Relax, they do not hope to create a new Silicon Valley. They are not that dumb. Putin, for one, is pretty smart guy and he knows it's not going to work. It's not the first time, you know. There were a host of other so called 'national projects' before this. (Nanotechnology, anyone?) What this really is a way to siphon government money into private pockets of government officials, create some impression of work they do, and boost morale and pride of the general populace as a bonus side effect. It's much easier, you know, than address and fix the real problem -- total corruption of every government institute, starting from traffic patrol and all the way up the president himself. We've been there, seen that. Nothing new, really... Move along, people -- just another day in Russia....
Uh, are they really still trying to be build communist utopias in capitalist Russia? Perhaps I'm missing something but this sounds like a planned city with a state run economy. It's almost the opposite of Silicon Valley. In large part Silicon Valley developed because of the conditions around it that fostered entrepreneurship (e.g. proximity of smart, relatively wealthy kids with lots of spare time at nearby colleges, good research facilities, etc). If Russia finds a location to replicate the conditions found in Silicon Valley, then that would be fantastic, but trying to create something from the top-down that duplicates Silicon Valley rather than cultivating something that grows from the bottom-up is doomed to failure.
I'm not a big fan of how this process has been handled but the point that it's pointless to talk about ACTA because there is no such thing as ACTA until some of the major discrepancies are reconciled (i.e. "clearing brackets from the text") is reasonable.
Sun didn't invent Javascript. Netscape did, under the name "Livescript". The "Javascript" name was pure marketing, and an attempt to benefit from Java's hype and buzz. The most significant thing Javascript has in common with Java is the first four characters of its name. Semantically, Javascript has more in common with Perl than it ever had in common with Java (no, I'm not saying Javascript == Perl, just pointing out that it has LESS in common with Java than it has in common with Perl)
Ok, fair enough. So Java hasn't done anything of value.;-)
Oracle has done a pretty poor job of retaining seriously talented people from Sun. On the other hand maybe these folks were pampered prima donnas at Sun who didn't produce anything that could be sold and are a part of the reason Sun folded? It's not like Java ever made Sun any money and at this point it's most significant contribution is Javascript.
You have no right or power to force an "innovate or die" choice on me or any other author. You can SAY it, but it's meaningless; a fart in a windstorm.
In most first-world countries, we authors earn control of our work for our lifetimes. After our death, our children control our work for some period as well (either 70 or 95 years, I believe, depending on country). This is a Very Good Thing. It prevents corporations from stealing our work right out from under us and making a profit that they did not earn.
So, regardless of what corporations are doing with their copyrights, copyrights are ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL to individual authors and creators, and the copyright terms the government enforces are quite well suited to our needs.
Incidentally, the "incentive to create" is not so much an incentive to create as an incentive to SHARE our creations. We would still create no matter what happened, but without copyright, we'd keep our creations to ourselves, benefiting only our families. Thanks to copyright, we're free to share our work with the rest of the world. We know our works will be protected by the government. We know our works are safe from interference or sabotage.
I'll leave you with 3 amusing thoughts.
Without Copyright, Bill Gates could take all the GNU utiliites and wrap them up in a proprietary closed source Windows 7 system, and there would be nothing Stallman could do about it.
Without Copyright, right-wingers could take respected history books, rewrite them, and republish them in place of the originals, making red states EVEN DUMBER.
Without copyright, if you were an author people could rewrite your books in any way they wanted, potentially ruining them and humiliating you; the risk of such a thing happening would drive you from the market entirely. The risk would be great; the internet is full of people who love being cruel to others for no good reason.
Get it yet? Do more thinking. Your philosophy is not yet mature.
Oh, I get it. Did you read what I wrote? Apparently not. I didn't say copyright should be eliminated.
Traditionally supporters of long copyrights have claimed that unless the copyrights were for substantial amounts of time there would be no incentive to create (a similar arguments is made for patents, etc). Well, the other side of it is that if a company is continually reaping revenue from a copyright what's the motivation to create again? Giving people an opportunity to reap a just reward is one thing but ensuring them an entitlement is quite another. Reward is a great motivator but ruin is as well. Innovate or die.
