I'm a Russian who has lived in Norway for six years. Judging on propaganda's definition I recall from Soviet days, those Nordic bastards have built communism.
You've never had your teeth treated without anasthesia, haven't you? I had. It was a standard practice in free dental care in Soviet Union. My family did not care to send me to a good dentist (you'd have to pay for that).
I had all cavities drilled and filled without anasthesia. When root filling was required, the dentist would drill just enough to reach the pulp (she knew the pulp was reached when the patient emitted a moan), then put arsenic paste and a temporary seal. It will hurt moderately badly over a couple days, after which the nerve is killed. Then you visit the dentist again and have the root filled (no anasthesia, either). The only treatment when they did apply anasthetics was pulling a tooth.
Too bad it drove me away from dentists. I was afraid of them like hell. I have bad teeth now.
I never lost consciousness during a treatment. Sometimes I fainted. The dentist would put a cotton moistened with sal ammoniac under my nose for a second (that's a nastly smelling substance that returns you to your senses quickly), and then resume drilling.
Telling from other patients I saw around the room, fainting during treatment was uncommon.
Alternative: shoot more interesting commercials. Why, yes. I went to movie theaters in Norway and some commercials were actually interesting to watch, showing a good humor or bits of the national character portrayed in a grotesque way. The audience seemed to share the feeling. Occasional commercials for things from the wider European or the American market were all eye candy and fast glossy pictures, dull, dead.
1. Please don't get an impression fighting was his only option. It was his choice to brawl, fine. However, our IP law does work in case of violations (I've tried it first-hand a year ago). The Russian software developer could have reported to the police, taken the seller to the court, and get him convicted/fined.
2. Piracy is a more complex problem than you Americans think. Many do not have money to buy licensed software. It's often simply not an option, period. This is why software piracy is so prevalent and accepted here.
3. If you want a personal perspective on video piracy, have a look at my review. When I did buy licensed DVDs, they were of lower quality than pirated ones more often than not.
I'm not advocating anything, just trying to state the state of the facts.
I've read the article. Nowhere it defines what is meant by ugly. Maybe the author has the concept in his head, but I've failed to telephatise it from there.
Simple is not ugly. Simplicity is often beautiful.
"Not bothering to change the default font" is not ugly. It is a right thing not to do for the main body of text on your pages. The idea is that the user would sooner or later figure out what font and font size are looking best on his screen, and set it as default in his browser. Any deviation from it a website imposes is therefore likely to look worse than browser default. Slashdot has this one right, by the way: only navigation menus are in changed font size, but the main text is user default.
Plentyoffish does not look ugly to me. It's OK.
Maybe the author has too much time on his hands to write articles because nobody needs his services of developing "pretty" websites?
Grabit while you can. English and Russian versions. Alas, no annotations included (I'd pay for them!).
P.S. The second link is an online library that actually honors remove requests from the right holders/authors.
I remeber seeing a public key initial authentication option in one of the data sheets for QKD systems (unfortunately can't find it now... must be an old datasheet they have since replaced). So I have mindlessly assumed the public key would be delivered by a courier:). But that makes no sense. A courier or installation technician can key in a symmetric secret key for the initial authentication.
Yes that's all correct. We need to authenticate, but with public key cryptography it is easier and scales better.
Now consider two possibilities. One is public key cryptography being broken at some point on the future (quite likely), and another is someone possessing the technology to break public key cryptography in realtime right now today (unlikely). How would these two affect public key cryptography, and quantum cryptography?
All information communicated with public key cryptography gets compromised as soon as public key crypto is broken. If public key crypto is broken today, the information is compromised today. If public key crypto is broken in the future, all intercepted encrypted communication is compromised then -- retroactively, which would be unacceptable for secrets that have long-term value (diplomatic, military, and certain commercial ones).
Quantum cryptography that does not use public key cryptography for the initial authentication is unaffected.
Quantum cryptography that does use public key cryptography for the initial authentication can only be broken if the eavesdropper possesses the realtime technology for breaking public key crypto today. If the eavesdropper possesses it in the future after the initial authentication has been done, quantum cryptography is unaffected.
One other hitch is that quantum key distribution requires a small shared secret in order to authenticate the two parties trying to generate a key.
And in public key cryptography, you have to have a trusted party to provide you the public key, and have to authenticate with that party.
No secure communication is possible without sharing an initial small secret. You cannot in principle say whom you are communicating with if you share no prior secret information with him. This is the way things are in this world. It is common for all cryptography, quantum or not.
Too bad this need for initial authentication in public key cryptography is disguised. People often assume quantum key distribution needs it while public key crypto doesn't, the latter being wrong (and leading to numerous wrong conclusions).
I am in Russia, and google.cn gets redirected to google.com.
Through a shell account on a server in the USA I see that americans can indeed use google.cn and get separate results. There is no joy for me, though, in browsing pictures in Lynx.
