According to this webpage, the series will encompass both Dune Messiah and Children of Dune. It has simply been named after the latter rather than former book. To quote:
Dune Messiah by itself did not resolve completely enough to stand on its own; it set the stage for Children of Dune. But that third book couldn't be the basis for a new miniseries without the precedent of Dune Messiah. So I decided we should combine both books and create a continuation of the first miniseries. Simply put, Dune Messiah and Children of Dune would complete the saga of Muad'Dib and set the stage for what was to come.
I posted this question in a K5 diary, but I'll post here as well. Where are the usability forums for open source software? Who's working on this? Is there a webpage or a discussion group? Something on Usenet perhaps?
Who's working on the "cutting edge" window manager of the future? Where are the groups playing around with their pet interface projects? This is open source, there should be hundreds of different user interface projects floating around. Most of them would be horrible, but it's that open development spirit that condenses bad ideas into really really good ones.
I'm legitimately interested in working on this problem, but I've never discovered places where people ask serious questions about usability. So now I'll post the same question here, where is good usability and GUI stuff happening?
I've been lurking in various Creative boards, largely because I just bought the Nomad Jukebox 3. Anyway, the general belief is that the Zen is a somewhat stripped down Nomad Jukebox 3. When you think about it, this makes sense.
The Jukebox 3 is a hard drive based MP3 player, just like the iPod. That said, they occupy slightly different niches. The iPod is small and very portable. The Jukebox 3 is bigger, but it has much more battery space, recording capabilities, a wired remote, more disk for the price, etc. There are two different markets here, and Creative wants a piece of the iPod's pie. The Zen appears to be a Jukebox 3 without the extra battery space, without the recording features (expect through its external wired remote), without the docking station port, etc. It's smaller, more portable, and easier to carry than the Jukebox 3. It also does less than the Jukebox 3.
Truthfully, it's a wonderful time to be thinking about an MP3 player (especially hd based). Every possible configuration is out there. On the cheap side, you have Archos with it's video player. Creative has a richly featured (and fairly inexpensive) Jukebox and a less featured, more portable Zen. Apple has a very portable and light iPod that's also more expensive. There's a toy for every price range and feature set!
Re:No wonder NSA was okay with 128 bit encryption.
on
Factoring Breakthrough?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Using 128 bits is fine for symmetric key algorithms like IDEAS and Blowfish. It's not ok for public/private key algorithms like RSA. You're comparing Apples to Oranges.
How the author refers to people is part of the magazine's style guide. Perhaps the most famous periodical to refer to people by their title and surname is The New York Times. You'll always see someone introduced as Firstname Lastname, and then referred to as Mr./Dr./Mrs./Father/President/Chairman/etc. Lastname. You might want to read their style guide for more information.
This isn't the first time Adam Stubblefield has done something like this. He's also involved with the Rice group that worked with Princeton and Xerox Park to crack SDMI. Here's the bibliographic entry from the Usenix paper they want to submit (pending the outcome of their lawsuit):
Scott A. Craver, Min Wu, Bede Liu, Adam Stubblefield, Ben Swartzlander, Dan S. Wallach, Drew Dean, and Edward W. Felten, Reading Between the Lines: Lessons from the HackSDMI Challenge, 10th Usenix Security Symposium (Washington, D.C.), August 2001, to appear, pending legal action.
I really don't have the least bit of sympathy for anyone who has been hit with this. You agree to a contract that describes the terms of your service. That contract almost certainly says that running servers is prohibited, but up until now most ISPs were happy to look the other way for the occasional server that didn't waste their bandwidth. Now that a massive bandwidth hogging, server infecting, people irritating web worm has appeared, and it has been revealed that the average server operator has no clue about computer security. They have a choice, let their customers be potentially vulnerable to a backdoor insertion while a worm goes willy nilly sucking down bandwidth or ignore it and hope that nobody complains. Keep in mind, the majority of home internet users don't run servers. They just want fast access to the web and their e-mail. Disabling your virus infested server is no sweat off their backs, it just improves their quality of service.
