did you know how much you are being ignored thanks to your own abusive methods ?
It is my great pleasure to let you know that I just ignored you right now. I already ignored you 23 times before, so this time I actively ignored you without even having to follow your link.
How did I do that ?
Well, simple, I'm just using one of those new free plugins for MSIE (also exist for netscape, mozilla, etc..) that detect your pitiful attempt to annoy me ruining my browsing experience.
I am of course a civilized person (do not check this option if you checked the *fuck you* one)
and I wish to help you reconsider your methods by giving you a real tool to measure effectively how much you are being ignored:
please have a look at you're there
you'll see some nice and informative statistics about how much ou are being actively ignored by many others pissed off users
What is it to be "actively ignored" ?
Well, quite simple, everytime a popup window wants me to know more about you, the plugin takes care that I will not know about you at least for 3 weeks, by feeding my proxy with specific orders not to let me go to your site but instead displaying something like this
reminding me thus that for now you tried to annoy me 24 times, and it wasn't 3 weeks ago you last tried to
The proxy will also stop downloading less intrusive ads from your site by blocking any image linking to your site during that same period of time, puting this one instead.
If you try to annoy me more than 10 times in a month, my friends list will automaticaly be warned about you; having them ignoring you actively as well, although they didn't have to deal with you as much as their defined treshold yet
Thank you so much for your attention, and please note that I don't hate you, I won't boycot you, I just won't even know you as long as you try to be too intrusive
Have a nice day...(optional *fuck you*)
Regards,
an ex popup_victim (WAPUGF_ID: #314159265358979)
of course the mail should be sent anonymously to avoid privacy problems, but still, a unique "Whatarepopupsgoodfor" ID shall be provided, the same used to post statistics on the main site, just so that we do provide an effective mean to measure how much they are being ignored (how many people, how often blabla...)
also, without privacy concerns, each registered user could optionaly give some hints about himself to te engine, that would be very useful against X10, because they would see that they are the most actively ignored on the web, and, funier, they are most ignored by most otherwise inclined buyers (geek-profile, interest in electronic devices, books, blabla)
Got it :) :)
it's very funny actually !
I just didn't get it at first
Hmm I can btw assure you that Paris is as far away from Betelgeuse than Earth itself is... :)
(I suppose that's you meant anyway)
From the article :
Thanks to Internet2, scientists have used the nanoManipulator to conduct experiments as far away as Redmond
"I can reproduce !" he said, "and I will !"
scary...
Woah ! now that's amazing
from the article
"They're a nuisance," said Fox(talking about ads)
And it's on Fox News !!!
at last !
I managed to paste the root prompt twice :) :)
the first 31 is of course a 33 in the first prompt
oh well.. By the almighty power of copy-paste !!!
on my terminal, it looks like
vodka: is yellow, red when I'm root (vodka is my machine and I rlogin a lot)
working directory is blue
also, if my terminal happens to be an xterm (xterm, gnome-term and Eterm),
then the title of the term changes each times the PS1 is evaluated and looks like:
there is probably a much better way to do it without 2 seds...
So, the trouble is,
Although a pgp key is unbreakable byt brute force means, anyone can sniff the key to decrypt the messages after the key exchange
Although you can sniff a key during the exchange, it's not that easy for everybody, so not anyone can break a pgp encrypted message
But, thanks to Quantum encryption, we can be assured the key exchanged was not sniffed, and then safely use a simple channel to echanged encrypted messages
But, thanks to Quantum computers, this very same key will be cracked in no time, without need to ever sniff it, thus making the cracking technology easier to anyone (with access to a Quantum computer)
It's amazing how quantum technology adresses all needs in crypto...
besides, :)
the idea of this cryptothing is not so much to encrypt things in a way that only a few person will be able to decrypt it, but to detect when somebody else is listening...
it is not a copy protection or an encryption scheme that is offered here (despite the misleading introduction), but a garantee of privacy. you have a conversation with a remote host, and you are garanteed noone else heard what was said. now if someone could hear it, well too bad.. maybe he will be able to decrypt what you said. the facct is, you will be aware of it. So, then about the encryption stuff.. it's about the same problem it was before.. the new thing is just that when you send your dynamic key to the host, you can be sure only it have the key you sent, if you are warned "somebody was listening". you can change the key and again and again until the key is exchanged without anybody else listening.
so you could very easily dos it
(just by listening all the time)
Anyway, you don't have a better brute force cracking protection than before, you are just making sure that brute force cracking is the only way they can get the key...
