I remember previous discussions here on this topic mentioning that a lot of drug development funding currently comes from the government. Assuming the private research disappeared completely, there would still be pharmaceutical research, albeit less.
I really have no idea how extensions work on FF, so I may be completely wrong, but as I understand it, extensions register various hooks so FF calls them at certain times, like AdBlock would get called every time an image or external object is loaded and decides whether it should actually be loaded. If each tab has its own thread, then an extension's code could get called by different tabs all at once, so the extension would get run in multiple threads, but it would only be aware of the thread it gets run in. I think the hard part is actually getting tabs to be in separate threads because there at a lot of shared resources, and threading is hard in general.
Once again, please correct me if there is something horribly wrong with this idea.:)
Re:Must be why rsync over ssh is much faster
on
Multi-Threaded SSH/SCP
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Unless your servers are running rsh, rsync is probably going to get routed through ssh, in which case it gets encrypted just like scp. ref:
Secure Shell - The security concious of you out there would like this, and you should all be using it. The stream from rsync is passed through the ssh protocol to encrypt your session instead of rsh, which is also an option (and required if you don't use ssh - enable it in your/etc/inet.d and restart your inet daemon if you disabled it for security).
No thanks. I'll take my analog television for non HD-channels and DVDs for my movie watching any day of the week.
So, digital sucks, so you will stick to DVDs for movies?
You make a good point. A lot of digital video sources use painfully low bitrates in order to cut costs and support more channels. I thought I remembered hearing about YouTube increasing the minimum quality level on its videos, but I cannot see any refernces to that.
It is not that hard to encode video such that it is a reasonable size and quality using modern codecs, but it requires more bandwidth than YouTube and others are willing to pay for. Notably, it probably requires significantly less bandwidth than a nice looking analog broadcast.
He did not ask for a free edition for Linux. In fact, the applications he suggested were for various embedded systems which run Linux which most users would not be modifying. I am sure the hardware developers can handle licensing fees for their own devices if they think voice recognition is worth the cost.
If more computers have the Linux-on-the-BIOS thing with HDD (SSD?) support, then that could probably be used to bootstrap OS installation using an internet connection. You could install Debian that way using debootstrap and I am sure it would be relatively easy to simply write out an installer to the main disk and then reboot into it. After all, that it what the Windows XP installer appears to do already except off a CD instead of the internet. I do not know how OS X installs work, but at least Microsoft does not care if you have a copy of their OS as long as they can require you to pay for a license. In fact, with an internet based install, it would probably be easier to require real activation. (I am sure it would still be cracked, of course, but it would require a bit more work.)
Perhaps only the young people you refer to remember their civics class from high school and are aware that laws limiting video game content or who can buy which video games are unconstitutional by the first amendment. It has been shown in court multiple times that the states may not make such laws either. The laws again porn are likely unconstitutional as well, but they have been held up in court as the first amendment apparently does not apply to material the justices believe is devoid of moral content or something like that.
The federal drinking age stands on rather questionable constitutional grounds. It is set up so that the states have to agree to a drinking age of 21 or the federal government will refuse to give them highway funding, and no state can afford to turn down that money.
My problem is not so much that the rules are stupid nor do I necessary believe their negation should be law, in fact I would have no problem with voluntary age restrictions enforced by most retailers like the well-known system for movies. Many posters have already commented that that is how it currently works. On the other hand, I do have a problem with a government which ignores its own rules about what kinds of laws it may pass. If they want to censor video games, they may do it as soon as they pass a "Censorship Amendment" giving Congress the right to make censorship laws. But I doubt that will happen.
As the other people who have already replied to you have mentioned, the differences you specify between Japanese and langauges more familiar to you have nothing to do with it not following universal grammar, they are simply ways Japanese differs from the other languages you have encountered. There actually are aspects of Japanese, which also appear in other languages, which linguists have trouble explaining (classifiers and double-nominative verbs likely among other features I am not familiar with), but that is true of all natural languages because linguistics in its current form is a relatively young science.
In fact, Japanese is a rather good example of a clean head-final language. Russian (like Latin) gives X-bar theory a bit more trouble because it has freer word order, but there are theories which explain that and better ones are being developed and discussed in the literature.
The distinction you mention in Japanese between "this pencil" (kono), "that pencil" (sono), and "that pencil over there" (ano) is not unheard of in other languages, although English only has one type of "that" as opposed to Japanese's two.
