.. it seems reasonably likely to me that 'Google' is constructed from 'go ogle'. If this is indeed the case, it seems especially hypocritical to be trying to defend from 'verbing' a trademark that is itself derived from a verb.
If I'm completely wrong, then.. well, this still sucks. This kind of behaviour inevitably leaves a bad taste in people's mouths -- a real shame, since Google's been doing a lot of things reasonably well..
I wasn't trying to suggest that tables should not ever be used -- for 'tabular data' they're fine. But they're really not ideal for 'splitting a page up into rows and columns' -- that's the job for CSS, and it's *not* an 'ugly hack'. CSS allows you to logically separate elements on your page, and to position them as you wish -- and differently for different media, if you so wish.
It's not a matter of 'using the technology for its own sake', either -- and suggesting that CSS is the 'hack' is ludicrous: it's using tables which is the hack, and which leads to its own problems both for older browsers (issues with missing closing tags, nested elements, etc.) and for platforms for which tables don't make much sense (a visual layout hacked together using tables becomes a garbled mess when rendered in a linear format).
Tables also add a considerable overhead in terms of the sheer quantity of HTML data required. CSS does away with these in a decent fashion, and will be increasingly useful for a wide variety of layouts as Microsoft fix their browser to do things properly.
But it *is* for precisely the reasons of efficiency and portability that the likes of CSS are a good thing.
Bizarre assertions. My experience is that 'modern web techniques' rely less and less on IE -- the DOM is well-ratified, cross-browser support is ever improving (particularly if you force IE to behave in a compliant fashion), and single-browser-only stuff has fallen out of favour, at least from where I'm sitting.
CSS has no intrinsic relationship to anything like Dreamweaver - at any rate, to argue that it's 'weak compared with Flash' is to ignore much of its strength - that it degrades gracefully and provides an elegant approach to developing for multiple (present and future) web platforms, from traditional browsers to handhelds, projectors, printers, or whatever. CSS isn't 'about' graphical effects, either -- in fact, there are probably more parallels with something like Acrobat than with Flash.
I've no experience with CSS 'interacting badly with firewalls and proxy servers' -- what could be 'hostile' about CSS, which essentially just provides a text-based presentation layer?
I don't know about 'weeks', but there's little doubt in my mind that tasks are often assigned to C or other 'proper' languages that could more easily be tackled with a so-called scripting language. Whether this comes down to 'prejudice' or mere ignorance to the potential of perl and the like is open to question.
And, without wishing to develop too much of a flamewar, this same issue comes up -- more frequently, even -- with the battle between 'traditional' web development languages that use CGI -- notably perl and C -- and more modern languages like PHP, ASP, etc. It's my view that a truly experienced and effective developer, whatever the particular circumstances or decisons to be made, will be sufficiently open-minded to consider multiple alternatives: those who show a propensity for platform elitism, or for discounting certain solutions out of hand, often seem to prove poor developers - for the very reason that they show a lack of imagination, an unwillingness to consider different options, and so forth.
Also, people often only consider one side of the equation -- and it's the least important side: the particular language used often has vastly less impact upon the success of a development than does the ability of the developer to write clean code, to think in a sensible fashion -- and to get a *full* picture of what's going on. Take Slashdot -- perl-driven, perhaps, and working reasonably well in its way -- but betraying a lack of understanding of modern web development techniques such as the use of XHTML/CSS in place of kludgy tables and the like.
Long story short: the language won't make the difference, and the developer or manager who thinks it will is deluded -- and will pay for it in the long term.
Re:physical securty has been around for a long tim
on
Storage Security
·
· Score: 1
Erm, several PC BIOSes support passwords on boot etc., likewise necessitating opening the machine up (to discharge the battery or whatnot)..
