Now, what would be fair is if someone took *my* code and compared gcc's output of it with what Rastman might produce in assember. That would be interesting.;)
I think more fair would be your code in C and your code in assembly. That's usually what your choices are in real life.
Does this system know what businesses I've given my credit card to?
Do you understand what a bayesian filter does? It tries to figure out what you consider spam. I don't like dentists sending me advertising junk; bogofilter trashes it. Anything about Esperanto or Project Gutenberg or Linux could probably fly on through, as it's got a lot of words that actually appear in my good email in it. At worst, a couple messages from that business get caught, and then it will recognize that the messages are good based on sender and embedded URL's.
In any case, there tends to be a huge difference between the messages I've got from companies I've given my credit card to and the ones that are sending me spam. Usually, one is quietly informing me of new items for sale, and one is screaming about crap. A bayesian filter can often tell the difference.
True. I think I've only had one message falsely get pegged as spam.
a usefully low false negative rate
I haven't found this to be true. Maybe it's because I didn't save up all my spam to send through it, but I estimate that it's only catching half my spam. Nigerian spams still get through sometimes, which should been very easy to catch.
US and several other countries set copyright at life of the author + 70 years.
Actually, the situation is much more complex in the US, and the summarized form much different. The actual rule in the US is that copyright lasts 95 years from publication. That only applies to works printed before 1979 (? thereabouts), and the author + 70 years applies to works printed on or after 1979, but the first book to enter copyright under author + 70 will be in 2050, so it's mostly moot.
Why would Project Gutenberg want them? Project Gutenberg's aim to scan an encyclopedia failed on the grounds that there wasn't enough time and volunteers. Maybe with the growth of PG, it could be done, but it sounds like this is much larger than an encyclopedia, and surely much more tedious.
Think more like the virtual memory system then the NTFS filesystem.
And you dump the virtual memory, I can piece it together. First you find the kernel, then the page and process tables, and then you can put the rest together without much trouble.
All computer languages rehash the same concepts: set/read variables conditional, branching and looping constructs call functions
Let's see: the FORTH textbook I own didn't include anything on variables, as it considered them unnessecary. (Which, to a large extent in FORTH, they are.) Lots of Lisp ('pure' Lisp) doesn't use branching or looping constructs, using recursion for everything. APL is comparitively normal - but looping isn't well supported, instead you do everything in parallel on vectors.
In other words to get to the data you need to boot the OS
You could have said that about NTFS, before the Linux NTFS filesystem. If software took it apart, then software can put it back together - if necessary, take the OS, remove all security code, and boot that.
Which sites are run off of these operating systems? Which organizations run these operating systems? Or are they merely theoretically secure, with little use under fire?
Having any individual have much real authority over the system....
Back to real life, short of hard cryptography, one individual usually has complete access to everything on the system. If I can run another OS on the system, I can copy or change anything and everything. Without custom hardware or always having to have someone else with the admin in the computer room, sooner or later the admin will get the chance to boot into god mode and do as he wills.
I had to uncomment # device pcm in the kernel, and recompile and buttons worked!!
So you said the magic words and it worked. Is there are reason to believe that your troubles in Linux were any more than not knowing the right magic words?
Mind you, no-one is being jailed for voicing their opinion.
Yes, actually they are. Nazis in Germany are jailed for expressing their opinions.
if I had proof that bovines afterall are not people
If you have proof that bovines aren't people, I'd hope you share it with us, as the truth and falsehood of that statement is linked with the same questions about the gods and the nature of the universe that humans have been debating for at least 3,000 years. Only interested in actual hard evidence here, though.
Good luck in proving that doctors are not people.
You really don't understand philosophy, do you. It's not a matter of proof; we know what we can prove in philosophy is absurdly trivial. Now, most philosophers agree on what a person is, with some debate on the start. But even being a person is not sufficent to get you the right to live in all places; some countries still practice the death penalty.
If I were taking an English class, I might agree. But when I'm in math class, I'm much happier with a pencil then a keyboard. Until full IPA keyboards come out, I think most linguists are in the same boat.
