It's not clear from the article but I know that Google's server farm runs on Linux. Does the same apply for these machines and, if so, do they come with the source code to the GPL-ed parts of the server software?
Check out their resellerratings.com um....rating though. I've used them once or twice and they've been ok but you're pretty much on your own if anything goes wrong with your order.
That's no problem. You just make trust decay. With every hop away from your own directly linked network the trust metric is reduced. So I might give my Dad a trust value of 10/10 (i.e. I would trust this person with my life), but I could assign second-generation hops (those outside of my control) 80% of the trust value that Dad gives them.
Allowing users to tweak their own trust decay rates will let them manage the size of their trust pool and reduce the impact of malicious users (i.e. phishers, for example).
I was disappointed at first to see that the BBC is implementing DRM but it's worth bearing in mind that not all the content broadcast by the BBC is owned by them. Much of it comes from independent studios who license it to the BBC. So I remain hopeful that the BBC will offer its own copyrighted material to UK license payers on more permissive terms.
According to the article the method works by asking its network of email users if they've seen the spam before:
Similar software on each computer that receives the query would then check the message against its own spam database, and so on, until a match is found, or the message is deemed original.
So it can't deal with spam that includes a unique random ID and would tag emails from a mailing list as spam. Once more: nice try, but it won't work in the real world.
Personalised trust metrics
on
Google TrustRank
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
It would be amazing if Google gave us the ability to assign trust values to sites that we ourselves trust. This way, for example, I might give Wikipedia or the BBC a 10/10 trust rating for all their off-site links (and set it so that links off the linked sites are at 50% of their parent trust rating etc.). If we could also subscribe to someone else's trust ratings then technically illiterate people could hand over the responsibility of managing their trust database to someone else.
From first thoughts, this looks like it could solve the problem of malicious SEO.
Does anyone have any ideas on how well FileVault in Mac OS X would stand up to this? Seems to me that with a strong, unique password it would be pretty much unbreakable since the entire home directory is encrypted.
Taking GNOME and KDE as examples of the Open Source community's efforts towards reducing bloat, I doubt that they'd manage the results you'd want. Speedwise, WinXP is actually pretty good.
Since the copyrights are owned by the people who contribute to the articles, Google would have to contact each of them and ask them to relicense their contributions under a less permissive one. It's a bit like when that dude asked if a Linux kernel snapshot could be released under a BSD license for $50,000. Not going to happen.
Does anyone have any idea what license it uses? I hunted around their site but couldn't find any info. The fact that they plan to release the source and releases suggests some sort of OSS license though.
The difference is that it has been accelerated to a speed of.999c. It's been a year or so since I did this sort of stuff but the fact that a force has acted on it to accelerate it to that speed (which hasn't acted on us) is the difference. I think.
Then how come drunk taxi passengers aren't charged with DUI? They would be if they specifically paid the taxi driver to drive recklessly whilst under the influence.
Are you suggesting that no-one searches for 'porn' on Google? It's more likely that the results are passed through a sanitiser beforehand so that you don't have Google suggesting you look at adult content.
They're probably going to end up wholly owned by Boies and Schiller at this rate. It's sad in a way. Then IBM can pick over what's left and GPL Unix once and for all.
Re:Voting machines are not inherently buggie
on
Buggy Voting Machines
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The problem is that, compared to ATMs and Ebay, voting 'transactions' happen so infrequently that they are not able to be rigorously tested despite having to bear the same burdens of security. So voting machines aren't inherently buggy, but their environment is inherently difficult to debug in.
...after all, an advert saying "We can see what you're sharing" would probably scare plenty of the less clueful P2P users. Whether the P2P networks would accept advertising from them would be an interesting question - if, as they claim, their intention is for legitimate file sharing only then they wouldn't really have a leg to stand on if they wanted to refuse it.
Surely the point is that every artist, writer and otherwise creative person is only able to be creative in that way because they're able to build on the past creativity of others. This is the deal: when you benefit from previous generations' work, fine. Just don't block the next generation from benefitting from your work in the same way. And if what you've made is popular enough then you'll have earnt enough from it to leave your children enough of a legacy for anyone.
Either Maureen O' Gara (the real one) posted that or someone else posted it under her name. Other commenters include "Linux guy", "Johnny Cash" and I remember seeing "Darl McBride" himself post somewhere there (although it's now removed). There's no way of knowing if, in fact, it was the real Maureen or an imposter.
Could someone explain why the semiconductor industry is 'cyclical'? What is it which makes a downturn predictable, or is it a self-fulfilling thing (lack of investment during predicted downturns causes otherwise unnecessary lack of performance)?
Is encoding each film on-the-fly with a subscriber's account number really feasible, hardware-wise? Surely the load on the servers doing that would be prohibitive.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not clear from the article but I know that Google's server farm runs on Linux. Does the same apply for these machines and, if so, do they come with the source code to the GPL-ed parts of the server software?
