Bill is still basically a geek's geek
Has slashdot finally sold out to the man? Do the full page commercial ads mean that slashdot now swims in the scum under the refrigirator of corporate cold storage?
And guess what? It's implemented in C#. And when run, it will screw up other folders on the system. Imagine, if you will, a computer language, somewhere, that somehow, could not be used to write this virus. I'm drawing a blank, but I'm sure there will be lots of +5 funny responses.
Since my current sig just confuses everyone anyway, maybe I should change it to "$5 for a thousand pages of this!?" and save everyone the typing.
It was already obvious that this was true. Quick proof:
1)A software-only DRM system attempts to make a product run in cases where it is not a copy.
2)It makes it's decision based on information content of some kind.
3)A copy will perfectly replicate all information content. (If it can't, then you don't need DRM.)
4)If a copy has the same information content as the original, then the DRM cannot distinguish between the copy.
5)Therefore DRM has no way to shut down only the copies.
6)The only way to make DRM work is to have some sort of information that is impossible or very much harder to copy. Thus, the web-activation type scheme, although IP packets could easily be spoofed.
7)God, I should have published this years ago, if it weren't so GODDAMN OBVIOUS!
If you have kids, and they ask: "Daddy, what's it mean, 'If I die before I wake.'?"
The only way to reply, is, "Scientists have shown, the more you sleep, the better your chance of death is. Now, sleep tight, you've got school tomorrow."
Yes I know all slahsdoters are atheists or Wiccans or something, but it's meant to be funny, so mod accordingly. Not that it matters. I hit karma cap yesterday, ka-ching!
This part was funny:
One hot tip: if you spot a bug which is being ignored, send a completely botched fix to the mailing list. This causes thousands of kernel developers to rally to the cause. Nobody knows why this happens. (I really have deliberately done this several times. It works).
Unfortunately you are on my personal spam blacklist. I will consider removing you in return for a fee that will be calculated based on the amount of my time you wasted by allowing yourself to be used as a tool of the spam distributors. And I want you to grovel too.
P. S. And how come I never got those pics of Teen Sara27 XXX 18th birthday?
If you're really worried about it, join the FBI or the Justice Department and then someday you can be the one making the tough calls.
As much as I'd like to be in control of a police state...
American democracy is sucessful because it is not a pure democracy. (And I'll avoid repeating Goldwater's now cliched statement because it annoys me to hear people misuse it, even if it is true.) Our constitution limits democracy incredibly. One of the limitations is the First Ammendment. We, the People, cannot, even through our elected representatives make laws to limit speech. (Well, 3/4 of the states could by ammending the constitution, but we couldn't by simple majority.) That violent speech distinction that you spoke of is not in the constitution. And once we feel free to ammend or ignore parts of the First Ammendment whenever we feel like it, it isn't much of a guarantee anymore. Re-read the last paragraph of my post to which you replied.
Everything else, posting bomb-making instructions, advocating the overthrow of the government, should be *strictly* protected speech under the 1st Amendment.
I agree. And before everyone posts 'It's not legal to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre,' I'll justify your statement. The theatre yell directly harms people by the act itself. The speech aspect is secondary. On the other hand, when dealing with instructions for committing illegal activities, the speech is primary. And we assume the harm will be carried out by readers, who will then go on to commit crimes.
But the speech acts as an enabler, so we should outlaw it, right? The problem becomes deciding which instructions for illegal activities should not be allowed. Fine, everyone agrees that bomb-making instructions are bad. But what about civil disobedience instructions? What about instructions for breaking an encryption? What about instructions for hiding money from the government? Which will we allow and which will we not?
The entire concept of the First Ammendment is that the government will never have the chance to make any of those decisions. The protection works by fencing off a whole area of public life from legislation. Sure, everyone could think of one or two laws that would improve society, but it is not worth tearing down the fence to do it.
