If IPv6 removes the need for host header redirects, then domain names won't be vital anyway. Web browsers can simple come with links to Google's and yahoo's IP addresses and they can switch to using IPs in their search results. This way companies can fight it out for relevance on the keywords they want, and users get to make the final choice of which site to go to.
I don't see why allowing registration of top level domains would change anything. What could Google do with *.google which they can't do with *.google.com? This is especially true as most browsers can add the.com for you. (If you think that typing four extra characters would be harder then remembering hundreds of new names.) Obviously this argument works in reverse and so there is no reason to require all domains to end with.com,.net,.org etc. except that the fight over names has mostly finished and we don't really want to rekindle it. (I suppose you could just remove the.com from the current registrations, but the.org and.net registrants would probably complain). However, I do think that the article raised some very good suggestions for valuable services. I would love to see a *.wipo.org or *.typo.com but they don't need to wait for their own TLDs. Btw. Setting up new TLDs is already possible; the Internet is built on open standards you don't have to use the official TLDs: opennic.org
I can't help feeling your post was a Trojen FlaimBait (+5 Informative for pro- Palladium on/.), but anyway:
If you want hardware based DRM to protect your games why not use a console? Okay M$ are hoping that Palladium might actually work (as opposed to the current Xbox BIOS locks), but this sort of thing will always be much easier to implement on limited function consoles then multi-function PCs. If you aren't going to mod the games anyway then what is the advantage of a PC?
As always Palladium doesn't actually completely stop cheating. I know this is any absurdly extreme example but you will always be able to hock up a webcam to a second machine and use it to run an image recognition based auto aim (or pink walls etc.). Or you could use a bank of machines logged on as a 'Spectator' to give you extra surveillance. They will always be ways to cheat and their will always be people wanting the challenge of finding and exploiting them.
Using hardware DRM in place of software ups the stakes but doesn't alter the game.
The horizon line does show very strong evidence of digital image manipulation.
However, the fact that the accompanying press release claims that this image was manually stitched together form 675 separate digital photographs might also indicate that the image has been digitally manipulated.
The actual were three "Hitchhikers Guide to the galaxy books" (hence a trilogy), one by Douglas Adams, the one that the Douglas Adams' one was about, and the one that another and much later book by Douglas Adams (his fifth on the subject) was about!
1. Communicating securely and reliably with people you know and trust (And people have just got to learn not to use SMTP for this!).
2. Communicating almost anonymously with the entire online community (i.e. Free speech).
The first point can be solved with any of the existing technical solutions (e.g. PGP), but I can't see a technical solution to the second point that doesn't impinge on privacy or free speech.
Therefore, as in any effective community, the second use will have to be policed to reduce abuse without killing free speech. As this policing will cost money it is likely their will need to be a tax to pay for it.
The are obviously no organisations available to provide this service but this does not mean that an email tax should be ruled out of all future considerations.
They where saying you could infer that the quantum state had been teleported by observing the results system after the collapse of the quantum strait. This is not the same as being able to indirectly inferring the quantum state of the system without collapsing it (Schrodinger did not expect any difficulties in telling if the cat was alive once the box was opened).
If we could not infer anything about quantum straits and could not measure them then I think it would be safe to say the do not exists.
Interestingly you seem to have gotten the New Scientist site very close to a superposition (It is a page telling you that this page is unavailable.)
To me their seems to be two reasons to use XML with a word processing application:
To facilitate interchange of documents between different systems.
To allow automatic processing and formatting of documents.
These have differing requirements and are unlikely to be met by one XML file.
To facilitate interchange you need to use standards, and the first rule with standards is you CAN'T create your own because you don't like the existing ones. DocBook, HTML, RTF,.DOC have their problems but are a lot more interchangeable then OO's format which can't yet be opened by anything.
To facilitate procession and automatic formatting is much more tricky. You really want to extract the schematic structure of the document not its current formatting. OO's goals don't (yet?) seem to be to create a 'tagless editor' that allows the WYSIWYG editing of true structured XML documents (Using your own DTD or Schema).
This sounds more critical then I mean as I think OO have made the correct decision in going for a proprietary (even if they now want it to become 'the' standard) document format and concentrating of then needs of the vast majority of users who just want to be able to save and load richly formatted documents.
If I want to interchange documents then I use RTF, if I want to edit XML then I use an XML editor, if I want to convert a document to XML for further processing then I export it to XHTML (from whichever word processor). I use OO (well StarOffice) because it is the best word processor not because somewhere behind the scenes it is using the latest buzz technology
I find the easiest way of getting usable XML out of Word is you use Word's save as HTML function and then running W3C TidyLib to get rid of all (most) of the M$ crap.
This leaves you with a HTML-esq document that you can feed to an XSL:T and get whatever XML you need.
I did consider using OO to open the Word document and to save them as XML however I had trouble with its API (I also had trouble with automating Word but here I had plenty of biter experience to draw on.).
Slashdot Mirror
Missile Command
If the PS3 is compatible with the PS2 then wouldn't that meen it could run the PS2's emulation of the PS1?
If IPv6 removes the need for host header redirects, then domain names won't be vital anyway.
