How does it advocate a monopoly? If google had only 8 advertisers and 8 producers, they could still keep that anonymity between them, although they could pretty much guess where the ads would end up. In that case, Google just need a large enough sample space of each type of demo to really prevent 'guesses'. They certainly don't need a monopoly.
There wasn't a single 'cliffhanger' ending to any of the firefly episodes. It was pretty different from his other works. Firefly is in another league compared to buffy/angel.
We'll, it's kinda cheating. The algorithm is STILL NP, but in quantum computing we can run all paths in parallel so we solve all possible combinaisons at once, which becomes polynomial. However, we have no way of finding the good answer at 100%.
See, the problem in quantum computing is that you can have multiple states in parallel, but you can only 'read' one and lose all other states. This is like having a book with 400 pages, but when you open it, it selects (with a certain probability) a specific page and the whole book becomes that page, you lose all other pages.
We need to make the system converge/interfere in a meaningful way to the correct solution, and in its own way, this is the challenge of QC. In the end, if our algorithm works, we will be able to get the answer to the travelling salesman problem with a probability (depending how good our convergence is). Just like our book above, we need to increase the chance of opening the book on the page with the correct solution. This is non-trivial.
The thing is, the 'weight' of that convergence/meaningful interference, in problems like the travelling salesman, is usually as high as the time it takes to run the normal algorithm in classical computing. We end up not having much gains, it's not that fast. So, yes, if they are that good, we can solve the travelling salesman dilema in seconds... with a certain, probably very low %. Probably even a meaningless %.
However, in problems like finding if a function is unanimous(f(x)=0 or f(x)=1 for all x) or balanced (f(x)=0 for exactly half of x and f(x)=1 for exactly the other half of x) could be done in quantum computer with no errors and very fast, while in classical computing you'd have to try each value of x. If you however allow a certain % of error, the classical way with a stochastic computer would work best (test only a certain pool of value).
Let's assume the number of atoms in the univers is about 4x10^79, which is the common number used. Without loss of generality, lets use 4x10^77 instead, to make the rest faster. Check the end of the article if that infuriates you, hehe.
Let's take a key of 256 bits. How many combination are there? 2^256 ~= 1.16x10^77. WLOG, round to 4x10^77.
That's 2 order of magnitude smaller than the estimated number of atoms in the universe, and equal to our number we chose above. That's quite a lot to bruteforce.
Lets say we have as much computers as we have atoms in the universe. Lets posit that it takes 1 second to try a number.
This means, if we have as much computers as the number of atoms in the universe, we can crack the key in 1 second if all computers try a different number at the same time.
Let's double the keysize to 512. Now, we have 2^512 ~= 1.34x10^154, lets use 4x10^154 to make things easier. Wow, that's 77 order of magnitude larger than the total estimated atoms in the universe. 77 order of magnitude.
Lets do the same math as above, we have the same amount of computer as the amount of atoms in the universe.
Each computer would have to try 10^77 numbers to crack it, that's a lot. If it takes 1 second per try, this means it would take: 3.17x10^69 years to crack by bruteforce.
Now, lets double the keysize to 1024... you see the point?
While the above wasn't rigourous at all, I hope it gives you a good idea =)
If you are still in doubt...
Problems with the above: 1) You rounded down the number of atoms in the universe...
Ok, well, if we don't, we end up with 3.17x10^67 years instead.
2) Our computers are faster than this, it doesn't take 1 second to try a number.
Ok, fine, lets say it takes 1 nanosecond. It now takes 3.17x10^58 years.
3) The universe is infinite so there's an infinite number of atoms! Haha!
First that mostly false, but it's up to you to find out why. Anyway, it doesn't change the fact, I used to number of atoms in the universe as a scale to make you realize that we are talking about a LOT of computers here, a nearly impossible number of computers, since the computer would have to be made of only 1 atom, hehe.
There is still the problem of finding an algorithm that would allow all computers to generate a different number, but that's another discussion and it just reinforce my point, hehe.
