Yesterday, I also saw a stupid diploma Windows Messenger spam, at school. It claimed, as I recall, to come from WEBPOPUP02. In any case, I'm hoping that the school takes account of that and does the obvious (blocks off the port to people outside the network).
No concern exists over whether we can all fit on the planet (or Texas); your plan fails in that you have a person every 10m x 10m, even though a 10m x 10m square of the soil with highest fertility, and constant ideal amounts of sun, rain, wind, and erosion, will not be able to feed you. There isn't enough food, even if you're just growing plants. If you must eat meat, you're even more doomed, due to the high metabolismic requirements of the livestock. This is the only point in favour of vegetarianism that I truly believe and respect. Eating meat has a dramatic effect on the size of our ecological footprints.
Or, to complete the cycle, can they run Linux under an XBox emulator under Windows under Linux under an XBox emulator under Windows under Linux under an XBox emulator under Windows under Linux under an XBox emulator under Windows under Linux under an XBox emulator under Windows under Linux under an XBox emulator under Windows under Linux on an XBox?
Re:Really.. shall we start from the top?
on
Hacker Culture
·
· Score: 1
That is only true if most of your essential components were produced by the GNU Project. If your liver has a GPL preamble,... .
50% of all slashdotters above the median in nitpicking.
First of all, this sentence lacks a verb. However, the main problem is than when the assumed verb is inserted, "are," then some assumptions are made which are not necessarily true. For example, for exactly 50% of people to be a whole number of people, there must be an even number of slashdotters. Furthermore, if more than 50% of all slashdotters are equally and completely lacking in nitpicking, then less than 50% are above the median, 0.
- amazingly enough, there's no good alert sound to let you know when you've got a new message - no pop-up, no flashing Dock/startmenuthing blinking..
Well, optional client components (such as the IP notifier, which does indeed pop up whenever you get new mail, can be downloaded here.
However, what's more annoying is that their web interface isn't all that great (for example, can't select multiple messages for deletion/moving/undeleting/whatever), and they have no client program for Linux and X, only for Mac OS X (and that one is a beta RC1). A Linux version is supposedly under development and scheduled for release in Q4. I'm wishing...
Interestingly enough, they have an IMAP server which almost none of my mail clients were able to log in to (with the proper username/password, of course), but fetchmail can do it, and, by following the RFC, so can I. I haven't bothered to figure out what's wrong yet. Their servers clearly support POP3, but the problem with that is that it does not enable one to use their conferencing.
I know I'm replying to my own post, but it may very well be that Microsoft is buffering their bugfixes because they know very well that a server can only be forced by the update mechanism to reboot a certain number of times in one month; any more, and their customers will whine about downtime. *grin*
(Constant and merciless MS-bashing is unfounded but, oh, so fun!)
Yet another Microsoft patch batch. Why don't they put out these patches in a FIFO manner? This buffered output hinders my impression of their responsiveness. This corporation has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down. (That was irrelevant, but necessary.)
They have a program with which one can select the letters using a mouse in an effective and probabilistic manner. The next steps:
1. Develop a monitor which can detect light pointed at it (such as lasers). 2. Develop little lasers which can be attached to one's eyes and which indicate to the monitor which way you're looking. Make them strong, or else the monitor will get confused in the sunlight. 3. Throw away the monitor, show off with your powerful "laser eyes."
When I left most settings alone but set the Caps mode to caps 2 and tested to see which sentence it thought was most likely, it spat out "The responsibility for the state of the state of the state of the state of the..."
What if you find yourself broke? You can't really control your thoughts that much; will you be arrested and imprisoned for thinking about a movie? If so, as soon as you've been caught once, you could very well be staying for the rest of your life, because when you are put in jail, you think about what you did wrong, and about the movie, and you've "stolen" again!
If you read the article, one of the first sentences you would read would be:
Microsoft loses around 6% share this month, as register.com continues to fluctuate between using a Windows and Linux front end, and homestead.com, which originally based its business model on support from advertising, cleared away over a million sites.
Dr. Leroy McCloud, St. Petersburg, Florida, dentist, was surprised when a patient's cell phone rang, and downright floored when the patient answered it. After motioning for the doc to wait, the patient chatted on his cell phone for 15 minutes while sitting in the dental chair. Dr. McCloud kicked the patient out of his office.