Also, to get (just) sure of that is so hard and painful I don't think it will be aplicable yet to point->many points (Direct TV) Anyway... it's possible I just didn't understand the whole process (very possible)
How in the world can you relate smart cards with privacy ???
It would be very easy to use smartcards to trace users even if the smartcard isn't designed for this purpose in the first place. (think cookies)
This is a very common mistake (I believe), and it's too sad it keeps on being spread
First, there is one thing to underline:
There is nothing under Linux that works as well as Microsoft Office to do a Microsoft Office Work not a period
I really don't think we can win Microsoft at this game, simply because Microsoft writes and can change the rules whenever he wants to. Trying to do a better or a good enough 'Microsoft' Office, cannot work. If after n years of reverse engeneering, hacking, etc.. we get to a decent Linux Office 2000, it won't work with Microsoft office 2003. (well I don't think so)
On the other hand, I really don't see why would we want to do this. Doing a parrallel office, with as much compatibility as possible can be of interest, for the die hard Linux users that also want to do some office-like work, but not as a 'linux king of the desktop` goal.
I think putting linux onm the desktop is something we can do, but not trying to redo the office, and as a mattaer of fact, if this is the goal... I preffer the office, as it will always be the leader by definition. But I don't think the office s *that* good.
What we should try to do instead is (afair, it was what everybody tried to do before this 'desktop fever') find a better way to get job done, and of course, an easier one. Microsoft Office might be the first attempt to ease office work, that doesn't make it the best way to do it.
Now, what i think the problem is for Linux trying to get to the desktop, is that we don't have any solution. not that we don't have a better solution than Microsoft office. the attempts to make some excel like, or Word like or powerpoint like etc.. are bound to fail, not in their attempt to actually offer a good compatibility, but to be the way to put Linux in the desktop
In that sense, a klyx application, that offer something different (not necessarily new but I'm comparing to Microsoft Office tools), yet very useful and easy to use have a much brighter future imho.
So anyway, I think that instead of running (in different directions besides *sigh*) to reproduce a set of tools, we should try to think about some root problems. One root problem is not 'how to do a better microsoft office' but 'how to improve office work with a Linux powered network of pcs' another root problem is not 'how to achieve consistency' but rather 'how to make an easier, more intuitive and more optimal interface' (I'm not saying that consistency is not a perfect answer, maybe it is, but maybe not, I think it partly is anyway, but it's not the point)
... ,hapy fairy tale ending :) etc...)
Of course, I don't have the answer, not even useful starting ideas, but I'm sure it can be done, as long as the problem as been set. We might try I don't know with some RFCs something like that to propose general useful rules for an optimal Office Work, defining the basic concepts like data exchange, security, teamwork etc...
We should then come to define areas of necessity that need to be attended and create some very useful office tools enabling us to actually work better. despite many versions, I don't work *that* better with the new Microsoft Office than with a much older one.
Why can't I easily work as a team on a document like I would work on a cvs project ?
Why don't my office tools help me/make me enforce my quality politics ?
If we had an office consortium just like we have a w3c, and we would then develop for Linux (among others of course, but that's Linux it it about now) an implementation of those concepts, I really think we could win this game. It woud be a much more interesting/useful game anyway
We would then focus on creating much more useful tools, that soon or later would prove themselves much better than the Microsoft Office, thus becoming a standard that microsoft would have to embrace (ok ok and everybody's happy
oh well..
*cheers*
Ça plane pour moi, moi moi moi moi !
Uhuhuuuuh !
:) ...
Well, seems we agree then
This part that still bugs you I realize might just be my mistake as we don't have *that* good definition of a theory, I imagine I must have made it-up
A theory, is (would be) a set of hypotheses, and a model of something.
I don't interchange theory or model (but that must be just me) because I feel they are different, and if they aren't, then I need another word for 'theory'
In your theory you give a complete explantation of "how things are". It is "your truth".
The model you give, is a way to represent (in mathematical language) or to aproximate your truth
Let's say you believe particles are little shiny balls (that's how we picture them generally)
You came to this idea because of some observations, thgat make it a plausible fact.
