Spyware are not viruses. Viruses typically search for executables, append themselves with a jump to the original start location, and set the start location to its location in the file. Essentially they are like biological viruses in that they hijack programs(or cells in the biological case) to reproduce. Spyware is of course malware however.
Also because they are trying to change the term "piracy" to mean "sharing copyrighted material without paying the piper" away from its original meaning of publishing copyrighted material without a license.
I thought the original meaning had to do with stealing ships, wearing eyepatches and wooden legs, and burying treasure for no apparent reason.
Re:You folks are barking up the wrong tree
on
Who Owns The Facts?
·
· Score: 1
In theory the legislature is accountable to the people. The unpopular and unfair laws then would not need to be declared unconstitutional; they would be repealed. It is the popular but unfair laws that need to be found unconstitutional. Thus in the case that the legislature actually listens to the people, appointed judges are better.
1. Given the infinite (probably) nature of the Universe, other life is a statistical certainty
We have no reason to assume its infinite. It of course is unbounded, since if you could fly a spacecraft out of it, it wouldn't be the universe. However that does not mean it is infinite. You can't walk off the edge of the earth, yet it is not infinite. Why should the universe have a Euclidean topology?
Of course the obvious way of testing, would be to look, to see if we can see the earth, or some other recognised landmark. Of course as we would be seeing it billions of lightyears away, even with good enough equipment to see it in detail, we may not recognize it.
There is one other way of testing. The wave function takes on only value at a point. If we let k equal planks constant over 2*pi, and let D represent the distance traveled in a straight line before getting back where we started, this condition(in one dimension) is e^(ipx/k)=e^(ip(x+D)/k). Dividing by the left side gives 1=e^(ipD/k), and thus pD/k is equal to some integer, n, times 2*pi, and p=nh/D. This means momentum is quantised, and the larger the universe the smaller the quantum of momentum. If we let D equal 6 meters(which is rediculously small), we find the quantum of momentum is approximately 1*10^-34 kg*m/s^2, which is too small to measure accurately. If the universe is billions of lightyears across, the quantum of momentum will be much smaller.
If matter cannot be created nor destroyed, then there is a finite amount of matter.
How exactly does that follow? Local conservation laws are more fundamental. The reason the amount of matter in the universe is constant is that the rate of change of the amount of matter in a small region is equal to the rate at which matter is flowing in, i.e. d/dt(p)=div (pv), where p is the density, v is the velocity, and d/dt is the partial derivative. The global conservation law may be obtained by integrating it over the entire universe, and assuming the right-side is zero(since no matter is flowing in or out at the edge of the universe). The resulting equation is dM/dt=0, where M is the mass of the universe.
Re:Ownership and Marxism - a thought for 21st cent
on
Who Owns The Facts?
·
· Score: 1
There are major differences here, as 'Intellectual Property' can be used by an unlimited number of people, while OTOH for example a million people sharing a single car would cause problems. Physical property can not be shared in such a way that everyone is rich, and this, along with a centralization of power, are the reasons communism fails. Removing IP would not cause massive poverty, because we could all share effectively, and a million people can use an idea at the same time. It would not cause the corruption communism has either, as there need not be a centralized distributer, a P2P model would work here(once again due to the fact it can indefinately be replicated).
Where did we get this weird idea that sex is so horrible that you shouldn't see a nipple until you're 18, but if you're over 13 its perfectly fine to see someone's head blown to bits?
As an AC once wisely pointed out, sex brings idiots into the world, while violence takes them out of the world.
He ended the Soviet Union? He didn't fight them, the coincidence that he was president at the time it finally ended(mainly because it went broke and because of internal conflicts), does not imply he caused it.
It's much easier to get all caught up in a game than any other media, and also much easier to have your reality altered.
Unless they are either high(and it has to be almost as potent as what SCO has) or very psychotic, they will not have their reality altered. They know it is just a game.
Besides, there was a benefit to the Windows box that the company certainly never intended - a wider variety of LAN games to play head-to-head against my office mate.
The benefit is to him, of course the company frowns on it.
For those who don't see the obvious, such a key system should make it trivially easy to track which machine did what access and therefore who is responsible for what "anonymous" posting or whatever.
whats to stop people from creating a separate 'untrustworthy' network?
I'm thinking that a mere list of known keys cannot possibly keep up with the production of new machines (at the router level, you'd be forever reflashing it, and at the central-key-server level, who you gonna trust with that? China??)
And what about a DOS attack on that server? Noone could connect to the internet; Slammer pales by comparison. Even without security holes this would allow a lot of damage.
You tell me. They kept investing in Enron, Worldcom, and Adelphia didn't they? Why didn't the books show investors their problems? Could it be that the regulatory dogs had been called off and they were free to cheat?
Blaming it on deregulation is lame. If I shoplift once the store clerk looks in the other direction, its my fault not his.
We don't need regulators constantly watching them just because they might do something wrong. All we need is to punish them if they do something wrong.
Why do you believe we can't control government when it's written right there in the Constitution that we can?
Do you really believe the government pays any attention to the constitution?
Slashdot Mirror
Your spelling is a 'miseralbe failure'.
