It's a wonder FreeCiv hasn't got a C&D yet -- the web site even proclaims, "'Cause civilization should be free". If it ever gets up to speed, Firaxis' lawyers would be around with a polite, "Stop it, or else..." letter.
Any non-USAsians want to question this claim? I was under the impression that people in Europe knew cursive too.
Hell, no. Indian (as in, those from India) English, which derives chiefly from English (as in from England) English features cursive writing too, more as a suggestion to improve writing speed than anything else.
I don't write but occasionally, thanks to you-know-what, but when I do, I tend to write in semi-cursive -- most of my letters are joined together, but I do lift my pen to dot my i's and cross my t's, not to mention capitalization, hyphenation and other such interruptions to my 'natural' cursive.
FWIW, the non-techgeek USians I know don't write cursive.
But what is the correct way to pronounce Solaris (as in Sun's OS)? I always said the 'a' like 'hair'...but on the previews for this they said it like 'car.'
It's "hair" if you're in the US; it's "car" if you're in England + most of Europe + other places which follow that pronunciation style.
The difference crops up in pronunciation of words like "path" too.
The title is an understatement; the book covers not just Perl programming but the bulk of what a novice needs to learn to function in a UNIX environment, from pwd and man to installing software packages from source tarballs
Well, not quite. The book does see to teach to novice stuff about UNIX, but it's only stuff required for web site development (iow, to be able to use the book) - features that are included in every book worth its salt. Since teaching UNIX was never an intention of the book (it's not even a secondary purpose), the book's title seems just right.
The way things are, it wouldn't quite be right to mention UNIX in the title.
perhaps given to suspicions that Microsoft always makes decisions with the aim of frustrating competitors of the Windows empire rather than for the good of consumers
Oh, this, I thought was an integral part of capitalism. No, I'll correct myself - attempts to frustrate competitiors is inevitable in a capitalistic economy; it's when the attempts are against consumer welfare that it begins to stink.
Using their monopoly to muscle competition out isn't entirely legal either. If Palladium prevented OSS from running on computers, wouldn't it add to their antitrust suit?
But I sure won't be betting on their not doing it. Not when it's Microsoft that we are talking about
That really seems to be the icing on the cake. Sitting behind the great wall, he's probably in one of the safest spots in the world, a place where the police can't get him.
It's just a matter of coincidence that one of the world's biggest markets is in that very place. Oh well.
Software piracy has been going on there for quite a while, now they've just gone one step further.
c) Modify the older version to implement the features of the newer version (and distribute the result under the old license if I wish) or d) acquire a modified older version from someone else. Ever heard of Xemacs?
This involves extra effort on someone's part - many users might just prefer to accept the new license just to avoid the extra cost (programming time). I'm not saying free software does not have its advantages over proprietary software; I'm only claiming that it is possible for free software to come with a EULA that you may not like.
They may prefer it, but they aren't "tied" to it. They are free to learn to use one of the alternatives (and this is the first I've seen someone label the Mac "less user friendly").
The mac is more user-friendly, for sure. And more expensive too. The users are free to learn to use one of the alternatives, but that takes time, and time is one of the most expensive resources.
you _chose_ to accept the EULA.
That's exactly what I meant. You acquiese, because the terms of the EULA never (no, let me change that to rarely ever) offset the disadvantages involved in not accepting the EULA (gotta switch, costs more in terms of time and effort / gotta choose some other product that you like less).
None of the software on my computer is a monopoly of any kind.
Not true, actually. I assume you are talking about free software: even in this case, it is a monopoly. For example, the FSF can release the next version of, say, Emacs under a newer GPL license. If you do not agree with the terms of this license, you can only a) use an older version of Emacs or b) accept the license anyway. The situation is exactly the same as a non-free product, except that you don't expect the FSF to distribute Emacs under a truly disgusting license.
if a software co. want us to abid by their EULAS then they must print their EULAs in easy to read printing on the outside of the box
IMO, part of the problem is the length of the EULAs. Printed out in 12pt or something, some of them will run into pages. The length of these licenses is a major deterrent towards the users actually reading them.
Most users in this world are tied to a certain operating system (due to the simple lack of equally user-friendly alternatives), and software that comes bundled with it. Many users are also tied to specific software that they use at work.
The same is true to an extent even in gaming. If I like Quake, but not the EULA that id software dishes out, I'd probably sign up and play, for the simple reason that this particular game (Quake) cannot be replaced (there may be many games similar to Quake, but nothing the resembles Quake very closely).
Just what purpose does reading the EULA serve, when pressing the "I Decline" button is simply not an alternative? The root of the problem here is that every single piece of software is a little monopoly - some more, some less. What follows in an potential abuse of the monopoly. This is evident from the way these "interesting" licenses are developed by the key players in the market - Microsoft, KaZaA etc.
It's usually different in brick-and-mortar products. You'll usually be able to find two boxes of cereal with similar taste, manufactured by two different corporations.
