You don't have to talk slower, but you *do* get "All circuits are busy, please try later." If QoS was implemented, then VoIP (and live video) connections would have a "guarantee bandwidth" tag that would block the connection until sufficient bandwidth was available, and then reserve the bandwidth for the remainder of the connection. Bittorrent connections would have an "as available" tag to minimize cost.
Under an endpoint driven QoS scheme,
if millions of consumers all try to watch the latest BBC special at once, most of them will get the "all connections busy" error. They can then wait (like with POTS), or just start up a bittorrent so that the show will be stored locally when they come back later.
The key to ethical QoS schemes is that the endpoints should do the tagging, *not* the ISP. The ISP should just charge for the tagging. Currently, the ISP decides which kinds of traffic are "unacceptable" and throttles them. That is unacceptable. QoS can make the internet work at least as well as the POTS network.
There is a simple solution to forged DSNs (bounces). Sign the MAIL FROM of your outgoing mail with something like SRS or BATV:
SRS0=keTrY=UY==user@example.com
All bounces (MAIL FROM is empty) must be directed to a signed localpart with a valid hash key. If not, the bounce is immediately rejected, with a snooty message if so desired.
If you want to work at minimum wage, there are plenty of jobs out there. If you don't make enough money, spend less money. Simple enough, us immigrants have been doing it for a long time (I'm from India though, not Mexican.)
You're an immigrant. Glad to have you! Half my neighbors are immigrants from India - and they are wonderful. However, this thread is about aliens, otherwise known as illegal immigrants. So your observations don't apply.
Most of the reason why hiring aliens is so cheap has less to do with wages, and more to do with not paying social security, employment insurance, tax withholding, medicare, etc, and all because the "employee" doesn't exist in the tax system. All it takes is a little creative accounting to cover where the (cash) wages are going to.
What a waste of tax dollars. All they have to do is post all their intelligence documents on the public internet, and they can get google search for free!
I wonder which set of licensing conditions / price a commercial open-source project would fall under?
Whichever one they choose, like a dual-licensed GPL project. If you like zero-price and are fine with the open-source conditions, then choose that. If you have proprietary code you don't want to open source, then choose the commercial license.
The problem I see is that it is much harder to tell whether a proprietary project is violating a specific patent. On that note, I've often wondered: since it is generally agreed that every software project, propietary and libre, violates software patents, can't we just call it a wash, and undo this unauthorized invention of the courts?
That's great, but there's a non-zero chance that the God you believe in does not actually exist. In which case, this attitude could be positively dangerous.
In that case, it's just a matter of a few years. Even the old Pagans with no hope of resurrection could see the value of a noble death over an ignoble, but slightly longer life. Life is nasty, brutish, and short throughout most of the world and in most of history.
Gah. One of the troubling things about religion is how it induces people to not worry about the future, and instead to happily assume that everything will happen as its supposed to in some cosmic plan.
You have hit the nail on the head, as Jesus put it, "Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day [is] the evil thereof." But that does not excuse lack of prudence when you do have knowledge of consequences, Proverbs 27:12, "A prudent [man] foresees evil [and] hides himself; The simple pass on [and] are punished."
I'm very much pro-science, but there can't be a blithe assumption that everything we do is risk-free.
The trust God approach actually does not deny risk. It just says that "all things work together for good to them that love God" in the end. Kind of like the Princess Bride where the hero endures incredible hardship and pain before riding off into the sunset with his true love.
One of the premises of Intelligent Design, as described in "The Privileged Planet", is that God/whatever not only planned for intelligent beings, but planned for them to explore their universe. The book talks about our ideal placement in the milky way for observation, yet with sufficient protection from gamma bursts, the fortuitous placement of the moon allowing solar eclipses to reveal the corona, etc. A Bible passage would be Proverbs, "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, and the glory of kings to search out a matter." Part of trusting God in this viewpoint is assuming that, barring deliberate or negligent self destruction, the next discovery won't destroy us. Although each advance in physics brings more and more dangerous knowledge to light, we will be able cope technically. (Moral failings are another matter.)
