If they dont like the color of your money, they knock you off. If they dont like the content you point your domain address at, they knock you off. If you say something bad about them,.. you get the picture.
With an open system, copying the unencrypted stream is always possible (via/proc/kcore even).
You need something secure from the driver up to support crap like Digital Restrction Management.
There's 2 defences that the media companies have. One is the law. Two is heavy watermarking of movie files. If you cant guarantee to prevent copying, put the peoples' name and computer hardware information inside it.
I was thinking some of nat traversal, but I was considering the security aspect much, much more. I'd rather have all my A/V conversations recorded ONLY by me or my target.
Just a UDP-based IPsec implementation using GnomeMeeting.
Ok, this lil program is closed-source but works with little lag, and decent sound.
We know that there's nothing special about the audio, it's known. We know that there's nothing different about the latency of the lines (software cant change network hardware on telco side;P )
Can somebody explain why we couldnt do something like this by using UDP packets over a tunnel? GnomeMeeting should provide the rest..
TCP's the killer here. Drop it and you have less lag (no negotiate).
---The only things I know of that'll kill a hive is a disease called foulbrood, and a condition called a "laying worker", where the queen dies, and before a new queen is reared, one of the worker bees fills in and starts laying eggs. Since eggs are being layed, the workers wont worry about rearing a new queen. Since the worker is unfertilized, the eggs will all hatch male (drones), and thats no good. The only solution is to watch very closely for a bee thats going into cells backwards, and pinch it.
We've seen laying worker once before.. Nasty problem if you dont mark your queen (We do, lil red paint). What we worry about are the mites. Once hives get them, they're all but gone. And from what we've seen, the treatment doesnt work well at all.
My uncle's the hivekeeper, and what Ive learned, Ive learned from him.. We also use the bees to keep the vineyard going.. So we have wine and honey;)
---Ok...Given that the article talks about using open source as a model to galvanise the 'grassroots' supporters, I don't see this as a model that can be applied so easily to politics.
Why not? Explain why grassroots cant be the king.
---Open Source as a paradigm relies pretty much on two things, a desire to participate, and the belief that well reasoned argument based on merit will ensure the implementation of the best solution.
Nope, truly open software has 2 communities on each software. Those who make and those who use. Not all participate (write code), but all are affected.
Well reasoned (in US politics) is who can get the best pork out, while supporting the others' party pork bills. Sickening to see, but it's the truth for now.
---In Politics, I think both things are lacking from the general populace (as opposed to the, for the want of a better word, intelligentsia(sp?)).
And anybody who wants to be a politician probably shouldnt be one. And also note that when people vote for the chosen candidate, they want to see themselves, rather than some ivory tower intellectual.
---Joe Everyman doesn't vote based on a rational discussion of ideas and policies - he votes along pretty much strict party lines. And that's when he bothers to vote at all.
The politicans vote under the same criterion...
---Open Source is about informed intelligent participation, and I think that sounds too much like hard work for Joe Everyman.
Aww too bad. They can do what users of open source do, sit back and complain loudly. If they want something done, get on in and get your hands dirty.
---As examples, I don't think anyone could argue that between Kerry and Bush, or Latham and Howard, that either of them won or lost on their MERITS
Bush won yet? I didnt think we found that out until about 2 or so weeks from now.
---Some of regular customers (contractors doing $10k a month in our store alone) always needed manager approval to return ANYTHING. (High shrink items or not). Needless to say the managers came as quickly as possible for these customers, but still it was a hassle for everyone involved.
If I was one of those contracters, I'd "schedule" a meeting with the store manager and corporate on my cell phone (on loudspeaker, mind you) and get that grift setteled out. Someone who buys on average 10K$ a month has lots of clout.
And better yet is if the city has 3 or 4 different "construction" stores like Lowes, Menards, and such. A threat of just doing your 10K of business elsewhere is a big threat.
Bush claimed he was more FISCALLY conservative, and has shown that it is not the case.
Kerry wants to take yet more money for "social programs". I say BAH to that.
The only candidacy I see that has any chance of reversing this trend (republicans turning more liberal) is libertarians. Will they get in? Nope. But withh the votes count to next 2 years get campaign funds, hopefully so. Will more votes get more stable people in libertarian party, hopefully so.
