Re:Not to self-aggrandize...
on
Is IP Property?
·
· Score: 1
I agree completely that the current election system is very screwed up
and that it is effectively impossible to have more than two parties.
Many of the current problems like the continual worsening of IP laws are
unlikely to improve under the two-party system, where both sides have
effectively sold out to big business lobbyists. However, much better
than simple runoff voting is a related method called Condorcet voting:
electionmethods.org.
This link is well worth a read and I think it is what we need.
Urgently.
Could you please cite your evidence this claim? I don't doubt it, but it'd help your argument, as well as help educate people such as myself who hadn't heard of this before.
According to Unix Administration Handbook, 3rd ed.:
"Linux pays attention to the type-of-service (TOS) bits in IP packets
and gives faster service to packets that are labeled as interactive (low
latency). Jammin'! Unfortunately, brain damage on the part of
Microsoft necessitates that you turn off this perfectly reasonable
behavior."
"All packets originating on Windows 95, 98, NT, and 2000 are labeled as
being interactive, no matter what their purpose.... If your Linux
gateway serves a mixed network of UNIX and Windows systems, the Windows
packets will consistently get preferential treatment. The performance
hit for UNIX can be quite noticeable."
In other words, MS's TCP/IP just hogs the network unconditionally
with highest priority, forcing others to do the same if they want any
throughput. It makes sensible prioritizing of network traffic flow
based on the TOS bits impossible, and essentially renders them useless.
One could speculate they did this because they wanted to claim "improved
performance" in a mixed Windows/Unix environment, or possibly it was
just incompetence or laziness on the part of their programmers. On the
other hand, it's not like they set them to a random priority, but
instead chose "highest", which makes you think they were just being the
bullies on the block to get what they wanted
with complete disregard to others and certainly with no
spirit of cooperation.
My semi-technical site (sorry, I won't tell you what it is - the is my only semi-anonymous
haven) got mention
in a slashdot comment on Sep. 2 (no, it wasn't me spamming!), causing
many (around 1100 extra) hits. Here are the Sep. results so far, with
72.5% of Sep. hits from coming from slashdot:
There is speculation that the election of Nebraska
Republican Chuck Hagel could have been rigged by electronic voting
machines, but there's no way to prove or disprove it since there's no paper trail. But with purposely programmed-in cheats
like this one it makes you wonder. Excerpts
from this article by Thom Hartmann:
"Perhaps it's just a coincidence that the sudden rise of inaccurate
exit polls happened around the same time corporate-programmed,
computer-controlled, modem-capable voting machines began recording and
tabulating ballots..."
Unfortunately "...if any of [it] is true, there's not much of a paper
trail from the voters' hand to prove it..."
"Back when Hagel first ran there for the U.S. Senate in 1996, his
company's computer-controlled voting machines showed he'd won stunning
upsets in both the primaries and the general election. The Washington
Post (1/13/1997) said Hagel's "Senate victory against an incumbent
Democratic governor was the major Republican upset in the November
election." According to Bev Harris of www.blackboxvoting.com, Hagel won
virtually every demographic group, including many largely Black
communities that had never before voted Republican. Hagel was the first
Republican in 24 years to win a Senate seat in Nebraska."
"Six years later Hagel ran again, this time against Democrat Charlie
Matulka in 2002, and won in a landslide. As his hagel.senate.gov
website says, Hagel "was re-elected to his second term in the United
States Senate on November 5, 2002 with 83% of the vote. That represents
the biggest political victory in the history of Nebraska."
"What Hagel's website fails to disclose is that about 80 percent of those
votes were counted by computer-controlled voting machines put in place
by the company affiliated with Hagel. Built by that company.
Programmed by that company...."
