When a very linux biased review doesn't do a good job of convincing a linux user that the linux method of application distribution isn't a crock there's something wrong.
Repeat after me: There is no single method of application distribution.
Application distribution is distro spefic.
Redhat is different than Gentoo, is different from Debian, which are all different from the format used by a Sharp Zaurus PDA. What works for Gentoo would be hell on a Sharp Zaurus. Choose a distro that suits you needs.
You should learn how to use your distribution's chosen method for distributing applications.
If you don't you're building everything from scratch for no good reason. Installing by hand is like pulling your engine every time you need to change the oil because you didn't notice the drain plug on the bottom.
Personally I use Gentoo's emerge command and it work's great. I'll find out that I want a copy of foobar installed on my system so I type "emerge foobar". All the dependencies are automatically resolved and foobar is installed.
(Now if you're on the bleeding edge, or looking for something truely obscure then you may be forced to build it by hand, but the same is true for those programs on any operating system.)
Here is a trick that nobody has thought of, how about a CLI command builder. You know a GUI interface to utilities and programs that doesn't actually do anything but create the CL necissary to execute a command you need done.
Actually a LOT of Linux programs do just that.
Good examples would be cd burners and mp3 players.
Nearly all of those use command-line programs to handle the actual work. It's part of the whole *NIX philosophy: lots of small programs that are good at doing one thing.
A typical CD-creator type program on linux will use a whole slew of command-line utilities to handle creating the.iso, converting mp3 to wav, ripping audio off a cd, titleing mp3 files, doing cddb lookups, etc.
If I RTFM before I did anything, I wouldn't ever get anything done, as I would still be RTFM.
If you actually RTFM, you would know that;)
Of course I understand where you coming from though. I only have about 800 pages worth of documentation to read this week....ugh.
Sometimes it's nice when someone will spend 30 seconds to save you a couple hours.
All four of those books are thinking books, even philosophical.
Very true.
If one was to view the bible as a philosophical work, it can be very positive.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of people view the bible as a religious work, not a philosophical one.
A philosphical work helps develop your understanding of the world by stimulating a sort of "healthy debate" inside you mind.
A regligous work is about telling you something and you believing it.
The best Christians I know are those work understand the spirt (non-catholic sense of course) and the philosophy contained in the bible.
The problem is that (by defintion) a religion requires a belief in the supernatural. It's what seperates a religion from a philosophy.
One is about reason, while the other is about "faith".
Once you're believing in the supernatural, you aren't really answering the philosophical why or how anymore, you're just making things up (or accepting something someone else made up).
Now, if you're just talking about the supernatural in an allegorical sense, then you're making real philosophical arguments.
Of course, a religion can be intertwined with philosophy, but in the end somewhere you're falling back on ghosts and goblins to explain things. You can go so far as to change the debate to a pardigm where these ghosts are real, and you make philosophical arguments on that basis as a "religous scholar", but since you're not really basing the debate on reason it's not philosophy anymore.
Anyways, at least have something interesting to say on the subject.
It's pretty simple, if the evidence is against YOU, and your client that you used for the conversation logs by default, then you have consented.
It's not that simple at all.
How do I know what client you're using?
Anyways, whether or not it's legal to do log should have nothing to do with what version of a chat program you or the other person use. It's a crappy criteria.
It's like making the speed limit depend on what version of software my car is running.
If the program has a "Save function" then the Judge ruled the user has a lower expectation of privacy than if the program doesn't have a "Save function".
Which is an absolutely stupid criteria.
Who's program? What version? What if they come out with an new version?
It sounds like this judge has absolutely no concept of technological issues here. What if they're useing AOL IM and I'm using Gaim?
It's a really arbitray line to draw. What about IRC, there are about a million clients for that?
I think this ruling is to wrongheaded and ambiguous to stand.
I don't see how this decision is going to stick. I really don't think it will. Has the EFF gotten involved in this yet?
I live in NYS and have my IM client set up to log ALL conversations. I consider it no different than saving an email.
People need to learn that ANYTHING they put on the internet might become public and/or stay there forever.
Of course it sounds like NH is screwed up anyways. Being able to record a conversation without someone else's knowedge is a standard CYA procedure. If it was easy, I would set it up so that all my phone conversations are automatically recorded as well.
It would be really useful, especially when a certain cellphone provider keeps sending you bills for an account AFTER you cancelled their service. How the hell is one supposed to bust jerks like that without recording the conversation?
The survivalist fantasy is a bunker in Montana packed small arms, a cache of ammo, and maybe some surplus military grade weapons from the '80s. The reality is a 21st century army with stealth technologies, robots, air support and BFGs that will turn your dug-out into a smoking crater before you can fire off a single one of your worthless cap pistols.
I wasn't aware we'd killed Osama yet....
Does he have an army of 21st century stealth robots that I don't know about or do you perhaps not understand reality?