--Let me answer at least a couple of the questions you just brought up: 3) Scientists are scientists (unless owned by a politician like the ones working for Bush that say global warming is OK..) and they are people who stay true to facts.
Bah. Scientists are tools of whoever pays their salary. Or did you think that Greenpeace "scientist" Was telling the truth?
--If scientists are continuously telling you something bad's coming, it means they reviewed quite a few facts before reaching this conclusion.
Oh yeah, like those jack-off environmental thugs that said we'd die of ice-age in 2000 back in the 70's.
--And finally, the above being said, I'd listen to what they have to say. On a side note, you may want to look up the IPCC (www.ipcc.ch). Those guys are from all over the place and they have been working on global warming for a while now. They are saying the same thing.
Good for them.
--4) I'm sorry, this is just a stupid question. Global warming (or massive amounts of ice melting) doesn't just make the climate a bit warmer. It actually starts a chain reaction of events which take place in a land slide and end with a signifant portion of the earth's biosphere dead or extinct.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Can I have a play on that slippery slope once you're done with it? Perhaps you dont know how INVASIVE life is to "get rid of".
--Yes, this coming from the same guys that can tell you what your weather will be like tomorrow correctly 90% of the time.
And everybody knows the "news guys" are complete jokes. And what makes you or IPCC the "complete and all-knowing weather god"? If 1 day forcast using lorentz attractor gives 90% accuracy, whats a 50 YEAR give? Eh? EHH? I CANT HEARR YOU!!
---Do you assume that global warming means that temperatures will rise uniformly across the globe?
Course not. Look at the midwest here during 1850's. MUCH more desertlike and much less water. And the earth took that area FROM less livable to more livable.
---Do you assume that global warming would cause no shift in weather patterns?
The natural forces are more destructive than most things we can make. Tornadoes, earthquakes, VOLCANOES (1 spew=100 years of 'pollutants), hurricanes/tsunamis..
The only thing more destructive than most of those are nuclear warheads.. And even 50 years cures most of those problems. Look at Bikini atoll.
---Do you assume that any shifts in weather patterns would not be disruptive to agriculture?
The sahara was a wonderful wilderness. Now its sand. And LOTS of it. The "americans" sure as hell didnt do it. Nature CHANGES weather patters naturally. Whether it be good or bad for us, I dont know.
---Do you assume that disruptions in agriculture can be easily accomodated, say by rapidly shifting agricultural production to different parts of the globe (assuming, of course, that there would be vast new tracks of arable farmland as a result of changed weather patterns)?
Easy as in 1 year, or 100 years? The human race wont die out, but most will. Darn.
---If the answer to any of these questions is "no", then global warming should make you nervous.
---If your answer to any of these is "yes", then it's you, not the environmental scientists, who have some explaining to do. They seem like pretty shaky assumptions.
Im just looking at previous happenings in general. Though, you gotta love that false dichotomy at the end.
Linking a bomb strapped to the president the whole 4 years and linking that to a voter approval/disapproval box.
Once they get 1 million over 50% of the vote in disapprove, the president is then blown up, and the VP is ready to stand in. That would sure eliminate the retards and clean up politics a lot.
After all, why shoutnt they put something on the line for all 300 Million of us? Great power comes great responsibility;-)
I voted for him, and I wish I didnt... then again, Gore wasnt better.
Look here for the 2000 debates, second speech.
http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000b.html
One excerpt about Iraq:
---start---
MODERATOR: People watching here tonight are very interested in Middle East policy, and they are so interested they want to base their vote on differences between the two of you as president how you would handle Middle East policy. Is there any difference?
GORE: I haven't heard a big difference in the last few exchanges.
BUSH: That's hard to tell. I think that, you know, I would hope to be able to convince people I could handle the Iraqi situation better.
MODERATOR: Saddam Hussein, you mean, get him out of there?
BUSH: I would like to, of course, and I presume this administration would as well. We don't know -- there are no inspectors now in Iraq, the coalition that was in place isn't as strong as it used to be. He is a danger. We don't want him fishing in troubled waters in the Middle East. And it's going to be hard, it's going to be important to rebuild that coalition to keep the pressure on him.
MODERATOR: You feel that is a failure of the Clinton administration?
BUSH: I do.
---end---
The next if military interventions and the beleif that Bush had about the military (and what he'd never use it for).
