I gotta wonder how Linus and most of the kernel development group feels about this. While Linux probably isn't guiding missles yet
Linus and the kernel hackers are writing a UNIX kernel. That's all they're doing. They also deliberately chose the GNU General Public License, which they understand grants Freedom 0, The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.
Now, I might want to use a UNIX kernel in my criminal master plan, or my act of terrorism, or my unethical business, or even my Evil Petting Zoo. I might choose Linux, but that is not the responsibility of the kernel hackers. They are
only responsible for the kernel itself, not for
its use.
If the kernel was deliberately programmed to do unethical or illegal things... that would be a different matter.
I'm not a computer guru by any stretch of the imagination, but the concept being laid out here seems like it might work well as a new
sort of compression algorithm. i.e. One could theoretically(I suppose) encode entire files into one simple number. Whether that number
would have to prime or not, I'm not sure. But it seems like a novel concept.
It's a nice idea. You could encode a file as the offset from the nearest prime number, and then describe that file as the offset and the index into a prime number list. However, the primes involved would be huge, and the distance between primes would be large too. Your compression would be directly related to how near you are to a prime.
Basically, it would be very slow and doesn't really attack the fundamental target of compression, ie to increase the entropy of the data by removing redundant information.
There are no kracks until ALL DEVICE MASTER KEYS ARE DIVULGED!
A master key is simply any 40 bits that can decrypt a specific disc key. You can brute-force a master key for each disc key on the disc. You can buy every DVD on the planet and build a repository of player keys that work on them, if you wanted. So shut up.
Your firm grasp of the facts, subtle and intentional errors, incessant rambling and criticism of everyone who might look at your comment are hallmarks of trolling. Better luck next time.
I'm too lazy and not skilled enough of a programmer to completely understand the way the DeCSS (css-auth.c) code works. So I was wondering if anybody could enlighten me (or
give me a URL to study) as to how Charles H. Hannum's 442-byte program is able to accomplish the same task as was previously bloated by the inclusion of those tables.
OK, it goes like this:
All but one of the tables are used in applying your licensed PLAYER KEY (like the Xing key stolen by DeCSS) to each of the DISK KEYS. Unless the DVD-CCA have revoked your license, there will be a disk key that can be decrypted by your player key. This decrypted disk key can then decrypt the TITLE KEY which locks each particular file.
One of the tables is used to reverse the order of bits in a byte, eg table[01100001] = 10000110. This is used in the scrambling.
These mini decoders take the title key as input, they only then do the descrambling, which is quite easy. They don't handle the hard part, which is getting the title key. The bit-reversing table is 'functionally regenerated'.
Some of the tables used in the decoding process really required: one of them is a specific substitution cipher from the CSS specification. Those numbers are not generated by an algorithim, they are a list of 256 different substitutions specified by humans and cannot be expressed more efficiently than a full list of them in table form.
"Hospital consortium" claims cost of saving people is "too expensive", points at rising costs of treatment. Recommends against seeking medical advice for illnesses, advises killing oneself now to lower hospital expenditure.
You're not getting it, man. I used to be one of the programmers on InTether. It works on any kind of file, you will not be able to mount it under linux and copy anything out. And you
can fit quite a bit in 300k. Its not normal application code, man....
I hate to break the news to you, but 300k of code screams 'challenge' at me, as ZX Spectrum R-register decoders, and Rob Northen's Amiga copylocks did. They spent their entire time being 'difficult' to trace through (one-ahead instruction decryption based on the status register, hardware timings, etc), and they were cracked in days. Vast step my arse - your product may be 80x larger than an RNC copylock, that just means it'll take longer to crack. I doubt your code will require 100% accurate emulation as copylocks did. Provided the 'prize' (encoded content) is good enough, someone will endure the brainfuck of cracking it. There might even be an internet-based team to do it. It's just x86 code, the are no real secrets involved like true cryptography. DRM is the new guise of game disk copy protection, nothing more.
