At the cost of using more bandwidth. The trick with cell phones is to make the phones use a very narrow range of frequencies. It is the precision with which the frequency is known by teh cell site that allows it to pick up the siganl from teh noise.
I was thinking a while back, why not use cell phones as repeaters themselves? That is, your cell phone acts to relay cell phone calls from other distant callers.
Can't do it. Here's why:
One of the things that makes cell phones small is that they transmit very low power signals. They can do this because there is a whole little hut of electronics equipment at the cell site that pulls the very specific frequency of the transmission out of the noise. (For you chemists out there, it is kind like NMR. Each cell phone is a nucleus that has changed states, and the cell site is like the instrument that detects this 1 in a million signal).
On the flip-side, the cell site can transmit with much more power to make it easy for the cheesy cell phone antenna to pick it up.
So what I am saying here is that cell phones can't hear each other very far away from each other cause they don't have the signal processing meat to do so. To do what you propose would require like wall to wall coverage by people with cell phones that are on and have this capability.
At some point, consumer advocacy is on the consumers' own shoulders.
I totally agree. That is kind of the subtext of what I was saying. The thing is that a lot of people see technology, especially computers, which often do things "automagically" (with the emphasis on the magic part for most people, according to AC Clarke) as allowing them not to think, or doing things for them. So a lot of people are going to look at P3P and say, "hey my computer can ensure my privacy now," or something, rather than "Wow this gives me the ability to control my privacy decisions."
I guess what I am saying is that this is not a "plug and play" thing as far as effort goes. P3P could be a valuable tool for consumer advocacy, but only if people see it as that, not the technological magic that some people might get tricked (or duped) into thinking it is.
You don't have to give out anything you don't want to, or you can selectively give out INDIVIDUAL things (there's no "all or nothing" aspect here!!!),
You're right, that does sound like a good thing. But what if I am some honkin' huge "e-tailer" and I set the P3P rules on my site to be: I need your name, address, telephone number, email address, and SSN for you to access my pages?
Okay, decline to send that info. But you don't get in! If enough of us "honkin' huge" sites do this, most people will just set their P3P prefs to be something like "let it all hang out."
3P _IS_ a good thing. It's GREAT for privacy.
Or maybe not. It all depends on how it is implemented at the majority of popular sites...
Being a native American, i.e. one born on the continent of America, therefore, native to America, I resent the term native American being used to represent American Indians.
I am a Native American by your definition, but not by the accepted definition (American Indian). But don't you think that Native Americans (in the parlance of our times) might not like to be called American Indians since they really have nothing to do with India?
If forget where I first heard it (#) called an octothorpe, but it seems a much more satisfying and mysterious name than the bland "hash", "pound", and "sharp". Although, if if call # a sharp, you get to call #! shebang, and that it cool too...
STOP THE PRESSES! HOLD YOUR HORSES! A NEW STATUTE EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 1, 1997! SPEEDING TO ELUDE ARREST! AND FINALLY - ON SOME OCCASIONS IT WILL BE A FELONY! OH YES! G.S. 20-141.5 Speeding to elude arrest. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a motor vehicle on a street, highway, or public vehicular area while fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer who is in the lawful performance of his duties. Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, violation of this section shall be a Class 1 misdemeanor. (b) If two or more of the following aggravating factors are present at the time the violation occurs, violation of this section shall be a Class H felony. (1) Speeding in excess of 15 miles over the legal speed limit. (2) Gross impairment of the person's faculties while driving due to a. Consumption of an impairing substance; or b. A blood alcohol concentration of 0.14 or more within a relevant time after driving. (3) Reckless driving as proscribed by G.S. 20-140.
etc, etc...
Of course you have to do TWO of the things in there, but me thinks they would get you on (1) and (3)...
Re:Card alwasy has to write about the super-smart
on
New Ender Sequel
·
· Score: 2
What I thought was really funny about Ender's Shadow was the fact that Card completely manipulated events in the original book so that it turns out that the smartest kid ever in the history of the world was actually Bean, his new main character.
I don't think that Ender is meant to be the smartest kid ever, or what not, even in the original book. Yeah, he was really fucking smart, but that wasn't what made him the pick for commander of the invasion. He was smart, quick, and a great leader. Bean was super-smart, super-quick, but was a relatively poor leader, compared to Ender.