If you google for "12 milligauss", you'll find references like this to a threshold over which a 50-60hz signal suppresses the parts of the immune system that protect against cancer. This is why correlations with cancer are so subtle. The 60hz signal by itself doesn't cause cancer - you need some other heightened risk (like maybe living in a natural stone house) for the lowered cancer resistance to make any difference. The cellular machinery in question operates mostly at night, so working around high 60hz fields (like electric utility workers) is not a problem. Most of the wiring in your house is below the threshold (as is the field from any high tension wires nearby). Actually, electric blankets *are* a problem, as are old fashioned clock radios next to your bed (where the clock is driven by the AC signal). Again, only if there is another risk factor present.
The decomposition would follow well defined rules that the adventurer could reasonably follow. For example, in an intersection with 3 or more exits, label the exit on the right as 'right', the step or two to the next exit as 'left', the next exit 'right', and so on until the last exit on the left is 'left'. So all the exits except the left exit are 'right', and the steps between are "virtual" exits labeled 'left'. The method is relatively robust against judgments as to whether something is a very short tunnel or multiple exits. So when encountering a 3 exit node, "go left" means pass the first tunnel on the right and advance to the next instruction. So "left right" would take the middle exit and "left left right would take the left exit (as would "left").
The main problem is the business of the labels not being fixed. My conjecture is that there is still an exit procedure based on relative binary labeling. Certainly there could be based on a few examples. The hero could also use something like a compass to provide a fixed labeling. Although, I think part of finding an exit procedure is finding a labeling, and the compass labeling may or may not work ("color" is closest compass point while facing the exit). On the other hand, if the maze tunnels were conveniently painted various colors, that could work too.
There was a fictional story about a geek and a crooked archaeologist racing for treasure in an Aztec cave which was an underground maze with hazards. Every exit had one of a small set of glyphs carved into the stone overhead. The Geek Hero had the half of the map showing the entrance. The Archaeologist Villain had the part providing the glyph string that navigated the maze to the treasure and avoided the traps. Typical plot twists follow. Including the treasure doing in the villain at the end...
The same number of exits in all nodes is solved by decomposing all nodes into a series of binary (2 out) nodes. That is the "decomposition" I was talking about. If there is no solution, that is still something an insider could know beforehand. The "coloring beforehand" is the worrisome part, and I was curious as to whether it could be solved also. At least some mazes with cycles have an\ binary exit solution without pre-coloring (i.e. the one I drew at random).
As far as plot points go, it would be *so* easy to miss a tunnel in the dark trying to follow the exit solution. This could even land you in a deadly vertex! Fortunately, you can leave the vertex and start over. In fact, you might not realize you missed the binary node other than the iteration count exceeding the upper bound! (Test of faith in the person providing the exit string.)
While hidden variables cannot form the basis for a testable scientific theory, they work perfectly well for meta-physics. Not everyone is a philosophical materialist. Oh, and meta-physics doesn't necessarily mean God. The "hyper-dimensional space alien simulating our universe on a computer" is also very popular. The trick for metaphysicians is to realize that such theories are not "science", in the traditional sense of methodological materialism and testable hypothesis, however true they may or may not be. The trick for scientific materialists is to realize that testable theories are not the only source of truth. There are historical records, and personal testimony for example. Don't reject them too quickly, because you rely on them - you can't verify every experiment yourself.
The classic maze solution treats the maze as a graph of degree-out 2 decision points (left,right). The classic formulation is to keep your hand on the right hand wall. This fails, of course, when you are inside of a loop. However, this theorem says that while the instruction (right) may fail for such mazes, there exists some longer instruction, say (left,right,left) that will exit the maze regardless of starting point. Some classic myths can now be updated. Instead of our hero relying on a ball of string, or a non-looping maze, an insider can provide him/her with a finite length binary string - disguised of course.
Now for some further questions.
For the binary string to work, there has to be a consistent way to decompose complex intersections, like say a room with 12 tunnels entering. Does the binary string work regardless of how complex intersections are decomposed? Or does changing the decomposition algorithm change the exit instructions?
Is it possible to put an upper bound on how many applications of a solution string are required to exit the maze? This would greatly help our hero in case he has to try several decomposition methods and needs to know whether a given trial worked or not.
"Real" mythical mazes have hazards - vertices that virtually guarantee death if entered. Is there a road coloring and instruction string that works from any starting point, *and* never enters a hazardous vertex?