Check out their resellerratings.com um....rating though. I've used them once or twice and they've been ok but you're pretty much on your own if anything goes wrong with your order.
That's no problem. You just make trust decay. With every hop away from your own directly linked network the trust metric is reduced. So I might give my Dad a trust value of 10/10 (i.e. I would trust this person with my life), but I could assign second-generation hops (those outside of my control) 80% of the trust value that Dad gives them. Allowing users to tweak their own trust decay rates will let them manage the size of their trust pool and reduce the impact of malicious users (i.e. phishers, for example).
I was disappointed at first to see that the BBC is implementing DRM but it's worth bearing in mind that not all the content broadcast by the BBC is owned by them. Much of it comes from independent studios who license it to the BBC. So I remain hopeful that the BBC will offer its own copyrighted material to UK license payers on more permissive terms.
So it can't deal with spam that includes a unique random ID and would tag emails from a mailing list as spam. Once more: nice try, but it won't work in the real world.
It would be amazing if Google gave us the ability to assign trust values to sites that we ourselves trust. This way, for example, I might give Wikipedia or the BBC a 10/10 trust rating for all their off-site links (and set it so that links off the linked sites are at 50% of their parent trust rating etc.). If we could also subscribe to someone else's trust ratings then technically illiterate people could hand over the responsibility of managing their trust database to someone else. From first thoughts, this looks like it could solve the problem of malicious SEO.
Does anyone have any ideas on how well FileVault in Mac OS X would stand up to this? Seems to me that with a strong, unique password it would be pretty much unbreakable since the entire home directory is encrypted.
Taking GNOME and KDE as examples of the Open Source community's efforts towards reducing bloat, I doubt that they'd manage the results you'd want. Speedwise, WinXP is actually pretty good.
Since the copyrights are owned by the people who contribute to the articles, Google would have to contact each of them and ask them to relicense their contributions under a less permissive one. It's a bit like when that dude asked if a Linux kernel snapshot could be released under a BSD license for $50,000. Not going to happen.
Does anyone have any idea what license it uses? I hunted around their site but couldn't find any info. The fact that they plan to release the source and releases suggests some sort of OSS license though.
The difference is that it has been accelerated to a speed of .999c. It's been a year or so since I did this sort of stuff but the fact that a force has acted on it to accelerate it to that speed (which hasn't acted on us) is the difference. I think.
Too late. Coral got to it after the slashdot hordes and so was only able to cache its corpse :(.
Then how come drunk taxi passengers aren't charged with DUI?
They would be if they specifically paid the taxi driver to drive recklessly whilst under the influence.
Are you suggesting that no-one searches for 'porn' on Google? It's more likely that the results are passed through a sanitiser beforehand so that you don't have Google suggesting you look at adult content.
They're probably going to end up wholly owned by Boies and Schiller at this rate. It's sad in a way. Then IBM can pick over what's left and GPL Unix once and for all.
The problem is that, compared to ATMs and Ebay, voting 'transactions' happen so infrequently that they are not able to be rigorously tested despite having to bear the same burdens of security. So voting machines aren't inherently buggy, but their environment is inherently difficult to debug in.
...after all, an advert saying "We can see what you're sharing" would probably scare plenty of the less clueful P2P users. Whether the P2P networks would accept advertising from them would be an interesting question - if, as they claim, their intention is for legitimate file sharing only then they wouldn't really have a leg to stand on if they wanted to refuse it.
Surely the point is that every artist, writer and otherwise creative person is only able to be creative in that way because they're able to build on the past creativity of others. This is the deal: when you benefit from previous generations' work, fine. Just don't block the next generation from benefitting from your work in the same way. And if what you've made is popular enough then you'll have earnt enough from it to leave your children enough of a legacy for anyone.
Either Maureen O' Gara (the real one) posted that or someone else posted it under her name. Other commenters include "Linux guy", "Johnny Cash" and I remember seeing "Darl McBride" himself post somewhere there (although it's now removed). There's no way of knowing if, in fact, it was the real Maureen or an imposter.
Could someone explain why the semiconductor industry is 'cyclical'? What is it which makes a downturn predictable, or is it a self-fulfilling thing (lack of investment during predicted downturns causes otherwise unnecessary lack of performance)?
This speech seems to have had zero affect on Microsoft. Lets hope its predictions (i.e. that DRM is bad for Microsoft) are accurate.
How about embedded devices? If it has BeOS's multimedia capabilities it should be fantastic for those sorts of applications.
Is encoding each film on-the-fly with a subscriber's account number really feasible, hardware-wise? Surely the load on the servers doing that would be prohibitive.
So how much piracy will the new Starter Edition be 'a vehicle' for, seeing as it's functionally even less capable than Linux?
He could have just....talked to her, but noooo - he had to go and write a program to do it. God help him when he wants to have kids ;).