Your arguement is incredibly short sighted. New features are typically untested and add bugs. Thus only responding to bug reports makes the 2.6.x kernel more stable as x becomes larger. There's no way to tell what's going to be more stable now, other than user reports. Which _I_ frankly do not have to time to keep track of.
Does anybody have any information on the patents/trade secrets intel violated with the Pentium I. I had heard this mentioned that they settled a fairly large lawsuit with another company in order to continue manufacting the Pentium. Is this rubbish or fact?
This isn't going to prevent anybody who actually wants to steal data from doing so. It just insults most workers with iPod, and the like. Just like gun control; when they finally ban guns, the only people who will have them are criminals.
That isn't exactly correct, it's more like this. There's no "entanglement" at all, as you might think of it. It's more like this..
Say I have 4 playing cards, each one is an ace. I give you three cards, you have a three out of four chance of having any particular ace contained in your hand. So you look at your cards.
Once you have looked, you also know which one I have. The catch is, none of the cards were any particular ace until you looked at them. Which causes them to become a particular ace. So by looking at your 3 cards, and since there is a limit to what the cards can be, you know what mine is, and caused it to be a a particular ace, without interacting with it.
I could go more in to depth about the ramifications of this, if you want. But I'd rather not type pages and pages right now.
There really isn't any way to convey information this way, only verify that nobody has looked at your cards before you did. Thus quantum "cryptography," which doesn't do any kinds of cipher to the data, it just maintains a secure link, so you don't need to.
How can you expect anyone to believe that you an an accurate understanding of a legal document, when you can't even spell or follow English grammar correctly?
Also, get the gist of what "terrorist" means. According to dictionary.com: "One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism". Well, what is terrorism? Acts that instill terror. What is terror? Intense, overpowering fear.
Based on that, tell me again; you say this man is a terrorist? Do you honestly think he was trying to instill terror?
You're missing the point.. Hidden variable theory has been disproven already. And according to Quantum Mechanics none of the cards are specifically one thing or the other till you look at them. By looking at your card you change the state of your card, and you force the other 3 into the state of being the one of the ace of diamonds, hearts and clubs. But your card is no longer the ace of spades after you've looked at it.
So.. the quantum cryptography is more like this:
You have the 4 aces, you take one. You give him the other three. You wait till he gets to europe and you look at yours. You call him on your cell phone and say hey, i've got the ace of spades, therefore you must have the ace of hearts diamonds and clubs. So he looks at his cards. If he doesn't have those cards, he knows somebody else has looked at his before he got to them. Due to the fact that if anybody looked before him, they'd see the ace of hearts, diamonds and clubs, but after that they would not be those cards anymore.
Interestingly, several times I've heard mentioned today flat taxes on media to support artists. ( Rather than replying to one commentor, out of the many, I thought I should start a new thread. ) The biggest arguement to this is that "I shouldn't be charged, I don't listen to music," or "I don't burn music onto CD-Rs."
This is a silly arguement. Not everybody is on is on welfare, but who pays? There are several good reasons for there being things everyone pays into, and only a few people get benefits from. ( Welfare helps to stimulate the economy, single mothers don't horde their cash. )
However, I too think that a flat tax for music _IS_ silly. Why should any person declaring themselve an "artist" get welfare. The issue with flat taxes are not so much who pays, but WHO _gets_ paid.
What would work well is SSL certified SMTP relays. If every valid SMTP relay needed an SSL certificate then, If spam was sent their SSL certificate could easily be rejected. And hosts that didn't have one at all could just be dropped.
SSL certificates are costly, and that limits everyone from having one. However, there is no reason the Open Source community could not make up our own root certficate, and have an SMTP SSL certificate signing organization. Where we verify the authenticity of someone before we give them a cert. For a small fee to cover costs. It wouldn't be like we'd have to convince Netscape, Microsoft, Apple and whoever else makes a browser to include the cert. It'd just need to be available for people hosting servers to download.
Yes, this would mean rejecting massive amounts of email to begin with. Maybe some intern solution could be thought of as people move over to it?
The explosive end of stars that either disrupts the precursor star (supernova of type I; precursor star is a white dwarf of about 1.4 solar masses) or ejects a large part of the precursor star's outer layers, leaving behind a neutron star or black hole (supernova of type II; precursor star has more than about eight solar masses). Supernovae are among the brightest events in today's universe and sometimes shine as brightly as the galaxy in which they reside.
The page fails to mention that white dwarfs only DO THAT when they're part of a _BINARY_ system. I don't see any other stars around here, do you?
You're correct, D-D and D-T fusion are very bad. However, these reactions are only being used for research. (Except those idiots at fusor.net) The idea is to switch to a reaction that doesn't produce stray neutrons, once the technology is perfected.
Landing is not currently possible with the level of technology you puny earthlings currently possess. Our atmosphere would crush you faster than you can say Venusian.
Jamming equipment essentially works by flooding the area with radio waves of certain wavelengths. If you point a directional antenna through such a field, it wouldn't affect it unless you were too close to the jamming source on the receiving end.
It would be interesting to know what kind of technology Area 51 is using to disable your 802.11 connection.
I keep reading statements by people here that talk about how Slashdot is being hypocritical by wanting Kazaa to win. That "Slashdot supposedly hates software licenses when they don't serve them." What the hell? That's always been the truth. EULAs are bad when they make stupid provisions, not that EULAs are bad. Don't forget that the GPL is an EULA.
Hotline servers have been trying it for years. They all have agreements you must click through before you can use their server. Although some of the newer clients have "auto-agree" features. I don't think that could reasonably be considered agreeing to the contract.
