Well they can be, and people have certainly tried. But it's tricky. Science requires repeatable observations, and one cannot make objective, repeatable observations of the beauty of a poem.
Ever heard of a poll?
Personally, I'd rather put my faith in the evidence we do have in a Creator, than putting my faith in a still mysterious _something_ that caused the universe to do the whole big *foom* thing.
This is the fundamental problem with religion. It's not based on observation alone, it's based on observation plus desires.
In other words, you chose A over B simply because you prefer a world with A then a world with B.
I don't have a problem with people believing however they like, unless it makes them act in a way that degrades the lives of other people around them (everything from 9/11 to these nuts fucking up children's education)
So what's the alternative? Either you argue for an eternal Creator that set everything in motion - or you argue for an eternal Universe that just happened. Either way, you're arguing for an eternal _something_ that set the universe in motion, both of which take no small amount of faith.
Or, you can say "I don't know" and go about your business. But there is a lot of evidence that universe exists today.
I see science as the study of God's creation. It's sort of our responsibility to understand is and in doing this we can come to know God better
Well, this is what motivated the first batch of scientists. That said
t's an inescapable law of nature. Everything from our software and computer designs (meme's) to music, language and DNA based life is affected by evolution.
This is not exactly true. There's a diffrence between natural selection and artifical selection. a meme is not the same thing as an 'idea'. Computer and software design isn't natural selection of memes.
And anyway if you can say "God created evolution, god always existed." It's just as easy to say that evolution (as a stastical property) always existed.
Read it more carefully. In the first, the explanations must be natural. In the second, the explanations describe natural things.
What's the difference? The explanations need not be natural.
The first scientists called themselves "natural philosophers" They tried to describe nature in its own terms, rather then guessing or making reference to a super-natural force. What's supernatural is not a part of nature, and thus not a part of science. This new definition can include supernatural explanations. The extra words are there to confuse the issue, nothing more.
IIRC cesium melts at close to room temperature. A CPU could easily hit that temperature. Mercury would be good if it weren't for the whole "highly poisonous" thing.
I haven't read the books (blasphamy!) but I did enjoy the movie. Having heard people bitch about that particular line, I recognized its truncated version. I don't think it prevented people from connecting the two events (English bypass vs. interstellar bypass, wow totally different!). You don't want to be too obvious with things, and in a two hour movie you don't want to waste time on earth.
The SA forums have required payment for years now, and Metafilter now requires a fee for new signups (this is better then their old policy of not allowing new signups at all!)
I'm not an SA forum goon, but I hear it's great over there, and Mefi rocks. Charging people keeps the rifraf of multi-accounted trolls away. IMO, why the hell not?
This guy is making a totally specious argument, by comparing the Compaq vs. IBM case to the Linux case. I stopped reading after that, because it was quite stupid.
In another mal-formed post below I elucidated this, but here's a summary: Compaq V. IBM was about copyright infringement. Any re-implementation of the BIOS was likely to have identical code, since we're talking about optimized assembly. Compaq had their "Chinese wall" in place to be able to prove that they didn't copy anything. There was no contract dispute, either.
On the other hand, all you need to do to prove that Linux is not a copy of SCO is compare the source. They're different. Linux does not infringe SCO's copyright, and it never did.
He also confuses Trademarks and Copyrights. He says "Linux is Unix" because it does what Unix does. But when people say "Linux isn't Unix" they're talking about trademarks.
Imagine if Coca-Cola sued pepsi for violating their trade secrets or something. You wouldn't say "Pepsi is Coca-cola because it tastes kind of like Coca-cola.". No, Pepsi is a Cola (that's the name of the flavor of Coca-cola, pepsi, RC-cola and so on).
You can't make the argument that Pepsi tastes like coke, and because you want to call it Coca-cola, then Pepsi is violating Coke's trademarks. That would be retarded.
This isn't a "new" perspective, it's just some retards musings.
If the two teams have no contact except through the specifications documents, and neither team is contaminated by knowledge of the original engineering, then the new product is considered just that: a new product and not an illegal copy.
It's possible, therefore, to recast SCO's basic claim as saying that IBM was contractually obligated to ensure that this type of "chinese wall" existed between those of its people who had some contact with the protected Unix knowledge or code and those of its people who contributed to the Linux development effort in the run-up to the 2.4 kernel release, but failed to do it.
What a stupid argument. You don't need to do a "Chinese Wall" to be legal, you do it in order to prove that what you did was legal. The IBM ROM-BIOS was likely going to have a lot of code in common with the Phoenix bios that Compaq purchased. In other words, if the data is physically identically, then you're going to need some pretty strong proof that what you did didn't involve copying.
On the other hand, Linux and SCO didn't contain any identical duplicate code. There were some pieces that were similar, IIRC, but those were lists of variables out of a book and had to do with meeting standards.