What I hate about Crimson and virtually every other text editor is that it lacks the following behavior: If I have a 10-character line and I click in the
middle at column 40 say, the cursor should
instantly go to
column 40, dammit, so I can start typing at that point
(internally filling the line with spaces up to
that point if that is the editor's model). And
combine this with an option to strip trailing spaces
on exit, of course. Mansfield KEDIT for Windows is the only
editor I know of with this behavior (unfortunately
it costs $$). Basically its model is a giant
xy plane of blank space where you can start typing
anywhere you click your cursor. I don't know of any other editor, Linux or Windows,
with this behavior.
Does anyone know of another editor with this
feature?
Another feature many text editors lack is rectangular block cut-and-paste. (KEDIT
has this btw).
When I buy my videogames, I rarely install them, instead preferring to
find a cracked version first, so I don't have to deal with all of the
crap, like unwanted driver installations, that I don't know if I'm
getting.
It is a sad statement on the industry when we have to trust pirated
versions more than can trust the original. In the past, the integrity
of the manufacturer and possibility of trojans in pirated versions
were reasons enough to pay good money for the original.
I don't play computer games but my son is practically addicted. I am
so fed up with his constant complaints about games that crash in the
middle, scratched CDs that no longer work right but the mfr refuses to
replace for a reasonable fee, games where he misplaced the CD key so they're
useless, games that don't even run on his computer for some reason but
the store won't refund them because the seal is broken (except once at
Circuit City when I got so angry that I started yelling and practically
made a federal case out of it), that I now just look the other way when
he gets his games by some other means. I've resigned myself to the fact
I'll have to periodically reformat his disk and reinstall Windows, and
other than that I've told him I'm not going to get involved with his
game problems.
While I think Google is a great company, if you are thinking of investing
you should really look very carefully at what is happening to your
money. Please read my
earlierposts
on this.
For each $100 you invest in Google stock, only $5 to $10 directly
benefits the actual company Google itself (from your point of view,
looking at your percentage of ownership in the company). The rest is
in effect a commission that goes to the officers and directors. In
effect 90% of your money goes to them!
The (now public) company Google is in effect paying them,
via stock,
multibillion dollar bonuses, which is
far, far greater than the "normal" compensation
of executives of public corporations.
Google will have to increase its
assets by 10 to 20 times before you will break even, much less get a
positive return on investment. You'll get better odds and a much
lower "house take" in Las Vegas.
This is not to say that their greed is right
or wrong. But I think you should be very aware
of this before actually plunking down your
hard-earned money.
Look at it another way: for each $100 you invest in Google, only $5 to
$10 directly benefits Google itself (from your point of view, looking at
your percentage of ownership in the company). The rest is essentially a
commission that goes to the officers and directors. Granted they worked
hard to make Google into a great company, but do they really deserve
that much compensation? The public complains bitterly about
greed and ethics when CEOs of major corporations get $10 million
bonuses, but here these people are effectively getting
multibillion dollar bonuses and no one blinks an eye.
To me this is a scam that is fleecing the public, and it is sad they
are being hyped into this. Google will have to increase its assets by
10 to 20 times before they will even break even, much less get a
positive return on investment. Perhaps it will happen - it's a gamble,
of course - but you'll get far better odds and a much lower "house take"
in Las Vegas. Most likely these people are just going to lose money in
the long run. To me this is an example of greed and public stupidity at
its worst (well, at its best if you are one of the lucky few).
If you are interested in this, remember that the public is getting only
a tiny fraction of the 268 million shares outstanding. Several of the
officers and directors will each individually own more than the entire
public offering combined. See the prospectus.
If indeed it fetches around $135 per share, it will
create quite a few instant multibillionaires. Now, is this a fair
price, or is everyone getting caught up in the hype? I certainly have
respect for Google. But if you're thinking of using your money to make
these guys obscenely rich, you should at least read the prospectus very,
very carefully before making your decision.
Design into the app, up front, the ability for every function and
transaction to be scripted. Have diagnostic hooks that can interrogate
that can interrogate and verify the state of the app, verify the
integrity of database transactions, etc. Then all of the testing can be
automated except for the GUI itself.
