I haven't seen any comment yet on what _HiFi CD players_ with _Digital Audio Out_ will do...
The ultra-l33t HiFi buffs do _not_ convert data into analog form until it's only _inches_ away from the drivers. (IIRC Meridian have digital input speaker units (inbuilt DAC and amp, obviously)!)
I don't believe I'm the average user, I believe (obviously) that I'm l33k. I can code. I'm sure I can crack this. However I don't want to buy a country album, so when someone's got a digital image of the album for me to try to crack, can they mail me a URL so I can have a go at hacking it?
THL
(tongue in cheek, yes I know..., and about that too...) --
You're kinda right. But it's true.
The reason it's true is because LCDs have been a thing of the past _in real life_ for several years. My local retailers don't have a single LCD-based laptop any more. (Until recently they had some DSTN, or 'supertwist' which is the closest evolution from simple LCDs, but now even they are no more).
Finland is not traditionally part of Scandinavia. In particular it is not geographically, linguistically or culturally.
Finland is Nordic, yes. No argument there.
Finnish is not one of the 'early northern Germanic' branches of the Indo-European Language tree, basically because it's not Indo-European at all, it's Finno-Ugric.
Finnish culture is very different from 'Skandinavian' culture, even if you use the most expanded version of 'Skandinavian' (to include Denmark and Iceland).
Your parenthetical paragraph is an insult to Finnish culture and history. ("... gave us... the Finns..."). By this I don't in anyway mean to compare the value of Finnish culture with any other, but simply to say that they have different roots.
I'm speaking from 'gut feel' not knowledge here, but don't the Qbits need to be able to 'interact' with each other in order to solve the larger problem. If so you might need to be able to arrange 64^2 paths along which they could pairwise interact without interfering with their interaction with the other 62 Qbits? Even if they don't need pairwise interactions, but 'broadcast', you still need to get the 64 bits to be able to interact without interfering.
I've got a nasty feeling I haven't got a clue what I'm asking... Ooops!
I don't doubt one line of what you've written.
I'm sure many people would be grateful if you indicated if there were any stunts similar to the old DeCSS ones which are actually appropriate to the matter now in hand. Myself included.
That's not strictly true, for if you look at the litigious past of the MPAA, they have attacked people/organisations for the css_descramble.c code and nothing more. More recently they've stopped flailing so wildly, as they realised it wouldn't get them anywhere.
If they are fixing bugs now, then they shouldn't release for another few weeks, until they've given it a thorough test again. But no, it appears as soon as they've fixed the known bugs it will ship. I personally have about 2 months between me and the customer. After I've component tested, we then integration test for a month, we also then system test for a month after that. Our customers never get suspect code. Full Stop.
If the author of an application believes that he or she has written a good product, and wishes to be rewarded for his or her efforts, then the _free_ thing to do it to permit them to ask for money for the product. If for example is an image editing app, and it handles common file formats, and doesn't use a proprietory format, then it _in no way_ takes anything away from anyone.
If noone wants to pay money for it, then in true market-forces style the product won't get used, and the author won't make any money.
The more applications which are available at equal or lower price on Linux than on Windows, the better the platform becomes. However, as the Linux market has become accustomed to so much high quality software (vast range of development tools, gimp, several window managers etc.) for free, it probably frightens off commercial companies from trying to enter the market, as they know it will be hard to get rich quick in such an environment.
I am always prepared to pay what I think software is worth. Most stuff on my Linux boxes at home is worth a fair bit to me, I consider it good fortune that noone actually wants money for it!
It's a dynamic system, 'evolution' will show us where the balance is.
This is the second link to chick I've seen in the last months. They worry me. I mean _really_ worry me. They build a straw man, and then burn it. Anyone can do that. But not everyone can detect a 'straw man' argument.
Most religeous tracts _are_ copyrighted, however, most sensible religeons aren't embarassed about their contents, and in fact try to give much of it away freely.
You reply is too harsh. Indeed, he seems to be gibbering, but that's because he's read pseudo-scientific or non-scientific material which has turned things into black and white.
