Sounds like you've never read _The Prince_. Machiavelli did not write about some "fictional prince"; his book was openly a discussion of the maintenance of political power. There were no characters and there was no fiction.
Further, the concept of Machiavelli's ideas being "evil" was one developed intentionally by the Catholic Church because they did not feel that his writing was religious enough (despite Machiavelli writing that a proper relationship with God and the church was important) and wished to supress his ideas. The other poster quoted _The Prince_ as saying "it is more important to be feared than loved" but obviously didn't read the rest of the paragraph that he is quoting from. Machiavelli was very careful in making that statement, noting that it was his opinion and clarifying that he believed that for a ruler to be loved is also very important.
Please do not make false statements about important literary works that you have not read.
That article has been posted around a lot, yeah. Unfortunately it's very wrong. A QWERTY keyboard does not, in any way, shape, or form, promote alternating use of hands. The amount of alternating hand use on a QWERTY keyboard is about as close to nil as it could be. It is very important that you understand this. If you would like an experiment, take an arbitrary paragraph and make a plot of each time a QWERTY keyboard would use the same hand twice, or more, in a row. For example "Anonymous Coward" would be a 1, 7, 2, 1, 4 on a QWERTY keyboard, or 1-2, 2-1, 4-1, 7-1.
The most important design goal of Dvorak is alternating hand motions; this large flaw in that article shows it to be poorly researched. For example, "Anonymous Coward" on a Dvorak keyboard is 1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,1,1,1,2 or 1-9, 2-3. Try this with a bunch of English words, and remember how much of an advantage the alternating hand motion is.
Now, which is simpler: that clearly poor research would come to a bad conclusion, or that clearly poor research would accidentally stumble upon something true?
It's always amusing to see this argument. I don't know if you've ever READ Microsoft's End-User License Agreement, but it specifically discounts all notions of liability. If Windows blows up you CAN NOT sue Microsoft. That whole idea is just a warm fuzzy.
Regarding backspacing in the Location bar, check out the little black tag with the white X on it that's to the left of the word "Location" (at least on my installation).
If your X server crashes, one of four things is true. These are given in order from most probable to least probable:
1. You are running your applications as root like a wannabe sysadmin who's still wondering why "cp/home/stupid/*.*/backup/*.*" doesn't work under Unix.
2. There is a bug in your X server.
3. Your hardware is bad.
4. There is a bug in the kernel.
There are no other possibilities.
Backing up the other poster; the first release version of Linux to have real threading in the kernel was Linux 2.0, which was released on June 8th, 1996. The libc support did not mature until distributions began to ship glibc2 instead of libc5, but before that time there existed a separate threading library to interface with the kernel's native threading functions.
Loki didn't do a Quake3 port. The Quake3 porting was performed by id software, just like all the other Linux ports of all the id games since Wolfenstein.
Hi. John Galt is a moron, is your answer. Who else would want to have anything to do with that railroad bitch?;)
Good post, thanks. Just wanted to add - The city of Sacramento actually used to own a nuclear plant (called SMUD) but they closed it down about 11 years ago. Certain groups (including myself) warned at the time that it was an irresponsible action based on unscientific feel-good eco-politics and could eventually cause brownouts and power shortages. So you have to understand that this California Stupidity thing has been going on for over a decade now.
I live in Dallas today, thank God. It's comforting to live in a state that never voted for Bill Clinton, even once, for anything. And a state that can take care of its own power grid, thank you very much.
I once saw a download page for some open-source app criticizing RedHat with the usual cry of "doing nonstandard stuff!". The complaint? That RedHat had used a separate font server (XFS) instead of having the XFree server handle the fonts itself. Of course, anyone who took the time to do any research would note that this was the configuration that was RECOMMENDED by the XFree people, because it is more easily extensible and prevents the entire server from hanging when rescaling a font. But this guy had just jumped on the chance to dis Red Hat. I even remember similar complaints when RH moved to Xwrapper, never mind that it was the STANDARD way to do things. People complain about RH moving KDE out of/opt, never mind that/opt is NOT compatible with the Linux Filesystem Standard, which RH follows pretty closely. I've gotten sick of hearing it. If we want to talk about evil Linux distros and commercialization, let's talk about the Mickey Mouse Logo people (Caldera).