As a bonus you'll end up with a scriptable app that advanced users
will love.
I am almost certain it was Diebold. While I can't recall specifically
that the 1999 machines were Diebold, I do know that Diebold was used by
this bank for many years around that time. All machines that I recall
had a very prominent "Diebold" logo ever since the machines were
introduced in the 1970's. I don't recall any other vendor.
By the way I suspect that historically the reason for the embedded
PIN was that I think (I'm not positive of course) that early machines
did not "phone home" to check the PIN but instead were stand-alone
machines. Back then you could not use the card more than once per day
(probably the usage date was written to the stripe), with a rather low
maximum withdrawal of a couple hundred dollars or something, and a "cash
reserve" credit approval was required for all ATM accounts. Those are
my clues.
Around 1999 or so, the ATM cards of BankBoston (now Fleet or something)
actually had the PIN number stored in plain text in the magnetic
stripe. You could go to the Computer Museum in Boston and use the
magnetic stripe reader they had on display for people to play with, and
see your PIN number in the displayed text on a monitor connected to the
reader. I got nowhere when reporting this to BankBoston. I felt like I
was beating my head against the wall talking to idiots. Their basic
response was that it was extremely irresponsible and probably illegal
(or at least should be) for the Computer Museum to have a card reader
exhibit, that the public does not have a right to see proprietary
information embedded in the magnetic stripe. They just could not seem
to grasp the basic security problem - if the card was lost or stolen,
the "protection" afforded by the PIN number was essentially useless. It
was the ultimate security by obscurity.
I would hope they've finally recognized the problem and fixed it now,
but I haven't checked recently. Actually I would be very surprised if
at some point this wasn't discovered by not-so-friendly people, forcing
them to address the issue, but this would be the kind of suppressed
stuff you wouldn't find in their press releases.
...so long as you dont care that... b) Some alternative minima are
missed
The problem of local minima is often significant. A good analogy is
real genetics - each species has evolved into a "local minima" for
likelihood of extinction. If the wings on a given type of butterfly
become slightly larger or smaller there will typically be a
survivability penalty of some kind, and wing size has stabilized at the
optimum for that species. But look at the difference in possible local
minima: in one case it results in a whale, and in another it results in
toenail fungus. Neither could survive if suddenly given some of the
characteristics of the other. A beautiful orchid is a local minimum,
and so is pond slime. Your genetic algorithm could decide that pond
slime is the optimal product, and the difference can impact your
ornamental plant business due to subjective things like beauty that
can't be quantified.
If this is a textbook about basic math, it's been done routinely, with
minor notational differences perhaps, for more than a century.
Certainly there are good, even great, math books that are now public
domain. I would suggest picking one and copying it verbatim as a
starting point. That author has already done the hard part. From there
modernize it, improve it, add new stuff to it, turn it into something
even greater than the orginal author produced.
As it stands now, it seems to be wandering inefficiently in random
directions and it will probably be a long time before something coherent
and useful emerges. Why reinvent the wheel?
If upon transmission, the restriction of copyright on the use of works
is negated, then few things will be transmitted, hurting everyone in the
process.
This is an interesting hypothetical. Let's say that a law was
passed, as the grandparent suggested, that anything broadcast to the
general public, over the public airwaves, automatically became public
domain. (The basis for the law would be that you can do anything you
want with unsolicited material that is transmitted into your home, just
as you can do whatever you want with free samples you get in the mail.)
My prediction is that initially, because of the shock of this new law,
and perhaps to protest it, all RIAA companies would immediately pull all
their materials from the airways, and the silence on the airways would
be deafening. As a result, sales would plummet. Very soon they would
"get" the cause and effect connection, and they cautiously start to
release a little material here and there, even though (because of this
new law) it would become public domain. Soon they would discover that
people would buy the CDs anyway of the music that's broadcast, and would
rarely buy CDs of "protected" music that was never broadcast. As a
matter of survival, radio would probably eventually revert to
essentially the state it's in now and you would hardly know the
difference.
