Wipe phone down with alcohol-based cleaning solution first, then put it in the irradiation box.
Some of the internal components would need to be well-shielded, no doubt, but they would be INSIDE the phone and away from direct contact with the user's face, so they wouldn't need to be disinfected.
It seems sort of evident, now that it is pointed out, that OF COURSE Joe User can't and won't be able to choose something as abstract as a window-manager.
But that's OK; there are projects out there that are trying to develop "simple-user" distros, and others that are for really specifically-targeted technical needs and whatnot.
THAT'S the REAL reason to go with Linux: FREEDOM.
And surely even Joe User can appreciate that on some level.
With Microsoft, ou DON'T get the freedom in any case. Some people in Redmond decide for you.
Surely we can give some equivalent Linux-development group the same role, and they can shepherd the ordinary users like Microsoft can, except that whatever they develop will be open...
It makes you wonder how much of an opportunity this could be for Linux.
NEVER use their underhanded techniques against them, Grasshopper; it validates them.
Upholding the GPL license is ALL this fight is about, pure and simple.
That being said, it is NOT time to become radical about it; if the GPL is BY the people and FOR the people, then it must be used in that honorable sense.
If the Samba team sues SCO for copyright reasons, then they would basically be saying that the GPL is meaningless, because it specifically GRANTS the right to copy, modify and distribute Samba. So it would be like playing SCO's game to sue over copyright. It would let SCO turn around and say "Aha! See? The GPL IS MEANINGLESS!" I think we need to defend the GPL by ignoring SCO's ridiculous claims and if we are to take SCO to court, it should be over their abuse of the GPL, which they formally agreed to a long time ago, not over copyight.
That way, people will perceive MS as a totalitarian-dictator-like software company, whose aim is to take control of your machine away from you even more than they currently do.
It's really funny how almost EVERY move MS makes back-fires on them.
Compare to the early 90s when MS couldn't do anything wrong...
Sure, but isn't a brute-force proof along with a mathematical proof even better?
I mean this way we have one of the two, all that remains now is to turn the algorithm used into a formula for mathematical verification and there you have it.
In a way, the algorithm used is ALREADY a mathematical proof, inasfar as an algorithm can be proven correct using math...
You're right that there are practical applications to compression, such as being able to listen to all the passages of a recording in a noisy environment.
However, when you compress too much (as is the case with Vapor Trails) you lose the expressive range of the musical performance.
The rationale for compressing the dynamic range of music comes from average consumer demands you say.
Sadly, "average consumer demands" equate quite well to the fact that as a crowd grows larger, its overall IQ goes DOWN.
I just wish Vapor Trails was available in an "audiophiles" edition that wasn't butchered.
You switched from Linux to Windows? You deserve what you'll get; eventually, you will have NO control over your computing and data.
Script kiddies will pick the bones of your closed-source infrastructure and you will be led astray by Enron-esque manoeuvres from Microsoft and the rest of them.
Good luck, you'll need it, trusting corporations like that...
Slashdot Mirror
How should I kn-- *whah!*
We don't know the nature of those emissions.
I'm pretty sure things like that can mess up electronics though, to the point of causing system faults.
After all, what shielding could possibly protect you from something that was able to reach across space like that?
Maybe the procedure could be something like this:
Wipe phone down with alcohol-based cleaning solution first, then put it in the irradiation box.
Some of the internal components would need to be well-shielded, no doubt, but they would be INSIDE the phone and away from direct contact with the user's face, so they wouldn't need to be disinfected.
Wouldn't simply irradiating the cel phone do the trick?
Maybe some internal parts would need to be shielded to withstand it, but the external surface could be sterilized that way.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=78637&cid= 6980680
I mean it!
Good work!
I think the solution would be to set up a Gnome fund to pay off the server space somewhere to run an RFC-Compliant DNS.
It would be untouchable.
Publicly-supported, existing to serve us all; like the GPL.
A freedom from the tyranny of a few who would control us by deciding what we will see next.
Nope, that's not what I said.
I said we have to stop being lazy and commit to cleaning up our messes.
