There's a difference between campy or enjoyably bad, and turning a fascinating (for mainstream) film idea into an action flick.
My friends and I will watch mst3k movies--without the mst3k. We even go to the video store LOOKING for trash. That doesn't mean bad always = good.
The first half of the matrix was fantastic, especially the deferral of whether what was going on was fantasy or reality. (Although for a much better job of that, there's a made-for-showtime movie starring Patrick Stewart called Safe House. While not a cinematic masterwork, they keep the suspense high). Then it became a generic action movie. A kickass one, to be sure, and an enjoyable one. But it lost the "edge" it had to begin with.
One thing I didn't see mentioned (forgive me if I missed it) was the issue of ACLs. Personally, my favorite system is Netware's (inhereited rights filters, etc), but even NTs are more flexible (in terms of granularity) than traditional unix rwxrwxrwx.
How does linux address this? I've read (somewhere, or else I just made it up) that ext2fs was designed with ACLs in mind, but they're not implemented. Or something like that.
Could someone more knowledgeable of the subject than myself shed some light?
I disagree with this. I consider spam to be theft. Would you say "I dislike theft... but government regulation isn't going to help"? Spam is theft of my time and resources, and there is no purely technical fix that can prevent it.
I hate spam too. But the more I think about the "spam is theft" argument, the more is smacks of BS--it may take time to deal with incoming spam (and it does take time, I appreciate that). But you opened your SMTP server to the public. Saying spam is theft is like having an open house, then arresting people you don't like for trespassing.
To everyone who is lauding the $99 price, remember that this is the educational discount. Everyone who pays only $99 had better not be on their high horse about software piracy, unless they never use it for commercial purposes.
Well, as long as you don't get any ideas from the VMWare product, fine. But if you do steal ideas and/or code from VMWare, I'll personally do whatever I can to see that they sue you into oblivion.
Don't you mean "As long as you don't get any ideas from the source code."?
The right to reverse engineer is fairly well accepted in this country.
How is it a crime to "steal an idea"? One that isn't patented, I mean.
Well, Macrovision level 2 can pretty well hose the VCR-to-VCR transfer. Most DVD-MPEG cards for PCs Macrovision-2 their output too, to stop you from videotaping the output. (The macrovision signal doesn't confuse TVs too much, but it confuses the hell out of VCRs. It does make the brightness screwey sometimes, though) It hoses the image completely. The solution is to buy a $100 "color corrector" which has the (unfortunate) side effect of removing the Macrovision protection--it's a decoder->framebuffer->encoder.
"Control over your own ideas is really control over other people's lives"
But this is true. If you have an idea, and you tell it to people, and I hear it, then expect me not to do whatever I want with it, then you're asserting control over what I'm allowed to do with what is in my mind.
You may think this is right, or you may think this is wrong, but I don't see how you can think that this is not the case.
Actually, the BSD license seems more communistic than GPL, if viewed from the right angle--anyone who wants BSD code can take it: "To each according to his needs". The GPL is more like the very capitalist idea of several companies pooling their patents together. With the GPL you don't get something for nothing--if you want to play the game, you have to give something back in return.
Re:The odds of caring about H. Stern's review...
on
More Star Wars Hype
·
· Score: 1
You've got to admit that's pretty damn impressive.
Re:which infinity are we talking about?
on
Infinite Space
·
· Score: 1
Continuum is not between {Aleph}1 and {Aleph}2, it's either equal to {Aleph}1, or between {Alpeh}0 and {Aleph}1. It's been proven that either letting C=A1 or letting A0C As for what {Aleph}1 and 2 are, they're power sets. A power set is the set of all subsets of a set, so {Aleph}1 is the cardinality of the power set of {Aleph}0, {Aleph}2 is the cardinality of the power set of {Aleph}1. The cardinality of a power set is always strictly greater than the cardinality of the set itself.
