What we could do is go to a web of trust system where when you decide to sign off on your trust of a specific cert it goes into the public databases of said trust metrics so that eventually we have a system where you can see that 89% of people believe this is the real bankofamerica.com site and so on.
You know they're just going to play the kiddy-porn card to make it all work out for them, right?
"We found this child pornographer we wouldn't have found without tapping innocent people..." and all of a sudden you can't say anything about it without being made out to be pro child pornography.
"Back in my day we had detectives..." "Why dad, didn't they have grep?"
Tor doesn't allow publishers to create content anonymously at all. It just allows you to fetch it anonymously.
Incidentally, running a tor node at home got my IP banned from Slashdot from users spamming said geek news site via tor and my machine inadvertently being a part of it.
Freenet allows you to create anonymous or pseudonymous identities to communicate with others or post content in such a way that others are unlikely to ever determine the source of said content. This is a very useful feature for various persons, including whistle blowers.
Certain recently discussed websites accepting submissions anonymously would do well to configure a FreeMail account for users to communicate to them with so they can receive tips and information from those wishing not to be identified.
Here's how you're wrong and haven't thought your case through:
What if the amber light is only amber for a tenth of a second? Obviously you won't be able to stop in time, almost no matter the legal speed.
"But the amber is more than a tenth of a second long," you may protest. Sure, it is. But there's therefore a limit to how short the amber light can be and still allow you safely stop before the light turns red. The question is where the limit is, and how much above it the timing should be for safety reasons.
That's the issue at hand here -- you may not in fact be able to stop before the line when you see the light turns amber, if it then turns red too soon.
You haven't even got into getting rear-ended by the guy who doesn't have high end disc brakes like you do, when you slam on your brakes hard enough to stop in time.
Why would integrating something as complex and potentially bug-ridden as a GUI into your kernel space be a good thing exactly? Printer drivers run in user-space, IR remote software runs in user space, the Japanese Kanji interfaces run in user space, even the web server (yes, yes, I know about Tux) and mail server run in user space. Why should the GUI be special?
You do realize that Microsoft is bragging about how the next version of Windows will offer GUI-less installation options, right?
I dare you to show me how you can use the Linux kernel as an OS without a C library, applications, a shell interface of some form or anything else.
Your cell phone example provides interfaces and software linked against libraries that are NOT part of the Linux kernel. Ditto for even elevators running embedded Linux.
Even 'init' which is typically required to make your system boot something useful is not part of this release.
... because the huge mission critical CAD and 3D display systems used by Nasa, mining corporations, Geo survey companies, satellite systems, etc. all run on Vista, not X?
Here's a clue -- Windows is an engineering nightmare for true high-power stability.
The problem isn't the leaving of the smart people -- the problem is the lack of planning for its inevitability.
Since smart people will eventually leave, you should be hiring extras to take their place when they do instead of hiring stupid people who will fill your organization with cruft.
Don't bother, this whole class of people who can't see the reality of how traffic timing is supposed to work is out there and completely incapable of logical thought.
If you're travelling at a given speed, its not possible to stop safely before the white line in a given amount of time.
When you see the light turn yellow a second before you reach that white line, you say to yourself "I can't stop before the intersection, but I'll have time to make it safely through" and you keep going, but then you find out the hard way that they reduced a 2 second yellow to one second and you've just been busted.
There's a reason the time for yellow lights is what it is -- to tell you to make a decision that you should then be given time to act on.
You used 'china is doing fine' as an example of how socially successful atheism is? China is doing fine? Nice one. One of the worst human rights countries in the world is my example for atheism?
Next you'll tell me its atheistic groups China invites back to run orphanages.
I'm not sure English is you first language so I'll be nice (of course if it is, please go back to school), but that question doesn't actually make sense.
I'll respond to what I think you're asking, and say lots of people have shared ownership of companies without being part of the publicly traded stock market. The owners of Google for example had shared ownership in it long before it went public.
There are many rational reasons to sell or buy stock besides short term financial gain (or even long term).
You may invest in your friend's business because he's your friend. You may then decide not to sell your shares to his ex-wife for twice their value because you want him still to be your friend.
People have forgotten why we have a public market in the first place -- so we can do the above on a huge scale. There's no reasonable difference between buying a chunk of your buddy's new restaurant to help them out and buying stock in Google. People just don't think about what they're really doing in the latter case and treat the system way too lightly.
