* also the breakdown of the family and sexual relationships (which has less obvious parallels but "PolPot & the child turns their parents in" (like Winston's neighbor) would be an example)
Here you and me have read different books. 1984 describes a big governmental campagne against sexuality just for fun and for bonding, and the reduction of sexuality to a means to get children. An idea that tried to remove the bonding aspect of sexuality was tried in nationalsocialist Germany ("Lebensborn"), but I don't know of any similar communist experiment. Pol Pot's goal was not to govern sexuality, he was trying to remove parental influence and thus breaking the chain of tradition.
Where I vote, the counting process is simple and plain public. No "selected people allowed to watch" or such complicated bullshit. If you want to, you just enter the election office and watch the election officials counting the ballot. I never saw a problem with that.
Lets put it like this: The Black Forest town of Villingen-Schwenningen has something called "unechte Teilortswahl" (literally translated: "not really an election per suburb"). Basicly every suburb has some seats reserved for their local candidates, but there are no party lists for each suburb, every party has a list for the whole of Villingen-Schwenningen. Each party can nominee as much candidates on its list as there are seats in the town council. With up to 20 parties running, this can easily amout to about ~450 candidates. It has happened that the voting ballot for the town council was a square metre! Now the voter can either accept the whole list of one party, or he has as much votes as there are seats in the council. Those votes he can distribute freely: all on one candidate ("cumulate") or evenly distributed between candidates of different lists, or some of the votes on a single candidate, and others on other candidates... it's completely up to him. He can even write new candidates on the lists and give them votes. During the count one determines which candidate got the most votes in his suburb, he gets a direct seat. If the suburb has a second seat, also the second best candidate gets a second seat etc.pp. But because different parties are running, it can happen, that other lists got many votes on their lists, but are not represented by the suburb. Then they get so called "Ausgleichsmandate" (compensatory mandates). Those are additional seats in the town council. In the end the council thus consists of as many candidates from the different lists as the relative number of votes the lists demands. With all those compensatory mandates the town council can often double or triple the number of seats.
Just because you can fit two rockets and a machine gun on an Alpha Jet doesn't make it really a fighter jet. You can also mount a machine gun and a rocket launcher on a truck, but that doesn't mean that every truck is a combat engine.
Alpha jets were used mainly for pilot training, for observation flights and sometimes (they are two-seated!) as some kind of very fast air-cab. They are not armoured, so their combat value is nearly nil.
Like it or not DRM restricts what you can do with your files. When you try to do something the copyright holders have forbidden, even the best DRM system will be plenty visible.
And that's exactly what's wrong with DRM. There is a legal frame what you can do with a Work of Art, and this frame is set by the legislators, not by the copyright holders. DRM rules are defined by the copyright holders, and they might or might not conform to the legal framework. But there is no recourse for us to bring them to match. DRM allows copyright holders to do things with our copies they are simply not entitled to do.
Of course there is something to see here, namely a complete miscomprehension what Open Source is about. If everyone including Linus Thorwalds suddenly stops developping the next Linux kernel, the kernel itself won't vanish. Its sources are everywhere on mirrors, CD-ROMs, on servers etc.pp. So everyone is still able to compile a new kernel for his own machines if necessary. So maybe there would be no new drivers for the Linux kernel if no one is developping it, but the vast amout of code already done can be used by everyone. So no: Open Source will not vanish. Maybe the development could slow down a little, but what do programmers with their time while they are unemployed? Drinking beer? Watching TV? Or start to code the little pet project they were thinking about the last five years and never had the time to work on?
I agree..kind of like the consensus of most western nations, that Saddam in Iraq had and was further pursuing WMD's. It was a shock to everyone when for the most part they couldn't be found.
This consensus was never there. It was an U.S.-only phenomenon. After Colin Powell's presentation at the Security Council the head of the Council at this time, Joschka Fischer, said: "It didn't convince us." So no, except for the U.S. no one ever thought much about the WMDs in Iraq.
No implemented perpetuum mobile in existance was close to what self sustained energy source really means. If you're an idealist, a perpetuum mobile is still the best energy source out there, in theory. Unfortunately, it's the hardest to implement in practice.
