Ow. That stings. 1-15k for a console?
Here's an idea: why not offer several up, then wait for them to come on the mainstream market... it always takes ages for auction purchases to go through anyway, and you can just ship when the main shipments arrive. Or, following the conspiracy theorist's ideas, patent the concept and then sell it back to Sony for £10m or so...
"And although Wesley says he received no notice of why his pages were closed down, Sullivan says Webjump.com and Angelfire.com both sent him infringement notifications as prescribed by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act after Sullivan informed them of the infringement."
Mmmm... could it be that these 'notifications' were sent to his @Home mailbox? And could it be that, just perhaps, this is why he didn't get them - because the email service wasn't working (again)?
As I see it, the reason most well-known projects that go GPL don't fork too much is because they already have a lot of code and a lot of inertia. However, Java is a much smaller project and if anything more well-known than Linux(?!) and therefore is liable to get changed far more in a short period of time as everyone has their own ideas about what would be best to do with it.
This is liable to lead to a slew of different versions and in the end there will probably be a "battle of the Java's", similar to the "Browser Wars", with MS picking one type, Mac another and Linux another.
Of course, it could work out fine if everyone did work together on it - but how often does that happen when companies are competing for cash?
On the other hand, what about the support calls you get when some poor user has his/her system infiltrated because there is no protection there? And anyway, most companies seem to have the ideal way of dealing with software support calls they don't want: "No, no, you don't want to talk to us about that - look, ring this number here and talk to the people who wrote it"
Yes, perhaps my comment was a little definite; but as you say, you have to draw the line somewhere. I choose to draw it in favour of greater potential security, especially having read about all of the people on this site who have had their PC's compromised when using broadband.
Not just a smart cracker - anyone with half a brain could set up a system on a hacked PC to get it to broadcast its IP when it goes online or changes! I mean, I've done it, and if I can do it anyone can...
>"For example," he said, "as part of the >installation process for @Home, we always turn >off a computer's file sharing."
Oh dear me. Please, somebody, tell me this is a joke. No? I think I'm going to become a hacker, 'cause it just got a whole lot easier. If this is a large company's idea of 'anti-hack' security, we have big problems.
These companies need to face facts: End-users don't worry about security. They put credit card numbers in text files; they fiddle with settings and save sensitive passwords by accident. And even ignoring the security aspect - what about the destructive side of hacking?
It should be the responsibility of the company supplying the broadband access to supply and configure a firewall as part of the installation, and explain to the users whay it is needed. Otherwise, no-one will be secure. Simple as that.
Hah! Linux... That is an offshoot cult from the great religion of Unix. And yes, you are right, it is built around Linus and that blasted penguin Tux. Denounce him now or be struck down by the Wrath of Unix!
I can see the interest here - after all, it would certainly be one way of solving the 'unified theory' problem if general relativity turned out to be wrong!
However, does it really help to have multiple countries coming at this in different ways? Surely there could have been some kind of collabaration between nations on this project? It is not as if the results will be state secrets! The more countries working together, the larger the pot of money and in theory the better and more accurate the equipment. I know what some people will say: countries want the glory themselves, more stations increases chances of success, more results independently is better... but due to the complexity of this problem, I think that one amazing site is more likely to get accurate results than a combination of three or four good ones.
Technically, a cult is a religous group that bases itself around a (mortal) person rather than an incarnate. Since Unix can in theory be a universal machine, it can in 'create' within in its own subdimensions and therefore is incarnate. Hence, Unix is both god and religion.
It's certainly an interesting idea, and would probably work well. However, as mentioned before, the robots would have to either be very tough or very cheap. The major problem I can see is that because of the level of toughness required, it would be hard to get much analysis equipment to work from inside the shell of the 'bot. Perhaps these could be used to 'scout' and then a more traditional tracked or wheeled bot used to actually investigate. That would also negate the problem of control; you would *want* the bots to bounce all over the place, beaming back collected info whenever they were able, so that you could send out a standard lander without getting it stuck, by plotting its path from the information sent back by the bouncing bots.
I believe that this discussion raises a deeper, more philosophical question: how does one define the life of a dotcom? We all know there are such things as ghost dotcoms; sites that linger on large servers awaiting purging, their structure in tatters, all but the last few hyperlinks to the outside world broken. Or far more disturbing: An up-to-date site in pristine condition... or so you think. But all too soon you get those familiar shivers down your spine, a surefire sign that the site is maintained by web bots, simply running out its (binding, non-refundable) contract on the server.
So when do these dotcoms die? Is it when the money runs out? Obviously not; that's what debt is for. Is it when the credit limit is reached? I think this is far more likely. Once this point is reached, the dotcom is gasping its last breaths.
