No, because you don't license software to yourself. You might limit your ability to distribute the code of other with your code using your license, but you aren't stuck. You can distribute your code under as many licenses as you want.
Oh of course. The problem comes when someone takes your code and adds to it. If you choose the GPL, then the changes made to your code by the other developer are also under the GPL. If you'd like to use this code, you're stuck in adhering to the GPL. Once your project leaves the confines of you, you start to get stuck with a certain license. That's a well understood point of the GPL. But what of these fly-by-night open source licenses of the day? Who knows what strange consequences they may have?
My essential is that Open Source licenses need to be understood as well, or better than the code they protect. With so many people thinking they need their OWN open source license, that becomes increasingly more difficult.
(The great thing about lisences is that there are so many to choose from!).
Choosing a license isn't like picking a flavor of ice-cream. Choose the wrong one and you could limit your potential to use others code in your software, limit the ability for others to use your code in there software, limit the usefullness of your software, limit its distribution, etc.
The problem with too many licenses is that the incompatibilites between them become more and more complicated. Who wants to understand the intracies of 15 different sofware licenses whenever you want to use someone elses code?
doesn't that sort of violate an FCC code somewhere?
FCC.. hmm.. Federal Communication Commision. They regulate interstate communication, surprisingly. No mention of regulating electronic devices or portable music players anywhere (ignoring for a minute that this happened in Australia).
If we've made it this far without it, why do we need it now?
Maybe you've made it this far, but I'm sure there's other people that have mysteriously lost data, or had it corrupted. They probbably blamed the OS, faulty hardware, drivers, whatever.
Data security is based on assumptions (a contract if you will). If you assume the contract hasn't been broken, you look elsewhere for blame when something goes wrong. Up until now I'm sure no one questioned whether fsync() was doing what it was supposed to (at least at the actual HD level).
I can believe it. There's a lot of very stupid, very naive people in the world who are also very insistent that they're right.
It's hard to argue with these kind of people, mostly because they've developed some kind of reality filter that doesn't let through anything that questions their beliefs. I've always assumed that without the filter, their psyche would collapse under the weight of the truth. You can try to pick away at the filter, but if you suceed they'll only become enraged at your for exposing the truth (and revealing to them their own filter, which they like to ignore).
I did a little checking of my own, and if you can believe the Australians at: http://www.kids.net.au/encyclopedia-wiki/sp/Space_ Shuttle The costs are all in the re-inspection and certification of the shuttle. This makes a lot more sense to me since the fuel costs certainly can't be all that much. It's a great boondoggle for Florida though.
When originally conceived the shuttle was to operate similar to an airliner. After landing the Orbiter would be checked out and start "mating" to the rest of the system (the ET and SRBs) and be ready for launch in as little as two weeks. Instead this sort of turnaround in fact takes (typically) months. This is due, in turn, to the continued "upgrading" of the inspection process as a result of the Challenger explosion. Even simple tasks now require unbelievable amounts of paperwork.
The result is a massively inflated manpower bill. There are 25,000 workers in shuttle operations (perhaps an older number), so simply multiply any figure that you choose for an average annual salary, divide by six (...launches per year), and there you have it.
Why it costs $500 million dollars just to put a frickin "re-usable" space-bus into orbit? Is it mostly a lot of variable costs that have to be paid every time we put a shuttle up, or are there just mostly fixed costs, then divide by shuttle missions per year?
I don't even know what's so inherently bad about a nationalized ID card system or having standards for state driver's licenses -- it's more in how they're used and what can be done with them
The problem with the legislation is that no elected official decides what the requirements are for the license. The department of homeland security can basically make any requirement they want on the card. Examples might be DNA, fingerprints, "terrorist rating", etc. This is not democracy.
We did that in Minnesota recently, and just recently a conceal and carry handgun bill was thrown out by the courts because it was attatched to unrelated legislation.
I don't really care about the conceal and carry law either way, but I was glad to see unrelated amendments banned from legislation.
What we should not do is, once we figure out how long something is going to take, to actually run it if the answer is totally pointless. This last step is a waste of time.
A waste of who's time? The computers time? The only used an opteron for the sieving. It's never stated how many computers were used for the rest of the cracking. Once you've written the code, it's not much harder to actually perform the experiment. Like I said, actual cracked keys are far easier to justify to a programmer than theoretical calculations. Actual cracked keys can be trusted 100%. Calculations of performance from unknown researches can be trusted much less than that.
It's trivial to compute how much computing resources it will take to factor numbers using an existing algorithm on paper, and you get a more accurate estimate than you get from sampling experimentally
You can certainly make a decent estimate of how long it will take, but you're never going to get a close approximation of the real-world performance of your implementation until you actually write the code and run it.
The other side is that theoretical calculations are nice, but there's nothing quite like actual verification. It's much easier for a programmer to justify using larger key lengths when someone has actually cracked smaller key lengths rather than using calculations based on estimates of computing power.