"Currently some courts may assess damages on the money that a counterfeiter has made," said Peets, "so a counterfeiter with a compilation of software worth $10,000 on one DVD but who sells it for $10 may be fined on the basis of that $10 profit."
This is a tricky and dangerous detail. Right now, if Microsoft rips of a GPL program, they may get penalized based on the money they have made from it. Under these proposed rules, Microsoft could rip off GPL programs with impunity because their penalty would be nil (since the GPL retail price would be zero). This is clearly not acceptable
This does not mean that the existing method is fair. If someone pirated a whole bunch of CDs and distributed the lot for $10, then all that the recording companies can claim (if what the RIAA says is true; I doubt it) only $10 in damages. Their loss would be significantly higher than $10, however conservative your view may be.
This city is part of the Indus valley civilisation.
All traces of the Indus valley civilization have been found within a few hundred miles of the Indus river, almost 1000 miles from the place where the temples were discovered. If these temples are indeed found to belong to the Indus v. c. (a long shot, if you ask me), this would be one of the most remarkable archaeological discoveries ever, and would debunk most theories of the Aryan invasion.
Again, there are claims that Hinduism itself is about 5000 years old. Most of these "theories" are really a combination of scientific hypotheses and local folklore; so it's nice to see some actual evidence come along.
From the article:
Scientists now want to explore the possibility that the city was submerged following the last Ice Age.
If this proves correct, it would date the discovery at more than 5,000 years old.
References to the lost temples in both the local Tamil literature and the little recorded history
attribute their construction to the rulers of the Pallava dynasty. That would put down the age of the temples to be around 1000 years old, no more. While the credibility of these sources cannot be vouched for, this must be the first instance where science presents a more grandiose scene than art.
Re:From the article...
on
Time Travel
·
· Score: 1
I'm tempted to take this guy seriously. For one, other physicists are listening to him, even if skeptical.
Also, he's got a job to worry about. You don't get to be a professor in physics if you shoot off your head once in a while:)
Sure, I don't understand the physics of time travel. Wait a sec, I don't understand relativity either. To put it in a nutshell, all the physics I know can be put in a nutshell. That being the case, what business do I have laughing at a guy who's been in business for years?
I did a quick search on both engines.
The text was simply my full name. Within double quotes. Simple and sweet. An easy way to ensure only relevant results count.
Google returned 5 hits, all relevant, of course.
Teoma returned one hit. Interestingly, this wasn't the "most relevant" hit returned by Google.
A brute force decryption attempt would take roughly twice as much time for every extra bit in the key. No naive decryption scheme will work even if the key size is as low as 128 bits.
The problem has to be tackled at a more fundamental level - maybe by finding an inherent weakness in the algorithm, which can be used to decrypt the message without having to go through all possible key values.
For example, if a few (plain text, encrypted text) pairs are known, we can search for a pattern, apply the pattern in reverse to an encrypted message, and get back the original plain text message.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a wonder FreeCiv hasn't got a C&D yet -- the web site even proclaims, "'Cause civilization should be free". If it ever gets up to speed, Firaxis' lawyers would be around with a polite, "Stop it, or else..." letter.
Hell, no. Indian (as in, those from India) English, which derives chiefly from English (as in from England) English features cursive writing too, more as a suggestion to improve writing speed than anything else.
I don't write but occasionally, thanks to you-know-what, but when I do, I tend to write in semi-cursive -- most of my letters are joined together, but I do lift my pen to dot my i's and cross my t's, not to mention capitalization, hyphenation and other such interruptions to my 'natural' cursive.
FWIW, the non-techgeek USians I know don't write cursive.
It's "hair" if you're in the US; it's "car" if you're in England + most of Europe + other places which follow that pronunciation style.
The difference crops up in pronunciation of words like "path" too.
*If* they are around then, that is.
Also, the article does not mention KMart at all.. wonder where this gem was picked up.
Big brother is watching you...
I find it mildly ironic that /. believes things that are printed by the mainstream media.
Well, not quite. The book does see to teach to novice stuff about UNIX, but it's only stuff required for web site development (iow, to be able to use the book) - features that are included in every book worth its salt. Since teaching UNIX was never an intention of the book (it's not even a secondary purpose), the book's title seems just right.
The way things are, it wouldn't quite be right to mention UNIX in the title.
Just my $0.02
According to the AP article, the retraction came after "the research team and other scientists were unable to duplicate the results".
There is a good chance that the error was pointed out to them by someone *outside* their research team. That would be negligence on their part.
Violation of trust by one scientist, and negligence on the part of *all* others, is definitely cause for concern.
#1 0 0 NoName
#2 0 0 NoName
#3 0 0 NoName
#4 0 0 NoName
#5 0 0 NoName
#6 0 0 NoName
#7 0 0 NoName
#8 0 0 NoName
#9 0 0 NoName
#10 0 0 NoName
Wonder what made me go read the whole article.
atarihq.com classifies the article as a "Previous special feature". Oh, well.