Zwei Kartoffeln saßen im Backofen. Die erste Kartoffel sagte: "Es ist sehr heiß!" Da sagte die zweite Kartoffel: "Du meine Güte! Eine sprechende Kartoffel!"
NAT is a hassle, when it comes to more complex protocols than simple TCP. I've worked at a customer site which had a slightly... lets put it like this... unorthodox allocation of internal IP addresses. They just gave every site a 10.X.0.0/16, and then they had more than 256 sites (it's a large retailer, that's why). So they started expanding (yes I know, shame on them) into the 9.0.0.0/8 and 8.0.0.0/8 space.
When they bought a company in another country, the sysadmins there absolutely refused to route those nets into the VPN (right they were). So now the customer starts heavily to NAT, so the new company never sees any internal 9.0.0.0/8 and 8.0.0.0/8 addresses.
And now lots of things break. Videoconferencing and VoIP are among the worst offenders, but some complex logistics software they use is playing silly buggers too. And with more than 256 sites it's just not feasible to start readdressing all the IPs. They just don't have the people to do it, and they don't have the time to do it (it has to happen all at once, otherwise just more applications break during the transition period), and they don't have the money to hire enough external people to do it.
It's a lesson why violating RFC1918 never was a good idea, but it is also a lesson that NAT gets you only so far.
You obviously don't live in the mountains. Here not using the engine for braking is a sure recipe to roast your brakes and have a pedal response like pudding after 10 mls, and yes, we here have slopes of 20 or 30 mls. Coming down from Timmelsjoch to Haiming we start out at ~7500 ft and after nearly 6000 ft we reach Haiming at an altitude of 1800 ft. If you ever plan to do that with only the brakes please send me a message upfront, so I can avoid driving there that day.
I am using my engine for braking all the time, it has now 80,000 mls, no sign of wear and tear, and I have replaced the brake discs once.
Still it's the cleaning staff who gets convicted for arson. And with an underage kid you are responsible for everything he does because he is underage. If they were someone else's kids driving your car, their parents have to pay you for the wreckage (even if you are responsible for the damage done by your car).
Yes, the government is responsible for due diligence, it is responsible to get its helper (may they be external companies or the own staff) to conform to data protection regulation. It is even responsible to recover the lost data and shield the persons affected by the data loss against harm.
But nevertheless: It was an incompetent, privately owned company losing the data, and not a government.
If you burn the office of the premier minister, it's not as if the premier minister has committed arson. If a privately owned company loses data, it's the company which loses the data, independent of the rightfull owner of it.
It's a simple Pareto distribution. It has nothing to do with "being told to like". And a Pareto distribution has interesting properties: If the number of possible events increases (and it does, if more and more people are starting to create music), then the relative probability of the top n% increases! So yes, in a certain way larger and larger audiences for the top n% of music means, that more and more people are becoming music producers themselves.
There is a solution: Split all the costs between the parties, and in the relation as they had to back away from their initial positions.
If I sue Big Company Inc. for 5 billion, and in the end I get awarded 50,000, I have lost 99,999% of my initial claim, so I pay 99,999% of the cost. If Big Company Inc. sues me for 5 billion, and in the end they get 50,000, they pay 99,999% of the cost.
The founding fathers of Israel were considered terrorists by the british administration of Palestine. And they in fact did bomb the King David Hotel, a clearly terroristic act. And Menachem Begin, head of the Irgun, the organization responsible for the attact, is... a Peace Nobel Prize Laureat!
So wherever you look in the Middle East Conflict: Terrorists are everywhere. Blaming it all on Arafat is pretty cheap.
Slashdot Mirror
And 100 means in base (8+8)? Tada! 100000000 binary! Which is... another Tada!
oooo oooo oooo oooo
oooo oooo oooo oooo
oooo oooo oooo oooo
oooo oooo oooo oooo
oooo oooo oooo oooo
oooo oooo oooo oooo
oooo oooo oooo oooo
oooo oooo oooo oooo
oooo oooo oooo oooo
oooo oooo oooo oooo
oooo oooo oooo oooo
oooo oooo oooo oooo
oooo oooo oooo oooo
oooo oooo oooo oooo
oooo oooo oooo oooo
oooo oooo oooo oooo
or 256, if you count in the (9+1)-base.
