Well, based on the description in the link labelled 'read' in the article, it isn't much of an improvement.
I don't see why they need to be encrypted to be signed, that's overkill. Just supply them in a.ZIP file with a document file and a PKCS signature file for the document. Provide a quick downloadable program that can verify them under windows; people using other OS's should be able to figure out a way of verifying them with the tools they have available easily enough.
Note that malicious means the following: "Having the nature of or resulting from malice; deliberately harmful; spiteful: malicious gossip." (Dictionary.com).
In the case I describe, all three of those meanings would apply.
Also note the following: Lucent sued Lucentsucks.com for trademark infringement, but lost because the parody content of the site prevented confusion as to whether the legal trademark owner was the owner of the site lucentsucks.com. In the instant case, there is intentional and obvious confusion created by this infringement upon the plaintiff's trademark. That's the distinction: the key violation of trademark is the attempt to dillute the power of the mark through confusion as to the nature of that mark, or its owner.
There is no confusion in this case, either. Look at the site; the first line of text on the home page states that it is unofficial. There's a link at the bottom to the site of the candidate in question. Nothing in the content here is likely to confuse anyone other than the truely dense, and they get confused just by getting out of bed in the morning.
I'm not sure. I know there is compelling evidence that the NSA were aware of cryptanalysis techniques years ago that have only just been discovered by cryptographers working in the public eye (see, for example, the modifications to SHA-1(?) that defeated differential cryptanalysis but were utterly inexplicable at the time they proposed them). But building a quantum computer is a larger project that would require a lot more funding than that... I suspect they (and other agencies around the world) have a project, but I doubt any of them are near completion of a useful system (which would need thousands of qbits to be of any practical use).
The trademark also allows them to prevent people from using their mark to intentionally and maliciously cause them harm.
No, that doesn't seem right to me.
If I have some information about Microsoft that would effect public opinion of them and cost them sales, that shouldn't stop me from using their name when I release it.
I ought to be able to say, for instance (if it were true):
"Microsoft steals information from customers' PCs and sells it to the highest bidder."
If I were prevented from using their trademark in any way that might cause them harm (and believe me, if I were releasing this information I would intend it to, and it would be malicious), I would have to rephrase it:
"There's a company that sells an operating system who steal information from the PCs that their customers have it installed in and sell it to the highest bidder. They're the current leader in terms of market share in that particular market."
That's not a reasonable power to grant to trademark holders. I ought to be free to use their name to discuss them, under all circumstances.
On a serious note, this is awesome. With a 5 qubit entanglement and this, we might be able to build a primitive functional Quantum Computer, for the first time.
I'm pretty sure that a "primitive functional Quantum Computer" has already been built. I recall IBM announcing that they had factored a seven bit number using QC techniques.
This seems promising because it's more likely to be scalable to higher numbers of bits than IBMs approach, from what I can tell.
By attempting to suppress Van Hollen's website and ideas, he's tarnishing his own reputation.
He's not attempting to suppress anything; he's trying to attract attention to his own ideas.
Admittedly, they show him up as childish and unable to form a reasonable argument without reverting to what amounts to namecalling, but he isn't suppressing anything.
But in Australia this would definitely be libel (in some states of Australia he could get away with it as it isn't libel if it's true, but this isn't the case in all states).
Are you seriously saying that the truth of statements you make is not a valid defense to libel in parts of Australia?
Agreed. The content of this site would make me vote _for_ the person it's about, if I lived there. The accusations on the front page alone are rather laughable.
If I went to michaelhowardmp.org.uk, I would expect to find a page which contained information about Michael Howard MP, provided by a not-for-profit organisation with relevance in the UK (that being the basic idea of the.org.uk domain).
I see no reason to expect it to be an official site.
So if I go and buy www.microsoft.tk, and slap a banner up saying I'm not affiliated with Microsoft, that's okay then?
Yes. I don't believe anyone should have sole right to control what a name may or may not be used for. Particularly, people should not be able to prevent their name being used to identify pages which are critical of them.