Alternately, the RIAA companies would continue with their pigheaded
attitude and keep everything off the airwaves permanently. The result
is that they would all go out of business, and independent companies
who realize the RIAA's folly would breath new air into the industry.
One specific example is installing a private certificate server. On
Linux it essentially involves 3 CLI commands. On Windows 2000 it is a
tortuous exercise in point-and-click. Here are the exact details:
Installing a private certificate server, Linux version:
Edit/etc/httpd/conf/httpd.conf and change "<VirtualHost _default_:443>"
to "<VirtualHost 192.168.10.200:443>"
[root@dts conf]# cd/etc/httpd/conf/ssl.key
[root@dts ssl.key]# openssl genrsa -out server.key 1024
[root@dts ssl.key]# cd../ssl.crt
[root@dts ssl.crt]# openssl req -new -key../ssl.key/server.key -x509 -out server.crt
Country Name (2 letter code) [AU]:US
State or Province Name (full name) [Some-State]:New York
There is no good tools (screenreaders) to read PDF's, and adobe has
had their project on the back burner for the last few years.. I have
now dropped most of the PDF use at our company.
I'm not sure what this has to do with nanotubes, but...
If the PDF is a scanned document, then it's really just an image file,
like a GIF, and not an inherent problem with PDF. A Word document with
a giant GIF of the text embedded would have the same problem, so why
would the issue be any different?
If the PDF is generated from LaTeX with pdflatex (I'm not familiar
with other PDF generation tools) then in Acrobat you can select all,
copy, and paste into a text editor - just tried it. Math symbols don't
come out, but it's readable for non-math stuff.
One thing to consider when making a donation to a project requesting
donations is whether the author gives a full accounting of all
moneys received.
I make donations to many organizations and projects, but there is a
limited amount of money I have to donate, and I have to decide how to
best allocate this money. If a project is very popular, there are more
people who are likely to donate. If the developer
of a wildly popular little utility is getting rich as a
result of the donations, then great for him/her, but I don't see the
need for an additional donation from me. The money would be better
spent on a project that I think is important and useful but which is not
so popular.
For a good example of a project with a policy of full disclosure, see
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Donation% 20Box.
An important feature of this site is that everyone
can see their own donations, even if anonymous,
so there is less likelihood to cheat and claim
poverty when the opposite might be true.
Interesting quote from the paper (p. 3 of the PDF file):
This work is the outcome of about twenty years of "on and off" search and
research on this and the related binary Goldbach problem; in the interim having
been lured onto various misleading paths or frustrated by (for me) insurmountable
difficulties, before ultimately recognizing and constructing a workable approach.
There is another consideration concerning outsourcing to a country with
more liberal or less stringently enforced copyright laws. In such a
country, developers are more likely to use "pirated" development tools
when working with proprietary OS's, so their setup cost for doing the
work becomes much less. US companies, on the other hand, will almost
always pay for their development tools because the draconian penalties
for getting caught just aren't worth the risk. This makes it even more
difficult for US companies to compete.
With free open source software, on the other hand, US companies can
start off with one less disadvantage compared to their foreign competitors.
The very first thing I install is Cygwin. Without it I don't
feel like I have a "real" computer.
One annoying thing with Cygwin is that they expect you to install it
from the Internet, which can be slow depending on your connection. They
don't tell you how to install it from a CD, but it is possible. I
finally found out how to
do it (bookmark this link -- for me it was very
hard to find, even with Google!:). After
discovering how to do this life is much more pleasant.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree completely that the current election system is very screwed up and that it is effectively impossible to have more than two parties. Many of the current problems like the continual worsening of IP laws are unlikely to improve under the two-party system, where both sides have effectively sold out to big business lobbyists. However, much better than simple runoff voting is a related method called Condorcet voting: electionmethods.org. This link is well worth a read and I think it is what we need. Urgently.