The (left,right) coloring is not actually the same as covered by the theorem, since the coloring changes depending on which direction you are coming from. Do instruction strings still exist? I drew a small maze with a loop, so that the string (right) fails, and exhaustively verified that the string (left,right,left) exits the maze from any starting point. So the conjecture seems reasonable.
is when the pirate is producing knockoffs that your real customers are deceived into buying, thinking it is the real thing. That kind of pirate you have to stop. Your customers are buying authentic copies from you instead of downloading/accepting free copies from a stranger for a reason. Commercial pirates are taking away that reason.
Your objection to the Range type is an objection to using variables instead of constants. As long as the Range type has a constant syntax in the language, it is still helpful to document and enforce the purpose of the comparison:
if (Range('12/31/07','1/31/08').contains(date))
If the language needs to actually call a constructor even for constant objects, then it may not be worth it, but it can add clarity.
When the data really *is* variable, then the type is even more important. For instance, in an sql engine I wrote, a basic query is translated a list of arrays of ranges - a list of multidimensional boxes, one dimension for each key field. The low level indexing can use the array of key ranges very efficiently.
They did not need to publish their proprietary code unless they linked to or incorporated busybox. Merely having busybox executables in the same system is "mere aggregation", and only required that they offer to distribute busybox code, not their own. So that payment was not necessary to keep Verizon code closed. It was necessary because they violated the license.
My favorite massively parallel programming system is LINDA, and the Java distributed equivalent, Javaspaces. The idea is basically a job jar. For instance, a 3D ray tracer would put each output pixel in the job jar, and worker threads grab a pixel and trace it. (Naturally, the pixel coords can be generated algorithmically rather than actually stored). Even though the time to trace a pixel varies widely, all workers are kept at capacity. Watching it raytrace a scene in a fraction of a second is like watching a random fade - the pixels appear in essentially random order.
I suspect that the job jar is the bottle neck for the LINDA approach, and further research is required. But the concept is really easy to work with.
File sharing is crucial to the success of musicians such as myself who offer free downloads of their music. We do this to promote our work, and to gain fans.
People here are unclear on what the RIAA and their European cousins are trying to do. They are not dummies, and they know perfectly well that personal sharing ("piracy") actually helps their sales. They also know perfectly well that these lawsuits will not stop real piracy ("Psssst. Honorable Sir! Look here! 5 CDs for one dollar!"). They are willing to forgo those lost sales in pursuit of their real purpose. The purpose of the lawsuits is to create a climate of fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) surrounding *legal* downloads. That is because what they *really* hate is not "piracy", but independent musicians. By stifling music sharing, they stifle independents, and keep the music distribution monopoly to themselves. They don't especially hate FOSS, but they don't feel especially guilty about innocent bystanders getting nailed either.
The root of the word literally means "to chose between" (inter[between] lego[to chose] -> intellego[to comprehend]). Intelligence is the ability to make choices, and is not directly related to powers of deduction, induction, or perception. These later simply put more choices within reach of the controlling intelligence. You don't have to be a genius to make a conscious choice. "Sentience" would be the word used in sci-fi.
I routinely coded network apps in JDK 1.1 that ran in 256K memory - including the JVM (no jit). That's K, not M. In comparison, the later Javas are stuffed turkeys. Even J2ME needs 512K. The two things that finally made Java 2 usable were the precompiled classlib for reasonable startup, and the fact that memory is now measured in Gigs instead of Megs.
My hatred of Java has nothing to do with speed. The platform has become a giant morass of 'enterprisey' 'solutions' that create more need for more 'solutions'. And all Java 'solutions' must somehow involve XML, because it's standard, and enterprisey.
I sympathize. However, that is hatred for J2EE, not Java. I stuck with JDK 1.1 until last year just to keep away from J2EE. However, I've found that you can safely ignore that crud, and just use core stuff. It doesn't affect startup time thanks to the classlib precompiler introduced in Java5. (In theory, you can create your own custom compiled classlib minus the crud to save memory also, but the memory isn't an issue anymore with current hardware.)
this? One of my favorite sci-fi stories. Kid invents anti-gravity drive, builds homemade spaceship, goes to mars, experiences system failure on return trip due to lack of spare for one simple part and gains new respect for NASA engineering, gets rescued by equally genius girlfriend, who neglects to arrange for the return trip at all. I mean, who wants to be rescued?