Knowing what we did then (and why) means they will have a greater chance of deciphering what we're doing now.
The thing is, that goes for the citizens of the US, too. The fact that we might not want to release fifty year old information, because someone (including us) might get a general idea of what we're doing now, is a bit scary.
I'm not sure I buy it, either. The Russians had a direct link to that information through Amos Ames (?) and other spies, and I'm sure that whatever they had is now being sold on the black market all over the world. So the only people who don't know what we're up to is us. Viva la democracy!
That's your opinion. Strict Hinduism would disagree. If you live in a society that believes that bovines are people, for whatever reason, is it right to jail you for disagreeing?
In fact, given that the GPL'd software that's touted so often on this site is propogated through a similar device
I have no idea what you mean by this. No GPL software I know of sends emails (onto the Internet) with contents that aren't created by the user, with the exception of a couple that only send them to the author of the program.
When humans start to move species (plants, animals, and even micro-organisms) around, it happens so much more quickly, and gives the "invaded" land and native species so little time to adapt that the new species can end up lording over the place.
But that happens with or without humans. The instant pigs hit Hawaii, by whatever means, half the species on the island were doomed. When South America hit North America, most of the native species of South America were doomed.
This was not an "event" in the way a nuclear explosion is an "event". Other species were given time to react and adapt.
Between 90 and 99.9% of the species on this planet were driven extinct. However much time was given, it obviously wasn't enough.
Are you saying that, despite our supposed intelligence, we should act the way other animals do?
I'm not saying anything about how we should act. I'm saying we are the only species that does consider the results of their actions on the enviroment, and that mass extinctions can and do happen without us. "Survival of the fittest" is a harsh law, and nature is a harsh mistress.
Would it be right to let those people state their opinions, even risking a 4th Reich?
I don't believe you're increasing the risk of a 4th Reich. By forcing it underground, you let it build and grow in ways that it can't in the light. Enough people can change any government, no matter what the rules are - e.g. the Russian revolution.
It's an American idea that free speech is an essential element of personal freedom, yet you state it as fact.
What makes up the essential elements of personal freedom can't be facts; it's not something that has a factual answer. There can only be opinions here.
Because banning pages that say "I want to kill three million jews!" will cause the murder of jews...
If you accept that one thing is universally immoral, then arguments that something else is universally immoral can't be answered soley by saying that cultures differ.
those of us living having to make do with living outside the borders of the 'leader of the free world' are however able to access them
You do realize that there are books which are in copyright in Australia and not in the US. Life of author plus fifty years does sometimes extend beyond the straight 80 which US copyright law currently amounts to. It's worse in Europe, as life plus seventy years usually is longer than a straight 80 years.
Yeah well freedom of speech ends where you step on other people's rights, like those anti-abortion sites inciting people to kill abortion doctors or Nazis who want to gas the jews.
Your freedom of speech ends where you step on other people's rights, like those carnivore sites inciting people to kill cows.
That's one view of the world; how would you feel if you could not only not eat meat, but it was illegal to even promote the legalization of eating meat?
To be more accurate, we are one of the only species that has the ability to make lasting impacts on our environment before we get a clue on what we're doing.
We're the only sentient species on the planet, which basically means we're the only species with a clue what we're doing. Do you think the rabbit is conscious of changing the environment of Australia? Or the pig the environment of Hawaii? When the (placental) mammals of North America wiped out the marsupials of South America when the continents connected, do you think they had an idea what they were doing? Going back further, when plants started releasing oxygen, an event that killed between 90 and 99% of the species on this planet, do you think they had a clue?
Slashdot Mirror
Now, what would be fair is if someone took *my* code and compared gcc's output of it with what Rastman might produce in assember. That would be interesting. ;)
I think more fair would be your code in C and your code in assembly. That's usually what your choices are in real life.
Does this system know what businesses I've given my credit card to?