You lag a bit. I live in Russia. There has been NO mafia the last few years. We have law, order, and mostly civilized legal disputes (within OUR national laws, as properly noted), believe it or not. Businesses do not have to pay to mafia any more, there isn't one. The mafioso that mushroomed en masse in the past turmoil are now either dead, behind the bars, or have become legal business owners.
This may have changed in the last few years, I'm sure someone could confirm.
No, it hasn't changed. It has even become better: there are whole store chains now that sell software and media (e.g. "555" store chain). They are all legal, uh, civilized businesses. When you buy a disk, you get a warranty, business address for returns, etc. Taxes are paid from the sales. You can even complain in an improbable case the kleygen included on the disk doesn't work.
Never ming that you've just bought, for example, the entire Adobe Professional Creative Suite CS for $6.
By the way, the local stores DO carry properly licensed software IF the price set by the rights holder is low enough to be competitive. I've bought some licensed games (e.g. HOMM3) at the same place I get pirated software.
I, for one, would choose the existing model of music, film and software distribution here in Russia over any cooperation with the USA and whatever "world trade" thing. Any time. We thumb our collective noses at your threats.
Seriously, the best the USA can get from us would be a lip service and maybe a showcase crackdown for a few days. After that it will be back on the track. It takes much more than external demand to change buyer's culture.
is whether the invention enables to take images past the diffraction limit of the conventional optics or not. Suppose you take a tripod-mounted image of a static object at f/45 with long exposure. The resulting image has a great depth-of-field but the details of objects within this depth-of-field are uniformly not sharp, due to light diffraction on the small aperture. Now, would the new design in principle allow to take the image with the same depth-of-field but less diffraction blur for objects within the depth-of-field?
It seems to be in the last issue of Nature. I can't find it on Nature's site yet, but here is the abstract.
Publications lists on academic sites are sometimes obsolete. Nobody has bothered tu update this one.
P.S. The other guy's link is to a wrong article.
Re:Will people even be able to read the names??
on
Send your name to Pluto
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I doubt the average person will be able to read the list of names when the probe comes back. The Latin alphabet has only existed for 2,700 years, and the probe is coming back in 50,000. In 50,000 years, it's almost inevitable that either humanity will be communicating without written words, we'll be using an entirely different alphabet, or humanity will be extinct.
Chances are, the probe will be retrieved and placed into some sort of museum much earlier. If all goes well, the humanity will have nuclear drives and all that stuff for interstellar flights in mere few hundred of years. However, if it happens so that the humanity in, say, the next 500 years won't be interested in retrieving its earlier probes as historical artefacts, won't have the means of doing so or won't exist, THEN the next 49500 years or whatever long time won't change the situation either. The point is, the fate of the probe will be likely decided in the next 500 years, and not when it returns to Earth without interruption.
Why can't I turn off the darn pain receptors?
Why, as a (okay, this next bit is questionable, but just go with it) intelligent being can't I just acknowledge those signals, and snooze them or something?
As an intelligent being, you can take painkillers and/or seek proper treatment. That turns off the darn pain receptors, partially at least.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a Russian who has lived in Norway for six years. Judging on propaganda's definition I recall from Soviet days, those Nordic bastards have built communism.
In Soviet Russia, pirates restrict Microsoft.
I had all cavities drilled and filled without anasthesia. When root filling was required, the dentist would drill just enough to reach the pulp (she knew the pulp was reached when the patient emitted a moan), then put arsenic paste and a temporary seal. It will hurt moderately badly over a couple days, after which the nerve is killed. Then you visit the dentist again and have the root filled (no anasthesia, either). The only treatment when they did apply anasthetics was pulling a tooth.
Too bad it drove me away from dentists. I was afraid of them like hell. I have bad teeth now.
I never lost consciousness during a treatment. Sometimes I fainted. The dentist would put a cotton moistened with sal ammoniac under my nose for a second (that's a nastly smelling substance that returns you to your senses quickly), and then resume drilling.
Telling from other patients I saw around the room, fainting during treatment was uncommon.
Which, again, reduces revenue.
Alternative: shoot more interesting commercials. Why, yes. I went to movie theaters in Norway and some commercials were actually interesting to watch, showing a good humor or bits of the national character portrayed in a grotesque way. The audience seemed to share the feeling. Occasional commercials for things from the wider European or the American market were all eye candy and fast glossy pictures, dull, dead.
If I were Deutsche Bank, I'd run from these guys like hell.
That'd be Fusion Waporware (FSWP).
2. Piracy is a more complex problem than you Americans think. Many do not have money to buy licensed software. It's often simply not an option, period. This is why software piracy is so prevalent and accepted here.
3. If you want a personal perspective on video piracy, have a look at my review. When I did buy licensed DVDs, they were of lower quality than pirated ones more often than not.
I'm not advocating anything, just trying to state the state of the facts.
Simple is not ugly. Simplicity is often beautiful.