The reality is that it IS hard to find someone who knows the terrain and how to hide, ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE NOT TRYING TO WIPE OUT THE ENTIRE POPULATION IN AN AREA.
Have you ever heard of the Vietnam war? Are you aware how it turned out despite US troop's vastly superior technology?
If there were a killer app for the general population that only ran on Linux and can't be ported, this might make sense. Name one.
Spoken like someone who hasn't tried to port that many apps.
Some people want to be able to get the actual work they're trying to do, done, not waste a day or two porting an app and it's dozen or so dependencies.
Cygwin is being used a lot these days. Some much so that I ended up with 3 conflicting versions of Cygwin on my computer as a result of installing various development environments and applications..... and I'm not even a software guy, I'm an EE!
Running Linux apps under windows can be a real PITA and this has the potential to be a great solution.
I'd think that part of a message would not be useful, considering that it's not 100% guaranteed to produce two photons on each pulse.
Sure it's useful. You might not get the whole message, but you can make educated guesses about its content. If the bits that you get are VERY infrequent it wouldn't be useful, but even then, quantum crypto's claim of 100% security would be trashed.
Also, with my admittedly limited knowledge, this sounds like a problem with current technology more than the underlying theory.
One of the things I'm wondering about is if it's even possible to build a device that will emit just one photon, on command, 100% of the time. It might be forbidden by the laws of physics in the same way that building a measuring device which does not disturb a particle is impossible.
I see tons of posts stating the the link is "absolutely" secure, but it seems that isn't really the case. (see the bottom of the page.)
What strikes me about all this is the following section:
"each pulse should be attenuated to an average of about.1 photon to reduce the probability of generating a two-photon pulse that could be split and eavesdropped undetectably."
What that says to me is that there is not way to 100% know you're transmitting just one photon.
It sounds like there's no device that is capable of transmitting one and only one photon with 100% reliability. If this is the case, a lot of the arguments about how secure this is are vastly overstated.
In the end QC would be vulnerable to a man-in-the-middle attack by watching for multi-photon emissions.
If this is the case, a lot of the noise surrounding QC could turn out to be hype. Is there a quantum physicist in the house?
First, solder is quite adequate to hold a headphone jack in place.
Evidently a lot of ipod mini owners would disagree with you.
If it cracks, it means it's either a bad solder joint (possibly aggravated by an improperly designed PCB or case) or a badly designed jack.
And pretty much all 1/8" headphone jacks are badly designed because they rely on ONLY solder and typically do not disconnect themselves when stressed.
If you want to see properly designed audio connections look at pretty much any Mackie mixer. You note that ALL connectors are soldily attached to a METAL case.
Unfortunately, pretty much nobody makes consumer, portable audio equpiment whose headphone jacks are attached to anything but a PCB. It IS a crappy design, but it's pretty much the de-facto standard.
Still, it's a bad design. It's a routine point of failure for just about any portable audio device (read the other responses in this thread).
Personally, I have a set of Sennheiser HD-495 headphones whose cord will disconnect at the earpiece when subjected to sufficient force. This saves a significant amount of wear on my portable devices.
If the ipods are failing this soon, I would guess that's they have an especially crappy design.
Actually, now that I'm thinking about it......I would shell out a LOT of money for a Mackie version of the iriver ihp-120.
It would probably weight 5X as much, but it would have killer sound quality and good resale value.
Do not share RIAA-0wn3d music on P2P networks. First of all, if it's all such bad music (as is endlessly stated to be the reason for falling CD sales), why are you sharing it?
The RIAA's NEW music sucks. Unfortuately, the RIAA has managed to own a large part of our cultural and musical heritage.
Whar are people supposed to do, never listen to Hendrix or The Beatles?
Every time the subject of the RIAA comes up, there's always someone who says "just don't listen to any of it".
It's not that simple. People SHOULD be able to listen to Led Zeppelin, and they SHOULD be able to do it without supporting the RIAA.
The solution isn't to ignore the RIAA. We need to fix our copyright and anti-trust laws.
The point here is that the RIAA is claiming that falling CD sales are caused by rampant, unpaid sharing of their music on the Internet. As long as the sharing continues, judges and congresspersons will continue to believe them.
This is illegal and bad for everyone but the RIAA. This is definately something the EFF should be keeping their eye on. Besides the right to freedom of speech online, We also have the right to a "free" market online.
I'm sick of pointing this out--kids today LOVE the music coming out. The fogies at Slashdot think that their niche opinion represent the majority.
No they don't. This is one of the reasons revenue is DOWN at record companies.
Same thing. Illegal piracy isn't popular because of "ridiculous prices."
Sure it is. It's a tradeoff between the price of music vs. the risk of getting caught. Using your logic, upping prices to $500 each would have no effect on "piracy". That's obviously silly.
People have yet to offer a valid legal or moral justification for ripping artists off.
Well just how illegal and abusive does a business have to get? Both MS and the RIAA have been convicted of highly illegal business practices. Do the have to start throwing puppies off buildings before you start to question their business practices?