Neutrinos rarely interact with normal matter, and that makes them very hard to detect. However, if you're prepared to throw a whole array of sensors around a huge vat of water (not just water) in a location where _other_ nuclear interactions are minimal (e.g. away from the surface of the earth), and you're prepared to wait for enough time, you will occasionally see what are predicted to be the results of neutrino interactions. You don't actually detect the neutrinos, but they have a 'fingerprint' that is easy to recognise, and no other interaction causes that fingerprint.
Have I worked with you in the past?
I've sure had chats across partitions with people like you in the past. (If your attitude is reflected by your links, that is.)
I've had more jobs than hot meals, and I've seen teamicide many times. Hahah, I just didn't know that was what it was called. I always left first, so I don't know what the death throws look like!
Hahah - I once made a bet that I could program my functional unit in a style where every function (in C) had only _one line_ and that had to be a return statement. I won several cakes from that bet. Magic - almost every function was recursive!
To show 'good faith' I also provided the code in a 'striaght line' form too with remarks on how to map between the two (it was only 200 lines of code max, no more than 25 functions, so it was a fairly strightforward mapping). However, no bug reports were ever raised, so I assume that to this day the system runs with my recursive code.
For reference - I was rewriting the company's C coding standards at the time, and I decided that I didn't like the sentence "Every function must have exactly one return statement". I deliberately mis-interpreted that as "... and no other statements at all".
Sometimes I'm an asshole... But my mates had a laugh to see the (working) rubbish I produced with that restriction!
"
eg drop down boxes might rate a "2" whereas a text input might only be a "1". Complex SQL might get a 5 - and so on
"
One of the last bugs I had to fix was written by a guy who didn't know the language (C/old-style-C++). His design was overcomplicated, and wrong. His implementation was overcomplicated and wrong. I removed 200 lines of code which did the supposedly difficult (and thus high scoring) bit of logic, and replaced it with two lines of code which remembered a value as it was being passed on elsewhere - undoubtedly a 1, or even a 0 on your scale.
I'm a consultant, I'm not here to be popular; and when you let the managers know that the guys they employed were idiots, then you you indeed don't become popular. However, I've now outlived my manager on this project, so I don't give a toss.
However, the bug fixed was a show stopper, and the _peer review_ yielded a pat on the back from the other engineers who still work on the project, as it finally lets them get their bonuses!
I work for a flat rate. No metric has been applied. Managers want metrics. Engineers want 'working'. In my utterly biased opinion anyway.
I would have to now completely believe that Scientology is in fact a cult due to its secretive ways
In defining 'cult' in this way, we must include Gnostic sects, various ascetics, etc. But when most people use the word, they are concerned about the danger posed to adherents and others. People should be aware, by the way, that the OT levels can embarrass Scientology but they can direct critics' attention away from other, more worrying 'ways' which are dangerous.
'the purpose of a religion'...
Religions have various functions, many of which have little to do with a stated 'purpose' (such as bringing people into a pretty afterlife, through killing them, converting them, or 'Clearing the Planet' (saving everyone through Scientology)) or the motivations of founders (often short-term, political, etc., as in some past and present ecstatic movements in colonies). One of Scientology's strengths is that the founders were aware of reasons people turn to religion, and they could tailor Scientology to insecure, often suggestible (or 'dissociative') people. Such people often feel validated as they 'attest to' a higher rank (but there are always more steps on the Bridge to Total Freedom, so if you don't feel good yet, keep going).
To pick another example, the confessional element used in some religions and in counselling is offered the prospective Scientologist through 'auditing'. The answers are verified with the 'e-meter', so they must be right. And responsibility too is in some ways left with the meter, which has the power to see into souls.
Scientology is a big business, but it uses elements of religion (as well as brainwashing theory), and not just at the level of wearing the mantle of religion in order to shout 'religious discrimination!' at a moment's provocation.
'And if people disagree, they don't sue them for doing so, they just label them an non-believer of that religion.'
'Non-believer' can, depending on one's view, mean 'not-yet-saved person' or 'damned enemy'...
