WebDAV -- a standard part of Apache 2 -- is the replacement for FTP. It only uses one TCP connection (HTTP extension), goes anywhere HTTP goes, can be used over HTTPS and thus be as secure as you like.
On the client side, it is already supported by KDE (use URLs like webdavs://server/dir/file.txt), GNOME, and MS Windows. There are also a few command-line clients, such as neon.
Transfering from one [lossy -mi] compressed form to another degrades the quality.
True. Although the degradation may still be beyond the capabilities of a human ear.
To keep the quality as high as possible the best way is to burn it then rip it as something else.
This, on the other hand, is beyond stupid. What you are suggesting, is just a hard way of transfering from one compressed form to another. That's it. It does not provide a better result than what is possible with a pure software conversion.
Of course, if your conversion software sucks, but your ripping software is top-notch, burn-and-rip will yield a better quality, but there is nothing inherently advantageous in the method.
Deir Yassin massacre, which was perpetrated by an Israeli mob against unarmed Arab civilians. The Israeli government never took responsibility for it and refused to prosecute the killers or even investigate the matter.
But you, of course know better in 2004... Arabs were so anti-Jewish, Jerusalem mufti was Hitler's ally before and during the WWII. Whatever. All I'm saying is, there was/is a conflict. A settlement was proposed by UN. Israelis accepted it, Arabs did not -- and five strong and populous countries attacked the newborn Israel.
They use high-explosive rockets to kill old men in wheelchairs.
One's "old man" is another's proven and self-admitted terrorist. There was only one such man killed in wheelchair, so "men" is a (usual) exaggeration.
They shoot little kids throwing rocks.
These are not peaceful civilians. A thrown rock would be considered deadly weapon anywere in the world.
They shoot peace activists, including Caucasian Britons and Americans, whom you can hardly mistake for Arab gunmen.
Actually, yes you can -- easily. But such shootings are not intentional, and Israel goes out of its way to avoid them. You would like to seem go farther, I don't see why they should. No Geneva convention calls for risking troops' lives for civilians.
They machine-gun carloads of innocent women and children.
Only when the cars fail to stop at a roadblock -- erected to prevent another terrorist act.
Their police execute captured criminals in the street instead of handing them over for trial.
Not aware of that one...
Elected or not, racist hatemongers like Sharon are to blame.
May be, the Israelis, who elected him and continue to support him (as the polls conducted after Yassin's death show), know something, you don't?
Decapitating the power structures of both sides is the only real "road map" to peace.
That's rather radical. Not sure about Palestinians, who now have Querie to lead them, Israelis will likely elect someone like Sharon -- he, and his policies are popular, like it or not. Arguably, Netanyahu -- the most probable replacement, will only be more aggressive.
The rest of the people just want to live in peace.
They'd rather see the other side dead. But they are willing to settle for peaceful co-existance... Israelis view the Palestinians as squatters on their ancestors' historical land. The Palestinians view the Israelis as invaders into their land. In 1946 UN tried to settle the long running dispute. Jews accepted the settlement (although grudgingly) and formed their state, the Arabs (there were no "Palestinians" then) chose war, which continues to this day -- over a piece of land less than 1/6 of 1% of the total territory of the "Arab world".
You seem to fall into the trap of equating the two sides. They are not equal. The Arab side has (re-)started all of the wars against Israel in the Israel's modern history -- beginning in 1948. They mostly continue to reject Israel's right to exist. Today's claims, that this is all about "the occupied territories" is utter crap -- Arafat et al formed the PLO (the self-proclaimed "sole representative of Palestinian people") in 1964 -- 3 years before the flare up of the war, in which Israel seized Gaza and the West Bank.
After being repeatedly defeated on the "conventional" battlefields, the Arabs shifted to bombings and otherwise targeting Israeli civilians -- what is called terrorism. Israel never intentionally targets peaceful Palestinian civilians. True, there are civilian casualties of the Israel's actions, but they are collateral damage -- hitting the peaceful civilians is never intended.
This makes for a big difference. Also, Sharon is a democraticly elected prime minister of the Middle East's only democracy. Arafat, well, you know, who he is... Equating the "two fat fucks" is wrong.
...and a theory-savvy scientist will allocate varchar(255) that in most cases is 3 bytes long but takes really variable sizes because IP address number bits aren't equiprobable.
Sorry, I can't understand this. You seem to have taken me as taking sides in the theory-vs.-practice debate. I don't...