Not all Slashdot readers are fresh-faced web scripters. Some people are actually 0ldsk00l.
Not true. The GPL makes code non-free, particularly to commercial developers (to whom it is, essentially, inaccessible).
Bull. The GPL makes code free, not non-free. If commercial developers don't like freedom, I'm sure they can find another implementation somewhere that isn't free. They can even ask the authors of a free package if they're willing to license it again under non-free terms. If they really must use GNU code without negotiating another license, they're welcome to use it at the command-line level without being 'infected'.
The GPL is designed to propagate itself and increase the FSF's hoard of GPLed code,
No, it's designed to increase *my* hoard of GPLed code. And yours. And everyone else's. Everybody wins when code is released. I don't mind reciprocating.
at the expense of users -- who are deprived of the choice to buy commercial software.
Huh? Since when were they not permitted to buy commercial software? If commercial software wants to compete with free software, it's very welcome to. There are many areas of software that are done well by commericial software and done poorly by free software (games, for example). However, noone is likely to sell me a C compiler ever again.
By the way, do you think ID software would have released their Quake engine under a BSDish license, where their competitors could take their entire engine for free without reciprocating any improvements?
And at the expense of developers, whose markets are destroyed by the GPL's anticompetitive and predatory tactics.
Well, according to you, there's a vast market of other developers out there who want non-GPLed code. Surely they could sell to them instead? (And that's exactly where the market for commericial development software *is* - although Cygnus^H^H^H^H^H^HRed Hat competes there too, for money, free compiler or not)
I note you mention nothing of BSD predatory licensing of protocol implementations -- in order to entrench protocol X as an accepted standard, they offer commercially exploitable code for free (see IPv6, PNG, zlib, etc)
Also, Freemasonry does not claim to be a religion.
It doesn't claim to be one, but it acts like one. Pull the cover off your Volume of Sacred Law, to reveal... the Christian Bible! Unmask your Great Architect to reveal... the Christian God! Next thing, you'll be advocating misogyny like St Paul. Oh, you do! (I seem to recall reading in my Scottish grand lodge log book that real lodges must completely disassociate with any lodge that allows women in its ranks)
You might not claim to be a religion, but lying down with dogs will give you fleas.
Forget blaming modern gene-splicing over this, remember the old-skool hybridisation when some imported african killer bees mated with the local american bee population? And that was an unintended accident.
It's the deliberate meddling by humanity that's the problem, the way they do it continually changes. That's why I'm against calls for blanket GM bans, and I think every GM test should be viewed on its merits.
I know very little (read: nothing) about Perl but it seems like this is basically compressing that long, ugly, awkward table of values that represents the magical mystery DVD key. Am I
correct?
No, because those tables aren't really needed.
Most of the tables in css-auth.c are used to work out the title key from the disc key - with this script, you provide the title key on the command line.
The other tables in css-auth.c are used to reverse
the order of bits in a byte - this can easily be accomplished by code instead.
I mean, I don't know about the next guy, but the thought of broadband access on the move would convince me to stop taking the train to work and start driving a car.
What if you copied a cd from a friend using your CD Writer but never actually listened to it?
Are you still breaking copyright law? Yes.
No, you're not, unless it is known that the copied CD does indeed infringe copyright. Until you know what is on the CD, it's a legal Schroedinger's Cat.
What would be the case if I offered you CDs marked 'Britney Spears hits', and you copied them, only to discover they contained nothing but Richard Stallman's 'Free Software' song? You have not broken copyright law. However, if they did contain Britney's finest, you would have willfully infringed copyright law, which would be tougher penalties than if you could show you did not know you had infringed copyrights by copying them. (IANAL)
Why is it that programmers feel that they are somehow above the need for these techniques? It seems to me to be pretty arrogant to avoid using tools that would make their code
better, almost as if they would rather not have perfect code. They would sneer at a cryptographic system that hadn't been rigourously proven, but be happy with any old hack that
another coder knocks out whilst eating cold pizza and drinking Mountain Dew.
