Concordia wasn't a huge problem because it drifted onto solid ground shallow enough to keep it mostly above water. If it had not been carried by onshore winds, it would have been a much different story. The captain waited far to long to declare it time to abandon.
Well, he made up for it by not waiting long afterward before getting himself off the ship...
Another solution is to simply ask the employer, if some personal use of the laptop is OK, and if so, to what extent. Maybe you'll get the answer that your intended usage is fine, and then you'll not have to worry at all about how to hide it.
Indeed, if I were the employer, if someone asked I'd probably be fine with it, but if someone were playing tricks to hide and I'd find out, I'd seriously consider firing him.
Lectures are extremely inefficient. Just use the same textbooks as 30+ years ago. Pre-university mathematics hasn't changed that much.
Actually, it has. A couple years ago my high-school aged son was stuck on a math problem: Plot a linear approximation through a set of points. I didn't remember the exact technique so I looked it up in his textbook. "Step 1: Enter the points into a graphing calculator. Step 2: Press the 'linear regression' button."
That's not teaching math, that's teaching how to use a calculator. How to use a calculator is surely a good thing to learn, but it should not be used as a substitute for math.
But when you re-open a page from the bookmarks, you get the page as it is at that time, not at the time when you opened it last. Which sometimes is not what you want, especially on sites where reopening a bookmarked page will just give you "sorry, the session expired", but also on pages with changing content when you want to read the current content later.
I suspect it's a western-only or maybe American-only thing, as the Japanese do not seem to consider it "the most important early invention", at least to the extent Americans do.
It was really strange seeing "the wheel" used as an example of "the beginning of technology" in a lot of American cartoons, which you don't see in Japanese ones. I kind of suspect it has something to do with American car-centric culture, and them assuming primitive wheels were as important in their time as they are today.
What countries do you guys have experience in, and do they consider the wheel as important as Americans do?
In Germany, often the biface is quoted as the beginning of technology.
If people had done that throughout history, our current understanding of the world would not be much different from that in the stone age. You'd have no computer and no internet, no electricity, no steam engine, not even windmills. Every advance in human knowledge comes from looking for explanations. Some explanations later turn out to be wrong, those are then thrown away. Other explanations turn out to stand the test of time. The latter make up our knowledge about the universe.
Many scientific theories held by the majority, sometimes for centuries, were overthrown by observant people working alone.
But unlike the typical crackpot, they understood the theories they overthrew. And they replaced them with better theories, not with ideas which already had been shown to be wrong long ago. And they didn't have to deny experimental results either, nor claim some conspiracy against their ideas.
I don't see the language issue. The party names should not be language dependent, the candidate names shouldn't be either. Information about how to fill that ballot should be on a separate piece of paper which can be in any language you like.
There's nothing one could do against the simple example, but that's already true for absentee voting on paper. However the problem is that unlike with paper ballots, it wouldn't have to be someone who is physically there, but it could be malware on the computer.
The second attack could be easily avoided by giving each voter an individual but random (i.e. in no way linked to his personal details) private key, and require the vote to be signed with it. This would disable both double-voting (each key can only be used once) and your botnet-voting example (your botnet would not have the required private keys). Of course that would open up the possibility of vote proving. Therefore there would have to be a system in place which makes sure that you don't ever decode the vote (which has of course to be encrypted) as long as the signature is on it. This cannot possibly guaranteed by technical means, therefore it would have to be guaranteed by procedure.
Of course all that would not help with malware being on the voter's computer.
The voter can compare their vote to the online number associated with their ballot to make sure it was not changed.
And so can anyone else who gets access to the online number. In other words, they can not only control but also proof that they voted a certain way. Which opens up their vote to vote buying and bullying.
Of course the requirement that their vote cannot be proved also limits the value of them being able to check even if one finds a way to allow checkability but at the same time avoid provability: After all even if the voter finds his vote incorrectly entered, he cannot do much about it because, by design, he cannot prove it. After all, he could be lying.
Or you are in a country with organized crime which is interested that the "right" candidate (i.e. the one in their pockets) wins, and which might make your life quite uncomfortable if they know you voted for the "wrong" one.
Or it may be just the RIAA being interested in who votes for the pirate party...
Money itself is already a virtual good, even more so if you have it on a bank account and pay with your credit card. So I hope you won't complain if at some time your bank says that it shuts down the servers where your account is stored and your money is gone, sorry.
Don't get me wrong: It probably was silly to expect those cards to last forever. But that's not because they were virtual goods, but because most probably the ToS said somewhere that it is not guaranteed that they last forever, and that you cannot get a refund in that case.
This is another false statement. The GPL absolutely restricts what you can do with the code. You cannot modify GPL licensed code, compile it to binary form, and distribute that binary without the additional requirement that you must make the modified source code available as well.
That's not a restriction on what you can do with the code, that's a requirement on what you have also have to do when doing a certain thing with the code (namely, distribute the binary). It doesn't stop you from distributing the binary.
Which of these affords you greater freedom and less restrictions?
Who cares?
This thread is not about which license is "more free" -- that discussion has been done many times without ever leading to an agreement, therefore it doesn't make sense to discuss this question again. I certainly don't want to.- It bores me. It is also not relevant for anyone but evangelists. Everyone else reads the license, decides if he considers the terms acceptable, and then either uses the code or not, depending on that (and on whether the code is actually useful, of course).
My only comment was about the nature of the restrictions of the GPL. I don't care whether you like them or not. If you don't like them, just stay away from the GPL, you are not forced to use GPLed code, after all.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, he made up for it by not waiting long afterward before getting himself off the ship ...
Another solution is to simply ask the employer, if some personal use of the laptop is OK, and if so, to what extent. Maybe you'll get the answer that your intended usage is fine, and then you'll not have to worry at all about how to hide it.
