I'm interested in how you know if you've been $rtbl'd. I have Excellent karma and get to metamoderate daily, but I swear I haven't gotten to moderate in over six months.
If I am blacklisted, I think it's kinda cowardly that whoever did it didn't tell me.
The thing that angers me is that when I'm having a good dream, I'll sometimes want to know what time it is. So I'll (wake up and) check my alarm clock. At which point I realize I was dreaming, but it's over. Darn.
I don't think that's much of a problem. Even assuming fish are monogamous (I have no idea), the reduction in the effective mating would only be (steriles / (fertiles + steriles) * 100) percent. So dropping one fish in a pond would have minimal effect.
A greater danger, of course, is if the GloFish (through their amphibian DNA:-) ) become fertile. I don't know how likely this is. But even then - it takes a good deal of energy to glow, and if it isn't an advantage, the fish would become extinct. Even if glowing is an advantage, as long as the chemicals aren't toxic, what's the harm? (Besides that fish, when they take over the world, will believe in intelligent design.)
The great strength of computers is their ability to copy and otherwise manipulate information. Everybody should have this ability, and to manipulate "their" information, they often need multiple copies. In other words, computer programs must be resident on the installation media, on the disk, and RAM, and music is useful on CDs, on your hard disk, in your iPod.
The basic unit of current copyright law is a copy, because when copyright was created, there were no automated information manipulation machines, so nobody had a use for multiple copies of a book. But now, to allow computers to function, copyright law has some (but not quite enough) explicit exceptions - for copying programs into RAM, for personal use of some music, and for fair use; and it has some implicit exceptions, like for viewing or caching a webpage. This is outdated.
The fundamental unit should be "person with access to the information." In other words, copyright would be the exclusive right to grant others access to the information. This actually wouldn't change anything in practice, but it would eliminate the need to have a seperate legislative battle to allow each new technology. The laws would be simpler, tools, being neutral, would never be banned, and fair use would be implicit.
So SCO has old AIX source from Project Monterey. Now I wonder: how did Monterey end, and is SCO entitled to have this code? This could get even more interesting if IBM finds some contract saying SCO should have destroyed it.
I propose that you add "derbis" to your category. One of my friends mispronounced debris thusly in sixth grade. We tried to make it a swear word, but it didn't catch on.
A while ago, I followed this link from someone's journal. The upshot is, Outlook 2003's spam filter consists of a data file set of (word, weight) pairs. They've been md5summed to obscure them, but a simple dictionary attack can retrieve 80% of the matches.
Since the weights are fixed, it would be trivial to include random hammy words to get past it. It's a good example of the failure of security by obscurity - it wasn't difficult to reverse engineer the word list, and once the secret's out, it's easily exploited.
I don't think the random words are likely to work on real, adaptive spam filters, though. At least not on the one I use.
That's why I'm not a lawyer - it would need to be worded more carefully. Each contributor should be responsible for his contributions only, and people who soley distribute it shouldn't be responsible at all. So in your example, you'd only be responsible for what you added. I'm not exactly sure what the legal mechanics for doing this are.
As difficult as it is to say, SCO really does have a point about indemnification.
We assume that if you release someone else's code under the GPL, it's your sole liability. This is the way it should be, but unfortunately, there's nothing about it in the GPL. Corperate legal departments realize that there are crazy companies that might just sue them. I've seen other licenses that say, "The author warrants that this code is his to release, and assumes sole liability if it isn't."
I think the GPL really ought to say something like that. So vendors offering indemnification is really just a stopgap solution until licenses can be changed.
Predicting the weather with high accuracy over long periods of time is similar to expressing the square root of two exactly as the quotient of two whole numbers. It'd be easy for a non-mathematician to say "Oh, cmon - we've gotten closer and closer, who are you to say it's impossible?" But he'd be wrong, of course.
In the case of the weather, suppose you develop an accurate model. Suppose you have infinite computing power. Suppose you have a weather satellite that tells you the temperature of each cubic meter of air. That's not enough - it would only buy you a week or two, if that. Consider what you're neglecting: for starters, geologic, solar, and biological activity. Suppose you factor that in, and improve your satellite to cubic centimeter accuracy. Still not good enough - how do you predict human, or even butterfly, activity?
