The information is transferred via radio signal. Given only this information I also would have inferred that RFID chips are used. The devil may be in the details but saying that it is misleading, dishonest and unproffesional is a little overboard. The main concern of security is still the same.
Doesn't rpm handle all the dependency management anyhow? I was under the impression that apt-rpm and urpmi are just front-ends and that back-ends like rpm and dpkg manage dependencies.
Because god doesn't need the sun to tell time. He is god. It is only logical to assume that a day was 24 hours. Unless you think god is just playing a big joke on everybody. This whole 6 days = 6 ages is just a rationalization for bible believers who are having to deal with mounting evidence provided by modern science.
Judging by the responses I got versus all the ones you got, maybe you should check yourself on this. Apparently, it is not just me, but NOBODY agrees with you. In fact most of us are wondering if you have ever seen a computer based on the statement you made.
Except my question was not posed that way because:
1. There is a mountain of evidence that shows that greenhouse gases should promote global warming, greenhouse gases are accumulating, and global temperatures are on the rise. A mountain of evidence, although no proof. Which as I stated, proof is just not a realistic expectation given the complexity of the problem.
2. Grant money is not given out based on the outcome of research. My experience is that educational research is the least biased in general. Concluding that any research that is grant funded must be biased would invalidate almost all modern science. Every science professor that I have ever had the pleasure of working with try very hard to insure that their findings are not influenced by either their biases or desires. Foundations such as NSF which fund such projects also try to insure that science is approached from a non-biased standpoint. It is almost insulting to scientists to insist that all of their findings are just products of their own subjectivity when in fact there are no other jobs where objectivity is taken as seriously.
3. Global warming may be widely discredited, but it is usually done by saying things like "scientist are biased because the have to compete for grant money" by spin-men and not by scientists. If there was any chance in hell that the fossil fuel industry could actually generate objective experiments showing evidence that pollution did not contribute to global warming, then you can bet that they would, because environmentalism IS cutting into their profits.
They are comparable from the standpoint that allowing either danger to continue puts the company at risk to lawsuit and losing customers. In both cases it was advantageous to fix or replace the problem rather than deal with the results of unmitigated risk. I believe that was the point he was trying to make.
At least that is what someone would say who doesn't agree with the consensus. You inevitably think that a few instances in the entire history of science where the consensus was wrong shows how terrible "consensus" is, when in fact consensus plays a role in ALL bleeding edge science because the amount of evidence that can be gathered by modern means is limited. "Consensus is bad" is a lame argument from people who want to see environmentalism fail. They point to the fact that nobody can generate "proof" that global warming is occuring as if it was something trivial to prove. Where is THEIR proof that it is not occuring? Why is the burden of proof on those who are trying to help humanity and not upon those that are making money from polluting endeavors? After all, if were for instance a drug company, it would be up to them to show substantial evidence (not even proof) that the drug is safe for humans. The burden is not on the public to show that the drug is unsafe.
First science generated a sensible theory that greenhouse gases traps in energy and increase the average temperature and the theory made sense and agrees with the material properties knowledge we already knew. So the critics said, "you have to prove that the temperatures are really increasing because I haven't noticed". So the temperatures were tracked around the world and it was shown that indeed, average temperatures were increasing. So then the critics said "okay, but now prove that this is due to pollution, global climate change has been happened in the past".
Well, I ask you: How the F___ are you supposed to prove that? Do you realize how complex the Earth is? This burden of proof is IMPOSSIBLE to overcome given our current level of technology. So, It really comes down to who do you trust? Scientists with limited evidence that pollution causes global warming, or companies with deep pockets who really want you to buy their product, yet with all of their wealth have managed to generate NO EVIDENCE that their product will not destroy the environment despite heavy speculation?
Yes, that will break KDE, however in order to "pull out KDE" you must be admin.
If Konqueror was hijacked some pretty good damage could be done to that individual user, but they cannot delete or change anything on the system outside of what that user can delete or change (essentially/home/user/). KDE seems to have some facilities for automatically running executables at startup, so in theory, I assume that you could get KDE to run some malware that you hide in the users home directory if you exploit a flaw in Konqueror. Still, there is some damage control in that all the admin has to do is create that user a new account.
