No, because the equivalent energy of the mass is released, and because the energy can't escape from the black hole, it might as well be counted as mass. I think. Or maybe not... perhaps you'd better just ask Hawking, cos he's made a career out of answering entirely pointless questions just like that one...
Did it taste of almonds? I've heard two facts that I've never been able to substantiate... the green stuff they coat circuit boards with contains cyanide, and cyanide tastes like almonds (at least to some people). Dunno if any of this is true, though...
Why? Will it include any of the features that were scheduled for implementation in Longhorn ahead of when MS actually gets around to releasing a system that does include them, or is this just an 'any old excuse' type of situation?
Incidentally, best of luck to the ReactOS team. I've dropped by their web site every now and then, and it looks like they've got the start of an excellent system... but IIRC their current aim point is NT4 compatibility, not any of this advanced stuff.
The most recent example of this was a set of nice Java random variable distribution libraries that I found and wanted to use for some code I was writing. However, they were under the GPL (as opposed to the LGPL which would have allowed me to use library calls), so that meant that even though they were libraries, I couldn't even call them from a commercial product.
I'm sure that somebody has pointed this out before, but as Java classes are not tightly bound at compile time as traditional programs are, you may be able to use GPL'd Java classes from a non-GPL Java application, in much the same way that a non GPL client can call functions in a GPL server. Talk to a lawyer about it, and make sure you give him a good explantation of how Java class binding works...
No, not really. It means that *some* XML files can't be edited with these editors. But then that was true already; some might have used \r or some other of the list of characters.
What it *does* mean is that editors on other systems than Unix are able to edit XML files. It means I can create an XML file in DOS 'edit' which uses \r\n, or on a mac with an editor that might use \r, or on (apparently) an IBM system where the standard text editors use \u85.
This is absolutely essential. It does however mean that in order to support *all* XML files, you need to recognise *all* of those line endings. As always, its easier to support a subset, but harder to support everything. However the fact that existing software works at all is very important, so I think they're moving in the right direction.
Seriously, if someone's precious intellectual property - as if anything worthwhile was ever posted on the Internet in the first place - becomes compromised because they don't know a basic principle of how to run a website, well then boo hoo.
Which basic principle are you talking about? The one that states, presumably, that if you don't want somebody to download an old copy of your site and then redistribute it to the public without requesting your permssion for it you should utter some obscure incantation and put in a file called 'robots.txt' on your server as a charm against such things happening?
Please. Give me a break. Without knowing that this site exists, which I suspect is the situation that 99.9% of web publishers are in, you cannot know what you need to do to prevent the archival of your data without affecting other perfectly legitimate uses of the data.
Yes, its a good cause. That's the only reason why they don't get their asses sued over this, because what they are doing is illegal. They have no right to distribute content that is my copyright property in this fashion. I could sue them, and would almost certainly win, if I had
any inclination to do so.
They legally need permission of the copyright
holder to do the things they do. No lack of action
by the copyright holder can grant them this
permission. Not setting up a robots.txt file is
not enough.
"Basic principles of how to run a web site" are not
allowed to override laws. Sorry to bring you down
to earth on this one, but that's just the way it is. Don't get too upset if these people get sued
for copyright violation, because that is what they
are doing. Their use goes way beyond "fair use"
as it is set down in the laws of most civilised
countries.
Yes, but the house of lords is impotent. As long as commons really wants to pass a bill, lords cannot do anything other than delay it... not a sound basis for a two-tiered democratic system.
If they could actually do anything real, the house of lords would be a good system, at least now that labour has done away with heridatary peers' rights to attend... essentially it is now an unelected oversight committee with positions awarded to people who have made great achievements (usually in the country's interest).
Or something like that anyway. It needs improvement over what it currently is, but the house of lords is a good idea.
And is God a software engineer?
on
Wolframania
·
· Score: 1
And is God a software engineer?