Are you aware that price fixing is illegal and the RIAA acts as a cartel? This article is about one such (quite possibly ILLEGAL) price fixing action.
But go ahead, throw your money at a dying, outdated industry. Support a system that keeps artists from making their fair share. Rage against.....errrr um for the machine!
Slashdotters were saying they should do when Napster was being sued), and that they somehow rip off artists even though artists willingly sign their contracts, shit on gold toilets, and never asked you for your "help" in ripping them off.
Hooray for 100% cluelessness about how the recording industry works!
Someone is obviously trying to implicate the content monopolists in this by targetting the sharing networks. It is highly unlikely that the monopolists are doing this themselves because they have too much to lose by carrying out such an attack.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. The RIAA has already publicly admitted that they are performing a DOS attack against the P2P networks (although not in that language).
Since they think it's somehow legal for them to perpetrate DOS attacks, I wouldn't be all that suprised to see that they've come up with some creative justification for viruses as well.
I don't think it's the most likely scenario, but I certainly wouldn't put it past them.
I am not a lawyer but I know that Microsoft does not engage in any sort of coersion to force its users to agree to their EULA.
Sure they do.
I go into Best Buy. I pay cash for a copy of Windows XP. I walk out of the store.
(At this point I have all the legal rights necessary to run Windows XP.)
I take the software home, go to install it and it tells me that I must agree to (XXX, YYY, and ZZZ) BEFORE I can acutally use my legally purchased RIGHT to run that software.
They're bullying you because you already have the right to run Windows XP, but they're forcing you to give up some of those rights that you had when you walked out of Best Buy in order to run software that you legally already have the right to run.
The box in Best Buy said "Windows XP" not "Windows XP installer program with supplemental EULA for windows XP". When I hand the clerk in Best Buy money, I've just bought the right to use that copy of Windows XP. If Microsoft wants me to agree to some sort of restricted license, they need to present that license at the time of sale, not afterwards.
The key thing it that you're not legally required to agree to somebody's EULA (assuming you bought their software as a box in a store), and they're "coercing" you into agreeing by writing the software in such a way that you cannot use it (which you legally already have the right to do) unless you check "I agree".
Great explanation of just how irresponsible certain software manfacturers are being.
Are lot of the reply's you're getting are in the vein of:
"But you don't have to agree to the EULA"
and
"What about OSS"
Okay guys, here's the difference: A MS EULA is like me going out, buying a house, and after closing on the house I come home to find a big sticker on the door that says,
"by breaking this seal you agree to the following terms:
-You do not really own this house, you're actually leasing it from us.
-We are not responsible if this house turns out to have numerous major problems that we didn't tell you about.
-You may only use this house for purposes X, Y and Z, any other use is strictly prohibited.
-etc, etc, etc
It's clearly stupid and not a legally binding contract. I can rip that sticker of my door without a worry in the world. The same needs to be true for software.
A good example is disclaiming any and all warranty:
This needs to be done BEFORE I give you my money.
It's like a car manufacturer trying to sell a new car with absolutely no warranty by sticking a note in the glovebox when you're driving it off the lot.
The deal is already done. The note means nothing. The manufacturer is still responsible for all normal, implied warranties.
Now what about OSS?
First off, I'm going to talk only about the GPL. (Other liscenses are typically very similar.)
Now the key thing is that there are some very big differences with GPL'ed software:
1) It's free. Free things are typically not legally required or assumed to carry warranties. There also don't seem to be many laws about disclaiming liability when I give you something for free. There's nothing that says the item must be provided in any form other than "as-is", unlike commercial/retail sales. I can give you a car with rusted out brakes for free and not have to fix them for you. If I was a car dealer, charging you money, I might have to fix those brakes (unless there was some agreement made about them at time of sale).
2) The GPL is not a EULA. You do not have to agree to the GPL to use a GPL'ed program. A lot of people have trouble understanding this one. There are even programmers who make the GPL pop up when you run their program and force you the check "I agree". These people are all wrong. The GPL only governs redistribution. As such, it's not trying to get rid of any rights that you would normally have. In order to gain a right that you wouldn't normally have (redistribution of someone else's copyrighted work), you must agree that this new right is subject to a set of conditions. If you do not agree, you do not get those rights, not because to GPL says you don't, but because copyright law says you may not redistribute other's work without their permission.
But does that mean I _should_ want to watch it? Even just for curiousity?
You shouldn't be forced to watch it, but it should be your choice.
It's like surgery, you shouldn't be forced to watch it, but if you're interested, there's nothing wrong with that.....you might end up becoming a doctor. Or might might just be curious what you look like on the inside.
Or what about other "weird" things like piercings. I don't like or want them and I think they are bizzare and painful but I wouldn't classify someone who does them as ill.
There's a huge difference between blowing you brains out because something bad happened, you've been overstressed, overtired, and generally not thinking straight, and getting a piercing.
