As in allowing them to access a global, protected network to express their views and obtain "restricted" infromation. Turning Freenet into an equvalent of a terrorist cell system, where members are introduced to each other based on their membership in the same group defeats this purpose.
How so? If I'm connected to 3-5 trusted friends, each of whom is also connected to 3-5 friends, that can turn into a globe-spanning network given a reasonable number of hops. Where is the contradiction? The idea is not independent cells of small groups of friends, but rather an interconnected mesh. Think Kevin Bacon game.
Freenet is useless in places where mere use of the system is equivalent to hanging a sign "Dissidents live here" outside a window.
That's exactly the point of trusted links. If the node addresses aren't published, and the links are relatively stable, then those links can be camouflaged as other traffic. If you don't have trusted links, then you can spider the network to find nodes. If you allow the massive connection churn of the current network, then nodes have an easily identifiable traffic signature, regardless of any attempt at camouflage.
In short, the "darknet" is a last-ditch, desperate attempt at making the... kiddy porn network survive, because the only people to whom this model is suitable are... pedofiles.
It's an interesting point, and I think you're at least mostly right. However, there is an inconsistency in that no administrator appears to be losing their job over failing to protect these SSNs from the students. By your logic, if no one's job is on the line, where is the accountability?
That said, someone getting yelled at by the boss seems very likely here...
Hey, there's nothing wrong with bogosort:) I was sorta guessing that anyone who bothers to write up bogosort is aware that it's not even remotely useful (unless you happen to have a handy quantum rng, a firm belief in the many worlds theory, and a system equipped with a functioning destroy_universe() call).
And there's a difference between arbitrary coding standards, and expecting code to be intuitive. A function's behavior should at the very least not be inconsistent with what an educated reader would expect from looking at the signature. That sort of behavior is asking for someone to use the function in something and then have to deal with figuring out why their list got reodered (or worse, why what they thought were two lists are actually the same and are now causing interactions between disparate pieces of code).
Well, if I were writing it, I'd notice that I was modifying the original array, and therefore it's silly to also return it... That's exactly the sort of code that's a bitch to maintain, because the function signature implies something other than what the function does. (Given a function int[] sort(int[]), I would expect it to leave the original alone and return a sorted version. Given a function void sort(int[]), I would expect it to sort in place. Yours is bad.)
So, in short, I would say that while you can probably program, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't like working with you on a project.
how WOULD you specify altitude to a person in the future?
GPS is the answer, even if the satellites aren't there. The GPS spec defines a "Geodal Height." Mu understanding is that if you assume a rotating uniform spheroid you get a well-defined (almost spherical) shape. There's an altitude from the center that corresponds to where "mean sea level" ought to be, modulo assymetries. Specify altitude relative to that, and anyone who can manage to sort out lat / lon coords ought to be able to figure it out.
Also, what about currency? How are you going to set exchange rates even with future humans? PayPal points? Beer?
That one's easy, and at least as old as non-free beer -- tell me a good enough story and I'll buy you a beer. And if you have a legitimate lack of currency, explaining why is probably good enough:)
I think that's bull. If the man in the middle cannot read the photons before altering them, how can the intended recipient? Explain it properly.
Sorry, intuition and quantum mechanics don't mix. On this one, you get to trust the smart people. Or you can do the math and experiments yourself. Or you can wander over to Wikipedia and find a very nice prepackaged explanation. But attempting to claim that your uneducated intuition knows what can and can't happen in the world of quantum mechanics just doesn't work.
Each is fairly different; however, in each case, the disaster was a result of operator error that could have been avoided through better design or better information presentation.
UI design is most definitely NfN. There are plenty of examples in engineering of bad UI design or information presentation costing lives; this is yet another. If you can't name at least 3 examples, then I truly hope you don't call yourself an engineer, computer programmer, or anything related.
Or, we stop reproducing so much. It's really not that hard, and what's even better is that wealth appears to result in people having fewer children -- so as standards of living improve, population growth will slow. Europe already has negative population growth once you subtract out imigration, and the US is on its way.
Hmmm. I'm pretty sure that there's a (theoretical) limit - once your black hole is smaller than an atom, well, it doesn't really bump into too much.
You're halfway there, but for the wrong reason. A tiny black hole just bumps into atomic nuclei less frequently, since it is sitting in a big pool of them (the Earth, since it fell out of whatever created it).
The problem with all this, however, is that tiny black holes evaporate, and therefore won't stick around very long. Physics collider ones don't stick around long enough to leave the vacuum chamber, let alone fall through the floor. See also Micro black holes.
Well, that only works if you gave them permission, through whatever means. If you didn't give permission, then they're committing copyright infringement.
Nothing against BSD, I've made use of it, but I prefer the GPL and want to make sure things are kept clear about it.
There is exactly one way for code you wrote to end up under the GPL: you put it there explicitly. No other way. None.
