I wrote:
"Think about it... the Omega number puts a limit on the accuracy to which we can know mathematical theorems... Maybe it's the equivalent of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal?"
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal is a mathematical theorem.
Uhh... which is why I said maybe it's the equivalent of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Certainly, the HUP is a mathematical theorem, but it basically states that for a given system, with orthogonal states in Hilbert space, you can't get absolute information about both of those states. In terms of quantum mechanics (which is the only segment of physics where the uncertainty principle is known to hold), the hilbert space is made up of momentum and position.
It's a physical theorem. What I'm talking about is a wider application of this to cover general maths
Goedel proved back in the 30's that there were many things (an infinite number?) which were true but for which proofs cannot be provided. OTOH Chaitin is a well known mathemetician (in some circles, anyway). Presumably he has something interesting to say, but I doubt it's as revolutionary as the post makes it sound.
Oh, I dunno. I'd say that it's the equivalent of Quantum Mechanics, but for math.
Think about it... the Omega number puts a limit on the accuracy to which we can know mathematical theorems... Maybe it's the equivalent of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal?
... well, maybe.:)
That might actually be a good way to use the Omega number... build it in, turn everything to probabilities. *sigh*
I think one of the big deal about MS-Xbox doing it is that they have hyped it up so much you'd think it could do lens flares in real time. I mean I believed that too
It can do lens-flares in real time -- check out http://gamershq.madonion.com for their 3D Mark 2001 benchmark app, which will give you some feeling as to what the XBox will do.
I wonder why some of these gaming companies don't take the initiative of assisting developers port their software to unsupported systems such as Linux, and the BSD's.
The upsides to doing so would:
Cost nothing in their own budgets
Create more exposure for their companies
Could create revenue next time around for new games
Open a new market other gaming companies don't have. (Linux, BSD's)
It costs money in terms of:
Quality Assurance (aka Testing)
Packaging (yes, most people still buy boxes of software)
Tech Support -- the average Tech support call costs $5 to the company providing it. Sierra does this for free to their customers.
There's the whole marketshare angle too. There's literally no profit in doing the port. Give it a few years though, and who knows?
Just to clear it up, they seem to mostly publish the work of other companies, except for the Dynamix stuff. I believe they own them out right
Sierra is owned by Havas Interactive Inc., who also owns Blizzard, Dynamix and quite a few others. Sierra acts as the publishing and QA battlegrounds for a lot of these other companies (which is why, for example, Diablo II is a Sierra title as well as a Blizzard title).
There's some homegrown stuff in there as well -- a few titles I can't speak about right now, all of the Hoyle stuff, SWAT, etc etc.
Simon (who works there in the forgotten, misbegotten, Sierra Home dept.)
The author of the post claiming that he was searching the MS kerberos binary is sort of worthless
Thankyou - I'm sure you are too.
because they probably removed any text which would indicate the origin. If you want proof that MS has used BSD code in proprietary apps, look at ftp.exe with win98... search for the string 'regents' Although, ftp.exe is not an embrace and extend issue, it does show that MS uses open source code that it can proprietize...
I don't care if MS has used BSD code - I know for a fact that they have - search for the string "regents". What I'm talking about it whether or not they 'stole' the BSD code for Kerberos. The only way to steal is by not accepting their license terms. And the only way to do that is by not displaying their copyright anywhere (these terms are from the current MIT distro). MS's Kerberos implementation doesn't include ANY kind of BSD acknowledgement.
But then, it doesn't look anything like the BSD code either. The imports and exports look like a Windows app, not a ported app. Take a look for yourself - you'll see what I mean.
Seriously, why should a computer program be copyrighted at all (even the GPL is copyright)? None of the early projects used copyright or patents but they mangaged to send people to the moon, create email, the net, the web, and Unix among others. In what way has the ability to copyright a list of instructions helped innovation?
Well, all of those early projects were paid for by the taxpayer or through donations. That won't cut it for sustaining a business model -- which is what you have today.