I think Ender's Shadow made all of this quite clear. Even in Ender's Game it is quite clear that is is not so much Ender's smarts as it is his leadership that make him the one...
The problem here is that they are talking about the curvature of four dimensional space time. One way for us to visualize this is to pare things down to a two dimensional sheet. Imagine teh universe is a plastic sheet lying on the floor. The sheet can be flat, having zero curvature (because the second derivative of the sheet "height" is zero), or it can be curved. If it has negative curvature everywhere, it could be something like a sphere. A saddle on the other hand has positive curvature. That is, the second derivative is positive somewhere.
All of this seems kinda wacky when applied to four dimensions. We can't visualize four dimensions easily, let alone what thier geometry looks like. And that is really the point here. On a flat surface (universe), normal Euclidean geometry holds. E.g., two parallel line never intersect, the sum of the interior angles of a triangle is 180, etc. On a curved surface (universe), this is not true. Draw a triangle on a deflated ballon (the flat universe) and then blow it up. The sum of the interior angles increases.
Pretty neat, huh? And that is some of the reasons they are looking into this.
Government regulation protects the people from big companies.
Huh? The governement == big companies, at least in practice. Governement regulation protects big companies from small companies and individuals they have managed to screw over.
You are right though that Open Source and Libertarianism are different things. How ever, both have this individualistic flavor.... That we (the regular guys) can take care of ourselves very well, thank you, Mr. Big Company/Governement. And not only do we take care of ourselves, we excell, more so than we would do if you tried to "help" us. Thus, I think a lot of Libertarians would find a lot to like in Open Source philosophy, if you will.
So, I am sure that not all open source believers are libertarians, but that many libertarians also argee with open source... I wish I could draw you a Venn diagram...
Or am I the odd one out and is it true that all of you out there agree with those politics?!
I don't think so. See above.
I'm European though. That could be it.
No offense, but probably. Americans seem to be much more individualistic than most other peoples. Is this good, bad, better, worse? I think better. But of course I do, I am an American.
So whatever. A socialist, or whatever can also like open source. Open source isn't just for libertarians. But libertarians sure seem to like open source...
The C compiler backdoor mentioned affected only people who installed the binary, instead of recompiling the compiler themselves
That still doesn't stop this from happening: I have an "un-broken compiler", I down load the new source containing the back door, I of course don't read the whole freaking source, I just compile it. Someday down the road I compile a new login with my now broken compiler, and I am busted.
I agree that my ability to fix this is greatly enhanced in an open source environment, but my point is that it just isn't the binary, you need to trust (or audit yourself) the entire source. This is something that no one can do on their own. Fortuantely, since we all have the source, we can all watch each otehrs back, if you will.
If, for example, you're using Red Hat Linux and you don't trust us for whatever reason, all it takes is "rpm --rebuild/mnt/cdrom/SRPMS/* ; rpm -U --force/usr/src/redhat/RPMS/yourarch/*/usr/src/redhat/RPMS/noarch/*".
Once again, how do I know you haven't fucked with the source code? In fact, if there is a back door, one might just leave it in the CD sources to defeat just this work around.
My point is, make or rpm --rebuild does not necessarily fix this. They need to be executed on reviewed source. This isn't a slam against open source. Like I said, the only place you have a chance is in an open source environement. I just don't want people to get a false sense of security, "I can just rebuild everything fom the source and I am safe."
COnsidering the number of electrons in the universe is somewhere about a googleplex to the power of a googleplex to another googleplex it is fairly safe to assert that There is a decent number of electrons not existing anywhere near their atom at any given moment.
Assuming that there are an equal number of protons and electrons in the universe, (which I would imagine is true, at least to a few orders of magintude), we can guess that there are somewhere around 3*10**80 electrons in the universe. This is far less than the multi-power of googleplex non-sense you are talking about.
This gives a probability of 4.56*10**-783 of finding any electron, in the whole freaking universe more than 529 Angstroms from its nucleus. (Assuming Z=1 and all the electrons are in the ground state. Even if lifting these conditions increase the probablity by a few hundred orders of maginitude, we are still talking about something that for all practical purposes just doesn't happen, even if it is "allowed" to happen by quantum mechanics.)
In an S-orbital an electron is only around the atom 90 some percent of the time, the rest of the time it's off galavanting in the Andromeda galaxy or someplace.