I agree! Why do stupid humans try to program the computer? Furthermore, I also think hardware engineers should give up - after all, all this hardware could be designed perfectly and automatically by machines.
I'd love to see more of my fave games released for Linux, esp. Half Life.
The Linux Half-Life HOWTO will show you how to play Half-Life flawlessly using WINE. Now, if only I could get my graphics libraries in order under Debian, perhaps I could actually get their WINE package to work and actually play Half-Life, which I bought on Saturday!
The reason why apt-get is so nice is not just the
downloading and installing, it's the fact that Debian packages are built by (mostly) experienced maintainers who are trained to follow Debian's one true standard, which they have to follow to get packages into debian.org. I would say that probably, most Debian users just have *.debian.org in their sources, and therefore only recieve standardized and sanitized packages.
If all RPMs were standardised and sanitized too, there'd be no contest between DEBs and RPMs.
All truth (facts, whatever) are derived from assumptions (beliefs, faith, whatever)
OK, OK! Enough! All human knowledge of truth are [sic] derived from human assumptions. Fine. This is pretty much the definition of "subjective". We can't step outside ourselves and objectively perceive reality. It's such a barrier, philosophers have even argued the case for there being no objective reality. After all, we can't prove it exists, can we? Everything we humans do is subjective in some way or another, and we can't even speculate on there being an objective reality outside our subjective perception of it, because to do that would be subjective!
As you can see, this debate rages into a black hole, because saying there is no objective reality is also subjective. People who go around claiming this continually are nihilists, but I'm quite happy to believe you just want the point shown, you're not like some reincarnation of Nietzsche.
So, by stating this, have you cleverly pulled the rug from under science? No! Actually, hang on, I'll just address this part of your post at the same time:
> Scientists only base their arguments on material evidence.
Actually, scientist use material evidence to bolter theories. A scientist does not on material evidence alone prove anything. It is important, but not the only thing.
I said they base their arguments on material evidence. If you can call assumption 'faith', I can call theories and debates 'arguments'. So, how does science beat the objectivity barrier? Well, through smoke and mirrors. First, we gather huge amounts of material evidence through the previously discussed collective subjectivism. Next, we form a hypothesis based around that evidence that makes a conjecture about the objective existence, and uses this logically to make predictions about the subjective reality. Therefore, we can prove with the rules of logic that both the objective statements lead from the subjective evidence, and that the subjective predictions are an accurate conclusion of the objective statements. Then, we test the hypothesis with collective subjectivism. Should the prediction correlate with the evidence, then bingo! We've made a valid claim about objective reality!
I apologise if you thought I was calling you a creationist fundamentalist. You're sharing the same argument, but clearly not the same beliefs (you would have mentioned the satanism of evolution by now if you were a fundie). I would call you a nihilist if you persisted in your argument and tried to argue that science is futile, but you're not at that stage yet.
But anyway, as a scientific atheist who believes in evolution, I wouldn't going around saying "science is basically just faith". It's more a diplomatic gesture, to respect the huge amount of effort science goes to in gathering evidence, analysing it, hypothesising and testing, just to provide a more stable bedrock for understanding the world. Remember "faith" implies no evidence and no logic. It would be unfair to call the whole lot "faith", just because there are things we can't test directly and perfectly. Even 1% accuracy is preferable to 0% accuracy.
As many have pointed out, because the actual transfer of music is peer to peer, so it can just pretend to do 'protection'. I know that non US residents have a legal right to work out the new Napster protocol and write new, appearing-to-be-but-not-actually-compliant clients, but would an open-source Napster client count as a circumvention device in the US? Would the RIAA run to Judge Kaplan to sue those developers? Is the DMCA going to act as a legal cudgel for megacorps to screw over the public?
