So I opened up pidgin and hit 'about' in the help menu, intending to check the version I am running (2.2.1 as it turns out) and the first thing I see is an image with slogan: "Pidgin - Just get along!"
If only the devs would follow the example they set with their IM protocols;P
Why, yes, I do have some suggestions. Where is the forum for me to submit them? Of course sir! Just step this way, to one of our new e-suggestion box! Just use this super shiny touch screen, and key in your complaint with us. Then, using the power of the internet and magic, it will take your complaints and report that everything is A-OK to head quarters!
I'm reminded of this [mactalk.com.au] - Mac OS X running on a Centris 650. 68MB RAM, 25MHz 68040. Wow, those are some mighty specs for shoehorn bragging rights. Closest thing that jumped to my mind from this thread was OS X on an xbox 1 But that's still a 700mhz celeron chip, but with only 64mb ram. Slightly less useless in speed than the 25mhz 040 I'd say;}
If the iPhone just had a nice slide-out keyboard somewhere, almost all of my gripes with the iPhone would fade away. So, I have a silly question. Can the iPhone sync with a bluetooth keyboard?
Then I found out I could not use iTunes on Ubuntu without an emulator. Then I read a few "fuck you" articles from the mac high priesthood addressed to linux people who used iPods. then I read articles about how the iPod would get changes making more work necessary to get it going with linux. That's actually the exact same reason I have problems convincing others ubuntu and linux in general are worth looking into. Specifically, the high and mighty uber nerds that troll the support forms, and give "RTFM" replies (sorta like your "fuck you" article.)
Not true. 1/x approaches zero when x approaches infinity. How the heck can anyone conclude that cutting something into more pieces will make each piece larger is beyond me. Thats just how the number infinity works. It is an unbound limit, so you Can slice it up and each piece, while not making each piece larger, each piece will however remain the same size as before being sliced. With no upper bound, it does appear at first that if you divide infinity by two, that for those two halves to be the same size as the original, it would have to double. But you cant add to infinity either, so that does not happen.
The math is sound. The only real question is if the universe itself is infinite or not, which could make the math moot. And that question might not be provable at all (it most certainly isn't right now)
But can you trust the compiler That's why you have to write your first compiler in assembly and key it in by hand!
Hmm... except to counter that, someone from china just has to come to the US and patent that process to stop everyone from using it. Eek, now I'm scared;}
For example, it is entirely possible, again however unlikely, that randomness can never produce life, no matter the infinite variations that could be applied. Not really. We exist, and we are alive. A lot of other life exists on this planet, not just us, so the number is already greater than 1.
And to the best of my knowledge, mankind can never scientifically prove this one way or the other. Math is math. Mathematically speaking, any fraction of infinity is infinity. In other words, we know for a fact 1 intelligent species exists (us), and that is represented by the fraction 1 out of infinity. 1 divided by infinity is infinity. Thus, there is an infinite number of intelligent species in an open universe. Changing 1 to any other value except zero will produce the same result. And since we exist, we know for a proven fact the value can not be zero.
The GP post already addressed the issues of if the universe is not open, nor infinite, so I won't restate them here.
The gmail revenue stream depends on targeted advertising, which means they need to have a daemon read your mail. http://getfiregpg.org/
This is a firefox plugin that adds pgp support to firefox, and integrates fully with gmail. Adds encrypt decrypt and sign buttons down by the send and save buttons.
Why are they [piratebay.org] "criminals"? They haven't been convicted of anything. The fact that they follow a philosophy of anti-copyright doesn't make them criminals. And why, pray tell, do you think being a drug dealer is any different? I'm just referring to the laws and general accords we have in society. I don't think drug dealers are, for the most part, doing anything wrong. You seem to not have made the connection that legal/illegal has nothing to do with right/wrong.
While I too personally don't see dealing in drugs as wrong, but as for other people, there is a large group that thinks it is wrong, and a large group that thinks its right. The fact people think its right or wrong does not at all change the fact drugs are illegal, both in the US (where you are talking about) and in Sweden (where every one else is talking about.)
Running a tracker also has nothing to do with right and wrong here. In the US, doing so in this way is illegal (conspiracy and accomplice to copyright violation) however no such law exists in Sweden (again where everyone else is talking about) thus this is called legal.
There are a lot of things that are wrong that are illegal. There is also a lot of things that are right that are illegal. Also there is plenty of things that are right that are legal, and plenty of things that are Wrong which are legal. Once you realize the two groups have nothing to do with each other, you will understand everyones outrage with this.