Actually, the reverse of this happened to me once; as I was at the orthodontist, with an annoying, uncomfortable device kept in my mouth to make sure it's wide open and very dry, he got a cellphone call and proceeded to chat away for several minutes. I would have interrupted, but the aforementioned device stopped me. That was very annoying.
I'd like to clarify, as you don't seem to fully understand how key encryption works. If I am wrong, please disregard this message. You have two keys: a private key, available only to you, and a public key which anyone can know. If a message is encrypted with a private key and the corresponding public key, or several such pairs, in any order, it remains plaintext.
The signature, as was stated, consists of the MD5SUM of the message, and both the message and the signature are separately encrypted with your private key. This way, the receiver will know that the message came from someone knowing your private key, because he/she can decrypt the message with your public key. Furthermore, to ensure that only your intended recipient can read the message, you encrypt the whole thing with the recipient's public key.
However, if someone intercepts the message you sent, encrypts it with his/her public key, and sends it to your recipient, whose mail reader automatically decrypts this message with the recipient's private key, and says that the file is garbled and he needs help, then when the recipient replies, the whole thing will only be encrypted with the attacker's public key (because the recipient's private key decryption cancelled the encryption by the sender with the recipient's public key), and from the reply, the attacker can find and read the message by decrypting with his private key. (In the preceding passage, encryption and decryption describe the same algorithm, just performed with a different purpose.) However, as has been oft-repeated, this is a social engineering hack and depends on the stupidity of the recipient.
Re:If we are going to go ballistic...
on
Gone Fission
·
· Score: 1
And corn, tomatoes, potatoes, beans, squash, tobacco, and cocoa must all be brought back to the Americas, where they belong. *ahem*
A single roll, however commonplace, is, well, shall I say, awkward. When the roll empties, then what? As a result, whenever we saw the roll approaching exhaustion, we would place a new roll either on the floor beside the toilet or on top of the toilet tank. In either case, we were defeating the nice orderly arrangement of the facility. Wouldn't it be far better to have a place to put the roll?
This is the centre of the problem; all of the other BS (sorry, I just had to play that card; what I meant was overcomplicated speculation) veers off and becomes a bit irrelevant, as the only thing sought is a holder for the next roll of toilet paper. However, it is not to be used until the current roll is empty. What could be simpler than to create a cylindrical container in which to put the next roll? It would be inaccessible for use but ready to bring out and replace the old.
If you find an efficient new energy source and are able to demonstrate it, the greedy way out is to sell electricity cheaper than the oil companies ever could, and when you're ready and have enough money, tell everyone how and why it works; the only important thing is that you have to do it when it's already too late for the oil companies.
I give moneyh to the government. Government gives money to researchers. Proprietary company sees code, uses this as a standard, builds interfaces, maybe even better code. I choose - GPL software, or proprietary? Either way, I know that *my* tax dollars aren't going to make someone else money unless *I choose to give it to them*.
I believe this portion is flawed; whether your work is copylefted or not, is the source code is available, any company can grab it, figure out how it works, reimplement it, and extend it, unless I am mistaken. If I am, I would like someone to explain why this would be illegal.
Your impression of the FSF's and Stallman's view of free software is tinged in favour of your arguments. Actually,
here, licenses are listed which are considered to be free by those parties, with whom I agree on most points. These include some which you might consider more free (although this generalization of GPL-protesting slashdotters may, like all generalizations, be wrong), such as the BSD license and the absence of license of Public Domain software (which can be referred to as copycentre by those so inclined).
Many licenses are listed which are considered free other than the GPL, some actually incompatible with the GPL. These licenses are all free because they allow you to view, modify, and redistribute code under the same license. However, the GPL is not merely free; it is aggressively free. In other words, it prevents companies from closing code like Gosling did according to
this Stallman speech.
This may be considered restrictive by some, especially those who find it inconvenient to have to reimplement a wheel already implemented under the GPL umbrella in their proprietary software, for which they, in turn, are not willing to provide the source code. However, on the whole, it has had a positive effect on the freedom of software; when some software projects were gotten rid of by their respective developers, the code could be reused by the free software community instead of left to fade into oblivion, and university students can prevent their universities from closing their code by
using GPLed libraries.
