I'm pretty sure it is MLM. My mom forwarded something to me a few weeks ago that mentioned Bizzerk; when I checked it out, the information discussed the differences between traditional multi level marketing and a forced matrix scheme. It was pretty obvious.
Without bothering to dispute your point, "The big mistake OLPC made was Nicholas Negroponte" is kind of a fun statement when you consider that he organized OLPC (or kicked it off, or whatever, it seems pretty indisputable that he was heavily involved in setting up the organization).
And when I say I am not disputing your point, I mean that I can see where a project for a laptop type device could have worked out in a fashion similar to what you outline.
The parent post is only a troll if you are illiterate or are moderating an agenda.
All it says is that a part of Microsoft could easily end up ignoring corporate strategy if someone who wasn't paying a great deal of attention to that strategy was making a decision about whether releasing code for a project was healthy for that project.
Sure, it accepts the presumption of such a corporate strategy from the grandparent post, but still not a troll.
Re:To anyone who has read the book...
on
The Geek Atlas
·
· Score: 1
Wiki says it is an art project (towards the bottom):
If an author of a GPL program accepts significant changes from another contributor (without some sort of copyright assignment), he essentially loses control of the combined version of the code.
Depending on how you interpret copyright and the GPL, if he closely studies the implementation of various features, he may have trouble later claiming to have developed an independent version (and there certainly is not substantial legal precedent to look to in such a situation).
I wouldn't be surprised if it was just tone deafness at whatever level the commitment was initiated at (I would speculate that the people actually working on the product and wanting to release the code had to take that request to somebody who could actually commit to the release; the yes probably left his desk with a certain license named, and the legal approval process didn't address/bother changing it).
The card might have filled in areas which could also be filled in on some inputs (masking the filled in part of the card from simple analysis). The card can also have parts that are black and parts that are white, further masking things from simple analysis.
Still, the constraints on the combined image and the (relatively) small number of possible cards probably make for relatively easy breaking.
If I had ever seen a game that limited the precision available to the mouse (they often even have a setting, not to mention the driver having a setting), I would be more willing to buy into this line of reasoning.
The question is whether it is worth the hassle in situations where a token device is not (a physical token device is far more secure than this system).
DVD Clue uses a little red magnifying glass to reveal information to one player. If you squint, you can read the data without the magnifying glass (the information is blue).
I guess the cards would be a stronger than that, but they are going to be awfully hard to use properly as they get stronger (because taking advantage of more variation on the card means better and better alignment of the screen and card).
To me it looks like there would be serious issues with making the card complex enough to be resistant to software that used the key image to generate output images for every possible card and then sorted them using ocr or whatever (the software could also keep track of what patterns had been tested previously, so new key images don't do much other than slow the process down a little bit).
I figure there are three or four big reasons: People don't know about them, people don't understand them, they introduce hassle, and they cost a little bit.
I have the option of using an RSA device for one of my accounts, but I haven't bothered.
Today's Firefox vulnerability appears to be limited to denial of service (which probably isn't an exploit, but I'm not close enough to that jargon to argue about it). The one from last week was exploitable.
Don't worry, the 6.5 billion relatively healthy people are still breeding a hell of a lot faster than the 500 million people that are made out of goo.
Basically, if you actually see the prevalence of certain genes increasing, start to worry. Until then, don't worry about it. If you are really worried about it, screen your partner.
Slashdot Mirror
I still have night terrors from Devos's gubernatorial campaign.
I did derive a certain amount of enjoyment watching his well funded confidence go to pieces though.
I'm pretty sure it is MLM. My mom forwarded something to me a few weeks ago that mentioned Bizzerk; when I checked it out, the information discussed the differences between traditional multi level marketing and a forced matrix scheme. It was pretty obvious.
Even without enforced frequency allocations, I would hope that people would not be making casual use of x-rays for communications devices.
Without bothering to dispute your point, "The big mistake OLPC made was Nicholas Negroponte" is kind of a fun statement when you consider that he organized OLPC (or kicked it off, or whatever, it seems pretty indisputable that he was heavily involved in setting up the organization).
And when I say I am not disputing your point, I mean that I can see where a project for a laptop type device could have worked out in a fashion similar to what you outline.
The parent post is only a troll if you are illiterate or are moderating an agenda.
All it says is that a part of Microsoft could easily end up ignoring corporate strategy if someone who wasn't paying a great deal of attention to that strategy was making a decision about whether releasing code for a project was healthy for that project.
Sure, it accepts the presumption of such a corporate strategy from the grandparent post, but still not a troll.
Wiki says it is an art project (towards the bottom):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mole_Antonelliana
If an author of a GPL program accepts significant changes from another contributor (without some sort of copyright assignment), he essentially loses control of the combined version of the code.
Depending on how you interpret copyright and the GPL, if he closely studies the implementation of various features, he may have trouble later claiming to have developed an independent version (and there certainly is not substantial legal precedent to look to in such a situation).
I wouldn't be surprised if it was just tone deafness at whatever level the commitment was initiated at (I would speculate that the people actually working on the product and wanting to release the code had to take that request to somebody who could actually commit to the release; the yes probably left his desk with a certain license named, and the legal approval process didn't address/bother changing it).
The semantics get interesting here. Can a state be modern while it simultaneously prosecutes blasphemy?
How very droll.
The card might have filled in areas which could also be filled in on some inputs (masking the filled in part of the card from simple analysis). The card can also have parts that are black and parts that are white, further masking things from simple analysis.
Still, the constraints on the combined image and the (relatively) small number of possible cards probably make for relatively easy breaking.
Clearly you didn't shoot skeet.
If I had ever seen a game that limited the precision available to the mouse (they often even have a setting, not to mention the driver having a setting), I would be more willing to buy into this line of reasoning.
Fixed link (the trailing slash after .html breaks the page):
http://www.passwindow.com/demo/index.html
The question is whether it is worth the hassle in situations where a token device is not (a physical token device is far more secure than this system).
DVD Clue uses a little red magnifying glass to reveal information to one player. If you squint, you can read the data without the magnifying glass (the information is blue).
I guess the cards would be a stronger than that, but they are going to be awfully hard to use properly as they get stronger (because taking advantage of more variation on the card means better and better alignment of the screen and card).
The filter would have to match the card.
To me it looks like there would be serious issues with making the card complex enough to be resistant to software that used the key image to generate output images for every possible card and then sorted them using ocr or whatever (the software could also keep track of what patterns had been tested previously, so new key images don't do much other than slow the process down a little bit).
I figure there are three or four big reasons: People don't know about them, people don't understand them, they introduce hassle, and they cost a little bit.
I have the option of using an RSA device for one of my accounts, but I haven't bothered.
Training isn't free. If you take your success rate from 30% to 90%, you need less trainers, and so on.
I believe you, but I blame the general public.
Today's Firefox vulnerability appears to be limited to denial of service (which probably isn't an exploit, but I'm not close enough to that jargon to argue about it). The one from last week was exploitable.
Yes, it was a joke. And I don't even use Linux.
It's too bad, what with Metacity being one of the few window managers available.
Any notion about how many users that translates into?
The Mozilla Addons page says there have been nearly 50 million downloads, but I have trouble believing those are unique.
That's really the sort of thing that you should walk or take public transportation for.
Don't worry, the 6.5 billion relatively healthy people are still breeding a hell of a lot faster than the 500 million people that are made out of goo.
Basically, if you actually see the prevalence of certain genes increasing, start to worry. Until then, don't worry about it. If you are really worried about it, screen your partner.