Ever get stressed out and make a bad decision?
Imagine if that was your LAST decision.
Now if you are of sound mind, I believe you should have the right to die, but you need to realize the vast majority of those people who kill themselves aren't.
The college I went to was pretty much always either #1 or #2 in the country for suicide rate. Kids would fail a midterm and throw themselves off a bridge. It's a pretty sad thing. As someone who's failed a test, it's not worth killing yourself over. Sure it sucks, but you get over it.
The thing is you're were probably up all night studying for that test. Maybe a couple of nights. You're not thinking very straight.
My point was that there should be a balance between #1 and #2 from my original post.
If I'm in a terrible accident and every day of my life from then one is going to be filled with pain, I should have a right to die.
If my girlfriend dumps me, I would hope that someone would stop me from doing something stupid. I'd thank them later.
Religion is meant to give meaning to the world, not to help us understand how it works. It answers the philosophical WHY
Nope. Religion is not philosophy.
Religion is not about logic. A philosopher is supposed to critically evalute the ideas before him. Religion is about accepting something as the word of god.
With religion, murder is wrong because some guy claiming to be speaking for god said so.
With philosophy, murder is wrong because you realize that you don't want to live in a world when people go around murdering each other.
Religion is about "faith" and faith is a poor way to explain the HOW or the WHY. Just take it one faith that I'm right:)
(you diety(s) of choice told me so)
As a brick & mortar retailer, I'm sick and tired of losing businesses to cheapskates who want to shave a few pennies off, and don't give a damn about the businesses they choose to support or not to support.
Translation:
I'm a whiny bitch who thinks that I deserve special treatment. People shouldn't have the right to buy cheaper goods at a lower price from someone else, because it hurts me.
Of course, there's nothing stopping me from setting up my own online business........oh wait I already have!
Surely I'm reporting all the money that people spend to their respective states, otherwise I'd be a hypocritical jackass.....
Shouldn't we have the right to decide wether or not we should live? If anything I should have a say in wether or not I want to live at all shouldn't I?
Well, I for one have two different ways of looking at this:
1) It's my life, I should be able to do what I want with it, even end it.
2) Those who commit suicide are pretty much "mentally ill" (at least temporarily). They're making a bad decision and it's in their own best interest to stop them. They will thank you later.
Having a friend who was hospitialized for a while, after being overstressed and sleep-deprived and getting self-destructive, I'm glad that we as a society stopped him from doing what he was going to do to himself.
He's recovered, is taking it easier and is living a healthy life. I think that's a win for all involved.
Others might try to bring religion into the issue, but those people are just jackasses who want to force their beliefs on other people. A Christian who says it's bad because it's in the bible is a jerk. A Christian who says it's bad because he realizes that it's a tradgedy for all involved, I can respect.
If anything else, it desensitizes us about humanity. Sure lot of bad things happen in the world but that doesn't mean we need to watch it night and day. Some people seemed to be obsessed with watching these stuff almost to the level that they are addicted to it. Now that is pornographic.
Yeesh, way to push your ideas on everyone else.
I hate to break it to you but death is normal. It's going to happen to ALL of us.
There are lots of people out there who absolutely hate this idea so they seek to aviod ANY reminder of it (not just suicides/murders).
Most of the people bitching in this thread wouldn't be nearly upset if this was a video of someone being BORN.
Is it sad if someone dies before their time? Yes.
Is watching some video on the internet going to make a healthy indvidual loose respect for human life? Hell no.
Hell, I play GTA all the time, killing people, steaing cars, etc. Am I "desensitized" to actual crime and violence? No.
You mentioned one end of the spectrum:
those obsessed with these type of videos and therefore death
At the other end of the spectrum there are those who don't want to acknowedge that death exists.
The majority of the people who watch this type video have a healthy viewpoint and are *gasp* curious.
In most modern societies we don't see death that often because our old folks die in nursing homes and hospital beds. People know that death is going to happen to them, but they've never seen it happen to someone else. They want to know.
If you watch this video and think "that's sad" you're normal. If you watch this video and think that others must be protected from seeing it or they will begin to see death as normal, perhaps your viewpoint could use a little adjustment.
While death is a big deal, it shouldn't be a "reality shattering" concept.
All that said, I didn't watch the video because it is a sad event. I just don't think it's right to claim that watching this would make you "desensitized".
Then again, look how offended we're all supposed to be about seeing a nipple! Somehow I didn't think it was a big deal. I must be "desensitized" right? It couldn't be that someone else has an unhealthy viewpoint.....
Slashdot Mirror
When a very linux biased review doesn't do a good job of convincing a linux user that the linux method of application distribution isn't a crock there's something wrong.
Repeat after me:
There is no single method of application distribution.
Application distribution is distro spefic.
Redhat is different than Gentoo, is different from Debian, which are all different from the format used by a Sharp Zaurus PDA. What works for Gentoo would be hell on a Sharp Zaurus. Choose a distro that suits you needs.