While Microsoft is a trademark, (morally speaking, I'm not talking about actual laws here) this only gives MS the right to prevent other people trying to use their name to make a profit based on their reputation.
I don't think so. As long as its clear that the sites aren't affiliated with the Conservative party or Mr. Howard (they've currently just got a holding page on them), I see no problem.
I think people should look at this before commenting.
Re:Important differences between Java and C#
on
Java 1.5 vs C#
·
· Score: 1
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the ECMA standardisation only applied to the core C# language, not the.NET apis, whereas the Java community process is involved in both areas. Also, the Java community process is more open in the sense that anyone can become involved in it, I believe ECMA only accepts comments from accepted industry 'experts'.
I don't see how OO reduces code size (except in narrow limited situations). Most examples that claim to illustrate such are rigged in my observation.
Most GUI code written in a non-OO fashion has repeated code, behaviours that are invoked by more than one widget type. For instance, the 'checkbox' and 'radio button' standard widget types have very similar behaviour, only varying in minimal ways.
What we want to do is have the same mouse handling code, but make them behave differently at the point where it's detected that the button should be switched on or off. Psuedocode in a non OO language would look like this:
if (mouse_detect_activation())
if (is_checkbox())
checkbox_activate();
else
radiobutton_activate();
Whereas in an OO language, we would not use an 'if' in the inner level there, but dispatch the call to a virtual method and make checkbox and radiobutton subclasses with different implementations.
This does produce smaller code than the non-OO implementation, and it also has the benefit of being more flexible: I could easily add another subclass if I wanted.
There is, of course, a hack that can be performed in the non-OO language by having a function pointer associated with the structure that describes your widget, and I'll admit that this is as good as the OO solution. I'll also argue that if you use it, you're doing OO programming: OO isn't about language features, it's about design. In this sense, for example, large parts of the linux kernel are object oriented. The objects are files, inodes, descriptors, filesystems superblocks, etc.
What the hell are "activity objects"? I've never heard this phrase before.
If you want to do Java or.NET program without OOP think of classes as providing namespaces. And with the new static import feature in Java, you get the equivalent of C++'s "using" construct so you don't have to constantly specify which namespace you're using. And you can use classes with no methods as structure replacements, too.
As to why you would want to for anything that isn't trivially simple, I have no idea. But good luck with it anyway.
Considering the amount of new evidence coming to light from probes around mars, and the general information contained in the book, dont put your faith in his calculations just yet. He raises some good points, but is far from a complete and proper plan backed up with rock solid evidence.
OK, what new evidence are you talking about? I'll admit to not being familiar enough with Zubrin's assumptions to know what may have been contradicted, but I can't think of anything that is likely to be a problem.
Also, what evidence do you need to back up a plan like this? Theoretically, it works. It would be a risky project, but it should be possible.
Quite simply, it isn't the increase in CO2 content at present that concerns me; it is the possibility of cataclysmic events, like the vulcanism that may (or may not, depending on who you listen to) have lead to a massive release of CO2, causing the Permian/Triassic mass extinction. This is the kind of effect I worry about... compared to the CO2 levels that were involved in this event (according to some studies), what we are producing is nothing. A key component of this was a single volcanic erruption which is estimated to have produced 10^11 tonnes of CO2. This is, I believe, numerous orders of magnitude more CO2 than we put into the atmosphere each year, and would actually increase CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere by a factor approaching 100 (current figures have slightly over 10^9 tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere).
Yes. All data before that date would be calculated based on a variety of factors extracted from the same core samples as the CO2 samples. I don't have a reference for how its done, and there have been some recent corrections to the technique that may or may not be included in this data (I think they are, but I'm not sure). So yeah, the earlier data is largely 'best guess', but is probably fairly accurate.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, based on the description in the link labelled 'read' in the article, it isn't much of an improvement.
.ZIP file with a document file and a PKCS signature file for the document. Provide a quick downloadable program that can verify them under windows; people using other OS's should be able to figure out a way of verifying them with the tools they have available easily enough.