I wish I could point you to some good linguistics sites, but I have not found any. My knowledge is from an undergrad course which unfortunately does not have any online notes. The textbook has a listing on Google Books, but I assume not all of it is available and the professor had a tendency to disagree with it.
Most linguists currently believe in the existance of something called "universal grammar", which is a set of properties common to all acquirable human languages (that is, langauges which can be learned as a native language). If you were able to get a computer to comprehend one language (or probably a few to make sure you have sufficiently generalized your principles), then additional languages and dialects would be relatively easy: just give it enough examples of sentences in that language, and the computer will figure out its grammar. Babies can do it. Google should have enough data for that from the web crawls it already does. Keeping up with language evolution is a nearly trivial problem compared to language understanding.
Of course, getting the computer to understand one language is a monumental task.
Okay, I generally get the feeling that Wikipedia is going further than just requiring verifiability. If they delete articles only after an effort has been made to find sources and none were found, then that makes sense within Wikipedia's mission (to be a secondary source, not a primary source).
Each Wikimedia project has a very distinct type of content/style. They could all be in namespaces on one wiki, but that would appear nearly identical to the user, so I do not see the point. In my experience there is good cross-linking among the projects, so I do not see a problem with the divide... as long as for any given piece of information it fits somewhere on Wikimedia. A few other posters have been complaining about the recent Wikipedia article deletion spree, and I agree: it is okay to want Wikimedia organized, and if some information belongs on Wikibooks, then put it there and leave a link on Wikipedia; but deleting articles for insufficiently notability does not make sense when there is no real space limit.
Go back and read the history of the Bill of Rights. There was a huge controversy for exactly the reasons you state: why bother listing obvious rights unless it means the people do not have the others. See Arguments against the Bill of Rights on Wikipedia.
If you are going to start using a new hash function, you might as well use SHA-2 or something else with no known attacks. MD5 and SHA1 attacks are interesting because a lot of existing applications use them, but seeing as there are known partial attacks against both, one would likely be best off avoiding them for new applications.
As I understand it, the normal way to generate a digital signature is to use a hash algorithm like MD5 or SHA1 and then encrypt the hash with a private key. Then you verify by hashing the file and decrypting the signature with the public key and checking to see if they match. Therefore, distributing signatures instead of hashes is orthogonal to the discussion at hand. If the hash is broken, then the signature is broken, too.
Well, yes, but it at least gets you more bits. In addition, I think MD5 and SHA1 use sufficiently different mathematics that it would be difficult to come up with an attack technique which was effective on both of them. Instead you would likely have to try to find collisions in the two separately and keep going until they both collide for the same data, which does not help much in finding a collision.
Considering how much trouble I have had setting up Windows XP on SATA (I assume Vista is better at it) and that was not even a very weird HDD setup, a CD which could boot and wipe the hard drive on any x86 computer would be quite impressive.
Although OTR and gaim-encryption (now pidgin-encryption) were originally for AIM (as far as I can tell), if you are using pidgin, I see no reason other than possibly some quirks in the plug-in why you could not use them on MSN or any other protocol. I think I have used pidgin-encryption on Jabber.
Your solution does not scale. Maybe the speed improvements in Firefox 3 will help, but currently if I restore my Firefox session on my desktop it takes about a minute to settle down.
On top of that session restore feels the need to actually act like I closed an reopened the browser, which technically I did, but the whole point of restoring my session is that the browser should act like it never closed. This means that a lot of websites visit require me to login again.
And the final, and really the most annoying, part is that session restore does not properly handle multiple desktops so if I have Firefox windows organized into 7 desktops (looking up things for different projects I have open), and then kill it and restore, I suddenly have a ton of Firefox windows clumped into one desktop.
If Firefox had proper session restore, then your solution to memory leaks would at least be a reasonable workaround, but as it stands, it is not acceptable behavior.
On the other hand, although Firefox does use a lot of memory for me, it does not seem to leak. As you may have gathered from my post so far, I tend to have a lot of windows and tabs open.
I always disabled autostart in XP with the group policies manager, although I do admit to having difficulties finding the option. I remember it being much easier to find in earlier versions of Windows.
I think your best chance of that is getting an open source webmail project started with the goal of emulating GMail's best features. Either that or Google selling Google Apps boxes.
Now, I am well aware that information posted to a social networking site is not especially private, but what is probably the main draw of Facebook over MySpace is networks. By default, only people in one's network can see one's profile and Facebook allows one to set whether each part of one's profile is viewable by everyone, people on the same network, friends even with limited rights, or friends with non-limited rights. (Having a limited rights level for friends seems silly to me, but it is in there.) The network plans discussed in the article are all completely open so anyone can see anyone else's profile. That is not what I, nor likely many college students, want in a social networking site.
