Headlines like that, and whole articles too, on Huffington Post and other sites have a kind of breathless, plastic insincerity that I find grating. They are like products designed by committee guided entirely by focus groups. I hope it only works at driving traffic to them now because the web is still new enough to enough of the public that the culture hasn't evolved defenses against this kind of manipulation. I'm imagining some earlier days of advertising where "9 out of 10 doctors agree... " could make people think "Well, I'd better change toothpaste right now!" and I hope the Huffington Post style of writing will soon sound just as lame.
This brings me to my point. Have you noticed that few, if any, Napster advocates are arguing that it should be legal to purchase a copy of Windows 2000 and share it with a community of Windows fans on the Internet via a peer-to-peer networking system? Why not? Is it because there are no fans or potential fans of Windows 2000? Or is it because they know Microsoft's lawyers would have them thrown in the hoosegow before they could finish their next morning's Wheaties?
He really doesn't mean to say that Microsoft will get me sent to jail for arguing that it should be legal to share Windows 2000 does he? Or that he thinks this is right?
(And am I the only one who can't highlight the article's text to paste it here?)
I like private property, free markets, global free trade etc. I get the impression that I am the only such person who doesn't like intellectual property, since most of the anti-IP arguments I read, like the one cited, are anti-capiatlist arguments as well.
My problem with IP is that "Shoes and poems are fundamentally different...". (And thats about all in the chapter I agree with.) Rather than promoting a free market, it seems to me that IP is anti-competitive. The government decreeing that an idea, wherever and by whomever it is used, is owned by some particular person makes no more sense to me than the government decreeing that all wood, wherever and by whomever it is used, is owned by some particular person.
That being said, I am somewhat swayed by the argument that we need to encourage the development of ideas by rewarding those who create them or finance their creation. Perhaps that does require some special laws. I'm not sure. However, I am sure that if we need them, those laws should not be made by analogy to physical property.
It may be too early to use the AES candidates. Aside from their still just being candidates, some (all?) of them are relatively new and thus unproven. Blowfish's having been around longer is probably one of the reasons you can find more examples of it on freshmeat. To learn what to do I recommend:
Read "Applied Cryptography" by Bruce Schneier
Hang out on sci.crypt
Subscribe to the cryptography mailing list at c2.net (send something like "subscribe cryptography" to majordomo@c2.net)
I believe that you have confused the metropolis method with simulated annealing.
The metropolis method allows you to sample states from an arbitrary probability distribution. Suppose you want the probability distribution P(s), where s is some state of the system you are interested in (imagine s is just a number for simplicity). Start in some arbitrary state s[0]. Propose moving to a new state s[1] where s[1] is chosen from a probability distribution P_p(s[0], s[1]). Accept the proposal with probability P_a(s[0], s[1]). Repeat to get s[2] from s[1], s[3] from s[2] and so on.
(this is called detailed balance) the distribution of states in your sequence s[0], s[1], s[2],... will be P(s) (but successive values will in general be correlated).
I wrote this fast, forgive me if it makes little sense.
Ok, you think "the government should keep it's nose out of business". This should affect your opinion of how the law should be written, but at least in Judge jackson's opinion, Microsoft has violated the law as it is written today. Do you disagree? If not, what to do?
Suppose your opinion to be the prevailing one. What should be done to a company that has done something which is illegal but should not be? Enforce the law because it is the law, or ignore the law because it is a bad law?
I would prefer that all laws be enforced, primarily for two reasons. First and ironically, generally unenforced laws give too much power to the government. If people/companies begin engaging in tecnically illegal activities that have become tacitly accepted, they give the government leverage over them because they could be prosecuted at any time. Second, I believe that the best way to eliminate bad laws is to make their consequences felt. Mitigating their effects just lets them live longer.
I like the command line, text based email and news, etc. I'm happy to see a really comprehensive and easy to use gui appear for Windows converts and my mom, I'm just a little worried that as emphasis shifts that way, it will become increasingly difficult for those of us who like the hacker interface to keep using it.
How do we keep the hacker interface alive (and improving) when we are vastly outnumbered?