Haha. Yeah, sure, the 'I want it free' generation. With your argument, the following would be in the public's interest:
Some guy steals(inside or outside job) the source code of Windows, give it to a journalist and the journalist publish the code. Since, for the consumer, it would prevent them from having to buy windows, they save money, so it's in the public's interest.
Now, the argument above is loaded, because the name is microsoft, but think about any corp. that you like and respect that sells a product. Also, the example is different because it deals with Copyrights (the code). Then again, your argument doesn't care that whether or not it's a Trade Secret so mine doesn't either.
Hell, paying no income taxes is in the public's interest since you lose less money! Down with the Man!
It's not black and white like: you win, it's ok, you lose, it's not. You probably feel entitled to download mp3, right?
A trade secret is a trade secret, not a whistle blowing case. Trade secrets need to be enforced, or else it wouldn't mean anything. Since apple doesn't have any wrong doing in this case, the protection of the source doesn't apply if it's a Trade Secret. The judge, however, still isn't sure if it's a Trade Secret or not, and this point isn't clear cut. If it's not a Trade Secret, there is no reason to reveal the source.
It's more like if I took GM's cars, modified them and sold them back on the market. Then, having made so much changes to the cars, a normal GM car could no longer even try to fit the new parts I'm using.
Is this good or bad? depends on the perspective and more than juste A or B wins.
But how could you lose IP with open source code? IP is copyright, trademark and patents lumped together, right? Oh, trade secret maybe?
Copyright: you don't lose copyright to your own code with GPL. If you use other's code, well you have to respect the license(GPL, BSD, etc.). Now, if you modify an open source application, yeah, you might have to open source the code code you write if you distribute it, but that's only fair. If you don't want to, buy/license proprietary software or code your own.
Trademark: not applicable.
Patents: you have the patent, whether your code is open source or not doesn't change a thing.
Trade Secret: there you have an issue because, well, you can't open source it, you have to keep it secret.
GPL is, afterall, copyrights with added distribution bonus.
I don't think the point in all this is 'to make money'. I mean, if the police would be stopping investigation because it costs more than some crime's value, we'd have a problem. Or courtrooms emptied because it costs more to run that the crime value they are judging. The inquiry is there to find out what really happens and thus try to prevent it from happening again. Who cares how much it costs? As long as it's justified, the cost isn't important.
I agree with you. However, the problem is that the trial HASN'T started, it starts next month. So, sure you can sequester the jury when the trial starts, but that would be too late, which is the whole point of the ban.
But then the liberals are a minority right now, so I think to start elections, they would need the support of the other parties to have a majority. I don't see any of the opposition agreeing to that before the details are revealed after the trials and the inquiry report is release in december.
It is, because it's not censorship. The ban is on *publication* of it. It does not want to suppress the information itself, but the publication of it so that a fair trial is possible (they have enough untainted citizen to form a jury).
Anyone can go and watch the procedings themselves, they just can't publish it. You won't be arrested because you go and talk to your friends about it afterward. Anyway journalist/staffers privy of the transcript and people watching the procedings won't be selected as jury, but the rest of the citizens are good candidate.
Also remember that this ISN'T a court proceding. It's a public inquiry. So, they aren't putting a ban on a court proceding, just the procedings for the inquiry. The trial is seperate and starts next month, so it is to have fair trials that the ban was made on the inquiry.
Nothing gets censored. It is gagged until the trials starts next month.
Second... I am speechless by this: "What is more important, that one or two people get prosecuted or that the public get to see how its money is being used?"
I'd happily say the first. I'd much rather have a fair trial. Heard of "Innocent before proven guilty"? You talk like this goes out of the window because you can't watch 'the show' as you did before. That's like saying : this guy is accused of murdering his wife, he shouldn't have a fair trial because he's a murderer and we must protect the innocents from this beast.
The money is already lost. We'll know(or have a general idea of) how the money was spent and what happened with it at the end of the inquiry, in Gomery's report, which will be public. These are just procedings, we get to see the judge ask questions and people answer, or, more appropriately, not say a damn thing or say "I forgot". This is not a trial, just a public inquiry.