According to Unix Administration Handbook, 3rd ed.:
"Linux pays attention to the type-of-service (TOS) bits in IP packets and gives faster service to packets that are labeled as interactive (low latency). Jammin'! Unfortunately, brain damage on the part of Microsoft necessitates that you turn off this perfectly reasonable behavior."
"All packets originating on Windows 95, 98, NT, and 2000 are labeled as being interactive, no matter what their purpose.... If your Linux gateway serves a mixed network of UNIX and Windows systems, the Windows packets will consistently get preferential treatment. The performance hit for UNIX can be quite noticeable."
In other words, MS's TCP/IP just hogs the network unconditionally with highest priority, forcing others to do the same if they want any throughput. It makes sensible prioritizing of network traffic flow based on the TOS bits impossible, and essentially renders them useless. One could speculate they did this because they wanted to claim "improved performance" in a mixed Windows/Unix environment, or possibly it was just incompetence or laziness on the part of their programmers. On the other hand, it's not like they set them to a random priority, but instead chose "highest", which makes you think they were just being the bullies on the block to get what they wanted with complete disregard to others and certainly with no spirit of cooperation.
36.97%=Mozilla/5.0 ; 33.65%=MSIE 6.0 ; 6.45%=Pompos/1.3 http://dir.com/pompos.html ; 6.40%=msnbot/0.11 (+http://search.msn.com/msnbot.htm) ; 2.71%=Opera 7.5 ; 2.46%=Yahoo! Slurp ; 2.41%=Googlebot/2.1 (+http://www.google.com/bot.html) ; 1.93%=psbot/0.1 (+http://www.picsearch.com/bot.html) ; 1.49%=MSIE 5.5 ; 0.87%=Konqueror/3.2 ; 0.80%=Mozilla/3.01 (compatible;) ; 0.56%=Konqueror/3.3 ; 0.50%=MSIE 5.0 ; 0.43%=Konqueror/3.1 ; 0.41%=Opera 7.2
Here are the more normal Aug. results with about 0% hits coming from slashdot:
46.89%=MSIE 6.0 ; 16.82%=Mozilla/5.0 ; 7.92%=msnbot/0.11 (+http://search.msn.com/msnbot.htm) ; 6.50%=Googlebot/2.1 (+http://www.google.com/bot.html) ; 3.55%=Ask Jeeves/Teoma)" ; 3.14%=MSIE 5.0 ; 2.67%=Pompos/1.3 http://dir.com/pompos.html ; 1.86%=MSIE 5.5 ; 1.82%=psbot/0.1 (+http://www.picsearch.com/bot.html) ; 1.27%=HTTrack 3.0 ; 1.05%=Yahoo! Slurp ; 0.93%=Mozilla/3.01 (compatible;) ; 0.88%=Opera 7.5
Here's what I got when selecting my state on i-neighbors.org:
Fatal error: Maximum execution time of 30 seconds exceeded in F:\ineighbors\inc\e_table.inc on line 194
He needs some help.
"Perhaps it's just a coincidence that the sudden rise of inaccurate exit polls happened around the same time corporate-programmed, computer-controlled, modem-capable voting machines began recording and tabulating ballots..."
Unfortunately "...if any of [it] is true, there's not much of a paper trail from the voters' hand to prove it..."
"Back when Hagel first ran there for the U.S. Senate in 1996, his company's computer-controlled voting machines showed he'd won stunning upsets in both the primaries and the general election. The Washington Post (1/13/1997) said Hagel's "Senate victory against an incumbent Democratic governor was the major Republican upset in the November election." According to Bev Harris of www.blackboxvoting.com, Hagel won virtually every demographic group, including many largely Black communities that had never before voted Republican. Hagel was the first Republican in 24 years to win a Senate seat in Nebraska."
