Hell no! Let those assholes who managed to lobby some faulty software patents through reap what they have sown. Let them go nuclear and hurt each other as bad as they can. And perhaps if enough consumers get hurt some people might start to question how did this happen.
If you want to actually control the botnet, you do need a C&C. What this setup might achieve is the obfuscation of the command flow so the C&C is much harder to identify.
Mailinator can achieve high compression rates because most people use it for registration emails. Those mails differ from each other in only a few words, making the data set highly redundant, and easily compressible.
The problem with RAND is that it's not enough. Standards shouldn't be owned by anyone. You are right in that some foss people have overreacted, for example I can't find the part where it supposedly legalizes software patents on IT standards. Still, control over a standard is far too much power for a company to have.
In my opinion, RAND only gives the illusion that it can match the safety of open standards. It isn't defined properly, and in the end the IPs of a standard are still in the hands of a company or a cartel (sorry, standards body), giving them effective monopoly over a market segment.
Space is empty, there is nothing in it to fight for. The "fights" would take place in orbit. Most of them would be raids conducted by swarms of stealth rockets, armed with WMDs, undetectable and too fast to deflect. If energy is plentiful, two planets could simply shoot each other with lasers from the ground, without any need of space vehicles. Manned spacecrafts, if existed, would be used for reconnaisance, and wouldn't risk revealing their position by engaging in combat.
The goal of Google is to move everything into the cloud, which is their domain. But they are not stupid, and while they are certainly trying, they won't force stuff like that when it doesn't work. So while Google will certainly try to make Chrome a new platform, whether it becomes one or not doesn't depend only on them.
This is completely unacceptable. We really ought to have laws in place to smack down people that try to use the legal system to suppress protected speech
The easiest such law would be the protection of free speech. Sadly, free speech isn't implemented in its ideal form anywhere, and this is a fine example how libel/slander laws can be used to silence the opposition.
Mr McCreath said while he acknowledged that Mangham had never intended to pass on any of the information he had gathered, nor did he intend to make any money from it, his activities were "not just a bit of harmless experimentation".
"You accessed the very heart of the system of an international business of massive size, so this was not just fiddling about in the business records of some tiny business of no great importance," he said.
So it's okay to hack a small business but not a large international one? The legality of an offence depends on the amount of capital the plaintiff has? The rich now have more rights than the poor?
They hint that they have found a weakness in it, but for some reason they don't disclose it. It might be the case that the NSA wanted to keep it secret, just like the British did.
This might be the case with this particular strain but the decision is a precedent for any further similar research. At least in this case we know what we are dealing with, even if it gets out the methods of developing vaccine for avian flu are already researched which cuts the development time much shorter. And similar cases in the future may be handled more professionally now that a consensus is created.
So they are analizing what kind of products a customer buys, and if they are products associated with pregnancy then they market them even more products associated with pregnancy. Seems like that without all that funny little anecdotes about pregnancy prediction, this is just the same algorithm everyone else uses: offering a customer the types of products they have bought in the past. Also, a pregnant woman in the second trimester is quite easy to detect by the good old method of looking at her.
Slashdot Mirror
Hell no! Let those assholes who managed to lobby some faulty software patents through reap what they have sown. Let them go nuclear and hurt each other as bad as they can. And perhaps if enough consumers get hurt some people might start to question how did this happen.
If you want to actually control the botnet, you do need a C&C. What this setup might achieve is the obfuscation of the command flow so the C&C is much harder to identify.
(and by drug I mean the medication not heroin)
It doesn't have to be physical force, you can give them a choice between the drug and the jail.
On the other hand, we still can't exceed the speed of light.
Mailinator can achieve high compression rates because most people use it for registration emails. Those mails differ from each other in only a few words, making the data set highly redundant, and easily compressible.
Couldn't these formations be caused by Earth's tidal forces instead of tectonic ones?
The problem with RAND is that it's not enough. Standards shouldn't be owned by anyone. You are right in that some foss people have overreacted, for example I can't find the part where it supposedly legalizes software patents on IT standards. Still, control over a standard is far too much power for a company to have.
Here is the text of the document, the interesting parts are in annex2.
In my opinion, RAND only gives the illusion that it can match the safety of open standards. It isn't defined properly, and in the end the IPs of a standard are still in the hands of a company or a cartel (sorry, standards body), giving them effective monopoly over a market segment.
Space is empty, there is nothing in it to fight for. The "fights" would take place in orbit. Most of them would be raids conducted by swarms of stealth rockets, armed with WMDs, undetectable and too fast to deflect. If energy is plentiful, two planets could simply shoot each other with lasers from the ground, without any need of space vehicles. Manned spacecrafts, if existed, would be used for reconnaisance, and wouldn't risk revealing their position by engaging in combat.
Copyright technically won't be eternal, but its duration increases linearly over time in a way that it never ends.
Unless you call someone, in which case it is reduced to a few meters.
The goal of Google is to move everything into the cloud, which is their domain. But they are not stupid, and while they are certainly trying, they won't force stuff like that when it doesn't work. So while Google will certainly try to make Chrome a new platform, whether it becomes one or not doesn't depend only on them.
You do realize that modders can't comment, don't you? There are many who prefer to mod over chirping in with a pointless comment.
But in that case at least wait until there are enough comments to mod.
This is completely unacceptable. We really ought to have laws in place to smack down people that try to use the legal system to suppress protected speech
The easiest such law would be the protection of free speech. Sadly, free speech isn't implemented in its ideal form anywhere, and this is a fine example how libel/slander laws can be used to silence the opposition.
Twitter uses utf-8, so the size of a tweet is 1120 bytes.
I'm pretty sure that most 12 year olds understand computers better than judges.
Comparing hacking to IRL burglary is a false analogy.
So it's okay to hack a small business but not a large international one? The legality of an offence depends on the amount of capital the plaintiff has? The rich now have more rights than the poor?
They hint that they have found a weakness in it, but for some reason they don't disclose it. It might be the case that the NSA wanted to keep it secret, just like the British did.
This might be the case with this particular strain but the decision is a precedent for any further similar research. At least in this case we know what we are dealing with, even if it gets out the methods of developing vaccine for avian flu are already researched which cuts the development time much shorter. And similar cases in the future may be handled more professionally now that a consensus is created.
The WHO is a UN agency, not a governmental one.
So they are analizing what kind of products a customer buys, and if they are products associated with pregnancy then they market them even more products associated with pregnancy. Seems like that without all that funny little anecdotes about pregnancy prediction, this is just the same algorithm everyone else uses: offering a customer the types of products they have bought in the past. Also, a pregnant woman in the second trimester is quite easy to detect by the good old method of looking at her.
Online social networks can't be forced to police downloads - for now. It will all change after ACTA passes, which is why I hope it won't.
Well if there is a problem it's much better to have it contained in one place than small reactors melting down in every neighbourhood.