Have you ever thought about running BeOS on your PowerMac?
Hamish
Re:Yes and No--look at the stepping, on the casing
on
Celeron 2 Overclocking
·
· Score: 1
In this gamepc.com review, they seem to think that "Intel has finally caught on and fully disabled SMP with this particular Celeron family", but I can't work out whether they're just being stupid (i.e., putting FC-PGA Celerons in a PPGA board and expecting them to 'just work'). Do you happen to have definitive information that the new Celerons can be run dual?
I've been losing karma recently without being moderated down, but I assumed that Rob had put new rules into the system which whittled your karma away if you didn't keep earning it (to defeat those who whore karma until they reach 25 so that they can make comments at +2 if they wish (like myself), or if you didn't metamoderate (which I've not been doing much of recently either).
But since I dropped below 25, I've been asked to moderate twice and not lost any more karma. So I'm scoobied.
Except it's not "any system which seeks to make claims about itself", it's "any formal system which seeks to make claims about itself."
You're quite right. However, this was what I meant when I said that I thought we wouldn't be able to create a peer for ourselves, but that we might stumble upon one by chance.
And after all, that's the scary bit, isn't it? People are afraid of losing control, and we don't master systems that we don't understand.
Wrong not. I was talking about the not in the sentence "What I'm trying to say is that might it not be possible that if we were to create life ourselves, it could only be the product of all that the human race was up to that point. " which I still can't seem to untangle.
Okay - I think he means:
What I'm trying to say is that
might it not be possible that
if we were to create life ourselves,
it could only be the product of all that the human race was up to that point.
i.e., he believes in the possibility of the truth of "if we were to create life ourselves, it could only be the product of all that the human race was up to that point." The 'not' is used to signify expectancy of a positive reply, as in e.g., "Won't you be in New York that weekend?"
Hm? How do you define "specific" in this case?
Playing chess is a good example of a specific task.
Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem is only applicable to a very small domain. Generalize beyond this domain at your own peril.
If by "a very small domain" you mean "any system which seeks to make claims about itself" then we agree on everything but the meaning of the word 'small'.
Personally I prefer ExistenZ's coverage of reality vs. perception to that of The Matrix, and I think it gets less wrapped up in glamour (i.e., Keanu, guns and tiles).
However, The Matrix also covers the theme of fate, and covers it well, IMHO.
As for Pi, I thought it was crap. Which just goes to show there's no accounting for taste. I haven't seen 'The Cube'.
Well, I can't untangle your first sentence (the 'not' throws me off. I can't tell what it negates.)
"Not to say that I necessarily believe one way or the other" is a disclaimer. It is quite disjoint from the rest of the sentence. I can't see that this was a particularly difficult sentence to parse. Foo. Well, since you're not anonymous, I'll have to assume that you're not a troll. Perhaps this is a bad policy. I guess *someone* has to be the mark, and this time around it might as well be me.;)
The first... seems to state that any tool crafted by humans is necessarily inferior to those humans, which is of course complete nonsense, given, among many other examples, chess playing programs that can consistently outplay their authors.
To start with, you have completely ignored the distinction between humankind and a single human being. Secondly, 'A is something less than B' does not imply 'B cannot create anything which will outperform itself at a specific task'.
I think that Godel's Incompleteness Theorem contains some clues as to why a particular intelligence may not be able to create a peer for itself. However, we might stumble upon a method by some other method than analysis (like evolutionary techniques, or chance). It is this prospect which I find scary.
"No matter what you do for a living you should get paid for your work," says Atlantic recording artist Bif Naked, "whether you're washing dishes or recording songs."
If the implication of "what you do for a living" is that somebody is prepared to employ you, then this is something of a circular argument.
This is exactly the issue. If, on average, my skivvy breaks more plates than he cleans, I don't see myself employing him for much longer. Similarly, if a band is long-term unprofitable, a record company will drop them; it's a no-brainer.
Information wants to be free. Now we have the means by which is can be freely distributed, record companies are going to have to start selling physical goods!
I see the future of record companies as being something like this: they give me access to recording studios, and money to buy my bread, and in return I give them the rights to piggyback off my talent (royalties on T-shirts, etc - even CDs if people will still buy them for the inlay or whatever). I probably get to keep a decent share of my touring profits. If no-one's interested in this deal, well, that's a free market for you!