Anyway, I jumped on my chair when I read your comment...
You say " If the trial is scheduled for next month then yes the blogger should have waited." then "Basically, as I see it, the guy did nothing wrong."
The trial IS set for next month, starting May 2nd IIRC.
I'd say he should have waited.
Now, the lawyers are trying to postpone the trials, but I hope that, if they convince the judge to do this, Gomery will lift the ban immediatly. You can't have the cake and eat it too.
Why would I still buy whole CDs? Because I do not usually listen to mainstream music, so albums that I bought(i have over 100) rarely contains fillers. I've heard this argument often, and at first I had trouble understanding. Why do CD sells if there's only 2 songs on it? I've come to realize that there is a crisis brewing, that's for sure. When the industry spends billons on new bands/singers, then make them release maybe 2 good songs and filler, and expect that people will still buy the whole CD, you start to see the problem more clearly. Now with downloads of individual songs, they will realize that people care about 2-3 songs per albums and maybe start producing better music?
The industry is NOT really against pay per songs, they have a problem with people downloading 20% of mainstream music instead of buying 100% of it on CD. A cheap, per songs download will FORCE the industry to NOT produce filler songs and such, since no one will buy them. They really fear that.
They really dont care if the song is 5 cents or 99 cents... they care that they won't sell the same % of what they produce versus CD.
I don't understand if you realized, but that particular Simpsons eps was to showcase that people were stupid enough not to vote for a third candidate instead of Kodos and Kang. That line "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos" just shows that they were really stupid into thinking a vote for Kodos would have change anything.
So, yes, you are to blame, whether you voted for republicans or democrats. Don't try to make yourself feel better because you didn't voted for Bush, but voted for the democrats.
I'd say Quebecers are probably more 'french' in everyday life than the french. Just go to France, listen to people talk in the street. Then go to Quebec and do the same. You'll probably understand the French a lot more, in some place nearly every word is english. Ok, you probably won't understand because of the accent, but they still use lots english words, and mostly bastardize english words. The later is the worst. Parking, Footing, etc. It's not only the youth, just watch French TV, it's incredible how anglicized they are becoming. All the 'in' expression are bastardized english.
Quebecers understand that english is the business language, but in everyday life, they speak better french than the French themselves, although with their own slangs and all.
The 'american way' infiltrated France at the core, while in Quebec, people stood up to keep their own culture as the root, but adopted the rest. With the core(the youth) as it is today, France of tomorrow will probably be totally anglicized, while Quebec will fare better. By how much? I don't know, but there is a serious problem in France.
The first point, government sponsored research papers MUST be written in french first. The official papers must be in french, but any number of translations can be made afterward. It's usually the same with universities and such. Since most research are sponsored by govt or uni, well, most papers are written in french. You know, when a french speaking govt. sponsors a research, is it weird for them to ask that the results are in french, for the benefit of the french people? How would you like, as an american uni, to sponsor someone for a research and he would submit a paper in arabic?
The second point is similar. They said that government related communications must use "courriel" instead of "email". I'd say it's a good thing, official communications should use the correct vocabulary. Using "email" would be the same as using leet speak in official govt. communications for example.
French is firstly a litterary language, while english became a business/everyday language and lots most of its litterary roots. English is made to be interroperable. French will usually use french, latin or greek roots to "invent" new words instead of adopting a foreign word. This usually preserves the litterary properties of the language. That's the big difference. Yeah, they can be anal about it sometimes, but then, who isn't?
You know, first your argument doesn't make sense. If a community doesn't have an ISP and decide to create one, what is the problem? The government(local, state, federal, etc.) is there to help it's citizen (well, they should). If they agree to help a community build their own ISP, where is the problem? Hell, it could cost a lot per month, but then they'd at least have a choice.