They've had the authority to kill server access and now they've done it. They did it with what was probably a good reason, and anybody who has paid any attention realizes that they've had the power to do this for a long time. Count yourself lucky that you got a free server connection for this long.
And, if it really bothers you, get a dedicated server connection with guaranteed connectivity. There's a reason that those connections cost more, and it's all about connection and service guarantees.
Finally, please don't complain that you're running Apache and therefore you should be exempt. Show me one ISP that would bother checking HTTP headers and I'll show you one can of worms that you really don't want to touch with a ten foot pole.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Every time I've installed Mozilla, it's worked with one minor tweak. I install it to a directory as a user and then edit the mozilla file (it's a script). Change the following line:
dist_bin=`dirname $0`
to
dist_bin=/usr/put_your_install_directory_here
Then go back and do a 'chown -R root' on the whole directory. This works for me every time. I've been meaning to submit a bug about the annoying dist_bin change, but I just haven't done it yet.
The title suggests that Ganymede has an ocean on its surface. The article clearly says that it has an ocean below its crust! What's more is that it says there might be a stable layer of water trapped between two layers of ice 90 to 120 miles below the surface of Ganymede.
I'm looking at this a bit differently. The water on Ganymede sounds like it could be analogized to the mantle underneath the Earth's crust. It's convection and movement is responsible for the Earth's magnetic field, and it is a melted version of the crust above it. The analogy is a stretch, but I think that is a more accurate way of viewing what this water actually is. Granted, this is still an analogy...
I've seen the sheet to which you are referring, but I'm not convinced that his lack of speaking ability would make him a bad president. Honestly, I'm prone to the same mistakes when I speak. I almost caught myself using strategery as a word the other day, and that's _after_ I saw the SNL sketch.
My opinion about all of this is that Bush is a decent person, and so is Al Gore. Both would have different styles of leadership, but I think either would be a suitable president for four or even eight years. You don't get to be Vice-President or Governor if you aren't qualified, speaking deficiencies or sighing aside.
Wasn't "strategery" a word invented by Saturday Night Live for the purpose of mocking Bush in the first debate sketch? If I'm wrong, please point it out. I'd love an actual reference to the real (not fake) George Bush using this word (as well as dignitude and unificator).
Actually, most scientists believe that the majority of Mars's atmosphere and water vanished into space. Mars has less mass than Earth, which also implies a lower gravitational pull. It turns out that the solar wind (as well as convection) is enough to sheer away critical molecules from the atmosphere.
So water would evaporate, and maybe 0.005% of it was blasted away by the solar wind. Give it a few million years and you're left with a very thin atmosphere and no water. Consquently, this is also why the moon cannot support an atmosphere. It's also why if anyone tells you they can totally teraform Mars into another Earth, they're lying.
More information can be found on the Rijndael algorithm here. This link includes a copy of the white paper on the algorithm in PDF format, as well as the source code.
This only measures how many hosts are listed within DNS, not the total number of machines on the internet. It doesn't measure IPs used by dialups, machines behind firewalls, IP masquaraded machines, etc. In other words, there are more than 87 million computers on the internet, quite a few more I would guess. In fact, I would say that the exact number is almost impossible to figure out.
The only problem with this is that there is a fundamental flaw in what is known as the Fermi "paradox". It makes the rather large assumption that we (humanity) will be able to recognise this "unmistakable sign". Why should we?
True enough, but if that's the case, then SETI is pointless. This is like the Ask Slashdot where the question was "Does Water Really Have To Mean Life?" There are a lot of damn good reasons why it does, as I outlined in my reply.
Still, with all of that in mind, we have no way of proving that water and life are definitely without a doubt intertwined. Heck, by Hume's Principal of Induction, we have no way of proving anything (I'm not a philosopher, so don't flame me if my interpretation of Hume is wrong). All we can do is make good guesses and hope for the best.