* also the breakdown of the family and sexual relationships (which has less obvious parallels but "PolPot & the child turns their parents in" (like Winston's neighbor) would be an example)
Here you and me have read different books. 1984 describes a big governmental campagne against sexuality just for fun and for bonding, and the reduction of sexuality to a means to get children. An idea that tried to remove the bonding aspect of sexuality was tried in nationalsocialist Germany ("Lebensborn"), but I don't know of any similar communist experiment. Pol Pot's goal was not to govern sexuality, he was trying to remove parental influence and thus breaking the chain of tradition.
Where I vote, the counting process is simple and plain public. No "selected people allowed to watch" or such complicated bullshit. If you want to, you just enter the election office and watch the election officials counting the ballot. I never saw a problem with that.
Lets put it like this: The Black Forest town of Villingen-Schwenningen has something called "unechte Teilortswahl" (literally translated: "not really an election per suburb"). Basicly every suburb has some seats reserved for their local candidates, but there are no party lists for each suburb, every party has a list for the whole of Villingen-Schwenningen. Each party can nominee as much candidates on its list as there are seats in the town council. With up to 20 parties running, this can easily amout to about ~450 candidates. It has happened that the voting ballot for the town council was a square metre!
Now the voter can either accept the whole list of one party, or he has as much votes as there are seats in the council. Those votes he can distribute freely: all on one candidate ("cumulate") or evenly distributed between candidates of different lists, or some of the votes on a single candidate, and others on other candidates... it's completely up to him. He can even write new candidates on the lists and give them votes.
During the count one determines which candidate got the most votes in his suburb, he gets a direct seat. If the suburb has a second seat, also the second best candidate gets a second seat etc.pp. But because different parties are running, it can happen, that other lists got many votes on their lists, but are not represented by the suburb. Then they get so called "Ausgleichsmandate" (compensatory mandates). Those are additional seats in the town council. In the end the council thus consists of as many candidates from the different lists as the relative number of votes the lists demands. With all those compensatory mandates the town council can often double or triple the number of seats.
Just because you can fit two rockets and a machine gun on an Alpha Jet doesn't make it really a fighter jet. You can also mount a machine gun and a rocket launcher on a truck, but that doesn't mean that every truck is a combat engine.
Alpha jets were used mainly for pilot training, for observation flights and sometimes (they are two-seated!) as some kind of very fast air-cab. They are not armoured, so their combat value is nearly nil.
Like it or not DRM restricts what you can do with your files. When you try to do something the copyright holders have forbidden, even the best DRM system will be plenty visible.
And that's exactly what's wrong with DRM. There is a legal frame what you can do with a Work of Art, and this frame is set by the legislators, not by the copyright holders. DRM rules are defined by the copyright holders, and they might or might not conform to the legal framework. But there is no recourse for us to bring them to match. DRM allows copyright holders to do things with our copies they are simply not entitled to do.
Of course there is something to see here, namely a complete miscomprehension what Open Source is about.
If everyone including Linus Thorwalds suddenly stops developping the next Linux kernel, the kernel itself won't vanish. Its sources are everywhere on mirrors, CD-ROMs, on servers etc.pp. So everyone is still able to compile a new kernel for his own machines if necessary. So maybe there would be no new drivers for the Linux kernel if no one is developping it, but the vast amout of code already done can be used by everyone.
So no: Open Source will not vanish. Maybe the development could slow down a little, but what do programmers with their time while they are unemployed? Drinking beer? Watching TV? Or start to code the little pet project they were thinking about the last five years and never had the time to work on?
I agree..kind of like the consensus of most western nations, that Saddam in Iraq had and was further pursuing WMD's. It was a shock to everyone when for the most part they couldn't be found.
This consensus was never there. It was an U.S.-only phenomenon. After Colin Powell's presentation at the Security Council the head of the Council at this time, Joschka Fischer, said: "It didn't convince us." So no, except for the U.S. no one ever thought much about the WMDs in Iraq.
Just a bunch of crusty old UNIX admins talking about shells and tops and process quotas.
Doesn't look as if it has changed the last 20 years.
That's why it is called RAID Level Zero: Zero Redundancy.
No implemented perpetuum mobile in existance was close to what self sustained energy source really means. If you're an idealist, a perpetuum mobile is still the best energy source out there, in theory. Unfortunately, it's the hardest to implement in practice.