Of course. But if based upon the notion that there's something inherently wrong with the basis of act A, then I think it's reasonable to extrapolate to the possibility of act B. Note that it was the use of 'this sort of approach' that was mooted in the story as being at the top of a slippery slope -- in other words, misguided legislation affecting ISPs for the sake of morality stands the chance of leading to other such measures being taken in future, for other notions of morality. And, I'm afraid, in my opinion there's *no* absolute standard of morality -- to say "kiddy porn is inherently evil" is as subjective as to say "drugs are bad" or "women shouldn't be allowed to vote". Ah, now that might rattle a few cages...
Ah, what nonsense. Just because certain people claim something to be 'completely fallacious', it doesn't make it so. While I would agree that asserting a 'slippery slope' as fait accompli is foolish and fallacious, I can't see anything wrong in making the suggestion of a chain of probable causality between current and future events: history tells us that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Although it's certainly rather hyperbolic to start screaming "they're going to take all of our civil liberties away", we should nonetheless pay attention to the smaller, seemingly 'justifiable' misappropriations of power because they *can* be suggestive of a 'slippery slope' - because a propensity to 'bend the rules' in one circumstance provides an indication of a willingness to do so in others.
I get irritated when I see people mindlessly spouting out whatever they may have read without actually putting their mind to work. Though a 'slippery slope' argument may not serve the orator too well, that shouldn't automatically exclude it from consideration.
'warez speak' very much predates the likes of AOL, although its forms have varied over the years. However, it was not uncommon in the bbs days (and particularly in the warez/hpac scene) to see people typing things like 'l8rz', 'm8', etc. I also well remember programs which would cHaNgE yOur tYpInG To LooK LiKE ThiS. Then as now, the more discerning users frowned upon such practices and preferred to type 'normally', though a few of the abbreviations did enter into the common vocabulary.
I think the big question which isn't being answered is this: as a vegetarian who eats plenty of tofu, where can I sign up for the free love? The nntp server access is getting expensive...
.. it will make millions, because nobody who really cares about seeing the movie will want to watch a grainy telesync with poor sound.
That movies are always going to be leaked and pirated should be no surprise to the studios. And it shouldn't worry them: even the pirates will pay to see the movies at the big screen - those who care about watching a flick will want to see it *properly*; those who would only pirate the film would doubtless have waited for the video release, at best, and the TV release at worst.
Advancemame, linked from this story for the Scale2x description, is a fine piece of software, and currently employed in my MAME cabinet. It's ironic, though: for my money, the scale effect really ruins the look of many arcade games, and particularly of things like pacman. While so many gamers are obsessed with getting the most out of their video cards, those interested in emulation often want the very opposite...
Who is going to use a motorcycle for the water? Why do geeks always feel the need to shoehorn technology into purposes for which it wasn't intended? A motorcycle should be for use on ROADS. If you have the need to travel on water, people, _buy a boat_. Once again, our obsession for technology prevails in the face of reason. What will be next? Internet access for telephones? Where will this madness end?
In many respects, Linux isn't so much a "newer operating environment" - its pedigree is Unix, and it owes much of its core to long-established developments for much older systems. To say that it is "even newer than Windows" and to cite this as evidence that Linux is therefore less secure than Windows is rather irresponsible, to say the least.
Similarly, the quoting of a few minor-but-exaggerated viruses etc., and to imply that these stack up to anything remotely comparable to the plethora of such issues that plague the Windows OS, is quite ridiculous.
Let's face it - this is FUD. "Microsoft has organized a huge security program" and (Linux is) "less disciplined but more timely" -- such soundbites have been carefully calculated.
Of *course* security comes to more than the Operating System alone; still, one can only gape at such inane comments as "the existence of security flaws -- and of hackers willing to exploit them -- does not necessarily add up to more risk for users".
This is FUD that is based on the vaguest understanding of security, upon one man's comments, upon old, tired misunderstandings about the merits of "single commercial entities" -- in short, it is the usual chest-pumping pro-Microsoft FUD from someone who knows very little about which he speaks.
The question is whether your sales *would* be adversely affected by piracy.
And besides, my original point was centred upon the fact that people can do incredibly screwed up things - animal abuse, for example - and get away scott free. But copying a few files around can get someone incarcerated.
Ironically, pirates create an entire industry for developers of copy protection...