You have the theory of bouncy balls particles.
So you model your bouncy balls particles, you believe they have these and these properties, they have color, smell, spin, mass, etc.. and you model their statistic behavior into a bunch of equations
Now some solutions to those equatios of course have to explain what we were seeing at first, bt they also lead to some other interesting observations that haven't been done before, those become testable hypotheses that, if verified will reinforce your theory of the bouncy balls particles. If the observations differ, you might 'polish' your model, add some properties, postulate there are some bigger bouncy balls, et...
Your truth is still "particles are bouncy balls"
Another theory will say "nope they are waves" and it will go through the same process
In the end one theory will be better than the other, and it will be adopted.
To unify forces, I think a proposed model of the universe is a 11 dimensions monster.
Maybe it will be easier to work with 4 forces and 5 dimensions only or,
You chose your best model for your universe, but your "theory" is that "things are like that"
Dunno if I'm not confusing things even more, but basicaly, I would give a stronger meaning to theory than to model, where the theory wants to be the truth, giving a model that represents it the best it can, but, to the point, the theory is not necesarily "the truth", just a "truth wanabe"
oh well...
Ok, I guess then at some point you disolve into a turing machine, where it comes quite clear (or seems quite clear) that you can't completely self-analyze a entire set of problems. :)
yes, it's what I'm talking about, and I was lookign for this demosntration (it's being quite clear doesn't really satisfy me) :) I was refering to the fact that many posts do that :)
Well yes and no
But I certainly don't 'disolve into a turing machine'
Thus, my interest in finding this demonstration. thank's anyway
Hmm...
... more here :) :) (really thought it was on the first post, but it's obvious I don't speak english that well) :) so i'm not criticizing any of you about it :) :)
I really wonder what is your point.
Your conclusion seem to refute a point of mine "it will never prove your theory" saying "no theory is provable" when that's precisely my point.
Also, you're wrong, I didn't define hypothesis.
Here is a definition of theory:
- the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
- a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle - most logical explanation of events that occur in nature or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
Theories: - propose a central idea that connects observations.
- allow one to make predictions.
- encourage experimentation.
- suggest testable hypotheses.
- may be refuted then modified or abandoned.
- are never proven.
- must account for all observations.
- cannot be easily tested. (once easily and widely tested, theories become laws)
Anyway, I don't particulary agree with that very last point as I meant something slightly different, but nevertheless, I mainly think we were all wrong in the first place trying to be touchy about a so fuzzy definition
Anyway, your post (and the previous one) puzzle me and get me to the conclusion that in either case, i wasn't clear enough, as you do your best effort to prove me wrong when it seems you agree with me. (I mean, what you're saying sounds about what I was *trying* to say)
Ok, of course Einstein theory was tested in the way you mean it, ie, the model was tested, and yes, I know the experiment with the planes.
What I mean is, "the testable hypotheses" were tested, confirming the theory (not proving it).
Oh well.. I wonder how to make my point
Let's see: to cure a disease, one theory is about killing the germs with some plants extracts, while the other theory is about chasing demons with those very same extracts, and yet, another theory is that you must attract back the good spirits who love thoses extracts too.
So, with a very primitive knowledge, no way to actually prove germs even exists (you're just so sure), any of those theories is acceptable.
In the end, your predicion "I'll heal you with this" worked and confirmed your theory that demons don't like it.
In our more serious example, in the end, at the very end of universe exploration, we will be faced to the same kinds of limit as we are always limit to observe and interpret things. Finally, we will adopt the simplest, most useful model, but that won't make it "the truth" and certainly not for everybody.
I personally prefer an evolutionist theory, and at a larger scale a "godless" theory to explain the universe because it is simpler... cheaper...Although not necesarily "true"
So the whole point was that someone said "sadly it will still be a theory" and I understood he meant "in the end, that won't be any proof that this is how things are", and I happen to agree
But again, I think we started to be picky about a "theory definition" that wasn't the real point in the first place, and I did this very same mistake
Would just want to know if 'the point' is shared or not and why or why not
The only thing that really upset me is this: >Ensteinian theory, as elegant as it might be is not tested
Nonsense. Not only is it tested, it's been confirmed.