Although I do frequently have to point out to people how the whole concept of publicly traded companies works, I must disagree with you on this point; Shareholders are not supposed to do anything. Shareholders are of course free to do whatever they want (with obvious illegalities like insider trading aside), but there is no "thou shalt" commandments list for shareholders.
Personally, more shareholders should behave as what they are -- partial owners of the company, and therefore do what they believe is right for the company, the public, the environment, as they see fit, not just the bottom line, but they can buy or sell the stock whenever they like if they feel like doing so and have a seller/buyer available to do so.
Basically, if most of your shareholders don't want the company sold because they think its a bad idea even if it IS financially advantageous, then good for them, and it won't sell.
Here in Ontario, Canada we have something similar for the 407 toll highway. However, because we have privacy laws and people still basically get to force respect from the government around here (via the courts sometimes), you can purchase a transponder with cash, without identification, and when the transponder is detected by the oncoming overhead scanners, the cameras are NOT turned on for your privacy.
When your transponder is running low on currency (it is deducted from your numbered account with each trip), you can go refill it at any 407 booth, again with cash.
The D-Link models are no better. A straight motherboard RS-232 port works so much better when connecting to a modem or serial printer.
Yes, I use serial printers with work.
Lava's PCI serial cards were at the top of my recommendation list back when they worked with most computers, but now I find a lot of machines (Dell!) won't even boot with them installed.
Digi makes intelligent I/O cards that work quite well up to 19200 but their Linux drivers are incredibly bad and there's a lot of glitches at 38400 and above.
That $200 card and $300 core 2 duo cost more combined than either a 360 or a PS3. By the time you add a hard drive, motherboard, RAM and a case with power supply, you've exceeded the price of both combined.
I highly doubt however that congress ever considered a significant portion of VOTERS to be on the hook for legal fees to one group in this way.
When a very large number of random citizens are being caught up in what are obviously unresearched lawsuits by a monstrously large entity, something should be done to help out those citizens, and hopefully the courts see that.
I've seen some very well obfuscated software cracked in days or hours by very skilled persons with good tools and experience.
Code is code. It runs on a known hardware and has a fixed set of rules for execution. Binary or not, the logic is crackable.
Now of course, the genius in the reasoning behind a piece of code may lay hidden forever (like who figured out the algorithm Carmack made famous for calculating normals with a floating point division or something), but cracking the code itself is not as hard as you've been lead to believe.
Please, go find one of these uncracked software packages that someone has actually cared to crack. Think video game systems and their software if you want, they put a LOT of effort into this.
Yes, but if they start trying to calculate the date of some event tied with the next return of a specific comet, that will still be science.
There is a lot of science involved in determining the date of easter, and a little politics too. Religion has nothing to do with it, its a historical and cultural reality, religion aside. Considering Easter Friday is the date of the historical death of the historical Jesus of Nazareth, there's nothing strange or cooky about figuring out the date in question for commemeration's sake alone.
Jesus had a huge cultural effect on the people of his time and people since, and the study of those effects is also science, in case you're confused about everything outside physics, biology and chemistry being studiable.
Oh okay, so you're fully aware that the name comes from a series of articles and books called "The Fundamentals", an attempt to document the most essential parts of the Christian Faith so that believers would have a reference as to what they had in common with each other despite their other differences?
You knew then that "Fundamentalist" simply referred within the Christian community to a group of people who accepted those fundamentalists, not to "radicals" or any other term you've aggregated with it since?
Just because I know people who call themselves scientists doesn't mean they represent science and just because you knew people who called themselves fundamentalists doesn't mean all or any of their behaviours represented that title.
Ironically you're trying to show the illogical nature of one who professes to dislike Fundamentalists (presumably because of their illogical nature).
Of course, the person in question probably has no idea where the term Fundamentalist comes from in modern Christian terms, so their Worldview on the issue is most likely to be entirely based in the media. Yes, the very media from which science should not be learned either.
Or, "Fundamentalism... I don't think that word means what you think it means."
Slashdot Mirror
What we could do is go to a web of trust system where when you decide to sign off on your trust of a specific cert it goes into the public databases of said trust metrics so that eventually we have a system where you can see that 89% of people believe this is the real bankofamerica.com site and so on.
Two words: Space junk.