The person(s) who GPL'ed the original code get to decide about changing the license. If they don't, you're stuck with GPL and will have to GPL whatever you write that uses the library.
since I certainly have a property interest in my privacy
I don't buy this. Information about you is not the same as your information. Suppose you stand in front of me on line at a store and I see what you buy. Do you have the right to prevent me from doing what I want with this knowledge? Would you say that you have a property interest in the knowledge in my head?
At some point, the state must intercede in order to protect the powerless from the powerful
There are different kinds of power and the kind of power affects what means you are justified in using to counter it. On the mild end there's "You cheat, I won't play with you anymore." on the extreme end "Stop or I'll shoot.". Laws are backed by guns (and clubs, and prisons ,...) so they fall at the extreme end. So, to me, government intervention is justified when violence would be justified. The set of laws that seem justified to me by that criterion make me a free market libertarian.
I ask this seriously. What is so hard about writing a browser? I see how long it takes, how many people it takes and how few browser projects survive. Its obviously hard, but why?
Re:Explanations...G200 and SVGALIB works for me
on
RedHat 6.2 - RSN
·
· Score: 1
I just switched between reading this message in netscape under X and SVGALIB quake2 a few times. I have a G200 and it seems to work fine. What is supposed to go wrong?
You want AOL users to have to know about IMAP servers and NNTP servers.
That they exist? Maybe, in the same way that people know that there is AM and FM and they need to turn a dial or press a button depending on which they want. How they work? Of course not.
You want to make them run multiple programs depending on what they are doing.
The problem with this I don't get. From the users point of view whats the difference between A: picking 'mail' from the menu of a browser and having a new window pop up and B: picking 'mail' from a menu at the bottom left of the desktop and having a new window pop up? If what you want is a consistent interface, well that doesn't require one giant integrated program.
It seems that they don't understand that this is an archive of a mailing list and that what they call a subtitle is just the subject lines of some emails that various individuals have sent. Just be nice and point that out. Make fun of them here instead of in the letter.
Clip from my .muttrc and .procmailrc
on
Mutt Hits 1.0
·
· Score: 1
From.procmailrc, sends stuff from cryptography mailing list to ~/mail/Cryptography and the rest to/var/spool/mail. (assuming you get your mail through the sendmail daemon, fetchmail does this for me)
MAILDIR=$HOME/mail
:0: * cryptography@c2.net Cryptography
:0 /var/spool/mail/svmcguir
From.muttrc, tells mutt to use these as mailboxes
set folder=~/mail mailboxes +Cryptography mailboxes/var/spool/mail/svmcguir
and this tells mutt where to save mail I have read
Slashdot Mirror
they should stop harming the country.
Headlines like that, and whole articles too, on Huffington Post and other sites have a kind of breathless, plastic insincerity that I find grating. They are like products designed by committee guided entirely by focus groups. I hope it only works at driving traffic to them now because the web is still new enough to enough of the public that the culture hasn't evolved defenses against this kind of manipulation. I'm imagining some earlier days of advertising where "9 out of 10 doctors agree ... " could make people think "Well, I'd better change toothpaste right now!" and I hope the Huffington Post style of writing will soon sound just as lame.
Nailed it.
The poor need X.
Evil capitalists make the poor pay Y to get X.
Nice people make it illegal to pay Y to get X.
The poor no longer get X.
Damn IT
(And am I the only one who can't highlight the article's text to paste it here?)
I like private property, free markets, global free trade etc. I get the impression that I am the only such person who doesn't like intellectual property, since most of the anti-IP arguments I read, like the one cited, are anti-capiatlist arguments as well.
...". (And thats about all in the chapter I agree with.) Rather than promoting a free market, it seems to me that IP is anti-competitive. The government decreeing that an idea, wherever and by whomever it is used, is owned by some particular person makes no more sense to me than the government decreeing that all wood, wherever and by whomever it is used, is owned by some particular person.
My problem with IP is that "Shoes and poems are fundamentally different
That being said, I am somewhat swayed by the argument that we need to encourage the development of ideas by rewarding those who create them or finance their creation. Perhaps that does require some special laws. I'm not sure. However, I am sure that if we need them, those laws should not be made by analogy to physical property.
I believe that you have confused the metropolis method with simulated annealing.
... will be P(s) (but successive values will in general be correlated).