Indeed, if I were the employer, if someone asked I'd probably be fine with it, but if someone were playing tricks to hide and I'd find out, I'd seriously consider firing him.
Guess who was the first man on the moon according to one of *my* textbooks (written by a teacher- no, not in the US).
Louis Armstrong.
Absolutely brillant.
And when he stepped on the moon, he said to himself: "What a wonderful world." :-)
No, for large values of 1, but for small values of 3.
But when you arrive at x^(9*7)-x^63, it is a clear advantage if you know the value of 9*7.
Actually, it has. A couple years ago my high-school aged son was stuck on a math problem: Plot a linear approximation through a set of points. I didn't remember the exact technique so I looked it up in his textbook. "Step 1: Enter the points into a graphing calculator. Step 2: Press the 'linear regression' button."
That's not teaching math, that's teaching how to use a calculator. How to use a calculator is surely a good thing to learn, but it should not be used as a substitute for math.
But when you re-open a page from the bookmarks, you get the page as it is at that time, not at the time when you opened it last. Which sometimes is not what you want, especially on sites where reopening a bookmarked page will just give you "sorry, the session expired", but also on pages with changing content when you want to read the current content later.
Really!? Man, am I glad that I'm still using 3.6 ...
Well if lawyers start losing on that stuff, maybe it will end ... no, wait, they'll just add exceptions for lawyers.
Why is the wheel considered so important?
I suspect it's a western-only or maybe American-only thing, as the Japanese do not seem to consider it "the most important early invention", at least to the extent Americans do.
It was really strange seeing "the wheel" used as an example of "the beginning of technology" in a lot of American cartoons, which you don't see in Japanese ones. I kind of suspect it has something to do with American car-centric culture, and them assuming primitive wheels were as important in their time as they are today.
What countries do you guys have experience in, and do they consider the wheel as important as Americans do?
In Germany, often the biface is quoted as the beginning of technology.
That a wheel is quite impractical in the jungle?
No, the shape was decided on quite early. However they couldn't agree on the colour.
We are also still studying dinosaurs. Just saying.
Also, the aliens watching the dinosaur earth might learn about the important of defending against asteroids.
If people had done that throughout history, our current understanding of the world would not be much different from that in the stone age. You'd have no computer and no internet, no electricity, no steam engine, not even windmills. Every advance in human knowledge comes from looking for explanations. Some explanations later turn out to be wrong, those are then thrown away. Other explanations turn out to stand the test of time. The latter make up our knowledge about the universe.
But unlike the typical crackpot, they understood the theories they overthrew. And they replaced them with better theories, not with ideas which already had been shown to be wrong long ago. And they didn't have to deny experimental results either, nor claim some conspiracy against their ideas.
Ever heard of the Doppler effect?
According to our current understanding, electrons are not assembled at all.
I don't see the language issue. The party names should not be language dependent, the candidate names shouldn't be either. Information about how to fill that ballot should be on a separate piece of paper which can be in any language you like.
Well, give free beer to all voters at the voting booth (after they cast the vote, of course). I'm sure this will increase the participation a lot. :-)
There's nothing one could do against the simple example, but that's already true for absentee voting on paper. However the problem is that unlike with paper ballots, it wouldn't have to be someone who is physically there, but it could be malware on the computer.
The second attack could be easily avoided by giving each voter an individual but random (i.e. in no way linked to his personal details) private key, and require the vote to be signed with it. This would disable both double-voting (each key can only be used once) and your botnet-voting example (your botnet would not have the required private keys). Of course that would open up the possibility of vote proving. Therefore there would have to be a system in place which makes sure that you don't ever decode the vote (which has of course to be encrypted) as long as the signature is on it. This cannot possibly guaranteed by technical means, therefore it would have to be guaranteed by procedure.
Of course all that would not help with malware being on the voter's computer.
And so can anyone else who gets access to the online number. In other words, they can not only control but also proof that they voted a certain way. Which opens up their vote to vote buying and bullying.
Of course the requirement that their vote cannot be proved also limits the value of them being able to check even if one finds a way to allow checkability but at the same time avoid provability: After all even if the voter finds his vote incorrectly entered, he cannot do much about it because, by design, he cannot prove it. After all, he could be lying.
Or you are in a country with organized crime which is interested that the "right" candidate (i.e. the one in their pockets) wins, and which might make your life quite uncomfortable if they know you voted for the "wrong" one.
Or it may be just the RIAA being interested in who votes for the pirate party ...
If they can disappear on a whim then is it correct to call them collectable?
Yes. Real cards can disappear on a whim if there's a fire, yet they are called collectables.
Money itself is already a virtual good, even more so if you have it on a bank account and pay with your credit card. So I hope you won't complain if at some time your bank says that it shuts down the servers where your account is stored and your money is gone, sorry.
Don't get me wrong: It probably was silly to expect those cards to last forever. But that's not because they were virtual goods, but because most probably the ToS said somewhere that it is not guaranteed that they last forever, and that you cannot get a refund in that case.
That's not a restriction on what you can do with the code, that's a requirement on what you have also have to do when doing a certain thing with the code (namely, distribute the binary). It doesn't stop you from distributing the binary.
Who cares?
This thread is not about which license is "more free" -- that discussion has been done many times without ever leading to an agreement, therefore it doesn't make sense to discuss this question again. I certainly don't want to.- It bores me. It is also not relevant for anyone but evangelists. Everyone else reads the license, decides if he considers the terms acceptable, and then either uses the code or not, depending on that (and on whether the code is actually useful, of course).
My only comment was about the nature of the restrictions of the GPL. I don't care whether you like them or not. If you don't like them, just stay away from the GPL, you are not forced to use GPLed code, after all.