Sorry, but they are not and I will continue to shun Bing. To add insult to injury Microsoft went out of their way to ingratiate themselves with the Chinese government at Google's expense when Google was right.
Uh, that's why Woz was first in line to get one?
on
The Apple Two
·
· Score: 1
What utter rubbish. It's total hyperbole. Woz wants/wanted everyone to be able to compute. The ipad allows even more people to do even more computing. Of course he likes it. End of story. It's like a bunch of trolls were promoted to Editor today on Slashdot.
Bing was created mainly as an attack on Google and an attempt to get into the search business, not because Microsoft had something new to offer in search. This is being done in the same spirit, and it will also turn out bad, with many users going to google.com to search just because Google is that much better.
I happen to like Bing better than Google but Microsoft's China policy sucks. Therefore I continue to use Google. I was ready and willing to dump Google. So, clearly Apple has an opportunity. People tend to overestimate Google's invincibility. Google is not that much better than their competition and their lead is rapidly shrinking to the point where the competition is "good enough".
A 256 bit key has 2^256 possibilities. That's 1.15x10^77 possibilities. If you can try 10 million keys in a second, then you "only" need 1.15x10^70th seconds. If you can multiply that speed by a factor of a thousand, then you "only" need 1.15x10^67th seconds. That's 3.67x10^59th years. The universe is only 1.3x10^10 years old.
So never is more than fair. You would literally have to generate universes to generate universes to decrypt via brute force. By our current understanding of reality, impossible is correct, and anything shy of that is literally science ficition.
Uh, no. You are assuming that things will always work the way that they do. By that I mean, presumably, you think 10 million keys is a lot of keys, but what if we could test 2^256 keys per second? Then it's easily decrypted. Obviously given the way we currently do things that's not possible but we may be able to do it with quantum computing (or maybe not). Finally, if you are so keen on constraining things according to the real world, then it's unlikely we'd need to resort to brute-force. All encryption relies on algorithms and algorithms must be implemented. Any given implementation is susceptible to compromise even quantum encryption. So, I'd say it's a safer bet that any encryption can be broken rather than vice versa.
I don't think this really qualifies as astroturfing. It's a little more transparent and brazen. Astroturfing is usually when some group that sounds like a grassroots group (e.g. People for the Preservation of the Internet) opposes some sort of legislation but is mostly funded by an industry that would see its profits decreased by the legislation. I admit I at first was going to call it astroturfing but it didn't really fit to me.
Usually when a study comes to such dramatically different conclusions from a fairly respectable institution my alarm bells start ringing. It usually smells like media manipulation. So, let's see. The Globe and Mail is owned by CTVGlobemedia which in turn is owned by among others Bell Canada. Bell Canada (as well as the other former Bells) were excoriated by the Harvard report for being anti-competitive and providing poor value. Hrm... Nothing definitive but fairly fishy.
Whoever marked my post as Flamebait should get a dictionary. My post is not intended as a bait for flaming. It's not trolling either. It's a rejoinder to the premise put forward by the Senators. I'm calling bullshit on their supposed noble call for a greater vision when they are really only concerned about jobs.
That's what all of this grandstanding is about. Vision? Bullshit! It's about jobs and votes back home. I'm sick of this fucking hypocrisy. Building an industry based on government handouts is stupid to begin with. They should consider themselves lucky to have made any money at all. The new plan for NASA is realistic and reasonable and these senators should go fuck themselves.
Considering land mass as well as population density have very little to do with broadband speeds I'm not sure what you point is. It's one of the great broadband myths that small countries like Japan and Finland have a huge advantage for deploying broadband over America because of population density. The real issue is the cost to deploy (it may be cheaper to deploy in rural Vermont than in Manhattan), franchise agreements in cities, exclusivity agreements in apartment/condo complexes, and lack of line sharing.
Slashdot Mirror
Relax, they do not hope to create a new Silicon Valley. They are not that dumb. Putin, for one, is pretty smart guy and he knows it's not going to work. It's not the first time, you know. There were a host of other so called 'national projects' before this. (Nanotechnology, anyone?) What this really is a way to siphon government money into private pockets of government officials, create some impression of work they do, and boost morale and pride of the general populace as a bonus side effect. It's much easier, you know, than address and fix the real problem -- total corruption of every government institute, starting from traffic patrol and all the way up the president himself.