The "equiprobable" part is crucial to the definition's correctness. And correctness is, well, just crucial;-)
According to the peace agreement of 1991, Saddam was supposed to prove, he did not have any. He was way past the "presumption of innocence".
He did not prove it. The UN inspectors (some of them quite hostile to the US, BTW) were still not convinced -- if anything, Saddam's tricks made them only more suspicious.
I never claimed 9/11 happend because of Bush.
Good for you to point it out. Because that is what follows from reading your earlier post and basic awareness of the very recent events:
Americans need to watch the border.
They do, because the world wants them obliterated.
The last attempt at such obliteration was "9/11".
You pity the 55% of those, who voted against "Bush and his lunacy".
You confirm that you consider "Bush and his lunacy" responsible for the world's perceived desire to see US obliterated. From the above, it is quite natural to conclude, that you hold them responsible for 9/11 as well.
I'm attacking US foreign policy in general.
Somehow, your attacks sound painfully partisan. May be, because you pitied the 55%, who voted for Gore, as if it was not under his vice-presidency, that the US foreign policy existed for 8 years... Or because you call Bush a lunatic. I don't know...
Our politicians think that if the Americans would just be nice to everyone all the time, everything would be just fine.
Maybe because this is mostly true.
It is impossible. A weak country can do this. A strong country can not. Sooner or later someone will ask for help against someone else. A weak country can say: "We can't". A strong one will have to take sides...
You can't be nice to Palestinians and Israelis at once, for example -- the want each other dead. Even a weaker country like Canada can't do so honestly...
considering a large portion of the world hates them enough to want the entire country obliterated. I truly feel sorry for the 55% of the population who voted against Bush and his lunacy.
The hatred started well before "Bush and his lunacy". Your trolling flamebait conveniently forgets, that "9/11" happened only 9 months into Bush's presidency -- after 8 years under Clinton...
According to bin Laden's ravings, "9/11" was our punishment for deploying in the holy land of Saudi Arabia, which we did to protect Kuwait -- a Muslim nation, BTW. Was that war also "a lunacy" to you?
You can not justify this hatred and you can not negotiate with such people.
So stop your pitiful preaching -- there are better ways to attack Bush.
BTW, Clinton/Gore did not get the majority vote either, AFAIK.
religion is built on crap like "sex is evil, sex is a sin"
I think, it only condemns sex not intended to produce children. And, from what I understand, it stems not from trying to force people to have less sex, but to encourage them to have more children...
I keep saying this, but nobody listens. Antarctica -- an entire continent is empty. The conditions are a lot more hospitable. And it is "Global Warming"-proof:-)
Why not colonize it properly first? I think, Chili and Argentina tried (to claim the territory) to pay their citizens to live there, but the settlements waned...
I guess the definition you use is taken from quantum computers
No. This is the definition. It comes from the discipline called Infomatics (or Information Theory) and, AFAIK, existed long before quantum computers.
In common computing, squeezing the "equiprobable" into the definition is plain redundant. The definition works equally well without it. True you need exactly one bit to store distinction between two equiprobable states. But if the states aren't equiprobable any less won't do and any more will be redundant.
But 200 bits can practically be squeezed into less if they are not equiprobable... If one needs too.
and every programmer will they prefer the little redundancy in average data size they handle just to keep the data units equal, over maintaining huffman tables to recover values from the huffman tree
These are practical engineering matters. I was talking about theoretical scientific ones.
Still, a theory-savvy engineer will realize, for example, he only needs 4 bytes to store an IP address, when, say, logging web-server hits to a database, but a theory-ignorant one will allocate CHAR(15), because he knows, that is faster than VARCHAR(15):-) Four bytes is almost the theoretical minimum (which is slightly less, because certain netblocks can never be seen) and practically is good enough...
Likewise with message digests. People are used to seeing their hex representations and most will allocate a CHAR(32) column for the md5 hashes (or a char[33] array), instead of the mere 16 bytes required. In this case, the absolute theoretical minimum is easily reachable.
In other words achieving the theoretical limits is not always impractically difficult. But a good engineer needs to be able to estimate the difference between his solution and the theoretical limits and make an informed decision on whether (and how far) to optimize. A good understanding of what "bit" is, is a requirement...
Programming and informatics are related, but not at all the same. Many "prolific" programmers, unfortunately, don't know the basics of informatics and thus create the stupidities like CHAR(15) DB columns intended to store IP addresses.