If a community already has a ISP, but a dismal one with a (near-)monopoly and they want to run their own, I don't see the problem either. If the community one "will be poorly and insecurely run, slow to respond (for instance, blocking ports to stem the spread of viruses), and twice as expensive as anything else" no one will use it. You have a crappy ISP, but the community one is even crappier and cost twice as much... not a hard choice to make. The community one will go away if it cannot compete. If it can compete, well maybe the crappy ISP will listen to reason and try to improve their services... but then again, they will probably sue the government, or try to get legislation that prevent them doing it.
Wait! That's exactly what they are doing here.
If the govt. ones are really cheaper and better, maybe it's because they bury costs in taxes. Maybe... but isn't that WHY we are paying taxes anyway? Or are we just paying taxes because the govt. is poor and we need to help it stay alive?
We're not talking about a federal ISP taking over corporate ISPs, we're talking about small communities needing the service(or better service) that the local govt. can help provide.
i agree that the "on-the-fly" is misleading. it's not interactive, meaning you couldn't use it as a protocol for IM or a network game. But for emails and non-real-time communications, it is 'on-the-fly'. Bandiwth problems are a bottleneck now, but might not be tomorrow. You can't send data faster than light, but you can send more than one photon at a time, so broadbandiwth will alleviate more and more this problem.
And yeah, I've heard people saying : whats the point? just send the message over.
Well, logistically it would be a nightmare. Also, it **statistically** detects eavesdropping - like, 15% of the mesage was eavesdrop. It does NOT check every single bit, since the validation involves sending a subset of bits over a classical channel. If it tends to 0%, then it is secure. The higher it is, the higher the output will be garbage.
Slashdot Mirror
How does it advocate a monopoly? If google had only 8 advertisers and 8 producers, they could still keep that anonymity between them, although they could pretty much guess where the ads would end up. In that case, Google just need a large enough sample space of each type of demo to really prevent 'guesses'. They certainly don't need a monopoly.
With those stats, you'd still get 1.4 opera user per month. That's not a never =)
You don't know less. It's just that alot of things you know is now false. False information is still information.
No sci-fi in Firefly??
So, what does define sci-fi for you then?
I won't deny the huge western influence, but even as someone who usually hate westerns, I loved Firefly.
Maybe you just didn't liked it, but it's certainly sci-fi.
There wasn't a single 'cliffhanger' ending to any of the firefly episodes. It was pretty different from his other works. Firefly is in another league compared to buffy/angel.
We'll, it's kinda cheating. The algorithm is STILL NP, but in quantum computing we can run all paths in parallel so we solve all possible combinaisons at once, which becomes polynomial. However, we have no way of finding the good answer at 100%.
See, the problem in quantum computing is that you can have multiple states in parallel, but you can only 'read' one and lose all other states. This is like having a book with 400 pages, but when you open it, it selects (with a certain probability) a specific page and the whole book becomes that page, you lose all other pages.
We need to make the system converge/interfere in a meaningful way to the correct solution, and in its own way, this is the challenge of QC. In the end, if our algorithm works, we will be able to get the answer to the travelling salesman problem with a probability (depending how good our convergence is). Just like our book above, we need to increase the chance of opening the book on the page with the correct solution. This is non-trivial.
The thing is, the 'weight' of that convergence/meaningful interference, in problems like the travelling salesman, is usually as high as the time it takes to run the normal algorithm in classical computing. We end up not having much gains, it's not that fast. So, yes, if they are that good, we can solve the travelling salesman dilema in seconds... with a certain, probably very low %. Probably even a meaningless %.
However, in problems like finding if a function is unanimous(f(x)=0 or f(x)=1 for all x) or balanced (f(x)=0 for exactly half of x and f(x)=1 for exactly the other half of x) could be done in quantum computer with no errors and very fast, while in classical computing you'd have to try each value of x. If you however allow a certain % of error, the classical way with a stochastic computer would work best (test only a certain pool of value).
So by your logic, a company shouldn't fire someone because it's risky? Yay for the ultimate job security!
I could argue that it is also risky to keep those employees, so we're not really going anywhere with that argument.