Nope nope. The DMCA does not say that I am not allowed to USE a device that circumvents a measure restricting access to a copyrighted work. It says that I am not allowed to traffic in or distribute such a device. Big difference.
Actually I've read the license on all my DVD's, and NONE of them restrict playback with DeCSS or require an "authorized" player. So I'm not violating any licenses or laws if I use DeCSS to view them.
Yes, it's utterly and completely impossible for any party other than the Democrats and Republicans to ever get elected. Have a sense of history, people; there have always been exactly two parties in this country and they have never faltered or been replaced. In case you can't tell, or have a 3rd-grade education like the parent poster, I'm being sarcastic.
Uhm? You've never seen a dying CPU. If a given circuit is marginal, it will sometimes fail to work properly and sometimes work fine, digital or no. Check out the GCC-SIG11-FAQ sometime.
Re:Digital signatures are not really signatures.
on
GPG vs. PGP?
·
· Score: 3
Well, I think the scenario you describe could be done the same way with physical signatures. You could teach someone to forge your signature convincingly, especially if you have a loose scribble of a signature like many do. I really think you're overestimating the forensic value of a paper signature; they're only rarely used in court to convict. It's not hard to forge a signature convincingly, and further a person's signature can look very different depending on their mood, their writing angle, distractions, etc. Have you ever signed something and looked at it thinking, "that doesn't look like my signature!" I know I have. And yes, a given digital signature is rendered invalid if a forgery appears. So are physical signatures -- if you find out someone is forging your signature, you sure better tell everyone you know so they can verify that things came from you! Fraud has always happened and always will happen. There are no plug-in solutions for fraud. Real signatures have failed miserably time and time again, and digital signatures won't solve it either. The only solution for fraud is constant examination of the facts. Why do you think your credit card company will call you if you make an odd random withdrawal from an ATM that you haven't used before? Digital signatures are a tool, and used properly, they convey numerous advantages. Trusted blindly, they are a trap; just like paper signatures, trusted blindly, are a trap. Certificate authorities do not solve this; neither does having your signature written on the back of your credit card. The purpose of digital signatures is to make forgery more difficult in a world where every letter comes printed with the same kind of printer and on the same kind of paper. Just like real signatures.
Re:Digital signatures are not really signatures.
on
GPG vs. PGP?
·
· Score: 3
Better, but your argument is still asymetrical. Let's do the symmetry work here: Point 2, inverted: "Let's say I get a letter in my postal mailbox. The printed return address is 'Bill Clinton, White House, Washington D.C.' and the cancel stamp is DC. It's got a signature that looks exactly like the President's." Obviously the signature is not relevant and therefore this is a completed cancellation of point 2, Q E D. Point 1 is so weak that it doesn't even have to be inverted, since obviously your signature has nothing to do with the authentication process of checking id's, etc. Incidentally this is why important signed documents are always notarized and witnessed. BTW, your standing point to date reads "signatures are not really signatures", where the first "signatures" means "spewed chunks of unverified identification data" and the second "signatures" means "verified, binding authentication". Note that both meanings of the word can easily be attained with any signature, cryptographic or plaindata. so we have "spewed chunks of unverified authentication data isn't really a verified authentication" which I can agree with. There is a lesson to be learned here but it has nothing to do with digits or cryptography.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't understand. Why would their choice of market tactics release them from any obligations?
Nah. Betcha you won't even care about any of these teen bands in five years. But Beethoven's music is still wonderful after over a century and a half.
Sounds like you've never read _The Prince_. Machiavelli did not write about some "fictional prince"; his book was openly a discussion of the maintenance of political power. There were no characters and there was no fiction.