Slashdot Mirror
Under an endpoint driven QoS scheme, if millions of consumers all try to watch the latest BBC special at once, most of them will get the "all connections busy" error. They can then wait (like with POTS), or just start up a bittorrent so that the show will be stored locally when they come back later.
The key to ethical QoS schemes is that the endpoints should do the tagging, *not* the ISP. The ISP should just charge for the tagging. Currently, the ISP decides which kinds of traffic are "unacceptable" and throttles them. That is unacceptable. QoS can make the internet work at least as well as the POTS network.
There is a simple solution to forged DSNs (bounces). Sign the MAIL FROM of your outgoing mail with something like SRS or BATV: SRS0=keTrY=UY==user@example.com All bounces (MAIL FROM is empty) must be directed to a signed localpart with a valid hash key. If not, the bounce is immediately rejected, with a snooty message if so desired.
You're an immigrant. Glad to have you! Half my neighbors are immigrants from India - and they are wonderful. However, this thread is about aliens, otherwise known as illegal immigrants. So your observations don't apply.
Most of the reason why hiring aliens is so cheap has less to do with wages, and more to do with not paying social security, employment insurance, tax withholding, medicare, etc, and all because the "employee" doesn't exist in the tax system. All it takes is a little creative accounting to cover where the (cash) wages are going to.
What a waste of tax dollars. All they have to do is post all their intelligence documents on the public internet, and they can get google search for free!
Whichever one they choose, like a dual-licensed GPL project. If you like zero-price and are fine with the open-source conditions, then choose that. If you have proprietary code you don't want to open source, then choose the commercial license.
The problem I see is that it is much harder to tell whether a proprietary project is violating a specific patent. On that note, I've often wondered: since it is generally agreed that every software project, propietary and libre, violates software patents, can't we just call it a wash, and undo this unauthorized invention of the courts?
In that case, it's just a matter of a few years. Even the old Pagans with no hope of resurrection could see the value of a noble death over an ignoble, but slightly longer life. Life is nasty, brutish, and short throughout most of the world and in most of history.
You have hit the nail on the head, as Jesus put it, "Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day [is] the evil thereof." But that does not excuse lack of prudence when you do have knowledge of consequences, Proverbs 27:12, "A prudent [man] foresees evil [and] hides himself; The simple pass on [and] are punished."
I'm very much pro-science, but there can't be a blithe assumption that everything we do is risk-free.
The trust God approach actually does not deny risk. It just says that "all things work together for good to them that love God" in the end. Kind of like the Princess Bride where the hero endures incredible hardship and pain before riding off into the sunset with his true love.
One of the premises of Intelligent Design, as described in "The Privileged Planet", is that God/whatever not only planned for intelligent beings, but planned for them to explore their universe. The book talks about our ideal placement in the milky way for observation, yet with sufficient protection from gamma bursts, the fortuitous placement of the moon allowing solar eclipses to reveal the corona, etc. A Bible passage would be Proverbs, "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, and the glory of kings to search out a matter." Part of trusting God in this viewpoint is assuming that, barring deliberate or negligent self destruction, the next discovery won't destroy us. Although each advance in physics brings more and more dangerous knowledge to light, we will be able cope technically. (Moral failings are another matter.)
If you google for "12 milligauss", you'll find references like this to a threshold over which a 50-60hz signal suppresses the parts of the immune system that protect against cancer. This is why correlations with cancer are so subtle. The 60hz signal by itself doesn't cause cancer - you need some other heightened risk (like maybe living in a natural stone house) for the lowered cancer resistance to make any difference. The cellular machinery in question operates mostly at night, so working around high 60hz fields (like electric utility workers) is not a problem. Most of the wiring in your house is below the threshold (as is the field from any high tension wires nearby). Actually, electric blankets *are* a problem, as are old fashioned clock radios next to your bed (where the clock is driven by the AC signal). Again, only if there is another risk factor present.
n/t
The main problem is the business of the labels not being fixed. My conjecture is that there is still an exit procedure based on relative binary labeling. Certainly there could be based on a few examples. The hero could also use something like a compass to provide a fixed labeling. Although, I think part of finding an exit procedure is finding a labeling, and the compass labeling may or may not work ("color" is closest compass point while facing the exit). On the other hand, if the maze tunnels were conveniently painted various colors, that could work too.