My argument is at the most basic root of anything is an assumption (Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof. Close enough to Faith I believe to use interchangeably).
*sigh*. You batter the same old argument that's been raging for centuries. Theologists do not base their arguments on material evidence. Scientists only base their arguments on material evidence. When the two clash, the theologists hypocritically accuse the scientists of lacking evidence. The argument goes that because nothing evidence can be known to be 100%, it is therefore wrong to base any judgements on evidence, and instead work in cloud-cuckoo land with 0% accurate evidence. This is the essense of faith - lack of evidence, lack of logic. However, science does not claim that evidence is 100% accurate, in fact they generally work out their margin of error as a matter of course.
This all boils down to the subjective vs objective argument. For example, let's have 100 people look at an alledged tree in a forest. 99 subjectively percieve the tree, but one person does not. Is the tree there? It is 99% likely that the tree is there. It depends on the levels of skepticism and pedantry, but it would generally be agreed that the objective viewpoint is that the tree is there, even though all evidence was collected subjectively. That's enough to convince scientists, but anything less than 100% is not going to convince a fundamentalist theologian, who would rather believe the 0% accurate claims of his religion.
But what material proof do you have that you're simply not dreaming the whole thing, or delusional? My contention: none. You merely assume so.
Not when you have an extremely large website. Consider the fact that a site that has lots of stuff compressed gets/. all the sudden. How about that?
You're missing the point. Any file that gets read more than once is likely to be in the cache. Just depends on how much RAM you have. As for/.ing, decompression only happens on the first page hit, and the following 10000 hits are served direct from RAM. Unless the/.'ed content is larger than you have RAM for, there's no issue.
Slashdot Mirror
I gotta wonder how Linus and most of the kernel development group feels about this. While Linux probably isn't guiding missles yet
Linus and the kernel hackers are writing a UNIX kernel. That's all they're doing. They also deliberately chose the GNU General Public License, which they understand grants Freedom 0, The freedom to run the program, for any purpose .
Now, I might want to use a UNIX kernel in my criminal master plan, or my act of terrorism, or my unethical business, or even my Evil Petting Zoo. I might choose Linux, but that is not the responsibility of the kernel hackers. They are only responsible for the kernel itself, not for its use.
If the kernel was deliberately programmed to do unethical or illegal things... that would be a different matter.
I'm not a computer guru by any stretch of the imagination, but the concept being laid out here seems like it might work well as a new sort of compression algorithm. i.e. One could theoretically(I suppose) encode entire files into one simple number. Whether that number would have to prime or not, I'm not sure. But it seems like a novel concept.
It's a nice idea. You could encode a file as the offset from the nearest prime number, and then describe that file as the offset and the index into a prime number list. However, the primes involved would be huge, and the distance between primes would be large too. Your compression would be directly related to how near you are to a prime.
Basically, it would be very slow and doesn't really attack the fundamental target of compression, ie to increase the entropy of the data by removing redundant information.
It's a winblows DLL ... that's hardly what I'd class as 'open'.
There are no kracks until ALL DEVICE MASTER KEYS ARE DIVULGED!
A master key is simply any 40 bits that can decrypt a specific disc key. You can brute-force a master key for each disc key on the disc. You can buy every DVD on the planet and build a repository of player keys that work on them, if you wanted. So shut up.
Your firm grasp of the facts, subtle and intentional errors, incessant rambling and criticism of everyone who might look at your comment are hallmarks of trolling. Better luck next time.
OK, it goes like this:
- All but one of the tables are used in applying your licensed PLAYER KEY (like the Xing key stolen by DeCSS) to each of the DISK KEYS. Unless the DVD-CCA have revoked your license, there will be a disk key that can be decrypted by your player key. This decrypted disk key can then decrypt the TITLE KEY which locks each particular file.
- One of the tables is used to reverse the order of bits in a byte, eg table[01100001] = 10000110. This is used in the scrambling.