But even here, there is hope of life yet. It may try selling parts of itself to raise cash; a doomed and futile exercise, for a dying man who sells his arms for food can no longer feed himself. Or worse: a BUYOUT. This, it seems, is the dotcom form of a contract with the devil. The original identity is almost lost, only a shadow remaining, and the dotcom will be ever subservient to its bricks-and-mortar buyer. It will now live forever - but this is a sham life, no life for the once-proud portal. Death would be better for it.
A moment's silence please, ladies and gentlemen, for the plight of the undead dotcom.
Good point - but not as many particles are needed as you might think, due to another of the strange features of entanglement (which I do not, by the way, pretend to understand!). This allows massive amounts of data to be stored in a small number of Qbits (quantum bits), so therefore you do not need as many entangled particles if you transmit in packets.
Hmmm.
Seems everyone here has pretty much the same view - filtering public internet access is the wrong thing to do, at least at a legislatory level. So say I disagree... Here are my reasons:
1) Public access anything is filtered (or in other words, censored). Films are cut for TV. Certain programs have to be shown late at night. Libraries don't have a section labelled 'Pornographic Material'. People expect it, and will not expect to be having their kids running off to the library or school and being able to surf on an unfiltered 'net.
2) As noted before, it is practically impossible to filter at the 'single node' level. However if the government were to adopt a sensible policy they could work it at a national level for a fraction of the cost per user. It has cost my school thousands of pounds and countless man-hours to come up with a solution that is 99% effective, but in theory this could be implemented on a central server for little extra cost. I will not discuss possible solutions here as there are already several threads dealing with these ideas.
3) I would quite like to be able to surf the net myself without running into porn sites left, right and center. And yes, it does happen - a non porn related search can lead to porn sites. Therefore, it isn't just about the kids.
4) It's not about free speech. The 'speech' is still out there - It's just that people who are too young or do not want to 'hear' it don't.
Not *absolutely* sure of myself on this one, but I think entangled-particle (quantum) data transmission breaks light speed in terms of data transmission. So, quantum advances could reduce that latency to effectively zero. Also, the speed of data in your cables will not be light speed - unless you use fiber-optic throughout with no junctions or boosters!
Apologies for lack of URL - the new scientist site is down right now.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's an idea: why not offer several up, then wait for them to come on the mainstream market... it always takes ages for auction purchases to go through anyway, and you can just ship when the main shipments arrive. Or, following the conspiracy theorist's ideas, patent the concept and then sell it back to Sony for £10m or so...
Mmmm... could it be that these 'notifications' were sent to his @Home mailbox? And could it be that, just perhaps, this is why he didn't get them - because the email service wasn't working (again)?
Wonder how that would show @Home up in court...
As I see it, the reason most well-known projects that go GPL don't fork too much is because they already have a lot of code and a lot of inertia. However, Java is a much smaller project and if anything more well-known than Linux(?!) and therefore is liable to get changed far more in a short period of time as everyone has their own ideas about what would be best to do with it.
This is liable to lead to a slew of different versions and in the end there will probably be a "battle of the Java's", similar to the "Browser Wars", with MS picking one type, Mac another and Linux another.
Of course, it could work out fine if everyone did work together on it - but how often does that happen when companies are competing for cash?
On the other hand, what about the support calls you get when some poor user has his/her system infiltrated because there is no protection there? And anyway, most companies seem to have the ideal way of dealing with software support calls they don't want: "No, no, you don't want to talk to us about that - look, ring this number here and talk to the people who wrote it"
Yes, perhaps my comment was a little definite; but as you say, you have to draw the line somewhere. I choose to draw it in favour of greater potential security, especially having read about all of the people on this site who have had their PC's compromised when using broadband.
Not just a smart cracker - anyone with half a brain could set up a system on a hacked PC to get it to broadcast its IP when it goes online or changes! I mean, I've done it, and if I can do it anyone can...
>"For example," he said, "as part of the >installation process for @Home, we always turn >off a computer's file sharing."
Oh dear me. Please, somebody, tell me this is a joke. No? I think I'm going to become a hacker, 'cause it just got a whole lot easier. If this is a large company's idea of 'anti-hack' security, we have big problems.
These companies need to face facts: End-users don't worry about security. They put credit card numbers in text files; they fiddle with settings and save sensitive passwords by accident. And even ignoring the security aspect - what about the destructive side of hacking?
It should be the responsibility of the company supplying the broadband access to supply and configure a firewall as part of the installation, and explain to the users whay it is needed. Otherwise, no-one will be secure. Simple as that.