Are you kidding? You mean you hadn't already figured that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and all its quantum-physical consequences are the ultimate kludge to prevent us from looking too deeply into the fact that the entire universe is a simulation, and liable to be switched off at any moment, 'cos the programmer's got bored with it?;-)
Indeed. Where Nader's letter suggested the government should "buy the rights to an office productivity suite", the article *assumes* that this means MS Office, and states that it would be ridiculous because MS wouldn't sell the rights to Office for any reasonable sum of money.
Most of the other browsers have security holes found in them from time to time as well, but most of the kind crackers out there seems to take a diabolical pleasure in focusing on IE (and since it's one of the core technologies of it, Windows...). If people spent as much time trying to break many of the other Browsers out there, I'm sure they would find they're all their own brand of swiss cheese.
If you read any of the security mailing lists you will find that probably about half of the IE holes we've seen over the last few years were discovered by Georgi Guninski. Georgi has also researched other browsers, as you will see from his site. He just hasn't found as many holes in the others.
OK, so IE gets the focus from most people. But just because its in the centre of attention doesn't mean it doesn't actually have more problems than the rest of them...
While blocking gopher at the firewall may work in many cases, a URL of the form gopher://server:80/blah will trick IE into connecting to a gopher server on a non-standard port, which will probably go through most firewalls.
Note that if people are downloading (and presumably running) executable code from your site anyway, why bother with an exploit to run your code that will only work if your victim is on IE?
Except for the fact that the way it is disabled is based on your registration CD key. What if it was *your* CD key that was swiped by some warez person and stuck on their latest serialz list?
This is generally not considered sound any more, even in the UK. Most courts consider this sort of evidence rather dodgy. The best thing to do (in the UK at least) is probably to have a lawyer or commisioner for oaths sign a dated statement saying that they've seen the copyrighted material, attach it to a copy, and have a bank keep it in a vault for you. It'll cost more, but might be worth it in the end...
In general, they had great difficulty comprehending even the most basic concepts such as the difference between the Windows desktop and the interior of a web browser window.
You mean there is a difference? I've certainly seen plenty of Windows PCs displaying web pages on the desktop before now... and the users then wonder why it takes so long for the PC to start up.
Slashdot Mirror
No, because the equivalent energy of the mass is released, and because the energy can't escape from the black hole, it might as well be counted as mass. I think. Or maybe not... perhaps you'd better just ask Hawking, cos he's made a career out of answering entirely pointless questions just like that one...
mustard is a "weed" most places
It certainly was when some dork planted a load of it on my back lawn. That stuff grows like 5 foot high before you've even noticed it sprouting...
Did it taste of almonds? I've heard two facts that I've never been able to substantiate... the green stuff they coat circuit boards with contains cyanide, and cyanide tastes like almonds (at least to some people). Dunno if any of this is true, though...
I just read your web site. I think its very good. I especially like the bit where you say that :ku=^K:le=^H. Very insightful.
Why? Will it include any of the features that were scheduled for implementation in Longhorn ahead of when MS actually gets around to releasing a system that does include them, or is this just an 'any old excuse' type of situation?
Incidentally, best of luck to the ReactOS team. I've dropped by their web site every now and then, and it looks like they've got the start of an excellent system... but IIRC their current aim point is NT4 compatibility, not any of this advanced stuff.
I'm sure that somebody has pointed this out before, but as Java classes are not tightly bound at compile time as traditional programs are, you may be able to use GPL'd Java classes from a non-GPL Java application, in much the same way that a non GPL client can call functions in a GPL server. Talk to a lawyer about it, and make sure you give him a good explantation of how Java class binding works...
No, not really. It means that *some* XML files can't be edited with these editors. But then that was true already; some might have used \r or some other of the list of characters.
What it *does* mean is that editors on other systems than Unix are able to edit XML files. It means I can create an XML file in DOS 'edit' which uses \r\n, or on a mac with an editor that might use \r, or on (apparently) an IBM system where the standard text editors use \u85.
This is absolutely essential. It does however mean that in order to support *all* XML files, you need to recognise *all* of those line endings. As always, its easier to support a subset, but harder to support everything. However the fact that existing software works at all is very important, so I think they're moving in the right direction.