Wah is partially correct, even if he's wrong about Creed (I've never heard of them before myself). Music will start to sell more on the strength of its quality. Record companies don't like the idea of this, because there are a lot of talented bands out there and they don't want the poor consumer getting confused; it's less profitable to make a smaller amount of money from many sources than to make a large amount of money from a few.
Ay, fair enough. I was far quick to judge you. It was the sequitur that I objected to (Its... illegal... Therefore... I... will never do the same.) - if you feel that this cause is not worth going to jail over, that's a different matter.
to make it illegal to make copies presupposes the purpose of the individual making them
They haven't made it illegal to make copies. That, after all, would fuel the fair use argument. They've made it illegal to circumvent access control measures, and impractical to make copies (by ensuring that only crippled DVD-R devices and media are widely available).
Your comment is rather self-defeating by being considerably more bigoted than any other in this thread.
As stated, FreeUser was expressing h/er opinions about the pragmatics of rebuilding post-holocaust Germany. In fact s/he acknowledged the USA's own overbearing censorship, so why you chose to reply to this particular comment is beyond me. Your reply sounds as if you read only the first paragraph.
You are quite right that it is nobody else's business but your own, but these people are offering their opinion. Do you seek to censor that?
normal consumer DVD-ROM drives can not read that data without a hardware hack
Presumably you mean write; I don't understand how DeCSS would work, otherwise.
And I'm not sure you're right about the drives; I think it's the blank media which is designed to be prohibitive. Even if you are currently right, people protect CD software by reading past the 74th minute, but 80-minute CD burners are now the norm.
There is no such thing as "Iron-clad" validation, but validation tied to something physical (retinal scans?) will come pretty close to this in less than 10 years, IMHO.
Everyone always seems to think that retinal scans are a decent method of validation.
However, all they will do is provide a key. Furthermore, it's much more secure to remember your key than to write it down somewhere (think: decapitation). Until we have mind-reading technology, I'll stick with passwords, thanks.
You aren't making an argument, you're making a statement.
Sure, you can copy the bytes of a DVD without a decoder, but they aren't useable in that fashion.
My understanding of it is this: the movie is encrypted with a session key, and the session key is encrypted with five hundred or so licensee keys. Therefore the player, which has the (or the other half of the, I'm not sure which) licensee key, can decrypt the movie and send it to your screen.
If I copy the bytes of a DVD onto another DVD (for this I need to obtain a truly blank DVD, not the consumer version which has the keyspace burned with zeroes), I can play the copied DVD on my DVD player. This does not strike me as 'not usable in that fashion'.
Could someone with specific knowledge please arbitrate here?
Changing the way something is represented is the definition of encryption...
Wrong! Ig0r has already told you: "I think you're using 'encrypting' when you should be using 'encoding'." Changing the way something is represented is the definition of encoding.
However, if (when?) nano becomes a reality, it will be a far less complicated task for the average evil-world-conquerer Joe to build that cyborg than it, today, is for him to build himself an H bomb.
Are you speaking for Bill, or for yourself?
Either way, are you able to justify that opinion at all?
It could have been fun, if it could have been open to ALL software developers.
Instead Linus Torvalds attitude was near to go away and make your own things.
While everyone is on party of this big announcement, we are forced to choose between:
- Implement yet another operating system - Follow Linus path, and hope to survive in the shadow of Linus - "Gold old MINIX is enough!" - Buy a proprietary Microsoft operating like Windows 2000
I would have prefered that all software developer got to define a standard with everyone, but one established developer prefer to be alone on the spotlight.
.lnk files are worthless unless you're doing 1 of 2 things: 1) launching an executable 2) launching something that is a registered filetype (i e, C:\>foo.lnk where foo.lnk points to foo.txt)
Slashdot Mirror
Have you ever thought about running BeOS on your PowerMac?
Hamish
In this gamepc.com review, they seem to think that "Intel has finally caught on and fully disabled SMP with this particular Celeron family", but I can't work out whether they're just being stupid (i.e., putting FC-PGA Celerons in a PPGA board and expecting them to 'just work'). Do you happen to have definitive information that the new Celerons can be run dual?
thanks,
Hamish
I've been losing karma recently without being moderated down, but I assumed that Rob had put new rules into the system which whittled your karma away if you didn't keep earning it (to defeat those who whore karma until they reach 25 so that they can make comments at +2 if they wish (like myself), or if you didn't metamoderate (which I've not been doing much of recently either).
