This is an interesting idea, and is what Nokia does on ther Symbian platform in the newest releases. The problem with Nokia is that they don't trust their customers to make the decision, so every app needs to be signed by Nokia before it will run. This has the advantage that it will be difficult to create and spread malware, but the drawback that it is much more difficult to create your own applications.
Doesnt binary compatibility depend on the OS, which id guess to be BSD/linux.
Based on appel II is much more likely to mean in terms of architecture & hardware
I can tell that you have never used a computer from the era of the Apple ][. These beasts did definitely not run anything like BSD or Linux. When you programmed them, you did it in BASIC, or programmed in assembly, accessing the hardware directly without any form of operating system. You could use calls to a few functions in Eprom, but CP/M was the best you could get as an OS, and then you needed the plug-in card with a real Z80 chip on it!
What has vote selling got to do with anything? That's just as possible with paper votes.
Only if you would be allowed to take your ballot with you outside the voting office.
Don't want the dodgy vote buyer to be able to verify my vote - don't give people the hash as I described - just keep it on a piece of paper in the voting booth.
And what use has it then? The hashing you propose makes it possible to check the vote only to the original voter. Once he leaves his hashed vote behind, no one can check anymore.
This is missing the point - what I am saying is that it is trivial to make an e-voting system that can be end-to-end verified, with as much (if not more because of the option of letting the voter verify themselves) certainty than a paper system.
Then, propose that the vote is printed out in clear text, verified by the voter, and put in the ballot box. Hashing the vote as you propose does not give any benefits, as far as I can tell. If you still see advantages in hashing, please elucidate.
I know what the spec says, I'm just pointing out that a PC won't enforce that 100mA limit for the excellent reason that loads of devices use USB just as a handy 5V supply and don't have the necessary smarts to enumerate. ...
Enforcing the "100mA before enumeration" rule is silly though and that's why no USB host I have seen does it. OK, now I see your point. If you follow the spec, your device will only draw 100 mA max before enumeration, and work under all circumstances. If your device does not have the smarts to follow the spec, you become responsible for directly connecting it to a PC port without a hub.
Enforcing the "100 mA before enumeration" on the server side would indeed be silly. But enforcing it on the client side (and thus equipping the client with the smarts to limit the current before larger current is allowed by the server) is sane. It prevents equipment being blown up by users that do not know what combinations are and are not allowed on a specific set of ports. You and I know that you can draw 500 mA from a USB port directly on the computer, but the average Joe will not be aware of that. Allowing your device to draw 500 mA before enumeration will be convenient and work in most cases, but may very well lead to damage in cases that you and I consider stupidity on the side of the user, but which will occur nevertheless. I don't know if auto-resettable overcurrent protection on USB ports is mandatory, but by allowing an un-enumerated device to draw 500 mA, you are assuming it is, or risk damage to your devices.
Hal Porter said: The computer will supply at least 5V 500mA to a device before it enumerates. and got moderated Informative for it.
I don't know who did this moderating, but it must be someone who, like Hal Porter, does not know the USB spec.
A USB device may only draw 100 mA before it is enumerated. When it is enumerated, it may negotiate more power with the driver, up to a maximum of 500 mA. When it is connected via a USB-powered hub, the driver will decline this request, and current stays 100 mA max. Otherwise, you could draw 2A from any USB port by simply connecting 4 devices through a hub.
The power plants produce power continuously, if it isn't used, it is dissipated as heat or other losses, there's nothing to gain there unless you have huge pumping stations to store that energy somewhere.
Do you have any references for that claim? The generators of the power plants will put out the same voltage continuously, but if less current is drawn, they are significantly easier to turn, and less fuel is consumed.
Unless you can cite good references, I would say that you deserve to be moderated (-1, Clueless)
"A service based economy" is analagous to paying yourself to wash your own dishes as a method of earning the rent!
You can also wash your neighbour's dishes, and ask him money for that. That's also what a service-based economy is about: providing services not only for your own people, but also for your neighbours.
And Theo is saying, somewhat strangely, that in this case you are bound by both the BSD and GPL license, that is, both license A and B, and we can conclude from that that, completely opposite to the intentions of those who dual licensed it in the first place, you're in the same situation as if the original code had been covered by the GPL (license B.) In this case, I think that Theo is right, and that you misunderstood the issue. I don't think this was a case of dual-licensing at all.
De original authors did not dual-license the code, they licensed it under the BSDL. Then someone came, added code, and released the resulting work under the GPL. As far as I understand the BSDL, this was his right. But, what he also did: he removed the BSD license that he received the work under! And that is something that is not allowed. The only other option he had is to release his modifications under both licenses simultaneously, with the restriction that the code that he added was released under the GPL only.