I use Debian. I don't use VLC, but rather I use mplayer, because I like the command line. But VLC is in the Debian repos. The official, supported Debian repos. The description says that it plays mp3s, as well as several other formats. Exactly what are you referring to? Hmm, aparently according to http://packages.debian.org/etch/vlc vlc has been in etch for some time now. I know for sure it wasn't in sarge, but haven't used debian as a desktop/workstation for awhile now, so missed when they added it.
I agree totally. I installed Ubuntu about a year and half ago out of curiousity (first experience with linux) and was shocked when I couldn't play my mp3s. This is the kind of stuff that "just works" on WINDOWS, for chrissake. It doesn't 'just work' in windows in anything except the end user point of view. MS had to pay licenses to be legally allowed to give that software to you, and thus passes the charge to you.
There have been linux distros in the past that were for-pay and did include such things, but not many people wanted to buy them so they went away.
As far as end user point of view goes:
apt-get install vlc
One player that will play an order of magnitude more formats than windows media player could ever hope to. Also appears right in ubuntu's package manager, unlike debian where you have to add unsupported repos first.
Though yes, knowing that program/package name and installing it could be made more easy. However it wasn't always anywhere near that easy in windows either. One had to know of and go download winamp to play mp3s, and that was for many many years, until very recently. Other than web searches, I wouldn't know how to tell you to do that on Any operating system, windows or linux.
The point is, the 10 seconds you spent forever ago learning how to play mp3s in windows is the same investment you have to spend today to learn how to play mp3s in linux. and now that you know the package name, hopefully that will be down to 3 seconds, depending on your internet connections speed;}
1U rack mount headless box. 3ghz 64-bit Quad-Core Intel Xeon, up to 32gb ram, pci express 2, dual gigabit ethernet.
Oh, and fibre channel as an option, to go with the Xserve RAID which is a very nice, if not expensive, SAN in 3U, also headless obviously.
Unless by 'a _normal_ headless box' you meant a boring generic beige case in the corner with no monitor... In which case, we call those the old G3's and G4's running OS X.
Fortunately for us here in America, someone long ago was smart enough to include the words "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE" on our currency, and I understand it's actually against the law (sorry, no citation) to refuse to accept cash for the full amount. http://www.treas.gov/education/faq/currency/legal-tender.shtml
Q) I thought that United States currency was legal tender for all debts. Some businesses or governmental agencies say that they will only accept checks, money orders or credit cards as payment, and others will only accept currency notes in denominations of $20 or smaller. Isn't this illegal?
A) The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues." This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.
whose contract specifically said I was not to include open source code in my work for them. I had a similar issue before. I too needed the money, so was going with the wussy 'keep my mouth shut and do as told' method. I did do all the standard CYA stuff, but wasn't expecting to be there past the two week mark so it really didn't matter.
However in a more personal than professional conversation with my team lead, I asked him if he realized such a request technically means I can't even install or use Windows (which they did) because it includes open source code (Lots of BSD parts, the TCP stack comes to mind) as well as has open source like components, granted under MS's 'you can see the code but cant legally do anything with it without our permission, your money, a blood sample, and your first born' license. After a discussion about it, which was surprisingly informed on his part, explaining how they limited code allowed to be used to a tiny fraction of what is out there, or code they paid to have developed them self from scratch, he actually ended up having the terms changed to be more specific as to what they wanted, which was just to avoid licenses that won't allow a closed source product in the end.
Just thought I would share that experience, no other point to make:}
It is only a matter of time before something like MySpace or YouTube can directly monetize their offering, and Google shares drop another increment. ...
Another Old media trick. Buy your competitors. Make them look like another entity. But, they don't, as far as ownership and stock shares go. Both are under google now.
So, when youtube can directly monetize their offering, how will google shares drop instead of rise?
When google makes more money, stock goes up. So when google (youtube) makes more money, stocks should still go up.
Am I right? I fear im missing something obvious here...
If you don;'t like them, don't use them, but get off my back. That's what you get for violating their terms of service.
I don't like it any more than you do, but you are in violation. NetSol terms of service clearly says "objectionable material of any kind or nature", and someone just objected to your material, thus they make claim* of the right to revoke your services.
* Make claim of the right. Not the same as Has that right. But clearly by their actions, NetSol doesn't care about the difference. They need a good smack in the face with some law.