The probablity of finding an electron some distance from the nucleus of a hydrogen atom (I am picking hydrogen because the math is easy, but it will give you an idea of magnitudes for all elements). Is given by the integral of the wave function squared over the volume you are looking at.
If we do this for hydrogen over the distance 529 Angstroms to infinity, we get a probability of 1.52x10^-863, a very small number. Thus, while the electron can theoretically be found anywhere, chances are that you will find the electron comfortablly snuggled up with its nucleus in the ground state (at least on the astronomical length scales you are talking about).
This is ridiculous. While I have no doubt at all that OpenBSD is a far more secure OS than Linux, I think the implication that you will be hacked if you are running Linux vs. OpenBSD is silly.
I am responsible for a dozen Liunx machines on the Internet (i.e., there is no firewall between us and the kiddies) and a couple of AIX boxes too. No sooner had our Linux boxes gone online than I had dozens of attacks each day. But by proper use of tcpwrappers and some commonsense security checks, we have yet to be broken into. As a matter of fact, i have found tcpwrappers to be quite a deterrent. Most people just give up an go away.
Now I am sure that some determined bastard (or bitch) could take us out if they really wanted. And I am sure that their job would be much harder if we ran OpenBSD instead. But your inability to properly secure your boxes under Linux does not mean OpenBSD is the correct solution. Especially if you are wasting a processor in an OpenBSD box.
Basically, the theory goes that if you have atom with two electrons in the same quantum state except for spin, and you know the spin of one of them and then change it, the spin of the other electron is changed instantly, regardless of distance. However, I think this interaction occurs at the speed of light, and not instantly. It's just that we can't tell the difference between the two because there's no way (presently) to separate the two particles by very much distance.
This is not true. If you know something about the state of one of a pair of entangled particles, you instantly (regardless of distance) know the state of the other particle in the pair. However this cannot be used to communicate at faster than light speed, because there is no way to encode information in this measurement. The state of the pair is a superposition of the possible states, and the eigenvalue you measure is totally random. You haven't transmitted anything.
I know it is not the same idea, but it reminded me of that episode of "The Secret Life of Machines" where they showed how a tape recorder works by recording their voices on a piece of magic tape with rust sprinkled on it.
I expect AIX to go sometime around the end of 2001, sooner if Linux can develop the features (HA clustering, journaling FS, etc) that AIX has but Linux doesn't.
Sorry, I just don't see it. The changes Linux would need to support SP2 type systems isn't going to happen within a year or two, whether or not IBM helps.
As for SMP in general, if I had to have heavy-duty SMP Right Now on Unix. I wouldn't use Linux or Intel. Solaris on SPARC and AIX on PowerPC is where you can really hit the gas with Unix and multiple processors. I haven't tested AIX recently, but Solaris eats NT's, and everyone elses, lunch.
What about IRIX? I have run Solaris on single and dual processor machines, AIX on IBM SP2, and IRIX on Origin200, Octane, PowerChallange, and 64 processor Origin2000. I find IRIX to be superior for most tasks I do (compuational chemistry).
Note: My workstation is a 2x PIII-450 running Linux, and i love it. But when I need to hit dozens of processors at once, I like IRIX.
Um, no. Contrary to what opposing propaganda may claim, communism is about economic equality. It isn't about violence.
But in The Communist Manifesto:
In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.
And that is just the most blatant one I could find in a second. Check out the manifesto yourself. A simple search for "violent" should do the trick.
The DMCA does permit cracking devices to conduct encryption research for the purpose of interoperability and to test computer security systems. Fair Use. This is what Haselton has done, plain and simple. Reverse engineering is addressed in the DMCA for certain areas. Haselton was fully within the realm of information security validation.
Once again, the DCMA and UTICA are at odds... What a world.
By rebroadcasting programming, advertising compaines were loosing money that they had paid to put up adervtisement that would be watched on regular TV. When the advertisiment comapines figure this out, they're less willing to pay for advertisement. Result, TV companies lose $$.
This makes no sense. The ad guys are selling eyeballs. Who cares whether those eyballs see "regular TV" or "Internet TV" or what ever. As long as some one sees the ad, who cares? If I understand the iCrave thing correctly, they re-broadcast the TV signal, commericals and all. The companies should be happy they are getting more eyeballs per buck than they normally would have.