:-)
We'll be up there replacing solar panels regularly, guaranteed, because of space junk.
Geosynchronous satellites don't move out of the way of space junk so well, being well, relatively stationary (relatively)
You know they're just going to play the kiddy-porn card to make it all work out for them, right?
..." and all of a sudden you can't say anything about it without being made out to be pro child pornography.
..."
"We found this child pornographer we wouldn't have found without tapping innocent people
"Back in my day we had detectives
"Why dad, didn't they have grep?"
Tor doesn't allow publishers to create content anonymously at all. It just allows you to fetch it anonymously.
Incidentally, running a tor node at home got my IP banned from Slashdot from users spamming said geek news site via tor and my machine inadvertently being a part of it.
Freenet allows you to create anonymous or pseudonymous identities to communicate with others or post content in such a way that others are unlikely to ever determine the source of said content. This is a very useful feature for various persons, including whistle blowers.
Certain recently discussed websites accepting submissions anonymously would do well to configure a FreeMail account for users to communicate to them with so they can receive tips and information from those wishing not to be identified.
Here's how you're wrong and haven't thought your case through:
What if the amber light is only amber for a tenth of a second? Obviously you won't be able to stop in time, almost no matter the legal speed.
"But the amber is more than a tenth of a second long," you may protest. Sure, it is. But there's therefore a limit to how short the amber light can be and still allow you safely stop before the light turns red. The question is where the limit is, and how much above it the timing should be for safety reasons.
That's the issue at hand here -- you may not in fact be able to stop before the line when you see the light turns amber, if it then turns red too soon.
You haven't even got into getting rear-ended by the guy who doesn't have high end disc brakes like you do, when you slam on your brakes hard enough to stop in time.
Why would integrating something as complex and potentially bug-ridden as a GUI into your kernel space be a good thing exactly? Printer drivers run in user-space, IR remote software runs in user space, the Japanese Kanji interfaces run in user space, even the web server (yes, yes, I know about Tux) and mail server run in user space. Why should the GUI be special?
You do realize that Microsoft is bragging about how the next version of Windows will offer GUI-less installation options, right?
I dare you to show me how you can use the Linux kernel as an OS without a C library, applications, a shell interface of some form or anything else.
Your cell phone example provides interfaces and software linked against libraries that are NOT part of the Linux kernel. Ditto for even elevators running embedded Linux.
Even 'init' which is typically required to make your system boot something useful is not part of this release.
... because the huge mission critical CAD and 3D display systems used by Nasa, mining corporations, Geo survey companies, satellite systems, etc. all run on Vista, not X?
Here's a clue -- Windows is an engineering nightmare for true high-power stability.
The problem isn't the leaving of the smart people -- the problem is the lack of planning for its inevitability.
Since smart people will eventually leave, you should be hiring extras to take their place when they do instead of hiring stupid people who will fill your organization with cruft.
So have you played Motorstorm or Uncharted: Drake's Fortune for the PS3?
Uncharted especially has beautiful animations and excellent textures.
Don't bother, this whole class of people who can't see the reality of how traffic timing is supposed to work is out there and completely incapable of logical thought.
That's completely legitimate behaviour.
If you're travelling at a given speed, its not possible to stop safely before the white line in a given amount of time.
When you see the light turn yellow a second before you reach that white line, you say to yourself "I can't stop before the intersection, but I'll have time to make it safely through" and you keep going, but then you find out the hard way that they reduced a 2 second yellow to one second and you've just been busted.
There's a reason the time for yellow lights is what it is -- to tell you to make a decision that you should then be given time to act on.
You used 'china is doing fine' as an example of how socially successful atheism is? China is doing fine? Nice one. One of the worst human rights countries in the world is my example for atheism?
Next you'll tell me its atheistic groups China invites back to run orphanages.
I'm not sure English is you first language so I'll be nice (of course if it is, please go back to school), but that question doesn't actually make sense.
I'll respond to what I think you're asking, and say lots of people have shared ownership of companies without being part of the publicly traded stock market. The owners of Google for example had shared ownership in it long before it went public.
That's precisely what I disagree with.
There are many rational reasons to sell or buy stock besides short term financial gain (or even long term).
You may invest in your friend's business because he's your friend. You may then decide not to sell your shares to his ex-wife for twice their value because you want him still to be your friend.