I don't know anyone who doesn't know about what you're talking about, so after I (did my poor best to) separated the theory from its hypotheses, you should have understood that what I meant by "theory" is a bit different than yours, but that's it
Oh well... wonder if it was clear this time
I'm not sure whether you understand the term "theory." Einsteinian relativity is a theory. Maxwellian quantum mechanics is theory. A theory is a hypothesis which has been proposed and scientifically tested.
I'm pretty sure you actally don't.
Facing facts that are not yet explained, people postulate theories trying to explain it.
Any plausible explanation is wellcome as a theory, the more evidences you find that are compatible with a a theory and not compatible with another will tend to make this one theory more likely than the other etc..
Anyway, I don't think you actually test the theory.
Ensteinian theory, as elegant as it might be is not tested, and I seriously doubdt it could be tested some day. The theory, once formulated to explain some phenomenon has its own "side-effects" so that it allows you to say "if this is true, we should also observe this an this". Great.. it happens.. the theory sounds like a good one.
But you didn't test it. what you test is the model.
As perfect as your model can be, unless you can prove that it's impossible to have two or more "working" "perfect" models, it will never prove your theory. It will give it a lot more credit, right and will make it the 'official' theory, but it will still be a theory (the best one for now, and if the model is that perfect, you probably won't look for another, until your perfect model gets incompatible with another perfect model that noone would have think they might be related)
So you might have a working eveolutionist model that confirms your evolutionist theory, you will predict things succesfuly thank's to your model, and creationist people will take it and beneffit from it, because they don't have a good model to back-up their theory. But that won't make them accept the theory if they still prefer their own.
Well, Al your points are correct :) :)
In fact, don't you think they are so obvious ?
Don't you think they are so much ?
I reacted the same at the start of the article, but... I don't know.. it's too much of "I'm better than you, and my big brother is stronger than yours etc.."
Besides, they claim they want to discourage all the "pirates wanabes" with their psychological approach, but they do so by mainly attacking specific real pirates ??
Sounds to me that what they really want to do is to make pirates angry instead of scared, they even challange them !
They don't have to scare everybody.. This is as useless as impossible. Once a pirated version of something is out, you really can't stop it. The best way is still to try to prevent the first pirate to unprotect and give away his work.
So I think they are after the big fish...
They just do everything they can to make them mad, I wouldn't b surprised if they's start to build a honney-pot...maybe letting kow who are their clients, selling their own fake software hings like that, that will be the most wanted cracks in the crackers comunity just for the taste of vengeance
But of course they could be as dumb as you demonstrated they are and I'm just being over-paranoid
In either case, there is nothing to be afraid of
I don't see a so fuzzy line here, as long as you're talking about the job.
It would be harder to draw a line between the general involved skills and how would you consider a person (more of an artist or more of a programer..)
Anyway, for game creation, the jobs are pretty well clasified as you mention them yourself
Artists and Programers will "preview" the game
Programers will code the engine,
Artists will use the engine to create the game (storyline, maps, music, voices, etc.. etc..)
Sales dep will ruin their work by sarifiying plot and stability to realease it as soon as possible
Now about skills involved, it probably won't hurt any artist to have some programing skills to design some more suitable maps or whatever...
Likewise, it won't hurt the programer to be an artist, in fact, for game programing, I think most are.
Still, the line isn't fuzzy about the current job. If the main engine programer happens to also be a profesional guitarist, for that job, he was a programer.
Your concept of *CONCEPT* is flawed
besides,
- Visual representation is actually more harmful than helpful for Mathematics
- Music theory doesn't happen to be very mathematical just by some strange coincidence
Also, you're confusing understanding and creativity...
Absolutely !
Also, being 8, she should know that dresses colors is a sensitive topic
What a silly girl....
Well :) thanks but no thanks, you don't answer my question :) :) and I'm defenitely not in bio-anyting :) :)
What I want is mahematics and computer science nothing else
I'm talking about something I think I saw at school (loong time ago *sigh*)
And self-analyzing is aboslutely not something human beings do everyday (I'm talking about succesful self-analyzing (i.e. you actually find out "what is this all about")) I'm pretty sure nobody suceeded there
thanx anyway...
cheerz..
I don't know... gamasutra praying for "chastity vows"...
They'll go out of business...