But they're not, so this must be about control. And that's what sucks. Everything being controlled by companies, instead of our dollars.
Just watch this get moderated down. =)
It just might be. Maybe 'cause it doen't make much sense. (At least to me...)
Bruce, I respect you, but this level of paranoia is discomforting. (I even looked to see if there was a . after your name.)
That cracks me up. I swear to God I also checked for the dot after his name after I read that. When there was no dot, I said, "Hmm... that's interesting..." Then I read this post and almost died laughing.
I read somewhere that much of the design of the *step interface was based on large computers with large monitors.
I can believe this. I started using X under Solaris and CDE (and I didn't think it was too bad. Yeah the file manager sucked, but I never really use a file manager... (am I missing something?)). Then I used a customized fvwm2 set up under RH5.x. I liked that well enough, since I constantly twiddled with it over the course of a year or so.
Then I installed RH6.0 and dealt with GNOME for a while. It is great for newbies, most every one in my lab uses it. It is just point and click configurable enough for them to make life livable for themselves. They are all used to fvwm-95 or whatever that default config was under RH5.x (YUCK!), so GNOME/E is just peachy as far as they know.
I soon got sick of GNOME though. It just wasn't configurable enough. Granted, I didn't spend a lot of time figuring it out, but shit, I have work to do man. I can't just fuck around with my WM all day.
So I looked around and decided to try GNUstep (WindowMaker). It is awesome on my machine at work (1600x1200 on a 21" monitor). But when I installed it at home (1024x768 on a 17") I really wanted smaller icons. You can change the icon size, but then you have to use pictures on those icons that are the right size. So I know it is possible to do, but once again, too much effort. WindowMaker should be smart enough to use a 32x32 set of xpm's or whatever if I tell it I want 32x32 icons.
I still like WindowMaker and GNUStep. But I think it would be pretty impossible to use on a system Now maybe we are all complaining about something that is easily fixed but we just don't know about. Any WindowMaker/GNUStep guru's know something we don't?
Slashdot Mirror
At the cost of using more bandwidth. The trick with cell phones is to make the phones use a very narrow range of frequencies. It is the precision with which the frequency is known by teh cell site that allows it to pick up the siganl from teh noise.
I was thinking a while back, why not use cell phones as repeaters themselves? That is, your cell phone acts to relay cell phone calls from other distant callers.
Can't do it. Here's why:
One of the things that makes cell phones small is that they transmit very low power signals. They can do this because there is a whole little hut of electronics equipment at the cell site that pulls the very specific frequency of the transmission out of the noise. (For you chemists out there, it is kind like NMR. Each cell phone is a nucleus that has changed states, and the cell site is like the instrument that detects this 1 in a million signal).
On the flip-side, the cell site can transmit with much more power to make it easy for the cheesy cell phone antenna to pick it up.
So what I am saying here is that cell phones can't hear each other very far away from each other cause they don't have the signal processing meat to do so. To do what you propose would require like wall to wall coverage by people with cell phones that are on and have this capability.
At some point, consumer advocacy is on the consumers' own shoulders.
I totally agree. That is kind of the subtext of what I was saying. The thing is that a lot of people see technology, especially computers, which often do things "automagically" (with the emphasis on the magic part for most people, according to AC Clarke) as allowing them not to think, or doing things for them. So a lot of people are going to look at P3P and say, "hey my computer can ensure my privacy now," or something, rather than "Wow this gives me the ability to control my privacy decisions."
I guess what I am saying is that this is not a "plug and play" thing as far as effort goes. P3P could be a valuable tool for consumer advocacy, but only if people see it as that, not the technological magic that some people might get tricked (or duped) into thinking it is.
You don't have to give out anything you don't want to, or you can selectively give out INDIVIDUAL things (there's no "all or nothing" aspect here!!!),
You're right, that does sound like a good thing. But what if I am some honkin' huge "e-tailer" and I set the P3P rules on my site to be: I need your name, address, telephone number, email address, and SSN for you to access my pages?
Okay, decline to send that info. But you don't get in! If enough of us "honkin' huge" sites do this, most people will just set their P3P prefs to be something like "let it all hang out."
3P _IS_ a good thing. It's GREAT for privacy.
Or maybe not. It all depends on how it is implemented at the majority of popular sites...