A byte, in my book, is 8 bits -- the amount of information needed to choose one option out of 256 equally probable ones.
From the article (talking about the unmanned "Fire Scout"):
"With the click of a mouse you can change its mission, or another aircraft can communicate with it and take control."
Here is one hoping, their encryption is up for it, and their SSL implementation is reliable. Otherwise, "man in the middle attack" may get a new meaning and that "another aircraft" may not be a friendly one...
My original request
was for a definition of bit as in "byte is 8 bits", so riding equipment does not fit. Read through other follow-ups, such as this
one, which offers links to both "meter" and "bit".
And yes, probability is important. Unequal probability of the options allows for amounts of information of less than a bit. For example, suppose Kerry has better chances to win the election. If I travel to the future, come back and tell you, he won indeed, that amount of information would be less than a bit. If I brought you the news, Bush will be the winner, that's more than a bit, because it seemed less probable today. Another example is telling someone, what they already know for sure -- that's just zero information, however many words were said.
This is why, BTW, archivers (zip, arj) can exist and are sometimes so efficient -- the data being compressed is never random and the values of each bit are not really equally probable.
O.K, sounds like a plan as long as you know how to take care of those children unfortunate enough to have only one parent through no fault of their own.
Or two poor parents, or no parents at all. Education is a necessity, just like food, shelter, medicine. Providing education to the poor should be no different from providing them with food.
Under libertarian ideals, these would all be done by private charities (who do quite a bit now anyway)...
Re:The bad side of course...
on
Weapons in Space
·
· Score: -1, Troll
We've spent billions of dollars on an unnecessary war...
Forcing a rogue regime down for violating an earlier peace agreement with us was quite necessary. It makes our future engagements with such regimes easier...
What about education, and jobs for Americans?
Neither of these should be the business of the government in my book. Sadly, both major parties disagree...
Not quite. "Binary digit" is not any harder to define, than a decimal or a hex one. But that is not the definition of bit. It is just the common representation. And no, it is not "the smallest amount of information possible" -- there is no such thing. And the two distinct values you mention have to be equally probable -- the crucial part of the definition...
Meter is currently being defined as the distance, light travels in vacuum in certain fraction of a second. See elsewhere in this thread for links.
The same logic justifies checking US citizens just as well.
Why limit the checks to airports? There are plenty of other choke-points. Let's check rail and bus travelers. We are already checking IDs of people entering federal buildings (including public schools). You see, it would be irresponsible not to check the fingerprints, once we have the technology to do that.
The question of "national ID", which Americans tend to reject, becomes moot by itself -- the fingerprint becomes the perfect ID. Nature (God?) issued, hard to modify and impossible to fake...
I think, the grandparent post meant "Linux software other than Linux distros themselves". Does Best Buy stock office, firewall, dictionary, encyclopedia, publishing solutions for Linux? (I know, they exist, but Best Buy does not stock them, which was, I believe the point.)
Slashdot Mirror
WebDAV -- a standard part of Apache 2 -- is the replacement for FTP. It only uses one TCP connection (HTTP extension), goes anywhere HTTP goes, can be used over HTTPS and thus be as secure as you like.
On the client side, it is already supported by KDE (use URLs like webdavs://server/dir/file.txt), GNOME, and MS Windows. There are also a few command-line clients, such as neon.
True. Although the degradation may still be beyond the capabilities of a human ear.
This, on the other hand, is beyond stupid. What you are suggesting, is just a hard way of transfering from one compressed form to another. That's it. It does not provide a better result than what is possible with a pure software conversion.
Of course, if your conversion software sucks, but your ripping software is top-notch, burn-and-rip will yield a better quality, but there is nothing inherently advantageous in the method.
I'm afraid, you don't know, what "bit" is :-)
Could someone come and claim, that you are stealing the power from the power company(ies) -- or whatever organization(s), that built the two dams?
Someone had to point it out...
I know, MacOS was born out of FreeBSD, but it is not the same thing, and I don't believe Yahoo! is using it anyway.
But you, of course know better in 2004... Arabs were so anti-Jewish, Jerusalem mufti was Hitler's ally before and during the WWII. Whatever. All I'm saying is, there was/is a conflict. A settlement was proposed by UN. Israelis accepted it, Arabs did not -- and five strong and populous countries attacked the newborn Israel.