They're the same person, though. Moving 1tb of stuff around in a day really isn't all that difficult. A lot of the people who're supposedly these evil suppliers are just people whose parents happened to bring home a piece of software from their place of work. A lot of the evil crackers are teenagers who have more skill and inquisitiveness than better things to do. A lot of the release groups are run by young kids - certainly, there're older people there, but a lot of it is just teenagers doing their thing before they go out into the real world and get real jobs. And the people running these huge sites are very often simply joe schmoe who happens to work for the IT department and who wants a few games for free - sure, he's putting up a server for people, but it certainly isn't done in the spirit of evil, mafioso gangsters which is so often portrayed.
Virtually every group pirating software makes the claim that they want the user to *pay* for the software that they use and enjoy - and particularly people who can afford it. I think those people are misguided, but I also think that they're sincere.
I understand the intentions of the companies pushing for punishments. But I also believe that joe warez kid at home *is* the one who often winds up in trouble, and I *also* believe that it's deeply hypocritical of people who use pirated software or music on a daily basis - or who commit other similarly petty crimes - to think that a *long prison sentence* is appropriate punishment.
If the Powers That Be were to pass a law making use of the word "the" illegal, would that justify their imprisoning you for contravening that law? If everyone were to continue using the word, and if every now and then someone were locked up for doing so, would their imprisonment be ethically justifiable?
I'm using an absurdist example, of course. But then, I consider imprisonment for this 'crime' to be similarly absurd. I don't think that piracy should be "legal", but I *do* think that the punishment needs to fit the crime. What part of this eludes you?
Indeed. Furthermore, unless a penal system is to be purely draconian, there needs to be some kind of sense that the punishment fits the crime, which was the core of my original argument. I can well imagine that, were the fines for speeding on the interstates (to use another poster's example) ran to tens of thousands, or if people were jailed for life for running a red light, there would be outcry. And yet, for shifting a few bits around, someone is *going to jail* and very few people complain. So, it becomes evident that the state is not serving the public interests, but rather the interests of big business. And that doesn't seem like a good thing, to me. Nothing new, perhaps, but nonetheless not a good thing.
It's a mistake to think that legality == morality. Slavery was legal. If a law is injust, then the law should be changed. Unless individuals complain about and act in the face of injustice, then that injustice will prevail.
As you say, "don't like the law? Work to change it." By discussing such things, and by decrying what I see as a bad law - or at least, a bad sentencing, I am doing my small part to change the law.
Whereas, I'm afraid, the repeated parroting of "break the law, pay the price" seems reactionary and unintelligent.
Everyone, Chris included, has the right to their own opinions. But, to me, this seems a hideous sell-out. One can only wonder whether there was some clause in the guy's plea bargain or whathaveyou that forces him to keep saying "piracy is bad", "stealing is wrong", without any mitigation.
Quite aside from the arguments as to whether piracy *really* costs anyone all that much, and about whether the industry grossly inflates the figures of the costs of piracy (hint: they do) - the punishment is ridiculously out of proportions with the crime. There are people who torture animals or beat their wives getting smaller sentences.
The fact is that most people dealing in warez aren't making any money from it. They're often not stealing things which they would otherwise buy. They're not causing anyone any physical pain. They're not taking money directly from anyone's wallet. And yet these people - often, young kids who spend most of their time just chatting with one another - are faced with the risk of *years* in prison. This is ridiculous. Irrespective of whether you think piracy is "wrong", I find it incredibly difficult to believe that anyone genuinely thinks that someone should be *sent to jail* for this kind of thing - least of all when, for example, people who drive drunk often aren't sent to jail. It is *wrong* that crimes that ostensibly affect big business carry a greater punishment than do many crimes against humanity. It is *wrong* that people should be locked up for several years for this kind of thing: who amongst us doesn't have the odd mp3 lying around, the odd tape copied from a friend, the odd copy of Office made on numerous computers?
The fact that everyone's doing it doesn't mean that it's not 'wrong', of course. But can anyone really endorse having _two years_ of someone's life being taken from them for the sake of something which almost everyone is doing?