Further, the concept of Machiavelli's ideas being "evil" was one developed intentionally by the Catholic Church because they did not feel that his writing was religious enough (despite Machiavelli writing that a proper relationship with God and the church was important) and wished to supress his ideas. The other poster quoted _The Prince_ as saying "it is more important to be feared than loved" but obviously didn't read the rest of the paragraph that he is quoting from. Machiavelli was very careful in making that statement, noting that it was his opinion and clarifying that he believed that for a ruler to be loved is also very important.
Please do not make false statements about important literary works that you have not read.
I don't get it. Why would you give a warning of a warning?
That article has been posted around a lot, yeah. Unfortunately it's very wrong. A QWERTY keyboard does not, in any way, shape, or form, promote alternating use of hands. The amount of alternating hand use on a QWERTY keyboard is about as close to nil as it could be. It is very important that you understand this. If you would like an experiment, take an arbitrary paragraph and make a plot of each time a QWERTY keyboard would use the same hand twice, or more, in a row. For example "Anonymous Coward" would be a 1, 7, 2, 1, 4 on a QWERTY keyboard, or 1-2, 2-1, 4-1, 7-1.
The most important design goal of Dvorak is alternating hand motions; this large flaw in that article shows it to be poorly researched. For example, "Anonymous Coward" on a Dvorak keyboard is 1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,1,1,1,2 or 1-9, 2-3. Try this with a bunch of English words, and remember how much of an advantage the alternating hand motion is.
Now, which is simpler: that clearly poor research would come to a bad conclusion, or that clearly poor research would accidentally stumble upon something true?
It's always amusing to see this argument. I don't know if you've ever READ Microsoft's End-User License Agreement, but it specifically discounts all notions of liability. If Windows blows up you CAN NOT sue Microsoft. That whole idea is just a warm fuzzy.
What's funny about this comment is that the Linux server toaster was built by a high school class that's learning about Linux. RTFA next time, troll!
Regarding backspacing in the Location bar, check out the little black tag with the white X on it that's to the left of the word "Location" (at least on my installation).
If your X server crashes, one of four things is true. These are given in order from most probable to least probable: /home/stupid/*.* /backup/*.*" doesn't work under Unix.
1. You are running your applications as root like a wannabe sysadmin who's still wondering why "cp
2. There is a bug in your X server.
3. Your hardware is bad.
4. There is a bug in the kernel.
There are no other possibilities.
Actually, it should be noted here that the Squaresoft game Parasite Eve 2 did in fact have Coca-Cola product placement.
Backing up the other poster; the first release version of Linux to have real threading in the kernel was Linux 2.0, which was released on June 8th, 1996. The libc support did not mature until distributions began to ship glibc2 instead of libc5, but before that time there existed a separate threading library to interface with the kernel's native threading functions.
Loki didn't do a Quake3 port. The Quake3 porting was performed by id software, just like all the other Linux ports of all the id games since Wolfenstein.
Hi. John Galt is a moron, is your answer. Who else would want to have anything to do with that railroad bitch? ;)
Good post, thanks. Just wanted to add - The city of Sacramento actually used to own a nuclear plant (called SMUD) but they closed it down about 11 years ago. Certain groups (including myself) warned at the time that it was an irresponsible action based on unscientific feel-good eco-politics and could eventually cause brownouts and power shortages. So you have to understand that this California Stupidity thing has been going on for over a decade now.
I live in Dallas today, thank God. It's comforting to live in a state that never voted for Bill Clinton, even once, for anything. And a state that can take care of its own power grid, thank you very much.
It's definitely not Insightful. It was a comment on the parent post, and not even a well-researched one. I'd have to agree with you here.
But for it to be defamation, the claims have to be _false_.
Why is that so hard to understand?
You misread the post. An ext3 fs only has to be unmounted cleanly if you want to remount it as ext *2*.
I once saw a download page for some open-source app criticizing RedHat with the usual cry of "doing nonstandard stuff!". The complaint? That RedHat had used a separate font server (XFS) instead of having the XFree server handle the fonts itself. /opt, never mind that /opt is NOT compatible with the Linux Filesystem Standard, which RH follows pretty closely.