They use high-explosive rockets to kill old men in wheelchairs. One's "old man" is another's proven and self-admitted terrorist. There was only one such man killed in wheelchair, so "men" is a (usual) exaggeration. They shoot little kids throwing rocks. These are not peaceful civilians. A thrown rock would be considered deadly weapon anywere in the world. They shoot peace activists, including Caucasian Britons and Americans, whom you can hardly mistake for Arab gunmen. Actually, yes you can -- easily. But such shootings are not intentional, and Israel goes out of its way to avoid them. You would like to seem go farther, I don't see why they should. No Geneva convention calls for risking troops' lives for civilians. They machine-gun carloads of innocent women and children. Only when the cars fail to stop at a roadblock -- erected to prevent another terrorist act. Their police execute captured criminals in the street instead of handing them over for trial. Not aware of that one...May be, the Israelis, who elected him and continue to support him (as the polls conducted after Yassin's death show), know something, you don't?
That's rather radical. Not sure about Palestinians, who now have Querie to lead them, Israelis will likely elect someone like Sharon -- he, and his policies are popular, like it or not. Arguably, Netanyahu -- the most probable replacement, will only be more aggressive.
They'd rather see the other side dead. But they are willing to settle for peaceful co-existance... Israelis view the Palestinians as squatters on their ancestors' historical land. The Palestinians view the Israelis as invaders into their land. In 1946 UN tried to settle the long running dispute. Jews accepted the settlement (although grudgingly) and formed their state, the Arabs (there were no "Palestinians" then) chose war, which continues to this day -- over a piece of land less than 1/6 of 1% of the total territory of the "Arab world".
You seem to fall into the trap of equating the two sides. They are not equal. The Arab side has (re-)started all of the wars against Israel in the Israel's modern history -- beginning in 1948. They mostly continue to reject Israel's right to exist. Today's claims, that this is all about "the occupied territories" is utter crap -- Arafat et al formed the PLO (the self-proclaimed "sole representative of Palestinian people") in 1964 -- 3 years before the flare up of the war, in which Israel seized Gaza and the West Bank.
After being repeatedly defeated on the "conventional" battlefields, the Arabs shifted to bombings and otherwise targeting Israeli civilians -- what is called terrorism. Israel never intentionally targets peaceful Palestinian civilians. True, there are civilian casualties of the Israel's actions, but they are collateral damage -- hitting the peaceful civilians is never intended.
This makes for a big difference. Also, Sharon is a democraticly elected prime minister of the Middle East's only democracy. Arafat, well, you know, who he is... Equating the "two fat fucks" is wrong.
Sorry, I can't understand this. You seem to have taken me as taking sides in the theory-vs.-practice debate. I don't...
The "equiprobable" part is crucial to the definition's correctness. And correctness is, well, just crucial ;-)
According to the peace agreement of 1991, Saddam was supposed to prove, he did not have any. He was way past the "presumption of innocence".
He did not prove it. The UN inspectors (some of them quite hostile to the US, BTW) were still not convinced -- if anything, Saddam's tricks made them only more suspicious.
Good for you to point it out. Because that is what follows from reading your earlier post and basic awareness of the very recent events:
You confirm that you consider "Bush and his lunacy" responsible for the world's perceived desire to see US obliterated. From the above, it is quite natural to conclude, that you hold them responsible for 9/11 as well.
Somehow, your attacks sound painfully partisan. May be, because you pitied the 55%, who voted for Gore, as if it was not under his vice-presidency, that the US foreign policy existed for 8 years... Or because you call Bush a lunatic. I don't know...
It is impossible. A weak country can do this. A strong country can not. Sooner or later someone will ask for help against someone else. A weak country can say: "We can't". A strong one will have to take sides...
You can't be nice to Palestinians and Israelis at once, for example -- the want each other dead. Even a weaker country like Canada can't do so honestly...
The hatred started well before "Bush and his lunacy". Your trolling flamebait conveniently forgets, that "9/11" happened only 9 months into Bush's presidency -- after 8 years under Clinton...
According to bin Laden's ravings, "9/11" was our punishment for deploying in the holy land of Saudi Arabia, which we did to protect Kuwait -- a Muslim nation, BTW. Was that war also "a lunacy" to you?
You can not justify this hatred and you can not negotiate with such people.
So stop your pitiful preaching -- there are better ways to attack Bush.
BTW, Clinton/Gore did not get the majority vote either, AFAIK.
Jobs and economy are not directly linked at all.