That said, if you used GPLed code in writing it, and don't put it under the GPL, you're committing copyright infringement. You don't have permission to use GPL code in non-GPL projects (unless there's some dual license thing going on or something). So yes, releasing a font under the GPL is going to restrict its use. But, if you didn't realize the font was GPLed, your document isn't suddenly GPL -- you just aren't allowed to distribute it, because you don't have a license to redistribute the font, since you're not using the GPL. So, if someone releases a non-GPL document using a GPL font, the normal course would be for someone to point it out to them, and them to take corrective action (possibly with an intermediate legal proceeding). That corrective action could be to stop distribution of the document, use a different (non-GPL) font, or to put the document under the GPL. But there are no examples of someone being forced to GPL code they didn't want to.
It still isn't viral, in any way. You still have to *voluntarily* place the GPL license on your code or document in order for it to be GPL. It isn't overtly contagious. That said, there are plenty of cases, including this one, where distributing works based on GPL works without placing the derivative works under the GPL is a copyright infringement. But it's just that -- unlicensed distribution; it doesn't get placed under the GPL without your consent.
Can we stop with the uneducated FUD now, please? It would be really nice if people actually read the license on occasion.
Linking a document against a font sounds a lot like linking a binary against a library, and if you want to allow that (as in, for example, an IDE), you want to be using the LGPL, so I guess it sorta makes sense. For example, glibs is LGPL iirc, and the Linux kernel adds a special exemption for closed code making system calls.
Because obviously the criminals are Other People, not You. Slashdot is for upstanding, moral, law-abiding citizens, not criminals. And obviously having someone else set up a web site to speak on your behalf isn't a right.
Wait, you mean criminals have rights too? Somehow that wasn't what the summary sounded like...
1 foot per second is really more of a "smoosh" or "smear" than it is a "hurl". Perhaps your standard should be revised. Also, I suggest you use more standard units, such as football fields per Electronic Arts workday.
Or, you can take a 5 lb ball, and attach a string 6 inches long weighing about 10^-18 lb, and observe that nothing happens. That assumes a 3kton cable, which is at least the right ball park. In other words, don't worry about it.
Alternately, you can observe that the mining industry has a much greater impact on the Earth's center of mass.
Re:What provides the orbital speed of the cargo?
on
Space Elevator Update
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The energy comes from the rotation of the Earth. In a display of the Coriolis effect, as the cargo ascends it exerts an anti-spinward force on the cable, and vice versa. The result is that the cable is (minisculely) off vertical in an antispinward direction and is being dragged along by the Earth. The Earth slows down ever so slightly (but don't worry -- iirc you have to loft Australia to make a relevant impact). The gravitational potential energy of an orbiting object is provided by the climber; fortunately that's the small part, which is a large part of what keeps it cheap.
This does mean that their are limits to the rate you can lift mass based on the mass of the cable, but the cable is so massive that those limits are far greater than the limits imposed by the strength of the cable.
xwinman.org gives an excellent introduction to both window managers and desktop environments. Give it a look.
FYI, anything that is talking about the recent release of KDE 2.0 is just a tad dated. The concept is neat, but somehow I doubt the site is at all maintained.
you don't risk your own civilization to benefit science.
You don't? As best I can tell, ceasing all science and exploration efforts doesn't just risk civilization, it dooms it to stagnation and collapse.
So, you have to balance risks, be they personal, financial, or global, against the potential benefits. And in the case of Cassini, the risk was miniscule -- the rtg is designed to survive a launch vehicle failure or reentry without leaking; in fact, rtgs have crashed before (3 of them, I believe), with no leakage. In this case, given that the probability of a problem was very small, the likely result of a problem was far from catastrophic and not even remotely close to your "risking civilization" comment, and the payoff in knowledge gained is likely to be huge, I fully support the mission.
Slashdot Mirror
How so? If I'm connected to 3-5 trusted friends, each of whom is also connected to 3-5 friends, that can turn into a globe-spanning network given a reasonable number of hops. Where is the contradiction? The idea is not independent cells of small groups of friends, but rather an interconnected mesh. Think Kevin Bacon game.
Freenet is useless in places where mere use of the system is equivalent to hanging a sign "Dissidents live here" outside a window.
That's exactly the point of trusted links. If the node addresses aren't published, and the links are relatively stable, then those links can be camouflaged as other traffic. If you don't have trusted links, then you can spider the network to find nodes. If you allow the massive connection churn of the current network, then nodes have an easily identifiable traffic signature, regardless of any attempt at camouflage.
In short, the "darknet" is a last-ditch, desperate attempt at making the ... kiddy porn network survive, because the only people to whom this model is suitable are ... pedofiles.
Oh, now I know you're trolling. Never mind.
That said, someone getting yelled at by the boss seems very likely here...
And there's a difference between arbitrary coding standards, and expecting code to be intuitive. A function's behavior should at the very least not be inconsistent with what an educated reader would expect from looking at the signature. That sort of behavior is asking for someone to use the function in something and then have to deal with figuring out why their list got reodered (or worse, why what they thought were two lists are actually the same and are now causing interactions between disparate pieces of code).
So, in short, I would say that while you can probably program, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't like working with you on a project.
I think the answer is the same -- good work is evident to others in both cases, even if the observer isn't an expert.