Personally, I prefer to work in the computer industry and be paid for what I do, rather than work in Denny's, earn crap wages, and then come home at night and pour my bitterness out onto a keyboard.
No, moron, I'd like proof that Microsoft stole MIT's code, not references to stories about the fact that their version of Kerberos uses the auth-data field in the way it was specified. Tell me about the code - or shut up, as you're not answering my question.
RMS claimed that MS stole MIT's implementation and used it in Windows.
He mentioned their decision to embrace and extend Kerberos in Win2000. I thought that this was a particularly good choice because it showed:
An example of free software so innovative that Microsoft wanted to use it (scratch the "Free Software stifles innovation")
How a BSD-style license, which Microsoft advocated, let them take it and
How Microsoft then turned around and screwed the people who had written the software in the first place by deliberately destroying interoperability
I'd like a large serving of evidence and proof please.
Having hacked around the binaries of the MS Kerberos implementation, I can find no evidence that they've used any of the MIT implementation of Kerberos.
So what makes RMS so sure that it is using their source code? After all, the spec is out there online for anyone to implement for free. Why does he think they didn't do that?
Pretty strong claims to be making in public. Well, here's one in return -- Richard M. Stallman, You are a LIAR -- Back Up Your Claims.
Heck, I'll even challenge him to a one-legged arse kicking contest if he's interested.
The open source technology movement pioneered software itself. There is absolutely no discussion on this matter. Without open source there would be no software at all - propreitry software came after open source (or free software, or whatever you want to call it) - not before.
No 'movement' pioneered software, unless you're trying to claim that the early computer scientists working at Bletchley park and other places around the world were a part of the "open source movement".
Given that Babbage designed a computer which used software (based on punchcards, no less), I suppose he invented software.
Do yourself a favor and NEVER look at any chart comparing UPTIMES between the Unixen and Windoze OSes 'lest you come to the same conclusion that the good folks at M$ Hotmail came to when M$ tried to convert them:
Well, given that Hotmail runs on Windows 2000 right now, I guess the correct conclusion (based on your logic) is:
Because they know most people, like me, toss the rebate in the trash. Rebates are a marketing gimmick meant to be able to say "35$ off!" on the packaging or in a flier. They're not evidence that the companies price point is suddenly 35$ less.
Bingo. Last figures I saw said that less than 2% of people actually send in rebates. Therefore, the companies play the numbers and expect to do well out of it. So instead of it being a $35 rebate, it actually works out to be a $0.70 rebate overall -- just as long as people don't send them in.
Some stores are now doing checkout rebates, which will change the game again. And some companies just did rebate schemes to get some marketshare -- Broderbund/Mattel/The Learning Company are prime examples of this -- for a long time they were giving their products away (effectively -- they were reducing profits on them to zero), altering the way the market worked, and creating a massive inflation in the home productivity segment for 1999. Which popped heavily about half way through 2000.
Beware rebates. And remember; about half of the cost of anything you buy goes to the distributor. So figure that in too, and you'll start seeing where the money goes.
My colleague tells me that the original source for the idea of memes (in a cultural context) comes from Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist best known for the book "The Selfish Gene".
The thing is, his book introduced the concept of a meme; Blackmore's book introduces the psychological/cognitive mechanism behind it in humans. They're two VERY different beasts.
Stating facts, as Mr Jackson did in those quotes, is not bias, it's just that, facts.
"Bill Gates is very Napoleonic"
"I think Bill Gates is one of the worst [ever]"
"Bill and his company obviously have monopoly traits, no, no doubt about it"
Hmmm.... only the last of those quotes comes anywhere near fact (and even that's dubious). What you see above is what's known as opinion, and in a legal trial, opinion generally means squat unless there's facts to back it up.
Yes, but the trick is to make sure that this is only one part of the security involved -- not many people have the resources to spoof caller ID. Not many people could then connect to that system and crack the protocol and/or password. Even fewer could then break the encryption and/or authentication keys to get through.
And, as the system would only be used once every 4 years, you've got no trial-and-error hacking to worry about.