While the GPL may be considered restrictive, it is compatible with the most common free software licenses and its benefit outweighs the harm done to the code-closers and to the few who need to combine, for example, BSDed code with GPLed code under the BSD license, or make it Public Domain.
At the moment, in the free software community (which, I must admit, is influenced heavily by the FSF and its rhetoric (rhetoric does not indicate falsehood, but merely a willingness and ability to persuade)), the GPL is accepted widely enough to avoid conflicts which could have arisen had several parties begun producing incompatible aggressively free software licenses and remained popular.
You're right, rocks are not that unerodable... but when computers become as durable as most rocks, I'll eat my hat! (Actually, a chip can, on some level, be considered a computer, and can be made durable... luckily, however, I don't have a hat.)
Slashdot Mirror
Yesterday, I also saw a stupid diploma Windows Messenger spam, at school. It claimed, as I recall, to come from WEBPOPUP02. In any case, I'm hoping that the school takes account of that and does the obvious (blocks off the port to people outside the network).
Were the misspellings of "misspelled" and "nostalgia" an ironic pair of slips, or illustrations of your point?
s/smi//
No concern exists over whether we can all fit on the planet (or Texas); your plan fails in that you have a person every 10m x 10m, even though a 10m x 10m square of the soil with highest fertility, and constant ideal amounts of sun, rain, wind, and erosion, will not be able to feed you. There isn't enough food, even if you're just growing plants. If you must eat meat, you're even more doomed, due to the high metabolismic requirements of the livestock. This is the only point in favour of vegetarianism that I truly believe and respect. Eating meat has a dramatic effect on the size of our ecological footprints.
Everyone forgot about the LiMEnux!
Or, to complete the cycle, can they run Linux under an XBox emulator under Windows under Linux under an XBox emulator under Windows under Linux under an XBox emulator under Windows under Linux under an XBox emulator under Windows under Linux under an XBox emulator under Windows under Linux under an XBox emulator under Windows under Linux on an XBox?
That is only true if most of your essential components were produced by the GNU Project. If your liver has a GPL preamble, ... .
First of all, this sentence lacks a verb. However, the main problem is than when the assumed verb is inserted, "are," then some assumptions are made which are not necessarily true. For example, for exactly 50% of people to be a whole number of people, there must be an even number of slashdotters. Furthermore, if more than 50% of all slashdotters are equally and completely lacking in nitpicking, then less than 50% are above the median, 0.
(Score: 1, Offtopic)
Well, optional client components (such as the IP notifier, which does indeed pop up whenever you get new mail, can be downloaded here.
However, what's more annoying is that their web interface isn't all that great (for example, can't select multiple messages for deletion/moving/undeleting/whatever), and they have no client program for Linux and X, only for Mac OS X (and that one is a beta RC1). A Linux version is supposedly under development and scheduled for release in Q4. I'm wishing...
Interestingly enough, they have an IMAP server which almost none of my mail clients were able to log in to (with the proper username/password, of course), but fetchmail can do it, and, by following the RFC, so can I. I haven't bothered to figure out what's wrong yet. Their servers clearly support POP3, but the problem with that is that it does not enable one to use their conferencing.
(Constant and merciless MS-bashing is unfounded but, oh, so fun!)
Yet another Microsoft patch batch. Why don't they put out these patches in a FIFO manner? This buffered output hinders my impression of their responsiveness.
This corporation has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down. (That was irrelevant, but necessary.)
They have a program with which one can select the letters using a mouse in an effective and probabilistic manner. The next steps:
1. Develop a monitor which can detect light pointed at it (such as lasers).
2. Develop little lasers which can be attached to one's eyes and which indicate to the monitor which way you're looking. Make them strong, or else the monitor will get confused in the sunlight.
3. Throw away the monitor, show off with your powerful "laser eyes."
When I left most settings alone but set the Caps mode to caps 2 and tested to see which sentence it thought was most likely, it spat out "The responsibility for the state of the state of the state of the state of the ..."
What if you find yourself broke? You can't really control your thoughts that much; will you be arrested and imprisoned for thinking about a movie? If so, as soon as you've been caught once, you could very well be staying for the rest of your life, because when you are put in jail, you think about what you did wrong, and about the movie, and you've "stolen" again!
Actually, the reverse of this happened to me once; as I was at the orthodontist, with an annoying, uncomfortable device kept in my mouth to make sure it's wide open and very dry, he got a cellphone call and proceeded to chat away for several minutes. I would have interrupted, but the aforementioned device stopped me. That was very annoying.