GPS is the answer, even if the satellites aren't there. The GPS spec defines a "Geodal Height." Mu understanding is that if you assume a rotating uniform spheroid you get a well-defined (almost spherical) shape. There's an altitude from the center that corresponds to where "mean sea level" ought to be, modulo assymetries. Specify altitude relative to that, and anyone who can manage to sort out lat / lon coords ought to be able to figure it out.
Also, what about currency? How are you going to set exchange rates even with future humans? PayPal points? Beer?
That one's easy, and at least as old as non-free beer -- tell me a good enough story and I'll buy you a beer. And if you have a legitimate lack of currency, explaining why is probably good enough :)
Sorry, intuition and quantum mechanics don't mix. On this one, you get to trust the smart people. Or you can do the math and experiments yourself. Or you can wander over to Wikipedia and find a very nice prepackaged explanation. But attempting to claim that your uneducated intuition knows what can and can't happen in the world of quantum mechanics just doesn't work.
Therac-25
Challenger
Chernobyl
Each is fairly different; however, in each case, the disaster was a result of operator error that could have been avoided through better design or better information presentation.
Have you considered feeding the baby alcohol?
UI design is most definitely NfN. There are plenty of examples in engineering of bad UI design or information presentation costing lives; this is yet another. If you can't name at least 3 examples, then I truly hope you don't call yourself an engineer, computer programmer, or anything related.
Or, we stop reproducing so much. It's really not that hard, and what's even better is that wealth appears to result in people having fewer children -- so as standards of living improve, population growth will slow. Europe already has negative population growth once you subtract out imigration, and the US is on its way.
You're halfway there, but for the wrong reason. A tiny black hole just bumps into atomic nuclei less frequently, since it is sitting in a big pool of them (the Earth, since it fell out of whatever created it).
The problem with all this, however, is that tiny black holes evaporate, and therefore won't stick around very long. Physics collider ones don't stick around long enough to leave the vacuum chamber, let alone fall through the floor. See also Micro black holes.
Well, that only works if you gave them permission, through whatever means. If you didn't give permission, then they're committing copyright infringement.
There is exactly one way for code you wrote to end up under the GPL: you put it there explicitly. No other way. None.
That said, if you used GPLed code in writing it, and don't put it under the GPL, you're committing copyright infringement. You don't have permission to use GPL code in non-GPL projects (unless there's some dual license thing going on or something). So yes, releasing a font under the GPL is going to restrict its use. But, if you didn't realize the font was GPLed, your document isn't suddenly GPL -- you just aren't allowed to distribute it, because you don't have a license to redistribute the font, since you're not using the GPL. So, if someone releases a non-GPL document using a GPL font, the normal course would be for someone to point it out to them, and them to take corrective action (possibly with an intermediate legal proceeding). That corrective action could be to stop distribution of the document, use a different (non-GPL) font, or to put the document under the GPL. But there are no examples of someone being forced to GPL code they didn't want to.
Can we stop with the uneducated FUD now, please? It would be really nice if people actually read the license on occasion.
Linking a document against a font sounds a lot like linking a binary against a library, and if you want to allow that (as in, for example, an IDE), you want to be using the LGPL, so I guess it sorta makes sense. For example, glibs is LGPL iirc, and the Linux kernel adds a special exemption for closed code making system calls.
Wait, you mean criminals have rights too? Somehow that wasn't what the summary sounded like...
1 foot per second is really more of a "smoosh" or "smear" than it is a "hurl". Perhaps your standard should be revised. Also, I suggest you use more standard units, such as football fields per Electronic Arts workday.
Alternately, you can observe that the mining industry has a much greater impact on the Earth's center of mass.
The energy comes from the rotation of the Earth. In a display of the Coriolis effect, as the cargo ascends it exerts an anti-spinward force on the cable, and vice versa. The result is that the cable is (minisculely) off vertical in an antispinward direction and is being dragged along by the Earth. The Earth slows down ever so slightly (but don't worry -- iirc you have to loft Australia to make a relevant impact). The gravitational potential energy of an orbiting object is provided by the climber; fortunately that's the small part, which is a large part of what keeps it cheap.
This does mean that their are limits to the rate you can lift mass based on the mass of the cable, but the cable is so massive that those limits are far greater than the limits imposed by the strength of the cable.
they've been delivering fake answers all this time??
FYI, anything that is talking about the recent release of KDE 2.0 is just a tad dated. The concept is neat, but somehow I doubt the site is at all maintained.
Yeah, but at least the grenade launcher is effective...
You don't? As best I can tell, ceasing all science and exploration efforts doesn't just risk civilization, it dooms it to stagnation and collapse.
So, you have to balance risks, be they personal, financial, or global, against the potential benefits. And in the case of Cassini, the risk was miniscule -- the rtg is designed to survive a launch vehicle failure or reentry without leaking; in fact, rtgs have crashed before (3 of them, I believe), with no leakage. In this case, given that the probability of a problem was very small, the likely result of a problem was far from catastrophic and not even remotely close to your "risking civilization" comment, and the payoff in knowledge gained is likely to be huge, I fully support the mission.
Unless I'm mistaken (it's been a while), they had oil-based optics in binoculars in Dune. Always cool when a science fiction idea sees real life :)