My problem with this whole thing is that it just sounds like a classification more than anything else. You say it's a spectrum disorder, and people have varying degrees of symptoms. To me that sounds like someone has just pulled a bunch of descriptions of things people generally don't like, and turned it into a disease. People like explanations more so than truth.
Take any 6 symptoms, say you need 3 to have the disease, and a certain percentage of the populace will have it. Throw in a few famous dead people who "could have had the disease" (except no one even got to examine them, just idle speculation based on other often dead people's recollections) and you've got a nice, fuzzy, ill-defined disease. What I'm getting at is that this disease definition sounds so ellusive (widely varying symptoms, many of which are relatively common), that it doesn't seem to be anything more than a series of symptoms. Heart disease there's blockage. Hepatitis there's an actual virus. Hell, even depression you can measure lowered neuro-transmitters, treat it sucessfully with drugs, etc. But what use is this "diagnosis" of Aspergers Syndrome other than making people feel better because you've assigned it a name?
There's so many of these elusive "syndromes and disorders" these days that it calls into question much of medical science. Gulf War Syndrome, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, which of these are actually real? Does every behaviour that's a bit out of the ordinary have to have a syndrome or disorder associated with it. Maybe I have Argumentative Skeptic Disorder.
Symptoms include 1. inability to accept well cherished beliefs as fact. 2. arguing against unproven beliefs whenever they're brought up as fact. 3. Use of sarcasm. 4. Not accepting the opinions of learned experts.
I'm really trying not to be a dick, but how is this diagnosis more than just a bunch of vague symptoms?
I read all those criteria, and it sounds like a bunch of BS, probbably even more so now. Those criteria are so open-ended that someone could easily be miss-diagnosed with it. As far as the symptoms you listed, a lot of people have broken marriages and a difficulty with authority. External stimulus is a bit more rare, but it's hardly a diagnosis.
You can see the brain disfunction of people with AS on Brain scans:
Actually it says nothing of the sort. They haven't completed the research yet. All that's said is "they expect to find"... It's also a very small study of 7 people (and no mention if it's a matched study based on age, economic status, etc). You can infer exactly nothing at this stage from that article except that someone thinks there could be observable brain differences.
Yah, but the money you save isn't worth for the longer amount of time it takes. Assume 30mpg at 55 mph, and 25 mpg at 70 mph. Over a 100 mile trip that means you'd burn 100/30=3.33 gallons of gas, or about $6.66, and 100/25=4 gallons=$8. It would take you 100/30=1.8 hours, and 100/70=1.4 hours. So you'd lose about 24 minutes for $1.34. So gaining an hour in time only costs you $3.35. For most people, that $3.35 is money well spent.
I guess the other thing is I'd highly question how generalizable that graph is. What vehicle was it for? Certainly car makers are designing cars to be optimized for higher speeds these days, plus with fuel injection, computer controlled timing, etc I suspect cars are much more efficient at higher revs than they used to be.
Well, my guess is jackrabbit starts are quite a bit less fuel efficient, but only for that 3 or 4 seconds when you're speeding up. Since that only happens every few minutes, the effect is going to be small.
Yes. This DOS attack has been known for quite a long time. It's only recently become known outside the hacker community. Some people even accidentally do it to themselves. Among laymen it's called "leaving your lights on".
At no point in earth's history has all life been wiped clean from it. The earth is fine; if people go the way of the dinosaur, then so be it.
You've stumbled upon the central lie of the "environmentalists movement". That is that it's all about "saving the planet". You're absolutely right, the planet is in no danger. Humanity of course, is in some danger.
As far as not caring about humanity, well you're entitled to your values. The vast majority of us don't want humanity to go away, people to suffer do to damage to our environment, etc. You'll excuse us if we get concerned about such things.
Passports are required by the United States when a US citizen crosses the border inbound, no matter where you're coming from.
Sorry, but you're wrong. Don't generalize your border crossing from one experience. Passports are not currently required for people coming into the US from Canada or Mexico. What you do need is proof of citizenship and a photo ID. That could be a birth certificate and drivers license, or a passport. Passports are going to be required for entry into the US from Canada and Mexico starting it 2008.
Or just plunk down $55 and buy a Linksys WRT54G, put your favorite open-source linux firmware on it (sveasoft, etc) and enable traffic prioritizing. Much more reliable, and faster than a 486 which tops out at about 2 megabits/sec.
I have larger percentages invested in single companies in my portfolio and I mostly invest in Mutual funds.
Sure, it's not a huge percentage of Dells wealth, most of his wealth is of course tied up in Dell. It's likely a much higher percentage of his more liquid wealth though. It's also not quite fair to compare percentages of your, and Dells investments, since you (presumably) don't own a good chunk of a major corporation you founded.