Those links are all generally about EULA's, which is quite different, although I tend to feel that the shrink wrapped licenses are wrong, there are judges that feel both ways about it. Orbitz has put information on the web without making it private in any way. They could lock it off like a banking website does. I think any reasonably minded person would find that once you publish something on the internet it is fair game to read/use without restriction so long as copyright is not violated. Otherwise we risk having hidden contracts within every website we visit. That would completely screw up the internet. If I am forced to go through a license before I get something, ie. downloading java sdk from SUN, then that makes sense. But by putting a link to terms and conditions at the bottom of a website, you are not giving me value that I did not already have. The conditions of contracts that we consider legally binding in this country is out of control. You should not be bound to a contract if you were never aware that there was one in the first place.
I did not say that people do not exist whom own a computer but do not play them. I just do not know any, and I happen to know lots of people that own a computer. You said that the " Normal Joes do not play computer games." I guess I just happen to know a hell of a lot of abnormal Joes and Best Buy does not stock their shelfs with mostly games to make money, they just think that game boxes are prettier.
Okay, but what the hell does linking have to do with using their service? Until an exchange of value takes place (ie. you purchase a reservation), then no agreement is legally enforceable. It has everything to do with rights. They put a site on the web, registered with verisign for dns, and they think that gives them the right to tell you how YOU should use your browser, or set up YOUR webpage. The policy is in conflict with the very workings of the internet. If they do not like how the internet works, then they should find a technology that better supports their business needs, like the phone. We should not change the structure of the internet to suit the desires of a few companies.
I believe someone has tried to claim it as trademark before and failed. It is simply not practical to allow someone to prevent this on the internet and could potentially be a freedom of speach issue. Consider a journalist writing about a company and wanting to include a link to that company.
Actually, It does not matter if you sign the agreement because there is no exchange of value. If there is no exchange of value, a contract is not legally binding. The problem is that Orbitz wants to have their cake and eat it too. Too Bad for them!
Okay, but legally how are they allowed to prevent a third party from linking to anything they put on the web? It even says in the terms and conditions that I am supposed to ask there permission to link to their main website. Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think anyone can tell me what to link to or not to link to from my website.
I do not know a single PC owner that does not own at least a single game for that PC. Go into a local electronics store. Compare the number of game titles versus other softwares. How can you see this and not know that games are the single biggest software market right now. The fact that most of the games market goes to windows is a huge reason that people use it instead of Mac or Linux.
Breaking DRM and infringing on copyright are two different things. I am not sure if you are confusing them are not. Like when that DVD-Jon guy broke the DVD protection. He didn't technically break any copyright. He broke a protection scheme. I am not sure if they have decided if this is illegal or not yet, but I agree with the grandparent post that it should not be because it prevents even legal and fair use copying, as well as copying once copyrights expire (I believe that because of this, inclusion of DRM should technically be ILLEGAL because it prevents you from copyrighting works once they belong to the public). Copyrights are another issue altogether.
I would think it is a stretch to even call this "trademark" related. It is nothing like me slapping a "McDonalds" sign on my restaurant. At least in the US, McDonalds cannot tell you how to use the word "McDonalds", they can only tell you not to display it in big yellow letters. I wonder what implications this would have for Amazon if they have a french subsidiary, They will no longer display "Books you may also be interested in".
Ummm. No I am not wrong. It's just that everyone on slashdot wants to think that the only way to be considered smart is to be like them. I did not say that HWM has no value for something like programming and it may be useful for helping us form ideas. However, that is not how it is measured. Generally we define things by how we measure them. If you read the article you would note that they use problems like division to measure HWM. That is something that everyone should all ready know how to do, not something where you should be forming ideas or as others have said "thinking outside the box".
If you got a problem with it, take it up with the researchers who performed the study, not me.
And unless you have information your not telling, looks something up before outright disputing what I say. I at least bothered to google on the subject before I posted my response.
Please help me understand how "thinking outside the square" is of any use in rudimentary math problems such as long-division? Did ANYBODY read the article? All smart people do not have HWM. It is only one type of smart person. Usually the type of person that is good at reading something quickly and comprehending it all.