Do you understand what a bayesian filter does? It tries to figure out what you consider spam. I don't like dentists sending me advertising junk; bogofilter trashes it. Anything about Esperanto or Project Gutenberg or Linux could probably fly on through, as it's got a lot of words that actually appear in my good email in it. At worst, a couple messages from that business get caught, and then it will recognize that the messages are good based on sender and embedded URL's.
In any case, there tends to be a huge difference between the messages I've got from companies I've given my credit card to and the ones that are sending me spam. Usually, one is quietly informing me of new items for sale, and one is screaming about crap. A bayesian filter can often tell the difference.
it already has a nearly zero false positive rate
True. I think I've only had one message falsely get pegged as spam.
a usefully low false negative rate
I haven't found this to be true. Maybe it's because I didn't save up all my spam to send through it, but I estimate that it's only catching half my spam. Nigerian spams still get through sometimes, which should been very easy to catch.
US and several other countries set copyright at life of the author + 70 years.
Actually, the situation is much more complex in the US, and the summarized form much different. The actual rule in the US is that copyright lasts 95 years from publication. That only applies to works printed before 1979 (? thereabouts), and the author + 70 years applies to works printed on or after 1979, but the first book to enter copyright under author + 70 will be in 2050, so it's mostly moot.
Why would Project Gutenberg want them? Project Gutenberg's aim to scan an encyclopedia failed on the grounds that there wasn't enough time and volunteers. Maybe with the growth of PG, it could be done, but it sounds like this is much larger than an encyclopedia, and surely much more tedious.
Any security can be broken given a large enough quantity of the product of: inside knowledge * time * money
:-)
the goal is just to boost that figure
But standard cryptography, given a secure password, achieves more security, without changing all the base rules.
Think more like the virtual memory system then the NTFS filesystem.
And you dump the virtual memory, I can piece it together. First you find the kernel, then the page and process tables, and then you can put the rest together without much trouble.
All computer languages rehash the same concepts:
set/read variables
conditional, branching and looping constructs
call functions
Let's see: the FORTH textbook I own didn't include anything on variables, as it considered them unnessecary. (Which, to a large extent in FORTH, they are.) Lots of Lisp ('pure' Lisp) doesn't use branching or looping constructs, using recursion for everything. APL is comparitively normal - but looping isn't well supported, instead you do everything in parallel on vectors.
Where are the keys stored?
In the only safe place: the users' head.
In other words to get to the data you need to boot the OS
You could have said that about NTFS, before the Linux NTFS filesystem. If software took it apart, then software can put it back together - if necessary, take the OS, remove all security code, and boot that.
Look at an OS like Z-OS or Eros
....
Which sites are run off of these operating systems? Which organizations run these operating systems? Or are they merely theoretically secure, with little use under fire?
Having any individual have much real authority over the system
Back to real life, short of hard cryptography, one individual usually has complete access to everything on the system. If I can run another OS on the system, I can copy or change anything and everything. Without custom hardware or always having to have someone else with the admin in the computer room, sooner or later the admin will get the chance to boot into god mode and do as he wills.
I had to uncomment # device pcm in the kernel, and recompile and buttons worked!!
So you said the magic words and it worked. Is there are reason to believe that your troubles in Linux were any more than not knowing the right magic words?
Mind you, no-one is being jailed for voicing their opinion.
Yes, actually they are. Nazis in Germany are jailed for expressing their opinions.
if I had proof that bovines afterall are not people
If you have proof that bovines aren't people, I'd hope you share it with us, as the truth and falsehood of that statement is linked with the same questions about the gods and the nature of the universe that humans have been debating for at least 3,000 years. Only interested in actual hard evidence here, though.
Good luck in proving that doctors are not people.
You really don't understand philosophy, do you. It's not a matter of proof; we know what we can prove in philosophy is absurdly trivial. Now, most philosophers agree on what a person is, with some debate on the start. But even being a person is not sufficent to get you the right to live in all places; some countries still practice the death penalty.
I can type much better than I can write,
If I were taking an English class, I might agree. But when I'm in math class, I'm much happier with a pencil then a keyboard. Until full IPA keyboards come out, I think most linguists are in the same boat.