I don't see why they need to be encrypted to be signed, that's overkill. Just supply them in a
RTFA: they're talking about an evil/proprietary extension to MHT that uses encrypted content.
Note that malicious means the following: "Having the nature of or resulting from malice; deliberately harmful; spiteful: malicious gossip." (Dictionary.com).
In the case I describe, all three of those meanings would apply.
Also note the following: Lucent sued Lucentsucks.com for trademark infringement, but lost because the parody content of the site prevented confusion as to whether the legal trademark owner was the owner of the site lucentsucks.com. In the instant case, there is intentional and obvious confusion created by this infringement upon the plaintiff's trademark. That's the distinction: the key violation of trademark is the attempt to dillute the power of the mark through confusion as to the nature of that mark, or its owner.
There is no confusion in this case, either. Look at the site; the first line of text on the home page states that it is unofficial. There's a link at the bottom to the site of the candidate in question. Nothing in the content here is likely to confuse anyone other than the truely dense, and they get confused just by getting out of bed in the morning.
I'm not sure. I know there is compelling evidence that the NSA were aware of cryptanalysis techniques years ago that have only just been discovered by cryptographers working in the public eye (see, for example, the modifications to SHA-1(?) that defeated differential cryptanalysis but were utterly inexplicable at the time they proposed them). But building a quantum computer is a larger project that would require a lot more funding than that... I suspect they (and other agencies around the world) have a project, but I doubt any of them are near completion of a useful system (which would need thousands of qbits to be of any practical use).
The trademark also allows them to prevent people from using their mark to intentionally and maliciously cause them harm.
No, that doesn't seem right to me.
If I have some information about Microsoft that would effect public opinion of them and cost them sales, that shouldn't stop me from using their name when I release it.
I ought to be able to say, for instance (if it were true):
"Microsoft steals information from customers' PCs and sells it to the highest bidder."
If I were prevented from using their trademark in any way that might cause them harm (and believe me, if I were releasing this information I would intend it to, and it would be malicious), I would have to rephrase it:
"There's a company that sells an operating system who steal information from the PCs that their customers have it installed in and sell it to the highest bidder. They're the current leader in terms of market share in that particular market."
That's not a reasonable power to grant to trademark holders. I ought to be free to use their name to discuss them, under all circumstances.
On a serious note, this is awesome. With a 5 qubit entanglement and this, we might be able to build a primitive functional Quantum Computer, for the first time.
I'm pretty sure that a "primitive functional Quantum Computer" has already been built. I recall IBM announcing that they had factored a seven bit number using QC techniques.
This seems promising because it's more likely to be scalable to higher numbers of bits than IBMs approach, from what I can tell.
By attempting to suppress Van Hollen's website and ideas, he's tarnishing his own reputation.
He's not attempting to suppress anything; he's trying to attract attention to his own ideas.
Admittedly, they show him up as childish and unable to form a reasonable argument without reverting to what amounts to namecalling, but he isn't suppressing anything.
I looked at the site, and it isn't political mudslinging.
"Van Hollen votes for [...] terrorism" isn't mudslinging?
But in Australia this would definitely be libel (in some states of Australia he could get away with it as it isn't libel if it's true, but this isn't the case in all states).
Are you seriously saying that the truth of statements you make is not a valid defense to libel in parts of Australia?
Remind me never to live there.
Agreed. The content of this site would make me vote _for_ the person it's about, if I lived there. The accusations on the front page alone are rather laughable.
Yeuch!
If I went to michaelhowardmp.org.uk, I would expect to find a page which contained information about Michael Howard MP, provided by a not-for-profit organisation with relevance in the UK (that being the basic idea of the .org.uk domain).
I see no reason to expect it to be an official site.
So if I go and buy www.microsoft.tk, and slap a banner up saying I'm not affiliated with Microsoft, that's okay then?
Yes. I don't believe anyone should have sole right to control what a name may or may not be used for. Particularly, people should not be able to prevent their name being used to identify pages which are critical of them.