With a 100 million investment by an individual (and not a corporation) you can bet that Michael Dell thinks this is a good investment. That kind of money isn't chump change, so he must think it's a good risk.
Slashdot Mirror
No, because you don't license software to yourself. You might limit your ability to distribute the code of other with your code using your license, but you aren't stuck. You can distribute your code under as many licenses as you want.
Oh of course. The problem comes when someone takes your code and adds to it. If you choose the GPL, then the changes made to your code by the other developer are also under the GPL. If you'd like to use this code, you're stuck in adhering to the GPL. Once your project leaves the confines of you, you start to get stuck with a certain license. That's a well understood point of the GPL. But what of these fly-by-night open source licenses of the day? Who knows what strange consequences they may have?
My essential is that Open Source licenses need to be understood as well, or better than the code they protect. With so many people thinking they need their OWN open source license, that becomes increasingly more difficult.
(The great thing about lisences is that there are so many to choose from!).
Choosing a license isn't like picking a flavor of ice-cream. Choose the wrong one and you could limit your potential to use others code in your software, limit the ability for others to use your code in there software, limit the usefullness of your software, limit its distribution, etc.
The problem with too many licenses is that the incompatibilites between them become more and more complicated. Who wants to understand the intracies of 15 different sofware licenses whenever you want to use someone elses code?
doesn't that sort of violate an FCC code somewhere?
FCC.. hmm.. Federal Communication Commision. They regulate interstate communication, surprisingly. No mention of regulating electronic devices or portable music players anywhere (ignoring for a minute that this happened in Australia).
If we've made it this far without it, why do we need it now?
Maybe you've made it this far, but I'm sure there's other people that have mysteriously lost data, or had it corrupted. They probbably blamed the OS, faulty hardware, drivers, whatever.
Data security is based on assumptions (a contract if you will). If you assume the contract hasn't been broken, you look elsewhere for blame when something goes wrong. Up until now I'm sure no one questioned whether fsync() was doing what it was supposed to (at least at the actual HD level).
I can believe it. There's a lot of very stupid, very naive people in the world who are also very insistent that they're right.
It's hard to argue with these kind of people, mostly because they've developed some kind of reality filter that doesn't let through anything that questions their beliefs. I've always assumed that without the filter, their psyche would collapse under the weight of the truth. You can try to pick away at the filter, but if you suceed they'll only become enraged at your for exposing the truth (and revealing to them their own filter, which they like to ignore).
Why it costs $500 million dollars just to put a frickin "re-usable" space-bus into orbit? Is it mostly a lot of variable costs that have to be paid every time we put a shuttle up, or are there just mostly fixed costs, then divide by shuttle missions per year?
I don't even know what's so inherently bad about a nationalized ID card system or having standards for state driver's licenses -- it's more in how they're used and what can be done with them
The problem with the legislation is that no elected official decides what the requirements are for the license. The department of homeland security can basically make any requirement they want on the card. Examples might be DNA, fingerprints, "terrorist rating", etc. This is not democracy.
No sentator wanted election-loser attack ads saying "Senator so-and-so voted AGAINST sending badly needed money for our troops!".
We did that in Minnesota recently, and just recently a conceal and carry handgun bill was thrown out by the courts because it was attatched to unrelated legislation.
I don't really care about the conceal and carry law either way, but I was glad to see unrelated amendments banned from legislation.
What we should not do is, once we figure out how long something is going to take, to actually run it if the answer is totally pointless. This last step is a waste of time.
A waste of who's time? The computers time? The only used an opteron for the sieving. It's never stated how many computers were used for the rest of the cracking. Once you've written the code, it's not much harder to actually perform the experiment. Like I said, actual cracked keys are far easier to justify to a programmer than theoretical calculations. Actual cracked keys can be trusted 100%. Calculations of performance from unknown researches can be trusted much less than that.
It's trivial to compute how much computing resources it will take to factor numbers using an existing algorithm on paper, and you get a more accurate estimate than you get from sampling experimentally
You can certainly make a decent estimate of how long it will take, but you're never going to get a close approximation of the real-world performance of your implementation until you actually write the code and run it.
The other side is that theoretical calculations are nice, but there's nothing quite like actual verification. It's much easier for a programmer to justify using larger key lengths when someone has actually cracked smaller key lengths rather than using calculations based on estimates of computing power.
Sorry that the link I provided did not answer every possible aspect of my comment
Uhh.. It didn't provide the ONE aspect of your comment that actually mattered. As far as google, it's not my job to prove your claims.
My problem with this whole thing is that it just sounds like a classification more than anything else. You say it's a spectrum disorder, and people have varying degrees of symptoms. To me that sounds like someone has just pulled a bunch of descriptions of things people generally don't like, and turned it into a disease. People like explanations more so than truth.