This makes me sick.
1984? More of a Brave New World
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
The Orwellian reference is most often quoted, but the society in which we increasingly find ourselves bears more similarities with Huxley's work than that of the overrated hack. Our freedoms are not corroded because of fear of any particular oppression, but rather because it's generally more comfortable, more stupefying, to give those freedoms away. People *will* trade their freedom for security - hell, people will trade their freedom for pretty much anything that makes their lives a little easier in the short term, and that allows them to think a little less, to make a little less effort.
In a society where creature comforts are increasingly easy to come by for the average man, there's an increasing willingness/tendency to sacrifice - or ignore - everybody else. So a few of those funny towel-heads get harassed - what of it? So a few lazy bums are on the streets - not my problem. So long as I get my multiple television channels, eh?
Most people just don't care all that much about their freedom - they view 'freedom' as the right to watch tv, drink a beer, see a football game. Even on Slashdot, there are always people who are happy to espouse the free software alternative right up to the point at which they want to play a Windows-only, proprietary computer game. Is it really surprising that most of us don't know what our rights are? We don't need or want to know - and such rights are threatening, particularly in the hands of _other people_.
In other news, Hardware-Unlimited, part of the 3D-Unlimited Network, posted a review of the Pentium 4 2.8Ghz! The review includes all the latest benchmarks and information about the final Pentium 4 processor before we hit the 3Ghz mark. Check it out!
Erm, what does a "Gaussian summation formula" really have to do with anything? Given a known set of distinct numbers, determining which one was missing would *always* be a simple case of subtracting the sum of the provided numbers from the sum of the full set.
Unless both I and the grandparent to this post are really missing something obvious, this is a real non-question, and I can only be surprised by the poster who suggested that this was some kind of difficult mathematic solution...
Depending on the environment, though, it *might* prove more efficient to actually loop through the entire set, checking whether the number actually existed in the subset..
Slashdot Mirror
.. it seems reasonably likely to me that 'Google' is constructed from 'go ogle'. If this is indeed the case, it seems especially hypocritical to be trying to defend from 'verbing' a trademark that is itself derived from a verb.
If I'm completely wrong, then.. well, this still sucks. This kind of behaviour inevitably leaves a bad taste in people's mouths -- a real shame, since Google's been doing a lot of things reasonably well..
I wasn't trying to suggest that tables should not ever be used -- for 'tabular data' they're fine. But they're really not ideal for 'splitting a page up into rows and columns' -- that's the job for CSS, and it's *not* an 'ugly hack'. CSS allows you to logically separate elements on your page, and to position them as you wish -- and differently for different media, if you so wish.
It's not a matter of 'using the technology for its own sake', either -- and suggesting that CSS is the 'hack' is ludicrous: it's using tables which is the hack, and which leads to its own problems both for older browsers (issues with missing closing tags, nested elements, etc.) and for platforms for which tables don't make much sense (a visual layout hacked together using tables becomes a garbled mess when rendered in a linear format).
Tables also add a considerable overhead in terms of the sheer quantity of HTML data required. CSS does away with these in a decent fashion, and will be increasingly useful for a wide variety of layouts as Microsoft fix their browser to do things properly.
But it *is* for precisely the reasons of efficiency and portability that the likes of CSS are a good thing.
Yup. It's all because of the name, I think: people hear 'cascading' and immediately think of pull-down menu effects and the like..
Bizarre assertions. My experience is that 'modern web techniques' rely less and less on IE -- the DOM is well-ratified, cross-browser support is ever improving (particularly if you force IE to behave in a compliant fashion), and single-browser-only stuff has fallen out of favour, at least from where I'm sitting.
CSS has no intrinsic relationship to anything like Dreamweaver - at any rate, to argue that it's 'weak compared with Flash' is to ignore much of its strength - that it degrades gracefully and provides an elegant approach to developing for multiple (present and future) web platforms, from traditional browsers to handhelds, projectors, printers, or whatever. CSS isn't 'about' graphical effects, either -- in fact, there are probably more parallels with something like Acrobat than with Flash.