While Microsoft is a trademark, (morally speaking, I'm not talking about actual laws here) this only gives MS the right to prevent other people trying to use their name to make a profit based on their reputation.
Is this any different to registering www.microsoft.com (for example) and then writing Bill Gates hate-speech all over it?
No. And if that domain were available, I would like to see your right to do so protected.
Look at the site. There's nothing misleading about it; it is very clearly _not_ the candidate's campaign site. I think this is fine.
I don't think so. As long as its clear that the sites aren't affiliated with the Conservative party or Mr. Howard (they've currently just got a holding page on them), I see no problem.
The site in question
I think people should look at this before commenting.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the ECMA standardisation only applied to the core C# language, not the .NET apis, whereas the Java community process is involved in both areas. Also, the Java community process is more open in the sense that anyone can become involved in it, I believe ECMA only accepts comments from accepted industry 'experts'.
mutt? MUTT?
elm, I'll have you know.
I don't see how OO reduces code size (except in narrow limited situations). Most examples that claim to illustrate such are rigged in my observation.
Most GUI code written in a non-OO fashion has repeated code, behaviours that are invoked by more than one widget type. For instance, the 'checkbox' and 'radio button' standard widget types have very similar behaviour, only varying in minimal ways.
What we want to do is have the same mouse handling code, but make them behave differently at the point where it's detected that the button should be switched on or off. Psuedocode in a non OO language would look like this:
if (mouse_detect_activation())
if (is_checkbox())
checkbox_activate();
else
radiobutton_activate();
Whereas in an OO language, we would not use an 'if' in the inner level there, but dispatch the call to a virtual method and make checkbox and radiobutton subclasses with different implementations.
This does produce smaller code than the non-OO implementation, and it also has the benefit of being more flexible: I could easily add another subclass if I wanted.
There is, of course, a hack that can be performed in the non-OO language by having a function pointer associated with the structure that describes your widget, and I'll admit that this is as good as the OO solution. I'll also argue that if you use it, you're doing OO programming: OO isn't about language features, it's about design. In this sense, for example, large parts of the linux kernel are object oriented. The objects are files, inodes, descriptors, filesystems superblocks, etc.
What the hell are "activity objects"? I've never heard this phrase before.
.NET program without OOP think of classes as providing namespaces. And with the new static import feature in Java, you get the equivalent of C++'s "using" construct so you don't have to constantly specify which namespace you're using. And you can use classes with no methods as structure replacements, too.
If you want to do Java or
As to why you would want to for anything that isn't trivially simple, I have no idea. But good luck with it anyway.
Considering the amount of new evidence coming to light from probes around mars, and the general information contained in the book, dont put your faith in his calculations just yet. He raises some good points, but is far from a complete and proper plan backed up with rock solid evidence.
OK, what new evidence are you talking about? I'll admit to not being familiar enough with Zubrin's assumptions to know what may have been contradicted, but I can't think of anything that is likely to be a problem.
Also, what evidence do you need to back up a plan like this? Theoretically, it works. It would be a risky project, but it should be possible.
Quite simply, it isn't the increase in CO2 content at present that concerns me; it is the possibility of cataclysmic events, like the vulcanism that may (or may not, depending on who you listen to) have lead to a massive release of CO2, causing the Permian/Triassic mass extinction. This is the kind of effect I worry about... compared to the CO2 levels that were involved in this event (according to some studies), what we are producing is nothing. A key component of this was a single volcanic erruption which is estimated to have produced 10^11 tonnes of CO2. This is, I believe, numerous orders of magnitude more CO2 than we put into the atmosphere each year, and would actually increase CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere by a factor approaching 100 (current figures have slightly over 10^9 tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere).
Yes. All data before that date would be calculated based on a variety of factors extracted from the same core samples as the CO2 samples. I don't have a reference for how its done, and there have been some recent corrections to the technique that may or may not be included in this data (I think they are, but I'm not sure). So yeah, the earlier data is largely 'best guess', but is probably fairly accurate.
There's a more detailed graph of the last few thousand years on the next page.