When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. -Thomas Jefferson
He was wrong: Tyrants fear the people much more than any other government. That's why they make sure that the people fear them, for if the people don't fear the tyrant enough, they might remove him.
Would it be nice to live in a world where such things were not needed?
Absolutely. Unfortunately, they won't sell anybody a shuttle ticket to that world.
The reason why they won't sell us shuttle tickets to that world is that the reason why in that world such things are not needed is that they don't sell us shuttle tickets to that world.
I think the only good reason to fork a GPL project is if the original team loses interest in the project and it becomes more or less "abandonware".
No, if the original team loses interest, it's just a takeover. A fork means both branches are developed in parallel.
An example of a fork is GNU Emacs/XEmacs. Here the reason of the fork were clearly differences between the developers about technical issues. There's no indication that the GNU Emacs developers lost interest in the project.
Another example of a fork (which, unlike Emacs, eventually was reunited) was the gcc/egcs split. Here the reason was not disinterest in the gcc project by the original gcc/egcs developer, but a combination of slowness and non-openness of the original gcc development process.
While in the GNU Emacs/XEmacs case one could question if it was a good reason to fork, in the gcc/egcs case, there clearly was a good reason (and that reason was so good that the reunion then was actually a takeover of gcc by the egcs team).
Physical media will continue to be relevant for backup purposes. In that case, there are only three things which are interesting: reliability, capacity, price.
Of course, for backup purposes, you'll not buy a player and content, but a burner for your computer and empty writable disks.
Maybe some time in the future we will have CPUs with integrated GPUs (which probably will not be called like that, since they are also used for general parallel processing tasks).
Well, the difference is between doing something and just waiting. There are few people who would care if they have to drive 10 minutes longer to get something. OTOH it the extra time consists not in driving, but in waiting at traffic lights, they probably will object. Indeed I can imagine someone to drive 10 minutes longer in order to avoid 5 minutes waiting.
One of the very early improvements in browsers were that the page was displayed not only after being fully loaded, but the parts already loaded were displayed immediatly. I think good web design should use that by having the interesing content load first, and all the secondary stuff (navigation, etc.) later. Unfortunately many web sites seem to do quite the opposite.
Type 1: Fills in the questions. Type 2: Hacks the server and puts his answers into the database directly. Type 3: Hacks the server and deletes the data base.
don't they understand that in real life, you can't actually drop a fingernail cutting into a mass spec and have it instantly pop up a chemical structure and a list of suspects?
Oh yes, you can. Here's the source code of that program's main function:
int main() {
char dummy;
std::cout << "Please drop fingernail cutting into mass spec, then press enter.\n";
std::cin >> dummy;
pop_up_chemical_structure_of_keratin();
pop_up_usual_suspects(); }
Of course the proper tag for this would have been "!!itsatrap".:-)
BTW, "trap" or "!trap" should have been enough, there's no reason for the "itsa" part. After all, we have a "fud" tag, not an "itsfud" tag, and a "linux" tag, not an "itsaboutlinux" tag.
The cloning scientists are already working on this problem. OTOH you could also see the current scheme as accepting massive patches into each new copy.
I'll patent a method of posting on forums with a content stating that the post is not only indeed a post, but is, in addition, the first one. Additional claims will explicitly cover the cases that the post does or does not state the first of which it is, stating the fact indirectly, and stating that fact using incomplete sentences, especially using the words "First Post"; also I'll make sure that posting the statement in the subject is covered as well as posting it in the message body, and that it also coveres posts which contain material besides that statement. Also included will be variations of this where the post does not actually state that it is first post, but does any other statement, but the reader can nevertheless infer somehow that it is a first post (i.e. all "Frists Post", "Frost Post" etc. are covered, too).
I think that's complex enough to get granted. I'll make sure that the wording is so vague that I can sue everyone who posts the first message in any forum, even when not explicitly saying so, or even anyone who starts a new thread. Ah, and of course anyone who posts to a forum for the first time (which of course means it's his personal first post at the forum).
A patent licence will probably cost about $100/post. Mass discounts are available.
Have you not heard of an internet cafe? Pay $15 cash and all that becomes useless and untraceable.
I guess you'll have to identify yourself on internet cafes in Brazil, then. And internet cafes will then have to make a list who was sitting at which computer at which time.
I'm not even going into the cracking of wifi keys on private access points, which btw is the reason they'll never successfully prosecute someone running ANY currently manufactured wifi access point, open or "secured".
Are you sure the judges have enough technical understanding to prevent a successful prosecution? Note that for a successful prosecution, it suffices that the judge believes the evidence proves your guilt.
If Einstein had written his Theory of Special Relativity into Wikipedia (assuming it had existed by then) before it was notable in the scientific community, yes, it would have had to be removed. Not because it's wrong, but because it would not have been a notable theory by then (and at that time an entry about Einstein himself would also not have been justified, because at that time he was just a normal patent examiner at the patent office, not anyone notable).
