"Your trying to access a site served by an incompatible webserver. Please urge the administrator of the site to upgrade to IIS or you wil NOT be able to view this website."
Finally it's bringing the masses to a reliable operating system, and truly this is closing the window for Linux.
You're kidding, right? People weren't mass-converting from Windows to Linux before because of MS instability. Change just takes time, but eventually free (as in beer) software will always prevail over substantially more expensive software if both offer roughly the same.
Not a single monopoly/regime/government of totalitarian nature in the history of mankind has existed forever. Microsoft days will once be over and that goes just as well for Linux, but there's good hope that it's spirit will continue to live because people have (eventually) always preferred freedom over anything else that excludes freedom.
I agree. There's no real reason for excitement until the announcement gets in that they have switched. However I still think it's kind of cool that they are even publicly considering this.
I was really shocked to read that in some stores there might be one-way mirrors in changing rooms with camera's behind them. Is there an easy way to detect these? Are there simple rules-of-thumb that might indicate a one-way mirror instead of a normal one?
Actually, in the Netherlands killing someone by drunk driving will usually lead to the same 240 hours of civil service Only if you're a famous soccer player or opera singer...
The only thing proved today is that whatever precautions they can think up, someone willing to bypass them, will succeed. Only if the government has absolute complete control over every citizen by means of microchips implanted in their brains, will they be able to ensure completely that things like this can't happen and still someone might be able to do it.
So every single precaution the goverment takes isn't really protecting the citizens, but only limiting the freedom and privacy of those same citizens. It's very easy to demand more protection, but there's none. You can only fool yourself into thinking that the goverment will be able to increase your protection, by watching you and every other citizen continously, but the harsh reality is that if it has any effect at all, it decreases your safety, because with every single bit of information on you on the street, you're more vulnerable than ever.
... millionaires are now starting to fund these type of private missions...
And after the dot.flop, where we made your money disappear in a big world wide web,... we will now make money disappear into thin air. Yeah sure space travel's cool, but I'm not putting my money[*] on the table this time! Oh no, sir.
* - not that I'm a millionaire, but that's besides my point
I am aware of the problems that might arise when you completely do away with your MS Windows installation, so I was actually more wondering along the lines of wether it would be allowed to install a secondary OS on their harddrive or just in general use the computer for anything else than it's intended school-related purposes.
Are they going to be allowed to wipe the harddisk and install some other OS than the preinstalled one? I'm not suggesting that it's a bad thing that some limits are imposed on the use of the product when given away for free, but on the other hand I dislike the idea of monopoly supporting giveaways.
My little brother is very nearsighted and has such problems with his vision that he was eligble for a laptop to use at school. However, the fact that you get it for free means that you're essentially not allowed to anything with it, but use it for it's intended purposes. (You aren't even allowed to install games, but I don't think my brother minded that rule very much;-)
Name me one person you know who is at least moderately computer savvy, has a cd burner and uses a computer as a hobbyist device who has not done something illegal with their cd burner within a week of owning it.
Right. That's partly the reason why we Canadians pay a CD levy tax.
Okay, I admit it, I have burned a sh*t-load of illegal cd's and it would probably even hard to locate a CD I burned that was completely legal. Nevertheless I still think it's stupid to impose this kind of tax on CD's, because judging from the reactions to your post for every single me out there, there are about 20 others who use their CD burners for nothing but legal purposes. Why should they suffer this tax because of me?
Having a look at the pictures of the recent Debian Conference (for example:
http://www.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au/~james/2001/conf-1.de b/5th-day/preview-114-1434_IMG.JPG.html) you sure get the idea that there are really no female Debian developers _at all_
Have you actually looked at your second link? It has mozilla showing the reference image of what it should look like and most of IE's renderings seem to have problems. The first link doesn't really show IE outperforming Mozilla either. I'm not saying it doesn't, but your links don't seem to support your statement in particular.
When I took calculus III a few years ago I asked the question "when is not okay to reverse the order of integration in iterated integrals?"
The instructor replied " this is not something that we can or should get into."
This is a perfect example of why we don't necessarily need to know every gory little detail of most mathematical theorems we work with. I'm not saying that there's no use to this metamath website, just that if a complete treatment of every math subject was required at all time, then students would hardly be able to calculate anything and math would probably never get of the ground at elementary school.
Most people who get CS degrees are the farthest thing from being actual computer "scientists". Real computer science is basically mathematics
That's a very interesting point that you make there. It was about the first thing that popped into my head when I read the article. What use has the average "computer scientist" really in the mentioned scientific fields? In my experience pracitcally none!
I attend the University of Utrecht (in the Netherlands) for an education in so-called `Computational Science'. It's about 40% phyics, 40% math, 20% computer science in the first two years and thereafter it's about 80% math, 20% application of the computer science we were taught in first two years. We also tend to call our field "large-scale computing".
So in fact it's not computer science, but computational science (that's the name we use to refer to this field of expertise, I don't know if it has any meaning abroad) that's starting to get involved in almost every field of science.