Let's assume the number of atoms in the univers is about 4x10^79, which is the common number used. Without loss of generality, lets use 4x10^77 instead, to make the rest faster. Check the end of the article if that infuriates you, hehe.
Let's take a key of 256 bits. How many combination are there? 2^256 ~= 1.16x10^77. WLOG, round to 4x10^77.
That's 2 order of magnitude smaller than the estimated number of atoms in the universe, and equal to our number we chose above. That's quite a lot to bruteforce.
Lets say we have as much computers as we have atoms in the universe. Lets posit that it takes 1 second to try a number.
This means, if we have as much computers as the number of atoms in the universe, we can crack the key in 1 second if all computers try a different number at the same time.
Let's double the keysize to 512. Now, we have 2^512 ~= 1.34x10^154, lets use 4x10^154 to make things easier. Wow, that's 77 order of magnitude larger than the total estimated atoms in the universe. 77 order of magnitude.
Lets do the same math as above, we have the same amount of computer as the amount of atoms in the universe.
Each computer would have to try 10^77 numbers to crack it, that's a lot. If it takes 1 second per try, this means it would take: 3.17x10^69 years to crack by bruteforce.
Now, lets double the keysize to 1024... you see the point?
While the above wasn't rigourous at all, I hope it gives you a good idea =)
If you are still in doubt...
Problems with the above:
1) You rounded down the number of atoms in the universe...
Ok, well, if we don't, we end up with 3.17x10^67 years instead.
2) Our computers are faster than this, it doesn't take 1 second to try a number.
Ok, fine, lets say it takes 1 nanosecond. It now takes 3.17x10^58 years.
3) The universe is infinite so there's an infinite number of atoms! Haha!
First that mostly false, but it's up to you to find out why. Anyway, it doesn't change the fact, I used to number of atoms in the universe as a scale to make you realize that we are talking about a LOT of computers here, a nearly impossible number of computers, since the computer would have to be made of only 1 atom, hehe.
There is still the problem of finding an algorithm that would allow all computers to generate a different number, but that's another discussion and it just reinforce my point, hehe.
Haha. Yeah, sure, the 'I want it free' generation. With your argument, the following would be in the public's interest:
Some guy steals(inside or outside job) the source code of Windows, give it to a journalist and the journalist publish the code. Since, for the consumer, it would prevent them from having to buy windows, they save money, so it's in the public's interest.
Now, the argument above is loaded, because the name is microsoft, but think about any corp. that you like and respect that sells a product. Also, the example is different because it deals with Copyrights (the code). Then again, your argument doesn't care that whether or not it's a Trade Secret so mine doesn't either.
Hell, paying no income taxes is in the public's interest since you lose less money! Down with the Man!
It's not black and white like: you win, it's ok, you lose, it's not. You probably feel entitled to download mp3, right?
A trade secret is a trade secret, not a whistle blowing case. Trade secrets need to be enforced, or else it wouldn't mean anything. Since apple doesn't have any wrong doing in this case, the protection of the source doesn't apply if it's a Trade Secret. The judge, however, still isn't sure if it's a Trade Secret or not, and this point isn't clear cut. If it's not a Trade Secret, there is no reason to reveal the source.
This is the real case.
It's more like if I took GM's cars, modified them and sold them back on the market. Then, having made so much changes to the cars, a normal GM car could no longer even try to fit the new parts I'm using.
Is this good or bad? depends on the perspective and more than juste A or B wins.
But how could you lose IP with open source code? IP is copyright, trademark and patents lumped together, right? Oh, trade secret maybe?
Copyright: you don't lose copyright to your own code with GPL. If you use other's code, well you have to respect the license(GPL, BSD, etc.). Now, if you modify an open source application, yeah, you might have to open source the code code you write if you distribute it, but that's only fair. If you don't want to, buy/license proprietary software or code your own.
Trademark: not applicable.
Patents: you have the patent, whether your code is open source or not doesn't change a thing.
Trade Secret: there you have an issue because, well, you can't open source it, you have to keep it secret.