Of course, anyone who took the time to do any research would note that this was the configuration that was RECOMMENDED by the XFree people, because it is more easily extensible and prevents the entire server from hanging when rescaling a font. But this guy had just jumped on the chance to dis Red Hat.
I even remember similar complaints when RH moved to Xwrapper, never mind that it was the STANDARD way to do things. People complain about RH moving KDE out of
I've gotten sick of hearing it. If we want to talk about evil Linux distros and commercialization, let's talk about the Mickey Mouse Logo people (Caldera).
Nope nope. The DMCA does not say that I am not allowed to USE a device that circumvents a measure restricting access to a copyrighted work. It says that I am not allowed to traffic in or distribute such a device. Big difference.
Whatever it is, it is most certainly not a shortcut, at least on win95.
Actually I've read the license on all my DVD's, and NONE of them restrict playback with DeCSS or require an "authorized" player. So I'm not violating any licenses or laws if I use DeCSS to view them.
Uhm? Your ISP's server has to examine the headers of every single email message anyway, to figure out where it's supposed to be delivered to. THINK!
Yes, it's utterly and completely impossible for any party other than the Democrats and Republicans to ever get elected. Have a sense of history, people; there have always been exactly two parties in this country and they have never faltered or been replaced.
In case you can't tell, or have a 3rd-grade education like the parent poster, I'm being sarcastic.
Uhm? You've never seen a dying CPU. If a given circuit is marginal, it will sometimes fail to work properly and sometimes work fine, digital or no. Check out the GCC-SIG11-FAQ sometime.
Well, I think the scenario you describe could be done the same way with physical signatures. You could teach someone to forge your signature convincingly, especially if you have a loose scribble of a signature like many do. I really think you're overestimating the forensic value of a paper signature; they're only rarely used in court to convict. It's not hard to forge a signature convincingly, and further a person's signature can look very different depending on their mood, their writing angle, distractions, etc. Have you ever signed something and looked at it thinking, "that doesn't look like my signature!" I know I have.
And yes, a given digital signature is rendered invalid if a forgery appears. So are physical signatures -- if you find out someone is forging your signature, you sure better tell everyone you know so they can verify that things came from you!
Fraud has always happened and always will happen. There are no plug-in solutions for fraud. Real signatures have failed miserably time and time again, and digital signatures won't solve it either. The only solution for fraud is constant examination of the facts. Why do you think your credit card company will call you if you make an odd random withdrawal from an ATM that you haven't used before?
Digital signatures are a tool, and used properly, they convey numerous advantages. Trusted blindly, they are a trap; just like paper signatures, trusted blindly, are a trap. Certificate authorities do not solve this; neither does having your signature written on the back of your credit card. The purpose of digital signatures is to make forgery more difficult in a world where every letter comes printed with the same kind of printer and on the same kind of paper. Just like real signatures.
Better, but your argument is still asymetrical. Let's do the symmetry work here:
Point 2, inverted: "Let's say I get a letter in my postal mailbox. The printed return address is 'Bill Clinton, White House, Washington D.C.' and the cancel stamp is DC. It's got a signature that looks exactly like the President's." Obviously the signature is not relevant and therefore this is a completed cancellation of point 2, Q E D.
Point 1 is so weak that it doesn't even have to be inverted, since obviously your signature has nothing to do with the authentication process of checking id's, etc. Incidentally this is why important signed documents are always notarized and witnessed.
BTW, your standing point to date reads "signatures are not really signatures", where the first "signatures" means "spewed chunks of unverified identification data" and the second "signatures" means "verified, binding authentication". Note that both meanings of the word can easily be attained with any signature, cryptographic or plaindata.
so we have "spewed chunks of unverified authentication data isn't really a verified authentication" which I can agree with. There is a lesson to be learned here but it has nothing to do with digits or cryptography.