There was a fictional story about a geek and a crooked archaeologist racing for treasure in an Aztec cave which was an underground maze with hazards. Every exit had one of a small set of glyphs carved into the stone overhead. The Geek Hero had the half of the map showing the entrance. The Archaeologist Villain had the part providing the glyph string that navigated the maze to the treasure and avoided the traps. Typical plot twists follow. Including the treasure doing in the villain at the end...
As far as plot points go, it would be *so* easy to miss a tunnel in the dark trying to follow the exit solution. This could even land you in a deadly vertex! Fortunately, you can leave the vertex and start over. In fact, you might not realize you missed the binary node other than the iteration count exceeding the upper bound! (Test of faith in the person providing the exit string.)
While hidden variables cannot form the basis for a testable scientific theory, they work perfectly well for meta-physics. Not everyone is a philosophical materialist. Oh, and meta-physics doesn't necessarily mean God. The "hyper-dimensional space alien simulating our universe on a computer" is also very popular. The trick for metaphysicians is to realize that such theories are not "science", in the traditional sense of methodological materialism and testable hypothesis, however true they may or may not be. The trick for scientific materialists is to realize that testable theories are not the only source of truth. There are historical records, and personal testimony for example. Don't reject them too quickly, because you rely on them - you can't verify every experiment yourself.
Now for some further questions.
is when the pirate is producing knockoffs that your real customers are deceived into buying, thinking it is the real thing. That kind of pirate you have to stop. Your customers are buying authentic copies from you instead of downloading/accepting free copies from a stranger for a reason. Commercial pirates are taking away that reason.
When the data really *is* variable, then the type is even more important. For instance, in an sql engine I wrote, a basic query is translated a list of arrays of ranges - a list of multidimensional boxes, one dimension for each key field. The low level indexing can use the array of key ranges very efficiently.
If that happens, certifications will likely be available for commercial OSes only - e.g. M$, Solaris, Novell, Redhat, OSX.
They did not need to publish their proprietary code unless they linked to or incorporated busybox. Merely having busybox executables in the same system is "mere aggregation", and only required that they offer to distribute busybox code, not their own. So that payment was not necessary to keep Verizon code closed. It was necessary because they violated the license.
I suspect that the job jar is the bottle neck for the LINDA approach, and further research is required. But the concept is really easy to work with.
People here are unclear on what the RIAA and their European cousins are trying to do. They are not dummies, and they know perfectly well that personal sharing ("piracy") actually helps their sales. They also know perfectly well that these lawsuits will not stop real piracy ("Psssst. Honorable Sir! Look here! 5 CDs for one dollar!"). They are willing to forgo those lost sales in pursuit of their real purpose. The purpose of the lawsuits is to create a climate of fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) surrounding *legal* downloads. That is because what they *really* hate is not "piracy", but independent musicians. By stifling music sharing, they stifle independents, and keep the music distribution monopoly to themselves. They don't especially hate FOSS, but they don't feel especially guilty about innocent bystanders getting nailed either.
The root of the word literally means "to chose between" (inter[between] lego[to chose] -> intellego[to comprehend]). Intelligence is the ability to make choices, and is not directly related to powers of deduction, induction, or perception. These later simply put more choices within reach of the controlling intelligence. You don't have to be a genius to make a conscious choice. "Sentience" would be the word used in sci-fi.
I routinely coded network apps in JDK 1.1 that ran in 256K memory - including the JVM (no jit). That's K, not M. In comparison, the later Javas are stuffed turkeys. Even J2ME needs 512K. The two things that finally made Java 2 usable were the precompiled classlib for reasonable startup, and the fact that memory is now measured in Gigs instead of Megs.
I sympathize. However, that is hatred for J2EE, not Java. I stuck with JDK 1.1 until last year just to keep away from J2EE. However, I've found that you can safely ignore that crud, and just use core stuff. It doesn't affect startup time thanks to the classlib precompiler introduced in Java5. (In theory, you can create your own custom compiled classlib minus the crud to save memory also, but the memory isn't an issue anymore with current hardware.)
this? One of my favorite sci-fi stories. Kid invents anti-gravity drive, builds homemade spaceship, goes to mars, experiences system failure on return trip due to lack of spare for one simple part and gains new respect for NASA engineering, gets rescued by equally genius girlfriend, who neglects to arrange for the return trip at all. I mean, who wants to be rescued?
I don't have a mobile phone. I don't like them. But I do use a wireless laptop.