These mini decoders take the title key as input, they only then do the descrambling, which is quite easy. They don't handle the hard part, which is getting the title key. The bit-reversing table is 'functionally regenerated'.Some of the tables used in the decoding process really required: one of them is a specific substitution cipher from the CSS specification. Those numbers are not generated by an algorithim, they are a list of 256 different substitutions specified by humans and cannot be expressed more efficiently than a full list of them in table form.
Why not celebrate Pi approximation day instead? It's on an easier to remember day: 22/7.
The guy who runs that page, Martin Rebas, offers other number treats, including the -2 club for people who can't even remember 2 digits of pi.
"Hospital consortium" claims cost of saving people is "too expensive", points at rising costs of treatment. Recommends against seeking medical advice for illnesses, advises killing oneself now to lower hospital expenditure.
You're not getting it, man. I used to be one of the programmers on InTether. It works on any kind of file, you will not be able to mount it under linux and copy anything out. And you can fit quite a bit in 300k. Its not normal application code, man....
I hate to break the news to you, but 300k of code screams 'challenge' at me, as ZX Spectrum R-register decoders, and Rob Northen's Amiga copylocks did. They spent their entire time being 'difficult' to trace through (one-ahead instruction decryption based on the status register, hardware timings, etc), and they were cracked in days. Vast step my arse - your product may be 80x larger than an RNC copylock, that just means it'll take longer to crack. I doubt your code will require 100% accurate emulation as copylocks did. Provided the 'prize' (encoded content) is good enough, someone will endure the brainfuck of cracking it. There might even be an internet-based team to do it. It's just x86 code, the are no real secrets involved like true cryptography. DRM is the new guise of game disk copy protection, nothing more.
Not all Slashdot readers are fresh-faced web scripters. Some people are actually 0ldsk00l.
Not true. The GPL makes code non-free, particularly to commercial developers (to whom it is, essentially, inaccessible).
Bull. The GPL makes code free, not non-free. If commercial developers don't like freedom, I'm sure they can find another implementation somewhere that isn't free. They can even ask the authors of a free package if they're willing to license it again under non-free terms. If they really must use GNU code without negotiating another license, they're welcome to use it at the command-line level without being 'infected'.
The GPL is designed to propagate itself and increase the FSF's hoard of GPLed code,
No, it's designed to increase *my* hoard of GPLed code. And yours. And everyone else's. Everybody wins when code is released. I don't mind reciprocating.
at the expense of users -- who are deprived of the choice to buy commercial software.
Huh? Since when were they not permitted to buy commercial software? If commercial software wants to compete with free software, it's very welcome to. There are many areas of software that are done well by commericial software and done poorly by free software (games, for example). However, noone is likely to sell me a C compiler ever again.
By the way, do you think ID software would have released their Quake engine under a BSDish license, where their competitors could take their entire engine for free without reciprocating any improvements?
And at the expense of developers, whose markets are destroyed by the GPL's anticompetitive and predatory tactics.
Well, according to you, there's a vast market of other developers out there who want non-GPLed code. Surely they could sell to them instead? (And that's exactly where the market for commericial development software *is* - although Cygnus^H^H^H^H^H^HRed Hat competes there too, for money, free compiler or not)
I note you mention nothing of BSD predatory licensing of protocol implementations -- in order to entrench protocol X as an accepted standard, they offer commercially exploitable code for free (see IPv6, PNG, zlib, etc)
Also, Freemasonry does not claim to be a religion.
It doesn't claim to be one, but it acts like one. Pull the cover off your Volume of Sacred Law, to reveal... the Christian Bible! Unmask your Great Architect to reveal... the Christian God! Next thing, you'll be advocating misogyny like St Paul. Oh, you do! (I seem to recall reading in my Scottish grand lodge log book that real lodges must completely disassociate with any lodge that allows women in its ranks)
You might not claim to be a religion, but lying down with dogs will give you fleas.