Although I was angling more to amuse than to troll when I wrote this boilerplate post, I shouldn't ignore your reply. Yes, the sentiment "When people read stories like this[whichever], I hope they remember the basic principles the internet and computers were founded on. Freedom." is distressingly common.
Your reply attacks the absurdity of the quoted notion, yet such ideas are often left uncorrected when spouted by traditional media and other outlets. It's comforting to think the Net emerged from the bosum of The People as a sign of pre-existing, unassailable freedom: 'I don't need to worry that I can't go downtown without a permit; the Internet proves I'm free'.
While there are few Voltaires and Patrick Henrys who risk all 'for freedom' online, many 'normal' users encourage a favourable climate as they simply use these tools for knowledge, greater efficiency, or teaching. Those of us who deeply feel it if someone then limits this use should also concern ourselves with the fact that it can be easy to restrict people's basic freedoms unnoticed if at the same time they are also told (by whomever) that they are free.
When people read stories like this, I hope they remember the basic principles the internet and computers were founded on. Freedom. There are things I wouldn't do myself--even if my ex-boyfriend never believed this--but we should all have the choice weather to do them or not.
Because he understands technical things better than me, I asked my ex-boyfriend if he would like to post himslef, but he said./ is full of trolls and wannabees. But when I read the posts, I think they ARE worth the paper their printed on, so that reminds me that we wouldn't have all those posts if people weren't free.
Basically, freedom is the key to everythig. As someone famous (Henry somebody?) said something like, "I may not like what you have to say, but I guess you have to say it anyway even if it kills me" and I think he also meant "First post!" posts even if he didn't think about that part of it.
THL or another TLA
--
Slashdot Mirror
"
Spread Method : by infecting files under both Windows and Linux operating system
"
So it infects files by infecting them, eh?
Come on guys, at least make it look convincing, even if it is real...
THL.
--
I haven't seen any comment yet on what _HiFi CD players_ with _Digital Audio Out_ will do...
The ultra-l33t HiFi buffs do _not_ convert data into analog form until it's only _inches_ away from the drivers. (IIRC Meridian have digital input speaker units (inbuilt DAC and amp, obviously)!)
THL.
--
You're spot on.
I don't believe I'm the average user, I believe (obviously) that I'm l33k. I can code. I'm sure I can crack this. However I don't want to buy a country album, so when someone's got a digital image of the album for me to try to crack, can they mail me a URL so I can have a go at hacking it?
THL
(tongue in cheek, yes I know..., and about that too...)
--
You're kinda right. But it's true.
The reason it's true is because LCDs have been a thing of the past _in real life_ for several years. My local retailers don't have a single LCD-based laptop any more. (Until recently they had some DSTN, or 'supertwist' which is the closest evolution from simple LCDs, but now even they are no more).
THL.
--
The joy of alii and symolic links...
THL.
--
Finland is not traditionally part of Scandinavia. In particular it is not geographically, linguistically or culturally.
... the Finns ..."). By this I don't in anyway mean to compare the value of Finnish culture with any other, but simply to say that they have different roots.
Finland is Nordic, yes. No argument there.
Finnish is not one of the 'early northern Germanic' branches of the Indo-European Language tree, basically because it's not Indo-European at all, it's Finno-Ugric.
Finnish culture is very different from 'Skandinavian' culture, even if you use the most expanded version of 'Skandinavian' (to include Denmark and Iceland).
Your parenthetical paragraph is an insult to Finnish culture and history. ("... gave us
THL.
--
I'm speaking from 'gut feel' not knowledge here, but don't the Qbits need to be able to 'interact' with each other in order to solve the larger problem. If so you might need to be able to arrange 64^2 paths along which they could pairwise interact without interfering with their interaction with the other 62 Qbits? Even if they don't need pairwise interactions, but 'broadcast', you still need to get the 64 bits to be able to interact without interfering.
I've got a nasty feeling I haven't got a clue what I'm asking... Ooops!
THL
--
Not relevant.
Moore's Law is _not_ to do with computing power, but with gate size/density.
e.g. here is the first thing a web search provided:
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/M/Moores_Law.html
THL
--
Is this a challenge to the Co$?