What is funny is that for some reason everyone replying to this thread seems to think that this article applies to them because they consider themselves smart (and most of us on here probably are smart). However, most of us are probably smart in areas like math and science. These are generally not areas heavily affected by HWM. In fact I am best in areas like math but I probably have a rather low working memory. HWM individuals are the type that can usually read quickly through text and commit everything to memory without having to reread anything. I am sure that I am not alone here in being the type that once in while ends up reading paragraphs two or three times. On the other hand, a lot of really smart HWM folks that I know really stink at math.
Slashdot Mirror
The information is transferred via radio signal. Given only this information I also would have inferred that RFID chips are used. The devil may be in the details but saying that it is misleading, dishonest and unproffesional is a little overboard. The main concern of security is still the same.
Doesn't rpm handle all the dependency management anyhow? I was under the impression that apt-rpm and urpmi are just front-ends and that back-ends like rpm and dpkg manage dependencies.
Because god doesn't need the sun to tell time. He is god. It is only logical to assume that a day was 24 hours. Unless you think god is just playing a big joke on everybody. This whole 6 days = 6 ages is just a rationalization for bible believers who are having to deal with mounting evidence provided by modern science.
Judging by the responses I got versus all the ones you got, maybe you should check yourself on this. Apparently, it is not just me, but NOBODY agrees with you. In fact most of us are wondering if you have ever seen a computer based on the statement you made.
1. There is a mountain of evidence that shows that greenhouse gases should promote global warming, greenhouse gases are accumulating, and global temperatures are on the rise. A mountain of evidence, although no proof. Which as I stated, proof is just not a realistic expectation given the complexity of the problem.
2. Grant money is not given out based on the outcome of research. My experience is that educational research is the least biased in general. Concluding that any research that is grant funded must be biased would invalidate almost all modern science. Every science professor that I have ever had the pleasure of working with try very hard to insure that their findings are not influenced by either their biases or desires. Foundations such as NSF which fund such projects also try to insure that science is approached from a non-biased standpoint. It is almost insulting to scientists to insist that all of their findings are just products of their own subjectivity when in fact there are no other jobs where objectivity is taken as seriously.
3. Global warming may be widely discredited, but it is usually done by saying things like "scientist are biased because the have to compete for grant money" by spin-men and not by scientists. If there was any chance in hell that the fossil fuel industry could actually generate objective experiments showing evidence that pollution did not contribute to global warming, then you can bet that they would, because environmentalism IS cutting into their profits.
They are comparable from the standpoint that allowing either danger to continue puts the company at risk to lawsuit and losing customers. In both cases it was advantageous to fix or replace the problem rather than deal with the results of unmitigated risk. I believe that was the point he was trying to make.
First science generated a sensible theory that greenhouse gases traps in energy and increase the average temperature and the theory made sense and agrees with the material properties knowledge we already knew. So the critics said, "you have to prove that the temperatures are really increasing because I haven't noticed". So the temperatures were tracked around the world and it was shown that indeed, average temperatures were increasing. So then the critics said "okay, but now prove that this is due to pollution, global climate change has been happened in the past".
Well, I ask you: How the F___ are you supposed to prove that? Do you realize how complex the Earth is? This burden of proof is IMPOSSIBLE to overcome given our current level of technology. So, It really comes down to who do you trust? Scientists with limited evidence that pollution causes global warming, or companies with deep pockets who really want you to buy their product, yet with all of their wealth have managed to generate NO EVIDENCE that their product will not destroy the environment despite heavy speculation?
http://mirror.open-xchange.org/ox/EN/community/
From the news on their websites it may sound like the Hula release was actually intended to benefit this project.
If Konqueror was hijacked some pretty good damage could be done to that individual user, but they cannot delete or change anything on the system outside of what that user can delete or change (essentially /home/user/). KDE seems to have some facilities for automatically running executables at startup, so in theory, I assume that you could get KDE to run some malware that you hide in the users home directory if you exploit a flaw in Konqueror. Still, there is some damage control in that all the admin has to do is create that user a new account.
Those links are all generally about EULA's, which is quite different, although I tend to feel that the shrink wrapped licenses are wrong, there are judges that feel both ways about it. Orbitz has put information on the web without making it private in any way. They could lock it off like a banking website does. I think any reasonably minded person would find that once you publish something on the internet it is fair game to read/use without restriction so long as copyright is not violated. Otherwise we risk having hidden contracts within every website we visit. That would completely screw up the internet. If I am forced to go through a license before I get something, ie. downloading java sdk from SUN, then that makes sense. But by putting a link to terms and conditions at the bottom of a website, you are not giving me value that I did not already have. The conditions of contracts that we consider legally binding in this country is out of control. You should not be bound to a contract if you were never aware that there was one in the first place.