Of course, soon thereafter, the articles would have been resurrected, as the theory indeed had big impact.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure that the owner of the internet cafe would appreciate it if you replace the OS running on his computer
Well, AFAIK people already have been punished for wireless power theft. The power in that case came from a radio transmission tower.
He was wrong: Tyrants fear the people much more than any other government. That's why they make sure that the people fear them, for if the people don't fear the tyrant enough, they might remove him.
The reason why they won't sell us shuttle tickets to that world is that the reason why in that world such things are not needed is that they don't sell us shuttle tickets to that world.
No, if the original team loses interest, it's just a takeover. A fork means both branches are developed in parallel.
An example of a fork is GNU Emacs/XEmacs. Here the reason of the fork were clearly differences between the developers about technical issues. There's no indication that the GNU Emacs developers lost interest in the project.
Another example of a fork (which, unlike Emacs, eventually was reunited) was the gcc/egcs split. Here the reason was not disinterest in the gcc project by the original gcc/egcs developer, but a combination of slowness and non-openness of the original gcc development process.
While in the GNU Emacs/XEmacs case one could question if it was a good reason to fork, in the gcc/egcs case, there clearly was a good reason (and that reason was so good that the reunion then was actually a takeover of gcc by the egcs team).
Physical media will continue to be relevant for backup purposes. In that case, there are only three things which are interesting: reliability, capacity, price.
Of course, for backup purposes, you'll not buy a player and content, but a burner for your computer and empty writable disks.
I could imagine video editing as one application which by its very nature could profit quite a bit from this.
:-)
... :-)
But anyways, there's always scientific computing. Guess what all those supercomputers are used for
And now imagine a GPU-driven Beowulf cluster
Maybe some time in the future we will have CPUs with integrated GPUs (which probably will not be called like that, since they are also used for general parallel processing tasks).
Well, the difference is between doing something and just waiting. There are few people who would care if they have to drive 10 minutes longer to get something. OTOH it the extra time consists not in driving, but in waiting at traffic lights, they probably will object. Indeed I can imagine someone to drive 10 minutes longer in order to avoid 5 minutes waiting.
One of the very early improvements in browsers were that the page was displayed not only after being fully loaded, but the parts already loaded were displayed immediatly. I think good web design should use that by having the interesing content load first, and all the secondary stuff (navigation, etc.) later. Unfortunately many web sites seem to do quite the opposite.
I guess your employer denies you a browser with tabs in order to have you get at least some work done. :-)
Didn't you always want to know where your speed inefficiencies lie? After all, that's what a profiler is for, isn't it?
Well, the profiling probably will look like this:
Type 1: Fills in the questions.
Type 2: Hacks the server and puts his answers into the database directly.
Type 3: Hacks the server and deletes the data base.
Oh yes, you can. Here's the source code of that program's main function:
So I can tell the fucking articles from the non-fucking ones by checking if they have this combination of tags?
Of course the proper tag for this would have been "!!itsatrap". :-)
BTW, "trap" or "!trap" should have been enough, there's no reason for the "itsa" part. After all, we have a "fud" tag, not an "itsfud" tag, and a "linux" tag, not an "itsaboutlinux" tag.
The cloning scientists are already working on this problem. OTOH you could also see the current scheme as accepting massive patches into each new copy.
Crossover!
I'll patent a method of posting on forums with a content stating that the post is not only indeed a post, but is, in addition, the first one. Additional claims will explicitly cover the cases that the post does or does not state the first of which it is, stating the fact indirectly, and stating that fact using incomplete sentences, especially using the words "First Post"; also I'll make sure that posting the statement in the subject is covered as well as posting it in the message body, and that it also coveres posts which contain material besides that statement. Also included will be variations of this where the post does not actually state that it is first post, but does any other statement, but the reader can nevertheless infer somehow that it is a first post (i.e. all "Frists Post", "Frost Post" etc. are covered, too).
I think that's complex enough to get granted. I'll make sure that the wording is so vague that I can sue everyone who posts the first message in any forum, even when not explicitly saying so, or even anyone who starts a new thread. Ah, and of course anyone who posts to a forum for the first time (which of course means it's his personal first post at the forum).
A patent licence will probably cost about $100/post. Mass discounts are available.
What is the MAC adddress of my analog modem?
I guess you'll have to identify yourself on internet cafes in Brazil, then. And internet cafes will then have to make a list who was sitting at which computer at which time.
Are you sure the judges have enough technical understanding to prevent a successful prosecution? Note that for a successful prosecution, it suffices that the judge believes the evidence proves your guilt.
An arrest full of Anonymous Cowards?
I guess all cell walls soon will contain the words "First Post".
If Einstein had written his Theory of Special Relativity into Wikipedia (assuming it had existed by then) before it was notable in the scientific community, yes, it would have had to be removed. Not because it's wrong, but because it would not have been a notable theory by then (and at that time an entry about Einstein himself would also not have been justified, because at that time he was just a normal patent examiner at the patent office, not anyone notable).
Of course, soon thereafter, the articles would have been resurrected, as the theory indeed had big impact.
#16715863 :-)
SCNR
At infinite improbability level, such things are to be expected.