The FCC has no standing to police what comcast does or does not do to its customers because congress has not given the FCC that power. Maybe, but congress has given the FBI the power to stop comcast when they impersinate me and my computers software to their customers without my express permission. It's called the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
As a kid, I made my own home AM radios, an incredibly useful tool for the budding EE's in the world. the loss of such profound examples will cut off the joy of home electronic projects to another generation. This just means the opportunity for learning has tripled!
Now kids can learn how to make an AM radio, followed by an AM transmitter, followed by 'daddy why are you making me do this?';}
Kidding aside, I too remember building similar things, AM radios powered from the airwaves, followed by better amped receivers, moving on to FM and learning how stereo sound is sent.
While it is sad such projects will eventually be no more, and the new technologies that are replacing them are either locked up in corporate patents, or simply too complex for a simple project, the art will live on, most likely with the HAM community, and the old school tinkerers still.
Security means that I'm not going to harm the company physical property and co-workers. Productivity means that I produce more of what they sell than it costs them to pay me I just wanted to point out one detail. Security is not limited to their physical property. Security includes their digital assets as well.
As an example, if your company makes widget, and the staff uses computers to design said widget, to send those designs to the part of the company (or another company) who actually builds said widget, then the designs for that widget are digital assets, and are no doubt quite valuable to them.
If I as a hacker, working for another company, or even for myself, got access to your company computers and copied those designs, I could then either give them to my company to give them an advantage over yours, or if working alone, I could offer to sell them to every company that competes with yours, giving them all a leg up on your company, plus making a tidy profit for myself.
While I agree that a lot of times the things put in place by IT to stop this are poor, i'm sure they would feel you do not have the right to do things that would aid me in copying those designs. To some IT departments, this includes you installing software on their computers. The fact they may be wrong is still not your task to covet and single handedly choose for them. If you think their methods are wrong, try telling them why, and suggesting a more correct approach. If they still choose to go about it wrong, then let them (and look for another job, since that company most likely wont be in business long, thus needing you.)
You may disagree with their policy, and may even be perfectly right in your reasons for it, but the fact remains it is still their hardware, their network, and their digital assets, not yours.
Taking your attitude is akin to me visiting you, sitting at your computer, deciding that the way you set it up is 'wrong', and changing that against your will.
You have every right to make wrong choices with your own property. So does the company you work for.
And if you really honestly believe it is perfectly ok for someone (you) to come in and tell someone else (the company) what they can and can not do with their own property, well, by that exact logic, you have no right to complain still, because someone (me) has by your own argument the right to come in and tell someone else (you) what YOU can and cant do with your own computer. Thusly, I say you arn't allowed to reply and complain, and thankfully, you would agree;}
Intercepting (and breaking) quantum crypto is very much so possible. No, no it isn't.
If Charlie intercepts Bob's fotons on their way to Alice, I can stop you right there. Charlie can't read any data out of Bobs photons (not fotons btw) This is the impossible part. It can't be done.
and Charlie can transmit the very same fotons he just recieved, Again, there is no physical way in quantum mechanics to do this, it is impossible.
he can intercept the message succesfully without Alice or Bob ever noticing (perhaps a lag because Charlie has to do some work before he transmits). Yes, if he can do two things prevented by the laws of physics, then he can do a lot more than just intercept messages, he could travel millions of times faster than the speed of light too (since that is equally impossible) and go back in time and [insert favorite scifi plot here]
From my understanding it does serve a practical purpose in that intercepting the message changes it. Thus while you can't stop people from tapping into your message, you do have instant feedback about when that happens. That is correct.
Except that practically, you can stop people from intercepting the communications, by the very aspect you point out.
While the connection is sending data merrily along its way, upon the first bit being intercepted, both ends know this, thus naturally should be programmed to stop communicating at that point. Once communication is stopped, the interception of useful data has been prevented.
Granted, this is vulnerable to a pretty bad DoS attack, but that was never its goal to prevent, only to prevent interception.
Slashdot Mirror
So I opened up pidgin and hit 'about' in the help menu, intending to check the version I am running (2.2.1 as it turns out)
;P
and the first thing I see is an image with slogan: "Pidgin - Just get along!"
If only the devs would follow the example they set with their IM protocols
Just use this super shiny touch screen, and key in your complaint with us.
Then, using the power of the internet and magic, it will take your complaints and report that everything is A-OK to head quarters!