The metropolis method allows you to sample states from an arbitrary probability distribution. Suppose you want the probability distribution P(s), where s is some state of the system you are interested in (imagine s is just a number for simplicity). Start in some arbitrary state s[0]. Propose moving to a new state s[1] where s[1] is chosen from a probability distribution P_p(s[0], s[1]). Accept the proposal with probability P_a(s[0], s[1]). Repeat to get s[2] from s[1], s[3] from s[2] and so on.
If you choose P_c and P_a so that
P(s[i])*P_p(s[i], s[f])*P_a(s[i], s[f]) = P(s[f])*P_p(s[f], s[i])*P_a(s[f], s[i])
(this is called detailed balance) the distribution of states in your sequence s[0], s[1], s[2],
I wrote this fast, forgive me if it makes little sense.
Suppose your opinion to be the prevailing one. What should be done to a company that has done something which is illegal but should not be? Enforce the law because it is the law, or ignore the law because it is a bad law?
I would prefer that all laws be enforced, primarily for two reasons. First and ironically, generally unenforced laws give too much power to the government. If people/companies begin engaging in tecnically illegal activities that have become tacitly accepted, they give the government leverage over them because they could be prosecuted at any time. Second, I believe that the best way to eliminate bad laws is to make their consequences felt. Mitigating their effects just lets them live longer.
I like the command line, text based email and news, etc. I'm happy to see a really comprehensive and easy to use gui appear for Windows converts and my mom, I'm just a little worried that as emphasis shifts that way, it will become increasingly difficult for those of us who like the hacker interface to keep using it.
How do we keep the hacker interface alive (and improving) when we are vastly outnumbered?
The person(s) who GPL'ed the original code get to decide about changing the license. If they don't, you're stuck with GPL and will have to GPL whatever you write that uses the library.
I don't buy this. Information about you is not the same as your information. Suppose you stand in front of me on line at a store and I see what you buy. Do you have the right to prevent me from doing what I want with this knowledge? Would you say that you have a property interest in the knowledge in my head?
At some point, the state must intercede in order to protect the powerless from the powerful
There are different kinds of power and the kind of power affects what means you are justified in using to counter it. On the mild end there's "You cheat, I won't play with you anymore." on the extreme end "Stop or I'll shoot.". Laws are backed by guns (and clubs, and prisons , ...) so they fall at the extreme end. So, to me, government intervention is justified when violence would be justified. The set of laws that seem justified to me by that criterion make me a free market libertarian.
I ask this seriously. What is so hard about writing a browser? I see how long it takes, how many people it takes and how few browser projects survive. Its obviously hard, but why?
I just switched between reading this message in netscape under X and SVGALIB quake2 a few times. I have a G200 and it seems to work fine. What is supposed to go wrong?
Does this help?
Right On Brother!
That they exist? Maybe, in the same way that people know that there is AM and FM and they need to turn a dial or press a button depending on which they want. How they work? Of course not.
The problem with this I don't get. From the users point of view whats the difference between A: picking 'mail' from the menu of a browser and having a new window pop up and B: picking 'mail' from a menu at the bottom left of the desktop and having a new window pop up? If what you want is a consistent interface, well that doesn't require one giant integrated program.
Ars Technica had this link to an article about ram technologies. RAMBUS didn't look so good there.
Sorry, couldn't resist, he just set it up so well.
First, which country is this act from and which countries laws apply in this case?
Second, in the US wouldn't 2b violate the first amendment? And would it not violate similar laws in at least some other countries?
It seems that they don't understand that this is an archive of a mailing list and that what they call a subtitle is just the subject lines of some emails that various individuals have sent. Just be nice and point that out. Make fun of them here instead of in the letter.
MAILDIR=$HOME/mail
:0:
:0
/var/spool/mail/svmcguir
* cryptography@c2.net
Cryptography
From .muttrc, tells mutt to use these as mailboxes
set folder=~/mail /var/spool/mail/svmcguir
mailboxes +Cryptography
mailboxes
and this tells mutt where to save mail I have read
mbox-hook .*Cryptography$ space"+Cryptography-read-`date +%Y`" .*svmcguir$ space"+read-messages-`date+%Y`"
mbox-hook
(the editor's wordwrap is screwing up my lines. Replace space with a real space.) Hope this helps