Hmmm. Perhaps there is a lower piracy rate - I for one couldn't be hacked to download 230meg! So, is this the true reason for bloatware?
Hah! Linux... That is an offshoot cult from the great religion of Unix. And yes, you are right, it is built around Linus and that blasted penguin Tux. Denounce him now or be struck down by the Wrath of Unix!
I can see the interest here - after all, it would certainly be one way of solving the 'unified theory' problem if general relativity turned out to be wrong!
However, does it really help to have multiple countries coming at this in different ways? Surely there could have been some kind of collabaration between nations on this project? It is not as if the results will be state secrets! The more countries working together, the larger the pot of money and in theory the better and more accurate the equipment. I know what some people will say: countries want the glory themselves, more stations increases chances of success, more results independently is better... but due to the complexity of this problem, I think that one amazing site is more likely to get accurate results than a combination of three or four good ones.
Technically, a cult is a religous group that bases itself around a (mortal) person rather than an incarnate. Since Unix can in theory be a universal machine, it can in 'create' within in its own subdimensions and therefore is incarnate. Hence, Unix is both god and religion.
It's certainly an interesting idea, and would probably work well. However, as mentioned before, the robots would have to either be very tough or very cheap. The major problem I can see is that because of the level of toughness required, it would be hard to get much analysis equipment to work from inside the shell of the 'bot. Perhaps these could be used to 'scout' and then a more traditional tracked or wheeled bot used to actually investigate. That would also negate the problem of control; you would *want* the bots to bounce all over the place, beaming back collected info whenever they were able, so that you could send out a standard lander without getting it stuck, by plotting its path from the information sent back by the bouncing bots.
I believe that this discussion raises a deeper, more philosophical question: how does one define the life of a dotcom? We all know there are such things as ghost dotcoms; sites that linger on large servers awaiting purging, their structure in tatters, all but the last few hyperlinks to the outside world broken. Or far more disturbing: An up-to-date site in pristine condition... or so you think. But all too soon you get those familiar shivers down your spine, a surefire sign that the site is maintained by web bots, simply running out its (binding, non-refundable) contract on the server.
So when do these dotcoms die? Is it when the money runs out? Obviously not; that's what debt is for. Is it when the credit limit is reached? I think this is far more likely. Once this point is reached, the dotcom is gasping its last breaths.
But even here, there is hope of life yet. It may try selling parts of itself to raise cash; a doomed and futile exercise, for a dying man who sells his arms for food can no longer feed himself. Or worse: a BUYOUT. This, it seems, is the dotcom form of a contract with the devil. The original identity is almost lost, only a shadow remaining, and the dotcom will be ever subservient to its bricks-and-mortar buyer. It will now live forever - but this is a sham life, no life for the once-proud portal. Death would be better for it.
A moment's silence please, ladies and gentlemen, for the plight of the undead dotcom.
And now post, and post in all your fullness.
Good point - but not as many particles are needed as you might think, due to another of the strange features of entanglement (which I do not, by the way, pretend to understand!). This allows massive amounts of data to be stored in a small number of Qbits (quantum bits), so therefore you do not need as many entangled particles if you transmit in packets.
Hmmm.
Seems everyone here has pretty much the same view - filtering public internet access is the wrong thing to do, at least at a legislatory level. So say I disagree... Here are my reasons:
1) Public access anything is filtered (or in other words, censored). Films are cut for TV. Certain programs have to be shown late at night. Libraries don't have a section labelled 'Pornographic Material'. People expect it, and will not expect to be having their kids running off to the library or school and being able to surf on an unfiltered 'net.
2) As noted before, it is practically impossible to filter at the 'single node' level. However if the government were to adopt a sensible policy they could work it at a national level for a fraction of the cost per user. It has cost my school thousands of pounds and countless man-hours to come up with a solution that is 99% effective, but in theory this could be implemented on a central server for little extra cost. I will not discuss possible solutions here as there are already several threads dealing with these ideas.
3) I would quite like to be able to surf the net myself without running into porn sites left, right and center. And yes, it does happen - a non porn related search can lead to porn sites. Therefore, it isn't just about the kids.
4) It's not about free speech. The 'speech' is still out there - It's just that people who are too young or do not want to 'hear' it don't.
Not *absolutely* sure of myself on this one, but I think entangled-particle (quantum) data transmission breaks light speed in terms of data transmission. So, quantum advances could reduce that latency to effectively zero. Also, the speed of data in your cables will not be light speed - unless you use fiber-optic throughout with no junctions or boosters!
Apologies for lack of URL - the new scientist site is down right now.