Dual-licensing is quite another matter: here, the original author releases the code under multiple licenses, and the user can choose under which license he will accept the code. Then, he is bound to that license only.
But you cannot take code that you receive under one license, remove that license, and re-release it under your own license, unless the original license explicitly gives you that right.
That was almost intelligent... double o is used in everyday dutch spelling. The word 'koper' has multiple meanings (such as copper and buyer), when used as in buyer, the o may be substituted with oo depending on the usage Alas, that was almost intelligent too. It is true that 'koper' means both copper and buyer, but both are spelled with only one 'o' in the Dutch language after 1953. When a vowel is long in Dutch, it is only doubled if it is not at the end of a syllable. When a vowel is short, the following consonant is doubled if otherwise the vowel would end up at the end of the syllable. So: ik koop, wij ko-pen (I buy, we buy, long O-s), but een kop, twee kop-pen (one cup, two cups, short O-s) There is no way in current-day Dutch to make the distinction between buyer and copper by using spelling. When using 'kooper' for buyer, you are using the spelling of before 1953.
I don't think so. Imagine part of the board horizontal and the other half vertical. It would mean a smaller case. Problem is the clock speeds at which modern computers run. With these speeds, you do not want to have a piece of cable in the middle of your signal lines. On the other hand, flexible PCBs might work, but I don't know if these can be produced in sufficient layers.
The manufacturers of the "genuine" products will need to compete based on price. And how do you compete based on price with a company that does not have any R&D costs? Downsizing on R&D will not be enough, as their R&D is (practically) zero. Ah, I see! You propose that the whole world must stop innovating, because it clearly does not pay!
I'd say: let the Chinese do within their borders what they like, but sue every bastard that imports these counterfeit goods.
Batteries still only return a tenth of the energy put into charging them Where do you get that number from? I think it is closer to 90%, i.e. only one tenth is lost. What's the efficiency of this new technology? I wouldn't be surprised if it were lower than for current rechargeable batteries.
The red cones in your eye react more slowly than the other color receptors. Therefore when you are looking at the red led, which is a pure red light surrounded by darkness (not common in nature btw) what you are actually seeing is the vibration due to the crunch momentarily after they happen. Sorry, no. Bruce Perens (above) gave the correct explanation: stroboscope effect, caused by the rapid blinking of the LEDs. The same can happen with any other colour. If you look at an (in my case green) oscilloscope from a distance, when the timebase is at a rather low frequency (say: 1 ms/div, or 100 sweeps/sec) and you clap your teeth together, you see a waveform on the scope. The further you are away, the better it looks. I used this to confuse interns at our company, saying that I made a sound detector specifically for clapping teeth, that was more sensitive with increasing distance.
Where is the -1:Clueless moderation option when you need it?
Sigh... where is the -1 clueless mod when you need it? That is what I have asked myself many times. Once a post has acquired a few 'Informative' moderations by moderators who don't know the subject themselves, it is very difficult to get it modded down. After all, 'Troll' or 'Flamebait' will not describe the post properly, and 'Overrated' will only remove one moderation point, and not be visible otherwise. Meanwhile, the post will remain highly ranked, and thus be very visible.
So, I think the only solution will be a caution to the moderators: Do not mod up as 'Informative' or 'Insightful' those posts which you do not know to be true with certainty yourself.
This is all a fine calculation except that your assumption that the probability of contracting AIDS from one act of sex is only 1/1000 was way off. I did not assume that the risk is only 1/1000, that assumption came from the grandparent of my post. I only corrected the parent post in his calculation. That is why I wrote 'IF the risk is 1 in 1000'.
Trust me, it makes a lot more sense when you're drunk. I can imagine that!;-) Personally, I've had some really brilliant ideas while I was drunk. I'm glad I was not able to remember them the next day. Now, I still have the illusion they were brilliant...;-)
actually no, you have a 1 in 2 chance after a bit more than 100 days, because of the Birthday Problem
No. Please re-take your probability class. The Birthday Problem has nothing to do with it. If the risk is 1 in 1000, then after one day you have a chance of 0.999 of not having contracted it. After N days, this is 0.999^N, so the chance you have contracted it after N days is 1-0.999^N, or 9.5% after 100 days, and 39.4% after 500 days. It takes 693 days to get to a 50% chance.
How did a mastodon or a proto-horse mutation recognize a new species with one more pair of chromosomes?
Why do you think it has to? As someone else already mentioned in another post, inter-species breeding occurs. A Przwalsky Horse can mate (and produce offspring) with a regular horse, which has a different chromosome count. Inter-species breeding is not always possible, but you make it seem to be completely impossible, which it clearly isn't. So, 'time-and-place' is no longer a problem.