Forget blaming modern gene-splicing over this, remember the old-skool hybridisation when some imported african killer bees mated with the local american bee population? And that was an unintended accident.
It's the deliberate meddling by humanity that's the problem, the way they do it continually changes. That's why I'm against calls for blanket GM bans, and I think every GM test should be viewed on its merits.
I know very little (read: nothing) about Perl but it seems like this is basically compressing that long, ugly, awkward table of values that represents the magical mystery DVD key. Am I correct?
No, because those tables aren't really needed.
Most of the tables in css-auth.c are used to work out the title key from the disc key - with this script, you provide the title key on the command line.
The other tables in css-auth.c are used to reverse the order of bits in a byte - this can easily be accomplished by code instead.
can you give me performance numbers for Apples vs. Apples
Let's just say they're slightly better than Oranges.
I mean, I don't know about the next guy, but the thought of broadband access on the move would convince me to stop taking the train to work and start driving a car.
"State owned schools are paid for by the people" Wrong, retard! They're paid for by the government.
Well, it's always good to hear that the people don't pay for the government. So, when did they stop paying taxes in America?
What if you copied a cd from a friend using your CD Writer but never actually listened to it? Are you still breaking copyright law? Yes.
No, you're not, unless it is known that the copied CD does indeed infringe copyright. Until you know what is on the CD, it's a legal Schroedinger's Cat.
What would be the case if I offered you CDs marked 'Britney Spears hits', and you copied them, only to discover they contained nothing but Richard Stallman's 'Free Software' song? You have not broken copyright law. However, if they did contain Britney's finest, you would have willfully infringed copyright law, which would be tougher penalties than if you could show you did not know you had infringed copyrights by copying them. (IANAL)
C:\>tracert slashdot.org
Tracing route to slashdot.org [127.0.0.1]
[...]
Hrm, that looks pretty good. So why do the pages take so long to load?
Because, as you've clearly demonstrated, slashdot.org is using a Microsoft operating system.
Touche.
Why is it that programmers feel that they are somehow above the need for these techniques? It seems to me to be pretty arrogant to avoid using tools that would make their code better, almost as if they would rather not have perfect code. They would sneer at a cryptographic system that hadn't been rigourously proven, but be happy with any old hack that another coder knocks out whilst eating cold pizza and drinking Mountain Dew.
I agree! Why do stupid humans try to program the computer? Furthermore, I also think hardware engineers should give up - after all, all this hardware could be designed perfectly and automatically by machines.
Er, wait a minute...
I'd love to see more of my fave games released for Linux, esp. Half Life.
The Linux Half-Life HOWTO will show you how to play Half-Life flawlessly using WINE. Now, if only I could get my graphics libraries in order under Debian, perhaps I could actually get their WINE package to work and actually play Half-Life, which I bought on Saturday!
The reason why apt-get is so nice is not just the downloading and installing, it's the fact that Debian packages are built by (mostly) experienced maintainers who are trained to follow Debian's one true standard, which they have to follow to get packages into debian.org. I would say that probably, most Debian users just have *.debian.org in their sources, and therefore only recieve standardized and sanitized packages.
If all RPMs were standardised and sanitized too, there'd be no contest between DEBs and RPMs.
All truth (facts, whatever) are derived from assumptions (beliefs, faith, whatever)
OK, OK! Enough! All human knowledge of truth are [sic] derived from human assumptions. Fine. This is pretty much the definition of "subjective". We can't step outside ourselves and objectively perceive reality. It's such a barrier, philosophers have even argued the case for there being no objective reality. After all, we can't prove it exists, can we? Everything we humans do is subjective in some way or another, and we can't even speculate on there being an objective reality outside our subjective perception of it, because to do that would be subjective!
As you can see, this debate rages into a black hole, because saying there is no objective reality is also subjective. People who go around claiming this continually are nihilists, but I'm quite happy to believe you just want the point shown, you're not like some reincarnation of Nietzsche.