If this system ever gets in place I not voting. Seriously, the voting system needs to be as simple as possible. If paper ballots ever get replaced with a computer that isn't 100% Open Source and Open Hardware and developed entirely by the government, I'm moving to Canada
I trust the government less to produce a system than I would Microsoft -- the government has a lot to gain from designing a system they can swing at the flip of a switch; Microsoft doesn't.
It's a good chance for Russians to hack into the voting system with the same loophole hacked M$ before and elect a dumb president. - No recount!
Solution? Use framerelay, or any other switched ATM system.
Heck - use a modem to call a home system, instead of an internet connection, and use caller ID to make sure that only authorized systems even get the modem to pick up on the receiving end.
Do I have to point out Microsoft's track record for being the most reliable system ever? I might as well.:)
Hmmm... let's see:
It's a VXD which has crashed - which means it's a driver error, and probably not Microsoft's fault.
The airport in question is running Windows 95 or 98, which means (more than anything else you might read into it) that they're stupid for not running Windows NT.
Slashdot Mirror
I wrote:
"Think about it... the Omega number puts a limit on the accuracy to which we can know mathematical theorems... Maybe it's the equivalent of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal?"
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal is a mathematical theorem.
Uhh... which is why I said maybe it's the equivalent of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Certainly, the HUP is a mathematical theorem, but it basically states that for a given system, with orthogonal states in Hilbert space, you can't get absolute information about both of those states. In terms of quantum mechanics (which is the only segment of physics where the uncertainty principle is known to hold), the hilbert space is made up of momentum and position.
It's a physical theorem. What I'm talking about is a wider application of this to cover general maths
Simon
If Taco claimed that the Gates of Borg icon was an actual screenshot, I think there'd be some uproar.
I'm waiting for the Tux of Borg icon - after all, it's actually more accurate a representation than Gates of Borg.
GPL - Borglike. Assimilates everything it touches, which then goes off to assimilate everyone else.
OSS coders -- Borglike; working for the good of the collective.
*shrugs*
Simon
Goedel proved back in the 30's that there were many things (an infinite number?) which were true but for which proofs cannot be provided. OTOH Chaitin is a well known mathemetician (in some circles, anyway). Presumably he has something interesting to say, but I doubt it's as revolutionary as the post makes it sound.
:)
Oh, I dunno. I'd say that it's the equivalent of Quantum Mechanics, but for math.
Think about it... the Omega number puts a limit on the accuracy to which we can know mathematical theorems... Maybe it's the equivalent of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal?
... well, maybe.
That might actually be a good way to use the Omega number... build it in, turn everything to probabilities. *sigh*
Simon
I think one of the big deal about MS-Xbox doing it is that they have hyped it up so much you'd think it could do lens flares in real time. I mean I believed that too
It can do lens-flares in real time -- check out http://gamershq.madonion.com for their 3D Mark 2001 benchmark app, which will give you some feeling as to what the XBox will do.
Simon
I wonder why some of these gaming companies don't take the initiative of assisting developers port their software to unsupported systems such as Linux, and the BSD's.
The upsides to doing so would:
Cost nothing in their own budgets
Create more exposure for their companies
Could create revenue next time around for new games
Open a new market other gaming companies don't have. (Linux, BSD's)
It costs money in terms of:
Quality Assurance (aka Testing)
Packaging (yes, most people still buy boxes of software)
Tech Support -- the average Tech support call costs $5 to the company providing it. Sierra does this for free to their customers.
There's the whole marketshare angle too. There's literally no profit in doing the port. Give it a few years though, and who knows?
Simon
Just to clear it up, they seem to mostly publish the work of other companies, except for the Dynamix stuff. I believe they own them out right
Sierra is owned by Havas Interactive Inc., who also owns Blizzard, Dynamix and quite a few others. Sierra acts as the publishing and QA battlegrounds for a lot of these other companies (which is why, for example, Diablo II is a Sierra title as well as a Blizzard title).
There's some homegrown stuff in there as well -- a few titles I can't speak about right now, all of the Hoyle stuff, SWAT, etc etc.