I assume you're in Toronto because you linked to a Toronto DNUG. In that case, what you were looking for is the TLUG.
that they are right in starting with version 5? Just curious...
I'd like to clarify, as you don't seem to fully understand how key encryption works. If I am wrong, please disregard this message. You have two keys: a private key, available only to you, and a public key which anyone can know. If a message is encrypted with a private key and the corresponding public key, or several such pairs, in any order, it remains plaintext.
The signature, as was stated, consists of the MD5SUM of the message, and both the message and the signature are separately encrypted with your private key. This way, the receiver will know that the message came from someone knowing your private key, because he/she can decrypt the message with your public key. Furthermore, to ensure that only your intended recipient can read the message, you encrypt the whole thing with the recipient's public key.
However, if someone intercepts the message you sent, encrypts it with his/her public key, and sends it to your recipient, whose mail reader automatically decrypts this message with the recipient's private key, and says that the file is garbled and he needs help, then when the recipient replies, the whole thing will only be encrypted with the attacker's public key (because the recipient's private key decryption cancelled the encryption by the sender with the recipient's public key), and from the reply, the attacker can find and read the message by decrypting with his private key. (In the preceding passage, encryption and decryption describe the same algorithm, just performed with a different purpose.) However, as has been oft-repeated, this is a social engineering hack and depends on the stupidity of the recipient.
And corn, tomatoes, potatoes, beans, squash, tobacco, and cocoa must all be brought back to the Americas, where they belong. *ahem*
This is the centre of the problem; all of the other BS (sorry, I just had to play that card; what I meant was overcomplicated speculation) veers off and becomes a bit irrelevant, as the only thing sought is a holder for the next roll of toilet paper. However, it is not to be used until the current roll is empty. What could be simpler than to create a cylindrical container in which to put the next roll? It would be inaccessible for use but ready to bring out and replace the old.
If you find an efficient new energy source and are able to demonstrate it, the greedy way out is to sell electricity cheaper than the oil companies ever could, and when you're ready and have enough money, tell everyone how and why it works; the only important thing is that you have to do it when it's already too late for the oil companies.
I believe this portion is flawed; whether your work is copylefted or not, is the source code is available, any company can grab it, figure out how it works, reimplement it, and extend it, unless I am mistaken. If I am, I would like someone to explain why this would be illegal.
Your impression of the FSF's and Stallman's view of free software is tinged in favour of your arguments. Actually, here, licenses are listed which are considered to be free by those parties, with whom I agree on most points. These include some which you might consider more free (although this generalization of GPL-protesting slashdotters may, like all generalizations, be wrong), such as the BSD license and the absence of license of Public Domain software (which can be referred to as copycentre by those so inclined).
Many licenses are listed which are considered free other than the GPL, some actually incompatible with the GPL. These licenses are all free because they allow you to view, modify, and redistribute code under the same license. However, the GPL is not merely free; it is aggressively free. In other words, it prevents companies from closing code like Gosling did according to this Stallman speech.
This may be considered restrictive by some, especially those who find it inconvenient to have to reimplement a wheel already implemented under the GPL umbrella in their proprietary software, for which they, in turn, are not willing to provide the source code. However, on the whole, it has had a positive effect on the freedom of software; when some software projects were gotten rid of by their respective developers, the code could be reused by the free software community instead of left to fade into oblivion, and university students can prevent their universities from closing their code by using GPLed libraries.
While the GPL may be considered restrictive, it is compatible with the most common free software licenses and its benefit outweighs the harm done to the code-closers and to the few who need to combine, for example, BSDed code with GPLed code under the BSD license, or make it Public Domain.
At the moment, in the free software community (which, I must admit, is influenced heavily by the FSF and its rhetoric (rhetoric does not indicate falsehood, but merely a willingness and ability to persuade)), the GPL is accepted widely enough to avoid conflicts which could have arisen had several parties begun producing incompatible aggressively free software licenses and remained popular.
You're right, rocks are not that unerodable... but when computers become as durable as most rocks, I'll eat my hat! (Actually, a chip can, on some level, be considered a computer, and can be made durable... luckily, however, I don't have a hat.)
(Score: 1, Offtopic)