The mating ritual 'problem' is a similar non-issue. Once a new species diverges enough from the 'trunk', a different mating ritual may slowly evolve, which makes inter-breeding with the 'old' species more difficult. But why do you insist that a new species develop a new mating ritual?
please explain to me how... a species with 21 pairs of chromosomes can EVOLVE into one with 22 pairs. If you look at people with Down's Syndrome, you will see that this is not as impossible as you think. http://www.downsyn.com/whatisds.html/ gives a good explanation.
Basically, when forming sperm or egg cells, the chromosomes divide up 24/22 instead of 23/23, and you have offspring with one chromosome extra. This extra chromosome could be passed on to their own children, so if somewhere down the line two subjects with one extra chromosome would mate, there would be a chance that their offspring would have a complete pair extra.
I don't know if it happened this way, but it certainly would be possible. Down's Syndrome (and other extra-chromosome conditions) are rare, but not that rare.
I think the one you mean is e^(i*pi) - 1 = 0. An interesting excercise is to show why that formula is true. Very interesting indeed! How long did it take you? And did your math teacher approve?
The correct relation appears to be e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0;-) Which is an interesting synopsis of math, as it combines in one, very compact, true statement all the basic operators equality, addition, multiplication and raising to a power and the basic constants 0, 1, e, i and pi!
So, what this basically is, is a way to make a solid electrolyte for lithium batteries, to increase lifespan.
Re:Don't use your distro tools to install it...
on
Firefox 1.0.7 Released
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Now I have a version of Firefox that runs as me instead of running as root, which I'm sure is a lot more secure than the way I had it last time. I don't think so. Normally, you install as root, and run as user. This means, that, as a user, you cannot damage your installation. Now, you run as the same user that installed it. This means that you can damage the installation as well.
OpenOffice makes KOffice feel lightweight. I hope you're joking. If you've used KOffice (at least on KDE), you'll know it's much less resource-intensive than OpenOffice.
Yes, that is what he said. If you feel the same way, why do you hope he is joking?
Slashdot Mirror
This is an interesting idea, and is what Nokia does on ther Symbian platform in the newest releases.
The problem with Nokia is that they don't trust their customers to make the decision, so every app needs to be signed by Nokia before it will run.
This has the advantage that it will be difficult to create and spread malware, but the drawback that it is much more difficult to create your own applications.
Doesnt binary compatibility depend on the OS, which id guess to be BSD/linux.
Based on appel II is much more likely to mean in terms of architecture & hardware
I can tell that you have never used a computer from the era of the Apple ][.
These beasts did definitely not run anything like BSD or Linux.
When you programmed them, you did it in BASIC, or programmed in assembly, accessing the hardware directly without any form of operating system.
You could use calls to a few functions in Eprom, but CP/M was the best you could get as an OS, and then you needed the plug-in card with a real Z80 chip on it!
What has vote selling got to do with anything? That's just as possible with paper votes.
Only if you would be allowed to take your ballot with you outside the voting office.
Don't want the dodgy vote buyer to be able to verify my vote - don't give people the hash as I described - just keep it on a piece of paper in the voting booth.
And what use has it then?
The hashing you propose makes it possible to check the vote only to the original voter.
Once he leaves his hashed vote behind, no one can check anymore.
This is missing the point - what I am saying is that it is trivial to make an e-voting system that can be end-to-end verified, with as much (if not more because of the option of letting the voter verify themselves) certainty than a paper system.
Then, propose that the vote is printed out in clear text, verified by the voter, and put in the ballot box.
Hashing the vote as you propose does not give any benefits, as far as I can tell.
If you still see advantages in hashing, please elucidate.
Then you supply a website were the voter enters the long number and it shows me my vote.
... which gives me the possibility to sell my vote, because I can, at a later time, prove to someone else what I voted.
That is not what you want...
Enforcing the "100mA before enumeration" rule is silly though and that's why no USB host I have seen does it. OK, now I see your point.
If you follow the spec, your device will only draw 100 mA max before enumeration, and work under all circumstances.
If your device does not have the smarts to follow the spec, you become responsible for directly connecting it to a PC port without a hub.
Enforcing the "100 mA before enumeration" on the server side would indeed be silly.
But enforcing it on the client side (and thus equipping the client with the smarts to limit the current before larger current is allowed by the server) is sane.
It prevents equipment being blown up by users that do not know what combinations are and are not allowed on a specific set of ports.
You and I know that you can draw 500 mA from a USB port directly on the computer, but the average Joe will not be aware of that.