We, as humans, have guessed that another alien species will discover the unusual property that radio waves can propagate over long distances. We assume that this species will be one that communicates with others of the same species, and that it will use these radio waves to communicate with others in locations beyond it's normal range of communication. As for proving that, we've got nothing except ourselves. But without any other reference model, can we really do any better?
I don't think that's the point. The article focuses more on the Fermi paradox, which exists independently of SETI@Home. Essentially, if aliens really do exist, then Fermi suggests that we should see some unmistakable sign of their existence.
Since we do not, then we must ask "where are they?" SETI@Home is not the end all and be all of searching for alien life, it is just one of the many factors contributing to the overall whole of the Fermi paradox. Think of our lack of success with SETI as not being proof that there is no life, only one small piece of circumstantial evidence.
Over time, we will gain more evidence through many different ways. Humans may not know anything definitive about life in the universe for thousands of years.
Personally, I find this to be more of a philosophical musing than a statement of scientific fact. One must admit that the implications of Fermi's paradox, while possibly wrong, do say a lot about our place in the galaxy. Who are we? Where did we come from? Where would other civilaztions come from? Why? Why not?
Water has quite a few properties that make it REALLY useful for life.
The thing about water is that it has a tremendous polarity associated with it. The oxygen atom tends to be electronegative, pulling the electrons away from the hydrogen atoms. Why is this important? The polarity of the molecule makes water an EXCELLENT solvent, meaning that things dissolve in it easily. This means that water can transport atoms between cells more efficiently.
Perhaps the most important effect of this polarity is the hydrophobic aspect of water. The polarity of the water molecules make it adhere to other water molecules when in the presence of non-polar molecules, such as organic chemicles (which is why oil and water do not mix). This is CRITICAL for the formation of cell membranes. Cell's have a layer of lipids on the outside that are held together by the hydrophobic pressure of water molecules.
Another benefit of water's polarity is that it floats when frozen. This keeps it from accumulating on an ocean floor where it can never melt, taking valuable things that are dissolved within the molecules with it. Since ice floats, it can theoretically melt and refreeze in a fairly constant pattern, assuming the planet is warm enough. If water didn't float, we would have never left the first ice age!
I would think that any highly polar molecule would work similarly to water, but very few exist. The biggest problem is that most of them are normally either gasseous or solid. Some are too complex to expect them to normally form in large enough quantities to support life. I'll grant that there is no way we could know everything about life and the universe, but it's a safe bet to guess that life will be involved with water.
For more information, go to Google and search for 'water biochemistry'. Enjoy.
To be very honest, I don't find the answer to be painfully obvious at all. If I did, I wouldn't have asked it. I've heard this complaint about Debian from many different people, so I think there is a great deal of interest in why this philosophy exists.
Obviously, it's a Debian development philosophy, meaning that this is something that helped shape the overall structure of Debian from the beginning. What better person to ask than someone who was there from the start? I might find a decent answer elsewhere, but why not get it from the proverbial horse's mouth?
Debian has often been accused of having a very slow development cycle. The "stable" distribution is still using two to three year old technology, while frozen is getting more and more out of date each day. Meanwhile, companies like Mandrake are releasing much more bleeding edge distributions. These distributions have more bugs in them, but are also ahead of the game in terms of performance enhancements, newer software, and fixes for older bugs that still plague the older software in Debian. How do you respond to companies like this, and what do you see as Debian's place among these companies?
The government blocks many different things. That's the whole point of a government. When we live as citizens within the control of that government, we agree that they are allowed to block certain activities. These are generally known as laws.
In the case of this merger, the government has a pretty large law to follow: the Constitution. Only Congress can grant monopoly power, and the government is charged with the job of making sure monopolies are kept in check.
Now, this role has changed over the past 200 years. At one point, nobody took this Constitutional clause very seriously. Later on, it was taken very seriously. Today, it primarily focuses on predatory monopolies.
What's the point of this? It's the government's job (at least within the United States). They will always check corporate progress and encourage competition (at least they should).