But since I dropped below 25, I've been asked to moderate twice and not lost any more karma. So I'm scoobied.
Hamish
Except it's not "any system which seeks to make claims about itself", it's "any formal system which seeks to make claims about itself."
You're quite right. However, this was what I meant when I said that I thought we wouldn't be able to create a peer for ourselves, but that we might stumble upon one by chance.
And after all, that's the scary bit, isn't it? People are afraid of losing control, and we don't master systems that we don't understand.
Hamish
Wrong not. I was talking about the not in the sentence "What I'm trying to say is that might it not be possible that if we were to create life ourselves, it could only be the product of all that the human race was up to that point. " which I still can't seem to untangle.
Okay - I think he means:
What I'm trying to say is thati.e., he believes in the possibility of the truth of "if we were to create life ourselves, it could only be the product of all that the human race was up to that point." The 'not' is used to signify expectancy of a positive reply, as in e.g., "Won't you be in New York that weekend?"
Hm? How do you define "specific" in this case?
Playing chess is a good example of a specific task.
Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem is only applicable to a very small domain. Generalize beyond this domain at your own peril.
If by "a very small domain" you mean "any system which seeks to make claims about itself" then we agree on everything but the meaning of the word 'small'.
Hamish
I think that what will happen is that the bug tracking project will fork if necessary.
If anyone feels that an important bug they submitted into bugzilla is being ignored, they'll post it to bugtraq or wherever.
All the mozilla folks are doing is calling for sensitivity.
Hamish
Personally I prefer ExistenZ's coverage of reality vs. perception to that of The Matrix, and I think it gets less wrapped up in glamour (i.e., Keanu, guns and tiles).
However, The Matrix also covers the theme of fate, and covers it well, IMHO.
As for Pi, I thought it was crap. Which just goes to show there's no accounting for taste. I haven't seen 'The Cube'.
Hamish
Well, I can't untangle your first sentence (the 'not' throws me off. I can't tell what it negates.)
"Not to say that I necessarily believe one way or the other" is a disclaimer. It is quite disjoint from the rest of the sentence. I can't see that this was a particularly difficult sentence to parse. Foo. Well, since you're not anonymous, I'll have to assume that you're not a troll. Perhaps this is a bad policy. I guess *someone* has to be the mark, and this time around it might as well be me. ;)
The first ... seems to state that any tool crafted by humans is necessarily inferior to those humans, which is of course complete nonsense, given, among many other examples, chess playing programs that can consistently outplay their authors.
To start with, you have completely ignored the distinction between humankind and a single human being. Secondly, 'A is something less than B' does not imply 'B cannot create anything which will outperform itself at a specific task'.
I think that Godel's Incompleteness Theorem contains some clues as to why a particular intelligence may not be able to create a peer for itself. However, we might stumble upon a method by some other method than analysis (like evolutionary techniques, or chance). It is this prospect which I find scary.
Hamish
This was my favourite from the article:
"No matter what you do for a living you should get paid for your work," says Atlantic recording artist Bif Naked, "whether you're washing dishes or recording songs."
If the implication of "what you do for a living" is that somebody is prepared to employ you, then this is something of a circular argument.
This is exactly the issue. If, on average, my skivvy breaks more plates than he cleans, I don't see myself employing him for much longer. Similarly, if a band is long-term unprofitable, a record company will drop them; it's a no-brainer.
Information wants to be free. Now we have the means by which is can be freely distributed, record companies are going to have to start selling physical goods!
I see the future of record companies as being something like this: they give me access to recording studios, and money to buy my bread, and in return I give them the rights to piggyback off my talent (royalties on T-shirts, etc - even CDs if people will still buy them for the inlay or whatever). I probably get to keep a decent share of my touring profits. If no-one's interested in this deal, well, that's a free market for you!
Wah is partially correct, even if he's wrong about Creed (I've never heard of them before myself). Music will start to sell more on the strength of its quality. Record companies don't like the idea of this, because there are a lot of talented bands out there and they don't want the poor consumer getting confused; it's less profitable to make a smaller amount of money from many sources than to make a large amount of money from a few.
Hamish
Ay, fair enough. I was far quick to judge you. It was the sequitur that I objected to (Its ... illegal ... Therefore ... I ... will never do the same.) - if you feel that this cause is not worth going to jail over, that's a different matter.