The killer question:
Are your OTIII's truthful?
heh... heh... heh... (slow menacing laugh)
THL.
--
I don't doubt one line of what you've written.
I'm sure many people would be grateful if you indicated if there were any stunts similar to the old DeCSS ones which are actually appropriate to the matter now in hand. Myself included.
THL.
--
If I misuse DeCSS I get to watch a movie I've paid for.
What the fsck are you on?
THL.
--
That's not strictly true, for if you look at the litigious past of the MPAA, they have attacked people/organisations for the css_descramble.c code and nothing more. More recently they've stopped flailing so wildly, as they realised it wouldn't get them anywhere.
--
If they are fixing bugs now, then they shouldn't release for another few weeks, until they've given it a thorough test again. But no, it appears as soon as they've fixed the known bugs it will ship. I personally have about 2 months between me and the customer. After I've component tested, we then integration test for a month, we also then system test for a month after that. Our customers never get suspect code. Full Stop.
THL.
--
If the author of an application believes that he or she has written a good product, and wishes to be rewarded for his or her efforts, then the _free_ thing to do it to permit them to ask for money for the product. If for example is an image editing app, and it handles common file formats, and doesn't use a proprietory format, then it _in no way_ takes anything away from anyone.
If noone wants to pay money for it, then in true market-forces style the product won't get used, and the author won't make any money.
The more applications which are available at equal or lower price on Linux than on Windows, the better the platform becomes. However, as the Linux market has become accustomed to so much high quality software (vast range of development tools, gimp, several window managers etc.) for free, it probably frightens off commercial companies from trying to enter the market, as they know it will be hard to get rich quick in such an environment.
I am always prepared to pay what I think software is worth. Most stuff on my Linux boxes at home is worth a fair bit to me, I consider it good fortune that noone actually wants money for it!
It's a dynamic system, 'evolution' will show us where the balance is.
THL
--
This is the second link to chick I've seen in the last months. They worry me. I mean _really_ worry me. They build a straw man, and then burn it. Anyone can do that. But not everyone can detect a 'straw man' argument.
THL.
--
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets/index.html
Do the OTIII quiz - it's a classic!
Most religeous tracts _are_ copyrighted, however, most sensible religeons aren't embarassed about their contents, and in fact try to give much of it away freely.
THL
--
You reply is too harsh. Indeed, he seems to be gibbering, but that's because he's read pseudo-scientific or non-scientific material which has turned things into black and white.
Neutrinos rarely interact with normal matter, and that makes them very hard to detect. However, if you're prepared to throw a whole array of sensors around a huge vat of water (not just water) in a location where _other_ nuclear interactions are minimal (e.g. away from the surface of the earth), and you're prepared to wait for enough time, you will occasionally see what are predicted to be the results of neutrino interactions. You don't actually detect the neutrinos, but they have a 'fingerprint' that is easy to recognise, and no other interaction causes that fingerprint.
Don't flame - inform instead.
THL
--
Have I worked with you in the past?
I've sure had chats across partitions with people like you in the past. (If your attitude is reflected by your links, that is.)
I've had more jobs than hot meals, and I've seen teamicide many times. Hahah, I just didn't know that was what it was called. I always left first, so I don't know what the death throws look like!
THL
--
Oh man! Someone moderate the above up!
Hahah - I once made a bet that I could program my functional unit in a style where every function (in C) had only _one line_ and that had to be a return statement. I won several cakes from that bet. Magic - almost every function was recursive!
To show 'good faith' I also provided the code in a 'striaght line' form too with remarks on how to map between the two (it was only 200 lines of code max, no more than 25 functions, so it was a fairly strightforward mapping). However, no bug reports were ever raised, so I assume that to this day the system runs with my recursive code.
For reference - I was rewriting the company's C coding standards at the time, and I decided that I didn't like the sentence "Every function must have exactly one return statement". I deliberately mis-interpreted that as "... and no other statements at all".
Sometimes I'm an asshole... But my mates had a laugh to see the (working) rubbish I produced with that restriction!