Being a native American, i.e. one born on the continent of America, therefore, native to America, I resent the term native American being used to represent American Indians.
I am a Native American by your definition, but not by the accepted definition (American Indian). But don't you think that Native Americans (in the parlance of our times) might not like to be called American Indians since they really have nothing to do with India?
If forget where I first heard it (#) called an octothorpe, but it seems a much more satisfying and mysterious name than the bland "hash", "pound", and "sharp". Although, if if call # a sharp, you get to call #! shebang, and that it cool too...
Just so you don't think I am crazy and making up this octothorpe business...http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Octothorp e.html
You are correct. A quick search at Google turned up:
This little ditty, which says that:
STOP THE PRESSES! HOLD YOUR HORSES! A NEW STATUTE EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 1, 1997! SPEEDING TO ELUDE ARREST! AND FINALLY - ON SOME OCCASIONS IT WILL BE A FELONY! OH YES! G.S. 20-141.5 Speeding to elude arrest. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a motor vehicle on a street, highway, or public vehicular area while fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer who is in the lawful performance of his duties. Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, violation of this section shall be a Class 1 misdemeanor. (b) If two or more of the following aggravating factors are present at the time the violation occurs, violation of this section shall be a Class H felony. (1) Speeding in excess of 15 miles over the legal speed limit. (2) Gross impairment of the person's faculties while driving due to a. Consumption of an impairing substance; or b. A blood alcohol concentration of 0.14 or more within a relevant time after driving. (3) Reckless driving as proscribed by G.S. 20-140.
etc, etc...
Of course you have to do TWO of the things in there, but me thinks they would get you on (1) and (3)...
What I thought was really funny about Ender's Shadow was the fact that Card completely manipulated events in the original book so that it turns out that the smartest kid ever in the history of the world was actually Bean, his new main character.
I don't think that Ender is meant to be the smartest kid ever, or what not, even in the original book. Yeah, he was really fucking smart, but that wasn't what made him the pick for commander of the invasion. He was smart, quick, and a great leader. Bean was super-smart, super-quick, but was a relatively poor leader, compared to Ender.
I think Ender's Shadow made all of this quite clear. Even in Ender's Game it is quite clear that is is not so much Ender's smarts as it is his leadership that make him the one...
26/34/38 - easy!
Ugh. I like 36/24/36 better myself. But to each his/her own I suppose.
The problem here is that they are talking about the curvature of four dimensional space time. One way for us to visualize this is to pare things down to a two dimensional sheet. Imagine teh universe is a plastic sheet lying on the floor. The sheet can be flat, having zero curvature (because the second derivative of the sheet "height" is zero), or it can be curved. If it has negative curvature everywhere, it could be something like a sphere. A saddle on the other hand has positive curvature. That is, the second derivative is positive somewhere.
All of this seems kinda wacky when applied to four dimensions. We can't visualize four dimensions easily, let alone what thier geometry looks like. And that is really the point here. On a flat surface (universe), normal Euclidean geometry holds. E.g., two parallel line never intersect, the sum of the interior angles of a triangle is 180, etc. On a curved surface (universe), this is not true. Draw a triangle on a deflated ballon (the flat universe) and then blow it up. The sum of the interior angles increases.
Pretty neat, huh? And that is some of the reasons they are looking into this.
Government regulation protects the people from big companies.
Huh? The governement == big companies, at least in practice. Governement regulation protects big companies from small companies and individuals they have managed to screw over.
You are right though that Open Source and Libertarianism are different things. How ever, both have this individualistic flavor.... That we (the regular guys) can take care of ourselves very well, thank you, Mr. Big Company/Governement. And not only do we take care of ourselves, we excell, more so than we would do if you tried to "help" us. Thus, I think a lot of Libertarians would find a lot to like in Open Source philosophy, if you will.
So, I am sure that not all open source believers are libertarians, but that many libertarians also argee with open source... I wish I could draw you a Venn diagram...
Or am I the odd one out and is it true that all of you out there agree with those politics?!
I don't think so. See above.
I'm European though. That could be it.
No offense, but probably. Americans seem to be much more individualistic than most other peoples. Is this good, bad, better, worse? I think better. But of course I do, I am an American.
So whatever. A socialist, or whatever can also like open source. Open source isn't just for libertarians. But libertarians sure seem to like open source...