"Not bothering to change the default font" is not ugly. It is a right thing not to do for the main body of text on your pages. The idea is that the user would sooner or later figure out what font and font size are looking best on his screen, and set it as default in his browser. Any deviation from it a website imposes is therefore likely to look worse than browser default. Slashdot has this one right, by the way: only navigation menus are in changed font size, but the main text is user default.
Plentyoffish does not look ugly to me. It's OK.
Maybe the author has too much time on his hands to write articles because nobody needs his services of developing "pretty" websites?
References please?
Grab it while you can. English and Russian versions. Alas, no annotations included (I'd pay for them!). P.S. The second link is an online library that actually honors remove requests from the right holders/authors.
sounds like quite an achievement now that we are all used to DRM and proprietary standards, I suppose?
I remeber seeing a public key initial authentication option in one of the data sheets for QKD systems (unfortunately can't find it now... must be an old datasheet they have since replaced). So I have mindlessly assumed the public key would be delivered by a courier :). But that makes no sense. A courier or installation technician can key in a symmetric secret key for the initial authentication.
Now consider two possibilities. One is public key cryptography being broken at some point on the future (quite likely), and another is someone possessing the technology to break public key cryptography in realtime right now today (unlikely). How would these two affect public key cryptography, and quantum cryptography?
All information communicated with public key cryptography gets compromised as soon as public key crypto is broken. If public key crypto is broken today, the information is compromised today. If public key crypto is broken in the future, all intercepted encrypted communication is compromised then -- retroactively, which would be unacceptable for secrets that have long-term value (diplomatic, military, and certain commercial ones).
Quantum cryptography that does not use public key cryptography for the initial authentication is unaffected.
Quantum cryptography that does use public key cryptography for the initial authentication can only be broken if the eavesdropper possesses the realtime technology for breaking public key crypto today. If the eavesdropper possesses it in the future after the initial authentication has been done, quantum cryptography is unaffected.
And in public key cryptography, you have to have a trusted party to provide you the public key, and have to authenticate with that party.
No secure communication is possible without sharing an initial small secret. You cannot in principle say whom you are communicating with if you share no prior secret information with him. This is the way things are in this world. It is common for all cryptography, quantum or not.
Too bad this need for initial authentication in public key cryptography is disguised. People often assume quantum key distribution needs it while public key crypto doesn't, the latter being wrong (and leading to numerous wrong conclusions).
Through a shell account on a server in the USA I see that americans can indeed use google.cn and get separate results. There is no joy for me, though, in browsing pictures in Lynx.
You lag a bit. I live in Russia. There has been NO mafia the last few years. We have law, order, and mostly civilized legal disputes (within OUR national laws, as properly noted), believe it or not. Businesses do not have to pay to mafia any more, there isn't one. The mafioso that mushroomed en masse in the past turmoil are now either dead, behind the bars, or have become legal business owners.
No, it hasn't changed. It has even become better: there are whole store chains now that sell software and media (e.g. "555" store chain). They are all legal, uh, civilized businesses. When you buy a disk, you get a warranty, business address for returns, etc. Taxes are paid from the sales. You can even complain in an improbable case the kleygen included on the disk doesn't work.
Never ming that you've just bought, for example, the entire Adobe Professional Creative Suite CS for $6.
By the way, the local stores DO carry properly licensed software IF the price set by the rights holder is low enough to be competitive. I've bought some licensed games (e.g. HOMM3) at the same place I get pirated software.
Seriously, the best the USA can get from us would be a lip service and maybe a showcase crackdown for a few days. After that it will be back on the track. It takes much more than external demand to change buyer's culture.
religion attacks you.
is whether the invention enables to take images past the diffraction limit of the conventional optics or not. Suppose you take a tripod-mounted image of a static object at f/45 with long exposure. The resulting image has a great depth-of-field but the details of objects within this depth-of-field are uniformly not sharp, due to light diffraction on the small aperture. Now, would the new design in principle allow to take the image with the same depth-of-field but less diffraction blur for objects within the depth-of-field?
Seriously, there is no ebay.ru. We have molotok.ru.
Sounds a bit like Molotov cocktail, that's right :)
In Soviet Russia, music buys you.
Publications lists on academic sites are sometimes obsolete. Nobody has bothered tu update this one.
P.S. The other guy's link is to a wrong article.
Chances are, the probe will be retrieved and placed into some sort of museum much earlier. If all goes well, the humanity will have nuclear drives and all that stuff for interstellar flights in mere few hundred of years. However, if it happens so that the humanity in, say, the next 500 years won't be interested in retrieving its earlier probes as historical artefacts, won't have the means of doing so or won't exist, THEN the next 49500 years or whatever long time won't change the situation either. The point is, the fate of the probe will be likely decided in the next 500 years, and not when it returns to Earth without interruption.
Why, as a (okay, this next bit is questionable, but just go with it) intelligent being can't I just acknowledge those signals, and snooze them or something?
As an intelligent being, you can take painkillers and/or seek proper treatment. That turns off the darn pain receptors, partially at least.