---start---
MODERATOR: Well, let's stay on the subject for a moment. New question related to this. I figured this out; in the last 20 years there have been eight major actions that involved the introduction of U.S. ground, air or naval forces. Let me name them. Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, the Persian Gulf, Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo. If you had been president for any of those interventions, would any of those interventions not have happened?
GORE: Can you run through the list again?
(line comments by gore/moderator snipped for brevity)
MODERATOR: We talked about that. Want me to do it with you? Lebanon.
BUSH: Make a couple comments.
MODERATOR: Sure, absolutely, sure. Somalia.
BUSH: Started off as a humanitarian mission and it changed into a nation-building mission, and that's where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price. And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow the dictator when it's in our best interests. But in this case it was a nation-building exercise, and same with Haiti. I wouldn't have supported either.
---end---
There's just 2 examples that are from rock-hard sources, and not swayed in content by me at all. Those things are what Bush said, and what now is done, Bush lied about. Bush said he'd make the coalition strong, yet we invade. And now, our troops are being used to 'nation build', something Bush was against in 2000.
If the whole idea of superstrings and 10-N dimensions are correct, then there are an infinite universes. The superset of these universes would include every possible random quantum event, and every effect from each.
In order to travel from one time to "another", you actually would guide to a universe very close to your diversion rate. You could kill off everybody, and it wont effect you at all. Then again, returning back to "your" time is impossible, as you can only approach your universe as a infinite limit (yeah, fun).
Patent mathematics. + is.0002$ per use - is.0002$ per use * is.001$ per use / is 1.00$ per use mod() is 10$ per use sqrt() is.009$ per use
We acknologe that these mathematics are the only ones you can use, and all derivatibe works are subject to this cost times amount of operations done. EG: Limits are infinite +, so you are incessantly in the hole.... (enter lawyer BS)
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, and GoDaddy also OWNS the domain name.
If they dont like the color of your money, they knock you off.
If they dont like the content you point your domain address at, they knock you off.
If you say something bad about them,.. you get the picture.
With an open system, copying the unencrypted stream is always possible (via /proc/kcore even).
You need something secure from the driver up to support crap like Digital Restrction Management.
There's 2 defences that the media companies have. One is the law. Two is heavy watermarking of movie files. If you cant guarantee to prevent copying, put the peoples' name and computer hardware information inside it.
I was thinking some of nat traversal, but I was considering the security aspect much, much more. I'd rather have all my A/V conversations recorded ONLY by me or my target.
Just a UDP-based IPsec implementation using GnomeMeeting.
Ok, this lil program is closed-source but works with little lag, and decent sound.
;P )
We know that there's nothing special about the audio, it's known.
We know that there's nothing different about the latency of the lines (software cant change network hardware on telco side
Can somebody explain why we couldnt do something like this by using UDP packets over a tunnel? GnomeMeeting should provide the rest..
TCP's the killer here. Drop it and you have less lag (no negotiate).
---The only things I know of that'll kill a hive is a disease called foulbrood, and a condition called a "laying worker", where the queen dies, and before a new queen is reared, one of the worker bees fills in and starts laying eggs. Since eggs are being layed, the workers wont worry about rearing a new queen. Since the worker is unfertilized, the eggs will all hatch male (drones), and thats no good. The only solution is to watch very closely for a bee thats going into cells backwards, and pinch it.
;)
We've seen laying worker once before.. Nasty problem if you dont mark your queen (We do, lil red paint). What we worry about are the mites. Once hives get them, they're all but gone. And from what we've seen, the treatment doesnt work well at all.
My uncle's the hivekeeper, and what Ive learned, Ive learned from him.. We also use the bees to keep the vineyard going.. So we have wine and honey
---Ok...Given that the article talks about using open source as a model to galvanise the 'grassroots' supporters, I don't see this as a model that can be applied so easily to politics.
Why not? Explain why grassroots cant be the king.
---Open Source as a paradigm relies pretty much on two things, a desire to participate, and the belief that well reasoned argument based on merit will ensure the implementation of the best solution.
Nope, truly open software has 2 communities on each software. Those who make and those who use. Not all participate (write code), but all are affected.
Well reasoned (in US politics) is who can get the best pork out, while supporting the others' party pork bills. Sickening to see, but it's the truth for now.
---In Politics, I think both things are lacking from the general populace (as opposed to the, for the want of a better word, intelligentsia(sp?)).