Sorry if that was unclear to you.
Stop them!
LOL
Dated september 9th you say? ... So it IS fiction!
Well, if we're going to use nuclear power, then let's put a hell of a lot of money into research into being able to neutralize the by-products.
I mean it, if we're going to produce nuclear garbage, we HAVE to make sure it won't harm future generations.
It seems sort of evident, now that it is pointed out, that OF COURSE Joe User can't and won't be able to choose something as abstract as a window-manager.
But that's OK; there are projects out there that are trying to develop "simple-user" distros, and others that are for really specifically-targeted technical needs and whatnot.
THAT'S the REAL reason to go with Linux: FREEDOM.
And surely even Joe User can appreciate that on some level.
With Microsoft, ou DON'T get the freedom in any case. Some people in Redmond decide for you.
Surely we can give some equivalent Linux-development group the same role, and they can shepherd the ordinary users like Microsoft can, except that whatever they develop will be open...
It makes you wonder how much of an opportunity this could be for Linux.
Want to talk prior art going back quite a bit?
/endtagline
A wallet.
I'm referring to the spirit of the document, not the author.
It's prety clear that Richard Stallman wanted to create something FOR the people.
Naw, NOW it's just a RACE to dump the shares the MOMENT they start to come down.
It's called a gambling addiction - WATCH OUT!
NEVER use their underhanded techniques against them, Grasshopper; it validates them.
Upholding the GPL license is ALL this fight is about, pure and simple.
That being said, it is NOT time to become radical about it; if the GPL is BY the people and FOR the people, then it must be used in that honorable sense.
Right. So this is NOT about copyright, it's about the GPL.
Big difference.
If the Samba team sues SCO for copyright reasons, then they would basically be saying that the GPL is meaningless, because it specifically GRANTS the right to copy, modify and distribute Samba.
So it would be like playing SCO's game to sue over copyright.
It would let SCO turn around and say "Aha! See? The GPL IS MEANINGLESS!"
I think we need to defend the GPL by ignoring SCO's ridiculous claims and if we are to take SCO to court, it should be over their abuse of the GPL, which they formally agreed to a long time ago, not over copyight.
I don't know if anyone has realized this yet, but suing SCO over copyright because of GPL code would work in SCO's favor by establishing precedents.
That way, people will perceive MS as a totalitarian-dictator-like software company, whose aim is to take control of your machine away from you even more than they currently do.
It's really funny how almost EVERY move MS makes back-fires on them.
Compare to the early 90s when MS couldn't do anything wrong...
OK, I'm with you there, but here's what I'm wondering:
In Computer Science courses (university level, maybe before), you learn to take (some) algorithms and express them as mathematical formulas.
Sums using sigma notation and whatnot, if you are familiar.
So doesn't that mean that if you have the algorithm to solve the problem, you have the PROOF?
Admittedly, it might be very difficult to translate the algorithm into a standard mathematical formula, but it should be possible, right?
I am arguing that an algorithm, even a brute-force one IS proof.
Sure, but isn't a brute-force proof along with a mathematical proof even better?
I mean this way we have one of the two, all that remains now is to turn the algorithm used into a formula for mathematical verification and there you have it.
In a way, the algorithm used is ALREADY a mathematical proof, inasfar as an algorithm can be proven correct using math...
You're right that there are practical applications to compression, such as being able to listen to all the passages of a recording in a noisy environment.
However, when you compress too much (as is the case with Vapor Trails) you lose the expressive range of the musical performance.
The rationale for compressing the dynamic range of music comes from average consumer demands you say.
Sadly, "average consumer demands" equate quite well to the fact that as a crowd grows larger, its overall IQ goes DOWN.
I just wish Vapor Trails was available in an "audiophiles" edition that wasn't butchered.
You switched from Linux to Windows?
You deserve what you'll get; eventually, you will have NO control over your computing and data.
Script kiddies will pick the bones of your closed-source infrastructure and you will be led astray by Enron-esque manoeuvres from Microsoft and the rest of them.
Good luck, you'll need it, trusting corporations like that...
Sorry...