It might be different in other countries or even on other universities, but in my experience a computer scientist never spends any time learning how to solve huge numbers of coupled equations, solve differential equations (numerically or symbolically) or even approximate an integral (with more advanced methods that the trapezoidal-rule). I want to bet that if an average person with a CS degree was told to solve a system of 10000 (or another huge number) equations, they would use Gauss-elimination. That's because it's not their field of expertise.
(An iterative method, derived from the Richardson iteration, such as CG or GMRES would of course be the prefered way of solving such a huge system). And because solving these kind of systems and solving differential equations numerically (which in the end are very related) is essential to almost every computer-model that I have encountered to date, I tend to disagree with the statement that it's computer science that is becoming an significant part of almost every other science. (Unless you call computational sciece a subset of computer science)
That's at least my take on it, based on my experience with both field. If people disagree I'd be happy to hear their story. Obviously I don't have all the answers either.
... lawyers lawyers lawyers.. that's all the computing world seems to be these days.:/
Well, that must be the reason then that we hardly ever seem to win a lawsuit. All those lawyers know d*mn well that if GNU, OSS and co. get the upperhand there will be half the money to be made;-)
The deal here is that everyone thought that they had "good enough" randomness for ISN's, but it looks like many implementations don't. The problem seems to be that the poor implementations are widespread.
I sure don't mind believing that you know more about this than I do, but did you read the article at all? You accuse people of lot's of things but to me it seems you have you fair share of guilt as well. Right there in the article it says:
"What I pointed out is that existing [TCP] connections are still vulnerable even when random increments are used," Newsham said. "It makes no difference if these increments are random or pseudo-random."
That still doesn't mean that he's right, but if you wan't to respond to this article shouldn't you at least counter the statements made in stead of just blindy stating something?
How long before this code roams the Net? IM: Microsoft surely is aware that opening their source to large groups of people over whom they have no control, is going to result sooner or later in leakage to the rest of the world.[1] So why do they do it? They must have some kind of devious plan behind this...
[1] - Surely this is open to discussion, but at this time I'm fairly sure about this.
Slashdot Mirror
I can see the message popping up already...
"Error"
"Your trying to access a site served by an incompatible webserver. Please urge the administrator of the site to upgrade to IIS or you wil NOT be able to view this website."
Finally it's bringing the masses to a reliable operating system, and truly this is closing the window for Linux.
You're kidding, right? People weren't mass-converting from Windows to Linux before because of MS instability. Change just takes time, but eventually free (as in beer) software will always prevail over substantially more expensive software if both offer roughly the same.
Not a single monopoly/regime/government of totalitarian nature in the history of mankind has existed forever. Microsoft days will once be over and that goes just as well for Linux, but there's good hope that it's spirit will continue to live because people have (eventually) always preferred freedom over anything else that excludes freedom.
I agree. There's no real reason for excitement until the announcement gets in that they have switched. However I still think it's kind of cool that they are even publicly considering this.
I was really shocked to read that in some stores there might be one-way mirrors in changing rooms with camera's behind them. Is there an easy way to detect these? Are there simple rules-of-thumb that might indicate a one-way mirror instead of a normal one?
Ctrl-K o/
in insert-mode is easier since you don't need to lookup or remember some number
Actually, in the Netherlands killing someone by drunk driving will usually lead to the same 240 hours of civil service ...
Only if you're a famous soccer player or opera singer
The only thing proved today is that whatever precautions they can think up, someone willing to bypass them, will succeed. Only if the government has absolute complete control over every citizen by means of microchips implanted in their brains, will they be able to ensure completely that things like this can't happen and still someone might be able to do it.
So every single precaution the goverment takes isn't really protecting the citizens, but only limiting the freedom and privacy of those same citizens. It's very easy to demand more protection, but there's none. You can only fool yourself into thinking that the goverment will be able to increase your protection, by watching you and every other citizen continously, but the harsh reality is that if it has any effect at all, it decreases your safety, because with every single bit of information on you on the street, you're more vulnerable than ever.
... millionaires are now starting to fund these type of private missions ...
And after the dot.flop, where we made your money disappear in a big world wide web,... we will now make money disappear into thin air. Yeah sure space travel's cool, but I'm not putting my money[*] on the table this time! Oh no, sir.
* - not that I'm a millionaire, but that's besides my point
I am aware of the problems that might arise when you completely do away with your MS Windows installation, so I was actually more wondering along the lines of wether it would be allowed to install a secondary OS on their harddrive or just in general use the computer for anything else than it's intended school-related purposes.
Are they going to be allowed to wipe the harddisk and install some other OS than the preinstalled one? I'm not suggesting that it's a bad thing that some limits are imposed on the use of the product when given away for free, but on the other hand I dislike the idea of monopoly supporting giveaways.
;-)
My little brother is very nearsighted and has such problems with his vision that he was eligble for a laptop to use at school. However, the fact that you get it for free means that you're essentially not allowed to anything with it, but use it for it's intended purposes. (You aren't even allowed to install games, but I don't think my brother minded that rule very much
Name me one person you know who is at least moderately computer savvy, has a cd burner and uses a computer as a hobbyist device who has not done something illegal with their cd burner within a week of owning it.
