Other posters explained (so this is redundant -1). ssh is supposed to claim -G is illegal or unknown depending on the version. The backdoored version DOESN'T complain, which is the indication. But "-g" is a legitimate option, so there is no complaint from either the safe or hacked version.
My impression was ACLs were old when I started using an account on a vax in 1991. Personally, I saw more vax than unix back then, so I would call it common, but YMMV.
"My question is quite simply what type of protection should a company be provided to prevent effectively wholesale copying of their product."
A question that deserves a serious answer. One approach is that described in the Constitution (but not followed). The justification for giving this kind of monopoly ownership to creators is to not merely to reward them or some sense of fairness but to encourage the act of creation.
Apple made an immense amount of money off the Iphone despite any copying of their refinements and style. No additional money is needed to further encourage them. Would society benefit from giving Apple stronger property rights in its designs? If not, then don't.
"You're wrong. It is perfectly clear what needs to be published openly: whatever is necessary for someone to confirm that the total analysis is valid."
This is not what is under discussion. To confirm the total analysis, you need access to all the raw bits, all the calibration data underlying the analysis, all the computer codes used, copies of any written information in logs and lab books, and all the laboratory equipment as it was at the time the data was collected. Plus, you need to have all the knowledge that is in the researcher's head. And all of this tells you absolutely nothing about the validity of the research--the real question is whether the technique applied is a correct way to measure the phenomena.
"That is the fundamental principle required for scientific progress."
No it isn't. The fundamental principles are that results can be reproduced and that results can be used to make predictions.
If you demand all this, the question is whether governments are going to increase their research budgets by a factor of 10 or simply eliminate all publicly-funded research.
Unfortunately, it has been shown already that the few details relevant to medical studies can often be used to uniquely identify individuals even after name and address are removed. "Yaniv Erlich shows how research participants can be identified from 'anonymous' DNA" http://www.nature.com/news/pri...
Same will be true for various kinds of employment data and census data.
"There are plenty of scientists out there who poach free online data sets and mine them for additional findings."
Right. This leads to a two-class system where the scientists that collect the data (and understand the techniques and limitations) are treated as technicians while those that perform high-level analysis of others' results get the publications. This can lead to unsound, unproductive science in may cases. Those who understand the details are not motivated, and the superficial understanding of those that write the publications leads to errors.
"petabytes of extremely complex, hard to understand data"
The point seems to be missed by a lot of people. RAW DATA IS USELESS. You can make available a thousand traces of voltage vs. time on your detector pins, but that is of no value whatsoever to anyone. The interpretation of these depends on the exact parameters describing the experimental equipment and procedure. How much information would someone require to replicate CERN from scratch?
Some (maybe most, but not all) published research results can be thought of as a layering of interpretations. Something like detector output is converted to light intensity which is converted to frequency spectra and the integrated amplitudes of the peaks are calculated and are fit to a model and the parameters fit giving you a result that the amplitude of a certain emission scales with temperature squared. Which of these layers is of any value to anyone? Should the sequence of 2-byte values that comes out of the digitizer be made public?
It is not possible to make a general statement about which layer of interpretation is the right one to be made public. Higher levels, closer to the final results, are more likely to be reusable by other researchers. However, higher levels of interpretation provide the least information for someone attempting to confirm that the total analysis is valid.
If you sit in a jury and the plaintiff claims that the defendant is a witch...
Claims by the plaintiff are not evidence. They are not the same as factual evidence presented by the plaintiff or expert testimony. The defendant needs to rebut evidence presented by the other side, but not unsupported assertions.
I think you are saying that if states, counties, and cities all rewrote their tax laws to be easier to enforce, then they wouldn't get much opposition from internet retailers. Eminently true.
> Is it better to have to look down at your dash to view your navigation than to have it
> displayed in the corner of your vision?
Yes, because it doesn't distract me. I only see it when I consciously look at it. Things in my range of sight that flash and change are very distracting.
But that's just my opinion. Some real tests of what is safer would be nice to have.
Absolutely!