Allowing your device to draw 500 mA before enumeration will be convenient and work in most cases, but may very well lead to damage in cases that you and I consider stupidity on the side of the user, but which will occur nevertheless.
I don't know if auto-resettable overcurrent protection on USB ports is mandatory, but by allowing an un-enumerated device to draw 500 mA, you are assuming it is, or risk damage to your devices.
Hal Porter said:
The computer will supply at least 5V 500mA to a device before it enumerates.
and got moderated Informative for it.
I don't know who did this moderating, but it must be someone who, like Hal Porter, does not know the USB spec.
A USB device may only draw 100 mA before it is enumerated.
When it is enumerated, it may negotiate more power with the driver, up to a maximum of 500 mA.
When it is connected via a USB-powered hub, the driver will decline this request, and current stays 100 mA max. Otherwise, you could draw 2A from any USB port by simply connecting 4 devices through a hub.
The power plants produce power continuously, if it isn't used, it is dissipated as heat or other losses, there's nothing to gain there unless you have huge pumping stations to store that energy somewhere.
Do you have any references for that claim?
The generators of the power plants will put out the same voltage continuously, but if less current is drawn, they are significantly easier to turn, and less fuel is consumed.
Unless you can cite good references, I would say that you deserve to be moderated (-1, Clueless)
"A service based economy" is analagous to paying yourself to wash your own dishes as a method of earning the rent!
You can also wash your neighbour's dishes, and ask him money for that.
That's also what a service-based economy is about: providing services not only for your own people, but also for your neighbours.
And Theo is saying, somewhat strangely, that in this case you are bound by both the BSD and GPL license, that is, both license A and B, and we can conclude from that that, completely opposite to the intentions of those who dual licensed it in the first place, you're in the same situation as if the original code had been covered by the GPL (license B.)
In this case, I think that Theo is right, and that you misunderstood the issue.
I don't think this was a case of dual-licensing at all.
De original authors did not dual-license the code, they licensed it under the BSDL.
Then someone came, added code, and released the resulting work under the GPL.
As far as I understand the BSDL, this was his right.
But, what he also did: he removed the BSD license that he received the work under!
And that is something that is not allowed.
The only other option he had is to release his modifications under both licenses simultaneously, with the restriction that the code that he added was released under the GPL only.
Dual-licensing is quite another matter: here, the original author releases the code under multiple licenses, and the user can choose under which license he will accept the code.
Then, he is bound to that license only.
But you cannot take code that you receive under one license, remove that license, and re-release it under your own license, unless the original license explicitly gives you that right.
That was almost intelligent... double o is used in everyday dutch spelling. The word 'koper' has multiple meanings (such as copper and buyer), when used as in buyer, the o may be substituted with oo depending on the usage
Alas, that was almost intelligent too.
It is true that 'koper' means both copper and buyer, but both are spelled with only one 'o' in the Dutch language after 1953.
When a vowel is long in Dutch, it is only doubled if it is not at the end of a syllable.
When a vowel is short, the following consonant is doubled if otherwise the vowel would end up at the end of the syllable.
So: ik koop, wij ko-pen (I buy, we buy, long O-s), but een kop, twee kop-pen (one cup, two cups, short O-s)
There is no way in current-day Dutch to make the distinction between buyer and copper by using spelling.
When using 'kooper' for buyer, you are using the spelling of before 1953.
I don't think so. Imagine part of the board horizontal and the other half vertical. It would mean a smaller case.
Problem is the clock speeds at which modern computers run.
With these speeds, you do not want to have a piece of cable in the middle of your signal lines.
On the other hand, flexible PCBs might work, but I don't know if these can be produced in sufficient layers.
The manufacturers of the "genuine" products will need to compete based on price.
And how do you compete based on price with a company that does not have any R&D costs?
Downsizing on R&D will not be enough, as their R&D is (practically) zero.
Ah, I see! You propose that the whole world must stop innovating, because it clearly does not pay!
I'd say: let the Chinese do within their borders what they like, but sue every bastard that imports these counterfeit goods.
Batteries still only return a tenth of the energy put into charging them
Where do you get that number from?
I think it is closer to 90%, i.e. only one tenth is lost.
What's the efficiency of this new technology?
I wouldn't be surprised if it were lower than for current rechargeable batteries.
The red cones in your eye react more slowly than the other color receptors. Therefore when you are looking at the red led, which is a pure red light surrounded by darkness (not common in nature btw) what you are actually seeing is the vibration due to the crunch momentarily after they happen.
Sorry, no. Bruce Perens (above) gave the correct explanation: stroboscope effect, caused by the rapid blinking of the LEDs.