Hamish
to make it illegal to make copies presupposes the purpose of the individual making them
They haven't made it illegal to make copies. That, after all, would fuel the fair use argument. They've made it illegal to circumvent access control measures, and impractical to make copies (by ensuring that only crippled DVD-R devices and media are widely available).
Hamish
Its been proven illegal in a court of law
Therefore you are taking the law into your own hands so I admire you but will never do the same.
Not spoken anonymously, but nonetheless like a true coward. Never say never, for come the revolution your life will have changed.
Hamish
Your comment is rather self-defeating by being considerably more bigoted than any other in this thread.
As stated, FreeUser was expressing h/er opinions about the pragmatics of rebuilding post-holocaust Germany. In fact s/he acknowledged the USA's own overbearing censorship, so why you chose to reply to this particular comment is beyond me. Your reply sounds as if you read only the first paragraph.
You are quite right that it is nobody else's business but your own, but these people are offering their opinion. Do you seek to censor that?
Hamish
normal consumer DVD-ROM drives can not read that data without a hardware hack
Presumably you mean write; I don't understand how DeCSS would work, otherwise.
And I'm not sure you're right about the drives; I think it's the blank media which is designed to be prohibitive. Even if you are currently right, people protect CD software by reading past the 74th minute, but 80-minute CD burners are now the norm.
Hamish
There is no such thing as "Iron-clad" validation, but validation tied to something physical (retinal scans?) will come pretty close to this in less than 10 years, IMHO.
Everyone always seems to think that retinal scans are a decent method of validation.
However, all they will do is provide a key. Furthermore, it's much more secure to remember your key than to write it down somewhere (think: decapitation). Until we have mind-reading technology, I'll stick with passwords, thanks.
Hamish
Also, having a Root account in an OS almost ALWAYS leads to security holes.
Are you being ironic? Are you of the sensible opinion that root should only be allowed to log in on the console? Or are you daft?
Hamish
CSS is a copy protection scheme
You aren't making an argument, you're making a statement.
Sure, you can copy the bytes of a DVD without a decoder, but they aren't useable in that fashion.
My understanding of it is this: the movie is encrypted with a session key, and the session key is encrypted with five hundred or so licensee keys. Therefore the player, which has the (or the other half of the, I'm not sure which) licensee key, can decrypt the movie and send it to your screen.
If I copy the bytes of a DVD onto another DVD (for this I need to obtain a truly blank DVD, not the consumer version which has the keyspace burned with zeroes), I can play the copied DVD on my DVD player. This does not strike me as 'not usable in that fashion'.
Could someone with specific knowledge please arbitrate here?
Hamish
Wrong! Ig0r has already told you: "I think you're using 'encrypting' when you should be using 'encoding'." Changing the way something is represented is the definition of encoding.
Hamish
However, if (when?) nano becomes a reality, it will be a far less complicated task for the average evil-world-conquerer Joe to build that cyborg than it, today, is for him to build himself an H bomb.
Are you speaking for Bill, or for yourself?
Either way, are you able to justify that opinion at all?
Hamish
Should be OpenSL.
"audio" is to "video" as "sound" is to "graphics".
Hamish
It could have been fun, if it could have been open to ALL software developers.
Instead Linus Torvalds attitude was near to go away and make your own things.
While everyone is on party of this big announcement, we are forced to choose between:
- Implement yet another operating system
- Follow Linus path, and hope to survive in the shadow of Linus
- "Gold old MINIX is enough!"
- Buy a proprietary Microsoft operating like Windows 2000
I would have prefered that all software developer got to define a standard with everyone, but one established developer prefer to be alone on the spotlight.
Aw! Diddums!
Hamish
This just isn't true. Any legal system based upon English Law is based upon a system of precedents. Dumb automata don't have precendents.
Hamish
.lnk files are worthless unless you're doing 1 of 2 things:
1) launching an executable
2) launching something that is a registered filetype (i e, C:\>foo.lnk where foo.lnk points to foo.txt)
Quick correction:
3) dragging files into a symlink folder
Hamish
Once again, repeat after me:
NOT ALL OF SLASHDOT'S READERSHIP IS AMERICAN
thanks,
Hamish
Better yet, encrypt it.
That's what I said! ( "self-extracting encryption wrapper" ).
My main concern is that another party (i.e. not the person who accepts the license agreement) could bring charges against the author / hosting site.
Anyone got any ideas how to ensure that this could not happen?
Hamish