Closest thing that jumped to my mind from this thread was OS X on an xbox 1
But that's still a 700mhz celeron chip, but with only 64mb ram. Slightly less useless in speed than the 25mhz 040 I'd say
Can the iPhone sync with a bluetooth keyboard?
If not, someone wake the iPhone devs!
If they wanted them to use the software so bad, they would give them a copy for free.
Greedy bastards
It is an unbound limit, so you Can slice it up and each piece, while not making each piece larger, each piece will however remain the same size as before being sliced.
With no upper bound, it does appear at first that if you divide infinity by two, that for those two halves to be the same size as the original, it would have to double. But you cant add to infinity either, so that does not happen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity#Mathematical_infinity
The math is sound. The only real question is if the universe itself is infinite or not, which could make the math moot. And that question might not be provable at all (it most certainly isn't right now)
Hmm... except to counter that, someone from china just has to come to the US and patent that process to stop everyone from using it.
Eek, now I'm scared
We exist, and we are alive. A lot of other life exists on this planet, not just us, so the number is already greater than 1. And to the best of my knowledge, mankind can never scientifically prove this one way or the other. Math is math.
Mathematically speaking, any fraction of infinity is infinity. In other words, we know for a fact 1 intelligent species exists (us), and that is represented by the fraction 1 out of infinity. 1 divided by infinity is infinity. Thus, there is an infinite number of intelligent species in an open universe.
Changing 1 to any other value except zero will produce the same result. And since we exist, we know for a proven fact the value can not be zero.
The GP post already addressed the issues of if the universe is not open, nor infinite, so I won't restate them here.
This is a firefox plugin that adds pgp support to firefox, and integrates fully with gmail.
Adds encrypt decrypt and sign buttons down by the send and save buttons.
While I too personally don't see dealing in drugs as wrong, but as for other people, there is a large group that thinks it is wrong, and a large group that thinks its right. The fact people think its right or wrong does not at all change the fact drugs are illegal, both in the US (where you are talking about) and in Sweden (where every one else is talking about.)
Running a tracker also has nothing to do with right and wrong here.
In the US, doing so in this way is illegal (conspiracy and accomplice to copyright violation) however no such law exists in Sweden (again where everyone else is talking about) thus this is called legal.
There are a lot of things that are wrong that are illegal. There is also a lot of things that are right that are illegal.
Also there is plenty of things that are right that are legal, and plenty of things that are Wrong which are legal.
Once you realize the two groups have nothing to do with each other, you will understand everyones outrage with this.
vlc has been in etch for some time now. I know for sure it wasn't in sarge, but haven't used debian as a desktop/workstation for awhile now, so missed when they added it.
So there ya have it
MS had to pay licenses to be legally allowed to give that software to you, and thus passes the charge to you.
There have been linux distros in the past that were for-pay and did include such things, but not many people wanted to buy them so they went away.
As far as end user point of view goes:
apt-get install vlc
One player that will play an order of magnitude more formats than windows media player could ever hope to.
Also appears right in ubuntu's package manager, unlike debian where you have to add unsupported repos first.
Though yes, knowing that program/package name and installing it could be made more easy. However it wasn't always anywhere near that easy in windows either. One had to know of and go download winamp to play mp3s, and that was for many many years, until very recently.
Other than web searches, I wouldn't know how to tell you to do that on Any operating system, windows or linux.
The point is, the 10 seconds you spent forever ago learning how to play mp3s in windows is the same investment you have to spend today to learn how to play mp3s in linux. and now that you know the package name, hopefully that will be down to 3 seconds, depending on your internet connections speed
Then may I present, the Apple Xserve
1U rack mount headless box.
3ghz 64-bit Quad-Core Intel Xeon, up to 32gb ram, pci express 2, dual gigabit ethernet.
Oh, and fibre channel as an option, to go with the Xserve RAID which is a very nice, if not expensive, SAN in 3U, also headless obviously.
Unless by 'a _normal_ headless box' you meant a boring generic beige case in the corner with no monitor...
In which case, we call those the old G3's and G4's running OS X.
Q) I thought that United States currency was legal tender for all debts. Some businesses or governmental agencies say that they will only accept checks, money orders or credit cards as payment, and others will only accept currency notes in denominations of $20 or smaller. Isn't this illegal?
A) The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."
This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.