Nice reading, though. I guess that makes up for it.
Oh, this, I thought was an integral part of capitalism. No, I'll correct myself - attempts to frustrate competitiors is inevitable in a capitalistic economy; it's when the attempts are against consumer welfare that it begins to stink.
Using their monopoly to muscle competition out isn't entirely legal either. If Palladium prevented OSS from running on computers, wouldn't it add to their antitrust suit?
But I sure won't be betting on their not doing it. Not when it's Microsoft that we are talking about
It's just a matter of coincidence that one of the world's biggest markets is in that very place. Oh well.
Software piracy has been going on there for quite a while, now they've just gone one step further.
This involves extra effort on someone's part - many users might just prefer to accept the new license just to avoid the extra cost (programming time). I'm not saying free software does not have its advantages over proprietary software; I'm only claiming that it is possible for free software to come with a EULA that you may not like.
The mac is more user-friendly, for sure. And more expensive too. The users are free to learn to use one of the alternatives, but that takes time, and time is one of the most expensive resources.
you _chose_ to accept the EULA.
That's exactly what I meant. You acquiese, because the terms of the EULA never (no, let me change that to rarely ever) offset the disadvantages involved in not accepting the EULA (gotta switch, costs more in terms of time and effort / gotta choose some other product that you like less).
None of the software on my computer is a monopoly of any kind.
Not true, actually. I assume you are talking about free software: even in this case, it is a monopoly. For example, the FSF can release the next version of, say, Emacs under a newer GPL license. If you do not agree with the terms of this license, you can only a) use an older version of Emacs or b) accept the license anyway. The situation is exactly the same as a non-free product, except that you don't expect the FSF to distribute Emacs under a truly disgusting license.
IMO, part of the problem is the length of the EULAs. Printed out in 12pt or something, some of them will run into pages. The length of these licenses is a major deterrent towards the users actually reading them.
Most users in this world are tied to a certain operating system (due to the simple lack of equally user-friendly alternatives), and software that comes bundled with it. Many users are also tied to specific software that they use at work.
The same is true to an extent even in gaming. If I like Quake, but not the EULA that id software dishes out, I'd probably sign up and play, for the simple reason that this particular game (Quake) cannot be replaced (there may be many games similar to Quake, but nothing the resembles Quake very closely).
Just what purpose does reading the EULA serve, when pressing the "I Decline" button is simply not an alternative? The root of the problem here is that every single piece of software is a little monopoly - some more, some less. What follows in an potential abuse of the monopoly. This is evident from the way these "interesting" licenses are developed by the key players in the market - Microsoft, KaZaA etc.
It's usually different in brick-and-mortar products. You'll usually be able to find two boxes of cereal with similar taste, manufactured by two different corporations.
This is a tricky and dangerous detail. Right now, if Microsoft rips of a GPL program, they may get penalized based on the money they have made from it. Under these proposed rules, Microsoft could rip off GPL programs with impunity because their penalty would be nil (since the GPL retail price would be zero). This is clearly not acceptable
This does not mean that the existing method is fair. If someone pirated a whole bunch of CDs and distributed the lot for $10, then all that the recording companies can claim (if what the RIAA says is true; I doubt it) only $10 in damages. Their loss would be significantly higher than $10, however conservative your view may be.
The auction looks like a publicity stunt. It'll be less expensive advertising contacting the who's who directly and selling tickets.
For the non-worker you mean...
There is a thin line between laid back and laid off
All traces of the Indus valley civilization have been found within a few hundred miles of the Indus river, almost 1000 miles from the place where the temples were discovered. If these temples are indeed found to belong to the Indus v. c. (a long shot, if you ask me), this would be one of the most remarkable archaeological discoveries ever, and would debunk most theories of the Aryan invasion.
Again, there are claims that Hinduism itself is about 5000 years old. Most of these "theories" are really a combination of scientific hypotheses and local folklore; so it's nice to see some actual evidence come along.
References to the lost temples in both the local Tamil literature and the little recorded history attribute their construction to the rulers of the Pallava dynasty. That would put down the age of the temples to be around 1000 years old, no more. While the credibility of these sources cannot be vouched for, this must be the first instance where science presents a more grandiose scene than art.
Sure, I don't understand the physics of time travel. Wait a sec, I don't understand relativity either. To put it in a nutshell, all the physics I know can be put in a nutshell. That being the case, what business do I have laughing at a guy who's been in business for years?
Google returned 5 hits, all relevant, of course. Teoma returned one hit. Interestingly, this wasn't the "most relevant" hit returned by Google.
Verdict: David 0, Goliath 1
The problem has to be tackled at a more fundamental level - maybe by finding an inherent weakness in the algorithm, which can be used to decrypt the message without having to go through all possible key values.
For example, if a few (plain text, encrypted text) pairs are known, we can search for a pattern, apply the pattern in reverse to an encrypted message, and get back the original plain text message.