"Six years later Hagel ran again, this time against Democrat Charlie Matulka in 2002, and won in a landslide. As his hagel.senate.gov website says, Hagel "was re-elected to his second term in the United States Senate on November 5, 2002 with 83% of the vote. That represents the biggest political victory in the history of Nebraska."
"What Hagel's website fails to disclose is that about 80 percent of those votes were counted by computer-controlled voting machines put in place by the company affiliated with Hagel. Built by that company. Programmed by that company...."
Another feature many text editors lack is rectangular block cut-and-paste. (KEDIT has this btw).
It is a sad statement on the industry when we have to trust pirated versions more than can trust the original. In the past, the integrity of the manufacturer and possibility of trojans in pirated versions were reasons enough to pay good money for the original.
I don't play computer games but my son is practically addicted. I am so fed up with his constant complaints about games that crash in the middle, scratched CDs that no longer work right but the mfr refuses to replace for a reasonable fee, games where he misplaced the CD key so they're useless, games that don't even run on his computer for some reason but the store won't refund them because the seal is broken (except once at Circuit City when I got so angry that I started yelling and practically made a federal case out of it), that I now just look the other way when he gets his games by some other means. I've resigned myself to the fact I'll have to periodically reformat his disk and reinstall Windows, and other than that I've told him I'm not going to get involved with his game problems.
For each $100 you invest in Google stock, only $5 to $10 directly benefits the actual company Google itself (from your point of view, looking at your percentage of ownership in the company). The rest is in effect a commission that goes to the officers and directors. In effect 90% of your money goes to them! The (now public) company Google is in effect paying them, via stock, multibillion dollar bonuses, which is far, far greater than the "normal" compensation of executives of public corporations. Google will have to increase its assets by 10 to 20 times before you will break even, much less get a positive return on investment. You'll get better odds and a much lower "house take" in Las Vegas.
This is not to say that their greed is right or wrong. But I think you should be very aware of this before actually plunking down your hard-earned money.
To me this is a scam that is fleecing the public, and it is sad they are being hyped into this. Google will have to increase its assets by 10 to 20 times before they will even break even, much less get a positive return on investment. Perhaps it will happen - it's a gamble, of course - but you'll get far better odds and a much lower "house take" in Las Vegas. Most likely these people are just going to lose money in the long run. To me this is an example of greed and public stupidity at its worst (well, at its best if you are one of the lucky few).
If you are interested in this, remember that the public is getting only a tiny fraction of the 268 million shares outstanding. Several of the officers and directors will each individually own more than the entire public offering combined. See the prospectus. If indeed it fetches around $135 per share, it will create quite a few instant multibillionaires. Now, is this a fair price, or is everyone getting caught up in the hype? I certainly have respect for Google. But if you're thinking of using your money to make these guys obscenely rich, you should at least read the prospectus very, very carefully before making your decision.
As a bonus you'll end up with a scriptable app that advanced users will love.
I am almost certain it was Diebold. While I can't recall specifically that the 1999 machines were Diebold, I do know that Diebold was used by this bank for many years around that time. All machines that I recall had a very prominent "Diebold" logo ever since the machines were introduced in the 1970's. I don't recall any other vendor.
By the way I suspect that historically the reason for the embedded PIN was that I think (I'm not positive of course) that early machines did not "phone home" to check the PIN but instead were stand-alone machines. Back then you could not use the card more than once per day (probably the usage date was written to the stripe), with a rather low maximum withdrawal of a couple hundred dollars or something, and a "cash reserve" credit approval was required for all ATM accounts. Those are my clues.
I would hope they've finally recognized the problem and fixed it now, but I haven't checked recently. Actually I would be very surprised if at some point this wasn't discovered by not-so-friendly people, forcing them to address the issue, but this would be the kind of suppressed stuff you wouldn't find in their press releases.
Then you obviously don't have kids. If I had $49.95 for each disc my kid has managed to ruin, I'd be rich. Oh wait, that's why I'm not rich.