I did not say that people do not exist whom own a computer but do not play them. I just do not know any, and I happen to know lots of people that own a computer. You said that the " Normal Joes do not play computer games." I guess I just happen to know a hell of a lot of abnormal Joes and Best Buy does not stock their shelfs with mostly games to make money, they just think that game boxes are prettier.
Okay, but what the hell does linking have to do with using their service? Until an exchange of value takes place (ie. you purchase a reservation), then no agreement is legally enforceable. It has everything to do with rights. They put a site on the web, registered with verisign for dns, and they think that gives them the right to tell you how YOU should use your browser, or set up YOUR webpage. The policy is in conflict with the very workings of the internet. If they do not like how the internet works, then they should find a technology that better supports their business needs, like the phone. We should not change the structure of the internet to suit the desires of a few companies.
I believe someone has tried to claim it as trademark before and failed. It is simply not practical to allow someone to prevent this on the internet and could potentially be a freedom of speach issue. Consider a journalist writing about a company and wanting to include a link to that company.
He was making a joke of the current state of software patents.
Actually, It does not matter if you sign the agreement because there is no exchange of value. If there is no exchange of value, a contract is not legally binding. The problem is that Orbitz wants to have their cake and eat it too. Too Bad for them!
http://www.orbitz.com/
Oh damn, did I just break the law?
http://www.orbitz.com/ http://www.orbitz.com/ http://www.orbitz.com/ http://www.orbitz.com/
Holy shites!! It's out of control!
http://www.orbitz.com/ http://www.orbitz.com/
Things are usually implemented in Linux when someone thinks it is worthwhile. I can see why we are more worried about games.
I do not know a single PC owner that does not own at least a single game for that PC. Go into a local electronics store. Compare the number of game titles versus other softwares. How can you see this and not know that games are the single biggest software market right now. The fact that most of the games market goes to windows is a huge reason that people use it instead of Mac or Linux.
DOH! [/Homer]
Breaking DRM and infringing on copyright are two different things. I am not sure if you are confusing them are not. Like when that DVD-Jon guy broke the DVD protection. He didn't technically break any copyright. He broke a protection scheme. I am not sure if they have decided if this is illegal or not yet, but I agree with the grandparent post that it should not be because it prevents even legal and fair use copying, as well as copying once copyrights expire (I believe that because of this, inclusion of DRM should technically be ILLEGAL because it prevents you from copyrighting works once they belong to the public). Copyrights are another issue altogether.
I would think it is a stretch to even call this "trademark" related. It is nothing like me slapping a "McDonalds" sign on my restaurant. At least in the US, McDonalds cannot tell you how to use the word "McDonalds", they can only tell you not to display it in big yellow letters. I wonder what implications this would have for Amazon if they have a french subsidiary, They will no longer display "Books you may also be interested in".
If you got a problem with it, take it up with the researchers who performed the study, not me.
And unless you have information your not telling, looks something up before outright disputing what I say. I at least bothered to google on the subject before I posted my response.
Please read the second paragraph of the following http://neuro-www.mgh.harvard.edu/research/caplan.h tml
Please help me understand how "thinking outside the square" is of any use in rudimentary math problems such as long-division? Did ANYBODY read the article? All smart people do not have HWM. It is only one type of smart person. Usually the type of person that is good at reading something quickly and comprehending it all.
What is funny is that for some reason everyone replying to this thread seems to think that this article applies to them because they consider themselves smart (and most of us on here probably are smart). However, most of us are probably smart in areas like math and science. These are generally not areas heavily affected by HWM. In fact I am best in areas like math but I probably have a rather low working memory. HWM individuals are the type that can usually read quickly through text and commit everything to memory without having to reread anything. I am sure that I am not alone here in being the type that once in while ends up reading paragraphs two or three times. On the other hand, a lot of really smart HWM folks that I know really stink at math.
If by "quite often" you actually mean "almost never" then I 100% agree with you. Seriously, look where the patents are coming from