And secondly, the "Chinese Wall" is all about preventing copyright infringement. This was a contract dispute, not a copyright case, because Linux wasn't a copy of SCO.
offensive tshirts
It's amazing that this giant of an airplane is actually bigger than the legendary Spruce Goose.
Only if by "larger" you mean "20% smaller".
the spruce Goose's wingspan is 320 feet, and the A380's wingspan is only 262 feet.
People who use RBLs with overzealous admins, and force everyone on their network to use them as well suck. For your own personal server, just stop using MAPS RBL.
What sucks is when you have BOFH types using RBL lists at ISPs, where individual users have no control over how their mail is filtered.
On the other hand, AOL is overzealous with their own spam blockers, so meh.
(Third hand: how much you want to bet AOL gets taken off the list the second they fix the problem, unlike small ISPs)
It's about, you know science. CS grad programs don't really teach product engineering, they concentrate on mathematical abstractions. Interesting, important stuff, but not something that's going to help you build systems well.
I'm sorry. I'm so confused right now. Jbuilder is an IDE, and Eclipse is an ide, right? Or is it a "platform SDK"? How does one release something "Onto" eclipse? Does that mean Eclipse is like sourceforge somehow?
blah, why can't people be more obvious about what they're doing.
Using multiple hashes is a hash algorithm itself. If someone found a general way to crack hashes, then they'd be able to crack this new 'super' hash just as easily. All you'd really be doing is creating a hash with more bits. Might as well use the "best" hashing algorithm and increase the width.
If you only had a hash for the whole file, you wouldn't be able to validate any of the individual chucks, so it must be that the chunks have their own hashes.
So, the resulting files need to be the same size as the chunks in order to work.
One way to fix this might be to have the inital vector determine not only the next hash, but also the order in which the bytes are hashed. That way, creating files with the same hash won't be able to use greedy algorithms to that can work backwards one chunk at a time.
Slashdot Mirror
Well they can be, and people have certainly tried. But it's tricky. Science requires repeatable observations, and one cannot make objective, repeatable observations of the beauty of a poem. Ever heard of a poll?
Personally, I'd rather put my faith in the evidence we do have in a Creator, than putting my faith in a still mysterious _something_ that caused the universe to do the whole big *foom* thing.
This is the fundamental problem with religion. It's not based on observation alone, it's based on observation plus desires.
In other words, you chose A over B simply because you prefer a world with A then a world with B.
I don't have a problem with people believing however they like, unless it makes them act in a way that degrades the lives of other people around them (everything from 9/11 to these nuts fucking up children's education)
So what's the alternative? Either you argue for an eternal Creator that set everything in motion - or you argue for an eternal Universe that just happened. Either way, you're arguing for an eternal _something_ that set the universe in motion, both of which take no small amount of faith.
Or, you can say "I don't know" and go about your business. But there is a lot of evidence that universe exists today.
Yes, Kristen Kreuk is a marvelous specimen of beauty, Only because you evolved to belive it!
I see science as the study of God's creation. It's sort of our responsibility to understand is and in doing this we can come to know God better Well, this is what motivated the first batch of scientists. That said t's an inescapable law of nature. Everything from our software and computer designs (meme's) to music, language and DNA based life is affected by evolution. This is not exactly true. There's a diffrence between natural selection and artifical selection. a meme is not the same thing as an 'idea'. Computer and software design isn't natural selection of memes. And anyway if you can say "God created evolution, god always existed." It's just as easy to say that evolution (as a stastical property) always existed.
Read it more carefully. In the first, the explanations must be natural. In the second, the explanations describe natural things. What's the difference? The explanations need not be natural. The first scientists called themselves "natural philosophers" They tried to describe nature in its own terms, rather then guessing or making reference to a super-natural force. What's supernatural is not a part of nature, and thus not a part of science. This new definition can include supernatural explanations. The extra words are there to confuse the issue, nothing more.
Actual computer science, as opposed to programming is interested in finding out new things.
Or do you think Mathematics is artificial?
For instance, I could say "All objects fall." I drop rocks, a computer, my girlfriend, and a 1982 Dodge Dart off of a cliff: they all fall.
Then I drop a duck, and it flies off. So I revise my guess: "All inert objects fall."
Your girlfriend is inert?
IIRC cesium melts at close to room temperature. A CPU could easily hit that temperature. Mercury would be good if it weren't for the whole "highly poisonous" thing.
That they slapped you for thinking. Ford says "nobody think" and no one get's slapped. It would explain why the vogons never think...
I haven't read the books (blasphamy!) but I did enjoy the movie. Having heard people bitch about that particular line, I recognized its truncated version. I don't think it prevented people from connecting the two events (English bypass vs. interstellar bypass, wow totally different!). You don't want to be too obvious with things, and in a two hour movie you don't want to waste time on earth.