Knowing what we did then (and why) means they will have a greater chance of deciphering what we're doing now.
The thing is, that goes for the citizens of the US, too. The fact that we might not want to release fifty year old information, because someone (including us) might get a general idea of what we're doing now, is a bit scary.
I'm not sure I buy it, either. The Russians had a direct link to that information through Amos Ames (?) and other spies, and I'm sure that whatever they had is now being sold on the black market all over the world. So the only people who don't know what we're up to is us. Viva la democracy!
Bovines are not people.
That's your opinion. Strict Hinduism would disagree. If you live in a society that believes that bovines are people, for whatever reason, is it right to jail you for disagreeing?
In fact, given that the GPL'd software that's touted so often on this site is propogated through a similar device
I have no idea what you mean by this. No GPL software I know of sends emails (onto the Internet) with contents that aren't created by the user, with the exception of a couple that only send them to the author of the program.
When humans start to move species (plants, animals, and even micro-organisms) around, it happens so much more quickly, and gives the "invaded" land and native species so little time to adapt that the new species can end up lording over the place.
But that happens with or without humans. The instant pigs hit Hawaii, by whatever means, half the species on the island were doomed. When South America hit North America, most of the native species of South America were doomed.
This was not an "event" in the way a nuclear explosion is an "event". Other species were given time to react and adapt.
Between 90 and 99.9% of the species on this planet were driven extinct. However much time was given, it obviously wasn't enough.
Are you saying that, despite our supposed intelligence, we should act the way other animals do?
I'm not saying anything about how we should act. I'm saying we are the only species that does consider the results of their actions on the enviroment, and that mass extinctions can and do happen without us. "Survival of the fittest" is a harsh law, and nature is a harsh mistress.
Would it be right to let those people state their opinions, even risking a 4th Reich?
I don't believe you're increasing the risk of a 4th Reich. By forcing it underground, you let it build and grow in ways that it can't in the light. Enough people can change any government, no matter what the rules are - e.g. the Russian revolution.
It's an American idea that free speech is an essential element of personal freedom, yet you state it as fact.
What makes up the essential elements of personal freedom can't be facts; it's not something that has a factual answer. There can only be opinions here.
Because banning pages that say "I want to kill three million jews!" will cause the murder of jews...
If you accept that one thing is universally immoral, then arguments that something else is universally immoral can't be answered soley by saying that cultures differ.
here's the standard reply to an American saying something is "wrong" based on their culture or laws.
The world is not American.
So perhaps we should have stayed home during WWII, eh? The world's not American; maybe it's alright to murder Jews in Germany.
Catholics generally don't advocate the murder of people who are pro abortion.
Anti-abortionists generally don't advocate the murder of people who are pro abortion. The extreme fringe does not speak for the group.
those of us living having to make do with living outside the borders of the 'leader of the free world' are however able to access them
You do realize that there are books which are in copyright in Australia and not in the US. Life of author plus fifty years does sometimes extend beyond the straight 80 which US copyright law currently amounts to. It's worse in Europe, as life plus seventy years usually is longer than a straight 80 years.
Yeah well freedom of speech ends where you step on other people's rights, like those anti-abortion sites inciting people to kill abortion doctors or Nazis who want to gas the jews.
Your freedom of speech ends where you step on other people's rights, like those carnivore sites inciting people to kill cows.
That's one view of the world; how would you feel if you could not only not eat meat, but it was illegal to even promote the legalization of eating meat?
To be more accurate, we are one of the only species that has the ability to make lasting impacts on our environment before we get a clue on what we're doing.
We're the only sentient species on the planet, which basically means we're the only species with a clue what we're doing. Do you think the rabbit is conscious of changing the environment of Australia? Or the pig the environment of Hawaii? When the (placental) mammals of North America wiped out the marsupials of South America when the continents connected, do you think they had an idea what they were doing? Going back further, when plants started releasing oxygen, an event that killed between 90 and 99% of the species on this planet, do you think they had a clue?