Really? I find Facebook is useful as an address book. I no longer have to ask every person I meet for IM/cell/e-mail. Other than that, it seems pretty well ignoreable.
Slashdot Mirror
I remember previous discussions here on this topic mentioning that a lot of drug development funding currently comes from the government. Assuming the private research disappeared completely, there would still be pharmaceutical research, albeit less.
I am not sufficiently familiar with the topic to argue about it myself, but some googling found a blog post with arguments similar to those I have seen here in the past (with references).
I really have no idea how extensions work on FF, so I may be completely wrong, but as I understand it, extensions register various hooks so FF calls them at certain times, like AdBlock would get called every time an image or external object is loaded and decides whether it should actually be loaded. If each tab has its own thread, then an extension's code could get called by different tabs all at once, so the extension would get run in multiple threads, but it would only be aware of the thread it gets run in. I think the hard part is actually getting tabs to be in separate threads because there at a lot of shared resources, and threading is hard in general.
Once again, please correct me if there is something horribly wrong with this idea. :)
So, digital sucks, so you will stick to DVDs for movies?
You make a good point. A lot of digital video sources use painfully low bitrates in order to cut costs and support more channels. I thought I remembered hearing about YouTube increasing the minimum quality level on its videos, but I cannot see any refernces to that.
It is not that hard to encode video such that it is a reasonable size and quality using modern codecs, but it requires more bandwidth than YouTube and others are willing to pay for. Notably, it probably requires significantly less bandwidth than a nice looking analog broadcast.
He did not ask for a free edition for Linux. In fact, the applications he suggested were for various embedded systems which run Linux which most users would not be modifying. I am sure the hardware developers can handle licensing fees for their own devices if they think voice recognition is worth the cost.
In short: "For Linux" does not mean "For free".
If more computers have the Linux-on-the-BIOS thing with HDD (SSD?) support, then that could probably be used to bootstrap OS installation using an internet connection. You could install Debian that way using debootstrap and I am sure it would be relatively easy to simply write out an installer to the main disk and then reboot into it. After all, that it what the Windows XP installer appears to do already except off a CD instead of the internet. I do not know how OS X installs work, but at least Microsoft does not care if you have a copy of their OS as long as they can require you to pay for a license. In fact, with an internet based install, it would probably be easier to require real activation. (I am sure it would still be cracked, of course, but it would require a bit more work.)
So... you never read Tunnel in the Sky?
Perhaps only the young people you refer to remember their civics class from high school and are aware that laws limiting video game content or who can buy which video games are unconstitutional by the first amendment. It has been shown in court multiple times that the states may not make such laws either. The laws again porn are likely unconstitutional as well, but they have been held up in court as the first amendment apparently does not apply to material the justices believe is devoid of moral content or something like that.
The federal drinking age stands on rather questionable constitutional grounds. It is set up so that the states have to agree to a drinking age of 21 or the federal government will refuse to give them highway funding, and no state can afford to turn down that money.
My problem is not so much that the rules are stupid nor do I necessary believe their negation should be law, in fact I would have no problem with voluntary age restrictions enforced by most retailers like the well-known system for movies. Many posters have already commented that that is how it currently works. On the other hand, I do have a problem with a government which ignores its own rules about what kinds of laws it may pass. If they want to censor video games, they may do it as soon as they pass a "Censorship Amendment" giving Congress the right to make censorship laws. But I doubt that will happen.
I know this sounds like a troll, but, seriously: do you really believe any of those 1.5% of users still running Windows 9x/ME aren't rooted already?
As the other people who have already replied to you have mentioned, the differences you specify between Japanese and langauges more familiar to you have nothing to do with it not following universal grammar, they are simply ways Japanese differs from the other languages you have encountered. There actually are aspects of Japanese, which also appear in other languages, which linguists have trouble explaining (classifiers and double-nominative verbs likely among other features I am not familiar with), but that is true of all natural languages because linguistics in its current form is a relatively young science.
In fact, Japanese is a rather good example of a clean head-final language. Russian (like Latin) gives X-bar theory a bit more trouble because it has freer word order, but there are theories which explain that and better ones are being developed and discussed in the literature.
The distinction you mention in Japanese between "this pencil" (kono), "that pencil" (sono), and "that pencil over there" (ano) is not unheard of in other languages, although English only has one type of "that" as opposed to Japanese's two.