You should learn how to use your distribution's chosen method for distributing applications.
If you don't you're building everything from scratch for no good reason.
Installing by hand is like pulling your engine every time you need to change the oil because you didn't notice the drain plug on the bottom.
Personally I use Gentoo's emerge command and it work's great. I'll find out that I want a copy of foobar installed on my system so I type "emerge foobar". All the dependencies are automatically resolved and foobar is installed.
(Now if you're on the bleeding edge, or looking for something truely obscure then you may be forced to build it by hand, but the same is true for those programs on any operating system.)
Here is a trick that nobody has thought of, how about a CLI command builder. You know a GUI interface to utilities and programs that doesn't actually do anything but create the CL necissary to execute a command you need done.
.iso, converting mp3 to wav, ripping audio off a cd, titleing mp3 files, doing cddb lookups, etc.
;)
Actually a LOT of Linux programs do just that.
Good examples would be cd burners and mp3 players.
Nearly all of those use command-line programs to handle the actual work. It's part of the whole *NIX philosophy: lots of small programs that are good at doing one thing.
A typical CD-creator type program on linux will use a whole slew of command-line utilities to handle creating the
If I RTFM before I did anything, I wouldn't ever get anything done, as I would still be RTFM.
If you actually RTFM, you would know that
Of course I understand where you coming from though. I only have about 800 pages worth of documentation to read this week....ugh.
Sometimes it's nice when someone will spend 30 seconds to save you a couple hours.
All four of those books are thinking books, even philosophical.
Very true.
If one was to view the bible as a philosophical work, it can be very positive.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of people view the bible as a religious work, not a philosophical one.
A philosphical work helps develop your understanding of the world by stimulating a sort of "healthy debate" inside you mind.
A regligous work is about telling you something and you believing it.
The best Christians I know are those work understand the spirt (non-catholic sense of course) and the philosophy contained in the bible.
The problem is that (by defintion) a religion requires a belief in the supernatural. It's what seperates a religion from a philosophy.
One is about reason, while the other is about "faith".
Once you're believing in the supernatural, you aren't really answering the philosophical why or how anymore, you're just making things up (or accepting something someone else made up). Now, if you're just talking about the supernatural in an allegorical sense, then you're making real philosophical arguments.
Of course, a religion can be intertwined with philosophy, but in the end somewhere you're falling back on ghosts and goblins to explain things. You can go so far as to change the debate to a pardigm where these ghosts are real, and you make philosophical arguments on that basis as a "religous scholar", but since you're not really basing the debate on reason it's not philosophy anymore.
Anyways, at least have something interesting to say on the subject.
It's pretty simple, if the evidence is against YOU, and your client that you used for the conversation logs by default, then you have consented.
It's not that simple at all.
How do I know what client you're using?
Anyways, whether or not it's legal to do log should have nothing to do with what version of a chat program you or the other person use. It's a crappy criteria.
It's like making the speed limit depend on what version of software my car is running.
If the program has a "Save function" then the Judge ruled the user has a lower expectation of privacy than if the program doesn't have a "Save function".
Which is an absolutely stupid criteria.
Who's program? What version? What if they come out with an new version?
It sounds like this judge has absolutely no concept of technological issues here. What if they're useing AOL IM and I'm using Gaim?
It's a really arbitray line to draw. What about IRC, there are about a million clients for that?
I think this ruling is to wrongheaded and ambiguous to stand.
I don't see how this decision is going to stick. I really don't think it will. Has the EFF gotten involved in this yet?
I live in NYS and have my IM client set up to log ALL conversations. I consider it no different than saving an email.
People need to learn that ANYTHING they put on the internet might become public and/or stay there forever.
Of course it sounds like NH is screwed up anyways. Being able to record a conversation without someone else's knowedge is a standard CYA procedure. If it was easy, I would set it up so that all my phone conversations are automatically recorded as well.
It would be really useful, especially when a certain cellphone provider keeps sending you bills for an account AFTER you cancelled their service. How the hell is one supposed to bust jerks like that without recording the conversation?
Laws like this only encourage criminal conduct.
The survivalist fantasy is a bunker in Montana packed small arms, a cache of ammo, and maybe some surplus military grade weapons from the '80s. The reality is a 21st century army with stealth technologies, robots, air support and BFGs that will turn your dug-out into a smoking crater before you can fire off a single one of your worthless cap pistols.
I wasn't aware we'd killed Osama yet....
Does he have an army of 21st century stealth robots that I don't know about or do you perhaps not understand reality?
The reality is that it IS hard to find someone who knows the terrain and how to hide, ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE NOT TRYING TO WIPE OUT THE ENTIRE POPULATION IN AN AREA.
Have you ever heard of the Vietnam war? Are you aware how it turned out despite US troop's vastly superior technology?
If there were a killer app for the general population that only ran on Linux and can't be ported, this might make sense. Name one.