If you are really serious about those requirements, C++ may just be the only language that will cut it for you. Grab a couple of add-on libraries and get to coding. If you don't have the time to really master a language, then go with Java, but don't expect to do anything where you really need to use either the intricicies of either the langugage or the computer, because you will run into problems with Java. C++ will trip you up too, but in Java, you will find that the problems will be harder to fix.
The kid should go to jail for hacking, not for bomb-making instructions.
First let me say that yes I know that some types of speech are not protected. Those types where the supreme court has already made a ruling involve cases where the speech itself actually does the harm. Ex. yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre. Obscenity also falls under this category to some extent, but isn't really relevant.
It is a bad thing for people to easily get simple instructions for making bombs. But if you make a law against it, where do you stop? If you can stop that sort of information, you can (and will) pass new laws against publishing other sort of instructions that explain how to conduct illegal activities. And then it becomes illegal to tell someone how to burn a draft card. It becomes illegal to tell someone how to conduct civil disobediance. It becomes illegal to tell someone how to share illegal information, even. The first ammendment isn't just needed as an expression of a right. It provides a buffer zone in law to protect from encroachment of that right. If we allow this one encroachment, unconstitutional laws, like the DMCA which prohibits you from instructing people about how to break encryptions, will become far more widespread. And widespread in far less palatable areas.
And even with these laws, I fear that we will find that we have not impacted a terrorists ability to harm us one iota. They will still do whatever they have to in order to harm us in the simplest most direct methods possible. Instead, as a free society, we should be committed to free flow of information, and punishment to those who misuse it.
The chips are not extremely expensive now. They are non-existent. I could get a patent on the copper wire coils I use in my (yet unbuilt) perpetual motion machine with Super-Duper Mega Death Ray Laser Output (TM), but in the end all I have patented is some dumb wire coils.
I now see that I have been moderated down to -1 on my original post. Since someone obviously wants to stop you from reading it, I'll make a couple of claims for it here. It was completely accurate, on topic, and interesting. I called the patent stupid, but backed up my statement. Whoever disagreed has failed to do the same. I wonder if I should change my sig to "Goddamn Slashdot moderators".
They can't even build the chip in the first place. This is a concept for insanely expensive nanochips that cost a million dollars a piece, where you can't afford to throw away the chip. It will never be applied to modern chips that cost a few bucks each.
All they are doing is saying that they are going to isolate the parts from each other so that they operate independantly. This means that if one part is screwed up, you won't have to throw away the entire chip. This is done in all high process cost engineering designs. Nothing new to see here, move along.
Stop spreading FUD about DDR chipsets and do a bit of research first. Any set of benchmarks I've seen has shown Intel's i850 w/ RDRAM and SiS 645 chipset in a dead heat - and most of the time SiS comes out on top.
You notice how it was pointed out that SiS 645 is overclocked as a factory default on your link?
The P4 wasn't designed for any particular memory - but the initial chipsets designed for it were. Newer chipsets now existt hat are designed for DDR rather than RDRAM, and that's what matters for memory format (besides, try to switch the two and THEN see what happens!).
Wrong. The P4 was designed for high memory bandwidth. In fact, that may even be why it performs better on RDRAM chipsets than DDR chipsets. Who wudda thunk it?
Goddamn slashdot moderators. My orignal post gets modded down as a troll for pointing out a valid hardware issue, and this piece of cluelessness gets modded up.
Why the hell does using DDR memory even the results? The Pentium 4 was designed for RDRAM for God's sake. A DDR platform for the P4 is just an economy decision.
To make things really even, you could take a hammer and drive the P4 into a socket A Motherboard. Then you could really compare them, couldn't you? Perfectly even field.
Absolutely right on. Imagine if you had to buy a seperate program to access your hard-drive or other networked computers. An OS that doesn't have the capability to access WANs (the Internet) is behind the times. The IE stuff in the original Jus. Dept. law suit was completely bogus.