So, by stating this, have you cleverly pulled the rug from under science? No! Actually, hang on, I'll just address this part of your post at the same time:
> Scientists only base their arguments on material evidence.
Actually, scientist use material evidence to bolter theories. A scientist does not on material evidence alone prove anything. It is important, but not the only thing.
I said they base their arguments on material evidence. If you can call assumption 'faith', I can call theories and debates 'arguments'. So, how does science beat the objectivity barrier? Well, through smoke and mirrors. First, we gather huge amounts of material evidence through the previously discussed collective subjectivism. Next, we form a hypothesis based around that evidence that makes a conjecture about the objective existence, and uses this logically to make predictions about the subjective reality. Therefore, we can prove with the rules of logic that both the objective statements lead from the subjective evidence, and that the subjective predictions are an accurate conclusion of the objective statements. Then, we test the hypothesis with collective subjectivism. Should the prediction correlate with the evidence, then bingo! We've made a valid claim about objective reality!
I apologise if you thought I was calling you a creationist fundamentalist. You're sharing the same argument, but clearly not the same beliefs (you would have mentioned the satanism of evolution by now if you were a fundie). I would call you a nihilist if you persisted in your argument and tried to argue that science is futile, but you're not at that stage yet.
But anyway, as a scientific atheist who believes in evolution, I wouldn't going around saying "science is basically just faith". It's more a diplomatic gesture, to respect the huge amount of effort science goes to in gathering evidence, analysing it, hypothesising and testing, just to provide a more stable bedrock for understanding the world. Remember "faith" implies no evidence and no logic. It would be unfair to call the whole lot "faith", just because there are things we can't test directly and perfectly. Even 1% accuracy is preferable to 0% accuracy.
As many have pointed out, because the actual transfer of music is peer to peer, so it can just pretend to do 'protection'. I know that non US residents have a legal right to work out the new Napster protocol and write new, appearing-to-be-but-not-actually-compliant clients, but would an open-source Napster client count as a circumvention device in the US? Would the RIAA run to Judge Kaplan to sue those developers? Is the DMCA going to act as a legal cudgel for megacorps to screw over the public?
My argument is at the most basic root of anything is an assumption (Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof. Close enough to Faith I believe to use interchangeably).
*sigh*. You batter the same old argument that's been raging for centuries. Theologists do not base their arguments on material evidence. Scientists only base their arguments on material evidence. When the two clash, the theologists hypocritically accuse the scientists of lacking evidence. The argument goes that because nothing evidence can be known to be 100%, it is therefore wrong to base any judgements on evidence, and instead work in cloud-cuckoo land with 0% accurate evidence. This is the essense of faith - lack of evidence, lack of logic. However, science does not claim that evidence is 100% accurate, in fact they generally work out their margin of error as a matter of course.
This all boils down to the subjective vs objective argument. For example, let's have 100 people look at an alledged tree in a forest. 99 subjectively percieve the tree, but one person does not. Is the tree there? It is 99% likely that the tree is there. It depends on the levels of skepticism and pedantry, but it would generally be agreed that the objective viewpoint is that the tree is there, even though all evidence was collected subjectively. That's enough to convince scientists, but anything less than 100% is not going to convince a fundamentalist theologian, who would rather believe the 0% accurate claims of his religion.
But what material proof do you have that you're simply not dreaming the whole thing, or delusional? My contention: none. You merely assume so.
Why stop there? Are you just a brain in a jar?.
Not when you have an extremely large website. Consider the fact that a site that has lots of stuff compressed gets /. all the sudden. How about that?
/.ing, decompression only happens on the first page hit, and the following 10000 hits are served direct from RAM. Unless the /.'ed content is larger than you have RAM for, there's no issue.
You're missing the point. Any file that gets read more than once is likely to be in the cache. Just depends on how much RAM you have. As for