Why does it matter? Well, if you assume the axiom of choice, then you get things like the Tarski-Banach paradox, which lets you take a sphere, and decompose it into 2(3?) spheres of equivilant volume. Not something that jibes well with our intuition. On the other hand, if you don't assume the axiom of choice, then you can't construct a function that returns an arbitrary element of a given infinite set. So you either get weird paradoxes (only paradoxes according to our intuition), or you can't tell what's in a set or not (if it's sufficiently infinite).
Property in ideas is an insoluble contradiction. [He who complains of "theft" of his idea] complains that something has been stolen which he still possesses, and he wants back something which, if given to him a thousand times, would add nothing to his possession.
-- H. Rentzsch, Geistiges Eigenthum (Intellectual Property), 1866.
What we -really- have is a bunch of large corporations who have gotten used to making money through the assistance of government-granted monopolies.
Then, they see how a new government-granted monopoly would help them make even more money (i.e. Database IP rights). So, they whine about how they have no incentive to make money if the government doesn't initiate force against potential competitors.
Thus, to preserve the "free market", the government grants additional monopoly rights.
No, actually I don't agree with software patents in general, and think they've been abused horribly. I just disagree with the notion that being "mathematical" somehow gives them special status (or lack thereof).
According to US patent law, though, "mathematical" "inventions" -do- have special status: that of not being patentable. So, you just say "my patent is for using the following mathematical formulas for the specific purpose of X, on any computing device".
Then, (if you're RSA data labs), you say that you'll sue anyone who uses ANY mathematical formula in ANY context to do the same sort of thing. (RSA claims that their patent gives them rights to ALL PK crypto)
2) Tiger's wouldn't eat you, because you could build a levitation device. You just wouldn't be able to use it for a profit or in compatition to the inventors levitation device.
I'm not sure where you get this idea, but if it is a patented device, you may not build one. Period.
The problem is that the ssh public-key exchange is still open to a nice man-in-the-middle attack. For example, if I'm using a kiosk terminal with ssh to connect to my host back at Stanford, even if we assume that the kiosk itself is not tampered with, someone can spoof DNS easily enough and have the kiosk connect to the attacker's host, which gladly gives its own public key to the kiosk, opens a connection to the real host, and patches all the session traffic through, capturing the password and the entire session without the user's knowledge.
Nowhere in the text do the letters UDP even occur in order.
Furthermore, under section 3.3: Data connection management, we find the following:
Reuse of the Data Connection: When using the stream mode of data transfer the end of the file must be indicated by closing the connection. This causes a problem if multiple files are to be transfered in the session, due to need for TCP to hold the connection record for a time out period to guarantee the reliable communication. Thus the connection can not be reopened at once.
(Emphasis added)
Please make sure you know what you're talking about next time before you tell others they don't.
Tesla coils, in my understanding, operate at a very high frequency. While that's what makes their discharge coronas so pretty, it changes the current flow properties so that it pretty much sweeps over the surface of the skin. Dunno how useful that would be for stunning.
Also, to those surprised at the low amperage, don't be. It takes very little amperage to kill a human being.
Trouble with frames in pages I've seen is the inability to bookmark the result of navigation through them. You can only bookmark the beginning of the frameset. Unless, of course, you have a new frameset for each page, which sort of defeats the purpose of frames, except for layout purposes.
>If you experience random crashes, it is probably either user error or some inherent instability of your setup, IMHO.
If a program can crash due to user error (and the user error isn't along the lines of sudo cat/dev/random >/dev/kmem) then how stable can it be considered?
Given the ubiquity of memory leaks, why don't more programs use garbage collection? The idea being not to rely on garbage collection, but to let it clean up after your mistakes, because you can't find them ALL. The Boehm-Demers-Weiser conservative garbage collector is such a package for C/C++. (And before everyone jumps all over GC, please read this portion of the GC faq)
Why should a TOS be required to forbid copyright infringement? It's already illegal. Why should any civil contract require an agreement not to engage in any specific form of criminal conduct? Does AOL say that, as a TOS, you are not allowed to commit murder? TOSs already generally include the right to terminate _for any reason_. I would think that prohibiting copyright violation specificly could only weaken any potential claim by the ISP of common carrier status.