The same can happen with any other colour.
If you look at an (in my case green) oscilloscope from a distance, when the timebase is at a rather low frequency (say: 1 ms/div, or 100 sweeps/sec) and you clap your teeth together, you see a waveform on the scope. The further you are away, the better it looks.
I used this to confuse interns at our company, saying that I made a sound detector specifically for clapping teeth, that was more sensitive with increasing distance.
Where is the -1:Clueless moderation option when you need it?
Sigh... where is the -1 clueless mod when you need it?
That is what I have asked myself many times.
Once a post has acquired a few 'Informative' moderations by moderators who don't know the subject themselves, it is very difficult to get it modded down.
After all, 'Troll' or 'Flamebait' will not describe the post properly, and 'Overrated' will only remove one moderation point, and not be visible otherwise.
Meanwhile, the post will remain highly ranked, and thus be very visible.
So, I think the only solution will be a caution to the moderators:
Do not mod up as 'Informative' or 'Insightful' those posts which you do not know to be true with certainty yourself.
This is all a fine calculation except that your assumption that the probability of contracting AIDS from one act of sex is only 1/1000 was way off.
I did not assume that the risk is only 1/1000, that assumption came from the grandparent of my post.
I only corrected the parent post in his calculation.
That is why I wrote 'IF the risk is 1 in 1000'.
Trust me, it makes a lot more sense when you're drunk. ;-) ;-)
I can imagine that!
Personally, I've had some really brilliant ideas while I was drunk.
I'm glad I was not able to remember them the next day.
Now, I still have the illusion they were brilliant...
actually no, you have a 1 in 2 chance after a bit more than 100 days, because of the Birthday Problem
No. Please re-take your probability class. The Birthday Problem has nothing to do with it.
If the risk is 1 in 1000, then after one day you have a chance of 0.999 of not having contracted it.
After N days, this is 0.999^N, so the chance you have contracted it after N days is 1-0.999^N, or 9.5% after 100 days, and 39.4% after 500 days.
It takes 693 days to get to a 50% chance.
How did a mastodon or a proto-horse mutation recognize a new species with one more pair of chromosomes?
Why do you think it has to?
As someone else already mentioned in another post, inter-species breeding occurs.
A Przwalsky Horse can mate (and produce offspring) with a regular horse, which has a different chromosome count.
Inter-species breeding is not always possible, but you make it seem to be completely impossible, which it clearly isn't.
So, 'time-and-place' is no longer a problem.
The mating ritual 'problem' is a similar non-issue.
Once a new species diverges enough from the 'trunk', a different mating ritual may slowly evolve, which makes inter-breeding with the 'old' species more difficult.
But why do you insist that a new species develop a new mating ritual?
please explain to me how ... a species with 21 pairs of chromosomes can EVOLVE into one with 22 pairs.
If you look at people with Down's Syndrome, you will see that this is not as impossible as you think.
http://www.downsyn.com/whatisds.html/ gives a good explanation.
Basically, when forming sperm or egg cells, the chromosomes divide up 24/22 instead of 23/23, and you have offspring with one chromosome extra. This extra chromosome could be passed on to their own children, so if somewhere down the line two subjects with one extra chromosome would mate, there would be a chance that their offspring would have a complete pair extra.
I don't know if it happened this way, but it certainly would be possible.
Down's Syndrome (and other extra-chromosome conditions) are rare, but not that rare.
I think the one you mean is e^(i*pi) - 1 = 0. An interesting excercise is to show why that formula is true.
;-)
Very interesting indeed! How long did it take you? And did your math teacher approve?
The correct relation appears to be e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0
Which is an interesting synopsis of math, as it combines in one, very compact, true statement all the basic operators equality, addition, multiplication and raising to a power and the basic constants 0, 1, e, i and pi!
So, what this basically is, is a way to make a solid electrolyte for lithium batteries, to increase lifespan.
Now I have a version of Firefox that runs as me instead of running as root, which I'm sure is a lot more secure than the way I had it last time.
I don't think so.
Normally, you install as root, and run as user.
This means, that, as a user, you cannot damage your installation.
Now, you run as the same user that installed it.
This means that you can damage the installation as well.
it's hard for me to see how you'd eliminate slippage in a belt drive.h tml
Modern CVT's use a Van Doorne metal belt, which is said to be without any slippage: http://www.insightcentral.net/encyclopedia/encvt.
OpenOffice makes KOffice feel lightweight.
I hope you're joking. If you've used KOffice (at least on KDE), you'll know it's much less resource-intensive than OpenOffice.
Yes, that is what he said.
If you feel the same way, why do you hope he is joking?