The C compiler backdoor mentioned affected only people who installed the binary, instead of recompiling the compiler themselves
That still doesn't stop this from happening: I have an "un-broken compiler", I down load the new source containing the back door, I of course don't read the whole freaking source, I just compile it. Someday down the road I compile a new login with my now broken compiler, and I am busted.
I agree that my ability to fix this is greatly enhanced in an open source environment, but my point is that it just isn't the binary, you need to trust (or audit yourself) the entire source. This is something that no one can do on their own. Fortuantely, since we all have the source, we can all watch each otehrs back, if you will.
If, for example, you're using Red Hat Linux and you don't trust us for whatever reason, all it takes is "rpm --rebuild /mnt/cdrom/SRPMS/* ; rpm -U --force /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/yourarch/* /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/noarch/*".
Once again, how do I know you haven't fucked with the source code? In fact, if there is a back door, one might just leave it in the CD sources to defeat just this work around.
My point is, make or rpm --rebuild does not necessarily fix this. They need to be executed on reviewed source. This isn't a slam against open source. Like I said, the only place you have a chance is in an open source environement. I just don't want people to get a false sense of security, "I can just rebuild everything fom the source and I am safe."
COnsidering the number of electrons in the universe is somewhere about a googleplex to the power of a googleplex to another googleplex it is fairly safe to assert that There is a decent number of electrons not existing anywhere near their atom at any given moment.
Assuming that there are an equal number of protons and electrons in the universe, (which I would imagine is true, at least to a few orders of magintude), we can guess that there are somewhere around 3*10**80 electrons in the universe. This is far less than the multi-power of googleplex non-sense you are talking about.
This gives a probability of 4.56*10**-783 of finding any electron, in the whole freaking universe more than 529 Angstroms from its nucleus. (Assuming Z=1 and all the electrons are in the ground state. Even if lifting these conditions increase the probablity by a few hundred orders of maginitude, we are still talking about something that for all practical purposes just doesn't happen, even if it is "allowed" to happen by quantum mechanics.)
In an S-orbital an electron is only around the atom 90 some percent of the time, the rest of the time it's off galavanting in the Andromeda galaxy or someplace.
The probablity of finding an electron some distance from the nucleus of a hydrogen atom (I am picking hydrogen because the math is easy, but it will give you an idea of magnitudes for all elements). Is given by the integral of the wave function squared over the volume you are looking at.
If we do this for hydrogen over the distance 529 Angstroms to infinity, we get a probability of 1.52x10^-863, a very small number. Thus, while the electron can theoretically be found anywhere, chances are that you will find the electron comfortablly snuggled up with its nucleus in the ground state (at least on the astronomical length scales you are talking about).
This is ridiculous. While I have no doubt at all that OpenBSD is a far more secure OS than Linux, I think the implication that you will be hacked if you are running Linux vs. OpenBSD is silly.
I am responsible for a dozen Liunx machines on the Internet (i.e., there is no firewall between us and the kiddies) and a couple of AIX boxes too. No sooner had our Linux boxes gone online than I had dozens of attacks each day. But by proper use of tcpwrappers and some commonsense security checks, we have yet to be broken into. As a matter of fact, i have found tcpwrappers to be quite a deterrent. Most people just give up an go away.
Now I am sure that some determined bastard (or bitch) could take us out if they really wanted. And I am sure that their job would be much harder if we ran OpenBSD instead. But your inability to properly secure your boxes under Linux does not mean OpenBSD is the correct solution. Especially if you are wasting a processor in an OpenBSD box.
Basically, the theory goes that if you have atom with two electrons in the same quantum state except for spin, and you know the spin of one of them and then change it, the spin of the other electron is changed instantly, regardless of distance. However, I think this interaction occurs at the speed of light, and not instantly. It's just that we can't tell the difference between the two because there's no way (presently) to separate the two particles by very much distance.
This is not true. If you know something about the state of one of a pair of entangled particles, you instantly (regardless of distance) know the state of the other particle in the pair. However this cannot be used to communicate at faster than light speed, because there is no way to encode information in this measurement. The state of the pair is a superposition of the possible states, and the eigenvalue you measure is totally random. You haven't transmitted anything.
rangek@origin.msi.umn.edu
I know it is not the same idea, but it reminded me of that episode of "The Secret Life of Machines" where they showed how a tape recorder works by recording their voices on a piece of magic tape with rust sprinkled on it.