To give you an idea of what REALLY blocking corporate progress would mean, consider this example. The government creates its own telecommunications backbone, undercharges ISPs (by using tax dollars) and runs the competitors out of business. Then, it allows this company to take on the bloat of most of the other government institutions. That's blocking corporate progress.
Mr Manber said: "We have great plans for Mir besides the guest cosmonauts. It will be an internet portal. From a website you will be able to look out of Mir's windows and watch the Earth drift by."
I am not a lawyer, but I will answer your questions based on my understanding of copyright law.
First of all, fair use is somewhat of a misnomer. There are quite a few things that fall into the category of fair use, and it is something that can't simply be set in stone. For example, quoting from a book for educational purposes may be ok for one book, but horrible for another. A court may find you guilty if you quote one thing, but let you get by with another. The law is rather vague, and it is intentional. In many cases, it actually takes a court case to make a real decision.
Secondly, oral comments are not necessarily copyrightable. Copyright covers 9 categories, and some of them involve oral presentations (like sound recodings, performances, pantomimes, etc). Walking outside and shouting something probably does not entitle you to a copyright.
Finally, the archiving of things on Slashdot is not republishing them. Think of Slashdot as a publishing medium for my comments. I post something (like what I'm saying here), and Slashdot facilitates its presence on the internet. When they are archived, they are kept for posterity like any other book or literature.
I hope that answers your question, and I am open to any further interpretations of copyright law.
My disclaimer: This comment is owned by me, and cannot be reproduced outside of this medium without my permission.
This article references another Slashdot article that was posted almost a month ago. Could someone remind me what the issue is, and why this proved to be controversial? I see something about a question F. Why was the question flawed?
Slashdot Mirror
According to this webpage, the series will encompass both Dune Messiah and Children of Dune. It has simply been named after the latter rather than former book. To quote:
Dune Messiah by itself did not resolve completely enough to stand on its own; it set the stage for Children of Dune. But that third book couldn't be the basis for a new miniseries without the precedent of Dune Messiah. So I decided we should combine both books and create a continuation of the first miniseries. Simply put, Dune Messiah and Children of Dune would complete the saga of Muad'Dib and set the stage for what was to come.
I posted this question in a K5 diary, but I'll post here as well. Where are the usability forums for open source software? Who's working on this? Is there a webpage or a discussion group? Something on Usenet perhaps?
Who's working on the "cutting edge" window manager of the future? Where are the groups playing around with their pet interface projects? This is open source, there should be hundreds of different user interface projects floating around. Most of them would be horrible, but it's that open development spirit that condenses bad ideas into really really good ones.
I'm legitimately interested in working on this problem, but I've never discovered places where people ask serious questions about usability. So now I'll post the same question here, where is good usability and GUI stuff happening?
Don't forget that your NPR station is publically funded. They hold those membership drives because they really do need donations to keep going.
If you enjoy NPR that much, consider using a little bit of your spare money to send them a few dollars.
I've been lurking in various Creative boards, largely because I just bought the Nomad Jukebox 3. Anyway, the general belief is that the Zen is a somewhat stripped down Nomad Jukebox 3. When you think about it, this makes sense.
The Jukebox 3 is a hard drive based MP3 player, just like the iPod. That said, they occupy slightly different niches. The iPod is small and very portable. The Jukebox 3 is bigger, but it has much more battery space, recording capabilities, a wired remote, more disk for the price, etc. There are two different markets here, and Creative wants a piece of the iPod's pie. The Zen appears to be a Jukebox 3 without the extra battery space, without the recording features (expect through its external wired remote), without the docking station port, etc. It's smaller, more portable, and easier to carry than the Jukebox 3. It also does less than the Jukebox 3.
Truthfully, it's a wonderful time to be thinking about an MP3 player (especially hd based). Every possible configuration is out there. On the cheap side, you have Archos with it's video player. Creative has a richly featured (and fairly inexpensive) Jukebox and a less featured, more portable Zen. Apple has a very portable and light iPod that's also more expensive. There's a toy for every price range and feature set!