What I found made it especially interesting is that it is focused on a single time period and a specific location. I feel like I was able to gain something of a picture of the web of predator and prey in the megafauna of prehistoric SoCal. Most museums instead treat you to their most spectacular fossils from any time in the last several hundred million years.
Your numbers are not in line with what people who work with large publishers have been saying for the past few years. I have been reading that physical production costs are 5-10%, not 30%. There's a big difference whether 20% of the publisher's take goes for manufacturing or 60%. These were the numbers from genre fiction authors who might expect a run in the low 100k or at least several 10s of thousands of books working with the largest publishers. I would expect different numbers for different types of books, different size runs, etc.
"I am a bit surprised at the number of people who fight for the cause of remote X."
Well, people use their computers for different things. If you have a hundred people sharing TBs of data and looking at it using massive complex home-grown analysis and modeling packages, remote X makes sense. It's the difference between shipping a few plot windows across the network vs. GB of data. (And X performance can be fine on a wired LAN when you have ping times in ms and no dropped connections. Again, depends on your own personal situation.)
Sure, this is a use case that only applies to a tiny fraction of users, but for those users it is absolutely necessary.
Exactly, and the reply is always from the point of view of the developer. They want to talk about what style of protocol or something that remote apps will use--I don't care. I want to know whether I can run programs the same way that I do now.
A subset of people like me use their desktop as primarily a terminal to connect to more powerful servers. I want to know if Wayland will let me "ssh me@oldserver-running-X xterm" and then use the remote xterm to start a bunch of programs that open their own windows. I don't want to know how it does it, only if it will work.
If the Wayland developers don't want to commit to making something like this work, that's fine. It just means Wayland isn't designed for me. If they *are* going to make it work, I would feel more comfortable is they would come and say for certain that they are committed to supplying this functionality.
This same point comes up again and again. I think that the developers at some level don't understand the question, because there never seems to be an answer that is straightforward and pitched at the level of the user. (Not that anyone *owes* me an answer. I am just making a request.)
There is a major clutter problem. Have you ever looked at a browser on a small 16:9 screen? Count the number of lines of menus/tabs/messages/titles there are on the top and bottom of the already-too-short screen. (Heaven help you if you're also using gnome2.) It's a UI disaster.
My solution is to stick with 3:4 screens (and not use gnome), but someday duct tape will not be enough to hold that old thinkpad together.
The mass-market paperback market is not the important market to compare to, though. Books make their money on sales of hardbacks--that is what pays the author to write. The publisher and author might get 1/2 of the price of $25 hardback. It's not clear they can stay alive in a world of $10 ebooks.
Absolutely nothing by the ISP. Did you protest to the ISP in writing that you were doing nothing illegal and there must be some mistake? If not, it is a tacit admission of guilt. Good luck if the *AA take you to court for copyright infringement.
I think Musk's plan was to turn this into a shouting contest, because if you look at his graphs, the car did not perform very well in the cold weather. The range was much shorter than the estimated range reported by the computer. Check Musk's graphs--it's right there. Strip away all the drama, and the test was bad for Tesla, unless the main result could be hidden under enough layers of BS.
If Broder were Tesla's biggest fanboi, all he could have done was bury the article--any version of it would have made clear the problems. The range was short--this is undeniable at it is in Musk's graphs. The range/charge measurement is no good on very cold mornings. If these points aren't the obvious takeaways, then it is because Musk is a PR genius.
But they aren't. There are supposed phone calls with no tapes. There are routes with no GPS recorders.
We have a journalist with notes and memories with errors and a businessman with access to uncheckable logs who is also a mind reader (look at how often Musk claims to know why Broder did something).
One fact is clear and consistent from Musk's graphs: Under reasonable winter driving conditions, the actual range on the car was only 75% the estimated range, and that means the charging stations are too far apart.
Have you driven on I-95 in the dark much? Broder's statement about trying to find the charging station seems pretty reasonable from my experience in those giant rest stops.
In general, the first thing that happens is that the ramp splits to separate traffic between parking trucks, parking cars, and gas station traffic. Does these signs say where the charging station is? Is it a sign that you will miss if you glance in your rearview mirror to see if there is an 18-wheeler coming zooming up behind you as you pause to look at signs?