I've no experience with CSS 'interacting badly with firewalls and proxy servers' -- what could be 'hostile' about CSS, which essentially just provides a text-based presentation layer?
I don't know about 'weeks', but there's little doubt in my mind that tasks are often assigned to C or other 'proper' languages that could more easily be tackled with a so-called scripting language. Whether this comes down to 'prejudice' or mere ignorance to the potential of perl and the like is open to question.
And, without wishing to develop too much of a flamewar, this same issue comes up -- more frequently, even -- with the battle between 'traditional' web development languages that use CGI -- notably perl and C -- and more modern languages like PHP, ASP, etc. It's my view that a truly experienced and effective developer, whatever the particular circumstances or decisons to be made, will be sufficiently open-minded to consider multiple alternatives: those who show a propensity for platform elitism, or for discounting certain solutions out of hand, often seem to prove poor developers - for the very reason that they show a lack of imagination, an unwillingness to consider different options, and so forth.
Also, people often only consider one side of the equation -- and it's the least important side: the particular language used often has vastly less impact upon the success of a development than does the ability of the developer to write clean code, to think in a sensible fashion -- and to get a *full* picture of what's going on. Take Slashdot -- perl-driven, perhaps, and working reasonably well in its way -- but betraying a lack of understanding of modern web development techniques such as the use of XHTML/CSS in place of kludgy tables and the like.
Long story short: the language won't make the difference, and the developer or manager who thinks it will is deluded -- and will pay for it in the long term.
Erm, several PC BIOSes support passwords on boot etc., likewise necessitating opening the machine up (to discharge the battery or whatnot)..
Of course. But if based upon the notion that there's something inherently wrong with the basis of act A, then I think it's reasonable to extrapolate to the possibility of act B. Note that it was the use of 'this sort of approach' that was mooted in the story as being at the top of a slippery slope -- in other words, misguided legislation affecting ISPs for the sake of morality stands the chance of leading to other such measures being taken in future, for other notions of morality. And, I'm afraid, in my opinion there's *no* absolute standard of morality -- to say "kiddy porn is inherently evil" is as subjective as to say "drugs are bad" or "women shouldn't be allowed to vote". Ah, now that might rattle a few cages...
Ah, what nonsense. Just because certain people claim something to be 'completely fallacious', it doesn't make it so. While I would agree that asserting a 'slippery slope' as fait accompli is foolish and fallacious, I can't see anything wrong in making the suggestion of a chain of probable causality between current and future events: history tells us that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Although it's certainly rather hyperbolic to start screaming "they're going to take all of our civil liberties away", we should nonetheless pay attention to the smaller, seemingly 'justifiable' misappropriations of power because they *can* be suggestive of a 'slippery slope' - because a propensity to 'bend the rules' in one circumstance provides an indication of a willingness to do so in others.
I get irritated when I see people mindlessly spouting out whatever they may have read without actually putting their mind to work. Though a 'slippery slope' argument may not serve the orator too well, that shouldn't automatically exclude it from consideration.
'warez speak' very much predates the likes of AOL, although its forms have varied over the years. However, it was not uncommon in the bbs days (and particularly in the warez/hpac scene) to see people typing things like 'l8rz', 'm8', etc. I also well remember programs which would cHaNgE yOur tYpInG To LooK LiKE ThiS. Then as now, the more discerning users frowned upon such practices and preferred to type 'normally', though a few of the abbreviations did enter into the common vocabulary.
I think the big question which isn't being answered is this: as a vegetarian who eats plenty of tofu, where can I sign up for the free love? The nntp server access is getting expensive...
.. it will make millions, because nobody who really cares about seeing the movie will want to watch a grainy telesync with poor sound.
That movies are always going to be leaked and pirated should be no surprise to the studios. And it shouldn't worry them: even the pirates will pay to see the movies at the big screen - those who care about watching a flick will want to see it *properly*; those who would only pirate the film would doubtless have waited for the video release, at best, and the TV release at worst.