However in a more personal than professional conversation with my team lead, I asked him if he realized such a request technically means I can't even install or use Windows (which they did) because it includes open source code (Lots of BSD parts, the TCP stack comes to mind) as well as has open source like components, granted under MS's 'you can see the code but cant legally do anything with it without our permission, your money, a blood sample, and your first born' license.
After a discussion about it, which was surprisingly informed on his part, explaining how they limited code allowed to be used to a tiny fraction of what is out there, or code they paid to have developed them self from scratch, he actually ended up having the terms changed to be more specific as to what they wanted, which was just to avoid licenses that won't allow a closed source product in the end.
Just thought I would share that experience, no other point to make
So, when youtube can directly monetize their offering, how will google shares drop instead of rise?
When google makes more money, stock goes up. So when google (youtube) makes more money, stocks should still go up.
Am I right? I fear im missing something obvious here...
I don't like it any more than you do, but you are in violation.
NetSol terms of service clearly says "objectionable material of any kind or nature", and someone just objected to your material, thus they make claim* of the right to revoke your services.
* Make claim of the right. Not the same as Has that right. But clearly by their actions, NetSol doesn't care about the difference. They need a good smack in the face with some law.
It's called the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
pwned
Now kids can learn how to make an AM radio,
followed by an AM transmitter,
followed by 'daddy why are you making me do this?'
Kidding aside, I too remember building similar things, AM radios powered from the airwaves, followed by better amped receivers, moving on to FM and learning how stereo sound is sent.
While it is sad such projects will eventually be no more, and the new technologies that are replacing them are either locked up in corporate patents, or simply too complex for a simple project, the art will live on, most likely with the HAM community, and the old school tinkerers still.
Security is not limited to their physical property. Security includes their digital assets as well.
As an example, if your company makes widget, and the staff uses computers to design said widget, to send those designs to the part of the company (or another company) who actually builds said widget, then the designs for that widget are digital assets, and are no doubt quite valuable to them.
If I as a hacker, working for another company, or even for myself, got access to your company computers and copied those designs, I could then either give them to my company to give them an advantage over yours, or if working alone, I could offer to sell them to every company that competes with yours, giving them all a leg up on your company, plus making a tidy profit for myself.
While I agree that a lot of times the things put in place by IT to stop this are poor, i'm sure they would feel you do not have the right to do things that would aid me in copying those designs. To some IT departments, this includes you installing software on their computers. The fact they may be wrong is still not your task to covet and single handedly choose for them. If you think their methods are wrong, try telling them why, and suggesting a more correct approach. If they still choose to go about it wrong, then let them (and look for another job, since that company most likely wont be in business long, thus needing you.)
You may disagree with their policy, and may even be perfectly right in your reasons for it, but the fact remains it is still their hardware, their network, and their digital assets, not yours.
Taking your attitude is akin to me visiting you, sitting at your computer, deciding that the way you set it up is 'wrong', and changing that against your will.
You have every right to make wrong choices with your own property. So does the company you work for.
And if you really honestly believe it is perfectly ok for someone (you) to come in and tell someone else (the company) what they can and can not do with their own property, well, by that exact logic, you have no right to complain still, because someone (me) has by your own argument the right to come in and tell someone else (you) what YOU can and cant do with your own computer. Thusly, I say you arn't allowed to reply and complain, and thankfully, you would agree
This is the impossible part. It can't be done. and Charlie can transmit the very same fotons he just recieved, Again, there is no physical way in quantum mechanics to do this, it is impossible. he can intercept the message succesfully without Alice or Bob ever noticing (perhaps a lag because Charlie has to do some work before he transmits). Yes, if he can do two things prevented by the laws of physics, then he can do a lot more than just intercept messages, he could travel millions of times faster than the speed of light too (since that is equally impossible) and go back in time and [insert favorite scifi plot here]
Except that practically, you can stop people from intercepting the communications, by the very aspect you point out.
While the connection is sending data merrily along its way, upon the first bit being intercepted, both ends know this, thus naturally should be programmed to stop communicating at that point.
Once communication is stopped, the interception of useful data has been prevented.
Granted, this is vulnerable to a pretty bad DoS attack, but that was never its goal to prevent, only to prevent interception.
When I pay you $15 or $20 for your CD, why should I have to pay you again just to get that CD onto my computer or iPod?
:{
You only made that music once. I paid you once.
What did you personally do that makes you deserve being paid a second time just so I can play my music on another device?
But thanks, glad to know the artists care