GPL is, afterall, copyrights with added distribution bonus.
So?
I don't think the point in all this is 'to make money'. I mean, if the police would be stopping investigation because it costs more than some crime's value, we'd have a problem. Or courtrooms emptied because it costs more to run that the crime value they are judging. The inquiry is there to find out what really happens and thus try to prevent it from happening again. Who cares how much it costs? As long as it's justified, the cost isn't important.
I agree with you. However, the problem is that the trial HASN'T started, it starts next month. So, sure you can sequester the jury when the trial starts, but that would be too late, which is the whole point of the ban.
But then the liberals are a minority right now, so I think to start elections, they would need the support of the other parties to have a majority. I don't see any of the opposition agreeing to that before the details are revealed after the trials and the inquiry report is release in december.
But this isn't the trial. This is a seperate inquiry, so he isn't testifying against himself, since it's not his trial.
However, my understanding of legal matters is as high as nuclear physics, so YMMV. And no, I'm not a nuclear physicist =)
It is, because it's not censorship. The ban is on *publication* of it. It does not want to suppress the information itself, but the publication of it so that a fair trial is possible (they have enough untainted citizen to form a jury).
Anyone can go and watch the procedings themselves, they just can't publish it. You won't be arrested because you go and talk to your friends about it afterward. Anyway journalist/staffers privy of the transcript and people watching the procedings won't be selected as jury, but the rest of the citizens are good candidate.
Also remember that this ISN'T a court proceding. It's a public inquiry. So, they aren't putting a ban on a court proceding, just the procedings for the inquiry. The trial is seperate and starts next month, so it is to have fair trials that the ban was made on the inquiry.
Nothing gets censored. It is gagged until the trials starts next month.
Second... I am speechless by this: "What is more important, that one or two people get prosecuted or that the public get to see how its money is being used?"
I'd happily say the first. I'd much rather have a fair trial. Heard of "Innocent before proven guilty"? You talk like this goes out of the window because you can't watch 'the show' as you did before. That's like saying : this guy is accused of murdering his wife, he shouldn't have a fair trial because he's a murderer and we must protect the innocents from this beast.
The money is already lost. We'll know(or have a general idea of) how the money was spent and what happened with it at the end of the inquiry, in Gomery's report, which will be public. These are just procedings, we get to see the judge ask questions and people answer, or, more appropriately, not say a damn thing or say "I forgot". This is not a trial, just a public inquiry.
Anyway, I jumped on my chair when I read your comment...
You say " If the trial is scheduled for next month then yes the blogger should have waited." then "Basically, as I see it, the guy did nothing wrong."
The trial IS set for next month, starting May 2nd IIRC.
I'd say he should have waited.
Now, the lawyers are trying to postpone the trials, but I hope that, if they convince the judge to do this, Gomery will lift the ban immediatly. You can't have the cake and eat it too.
Why would I still buy whole CDs? Because I do not usually listen to mainstream music, so albums that I bought(i have over 100) rarely contains fillers. I've heard this argument often, and at first I had trouble understanding. Why do CD sells if there's only 2 songs on it? I've come to realize that there is a crisis brewing, that's for sure. When the industry spends billons on new bands/singers, then make them release maybe 2 good songs and filler, and expect that people will still buy the whole CD, you start to see the problem more clearly. Now with downloads of individual songs, they will realize that people care about 2-3 songs per albums and maybe start producing better music?
The industry is NOT really against pay per songs, they have a problem with people downloading 20% of mainstream music instead of buying 100% of it on CD. A cheap, per songs download will FORCE the industry to NOT produce filler songs and such, since no one will buy them. They really fear that.
They really dont care if the song is 5 cents or 99 cents... they care that they won't sell the same % of what they produce versus CD.
Slightly OT.
I don't understand if you realized, but that particular Simpsons eps was to showcase that people were stupid enough not to vote for a third candidate instead of Kodos and Kang. That line "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos" just shows that they were really stupid into thinking a vote for Kodos would have change anything.