Advancemame, linked from this story for the Scale2x description, is a fine piece of software, and currently employed in my MAME cabinet. It's ironic, though: for my money, the scale effect really ruins the look of many arcade games, and particularly of things like pacman. While so many gamers are obsessed with getting the most out of their video cards, those interested in emulation often want the very opposite...
It's still cool voodoo, of course.
"I'm 2xSaI for my shorts"?
Doh!
Irony's not your strongest suit, is it?
Who is going to use a motorcycle for the water?
Why do geeks always feel the need to shoehorn technology into purposes for which it wasn't intended? A motorcycle should be for use on ROADS. If you have the need to travel on water, people, _buy a boat_. Once again, our obsession for technology prevails in the face of reason. What will be next? Internet access for telephones? Where will this madness end?
In many respects, Linux isn't so much a "newer operating environment" - its pedigree is Unix, and it owes much of its core to long-established developments for much older systems. To say that it is "even newer than Windows" and to cite this as evidence that Linux is therefore less secure than Windows is rather irresponsible, to say the least.
Similarly, the quoting of a few minor-but-exaggerated viruses etc., and to imply that these stack up to anything remotely comparable to the plethora of such issues that plague the Windows OS, is quite ridiculous.
Let's face it - this is FUD. "Microsoft has organized a huge security program" and (Linux is) "less disciplined but more timely" -- such soundbites have been carefully calculated.
Of *course* security comes to more than the Operating System alone; still, one can only gape at such inane comments as "the existence of security flaws -- and of hackers willing to exploit them -- does not necessarily add up to more risk for users".
This is FUD that is based on the vaguest understanding of security, upon one man's comments, upon old, tired misunderstandings about the merits of "single commercial entities" -- in short, it is the usual chest-pumping pro-Microsoft FUD from someone who knows very little about which he speaks.
The question is whether your sales *would* be adversely affected by piracy.
And besides, my original point was centred upon the fact that people can do incredibly screwed up things - animal abuse, for example - and get away scott free. But copying a few files around can get someone incarcerated.
Ironically, pirates create an entire industry for developers of copy protection...
They're the same person, though. Moving 1tb of stuff around in a day really isn't all that difficult. A lot of the people who're supposedly these evil suppliers are just people whose parents happened to bring home a piece of software from their place of work. A lot of the evil crackers are teenagers who have more skill and inquisitiveness than better things to do. A lot of the release groups are run by young kids - certainly, there're older people there, but a lot of it is just teenagers doing their thing before they go out into the real world and get real jobs. And the people running these huge sites are very often simply joe schmoe who happens to work for the IT department and who wants a few games for free - sure, he's putting up a server for people, but it certainly isn't done in the spirit of evil, mafioso gangsters which is so often portrayed.
Virtually every group pirating software makes the claim that they want the user to *pay* for the software that they use and enjoy - and particularly people who can afford it. I think those people are misguided, but I also think that they're sincere.
I understand the intentions of the companies pushing for punishments. But I also believe that joe warez kid at home *is* the one who often winds up in trouble, and I *also* believe that it's deeply hypocritical of people who use pirated software or music on a daily basis - or who commit other similarly petty crimes - to think that a *long prison sentence* is appropriate punishment.
If the Powers That Be were to pass a law making use of the word "the" illegal, would that justify their imprisoning you for contravening that law? If everyone were to continue using the word, and if every now and then someone were locked up for doing so, would their imprisonment be ethically justifiable?
I'm using an absurdist example, of course. But then, I consider imprisonment for this 'crime' to be similarly absurd. I don't think that piracy should be "legal", but I *do* think that the punishment needs to fit the crime. What part of this eludes you?
Indeed. Furthermore, unless a penal system is to be purely draconian, there needs to be some kind of sense that the punishment fits the crime, which was the core of my original argument. I can well imagine that, were the fines for speeding on the interstates (to use another poster's example) ran to tens of thousands, or if people were jailed for life for running a red light, there would be outcry. And yet, for shifting a few bits around, someone is *going to jail* and very few people complain. So, it becomes evident that the state is not serving the public interests, but rather the interests of big business. And that doesn't seem like a good thing, to me. Nothing new, perhaps, but nonetheless not a good thing.