I think, it only condemns sex not intended to produce children. And, from what I understand, it stems not from trying to force people to have less sex, but to encourage them to have more children...
By this logic, we should not touch Moon nor Mars either...
I know. But it was made many years ago. Nations can negotiate new treaties. It is still FAR cheaper and easier than Moon (forget Mars).
Colder than on Moon? Or on Mars?
I keep saying this, but nobody listens. Antarctica -- an entire continent is empty. The conditions are a lot more hospitable. And it is "Global Warming"-proof :-)
Why not colonize it properly first? I think, Chili and Argentina tried (to claim the territory) to pay their citizens to live there, but the settlements waned...
No. This is the definition. It comes from the discipline called Infomatics (or Information Theory) and, AFAIK, existed long before quantum computers.
But 200 bits can practically be squeezed into less if they are not equiprobable... If one needs too.
These are practical engineering matters. I was talking about theoretical scientific ones.
Still, a theory-savvy engineer will realize, for example, he only needs 4 bytes to store an IP address, when, say, logging web-server hits to a database, but a theory-ignorant one will allocate CHAR(15), because he knows, that is faster than VARCHAR(15) :-) Four bytes is almost the theoretical minimum (which is slightly less, because certain netblocks can never be seen) and practically is good enough...
Likewise with message digests. People are used to seeing their hex representations and most will allocate a CHAR(32) column for the md5 hashes (or a char[33] array), instead of the mere 16 bytes required. In this case, the absolute theoretical minimum is easily reachable.
In other words achieving the theoretical limits is not always impractically difficult. But a good engineer needs to be able to estimate the difference between his solution and the theoretical limits and make an informed decision on whether (and how far) to optimize. A good understanding of what "bit" is, is a requirement...
Programming and informatics are related, but not at all the same. Many "prolific" programmers, unfortunately, don't know the basics of informatics and thus create the stupidities like CHAR(15) DB columns intended to store IP addresses.
A byte, in my book, is 8 bits -- the amount of information needed to choose one option out of 256 equally probable ones.
In a word: "wrong". Sorry, your reasoning shows, you are too far away for me to teach you on this forum. Try a local college professor, perhaps...
From the article (talking about the unmanned "Fire Scout"):
Here is one hoping, their encryption is up for it, and their SSL implementation is reliable. Otherwise, "man in the middle attack" may get a new meaning and that "another aircraft" may not be a friendly one...
My original request was for a definition of bit as in "byte is 8 bits", so riding equipment does not fit. Read through other follow-ups, such as this one, which offers links to both "meter" and "bit".
And yes, probability is important. Unequal probability of the options allows for amounts of information of less than a bit. For example, suppose Kerry has better chances to win the election. If I travel to the future, come back and tell you, he won indeed, that amount of information would be less than a bit. If I brought you the news, Bush will be the winner, that's more than a bit, because it seemed less probable today. Another example is telling someone, what they already know for sure -- that's just zero information, however many words were said.
This is why, BTW, archivers (zip, arj) can exist and are sometimes so efficient -- the data being compressed is never random and the values of each bit are not really equally probable.
The parents'...
Providing education to children of poor or non-existent parents/guardians should be handled just like the provision of food, shelter, or medicine is.
Or two poor parents, or no parents at all. Education is a necessity, just like food, shelter, medicine. Providing education to the poor should be no different from providing them with food.
Under libertarian ideals, these would all be done by private charities (who do quite a bit now anyway)...
Forcing a rogue regime down for violating an earlier peace agreement with us was quite necessary. It makes our future engagements with such regimes easier...
Neither of these should be the business of the government in my book. Sadly, both major parties disagree...
Not quite. "Binary digit" is not any harder to define, than a decimal or a hex one. But that is not the definition of bit. It is just the common representation. And no, it is not "the smallest amount of information possible" -- there is no such thing. And the two distinct values you mention have to be equally probable -- the crucial part of the definition... Meter is currently being defined as the distance, light travels in vacuum in certain fraction of a second. See elsewhere in this thread for links.
The question of "national ID", which Americans tend to reject, becomes moot by itself -- the fingerprint becomes the perfect ID. Nature (God?) issued, hard to modify and impossible to fake...
I think, the grandparent post meant "Linux software other than Linux distros themselves". Does Best Buy stock office, firewall, dictionary, encyclopedia, publishing solutions for Linux? (I know, they exist, but Best Buy does not stock them, which was, I believe the point.)