(And stop calling it "theft" of intellectual property. Legally it isn't "theft", it's "copyright violation". That word in that context is simply a tool used to further the conflation the ideas of physical and intellectual property, just as "piracy" is an attempt to equivocate the copying of software without permission and murder, rape, and pillage on the high seas.)
Slashdot Mirror
LISP, ML, Scheme, and just about any other functional language will let you return multiple values from a function.
There's a difference between campy or enjoyably bad, and turning a fascinating (for mainstream) film idea into an action flick.
My friends and I will watch mst3k movies--without the mst3k. We even go to the video store LOOKING for trash. That doesn't mean bad always = good.
The first half of the matrix was fantastic, especially the deferral of whether what was going on was fantasy or reality. (Although for a much better job of that, there's a made-for-showtime movie starring Patrick Stewart called Safe House. While not a cinematic masterwork, they keep the suspense high). Then it became a generic action movie. A kickass one, to be sure, and an enjoyable one. But it lost the "edge" it had to begin with.
One thing I didn't see mentioned (forgive me if I missed it) was the issue of ACLs. Personally, my favorite system is Netware's (inhereited rights filters, etc), but even NTs are more flexible (in terms of granularity) than traditional unix rwxrwxrwx.
How does linux address this? I've read (somewhere, or else I just made it up) that ext2fs was designed with ACLs in mind, but they're not implemented. Or something like that.
Could someone more knowledgeable of the subject than myself shed some light?
bushcanlickmysweatynutsack.com isn't taken yet, either.
I hate spam too. But the more I think about the "spam is theft" argument, the more is smacks of BS--it may take time to deal with incoming spam (and it does take time, I appreciate that). But you opened your SMTP server to the public. Saying spam is theft is like having an open house, then arresting people you don't like for trespassing.
To everyone who is lauding the $99 price, remember that this is the educational discount. Everyone who pays only $99 had better not be on their high horse about software piracy, unless they never use it for commercial purposes.
Don't you mean "As long as you don't get any ideas from the source code."?
The right to reverse engineer is fairly well accepted in this country.
How is it a crime to "steal an idea"? One that isn't patented, I mean.
Well, Macrovision level 2 can pretty well hose the VCR-to-VCR transfer. Most DVD-MPEG cards for PCs Macrovision-2 their output too, to stop you from videotaping the output. (The macrovision signal doesn't confuse TVs too much, but it confuses the hell out of VCRs. It does make the brightness screwey sometimes, though) It hoses the image completely. The solution is to buy a $100 "color corrector" which has the (unfortunate) side effect of removing the Macrovision protection--it's a decoder->framebuffer->encoder.
"Control over your own ideas is really control over other people's lives"
But this is true. If you have an idea, and you tell it to people, and I hear it, then expect me not to do whatever I want with it, then you're asserting control over what I'm allowed to do with what is in my mind.
You may think this is right, or you may think this is wrong, but I don't see how you can think that this is not the case.
Actually, the BSD license seems more communistic than GPL, if viewed from the right angle--anyone who wants BSD code can take it: "To each according to his needs". The GPL is more like the very capitalist idea of several companies pooling their patents together. With the GPL you don't get something for nothing--if you want to play the game, you have to give something back in return.
You've got to admit that's pretty damn impressive.
Continuum is not between {Aleph}1 and {Aleph}2, it's either equal to {Aleph}1, or between {Alpeh}0 and {Aleph}1. It's been proven that either letting C=A1 or letting A0C
As for what {Aleph}1 and 2 are, they're power sets. A power set is the set of all subsets of a set, so {Aleph}1 is the cardinality of the power set of {Aleph}0, {Aleph}2 is the cardinality of the power set of {Aleph}1. The cardinality of a power set is always strictly greater than the cardinality of the set itself.
Why does it matter? Well, if you assume the axiom of choice, then you get things like the Tarski-Banach paradox, which lets you take a sphere, and decompose it into 2(3?) spheres of equivilant volume. Not something that jibes well with our intuition. On the other hand, if you don't assume the axiom of choice, then you can't construct a function that returns an arbitrary element of a given infinite set. So you either get weird paradoxes (only paradoxes according to our intuition), or you can't tell what's in a set or not (if it's sufficiently infinite).