How can you be sure Broder is lying if you haven't been there in the dark yourself? There is no GPS recorder data and there is no camera footage.
The graphs show that this happened. Looking at the map of range over time, the most efficient leg of the trip was at this time, while the batteries were presumably warming up.
If the estimated range remaining is R and the distance traveled is L, then dR/dL= -1 under ideal conditions. Over most of the trip, dR/dL is about -1.25, presumably consistent with fast driving and heater use. On that one segment, dR/dL = -0.7, which means either rolling downhill with a tailwind or that the range estimation is wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Other posters explained (so this is redundant -1). ssh is supposed to claim -G is illegal or unknown depending on the version. The backdoored version DOESN'T complain, which is the indication. But "-g" is a legitimate option, so there is no complaint from either the safe or hacked version.
My impression was ACLs were old when I started using an account on a vax in 1991. Personally, I saw more vax than unix back then, so I would call it common, but YMMV.
A question that deserves a serious answer. One approach is that described in the Constitution (but not followed). The justification for giving this kind of monopoly ownership to creators is to not merely to reward them or some sense of fairness but to encourage the act of creation.
Apple made an immense amount of money off the Iphone despite any copying of their refinements and style. No additional money is needed to further encourage them. Would society benefit from giving Apple stronger property rights in its designs? If not, then don't.
This is not what is under discussion. To confirm the total analysis, you need access to all the raw bits, all the calibration data underlying the analysis, all the computer codes used, copies of any written information in logs and lab books, and all the laboratory equipment as it was at the time the data was collected. Plus, you need to have all the knowledge that is in the researcher's head. And all of this tells you absolutely nothing about the validity of the research--the real question is whether the technique applied is a correct way to measure the phenomena.
"That is the fundamental principle required for scientific progress."
No it isn't. The fundamental principles are that results can be reproduced and that results can be used to make predictions.
If you demand all this, the question is whether governments are going to increase their research budgets by a factor of 10 or simply eliminate all publicly-funded research.
Good to hear. Unfortunately, it does happen in other fields. (Should have said "can lead...")
Same will be true for various kinds of employment data and census data.
Right. This leads to a two-class system where the scientists that collect the data (and understand the techniques and limitations) are treated as technicians while those that perform high-level analysis of others' results get the publications. This can lead to unsound, unproductive science in may cases. Those who understand the details are not motivated, and the superficial understanding of those that write the publications leads to errors.
The point seems to be missed by a lot of people. RAW DATA IS USELESS. You can make available a thousand traces of voltage vs. time on your detector pins, but that is of no value whatsoever to anyone. The interpretation of these depends on the exact parameters describing the experimental equipment and procedure. How much information would someone require to replicate CERN from scratch?
Some (maybe most, but not all) published research results can be thought of as a layering of interpretations. Something like detector output is converted to light intensity which is converted to frequency spectra and the integrated amplitudes of the peaks are calculated and are fit to a model and the parameters fit giving you a result that the amplitude of a certain emission scales with temperature squared. Which of these layers is of any value to anyone? Should the sequence of 2-byte values that comes out of the digitizer be made public?
It is not possible to make a general statement about which layer of interpretation is the right one to be made public. Higher levels, closer to the final results, are more likely to be reusable by other researchers. However, higher levels of interpretation provide the least information for someone attempting to confirm that the total analysis is valid.
Claims by the plaintiff are not evidence. They are not the same as factual evidence presented by the plaintiff or expert testimony. The defendant needs to rebut evidence presented by the other side, but not unsupported assertions.
Just because we don't know the identity of the poster doesn't mean /.'s servers don't contain enough information to identify him.
I think you are saying that if states, counties, and cities all rewrote their tax laws to be easier to enforce, then they wouldn't get much opposition from internet retailers. Eminently true.
> displayed in the corner of your vision?
Yes, because it doesn't distract me. I only see it when I consciously look at it. Things in my range of sight that flash and change are very distracting.
But that's just my opinion. Some real tests of what is safer would be nice to have.