Web browsers can simple come with links to Google's and yahoo's IP addresses and they can switch to using IPs in their search results.
This way companies can fight it out for relevance on the keywords they want, and users get to make the final choice of which site to go to.
five.tv
I don't see why allowing registration of top level domains would change anything. What could Google do with *.google which they can't do with *.google.com? .com for you. (If you think that typing four extra characters would be harder then remembering hundreds of new names.) .com, .net, .org etc. except that the fight over names has mostly finished and we don't really want to rekindle it. (I suppose you could just remove the .com from the current registrations, but the .org and .net registrants would probably complain).
This is especially true as most browsers can add the
Obviously this argument works in reverse and so there is no reason to require all domains to end with
However, I do think that the article raised some very good suggestions for valuable services. I would love to see a *.wipo.org or *.typo.com but they don't need to wait for their own TLDs.
Btw. Setting up new TLDs is already possible; the Internet is built on open standards you don't have to use the official TLDs: opennic.org
And so GCC isn't usfull becouse they where just copying closed source C compilers?
I can't help feeling your post was a Trojen FlaimBait (+5 Informative for pro- Palladium on /.), but anyway:
If you want hardware based DRM to protect your games why not use a console? Okay M$ are hoping that Palladium might actually work (as opposed to the current Xbox BIOS locks), but this sort of thing will always be much easier to implement on limited function consoles then multi-function PCs. If you aren't going to mod the games anyway then what is the advantage of a PC?
As always Palladium doesn't actually completely stop cheating. I know this is any absurdly extreme example but you will always be able to hock up a webcam to a second machine and use it to run an image recognition based auto aim (or pink walls etc.). Or you could use a bank of machines logged on as a 'Spectator' to give you extra surveillance. They will always be ways to cheat and their will always be people wanting the challenge of finding and exploiting them.
Using hardware DRM in place of software ups the stakes but doesn't alter the game.
This is the fist time that I have heard of polymorphic code being used to prevent crackers.
You can at least rely on your system making PB obsolete, even if it doesn't stop cheating!.
The horizon line does show very strong evidence of digital image manipulation. However, the fact that the accompanying press release claims that this image was manually stitched together form 675 separate digital photographs might also indicate that the image has been digitally manipulated.
The actual were three "Hitchhikers Guide to the galaxy books" (hence a trilogy), one by Douglas Adams, the one that the Douglas Adams' one was about, and the one that another and much later book by Douglas Adams (his fifth on the subject) was about!
coordinated universal time.
I don't think this is as daft as it sounds:
There are two uses of email:
1. Communicating securely and reliably with people you know and trust (And people have just got to learn not to use SMTP for this!).
2. Communicating almost anonymously with the entire online community (i.e. Free speech).
The first point can be solved with any of the existing technical solutions (e.g. PGP), but I can't see a technical solution to the second point that doesn't impinge on privacy or free speech.
Therefore, as in any effective community, the second use will have to be policed to reduce abuse without killing free speech. As this policing will cost money it is likely their will need to be a tax to pay for it.
The are obviously no organisations available to provide this service but this does not mean that an email tax should be ruled out of all future considerations.
Yes, trying and failing to hack an M$ box is a tougher challenge anyway.
They where saying you could infer that the quantum state had been teleported by observing the results system after the collapse of the quantum strait. This is not the same as being able to indirectly inferring the quantum state of the system without collapsing it (Schrodinger did not expect any difficulties in telling if the cat was alive once the box was opened). If we could not infer anything about quantum straits and could not measure them then I think it would be safe to say the do not exists. Interestingly you seem to have gotten the New Scientist site very close to a superposition (It is a page telling you that this page is unavailable.)
To me their seems to be two reasons to use XML with a word processing application:
These have differing requirements and are unlikely to be met by one XML file.
To facilitate interchange you need to use standards, and the first rule with standards is you CAN'T create your own because you don't like the existing ones. DocBook, HTML, RTF, .DOC have their problems but are a lot more interchangeable then OO's format which can't yet be opened by anything.
To facilitate procession and automatic formatting is much more tricky. You really want to extract the schematic structure of the document not its current formatting. OO's goals don't (yet?) seem to be to create a 'tagless editor' that allows the WYSIWYG editing of true structured XML documents (Using your own DTD or Schema).
This sounds more critical then I mean as I think OO have made the correct decision in going for a proprietary (even if they now want it to become 'the' standard) document format and concentrating of then needs of the vast majority of users who just want to be able to save and load richly formatted documents.
If I want to interchange documents then I use RTF, if I want to edit XML then I use an XML editor, if I want to convert a document to XML for further processing then I export it to XHTML (from whichever word processor). I use OO (well StarOffice) because it is the best word processor not because somewhere behind the scenes it is using the latest buzz technology
I find the easiest way of getting usable XML out of Word is you use Word's save as HTML function and then running W3C TidyLib to get rid of all (most) of the M$ crap.
This leaves you with a HTML-esq document that you can feed to an XSL:T and get whatever XML you need.
I did consider using OO to open the Word document and to save them as XML however I had trouble with its API (I also had trouble with automating Word but here I had plenty of biter experience to draw on.).