The problem of local minima is often significant. A good analogy is real genetics - each species has evolved into a "local minima" for likelihood of extinction. If the wings on a given type of butterfly become slightly larger or smaller there will typically be a survivability penalty of some kind, and wing size has stabilized at the optimum for that species. But look at the difference in possible local minima: in one case it results in a whale, and in another it results in toenail fungus. Neither could survive if suddenly given some of the characteristics of the other. A beautiful orchid is a local minimum, and so is pond slime. Your genetic algorithm could decide that pond slime is the optimal product, and the difference can impact your ornamental plant business due to subjective things like beauty that can't be quantified.
As it stands now, it seems to be wandering inefficiently in random directions and it will probably be a long time before something coherent and useful emerges. Why reinvent the wheel?
This is an interesting hypothetical. Let's say that a law was passed, as the grandparent suggested, that anything broadcast to the general public, over the public airwaves, automatically became public domain. (The basis for the law would be that you can do anything you want with unsolicited material that is transmitted into your home, just as you can do whatever you want with free samples you get in the mail.) My prediction is that initially, because of the shock of this new law, and perhaps to protest it, all RIAA companies would immediately pull all their materials from the airways, and the silence on the airways would be deafening. As a result, sales would plummet. Very soon they would "get" the cause and effect connection, and they cautiously start to release a little material here and there, even though (because of this new law) it would become public domain. Soon they would discover that people would buy the CDs anyway of the music that's broadcast, and would rarely buy CDs of "protected" music that was never broadcast. As a matter of survival, radio would probably eventually revert to essentially the state it's in now and you would hardly know the difference.
Alternately, the RIAA companies would continue with their pigheaded attitude and keep everything off the airwaves permanently. The result is that they would all go out of business, and independent companies who realize the RIAA's folly would breath new air into the industry.
While it's interesting in a crude sort of way, it just doesn't capture the intensity, spirit, and complexity of the real thing. You might want to look at what it's trying to imitate. Some samples: Kadinsky, Composition VIII (1923) , Kadinsky, Yellow-Red-Blue (1925), Kandinsky, Decisive Pink (1932). Wouldn't you rather have these on your wall?
(sorry for this - I couldn't get it posted otherwise - even if I put this at the end) defeating1 lameness1 filter1 defeating2 lameness2 filter2 defeating3 lameness3 filter3 defeating4 lameness4 filter4 defeating5 lameness5 filter5 defeating6 lameness6 filter6 defeating7 lameness7 filter7 defeating8 lameness8 filter8 defeating9 lameness9 filter9 defeating10 lameness10 filter10 defeating11 lameness11 filter11 defeating12 lameness12 filter12 defeating13 lameness13 filter13 defeating14 lameness14 filter14 defeating15 lameness15 filter15 defeating16 lameness16 filter16 defeating17 lameness17 filter17 defeating18 lameness18 filter18 defeating19 lameness19 filter19 defeating20 lameness20 filter20 defeating21 lameness21 filter21 defeating22 lameness22 filter22 defeating23 lameness23 filter23 defeating24 lameness24 filter24 defeating25 lameness25 filter25 defeating26 lameness26 filter26 defeating27 lameness27 filter27 defeating28 lameness28 filter28 defeating29 lameness29 filter29 defeating30 lameness30 filter30 defeating31 lameness31 filter31 defeating32 lameness32 filter32 defeating33 lameness33 filter33 defeating34 lameness34 filter34 defeating35 lameness35 filter35 defeating36 lameness36 filter36 defeating37 lameness37 filter37 defeating38 lameness38 filter38 defeating39 lameness39 filter39 defeating40 lameness40 filter40 defeating41 lameness41 filter41 defeating42 lameness42 filter42 defeating43 lameness43 