Assuming complete knowledge of each electron, proton, quark, string, etc., in a sphere with a radius in light-years equal to how far into the future you want to predict, and a completely accurate physics model, it might be possible (depending on the physics). But this information is impossible - not just impractical, but absolutely impossible - to obtain. This is the Uncertainty Principle: you can't measure something without changing it.
I think that where chaos theory comes in is explaining quantatively just how sensitive the weather is to initial conditions, and therefore how quickly the whether is likely to diverge from your predictions, given the accuracy and volume of your input. Yes, it's possible that these calculations are wrong. But I don't see you volunteering how or where, or providing contradicing evidence.
I've been thinking about this, and I have to wonder if the uCLinux
porters
just didn't set the power management bits correctly. The cores
in the iPod
are software-clockable up to 133 MHz. Tremor (the integer Ogg
decoder)
requires only about a 90 Mhz ARM core. It should be more than
fast
enough.
That having been said, has anyone implemented a segment loader
for the
second ARM core yet? That's probably the Right Way (tm) to handle
decoding....
While many of us think manned missions to the Moon and Mars mars are a great idea, it's also election year, and Bush's motives in setting this goal are clear. So what if he isn't re-elected? Which other candidates are in favor of these missions?
SCO is using the term ABI (application binary interface) inconsistently. There is a Linux ABI module, but Darl has previously said this isn't infringing. When they talk about the ABI recently, they're refering to a few header files, notably errno.h, signal.h, ioctl.h, and ctype.h. And it's been pretty well shown that no, they don't own them.
That's the point of instant runoff voting. It allows you to say, for example, "Nader is my first choice, and, failing that, Gore." The effect would be that Nader would have had more votes because people wouldn't have been afraid of wasting their vote, and if he was last anyway, those votes would have gone to Gore.
Governments are far too happy to ban the tools instead of just the crime. Copyright infringement is already illegal (as it should be), but since the DMCA, tools like DeCSS with very significant non-infringing uses are illegal. So I fear that at some point, the music industry will try to get P2P itself banned.
There's two battles: technical and legal. The technical battle is easily won - anonymous communication is possible. But as it becomes easier to communicate with true anonynmity, the temptation to ban such communication increases.
I think it's pretty clear that such communication is protected speech, but I predict that Congress will pass a bill saying that it isn't. It will eventually fall to the Supreme Court to re-affirm that anonymous speech is protected too.
For this reason, I think it would be better if MUTE promoted itself as a tool for speech, not just copyright infringement.
Slashdot Mirror
If I am blacklisted, I think it's kinda cowardly that whoever did it didn't tell me.
The thing that angers me is that when I'm having a good dream, I'll sometimes want to know what time it is. So I'll (wake up and) check my alarm clock. At which point I realize I was dreaming, but it's over. Darn.
I, for one, welocme a longer day.
A greater danger, of course, is if the GloFish (through their amphibian DNA :-) ) become fertile. I don't know how likely this is. But even then - it takes a good deal of energy to glow, and if it isn't an advantage, the fish would become extinct. Even if glowing is an advantage, as long as the chemicals aren't toxic, what's the harm? (Besides that fish, when they take over the world, will believe in intelligent design.)
I would not want to introduce the telephone analogy - do you have any idea how much heavily telephone networks are regulated?
The basic unit of current copyright law is a copy, because when copyright was created, there were no automated information manipulation machines, so nobody had a use for multiple copies of a book. But now, to allow computers to function, copyright law has some (but not quite enough) explicit exceptions - for copying programs into RAM, for personal use of some music, and for fair use; and it has some implicit exceptions, like for viewing or caching a webpage. This is outdated.
The fundamental unit should be "person with access to the information." In other words, copyright would be the exclusive right to grant others access to the information. This actually wouldn't change anything in practice, but it would eliminate the need to have a seperate legislative battle to allow each new technology. The laws would be simpler, tools, being neutral, would never be banned, and fair use would be implicit.