Spoken like someone who hasn't tried to port that many apps.
Some people want to be able to get the actual work they're trying to do, done, not waste a day or two porting an app and it's dozen or so dependencies.
Cygwin is being used a lot these days. Some much so that I ended up with 3 conflicting versions of Cygwin on my computer as a result of installing various development environments and applications..... and I'm not even a software guy, I'm an EE!
Running Linux apps under windows can be a real PITA and this has the potential to be a great solution.
I'd think that part of a message would not be useful, considering that it's not 100% guaranteed to produce two photons on each pulse.
Sure it's useful. You might not get the whole message, but you can make educated guesses about its content. If the bits that you get are VERY infrequent it wouldn't be useful, but even then, quantum crypto's claim of 100% security would be trashed.
Also, with my admittedly limited knowledge, this sounds like a problem with current technology more than the underlying theory.
One of the things I'm wondering about is if it's even possible to build a device that will emit just one photon, on command, 100% of the time. It might be forbidden by the laws of physics in the same way that building a measuring device which does not disturb a particle is impossible.
Is quantum crypto provably flawed?
.1 photon to reduce the probability of generating a two-photon pulse that could be split and eavesdropped undetectably."
I see tons of posts stating the the link is "absolutely" secure, but it seems that isn't really the case. (see the bottom of the page.)
What strikes me about all this is the following section:
"each pulse should be attenuated to an average of about
What that says to me is that there is not way to 100% know you're transmitting just one photon.
It sounds like there's no device that is capable of transmitting one and only one photon with 100% reliability. If this is the case, a lot of the arguments about how secure this is are vastly overstated.
In the end QC would be vulnerable to a man-in-the-middle attack by watching for multi-photon emissions.
If this is the case, a lot of the noise surrounding QC could turn out to be hype. Is there a quantum physicist in the house?
I agree.....
I wanna see the 20B 'vert as well.
Do you visit rx7club.com?
First, solder is quite adequate to hold a headphone jack in place.
Evidently a lot of ipod mini owners would disagree with you.
If it cracks, it means it's either a bad solder joint (possibly aggravated by an improperly designed PCB or case) or a badly designed jack.
And pretty much all 1/8" headphone jacks are badly designed because they rely on ONLY solder and typically do not disconnect themselves when stressed.
If you want to see properly designed audio connections look at pretty much any Mackie mixer. You note that ALL connectors are soldily attached to a METAL case.
Unfortunately, pretty much nobody makes consumer, portable audio equpiment whose headphone jacks are attached to anything but a PCB. It IS a crappy design, but it's pretty much the de-facto standard.
Still, it's a bad design. It's a routine point of failure for just about any portable audio device (read the other responses in this thread).
Personally, I have a set of Sennheiser HD-495 headphones whose cord will disconnect at the earpiece when subjected to sufficient force. This saves a significant amount of wear on my portable devices.
If the ipods are failing this soon, I would guess that's they have an especially crappy design.
Actually, now that I'm thinking about it......I would shell out a LOT of money for a Mackie version of the iriver ihp-120.
It would probably weight 5X as much, but it would have killer sound quality and good resale value.
Do not share RIAA-0wn3d music on P2P networks. First of all, if it's all such bad music (as is endlessly stated to be the reason for falling CD sales), why are you sharing it?
The RIAA's NEW music sucks. Unfortuately, the RIAA has managed to own a large part of our cultural and musical heritage.
Whar are people supposed to do, never listen to Hendrix or The Beatles?
Every time the subject of the RIAA comes up, there's always someone who says "just don't listen to any of it".
It's not that simple. People SHOULD be able to listen to Led Zeppelin, and they SHOULD be able to do it without supporting the RIAA.
The solution isn't to ignore the RIAA. We need to fix our copyright and anti-trust laws.
The point here is that the RIAA is claiming that falling CD sales are caused by rampant, unpaid sharing of their music on the Internet. As long as the sharing continues, judges and congresspersons will continue to believe them.
So contact your local Congresscritter (TM).
(Yes, I'm an EFF contributor, but they shouldn't be worrying about how much a music track should cost...)
Yes they should. In this case the RIAA is behaving as a cartel in order to fix prices. They've done this before with CDs.
This is illegal and bad for everyone but the RIAA. This is definately something the EFF should be keeping their eye on. Besides the right to freedom of speech online, We also have the right to a "free" market online.
I'm sick of pointing this out--kids today LOVE the music coming out. The fogies at Slashdot think that their niche opinion represent the majority.
No they don't. This is one of the reasons revenue is DOWN at record companies.
Same thing. Illegal piracy isn't popular because of "ridiculous prices."
Sure it is. It's a tradeoff between the price of music vs. the risk of getting caught. Using your logic, upping prices to $500 each would have no effect on "piracy". That's obviously silly.
People have yet to offer a valid legal or moral justification for ripping artists off.