IS that an autogenerated sentence? It sounds like one. Automatic "ask slashdot" generator:
I wonder if 's new will slashdot to
Eg
I wonder if Microsoft's new security patch will cause uneducated slashdot readers to jump and down loudly on their keyboards?
Obviously you'd have to have some relation between and , but other than that it could be fairly random and still sound like an interesting comment...
Which basic principle are you talking about? The one that states, presumably, that if you don't want somebody to download an old copy of your site and then redistribute it to the public without requesting your permssion for it you should utter some obscure incantation and put in a file called 'robots.txt' on your server as a charm against such things happening?
Please. Give me a break. Without knowing that this site exists, which I suspect is the situation that 99.9% of web publishers are in, you cannot know what you need to do to prevent the archival of your data without affecting other perfectly legitimate uses of the data.
Yes, its a good cause. That's the only reason why they don't get their asses sued over this, because what they are doing is illegal. They have no right to distribute content that is my copyright property in this fashion. I could sue them, and would almost certainly win, if I had any inclination to do so.
They legally need permission of the copyright holder to do the things they do. No lack of action by the copyright holder can grant them this permission. Not setting up a robots.txt file is not enough.
"Basic principles of how to run a web site" are not allowed to override laws. Sorry to bring you down to earth on this one, but that's just the way it is. Don't get too upset if these people get sued for copyright violation, because that is what they are doing. Their use goes way beyond "fair use" as it is set down in the laws of most civilised countries.
I have an Optiplex GX/1. I can't switch off the warning message. Any ideas? :-(
" (Score:1, Interesting) "
Err, hello, moderator... that was a 'lets make a beowulf cluster' joke, and not in the remotest 'interesting'.
:-)
If they could actually do anything real, the house of lords would be a good system, at least now that labour has done away with heridatary peers' rights to attend... essentially it is now an unelected oversight committee with positions awarded to people who have made great achievements (usually in the country's interest).
Or something like that anyway. It needs improvement over what it currently is, but the house of lords is a good idea.
Are you kidding? You mean you hadn't already figured that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and all its quantum-physical consequences are the ultimate kludge to prevent us from looking too deeply into the fact that the entire universe is a simulation, and liable to be switched off at any moment, 'cos the programmer's got bored with it? ;-)
Nah. Worry when your neighbours start describing you as "the quiet type ... wouldn't have thought he was capable of that kind of thing".
Hermetic? Don't think he'd last very long in an air-tight container.
Indeed. Where Nader's letter suggested the government should "buy the rights to an office productivity suite", the article *assumes* that this means MS Office, and states that it would be ridiculous because MS wouldn't sell the rights to Office for any reasonable sum of money.
D'Oh!
If you read any of the security mailing lists you will find that probably about half of the IE holes we've seen over the last few years were discovered by Georgi Guninski. Georgi has also researched other browsers, as you will see from his site. He just hasn't found as many holes in the others.
OK, so IE gets the focus from most people. But just because its in the centre of attention doesn't mean it doesn't actually have more problems than the rest of them...
While blocking gopher at the firewall may work in many cases, a URL of the form gopher://server:80/blah will trick IE into connecting to a gopher server on a non-standard port, which will probably go through most firewalls.
Note that if people are downloading (and presumably running) executable code from your site anyway, why bother with an exploit to run your code that will only work if your victim is on IE?
Its never stopped anyone else...!
nylon, the very fabric of modern civilization itself
Eeew... what a thought! :-)
Except for the fact that the way it is disabled is based on your registration CD key. What if it was *your* CD key that was swiped by some warez person and stuck on their latest serialz list?
Whoah. It's not just google. I tried to download this comment and found slashdot slashdotted...
This is generally not considered sound any more, even in the UK. Most courts consider this sort of evidence rather dodgy. The best thing to do (in the UK at least) is probably to have a lawyer or commisioner for oaths sign a dated statement saying that they've seen the copyrighted material, attach it to a copy, and have a bank keep it in a vault for you. It'll cost more, but might be worth it in the end...
You mean there is a difference? I've certainly seen plenty of Windows PCs displaying web pages on the desktop before now... and the users then wonder why it takes so long for the PC to start up.