It's a mistake to think that legality == morality. Slavery was legal. If a law is injust, then the law should be changed. Unless individuals complain about and act in the face of injustice, then that injustice will prevail.
As you say, "don't like the law? Work to change it." By discussing such things, and by decrying what I see as a bad law - or at least, a bad sentencing, I am doing my small part to change the law.
Whereas, I'm afraid, the repeated parroting of "break the law, pay the price" seems reactionary and unintelligent.
Everyone, Chris included, has the right to their own opinions. But, to me, this seems a hideous sell-out. One can only wonder whether there was some clause in the guy's plea bargain or whathaveyou that forces him to keep saying "piracy is bad", "stealing is wrong", without any mitigation.
Quite aside from the arguments as to whether piracy *really* costs anyone all that much, and about whether the industry grossly inflates the figures of the costs of piracy (hint: they do) - the punishment is ridiculously out of proportions with the crime. There are people who torture animals or beat their wives getting smaller sentences.
The fact is that most people dealing in warez aren't making any money from it. They're often not stealing things which they would otherwise buy. They're not causing anyone any physical pain. They're not taking money directly from anyone's wallet. And yet these people - often, young kids who spend most of their time just chatting with one another - are faced with the risk of *years* in prison. This is ridiculous. Irrespective of whether you think piracy is "wrong", I find it incredibly difficult to believe that anyone genuinely thinks that someone should be *sent to jail* for this kind of thing - least of all when, for example, people who drive drunk often aren't sent to jail. It is *wrong* that crimes that ostensibly affect big business carry a greater punishment than do many crimes against humanity. It is *wrong* that people should be locked up for several years for this kind of thing: who amongst us doesn't have the odd mp3 lying around, the odd tape copied from a friend, the odd copy of Office made on numerous computers?
The fact that everyone's doing it doesn't mean that it's not 'wrong', of course. But can anyone really endorse having _two years_ of someone's life being taken from them for the sake of something which almost everyone is doing?
This makes me sick.
The Orwellian reference is most often quoted, but the society in which we increasingly find ourselves bears more similarities with Huxley's work than that of the overrated hack. Our freedoms are not corroded because of fear of any particular oppression, but rather because it's generally more comfortable, more stupefying, to give those freedoms away. People *will* trade their freedom for security - hell, people will trade their freedom for pretty much anything that makes their lives a little easier in the short term, and that allows them to think a little less, to make a little less effort.
In a society where creature comforts are increasingly easy to come by for the average man, there's an increasing willingness/tendency to sacrifice - or ignore - everybody else. So a few of those funny towel-heads get harassed - what of it? So a few lazy bums are on the streets - not my problem. So long as I get my multiple television channels, eh?
Most people just don't care all that much about their freedom - they view 'freedom' as the right to watch tv, drink a beer, see a football game. Even on Slashdot, there are always people who are happy to espouse the free software alternative right up to the point at which they want to play a Windows-only, proprietary computer game. Is it really surprising that most of us don't know what our rights are? We don't need or want to know - and such rights are threatening, particularly in the hands of _other people_.
Just a quick rant.
In other news, Hardware-Unlimited, part of the 3D-Unlimited Network, posted a review of the Pentium 4 2.8Ghz! The review includes all the latest benchmarks and information about the final Pentium 4 processor before we hit the 3Ghz mark. Check it out!
Erm, what does a "Gaussian summation formula" really have to do with anything? Given a known set of distinct numbers, determining which one was missing would *always* be a simple case of subtracting the sum of the provided numbers from the sum of the full set.
Unless both I and the grandparent to this post are really missing something obvious, this is a real non-question, and I can only be surprised by the poster who suggested that this was some kind of difficult mathematic solution...
Depending on the environment, though, it *might* prove more efficient to actually loop through the entire set, checking whether the number actually existed in the subset..