Well just how illegal and abusive does a business have to get? Both MS and the RIAA have been convicted of highly illegal business practices. Do the have to start throwing puppies off buildings before you start to question their business practices?
Are you aware that price fixing is illegal and the RIAA acts as a cartel? This article is about one such (quite possibly ILLEGAL) price fixing action.
But go ahead, throw your money at a dying, outdated industry. Support a system that keeps artists from making their fair share. Rage against.....errrr um for the machine!
Slashdotters were saying they should do when Napster was being sued), and that they somehow rip off artists even though artists willingly sign their contracts, shit on gold toilets, and never asked you for your "help" in ripping them off.
Hooray for 100% cluelessness about how the recording industry works!
Someone is obviously trying to implicate the content monopolists in this by targetting the sharing networks. It is highly unlikely that the monopolists are doing this themselves because they have too much to lose by carrying out such an attack.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. The RIAA has already publicly admitted that they are performing a DOS attack against the P2P networks (although not in that language).
Since they think it's somehow legal for them to perpetrate DOS attacks, I wouldn't be all that suprised to see that they've come up with some creative justification for viruses as well.
I don't think it's the most likely scenario, but I certainly wouldn't put it past them.
I am not a lawyer but I know that Microsoft does not engage in any sort of coersion to force its users to agree to their EULA.
Sure they do.
I go into Best Buy. I pay cash for a copy of Windows XP. I walk out of the store.
(At this point I have all the legal rights necessary to run Windows XP.)
I take the software home, go to install it and it tells me that I must agree to (XXX, YYY, and ZZZ) BEFORE I can acutally use my legally purchased RIGHT to run that software.
They're bullying you because you already have the right to run Windows XP, but they're forcing you to give up some of those rights that you had when you walked out of Best Buy in order to run software that you legally already have the right to run.
The box in Best Buy said "Windows XP" not "Windows XP installer program with supplemental EULA for windows XP". When I hand the clerk in Best Buy money, I've just bought the right to use that copy of Windows XP. If Microsoft wants me to agree to some sort of restricted license, they need to present that license at the time of sale, not afterwards.
The key thing it that you're not legally required to agree to somebody's EULA (assuming you bought their software as a box in a store), and they're "coercing" you into agreeing by writing the software in such a way that you cannot use it (which you legally already have the right to do) unless you check "I agree".
Great explanation of just how irresponsible certain software manfacturers are being.
Are lot of the reply's you're getting are in the vein of:
"But you don't have to agree to the EULA"
and "What about OSS"
Okay guys, here's the difference:
A MS EULA is like me going out, buying a house, and after closing on the house I come home to find a big sticker on the door that says,
"by breaking this seal you agree to the following terms:
-You do not really own this house, you're actually leasing it from us.
-We are not responsible if this house turns out to have numerous major problems that we didn't tell you about.
-You may only use this house for purposes X, Y and Z, any other use is strictly prohibited.
-etc, etc, etc
It's clearly stupid and not a legally binding contract. I can rip that sticker of my door without a worry in the world. The same needs to be true for software.
A good example is disclaiming any and all warranty:
This needs to be done BEFORE I give you my money.
It's like a car manufacturer trying to sell a new car with absolutely no warranty by sticking a note in the glovebox when you're driving it off the lot.
The deal is already done. The note means nothing. The manufacturer is still responsible for all normal, implied warranties.
Now what about OSS?
First off, I'm going to talk only about the GPL. (Other liscenses are typically very similar.)
Now the key thing is that there are some very big differences with GPL'ed software:
1) It's free. Free things are typically not legally required or assumed to carry warranties. There also don't seem to be many laws about disclaiming liability when I give you something for free. There's nothing that says the item must be provided in any form other than "as-is", unlike commercial/retail sales. I can give you a car with rusted out brakes for free and not have to fix them for you. If I was a car dealer, charging you money, I might have to fix those brakes (unless there was some agreement made about them at time of sale).
2) The GPL is not a EULA. You do not have to agree to the GPL to use a GPL'ed program. A lot of people have trouble understanding this one. There are even programmers who make the GPL pop up when you run their program and force you the check "I agree". These people are all wrong. The GPL only governs redistribution. As such, it's not trying to get rid of any rights that you would normally have. In order to gain a right that you wouldn't normally have (redistribution of someone else's copyrighted work), you must agree that this new right is subject to a set of conditions. If you do not agree, you do not get those rights, not because to GPL says you don't, but because copyright law says you may not redistribute other's work without their permission.
But does that mean I _should_ want to watch it? Even just for curiousity?
You shouldn't be forced to watch it, but it should be your choice.
It's like surgery, you shouldn't be forced to watch it, but if you're interested, there's nothing wrong with that.....you might end up becoming a doctor. Or might might just be curious what you look like on the inside.
Or what about other "weird" things like piercings. I don't like or want them and I think they are bizzare and painful but I wouldn't classify someone who does them as ill.