Take any 6 symptoms, say you need 3 to have the disease, and a certain percentage of the populace will have it. Throw in a few famous dead people who "could have had the disease" (except no one even got to examine them, just idle speculation based on other often dead people's recollections) and you've got a nice, fuzzy, ill-defined disease. What I'm getting at is that this disease definition sounds so ellusive (widely varying symptoms, many of which are relatively common), that it doesn't seem to be anything more than a series of symptoms. Heart disease there's blockage. Hepatitis there's an actual virus. Hell, even depression you can measure lowered neuro-transmitters, treat it sucessfully with drugs, etc. But what use is this "diagnosis" of Aspergers Syndrome other than making people feel better because you've assigned it a name?
There's so many of these elusive "syndromes and disorders" these days that it calls into question much of medical science. Gulf War Syndrome, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, which of these are actually real? Does every behaviour that's a bit out of the ordinary have to have a syndrome or disorder associated with it. Maybe I have Argumentative Skeptic Disorder.
Symptoms include
1. inability to accept well cherished beliefs as fact.
2. arguing against unproven beliefs whenever they're brought up as fact.
3. Use of sarcasm.
4. Not accepting the opinions of learned experts.
I'm really trying not to be a dick, but how is this diagnosis more than just a bunch of vague symptoms?
I read all those criteria, and it sounds like a bunch of BS, probbably even more so now. Those criteria are so open-ended that someone could easily be miss-diagnosed with it. As far as the symptoms you listed, a lot of people have broken marriages and a difficulty with authority. External stimulus is a bit more rare, but it's hardly a diagnosis.
You can see the brain disfunction of people with AS on Brain scans:
Actually it says nothing of the sort. They haven't completed the research yet. All that's said is "they expect to find"... It's also a very small study of 7 people (and no mention if it's a matched study based on age, economic status, etc). You can infer exactly nothing at this stage from that article except that someone thinks there could be observable brain differences.
Yah, but the money you save isn't worth for the longer amount of time it takes. Assume 30mpg at 55 mph, and 25 mpg at 70 mph. Over a 100 mile trip that means you'd burn 100/30=3.33 gallons of gas, or about $6.66, and 100/25=4 gallons=$8. It would take you 100/30=1.8 hours, and 100/70=1.4 hours. So you'd lose about 24 minutes for $1.34. So gaining an hour in time only costs you $3.35. For most people, that $3.35 is money well spent.
I guess the other thing is I'd highly question how generalizable that graph is. What vehicle was it for? Certainly car makers are designing cars to be optimized for higher speeds these days, plus with fuel injection, computer controlled timing, etc I suspect cars are much more efficient at higher revs than they used to be.
Well, my guess is jackrabbit starts are quite a bit less fuel efficient, but only for that 3 or 4 seconds when you're speeding up. Since that only happens every few minutes, the effect is going to be small.
Yes. This DOS attack has been known for quite a long time. It's only recently become known outside the hacker community. Some people even accidentally do it to themselves. Among laymen it's called "leaving your lights on".
At no point in earth's history has all life been wiped clean from it. The earth is fine; if people go the way of the dinosaur, then so be it.
You've stumbled upon the central lie of the "environmentalists movement". That is that it's all about "saving the planet". You're absolutely right, the planet is in no danger. Humanity of course, is in some danger.
As far as not caring about humanity, well you're entitled to your values. The vast majority of us don't want humanity to go away, people to suffer do to damage to our environment, etc. You'll excuse us if we get concerned about such things.
Passports are required by the United States when a US citizen crosses the border inbound, no matter where you're coming from.
Sorry, but you're wrong. Don't generalize your border crossing from one experience. Passports are not currently required for people coming into the US from Canada or Mexico. What you do need is proof of citizenship and a photo ID. That could be a birth certificate and drivers license, or a passport. Passports are going to be required for entry into the US from Canada and Mexico starting it 2008.
Or just plunk down $55 and buy a Linksys WRT54G, put your favorite open-source linux firmware on it (sveasoft, etc) and enable traffic prioritizing. Much more reliable, and faster than a 486 which tops out at about 2 megabits/sec.
I have larger percentages invested in single companies in my portfolio and I mostly invest in Mutual funds.
Sure, it's not a huge percentage of Dells wealth, most of his wealth is of course tied up in Dell. It's likely a much higher percentage of his more liquid wealth though. It's also not quite fair to compare percentages of your, and Dells investments, since you (presumably) don't own a good chunk of a major corporation you founded.
and then you sit there, looking at it impotently. or were you actually thinking you were going to shoot an activist?
Reflex action. Doesn't everyone have an activist they'd like to shoot? Around here it's probbably the SCO activists.
but one wonders what's behind of this move.
With a 100 million investment by an individual (and not a corporation) you can bet that Michael Dell thinks this is a good investment. That kind of money isn't chump change, so he must think it's a good risk.