We've been there, seen that. Nothing new, really... Move along, people -- just another day in Russia....
Ah, ok, as long as they are not serious...
Uh, are they really still trying to be build communist utopias in capitalist Russia? Perhaps I'm missing something but this sounds like a planned city with a state run economy. It's almost the opposite of Silicon Valley. In large part Silicon Valley developed because of the conditions around it that fostered entrepreneurship (e.g. proximity of smart, relatively wealthy kids with lots of spare time at nearby colleges, good research facilities, etc). If Russia finds a location to replicate the conditions found in Silicon Valley, then that would be fantastic, but trying to create something from the top-down that duplicates Silicon Valley rather than cultivating something that grows from the bottom-up is doomed to failure.
I'm not a big fan of how this process has been handled but the point that it's pointless to talk about ACTA because there is no such thing as ACTA until some of the major discrepancies are reconciled (i.e. "clearing brackets from the text") is reasonable.
Sun didn't invent Javascript. Netscape did, under the name "Livescript". The "Javascript" name was pure marketing, and an attempt to benefit from Java's hype and buzz. The most significant thing Javascript has in common with Java is the first four characters of its name. Semantically, Javascript has more in common with Perl than it ever had in common with Java (no, I'm not saying Javascript == Perl, just pointing out that it has LESS in common with Java than it has in common with Perl)
Ok, fair enough. So Java hasn't done anything of value. ;-)
Oracle has done a pretty poor job of retaining seriously talented people from Sun. On the other hand maybe these folks were pampered prima donnas at Sun who didn't produce anything that could be sold and are a part of the reason Sun folded? It's not like Java ever made Sun any money and at this point it's most significant contribution is Javascript.
You have no right or power to force an "innovate or die" choice on me or any other author. You can SAY it, but it's meaningless; a fart in a windstorm.
In most first-world countries, we authors earn control of our work for our lifetimes. After our death, our children control our work for some period as well (either 70 or 95 years, I believe, depending on country). This is a Very Good Thing. It prevents corporations from stealing our work right out from under us and making a profit that they did not earn.
So, regardless of what corporations are doing with their copyrights, copyrights are ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL to individual authors and creators, and the copyright terms the government enforces are quite well suited to our needs.
Incidentally, the "incentive to create" is not so much an incentive to create as an incentive to SHARE our creations. We would still create no matter what happened, but without copyright, we'd keep our creations to ourselves, benefiting only our families. Thanks to copyright, we're free to share our work with the rest of the world. We know our works will be protected by the government. We know our works are safe from interference or sabotage.
I'll leave you with 3 amusing thoughts.
Without Copyright, Bill Gates could take all the GNU utiliites and wrap them up in a proprietary closed source Windows 7 system, and there would be nothing Stallman could do about it.
Without Copyright, right-wingers could take respected history books, rewrite them, and republish them in place of the originals, making red states EVEN DUMBER.
Without copyright, if you were an author people could rewrite your books in any way they wanted, potentially ruining them and humiliating you; the risk of such a thing happening would drive you from the market entirely. The risk would be great; the internet is full of people who love being cruel to others for no good reason.
Get it yet? Do more thinking. Your philosophy is not yet mature.
Oh, I get it. Did you read what I wrote? Apparently not. I didn't say copyright should be eliminated.
Do more reading. Your skills are not yet mature.
Traditionally supporters of long copyrights have claimed that unless the copyrights were for substantial amounts of time there would be no incentive to create (a similar arguments is made for patents, etc). Well, the other side of it is that if a company is continually reaping revenue from a copyright what's the motivation to create again? Giving people an opportunity to reap a just reward is one thing but ensuring them an entitlement is quite another. Reward is a great motivator but ruin is as well. Innovate or die.
Sorry, but they are not and I will continue to shun Bing. To add insult to injury Microsoft went out of their way to ingratiate themselves with the Chinese government at Google's expense when Google was right.