Simon (who works there in the forgotten, misbegotten, Sierra Home dept.)
1) the song is beyond the original copyright period (14 years or so) and you disagree with the extension.
According to the internationally signed and agreed Berne copyright convention, the lifetime of the copyright is that of the lifetime of the artist plus 50 years , and has been that way since 1971.
When was it last 14 years or so? When Jefferson was around?
Simon
The author of the post claiming that he was searching the MS kerberos binary is sort of worthless
... search for the string 'regents' Although, ftp.exe is not an embrace and extend issue, it does show that MS uses open source code that it can proprietize...
Thankyou - I'm sure you are too.
because they probably removed any text which would indicate the origin. If you want proof that MS has used BSD code in proprietary apps, look at ftp.exe with win98
I don't care if MS has used BSD code - I know for a fact that they have - search for the string "regents". What I'm talking about it whether or not they 'stole' the BSD code for Kerberos. The only way to steal is by not accepting their license terms. And the only way to do that is by not displaying their copyright anywhere (these terms are from the current MIT distro). MS's Kerberos implementation doesn't include ANY kind of BSD acknowledgement.
But then, it doesn't look anything like the BSD code either. The imports and exports look like a Windows app, not a ported app. Take a look for yourself - you'll see what I mean.
Simon
A specification is not software, jd. RMS claimed that software was taken - not a spec.
Either he's imprecise or he's a liar.
Simon
Seriously, why should a computer program be copyrighted at all (even the GPL is copyright)? None of the early projects used copyright or patents but they mangaged to send people to the moon, create email, the net, the web, and Unix among others. In what way has the ability to copyright a list of instructions helped innovation?
Well, all of those early projects were paid for by the taxpayer or through donations. That won't cut it for sustaining a business model -- which is what you have today.
Personally, I prefer to work in the computer industry and be paid for what I do, rather than work in Denny's, earn crap wages, and then come home at night and pour my bitterness out onto a keyboard.
Simon
As far as I know, it was not the implementation but rather the specification that was used.
Unfortunately though, unless the article misquotes RMS, that's not what he's claiming.
Simon
No, moron, I'd like proof that Microsoft stole MIT's code, not references to stories about the fact that their version of Kerberos uses the auth-data field in the way it was specified. Tell me about the code - or shut up, as you're not answering my question.
RMS claimed that MS stole MIT's implementation and used it in Windows.
I want proof of THAT. Nothing else.
Simon
He mentioned their decision to embrace and extend Kerberos in Win2000. I thought that this was a particularly good choice because it showed:
An example of free software so innovative that Microsoft wanted to use it (scratch the "Free Software stifles innovation")
How a BSD-style license, which Microsoft advocated, let them take it and
How Microsoft then turned around and screwed the people who had written the software in the first place by deliberately destroying interoperability
I'd like a large serving of evidence and proof please.
Having hacked around the binaries of the MS Kerberos implementation, I can find no evidence that they've used any of the MIT implementation of Kerberos.
So what makes RMS so sure that it is using their source code? After all, the spec is out there online for anyone to implement for free. Why does he think they didn't do that?
Pretty strong claims to be making in public. Well, here's one in return -- Richard M. Stallman, You are a LIAR -- Back Up Your Claims.
Heck, I'll even challenge him to a one-legged arse kicking contest if he's interested.
Simon
The open source technology movement pioneered software itself. There is absolutely no discussion on this matter. Without open source there would be no software at all - propreitry software came after open source (or free software, or whatever you want to call it) - not before.
No 'movement' pioneered software, unless you're trying to claim that the early computer scientists working at Bletchley park and other places around the world were a part of the "open source movement".
Given that Babbage designed a computer which used software (based on punchcards, no less), I suppose he invented software.
Simon
Well, the web started out in the FS/OS world- remember that Mosaic was the original basis of both Netscape and IE- or is that still too old for you?
Mosaic wasn't open source. In fact, Netscape were sued for stealing the code. Try again, sparky.