Using 128 bits is fine for symmetric key algorithms like IDEAS and Blowfish. It's not ok for public/private key algorithms like RSA. You're comparing Apples to Oranges.
How the author refers to people is part of the magazine's style guide. Perhaps the most famous periodical to refer to people by their title and surname is The New York Times. You'll always see someone introduced as Firstname Lastname, and then referred to as Mr./Dr./Mrs./Father/President/Chairman/etc. Lastname. You might want to read their style guide for more information.
This isn't the first time Adam Stubblefield has done something like this. He's also involved with the Rice group that worked with Princeton and Xerox Park to crack SDMI. Here's the bibliographic entry from the Usenix paper they want to submit (pending the outcome of their lawsuit):
Scott A. Craver, Min Wu, Bede Liu, Adam Stubblefield, Ben Swartzlander, Dan S. Wallach, Drew Dean, and Edward W. Felten, Reading Between the Lines: Lessons from the HackSDMI Challenge, 10th Usenix Security Symposium (Washington, D.C.), August 2001, to appear, pending legal action.
Here's an original link:
http://www.cs.rice.edu/~dwallach/pubs.html
I really don't have the least bit of sympathy for anyone who has been hit with this. You agree to a contract that describes the terms of your service. That contract almost certainly says that running servers is prohibited, but up until now most ISPs were happy to look the other way for the occasional server that didn't waste their bandwidth. Now that a massive bandwidth hogging, server infecting, people irritating web worm has appeared, and it has been revealed that the average server operator has no clue about computer security. They have a choice, let their customers be potentially vulnerable to a backdoor insertion while a worm goes willy nilly sucking down bandwidth or ignore it and hope that nobody complains. Keep in mind, the majority of home internet users don't run servers. They just want fast access to the web and their e-mail. Disabling your virus infested server is no sweat off their backs, it just improves their quality of service.
They've had the authority to kill server access and now they've done it. They did it with what was probably a good reason, and anybody who has paid any attention realizes that they've had the power to do this for a long time. Count yourself lucky that you got a free server connection for this long.
And, if it really bothers you, get a dedicated server connection with guaranteed connectivity. There's a reason that those connections cost more, and it's all about connection and service guarantees.
Finally, please don't complain that you're running Apache and therefore you should be exempt. Show me one ISP that would bother checking HTTP headers and I'll show you one can of worms that you really don't want to touch with a ten foot pole.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Every time I've installed Mozilla, it's worked with one minor tweak. I install it to a directory as a user and then edit the mozilla file (it's a script). Change the following line:
dist_bin=`dirname $0`
to
dist_bin=/usr/put_your_install_directory_here
Then go back and do a 'chown -R root' on the whole directory. This works for me every time. I've been meaning to submit a bug about the annoying dist_bin change, but I just haven't done it yet.
The title suggests that Ganymede has an ocean on its surface. The article clearly says that it has an ocean below its crust! What's more is that it says there might be a stable layer of water trapped between two layers of ice 90 to 120 miles below the surface of Ganymede.
I'm looking at this a bit differently. The water on Ganymede sounds like it could be analogized to the mantle underneath the Earth's crust. It's convection and movement is responsible for the Earth's magnetic field, and it is a melted version of the crust above it. The analogy is a stretch, but I think that is a more accurate way of viewing what this water actually is. Granted, this is still an analogy...
I've seen the sheet to which you are referring, but I'm not convinced that his lack of speaking ability would make him a bad president. Honestly, I'm prone to the same mistakes when I speak. I almost caught myself using strategery as a word the other day, and that's _after_ I saw the SNL sketch.
My opinion about all of this is that Bush is a decent person, and so is Al Gore. Both would have different styles of leadership, but I think either would be a suitable president for four or even eight years. You don't get to be Vice-President or Governor if you aren't qualified, speaking deficiencies or sighing aside.