I wish I could point you to some good linguistics sites, but I have not found any. My knowledge is from an undergrad course which unfortunately does not have any online notes. The textbook has a listing on Google Books, but I assume not all of it is available and the professor had a tendency to disagree with it.
Most linguists currently believe in the existance of something called "universal grammar", which is a set of properties common to all acquirable human languages (that is, langauges which can be learned as a native language). If you were able to get a computer to comprehend one language (or probably a few to make sure you have sufficiently generalized your principles), then additional languages and dialects would be relatively easy: just give it enough examples of sentences in that language, and the computer will figure out its grammar. Babies can do it. Google should have enough data for that from the web crawls it already does. Keeping up with language evolution is a nearly trivial problem compared to language understanding.
Of course, getting the computer to understand one language is a monumental task.
Okay, I generally get the feeling that Wikipedia is going further than just requiring verifiability. If they delete articles only after an effort has been made to find sources and none were found, then that makes sense within Wikipedia's mission (to be a secondary source, not a primary source).
Each Wikimedia project has a very distinct type of content/style. They could all be in namespaces on one wiki, but that would appear nearly identical to the user, so I do not see the point. In my experience there is good cross-linking among the projects, so I do not see a problem with the divide... as long as for any given piece of information it fits somewhere on Wikimedia. A few other posters have been complaining about the recent Wikipedia article deletion spree, and I agree: it is okay to want Wikimedia organized, and if some information belongs on Wikibooks, then put it there and leave a link on Wikipedia; but deleting articles for insufficiently notability does not make sense when there is no real space limit.
Go back and read the history of the Bill of Rights. There was a huge controversy for exactly the reasons you state: why bother listing obvious rights unless it means the people do not have the others. See Arguments against the Bill of Rights on Wikipedia.
If you are going to start using a new hash function, you might as well use SHA-2 or something else with no known attacks. MD5 and SHA1 attacks are interesting because a lot of existing applications use them, but seeing as there are known partial attacks against both, one would likely be best off avoiding them for new applications.
As I understand it, the normal way to generate a digital signature is to use a hash algorithm like MD5 or SHA1 and then encrypt the hash with a private key. Then you verify by hashing the file and decrypting the signature with the public key and checking to see if they match. Therefore, distributing signatures instead of hashes is orthogonal to the discussion at hand. If the hash is broken, then the signature is broken, too.
See Wikipedia for more information on digital signatures.
Well, yes, but it at least gets you more bits. In addition, I think MD5 and SHA1 use sufficiently different mathematics that it would be difficult to come up with an attack technique which was effective on both of them. Instead you would likely have to try to find collisions in the two separately and keep going until they both collide for the same data, which does not help much in finding a collision.
Considering how much trouble I have had setting up Windows XP on SATA (I assume Vista is better at it) and that was not even a very weird HDD setup, a CD which could boot and wipe the hard drive on any x86 computer would be quite impressive.
Although OTR and gaim-encryption (now pidgin-encryption) were originally for AIM (as far as I can tell), if you are using pidgin, I see no reason other than possibly some quirks in the plug-in why you could not use them on MSN or any other protocol. I think I have used pidgin-encryption on Jabber.
If Firefox had proper session restore, then your solution to memory leaks would at least be a reasonable workaround, but as it stands, it is not acceptable behavior.
On the other hand, although Firefox does use a lot of memory for me, it does not seem to leak. As you may have gathered from my post so far, I tend to have a lot of windows and tabs open.
I always disabled autostart in XP with the group policies manager, although I do admit to having difficulties finding the option. I remember it being much easier to find in earlier versions of Windows.
I think your best chance of that is getting an open source webmail project started with the goal of emulating GMail's best features. Either that or Google selling Google Apps boxes.
Now, I am well aware that information posted to a social networking site is not especially private, but what is probably the main draw of Facebook over MySpace is networks. By default, only people in one's network can see one's profile and Facebook allows one to set whether each part of one's profile is viewable by everyone, people on the same network, friends even with limited rights, or friends with non-limited rights. (Having a limited rights level for friends seems silly to me, but it is in there.) The network plans discussed in the article are all completely open so anyone can see anyone else's profile. That is not what I, nor likely many college students, want in a social networking site.
Really? I find Facebook is useful as an address book. I no longer have to ask every person I meet for IM/cell/e-mail. Other than that, it seems pretty well ignoreable.
There is an option to completely disable applications in the privacy settings. I assume that would also disable requests from applications.