Absolutely! What I found made it especially interesting is that it is focused on a single time period and a specific location. I feel like I was able to gain something of a picture of the web of predator and prey in the megafauna of prehistoric SoCal. Most museums instead treat you to their most spectacular fossils from any time in the last several hundred million years.
Your numbers are not in line with what people who work with large publishers have been saying for the past few years. I have been reading that physical production costs are 5-10%, not 30%. There's a big difference whether 20% of the publisher's take goes for manufacturing or 60%. These were the numbers from genre fiction authors who might expect a run in the low 100k or at least several 10s of thousands of books working with the largest publishers. I would expect different numbers for different types of books, different size runs, etc.
Well, people use their computers for different things. If you have a hundred people sharing TBs of data and looking at it using massive complex home-grown analysis and modeling packages, remote X makes sense. It's the difference between shipping a few plot windows across the network vs. GB of data. (And X performance can be fine on a wired LAN when you have ping times in ms and no dropped connections. Again, depends on your own personal situation.)
Sure, this is a use case that only applies to a tiny fraction of users, but for those users it is absolutely necessary.
A subset of people like me use their desktop as primarily a terminal to connect to more powerful servers. I want to know if Wayland will let me "ssh me@oldserver-running-X xterm" and then use the remote xterm to start a bunch of programs that open their own windows. I don't want to know how it does it, only if it will work.
If the Wayland developers don't want to commit to making something like this work, that's fine. It just means Wayland isn't designed for me. If they *are* going to make it work, I would feel more comfortable is they would come and say for certain that they are committed to supplying this functionality.
This same point comes up again and again. I think that the developers at some level don't understand the question, because there never seems to be an answer that is straightforward and pitched at the level of the user. (Not that anyone *owes* me an answer. I am just making a request.)
There is a major clutter problem. Have you ever looked at a browser on a small 16:9 screen? Count the number of lines of menus/tabs/messages/titles there are on the top and bottom of the already-too-short screen. (Heaven help you if you're also using gnome2.) It's a UI disaster. My solution is to stick with 3:4 screens (and not use gnome), but someday duct tape will not be enough to hold that old thinkpad together.
There are three of us still using seamonkey? More than I thought.
Not true for the publisher. Editing, proofreading, design, artwork, publicity are all the same.
The mass-market paperback market is not the important market to compare to, though. Books make their money on sales of hardbacks--that is what pays the author to write. The publisher and author might get 1/2 of the price of $25 hardback. It's not clear they can stay alive in a world of $10 ebooks.
Absolutely nothing by the ISP. Did you protest to the ISP in writing that you were doing nothing illegal and there must be some mistake? If not, it is a tacit admission of guilt. Good luck if the *AA take you to court for copyright infringement.
If Broder were Tesla's biggest fanboi, all he could have done was bury the article--any version of it would have made clear the problems. The range was short--this is undeniable at it is in Musk's graphs. The range/charge measurement is no good on very cold mornings. If these points aren't the obvious takeaways, then it is because Musk is a PR genius.
But they aren't. There are supposed phone calls with no tapes. There are routes with no GPS recorders.
We have a journalist with notes and memories with errors and a businessman with access to uncheckable logs who is also a mind reader (look at how often Musk claims to know why Broder did something).
One fact is clear and consistent from Musk's graphs: Under reasonable winter driving conditions, the actual range on the car was only 75% the estimated range, and that means the charging stations are too far apart.
In general, the first thing that happens is that the ramp splits to separate traffic between parking trucks, parking cars, and gas station traffic. Does these signs say where the charging station is? Is it a sign that you will miss if you glance in your rearview mirror to see if there is an 18-wheeler coming zooming up behind you as you pause to look at signs?
How can you be sure Broder is lying if you haven't been there in the dark yourself? There is no GPS recorder data and there is no camera footage.
If the estimated range remaining is R and the distance traveled is L, then dR/dL= -1 under ideal conditions. Over most of the trip, dR/dL is about -1.25, presumably consistent with fast driving and heater use. On that one segment, dR/dL = -0.7, which means either rolling downhill with a tailwind or that the range estimation is wrong.