Wasn't "strategery" a word invented by Saturday Night Live for the purpose of mocking Bush in the first debate sketch? If I'm wrong, please point it out. I'd love an actual reference to the real (not fake) George Bush using this word (as well as dignitude and unificator).
Actually, most scientists believe that the majority of Mars's atmosphere and water vanished into space. Mars has less mass than Earth, which also implies a lower gravitational pull. It turns out that the solar wind (as well as convection) is enough to sheer away critical molecules from the atmosphere.
So water would evaporate, and maybe 0.005% of it was blasted away by the solar wind. Give it a few million years and you're left with a very thin atmosphere and no water. Consquently, this is also why the moon cannot support an atmosphere. It's also why if anyone tells you they can totally teraform Mars into another Earth, they're lying.
More information can be found on the Rijndael algorithm here. This link includes a copy of the white paper on the algorithm in PDF format, as well as the source code.
This only measures how many hosts are listed within DNS, not the total number of machines on the internet. It doesn't measure IPs used by dialups, machines behind firewalls, IP masquaraded machines, etc. In other words, there are more than 87 million computers on the internet, quite a few more I would guess. In fact, I would say that the exact number is almost impossible to figure out.
The only problem with this is that there is a fundamental flaw in what is known as the Fermi "paradox". It makes the rather large assumption that we (humanity) will be able to recognise this "unmistakable sign". Why should we?
True enough, but if that's the case, then SETI is pointless. This is like the Ask Slashdot where the question was "Does Water Really Have To Mean Life?" There are a lot of damn good reasons why it does, as I outlined in my reply.
Still, with all of that in mind, we have no way of proving that water and life are definitely without a doubt intertwined. Heck, by Hume's Principal of Induction, we have no way of proving anything (I'm not a philosopher, so don't flame me if my interpretation of Hume is wrong). All we can do is make good guesses and hope for the best.
We, as humans, have guessed that another alien species will discover the unusual property that radio waves can propagate over long distances. We assume that this species will be one that communicates with others of the same species, and that it will use these radio waves to communicate with others in locations beyond it's normal range of communication. As for proving that, we've got nothing except ourselves. But without any other reference model, can we really do any better?
I don't think that's the point. The article focuses more on the Fermi paradox, which exists independently of SETI@Home. Essentially, if aliens really do exist, then Fermi suggests that we should see some unmistakable sign of their existence.
Since we do not, then we must ask "where are they?" SETI@Home is not the end all and be all of searching for alien life, it is just one of the many factors contributing to the overall whole of the Fermi paradox. Think of our lack of success with SETI as not being proof that there is no life, only one small piece of circumstantial evidence.
Over time, we will gain more evidence through many different ways. Humans may not know anything definitive about life in the universe for thousands of years.
Personally, I find this to be more of a philosophical musing than a statement of scientific fact. One must admit that the implications of Fermi's paradox, while possibly wrong, do say a lot about our place in the galaxy. Who are we? Where did we come from? Where would other civilaztions come from? Why? Why not?
Water has quite a few properties that make it REALLY useful for life.
The thing about water is that it has a tremendous polarity associated with it. The oxygen atom tends to be electronegative, pulling the electrons away from the hydrogen atoms. Why is this important? The polarity of the molecule makes water an EXCELLENT solvent, meaning that things dissolve in it easily. This means that water can transport atoms between cells more efficiently.
Perhaps the most important effect of this polarity is the hydrophobic aspect of water. The polarity of the water molecules make it adhere to other water molecules when in the presence of non-polar molecules, such as organic chemicles (which is why oil and water do not mix). This is CRITICAL for the formation of cell membranes. Cell's have a layer of lipids on the outside that are held together by the hydrophobic pressure of water molecules.
Another benefit of water's polarity is that it floats when frozen. This keeps it from accumulating on an ocean floor where it can never melt, taking valuable things that are dissolved within the molecules with it. Since ice floats, it can theoretically melt and refreeze in a fairly constant pattern, assuming the planet is warm enough. If water didn't float, we would have never left the first ice age!