In the US, you cannot lose your copyright for failure to enforce. Failure to enforce can only lose you a trademark.
What we -really- have is a bunch of large corporations who have gotten used to making money through the assistance of government-granted monopolies.
Then, they see how a new government-granted monopoly would help them make even more money (i.e. Database IP rights). So, they whine about how they have no incentive to make money if the government doesn't initiate force against potential competitors.
Thus, to preserve the "free market", the government grants additional monopoly rights.
According to US patent law, though, "mathematical" "inventions" -do- have special status: that of not being patentable. So, you just say "my patent is for using the following mathematical formulas for the specific purpose of X, on any computing device".
Then, (if you're RSA data labs), you say that you'll sue anyone who uses ANY mathematical formula in ANY context to do the same sort of thing. (RSA claims that their patent gives them rights to ALL PK crypto)
I'm not sure where you get this idea, but if it is a patented device, you may not build one. Period.
From the SRP mailing list (credit to Tom Wu):
The problem is that the ssh public-key exchange is still open to a nice man-in-the-middle attack. For example, if I'm using a kiosk terminal with ssh to connect to my host back at Stanford, even if we assume that the kiosk itself is not tampered with, someone can spoof DNS easily enough and have the kiosk connect to the attacker's host, which gladly gives its own public key to the kiosk, opens a connection to the real host, and patches all the session traffic through, capturing the password and the entire session without the user's knowledge.
Um, I recommend you ACTUALLY read some RFCs. Such as rfc 959, File Transfer Protocol.
Here's a link to it.
Nowhere in the text do the letters UDP even occur in order.
Furthermore, under section 3.3: Data connection management, we find the following:
Reuse of the Data Connection: When using the stream mode of data transfer the end of the file must be indicated by closing the connection. This causes a problem if multiple files are to be transfered in the session, due to need for TCP to hold the connection record for a time out period to guarantee the reliable communication. Thus the connection can not be reopened at once.
(Emphasis added)
Please make sure you know what you're talking about next time before you tell others they don't.
Tesla coils, in my understanding, operate at a very high frequency. While that's what makes their discharge coronas so pretty, it changes the current flow properties so that it pretty much sweeps over the surface of the skin. Dunno how useful that would be for stunning.
Also, to those surprised at the low amperage, don't be. It takes very little amperage to kill a human being.
Volts jump, amps kick.
Trouble with frames in pages I've seen is the inability to bookmark the result of navigation through them. You can only bookmark the beginning of the frameset. Unless, of course, you have a new frameset for each page, which sort of defeats the purpose of frames, except for layout purposes.
>If you experience random crashes, it is probably
/dev/random > /dev/kmem) then how stable can it be considered?
either user error or some inherent instability
of your setup, IMHO.
If a program can crash due to user error (and the user error isn't along the lines of sudo cat
Given the ubiquity of memory leaks, why don't more programs use garbage collection? The idea being not to rely on garbage collection, but to let it clean up after your mistakes, because you can't find them ALL. The Boehm-Demers-Weiser conservative garbage collector is such a package for C/C++. (And before everyone jumps all over GC, please read this portion of the GC faq)
IANAL:
Why should a TOS be required to forbid copyright infringement? It's already illegal. Why should any civil contract require an agreement not to engage in any specific form of criminal conduct? Does AOL say that, as a TOS, you are not allowed to commit murder? TOSs already generally include the right to terminate _for any reason_. I would think that prohibiting copyright violation specificly could only weaken any potential claim by the ISP of common carrier status.
(And stop calling it "theft" of intellectual property. Legally it isn't "theft", it's "copyright violation". That word in that context is simply a tool used to further the conflation the ideas of physical and intellectual property, just as "piracy" is an attempt to equivocate the copying of software without permission and murder, rape, and pillage on the high seas.)
Don't forget WIPO, "Eroding rights in the name of Multinational profits since 19xx"
Yes, heaven forbid someone would see porn on the internet.
Welcome to America. Where speech is free, unless it might give you a boner.