Right. That's partly the reason why we Canadians pay a CD levy tax.
Okay, I admit it, I have burned a sh*t-load of illegal cd's and it would probably even hard to locate a CD I burned that was completely legal. Nevertheless I still think it's stupid to impose this kind of tax on CD's, because judging from the reactions to your post for every single me out there, there are about 20 others who use their CD burners for nothing but legal purposes. Why should they suffer this tax because of me?
So how about a virus/worm/annoying-thingy that can't be removed/shutdown without violating the DMCA?
Would that be possible at all?
Having a look at the pictures of the recent Debian Conference (for example: http://www.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au/~james/2001/conf-1.de b/5th-day/preview-114-1434_IMG.JPG.html) you sure get the idea that there are really no female Debian developers _at all_
--
Matthijs
If Cowbow Neal is an option, this should be a poll.
Have you actually looked at your second link? It has mozilla showing the reference image of what it should look like and most of IE's renderings seem to have problems. The first link doesn't really show IE outperforming Mozilla either. I'm not saying it doesn't, but your links don't seem to support your statement in particular.
--
Matthijs
http://lumumba.luc.ac.be/jori/jvoiplib/jvoiplib.ht ml.
Don't know if it's really what the person is looking for, but it's worth a shot.
are you guys going to support my new p2p termpaper swapping software docster or not ??
--
Matthijs
When I took calculus III a few years ago I asked the question "when is not okay to reverse the order of integration in iterated integrals?"
The instructor replied " this is not something that we can or should get into."
This is a perfect example of why we don't necessarily need to know every gory little detail of most mathematical theorems we work with. I'm not saying that there's no use to this metamath website, just that if a complete treatment of every math subject was required at all time, then students would hardly be able to calculate anything and math would probably never get of the ground at elementary school.
--
Matthijs
Wall, my sincerest congratulations to you ... they fell for it like flies for ...
--
Matthijs
I'm already smiling at the idea of Illiad taking his turn on this `cool new technology' ...
Most people who get CS degrees are the farthest thing from being actual computer "scientists". Real computer science is basically mathematics
That's a very interesting point that you make there. It was about the first thing that popped into my head when I read the article. What use has the average "computer scientist" really in the mentioned scientific fields? In my experience pracitcally none!
I attend the University of Utrecht (in the Netherlands) for an education in so-called `Computational Science'. It's about 40% phyics, 40% math, 20% computer science in the first two years and thereafter it's about 80% math, 20% application of the computer science we were taught in first two years. We also tend to call our field "large-scale computing". So in fact it's not computer science, but computational science (that's the name we use to refer to this field of expertise, I don't know if it has any meaning abroad) that's starting to get involved in almost every field of science.
It might be different in other countries or even on other universities, but in my experience a computer scientist never spends any time learning how to solve huge numbers of coupled equations, solve differential equations (numerically or symbolically) or even approximate an integral (with more advanced methods that the trapezoidal-rule). I want to bet that if an average person with a CS degree was told to solve a system of 10000 (or another huge number) equations, they would use Gauss-elimination. That's because it's not their field of expertise. (An iterative method, derived from the Richardson iteration, such as CG or GMRES would of course be the prefered way of solving such a huge system). And because solving these kind of systems and solving differential equations numerically (which in the end are very related) is essential to almost every computer-model that I have encountered to date, I tend to disagree with the statement that it's computer science that is becoming an significant part of almost every other science. (Unless you call computational sciece a subset of computer science)
That's at least my take on it, based on my experience with both field. If people disagree I'd be happy to hear their story. Obviously I don't have all the answers either.
--
Matthijs
... lawyers lawyers lawyers.. that's all the computing world seems to be these days. :/
;-)
Well, that must be the reason then that we hardly ever seem to win a lawsuit. All those lawyers know d*mn well that if GNU, OSS and co. get the upperhand there will be half the money to be made
The deal here is that everyone thought that they had "good enough" randomness for ISN's, but it looks like many implementations don't. The problem seems to be that the poor implementations are widespread.
I sure don't mind believing that you know more about this than I do, but did you read the article at all? You accuse people of lot's of things but to me it seems you have you fair share of guilt as well. Right there in the article it says:
"What I pointed out is that existing [TCP] connections are still vulnerable even when random increments are used," Newsham said. "It makes no difference if these increments are random or pseudo-random."
That still doesn't mean that he's right, but if you wan't to respond to this article shouldn't you at least counter the statements made in stead of just blindy stating something?
How long before this code roams the Net? IM: Microsoft surely is aware that opening their source to large groups of people over whom they have no control, is going to result sooner or later in leakage to the rest of the world.[1] So why do they do it? They must have some kind of devious plan behind this ...
[1] - Surely this is open to discussion, but at this time I'm fairly sure about this.
--
Matthijs
I guess this isn't exactly going to rate very high, wit just the single remark that this reminds me of Star Trek. Oh, what the [...]