People have forgotten why we have a public market in the first place -- so we can do the above on a huge scale. There's no reasonable difference between buying a chunk of your buddy's new restaurant to help them out and buying stock in Google. People just don't think about what they're really doing in the latter case and treat the system way too lightly.
Although I do frequently have to point out to people how the whole concept of publicly traded companies works, I must disagree with you on this point; Shareholders are not supposed to do anything. Shareholders are of course free to do whatever they want (with obvious illegalities like insider trading aside), but there is no "thou shalt" commandments list for shareholders.
Personally, more shareholders should behave as what they are -- partial owners of the company, and therefore do what they believe is right for the company, the public, the environment, as they see fit, not just the bottom line, but they can buy or sell the stock whenever they like if they feel like doing so and have a seller/buyer available to do so.
Basically, if most of your shareholders don't want the company sold because they think its a bad idea even if it IS financially advantageous, then good for them, and it won't sell.
Here in Ontario, Canada we have something similar for the 407 toll highway. However, because we have privacy laws and people still basically get to force respect from the government around here (via the courts sometimes), you can purchase a transponder with cash, without identification, and when the transponder is detected by the oncoming overhead scanners, the cameras are NOT turned on for your privacy.
When your transponder is running low on currency (it is deducted from your numbered account with each trip), you can go refill it at any 407 booth, again with cash.
Wow, huh?
The D-Link models are no better. A straight motherboard RS-232 port works so much better when connecting to a modem or serial printer.
Yes, I use serial printers with work.
Lava's PCI serial cards were at the top of my recommendation list back when they worked with most computers, but now I find a lot of machines (Dell!) won't even boot with them installed.
Digi makes intelligent I/O cards that work quite well up to 19200 but their Linux drivers are incredibly bad and there's a lot of glitches at 38400 and above.
That $200 card and $300 core 2 duo cost more combined than either a 360 or a PS3. By the time you add a hard drive, motherboard, RAM and a case with power supply, you've exceeded the price of both combined.
I highly doubt however that congress ever considered a significant portion of VOTERS to be on the hook for legal fees to one group in this way.
When a very large number of random citizens are being caught up in what are obviously unresearched lawsuits by a monstrously large entity, something should be done to help out those citizens, and hopefully the courts see that.
My car does that too, but they police keep telling me not to.
I've seen some very well obfuscated software cracked in days or hours by very skilled persons with good tools and experience.
Code is code. It runs on a known hardware and has a fixed set of rules for execution. Binary or not, the logic is crackable.
Now of course, the genius in the reasoning behind a piece of code may lay hidden forever (like who figured out the algorithm Carmack made famous for calculating normals with a floating point division or something), but cracking the code itself is not as hard as you've been lead to believe.
Please, go find one of these uncracked software packages that someone has actually cared to crack. Think video game systems and their software if you want, they put a LOT of effort into this.
Yes, but if they start trying to calculate the date of some event tied with the next return of a specific comet, that will still be science.
There is a lot of science involved in determining the date of easter, and a little politics too. Religion has nothing to do with it, its a historical and cultural reality, religion aside. Considering Easter Friday is the date of the historical death of the historical Jesus of Nazareth, there's nothing strange or cooky about figuring out the date in question for commemeration's sake alone.
Jesus had a huge cultural effect on the people of his time and people since, and the study of those effects is also science, in case you're confused about everything outside physics, biology and chemistry being studiable.
Oh okay, so you're fully aware that the name comes from a series of articles and books called "The Fundamentals", an attempt to document the most essential parts of the Christian Faith so that believers would have a reference as to what they had in common with each other despite their other differences?
You knew then that "Fundamentalist" simply referred within the Christian community to a group of people who accepted those fundamentalists, not to "radicals" or any other term you've aggregated with it since?
Just because I know people who call themselves scientists doesn't mean they represent science and just because you knew people who called themselves fundamentalists doesn't mean all or any of their behaviours represented that title.
But you knew that.
Ironically you're trying to show the illogical nature of one who professes to dislike Fundamentalists (presumably because of their illogical nature).
... I don't think that word means what you think it means."
Of course, the person in question probably has no idea where the term Fundamentalist comes from in modern Christian terms, so their Worldview on the issue is most likely to be entirely based in the media. Yes, the very media from which science should not be learned either.
Or, "Fundamentalism