What utter rubbish. It's total hyperbole. Woz wants/wanted everyone to be able to compute. The ipad allows even more people to do even more computing. Of course he likes it. End of story. It's like a bunch of trolls were promoted to Editor today on Slashdot.
Bing was created mainly as an attack on Google and an attempt to get into the search business, not because Microsoft had something new to offer in search. This is being done in the same spirit, and it will also turn out bad, with many users going to google.com to search just because Google is that much better.
I happen to like Bing better than Google but Microsoft's China policy sucks. Therefore I continue to use Google. I was ready and willing to dump Google. So, clearly Apple has an opportunity. People tend to overestimate Google's invincibility. Google is not that much better than their competition and their lead is rapidly shrinking to the point where the competition is "good enough".
Darth Montgomery Burns will be final!
Correct its now a Battlegound!
The Apple/Google war is officially on now.
It's on like Donkey Kong.
Apple already has a platform. Now they need to execute.
This mythical quantum computer with it's mythical algorithm is still subject to thermodynamics...
Ah, I see. You don't understand how a quantum computer theoretically works.
So, what's your point exactly?
Yes, really and truly, never in all time.
A 256 bit key has 2^256 possibilities. That's 1.15x10^77 possibilities. If you can try 10 million keys in a second, then you "only" need 1.15x10^70th seconds. If you can multiply that speed by a factor of a thousand, then you "only" need 1.15x10^67th seconds. That's 3.67x10^59th years. The universe is only 1.3x10^10 years old.
So never is more than fair. You would literally have to generate universes to generate universes to decrypt via brute force. By our current understanding of reality, impossible is correct, and anything shy of that is literally science ficition.
Uh, no. You are assuming that things will always work the way that they do. By that I mean, presumably, you think 10 million keys is a lot of keys, but what if we could test 2^256 keys per second? Then it's easily decrypted. Obviously given the way we currently do things that's not possible but we may be able to do it with quantum computing (or maybe not). Finally, if you are so keen on constraining things according to the real world, then it's unlikely we'd need to resort to brute-force. All encryption relies on algorithms and algorithms must be implemented. Any given implementation is susceptible to compromise even quantum encryption. So, I'd say it's a safer bet that any encryption can be broken rather than vice versa.
I don't think this really qualifies as astroturfing. It's a little more transparent and brazen. Astroturfing is usually when some group that sounds like a grassroots group (e.g. People for the Preservation of the Internet) opposes some sort of legislation but is mostly funded by an industry that would see its profits decreased by the legislation. I admit I at first was going to call it astroturfing but it didn't really fit to me.
Usually when a study comes to such dramatically different conclusions from a fairly respectable institution my alarm bells start ringing. It usually smells like media manipulation. So, let's see. The Globe and Mail is owned by CTVGlobemedia which in turn is owned by among others Bell Canada. Bell Canada (as well as the other former Bells) were excoriated by the Harvard report for being anti-competitive and providing poor value. Hrm... Nothing definitive but fairly fishy.
Whoever marked my post as Flamebait should get a dictionary. My post is not intended as a bait for flaming. It's not trolling either. It's a rejoinder to the premise put forward by the Senators. I'm calling bullshit on their supposed noble call for a greater vision when they are really only concerned about jobs.
That's what all of this grandstanding is about. Vision? Bullshit! It's about jobs and votes back home. I'm sick of this fucking hypocrisy. Building an industry based on government handouts is stupid to begin with. They should consider themselves lucky to have made any money at all. The new plan for NASA is realistic and reasonable and these senators should go fuck themselves.
Well of course that assumes that x and y are the only variables in play. Once you start with the Socratic questioning it gets a lot more messy.
++ Mod parent up. I wish I had mod point.
Or, they've managed to destroy their planet and would like a replacement unencumbered by us.
Considering land mass as well as population density have very little to do with broadband speeds I'm not sure what you point is. It's one of the great broadband myths that small countries like Japan and Finland have a huge advantage for deploying broadband over America because of population density. The real issue is the cost to deploy (it may be cheaper to deploy in rural Vermont than in Manhattan), franchise agreements in cities, exclusivity agreements in apartment/condo complexes, and lack of line sharing.
Maybe. But there's no doubt that level of interactivity has some interesting possibilities...