Slashdot Mirror
Your arguement is incredibly short sighted. New features are typically untested and add bugs. Thus only responding to bug reports makes the 2.6.x kernel more stable as x becomes larger. There's no way to tell what's going to be more stable now, other than user reports. Which _I_ frankly do not have to time to keep track of.
.....Hello my name is Attorney Sancho Panza of Borg, you killed my father! Prepare to be indicted!
Does anybody have any information on the patents/trade secrets intel violated with the Pentium I. I had heard this mentioned that they settled a fairly large lawsuit with another company in order to continue manufacting the Pentium. Is this rubbish or fact?
This isn't going to prevent anybody who actually wants to steal data from doing so. It just insults most workers with iPod, and the like. Just like gun control; when they finally ban guns, the only people who will have them are criminals.
That isn't exactly correct, it's more like this. There's no "entanglement" at all, as you might think of it.
It's more like this..
Say I have 4 playing cards, each one is an ace. I give you three cards, you have a three out of four chance of having any particular ace contained in your hand. So you look at your cards.
Once you have looked, you also know which one I have. The catch is, none of the cards were any particular ace until you looked at them. Which causes them to become a particular ace. So by looking at your 3 cards, and since there is a limit to what the cards can be, you know what mine is, and caused it to be a a particular ace, without interacting with it.
I could go more in to depth about the ramifications of this, if you want. But I'd rather not type pages and pages right now.
There really isn't any way to convey information this way, only verify that nobody has looked at your cards before you did. Thus quantum "cryptography," which doesn't do any kinds of cipher to the data, it just maintains a secure link, so you don't need to.
How can you expect anyone to believe that you an an accurate understanding of a legal document, when you can't even spell or follow English grammar correctly?
Also, get the gist of what "terrorist" means. According to dictionary.com: "One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism". Well, what is terrorism? Acts that instill terror. What is terror? Intense, overpowering fear.
Based on that, tell me again; you say this man is a terrorist? Do you honestly think he was trying to instill terror?
where might your square root sign have been put? That ratio is made up of perfect squares, why would you need a square root sign for any part of it?
Not yet, but it will by D 1.0.
You're missing the point.. Hidden variable theory has been disproven already. And according to Quantum Mechanics none of the cards are specifically one thing or the other till you look at them. By looking at your card you change the state of your card, and you force the other 3 into the state of being the one of the ace of diamonds, hearts and clubs. But your card is no longer the ace of spades after you've looked at it.
So.. the quantum cryptography is more like this:You have the 4 aces, you take one. You give him the other three. You wait till he gets to europe and you look at yours. You call him on your cell phone and say hey, i've got the ace of spades, therefore you must have the ace of hearts diamonds and clubs. So he looks at his cards. If he doesn't have those cards, he knows somebody else has looked at his before he got to them. Due to the fact that if anybody looked before him, they'd see the ace of hearts, diamonds and clubs, but after that they would not be those cards anymore.
Not originally.
IMHO, One of the biggest need is a standardized charging interface!
Interestingly, several times I've heard mentioned today flat taxes on media to support artists. ( Rather than replying to one commentor, out of the many, I thought I should start a new thread. ) The biggest arguement to this is that "I shouldn't be charged, I don't listen to music," or "I don't burn music onto CD-Rs."
This is a silly arguement. Not everybody is on is on welfare, but who pays? There are several good reasons for there being things everyone pays into, and only a few people get benefits from. ( Welfare helps to stimulate the economy, single mothers don't horde their cash. )
However, I too think that a flat tax for music _IS_ silly. Why should any person declaring themselve an "artist" get welfare. The issue with flat taxes are not so much who pays, but WHO _gets_ paid.
What would work well is SSL certified SMTP relays. If every valid SMTP relay needed an SSL certificate then, If spam was sent their SSL certificate could easily be rejected. And hosts that didn't have one at all could just be dropped.
SSL certificates are costly, and that limits everyone from having one. However, there is no reason the Open Source community could not make up our own root certficate, and have an SMTP SSL certificate signing organization. Where we verify the authenticity of someone before we give them a cert. For a small fee to cover costs. It wouldn't be like we'd have to convince Netscape, Microsoft, Apple and whoever else makes a browser to include the cert. It'd just need to be available for people hosting servers to download.
Yes, this would mean rejecting massive amounts of email to begin with. Maybe some intern solution could be thought of as people move over to it?
Ideas? Comments?
You're correct, D-D and D-T fusion are very bad. However, these reactions are only being used for research. (Except those idiots at fusor.net) The idea is to switch to a reaction that doesn't produce stray neutrons, once the technology is perfected.
Sir, you need to read some history books.
You'd be surprised what Aunt Tillie tries to do these days....
Landing is not currently possible with the level of technology you puny earthlings currently possess. Our atmosphere would crush you faster than you can say Venusian.
It would be interesting to know what kind of technology Area 51 is using to disable your 802.11 connection.
I keep reading statements by people here that talk about how Slashdot is being hypocritical by wanting Kazaa to win. That "Slashdot supposedly hates software licenses when they don't serve them." What the hell? That's always been the truth. EULAs are bad when they make stupid provisions, not that EULAs are bad. Don't forget that the GPL is an EULA.
Hotline servers have been trying it for years. They all have agreements you must click through before you can use their server. Although some of the newer clients have "auto-agree" features. I don't think that could reasonably be considered agreeing to the contract.
So, German is going to be the official language of the EU after 5 years, then?
Who says? Just leave the shabang line /bin/tcsh and all is well
I don't organize my data you insensitive clod!