There's a huge difference between blowing you brains out because something bad happened, you've been overstressed, overtired, and generally not thinking straight, and getting a piercing.
Ever get stressed out and make a bad decision?
Imagine if that was your LAST decision.
Now if you are of sound mind, I believe you should have the right to die, but you need to realize the vast majority of those people who kill themselves aren't.
The college I went to was pretty much always either #1 or #2 in the country for suicide rate. Kids would fail a midterm and throw themselves off a bridge. It's a pretty sad thing. As someone who's failed a test, it's not worth killing yourself over. Sure it sucks, but you get over it.
The thing is you're were probably up all night studying for that test. Maybe a couple of nights. You're not thinking very straight.
My point was that there should be a balance between #1 and #2 from my original post.
If I'm in a terrible accident and every day of my life from then one is going to be filled with pain, I should have a right to die.
If my girlfriend dumps me, I would hope that someone would stop me from doing something stupid. I'd thank them later.
Religion is meant to give meaning to the world, not to help us understand how it works. It answers the philosophical WHY
:)
Nope. Religion is not philosophy.
Religion is not about logic. A philosopher is supposed to critically evalute the ideas before him. Religion is about accepting something as the word of god.
With religion, murder is wrong because some guy claiming to be speaking for god said so.
With philosophy, murder is wrong because you realize that you don't want to live in a world when people go around murdering each other.
Religion is about "faith" and faith is a poor way to explain the HOW or the WHY. Just take it one faith that I'm right
(you diety(s) of choice told me so)
As a brick & mortar retailer, I'm sick and tired of losing businesses to cheapskates who want to shave a few pennies off, and don't give a damn about the businesses they choose to support or not to support.
Translation:
I'm a whiny bitch who thinks that I deserve special treatment. People shouldn't have the right to buy cheaper goods at a lower price from someone else, because it hurts me.
Of course, there's nothing stopping me from setting up my own online business........oh wait I already have!
Surely I'm reporting all the money that people spend to their respective states, otherwise I'd be a hypocritical jackass.....
mooching off of Oregon tax dollars by traveling on I-205/I-5 everyday.
Does Oregon not have a gasoline tax or something?
Also you might care to note that the roads you're talking about are Interstate highways. That means you're "mooching" off my FEDERAL taxes.
Shouldn't we have the right to decide wether or not we should live? If anything I should have a say in wether or not I want to live at all shouldn't I?
Well, I for one have two different ways of looking at this:
1) It's my life, I should be able to do what I want with it, even end it.
2) Those who commit suicide are pretty much "mentally ill" (at least temporarily). They're making a bad decision and it's in their own best interest to stop them. They will thank you later.
Having a friend who was hospitialized for a while, after being overstressed and sleep-deprived and getting self-destructive, I'm glad that we as a society stopped him from doing what he was going to do to himself.
He's recovered, is taking it easier and is living a healthy life. I think that's a win for all involved.
Others might try to bring religion into the issue, but those people are just jackasses who want to force their beliefs on other people. A Christian who says it's bad because it's in the bible is a jerk. A Christian who says it's bad because he realizes that it's a tradgedy for all involved, I can respect.
If anything else, it desensitizes us about humanity. Sure lot of bad things happen in the world but that doesn't mean we need to watch it night and day. Some people seemed to be obsessed with watching these stuff almost to the level that they are addicted to it. Now that is pornographic.
Yeesh, way to push your ideas on everyone else.
I hate to break it to you but death is normal. It's going to happen to ALL of us.
There are lots of people out there who absolutely hate this idea so they seek to aviod ANY reminder of it (not just suicides/murders).
Most of the people bitching in this thread wouldn't be nearly upset if this was a video of someone being BORN.
Is it sad if someone dies before their time? Yes.
Is watching some video on the internet going to make a healthy indvidual loose respect for human life? Hell no.
Hell, I play GTA all the time, killing people, steaing cars, etc. Am I "desensitized" to actual crime and violence? No.
You mentioned one end of the spectrum:
those obsessed with these type of videos and therefore death
At the other end of the spectrum there are those who don't want to acknowedge that death exists.
The majority of the people who watch this type video have a healthy viewpoint and are *gasp* curious.
In most modern societies we don't see death that often because our old folks die in nursing homes and hospital beds. People know that death is going to happen to them, but they've never seen it happen to someone else. They want to know.
If you watch this video and think "that's sad" you're normal. If you watch this video and think that others must be protected from seeing it or they will begin to see death as normal, perhaps your viewpoint could use a little adjustment.
While death is a big deal, it shouldn't be a "reality shattering" concept.
All that said, I didn't watch the video because it is a sad event. I just don't think it's right to claim that watching this would make you "desensitized".
Then again, look how offended we're all supposed to be about seeing a nipple! Somehow I didn't think it was a big deal. I must be "desensitized" right? It couldn't be that someone else has an unhealthy viewpoint.....