And anybody who wants to be a politician probably shouldnt be one. And also note that when people vote for the chosen candidate, they want to see themselves, rather than some ivory tower intellectual.
---Joe Everyman doesn't vote based on a rational discussion of ideas and policies - he votes along pretty much strict party lines. And that's when he bothers to vote at all.
The politicans vote under the same criterion...
---Open Source is about informed intelligent participation, and I think that sounds too much like hard work for Joe Everyman.
Aww too bad. They can do what users of open source do, sit back and complain loudly. If they want something done, get on in and get your hands dirty.
---As examples, I don't think anyone could argue that between Kerry and Bush, or Latham and Howard, that either of them won or lost on their MERITS
Bush won yet? I didnt think we found that out until about 2 or so weeks from now.
---Some of regular customers (contractors doing $10k a month in our store alone) always needed manager approval to return ANYTHING. (High shrink items or not). Needless to say the managers came as quickly as possible for these customers, but still it was a hassle for everyone involved.
If I was one of those contracters, I'd "schedule" a meeting with the store manager and corporate on my cell phone (on loudspeaker, mind you) and get that grift setteled out. Someone who buys on average 10K$ a month has lots of clout.
And better yet is if the city has 3 or 4 different "construction" stores like Lowes, Menards, and such. A threat of just doing your 10K of business elsewhere is a big threat.
I really dont care. I dont use any iCrap.
Windows, Solaris, AIX, BSD, and Linux are all I care about. Do I care about some junk GUI that spews wrong answers? With BC, nope, I dont.
This isnt informative. It was supposed to be the long-standing joke about the Intel Pentuim adding bug..
On that joke, the CPU was bugged, not the program. And it put out something like 3.9999(lots of nines)74 or something.
Now 2+2 = 4 instead of 3.999999999999999974
;P
boooo
We the US have accepted taxation without representation for quite a long time... Guess you finally get that one too, eh?
John titor's prophesy. Bring down ALL establishment and rebuild everything from scratch.
How about Fiscal matters you stupid anony-troll.
Bush claimed he was more FISCALLY conservative, and has shown that it is not the case.
Kerry wants to take yet more money for "social programs". I say BAH to that.
The only candidacy I see that has any chance of reversing this trend (republicans turning more liberal) is libertarians. Will they get in? Nope. But withh the votes count to next 2 years get campaign funds, hopefully so. Will more votes get more stable people in libertarian party, hopefully so.
--Let me guess: you are an American.
Let ME guess.. You're a Eurofag.
--Let me answer at least a couple of the questions you just brought up: 3) Scientists are scientists (unless owned by a politician like the ones working for Bush that say global warming is OK..) and they are people who stay true to facts.
Bah. Scientists are tools of whoever pays their salary. Or did you think that Greenpeace "scientist" Was telling the truth?
--If scientists are continuously telling you something bad's coming, it means they reviewed quite a few facts before reaching this conclusion.
Oh yeah, like those jack-off environmental thugs that said we'd die of ice-age in 2000 back in the 70's.
--And finally, the above being said, I'd listen to what they have to say. On a side note, you may want to look up the IPCC (www.ipcc.ch). Those guys are from all over the place and they have been working on global warming for a while now. They are saying the same thing.
Good for them.
--4) I'm sorry, this is just a stupid question. Global warming (or massive amounts of ice melting) doesn't just make the climate a bit warmer. It actually starts a chain reaction of events which take place in a land slide and end with a signifant portion of the earth's biosphere dead or extinct.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Can I have a play on that slippery slope once you're done with it? Perhaps you dont know how INVASIVE life is to "get rid of".
--Yes, this coming from the same guys that can tell you what your weather will be like tomorrow correctly 90% of the time.
And everybody knows the "news guys" are complete jokes. And what makes you or IPCC the "complete and all-knowing weather god"? If 1 day forcast using lorentz attractor gives 90% accuracy, whats a 50 YEAR give? Eh? EHH? I CANT HEARR YOU!!
---I'll start with the last comment first:
---Do you assume that global warming means that temperatures will rise uniformly across the globe?
Course not. Look at the midwest here during 1850's. MUCH more desertlike and much less water. And the earth took that area FROM less livable to more livable.
---Do you assume that global warming would cause no shift in weather patterns?