Simon
No, they weren't.
Mac Emulators have existed since at least 1988 - and were not public domain.
Sinclair Spectrum emulators first came out in 1992 - and were not public domain.
In fact, most emulators aren't public domain. The only one I can think of is MAME.
Simon
Do yourself a favor and NEVER look at any chart comparing UPTIMES between the Unixen and Windoze OSes 'lest you come to the same conclusion that the good folks at M$ Hotmail came to when M$ tried to convert them:
Well, given that Hotmail runs on Windows 2000 right now, I guess the correct conclusion (based on your logic) is:
Windows 2000: Accept no substitutes!
Depends on your expirience, I always think, when clicking like crazy in M$ NT-Server blah,blah, where is my bash?
... set it to '0x09'.
A few keystrokes expanded via TAB and I would be done...:-)
Do a search in RegEdit for "CompletionChar"
Bingo! TAB completion.
Simon
Because they know most people, like me, toss the rebate in the trash. Rebates are a marketing gimmick meant to be able to say "35$ off!" on the packaging or in a flier. They're not evidence that the companies price point is suddenly 35$ less.
Bingo. Last figures I saw said that less than 2% of people actually send in rebates. Therefore, the companies play the numbers and expect to do well out of it. So instead of it being a $35 rebate, it actually works out to be a $0.70 rebate overall -- just as long as people don't send them in.
Some stores are now doing checkout rebates, which will change the game again. And some companies just did rebate schemes to get some marketshare -- Broderbund/Mattel/The Learning Company are prime examples of this -- for a long time they were giving their products away (effectively -- they were reducing profits on them to zero), altering the way the market worked, and creating a massive inflation in the home productivity segment for 1999. Which popped heavily about half way through 2000.
Beware rebates. And remember; about half of the cost of anything you buy goes to the distributor. So figure that in too, and you'll start seeing where the money goes.
Simon
My colleague tells me that the original source for the idea of memes (in a cultural context) comes from Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist best known for the book "The Selfish Gene".
The thing is, his book introduced the concept of a meme; Blackmore's book introduces the psychological/cognitive mechanism behind it in humans. They're two VERY different beasts.
Simon
Stating facts, as Mr Jackson did in those quotes, is not bias, it's just that, facts.
"Bill Gates is very Napoleonic"
"I think Bill Gates is one of the worst [ever]"
"Bill and his company obviously have monopoly traits, no, no doubt about it"
Hmmm.... only the last of those quotes comes anywhere near fact (and even that's dubious). What you see above is what's known as opinion, and in a legal trial, opinion generally means squat unless there's facts to back it up.
Either way, opinion == bias.
Caller ID can be spoofed.
Yes, but the trick is to make sure that this is only one part of the security involved -- not many people have the resources to spoof caller ID. Not many people could then connect to that system and crack the protocol and/or password. Even fewer could then break the encryption and/or authentication keys to get through.
And, as the system would only be used once every 4 years, you've got no trial-and-error hacking to worry about.
Simon
If this system ever gets in place I not voting. Seriously, the voting system needs to be as simple as possible. If paper ballots ever get replaced with a computer that isn't 100% Open Source and Open Hardware and developed entirely by the government, I'm moving to Canada
I trust the government less to produce a system than I would Microsoft -- the government has a lot to gain from designing a system they can swing at the flip of a switch; Microsoft doesn't.
SImon
It's a good chance for Russians to hack into the voting system with the same loophole hacked M$ before and elect a dumb president. - No recount!
Solution? Use framerelay, or any other switched ATM system.
Heck - use a modem to call a home system, instead of an internet connection, and use caller ID to make sure that only authorized systems even get the modem to pick up on the receiving end.
Simon
Do I have to point out Microsoft's track record for being the most reliable system ever? I might as well. :)
Hmmm... let's see:
It's a VXD which has crashed - which means it's a driver error, and probably not Microsoft's fault.
The airport in question is running Windows 95 or 98, which means (more than anything else you might read into it) that they're stupid for not running Windows NT.
Simon