It didn't work in 1861, why should it work now?
Ok. For the german readers here a translation:
Zwei Kartoffeln saßen im Backofen.
Die erste Kartoffel sagte: "Es ist sehr heiß!"
Da sagte die zweite Kartoffel: "Du meine Güte! Eine sprechende Kartoffel!"
The literal translation of "to welcome someone" is "jemanden willkommen heißen", but I shortened that to "begrüßen".
Ich zumindest begrüße unsere neuen Oberhäupter.
NAT is a hassle, when it comes to more complex protocols than simple TCP. I've worked at a customer site which had a slightly... lets put it like this... unorthodox allocation of internal IP addresses. They just gave every site a 10.X.0.0/16, and then they had more than 256 sites (it's a large retailer, that's why). So they started expanding (yes I know, shame on them) into the 9.0.0.0/8 and 8.0.0.0/8 space.
When they bought a company in another country, the sysadmins there absolutely refused to route those nets into the VPN (right they were). So now the customer starts heavily to NAT, so the new company never sees any internal 9.0.0.0/8 and 8.0.0.0/8 addresses.
And now lots of things break. Videoconferencing and VoIP are among the worst offenders, but some complex logistics software they use is playing silly buggers too. And with more than 256 sites it's just not feasible to start readdressing all the IPs. They just don't have the people to do it, and they don't have the time to do it (it has to happen all at once, otherwise just more applications break during the transition period), and they don't have the money to hire enough external people to do it.
It's a lesson why violating RFC1918 never was a good idea, but it is also a lesson that NAT gets you only so far.
You obviously don't live in the mountains. Here not using the engine for braking is a sure recipe to roast your brakes and have a pedal response like pudding after 10 mls, and yes, we here have slopes of 20 or 30 mls. Coming down from Timmelsjoch to Haiming we start out at ~7500 ft and after nearly 6000 ft we reach Haiming at an altitude of 1800 ft. If you ever plan to do that with only the brakes please send me a message upfront, so I can avoid driving there that day.
I am using my engine for braking all the time, it has now 80,000 mls, no sign of wear and tear, and I have replaced the brake discs once.
Still it's the cleaning staff who gets convicted for arson. And with an underage kid you are responsible for everything he does because he is underage. If they were someone else's kids driving your car, their parents have to pay you for the wreckage (even if you are responsible for the damage done by your car).
Yes, the government is responsible for due diligence, it is responsible to get its helper (may they be external companies or the own staff) to conform to data protection regulation. It is even responsible to recover the lost data and shield the persons affected by the data loss against harm.
But nevertheless: It was an incompetent, privately owned company losing the data, and not a government.
If you burn the office of the premier minister, it's not as if the premier minister has committed arson. If a privately owned company loses data, it's the company which loses the data, independent of the rightfull owner of it.
Modern crypto can't warranty the non observation of the signal by a third party.
It's a simple Pareto distribution. It has nothing to do with "being told to like". And a Pareto distribution has interesting properties: If the number of possible events increases (and it does, if more and more people are starting to create music), then the relative probability of the top n% increases! So yes, in a certain way larger and larger audiences for the top n% of music means, that more and more people are becoming music producers themselves.
There is a solution: Split all the costs between the parties, and in the relation as they had to back away from their initial positions.
If I sue Big Company Inc. for 5 billion, and in the end I get awarded 50,000, I have lost 99,999% of my initial claim, so I pay 99,999% of the cost. If Big Company Inc. sues me for 5 billion, and in the end they get 50,000, they pay 99,999% of the cost.
An East German politican (Steffen Heitmann, whoever knows him ;) ) said about the German reunion:
We wanted justice, and we got the rule of law.
No. To be an aster it must be able to sustain nuclear fusion. Because "astera" is latin and means "star".
And yes: Asteroids are literally "star-like thingies".
The founding fathers of Israel were considered terrorists by the british administration of Palestine. And they in fact did bomb the King David Hotel, a clearly terroristic act. And Menachem Begin, head of the Irgun, the organization responsible for the attact, is... a Peace Nobel Prize Laureat!
So wherever you look in the Middle East Conflict: Terrorists are everywhere. Blaming it all on Arafat is pretty cheap.