Imagine if AOL were to spend all the money it's about to spend on lawyers on programmers instead. It is far too easy to make money through litigation these days. That is an extremely dangerous prospect for society.
Yes it works on a large scale, but makes absurd predictions on a small scale. If 'good enough' justified physical theories, we'd still be content with Newtonian Gravitation -- something General Relativity came along to replace.
This really puts the nail in the coffin of General Relativity. We now know for sure that there will have to be an overhaul of that side of the physics.
The guy sent 35,000 emails to the employees of his ex-company and the court ruled that it was spam. Maybe this isn't such a landmark ruling against free speech after all.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm still waiting for a PC port of FFIX. I doubt that it will ever be made, though.
Bill is still basically a geek's geek Has slashdot finally sold out to the man? Do the full page commercial ads mean that slashdot now swims in the scum under the refrigirator of corporate cold storage?
And guess what? It's implemented in C#. And when run, it will screw up other folders on the system. Imagine, if you will, a computer language, somewhere, that somehow, could not be used to write this virus. I'm drawing a blank, but I'm sure there will be lots of +5 funny responses.
Since my current sig just confuses everyone anyway, maybe I should change it to "$5 for a thousand pages of this!?" and save everyone the typing.
It was already obvious that this was true.
Quick proof:
1)A software-only DRM system attempts to make a product run in cases where it is not a copy.
2)It makes it's decision based on information content of some kind.
3)A copy will perfectly replicate all information content. (If it can't, then you don't need DRM.)
4)If a copy has the same information content as the original, then the DRM cannot distinguish between the copy.
5)Therefore DRM has no way to shut down only the copies.
6)The only way to make DRM work is to have some sort of information that is impossible or very much harder to copy. Thus, the web-activation type scheme, although IP packets could easily be spoofed.
7)God, I should have published this years ago, if it weren't so GODDAMN OBVIOUS!
The only way to reply, is, "Scientists have shown, the more you sleep, the better your chance of death is. Now, sleep tight, you've got school tomorrow."
Yes I know all slahsdoters are atheists or Wiccans or something, but it's meant to be funny, so mod accordingly. Not that it matters. I hit karma cap yesterday, ka-ching!
A day in the life of a kernel hacker.
P. S. And how come I never got those pics of Teen Sara27 XXX 18th birthday?
As much as I'd like to be in control of a police state...
American democracy is sucessful because it is not a pure democracy. (And I'll avoid repeating Goldwater's now cliched statement because it annoys me to hear people misuse it, even if it is true.) Our constitution limits democracy incredibly. One of the limitations is the First Ammendment. We, the People, cannot, even through our elected representatives make laws to limit speech. (Well, 3/4 of the states could by ammending the constitution, but we couldn't by simple majority.) That violent speech distinction that you spoke of is not in the constitution. And once we feel free to ammend or ignore parts of the First Ammendment whenever we feel like it, it isn't much of a guarantee anymore. Re-read the last paragraph of my post to which you replied.
I agree. And before everyone posts 'It's not legal to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre,' I'll justify your statement. The theatre yell directly harms people by the act itself. The speech aspect is secondary. On the other hand, when dealing with instructions for committing illegal activities, the speech is primary. And we assume the harm will be carried out by readers, who will then go on to commit crimes.
But the speech acts as an enabler, so we should outlaw it, right? The problem becomes deciding which instructions for illegal activities should not be allowed. Fine, everyone agrees that bomb-making instructions are bad. But what about civil disobedience instructions? What about instructions for breaking an encryption? What about instructions for hiding money from the government? Which will we allow and which will we not?
The entire concept of the First Ammendment is that the government will never have the chance to make any of those decisions. The protection works by fencing off a whole area of public life from legislation. Sure, everyone could think of one or two laws that would improve society, but it is not worth tearing down the fence to do it.
Where did you get your compiler? It could be putting in a trojan every time you compile. Have you checked your binaries?