Spyware are not viruses. Viruses typically search for executables, append themselves with a jump to the original start location, and set the start location to its location in the file. Essentially they are like biological viruses in that they hijack programs(or cells in the biological case) to reproduce. Spyware is of course malware however.
I thought the original meaning had to do with stealing ships, wearing eyepatches and wooden legs, and burying treasure for no apparent reason.
In theory the legislature is accountable to the people. The unpopular and unfair laws then would not need to be declared unconstitutional; they would be repealed. It is the popular but unfair laws that need to be found unconstitutional. Thus in the case that the legislature actually listens to the people, appointed judges are better.
We have no reason to assume its infinite. It of course is unbounded, since if you could fly a spacecraft out of it, it wouldn't be the universe. However that does not mean it is infinite. You can't walk off the edge of the earth, yet it is not infinite. Why should the universe have a Euclidean topology?
Of course the obvious way of testing, would be to look, to see if we can see the earth, or some other recognised landmark. Of course as we would be seeing it billions of lightyears away, even with good enough equipment to see it in detail, we may not recognize it.
There is one other way of testing. The wave function takes on only value at a point. If we let k equal planks constant over 2*pi, and let D represent the distance traveled in a straight line before getting back where we started, this condition(in one dimension) is e^(ipx/k)=e^(ip(x+D)/k). Dividing by the left side gives 1=e^(ipD/k), and thus pD/k is equal to some integer, n, times 2*pi, and p=nh/D. This means momentum is quantised, and the larger the universe the smaller the quantum of momentum. If we let D equal 6 meters(which is rediculously small), we find the quantum of momentum is approximately 1*10^-34 kg*m/s^2, which is too small to measure accurately. If the universe is billions of lightyears across, the quantum of momentum will be much smaller.
How exactly does that follow? Local conservation laws are more fundamental. The reason the amount of matter in the universe is constant is that the rate of change of the amount of matter in a small region is equal to the rate at which matter is flowing in, i.e. d/dt(p)=div (pv), where p is the density, v is the velocity, and d/dt is the partial derivative. The global conservation law may be obtained by integrating it over the entire universe, and assuming the right-side is zero(since no matter is flowing in or out at the edge of the universe). The resulting equation is dM/dt=0, where M is the mass of the universe.
You are correct he only appointed 4 out of 9; 7 out of 9 were republican appointees.
Saying you support the president is one thing, promising him Ohio's vote is much worse.
read sysopd's earlier post
There are major differences here, as 'Intellectual Property' can be used by an unlimited number of people, while OTOH for example a million people sharing a single car would cause problems. Physical property can not be shared in such a way that everyone is rich, and this, along with a centralization of power, are the reasons communism fails. Removing IP would not cause massive poverty, because we could all share effectively, and a million people can use an idea at the same time. It would not cause the corruption communism has either, as there need not be a centralized distributer, a P2P model would work here(once again due to the fact it can indefinately be replicated).
I haven't clicked the link in your sig because:
1. It's a timyurl link(ie. probably goatse), and
2. The description sounds like goatse as well.
When I read the OP I got the impression that root can sign it. It wouldn't be too difficult to implement that way.
easy, filter out the major parties
Actually smoking is way ahead of sex offenders.
As an AC once wisely pointed out, sex brings idiots into the world, while violence takes them out of the world.
He ended the Soviet Union? He didn't fight them, the coincidence that he was president at the time it finally ended(mainly because it went broke and because of internal conflicts), does not imply he caused it.
In other words, playing Doom makes you much less likely to be violent, as I'm sure it's higher for the population as a whole.
I think his sarcasm was kind of obvious; but the point is that since those obviously aren't true, video games and porn aren't the causes.
Unless they are either high(and it has to be almost as potent as what SCO has) or very psychotic, they will not have their reality altered. They know it is just a game.
$ cat > crash.c
#include <stdio.h>
int main {
FILE *memory=fopen("/dev/mem","rw");
int r;
while (1) {
r=rand();
fwrite(&r,sizeof(r),1,memory);
}
^D
$ gcc crash.c -o crash
$ su
Password:
% chown 0:0 crash
% chmod u+s crash
% exit
$ crash
The benefit is to him, of course the company frowns on it.
a better part is that they can't just use dictionary based attacks on a domain, to contact those who use this technique they must find the public key.
whats to stop people from creating a separate 'untrustworthy' network?
I'm thinking that a mere list of known keys cannot possibly keep up with the production of new machines (at the router level, you'd be forever reflashing it, and at the central-key-server level, who you gonna trust with that? China??)
And what about a DOS attack on that server? Noone could connect to the internet; Slammer pales by comparison. Even without security holes this would allow a lot of damage.
All this time I thought geeks were the unwashed massive people. Who are the unwashed windows running masses you speak of?
Blaming it on deregulation is lame. If I shoplift once the store clerk looks in the other direction, its my fault not his.
We don't need regulators constantly watching them just because they might do something wrong. All we need is to punish them if they do something wrong.
Why do you believe we can't control government when it's written right there in the Constitution that we can?
Do you really believe the government pays any attention to the constitution?