I would think that any highly polar molecule would work similarly to water, but very few exist. The biggest problem is that most of them are normally either gasseous or solid. Some are too complex to expect them to normally form in large enough quantities to support life. I'll grant that there is no way we could know everything about life and the universe, but it's a safe bet to guess that life will be involved with water.
For more information, go to Google and search for 'water biochemistry'. Enjoy.
To be very honest, I don't find the answer to be painfully obvious at all. If I did, I wouldn't have asked it. I've heard this complaint about Debian from many different people, so I think there is a great deal of interest in why this philosophy exists.
Obviously, it's a Debian development philosophy, meaning that this is something that helped shape the overall structure of Debian from the beginning. What better person to ask than someone who was there from the start? I might find a decent answer elsewhere, but why not get it from the proverbial horse's mouth?
Debian has often been accused of having a very slow development cycle. The "stable" distribution is still using two to three year old technology, while frozen is getting more and more out of date each day. Meanwhile, companies like Mandrake are releasing much more bleeding edge distributions. These distributions have more bugs in them, but are also ahead of the game in terms of performance enhancements, newer software, and fixes for older bugs that still plague the older software in Debian. How do you respond to companies like this, and what do you see as Debian's place among these companies?
The government blocks many different things. That's the whole point of a government. When we live as citizens within the control of that government, we agree that they are allowed to block certain activities. These are generally known as laws.
In the case of this merger, the government has a pretty large law to follow: the Constitution. Only Congress can grant monopoly power, and the government is charged with the job of making sure monopolies are kept in check.
Now, this role has changed over the past 200 years. At one point, nobody took this Constitutional clause very seriously. Later on, it was taken very seriously. Today, it primarily focuses on predatory monopolies.
What's the point of this? It's the government's job (at least within the United States). They will always check corporate progress and encourage competition (at least they should).
To give you an idea of what REALLY blocking corporate progress would mean, consider this example. The government creates its own telecommunications backbone, undercharges ISPs (by using tax dollars) and runs the competitors out of business. Then, it allows this company to take on the bloat of most of the other government institutions. That's blocking corporate progress.
Mr Manber said: "We have great plans for Mir besides the guest cosmonauts. It will be an internet portal. From a website you will be able
to look out of Mir's windows and watch the Earth drift by."
So, when's the IPO?
AMD has several useful utilities to determine information about your Athlon. You can find them at the following URL:
http://www.amd.com/products/cpg/bin/
Among the programs listed here are things to measure the clock speed, find the CPUID, and other information. Binary and sources are available.
I have no clue how useful this would be in these cases, but it's certainly worth looking at.
I am not a lawyer, but I will answer your questions based on my understanding of copyright law.
First of all, fair use is somewhat of a misnomer. There are quite a few things that fall into the category of fair use, and it is something that can't simply be set in stone. For example, quoting from a book for educational purposes may be ok for one book, but horrible for another. A court may find you guilty if you quote one thing, but let you get by with another. The law is rather vague, and it is intentional. In many cases, it actually takes a court case to make a real decision.
Secondly, oral comments are not necessarily copyrightable. Copyright covers 9 categories, and some of them involve oral presentations (like sound recodings, performances, pantomimes, etc). Walking outside and shouting something probably does not entitle you to a copyright.
Finally, the archiving of things on Slashdot is not republishing them. Think of Slashdot as a publishing medium for my comments. I post something (like what I'm saying here), and Slashdot facilitates its presence on the internet. When they are archived, they are kept for posterity like any other book or literature.
I hope that answers your question, and I am open to any further interpretations of copyright law.
My disclaimer:
This comment is owned by me, and cannot be reproduced outside of this medium without my permission.
This article references another Slashdot article that was posted almost a month ago. Could someone remind me what the issue is, and why this proved to be controversial? I see something about a question F. Why was the question flawed?
Thanks!