Oh and here is Why Java will always be slower than C++
The kid should go to jail for hacking, not for bomb-making instructions.
First let me say that yes I know that some types of speech are not protected. Those types where the supreme court has already made a ruling involve cases where the speech itself actually does the harm. Ex. yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre. Obscenity also falls under this category to some extent, but isn't really relevant.
It is a bad thing for people to easily get simple instructions for making bombs. But if you make a law against it, where do you stop? If you can stop that sort of information, you can (and will) pass new laws against publishing other sort of instructions that explain how to conduct illegal activities. And then it becomes illegal to tell someone how to burn a draft card. It becomes illegal to tell someone how to conduct civil disobediance. It becomes illegal to tell someone how to share illegal information, even. The first ammendment isn't just needed as an expression of a right. It provides a buffer zone in law to protect from encroachment of that right. If we allow this one encroachment, unconstitutional laws, like the DMCA which prohibits you from instructing people about how to break encryptions, will become far more widespread. And widespread in far less palatable areas.
And even with these laws, I fear that we will find that we have not impacted a terrorists ability to harm us one iota. They will still do whatever they have to in order to harm us in the simplest most direct methods possible. Instead, as a free society, we should be committed to free flow of information, and punishment to those who misuse it.
Now, about those beta tests...
The chips are not extremely expensive now. They are non-existent. I could get a patent on the copper wire coils I use in my (yet unbuilt) perpetual motion machine with Super-Duper Mega Death Ray Laser Output (TM), but in the end all I have patented is some dumb wire coils.
I now see that I have been moderated down to -1 on my original post. Since someone obviously wants to stop you from reading it, I'll make a couple of claims for it here. It was completely accurate, on topic, and interesting. I called the patent stupid, but backed up my statement. Whoever disagreed has failed to do the same. I wonder if I should change my sig to "Goddamn Slashdot moderators".
They can't even build the chip in the first place. This is a concept for insanely expensive nanochips that cost a million dollars a piece, where you can't afford to throw away the chip. It will never be applied to modern chips that cost a few bucks each.
Stupid Patent of the Week Award.
All they are doing is saying that they are going to isolate the parts from each other so that they operate independantly. This means that if one part is screwed up, you won't have to throw away the entire chip. This is done in all high process cost engineering designs. Nothing new to see here, move along.
I can't believe Reuters published that. It's the sort of story that belongs on Slashdot, not respectable media outlets.
That's why I build AMD machines, not Intel. But they were doing a hardware comparison.
Wrong. The P4 was designed for high memory bandwidth. In fact, that may even be why it performs better on RDRAM chipsets than DDR chipsets. Who wudda thunk it?
Goddamn slashdot moderators. My orignal post gets modded down as a troll for pointing out a valid hardware issue, and this piece of cluelessness gets modded up.
Why the hell does using DDR memory even the results? The Pentium 4 was designed for RDRAM for God's sake. A DDR platform for the P4 is just an economy decision.
To make things really even, you could take a hammer and drive the P4 into a socket A Motherboard. Then you could really compare them, couldn't you? Perfectly even field.
Absolutely right on. Imagine if you had to buy a seperate program to access your hard-drive or other networked computers. An OS that doesn't have the capability to access WANs (the Internet) is behind the times. The IE stuff in the original Jus. Dept. law suit was completely bogus.
Imagine if AOL were to spend all the money it's about to spend on lawyers on programmers instead. It is far too easy to make money through litigation these days. That is an extremely dangerous prospect for society.
Yes it works on a large scale, but makes absurd predictions on a small scale. If 'good enough' justified physical theories, we'd still be content with Newtonian Gravitation -- something General Relativity came along to replace.
This really puts the nail in the coffin of General Relativity. We now know for sure that there will have to be an overhaul of that side of the physics.
The guy sent 35,000 emails to the employees of his ex-company and the court ruled that it was spam. Maybe this isn't such a landmark ruling against free speech after all.