Just use "unzip". As everybody knows, .exe files on P2P are always self-extracting zips. What else would they be? :-)
So SCO has old AIX source from Project Monterey. Now I wonder: how did Monterey end, and is SCO entitled to have this code? This could get even more interesting if IBM finds some contract saying SCO should have destroyed it.
I propose that you add "derbis" to your category. One of my friends mispronounced debris thusly in sixth grade. We tried to make it a swear word, but it didn't catch on.
Our first choice is Uranus-Hertz.
Since the weights are fixed, it would be trivial to include random hammy words to get past it. It's a good example of the failure of security by obscurity - it wasn't difficult to reverse engineer the word list, and once the secret's out, it's easily exploited.
I don't think the random words are likely to work on real, adaptive spam filters, though. At least not on the one I use.
Reading what you say again, that could have been construed as a joke. IHBT.
That's why I'm not a lawyer - it would need to be worded more carefully. Each contributor should be responsible for his contributions only, and people who soley distribute it shouldn't be responsible at all. So in your example, you'd only be responsible for what you added. I'm not exactly sure what the legal mechanics for doing this are.
We assume that if you release someone else's code under the GPL, it's your sole liability. This is the way it should be, but unfortunately, there's nothing about it in the GPL. Corperate legal departments realize that there are crazy companies that might just sue them. I've seen other licenses that say, "The author warrants that this code is his to release, and assumes sole liability if it isn't."
I think the GPL really ought to say something like that. So vendors offering indemnification is really just a stopgap solution until licenses can be changed.
In the case of the weather, suppose you develop an accurate model. Suppose you have infinite computing power. Suppose you have a weather satellite that tells you the temperature of each cubic meter of air. That's not enough - it would only buy you a week or two, if that. Consider what you're neglecting: for starters, geologic, solar, and biological activity. Suppose you factor that in, and improve your satellite to cubic centimeter accuracy. Still not good enough - how do you predict human, or even butterfly, activity?
Assuming complete knowledge of each electron, proton, quark, string, etc., in a sphere with a radius in light-years equal to how far into the future you want to predict, and a completely accurate physics model, it might be possible (depending on the physics). But this information is impossible - not just impractical, but absolutely impossible - to obtain. This is the Uncertainty Principle: you can't measure something without changing it.
I think that where chaos theory comes in is explaining quantatively just how sensitive the weather is to initial conditions, and therefore how quickly the whether is likely to diverge from your predictions, given the accuracy and volume of your input. Yes, it's possible that these calculations are wrong. But I don't see you volunteering how or where, or providing contradicing evidence.
So it really should be possible.
Copyright holders should have the right to control how you distribute copies of their work, not how you use it.
s/could/can/
I get flickering, even with Fix Jerky Motion and SVGA Compatibility on. Oh, well.
Remember, children - running arbitrary programs is wrong.
Those bugs Linus was referring to affected Linux 0.01, and possibly some later versions, but they're long gone now.
While many of us think manned missions to the Moon and Mars mars are a great idea, it's also election year, and Bush's motives in setting this goal are clear. So what if he isn't re-elected? Which other candidates are in favor of these missions?
SCO is using the term ABI (application binary interface) inconsistently. There is a Linux ABI module, but Darl has previously said this isn't infringing. When they talk about the ABI recently, they're refering to a few header files, notably errno.h, signal.h, ioctl.h, and ctype.h. And it's been pretty well shown that no, they don't own them.
That's the point of instant runoff voting. It allows you to say, for example, "Nader is my first choice, and, failing that, Gore." The effect would be that Nader would have had more votes because people wouldn't have been afraid of wasting their vote, and if he was last anyway, those votes would have gone to Gore.
There's two battles: technical and legal. The technical battle is easily won - anonymous communication is possible. But as it becomes easier to communicate with true anonynmity, the temptation to ban such communication increases. I think it's pretty clear that such communication is protected speech, but I predict that Congress will pass a bill saying that it isn't. It will eventually fall to the Supreme Court to re-affirm that anonymous speech is protected too.
For this reason, I think it would be better if MUTE promoted itself as a tool for speech, not just copyright infringement.