filter43 defeating44 lameness44 filter44 defeating45 lameness45 filter45 defeating46 lameness46 filter46 defeating47 lameness47 filter47 defeating48 lameness48 filter48 defeating49 lameness49 filter49 defeating50 lameness50 filter50 defeating51 lameness51 filter51 defeating52 lameness52 filter52 defeating53 lameness53 filter53 defeating54 lameness54 filter54 defeating55 lameness55 filter55 defeating56 lameness56 filter56 defeating57 lameness57 filter57 defeating58 lameness58 filter58 defeating59 lameness59 filter59 defeating60 lameness60 filter60 defeating61 lameness61 filter61 defeating62 lameness62 filter62 defeating63 lameness63 filter63 defeating64 lameness64 filter64 defeating65 lameness65 filter65 defeating66 lameness66 filter66 defeating67 lameness67 filter67 defeating68 lameness68 filter68 defeating69 lameness69 filter69 defeating70 lameness70 filter70 defeating71 lameness71 filter71 defeating72 lameness72 filter72 defeating73 lameness73 filter73 defeating74 lameness74 filter74 defeating75 lameness75 filter75 defeating76 lameness76 filter76 defeating77 lameness77 filter77 defeating78 lameness78 filter78 defeating79 lameness79 filter79 defeating80 lameness80 filter80 defeating81 lameness81 filter81 defeating82 lameness82 filter82 defeating83 lameness83 filter83 defeating84 lameness84 filter84 defeating85 lameness85 filter85 defeating86 lameness86 filter86 defeating87 lameness87 filter87 defeating88 lameness88 filter88 defeating89 lameness89 filter89 defeating90 lameness90 filter90 defeating91 lameness91 filter91 defeating92 lameness92 filter92 defeating93 lameness93 filter93 defeating94 lameness94 filter94 defeating95 lameness95 filter95 defeating96 lameness96 filter96 defeating97 lameness97 filter97 defeating98 lameness98 filter98 defeating99 lameness99 filter99 defeating100 lameness100 filter100
Installing a private certificate server, Linux version:
/etc/httpd/conf/httpd.conf and change "<VirtualHost _default_:443>"
/etc/httpd/conf/ssl.key
../ssl.crt
../ssl.key/server.key -x509 -out server.crt
Edit
to "<VirtualHost 192.168.10.200:443>"
[root@dts conf]# cd
[root@dts ssl.key]# openssl genrsa -out server.key 1024
[root@dts ssl.key]# cd
[root@dts ssl.crt]# openssl req -new -key
Country Name (2 letter code) [AU]:US
State or Province Name (full name) [Some-State]:New York
I'm not sure what this has to do with nanotubes, but...
If the PDF is a scanned document, then it's really just an image file, like a GIF, and not an inherent problem with PDF. A Word document with a giant GIF of the text embedded would have the same problem, so why would the issue be any different?
If the PDF is generated from LaTeX with pdflatex (I'm not familiar with other PDF generation tools) then in Acrobat you can select all, copy, and paste into a text editor - just tried it. Math symbols don't come out, but it's readable for non-math stuff.
I make donations to many organizations and projects, but there is a limited amount of money I have to donate, and I have to decide how to best allocate this money. If a project is very popular, there are more people who are likely to donate. If the developer of a wildly popular little utility is getting rich as a result of the donations, then great for him/her, but I don't see the need for an additional donation from me. The money would be better spent on a project that I think is important and useful but which is not so popular.
For a good example of a project with a policy of full disclosure, see http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Donation% 20Box.
An important feature of this site is that everyone
can see their own donations, even if anonymous,
so there is less likelihood to cheat and claim
poverty when the opposite might be true.
With free open source software, on the other hand, US companies can start off with one less disadvantage compared to their foreign competitors.
One annoying thing with Cygwin is that they expect you to install it from the Internet, which can be slow depending on your connection. They don't tell you how to install it from a CD, but it is possible. I finally found out how to do it (bookmark this link -- for me it was very hard to find, even with Google! :). After
discovering how to do this life is much more pleasant.