So, yes, you are to blame, whether you voted for republicans or democrats. Don't try to make yourself feel better because you didn't voted for Bush, but voted for the democrats.
Had to let it out, sorry, heh.
I'd say Quebecers are probably more 'french' in everyday life than the french. Just go to France, listen to people talk in the street. Then go to Quebec and do the same. You'll probably understand the French a lot more, in some place nearly every word is english. Ok, you probably won't understand because of the accent, but they still use lots english words, and mostly bastardize english words. The later is the worst. Parking, Footing, etc. It's not only the youth, just watch French TV, it's incredible how anglicized they are becoming. All the 'in' expression are bastardized english.
Quebecers understand that english is the business language, but in everyday life, they speak better french than the French themselves, although with their own slangs and all.
The 'american way' infiltrated France at the core, while in Quebec, people stood up to keep their own culture as the root, but adopted the rest. With the core(the youth) as it is today, France of tomorrow will probably be totally anglicized, while Quebec will fare better. By how much? I don't know, but there is a serious problem in France.
There is a slight subtelty here:
The first point, government sponsored research papers MUST be written in french first. The official papers must be in french, but any number of translations can be made afterward. It's usually the same with universities and such. Since most research are sponsored by govt or uni, well, most papers are written in french. You know, when a french speaking govt. sponsors a research, is it weird for them to ask that the results are in french, for the benefit of the french people? How would you like, as an american uni, to sponsor someone for a research and he would submit a paper in arabic?
The second point is similar. They said that government related communications must use "courriel" instead of "email". I'd say it's a good thing, official communications should use the correct vocabulary. Using "email" would be the same as using leet speak in official govt. communications for example.
French is firstly a litterary language, while english became a business/everyday language and lots most of its litterary roots. English is made to be interroperable. French will usually use french, latin or greek roots to "invent" new words instead of adopting a foreign word. This usually preserves the litterary properties of the language. That's the big difference. Yeah, they can be anal about it sometimes, but then, who isn't?
You know, first your argument doesn't make sense. If a community doesn't have an ISP and decide to create one, what is the problem? The government(local, state, federal, etc.) is there to help it's citizen (well, they should). If they agree to help a community build their own ISP, where is the problem? Hell, it could cost a lot per month, but then they'd at least have a choice.
If a community already has a ISP, but a dismal one with a (near-)monopoly and they want to run their own, I don't see the problem either. If the community one "will be poorly and insecurely run, slow to respond (for instance, blocking ports to stem the spread of viruses), and twice as expensive as anything else" no one will use it. You have a crappy ISP, but the community one is even crappier and cost twice as much... not a hard choice to make. The community one will go away if it cannot compete. If it can compete, well maybe the crappy ISP will listen to reason and try to improve their services... but then again, they will probably sue the government, or try to get legislation that prevent them doing it.
Wait! That's exactly what they are doing here.
If the govt. ones are really cheaper and better, maybe it's because they bury costs in taxes. Maybe... but isn't that WHY we are paying taxes anyway? Or are we just paying taxes because the govt. is poor and we need to help it stay alive?
We're not talking about a federal ISP taking over corporate ISPs, we're talking about small communities needing the service(or better service) that the local govt. can help provide.
I don't see a problem with that.
i agree that the "on-the-fly" is misleading. it's not interactive, meaning you couldn't use it as a protocol for IM or a network game. But for emails and non-real-time communications, it is 'on-the-fly'. Bandiwth problems are a bottleneck now, but might not be tomorrow. You can't send data faster than light, but you can send more than one photon at a time, so broadbandiwth will alleviate more and more this problem.
And yeah, I've heard people saying : whats the point? just send the message over.
Well, logistically it would be a nightmare. Also, it **statistically** detects eavesdropping - like, 15% of the mesage was eavesdrop. It does NOT check every single bit, since the validation involves sending a subset of bits over a classical channel. If it tends to 0%, then it is secure. The higher it is, the higher the output will be garbage.