I expect AIX to go sometime around the end of 2001, sooner if Linux can develop the features (HA clustering, journaling FS, etc) that AIX has but Linux doesn't.
Sorry, I just don't see it. The changes Linux would need to support SP2 type systems isn't going to happen within a year or two, whether or not IBM helps.
As for SMP in general, if I had to have heavy-duty SMP Right Now on Unix. I wouldn't use Linux or Intel. Solaris on SPARC and AIX on PowerPC is where you can really hit the gas with Unix and multiple processors. I haven't tested AIX recently, but Solaris eats NT's, and everyone elses, lunch.
What about IRIX? I have run Solaris on single and dual processor machines, AIX on IBM SP2, and IRIX on Origin200, Octane, PowerChallange, and 64 processor Origin2000. I find IRIX to be superior for most tasks I do (compuational chemistry).
Note: My workstation is a 2x PIII-450 running Linux, and i love it. But when I need to hit dozens of processors at once, I like IRIX.
Just my $0.02
Um, no. Contrary to what opposing propaganda may claim, communism is about economic equality. It isn't about violence.
But in The Communist Manifesto:
In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.
And that is just the most blatant one I could find in a second. Check out the manifesto yourself. A simple search for "violent" should do the trick.
The DMCA does permit cracking devices to conduct encryption research for the purpose of interoperability and to test computer security systems. Fair Use. This is what Haselton has done, plain and simple. Reverse engineering is addressed in the DMCA for certain areas. Haselton was fully within the realm of information security validation.
Once again, the DCMA and UTICA are at odds... What a world.
By rebroadcasting programming, advertising compaines were loosing money that they had paid to put up adervtisement that would be watched on regular TV. When the advertisiment comapines figure this out, they're less willing to pay for advertisement. Result, TV companies lose $$.
This makes no sense. The ad guys are selling eyeballs. Who cares whether those eyballs see "regular TV" or "Internet TV" or what ever. As long as some one sees the ad, who cares? If I understand the iCrave thing correctly, they re-broadcast the TV signal, commericals and all. The companies should be happy they are getting more eyeballs per buck than they normally would have.
But they're not, so this must be about control. And that's what sucks. Everything being controlled by companies, instead of our dollars.
Just watch this get moderated down. =)
It just might be. Maybe 'cause it doen't make much sense. (At least to me...)
Bruce, I respect you, but this level of paranoia is discomforting. (I even looked to see if there was a . after your name.)
That cracks me up. I swear to God I also checked for the dot after his name after I read that. When there was no dot, I said, "Hmm... that's interesting..." Then I read this post and almost died laughing.
his is the first technical information on this attack that I've run into. Everything else I've seen seems to be targeted to the non-geek crowd.
Check out some of these links for a more "technical" report.
I read somewhere that much of the design of the *step interface was based on large computers with large monitors.
I can believe this. I started using X under Solaris and CDE (and I didn't think it was too bad. Yeah the file manager sucked, but I never really use a file manager... (am I missing something?)). Then I used a customized fvwm2 set up under RH5.x. I liked that well enough, since I constantly twiddled with it over the course of a year or so.
Then I installed RH6.0 and dealt with GNOME for a while. It is great for newbies, most every one in my lab uses it. It is just point and click configurable enough for them to make life livable for themselves. They are all used to fvwm-95 or whatever that default config was under RH5.x (YUCK!), so GNOME/E is just peachy as far as they know.
I soon got sick of GNOME though. It just wasn't configurable enough. Granted, I didn't spend a lot of time figuring it out, but shit, I have work to do man. I can't just fuck around with my WM all day.
So I looked around and decided to try GNUstep (WindowMaker). It is awesome on my machine at work (1600x1200 on a 21" monitor). But when I installed it at home (1024x768 on a 17") I really wanted smaller icons. You can change the icon size, but then you have to use pictures on those icons that are the right size. So I know it is possible to do, but once again, too much effort. WindowMaker should be smart enough to use a 32x32 set of xpm's or whatever if I tell it I want 32x32 icons.
I still like WindowMaker and GNUStep. But I think it would be pretty impossible to use on a system Now maybe we are all complaining about something that is easily fixed but we just don't know about. Any WindowMaker/GNUStep guru's know something we don't?