The SA forums have required payment for years now, and Metafilter now requires a fee for new signups (this is better then their old policy of not allowing new signups at all!) I'm not an SA forum goon, but I hear it's great over there, and Mefi rocks. Charging people keeps the rifraf of multi-accounted trolls away. IMO, why the hell not?
This guy is making a totally specious argument, by comparing the Compaq vs. IBM case to the Linux case. I stopped reading after that, because it was quite stupid. In another mal-formed post below I elucidated this, but here's a summary: Compaq V. IBM was about copyright infringement. Any re-implementation of the BIOS was likely to have identical code, since we're talking about optimized assembly. Compaq had their "Chinese wall" in place to be able to prove that they didn't copy anything. There was no contract dispute, either.
On the other hand, all you need to do to prove that Linux is not a copy of SCO is compare the source. They're different. Linux does not infringe SCO's copyright, and it never did.
He also confuses Trademarks and Copyrights. He says "Linux is Unix" because it does what Unix does. But when people say "Linux isn't Unix" they're talking about trademarks.
Imagine if Coca-Cola sued pepsi for violating their trade secrets or something. You wouldn't say "Pepsi is Coca-cola because it tastes kind of like Coca-cola.". No, Pepsi is a Cola (that's the name of the flavor of Coca-cola, pepsi, RC-cola and so on). You can't make the argument that Pepsi tastes like coke, and because you want to call it Coca-cola, then Pepsi is violating Coke's trademarks. That would be retarded. This isn't a "new" perspective, it's just some retards musings.
God I really fucked up that formatting.
Accept my appologies.
If the two teams have no contact except through the specifications documents, and neither team is contaminated by knowledge of the original engineering, then the new product is considered just that: a new product and not an illegal copy. It's possible, therefore, to recast SCO's basic claim as saying that IBM was contractually obligated to ensure that this type of "chinese wall" existed between those of its people who had some contact with the protected Unix knowledge or code and those of its people who contributed to the Linux development effort in the run-up to the 2.4 kernel release, but failed to do it. What a stupid argument. You don't need to do a "Chinese Wall" to be legal, you do it in order to prove that what you did was legal. The IBM ROM-BIOS was likely going to have a lot of code in common with the Phoenix bios that Compaq purchased. In other words, if the data is physically identically, then you're going to need some pretty strong proof that what you did didn't involve copying. On the other hand, Linux and SCO didn't contain any identical duplicate code. There were some pieces that were similar, IIRC, but those were lists of variables out of a book and had to do with meeting standards. And secondly, the "Chinese Wall" is all about preventing copyright infringement. This was a contract dispute, not a copyright case, because Linux wasn't a copy of SCO. offensive tshirts
It's not that much of a gamble, as if it fails Airbus does not need to pay back the government loans it used to build it.
It's amazing that this giant of an airplane is actually bigger than the legendary Spruce Goose. Only if by "larger" you mean "20% smaller". the spruce Goose's wingspan is 320 feet, and the A380's wingspan is only 262 feet.
I love the google keyword add for ebay offering "airbus 380 for sale"!
No, for most people these filters are implemented at their ISP, and they have no control over it.
People who use RBLs with overzealous admins, and force everyone on their network to use them as well suck. For your own personal server, just stop using MAPS RBL. What sucks is when you have BOFH types using RBL lists at ISPs, where individual users have no control over how their mail is filtered. On the other hand, AOL is overzealous with their own spam blockers, so meh. (Third hand: how much you want to bet AOL gets taken off the list the second they fix the problem, unlike small ISPs)
How much did real pay for this excelent PR on slashdot? I mean, linking directly to press releases is news now?
It's about, you know science. CS grad programs don't really teach product engineering, they concentrate on mathematical abstractions. Interesting, important stuff, but not something that's going to help you build systems well.
I had horrible grades, and I got a job. Didn't put 'em on my resume, of course, and they never asked. HAW.
I'm sorry. I'm so confused right now. Jbuilder is an IDE, and Eclipse is an ide, right? Or is it a "platform SDK"? How does one release something "Onto" eclipse? Does that mean Eclipse is like sourceforge somehow? blah, why can't people be more obvious about what they're doing.
Using multiple hashes is a hash algorithm itself. If someone found a general way to crack hashes, then they'd be able to crack this new 'super' hash just as easily. All you'd really be doing is creating a hash with more bits. Might as well use the "best" hashing algorithm and increase the width.
If you only had a hash for the whole file, you wouldn't be able to validate any of the individual chucks, so it must be that the chunks have their own hashes. So, the resulting files need to be the same size as the chunks in order to work. One way to fix this might be to have the inital vector determine not only the next hash, but also the order in which the bytes are hashed. That way, creating files with the same hash won't be able to use greedy algorithms to that can work backwards one chunk at a time.