THL
--
"
eg drop down boxes might rate a "2" whereas a text input might only be a "1". Complex SQL might get a 5 - and so on
"
One of the last bugs I had to fix was written by a guy who didn't know the language (C/old-style-C++). His design was overcomplicated, and wrong. His implementation was overcomplicated and wrong. I removed 200 lines of code which did the supposedly difficult (and thus high scoring) bit of logic, and replaced it with two lines of code which remembered a value as it was being passed on elsewhere - undoubtedly a 1, or even a 0 on your scale.
I'm a consultant, I'm not here to be popular; and when you let the managers know that the guys they employed were idiots, then you you indeed don't become popular. However, I've now outlived my manager on this project, so I don't give a toss.
However, the bug fixed was a show stopper, and the _peer review_ yielded a pat on the back from the other engineers who still work on the project, as it finally lets them get their bonuses!
I work for a flat rate. No metric has been applied. Managers want metrics. Engineers want 'working'. In my utterly biased opinion anyway.
THL
--
In defining 'cult' in this way, we must include Gnostic sects, various ascetics, etc. But when most people use the word, they are concerned about the danger posed to adherents and others. People should be aware, by the way, that the OT levels can embarrass Scientology but they can direct critics' attention away from other, more worrying 'ways' which are dangerous.
'the purpose of a religion'...
Religions have various functions, many of which have little to do with a stated 'purpose' (such as bringing people into a pretty afterlife, through killing them, converting them, or 'Clearing the Planet' (saving everyone through Scientology)) or the motivations of founders (often short-term, political, etc., as in some past and present ecstatic movements in colonies). One of Scientology's strengths is that the founders were aware of reasons people turn to religion, and they could tailor Scientology to insecure, often suggestible (or 'dissociative') people. Such people often feel validated as they 'attest to' a higher rank (but there are always more steps on the Bridge to Total Freedom, so if you don't feel good yet, keep going).
To pick another example, the confessional element used in some religions and in counselling is offered the prospective Scientologist through 'auditing'. The answers are verified with the 'e-meter', so they must be right. And responsibility too is in some ways left with the meter, which has the power to see into souls. Scientology is a big business, but it uses elements of religion (as well as brainwashing theory), and not just at the level of wearing the mantle of religion in order to shout 'religious discrimination!' at a moment's provocation.
'And if people disagree, they don't sue them for doing so, they just label them an non-believer of that religion.'
'Non-believer' can, depending on one's view, mean 'not-yet-saved person' or 'damned enemy'...
THL
--
Your reply attacks the absurdity of the quoted notion, yet such ideas are often left uncorrected when spouted by traditional media and other outlets. It's comforting to think the Net emerged from the bosum of The People as a sign of pre-existing, unassailable freedom: 'I don't need to worry that I can't go downtown without a permit; the Internet proves I'm free'.
While there are few Voltaires and Patrick Henrys who risk all 'for freedom' online, many 'normal' users encourage a favourable climate as they simply use these tools for knowledge, greater efficiency, or teaching. Those of us who deeply feel it if someone then limits this use should also concern ourselves with the fact that it can be easy to restrict people's basic freedoms unnoticed if at the same time they are also told (by whomever) that they are free.
THL
--
When people read stories like this, I hope they remember the basic principles the internet and computers were founded on. Freedom. There are things I wouldn't do myself--even if my ex-boyfriend never believed this--but we should all have the choice weather to do them or not. Because he understands technical things better than me, I asked my ex-boyfriend if he would like to post himslef, but he said ./ is full of trolls and wannabees. But when I read the posts, I think they ARE worth the paper their printed on, so that reminds me that we wouldn't have all those posts if people weren't free.
Basically, freedom is the key to everythig. As someone famous (Henry somebody?) said something like, "I may not like what you have to say, but I guess you have to say it anyway even if it kills me" and I think he also meant "First post!" posts even if he didn't think about that part of it.
THL or another TLA
--
But what it said above was that it was thorium etc. that was causing it. Why can't we get the thorium out of the plastics?
THL
--
Cite please.
Your 'facts' are as convincing as "Princess Diana starred in a porn movie" without references.
THL
--