The natural forces are more destructive than most things we can make. Tornadoes, earthquakes, VOLCANOES (1 spew=100 years of 'pollutants), hurricanes/tsunamis..
The only thing more destructive than most of those are nuclear warheads.. And even 50 years cures most of those problems. Look at Bikini atoll.
---Do you assume that any shifts in weather patterns would not be disruptive to agriculture?
The sahara was a wonderful wilderness. Now its sand. And LOTS of it. The "americans" sure as hell didnt do it. Nature CHANGES weather patters naturally. Whether it be good or bad for us, I dont know.
---Do you assume that disruptions in agriculture can be easily accomodated, say by rapidly shifting agricultural production to different parts of the globe (assuming, of course, that there would be vast new tracks of arable farmland as a result of changed weather patterns)?
Easy as in 1 year, or 100 years? The human race wont die out, but most will. Darn.
---If the answer to any of these questions is "no", then global warming should make you nervous.
---If your answer to any of these is "yes", then it's you, not the environmental scientists, who have some explaining to do. They seem like pretty shaky assumptions.
Im just looking at previous happenings in general. Though, you gotta love that false dichotomy at the end.
Nahh, Im the real deal. And you can see the idiots here by that nice -1 flamebait tag.
;-) Badnarik 2004
Course here, conservatives and the like are thrashed without a second look.
And about non-liberal.. I voted Bush 2000, but dont think he's conservative ENOUGH
Out come the enviro-trolls.
1: Show me ACCURATE 1 million year tempature records. Wait!! We only have 80 years of records
2: Show me this hasnt happened before.
3: Tell me the "scientists" studying arent also getting grants from... greenpeace or ELF..
4: WHY exactly is global warming bad? Wont it give more landmass (eg, melts permafrost siberia) and lessen the "nice tropical -120F on antartica?
This is one of the 2 crimes that I support NATIONAL "cops" to investigate: counterfeiting and treason. If they're making passports and stuff, get'em.
Personally, the fraud charges should be state-generated.. but this is the fuckedupness with this government.
Linking a bomb strapped to the president the whole 4 years and linking that to a voter approval/disapproval box.
;-)
Once they get 1 million over 50% of the vote in disapprove, the president is then blown up, and the VP is ready to stand in. That would sure eliminate the retards and clean up politics a lot.
After all, why shoutnt they put something on the line for all 300 Million of us? Great power comes great responsibility
dumb troll
Moderate this comment
Negative:
Offtopic
Flamebait
Troll
Redundant
Positive:
Insightful
Interesting
Informative
Funny
That means these turd editors have to give up power.
Now, they can "Bitchslap" (-1 to thread of conversation).
They have unlimited -1 powers.
None of their mod points show up in meta-mod. That would "assume" the're wrong.
They can lock out legitimate users who complain.
They can post inane drivel on the front page. April 1 is the worst...
I voted for him, and I wish I didnt... then again, Gore wasnt better.
Look here for the 2000 debates, second speech.
http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000b.html
One excerpt about Iraq:
---start---
MODERATOR: People watching here tonight are very interested in Middle East policy, and they are so interested they want to base their vote on differences between the two of you as president how you would handle Middle East policy. Is there any difference?
GORE: I haven't heard a big difference in the last few exchanges.
BUSH: That's hard to tell. I think that, you know, I would hope to be able to convince people I could handle the Iraqi situation better.
MODERATOR: Saddam Hussein, you mean, get him out of there?
BUSH: I would like to, of course, and I presume this administration would as well. We don't know -- there are no inspectors now in Iraq, the coalition that was in place isn't as strong as it used to be. He is a danger. We don't want him fishing in troubled waters in the Middle East. And it's going to be hard, it's going to be important to rebuild that coalition to keep the pressure on him.
MODERATOR: You feel that is a failure of the Clinton administration?
BUSH: I do.
---end---
The next if military interventions and the beleif that Bush had about the military (and what he'd never use it for).
---start---
MODERATOR: Well, let's stay on the subject for a moment. New question related to this. I figured this out; in the last 20 years there have been eight major actions that involved the introduction of U.S. ground, air or naval forces. Let me name them. Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, the Persian Gulf, Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo. If you had been president for any of those interventions, would any of those interventions not have happened?
GORE: Can you run through the list again?
(line comments by gore/moderator snipped for brevity)
MODERATOR: We talked about that. Want me to do it with you? Lebanon.
BUSH: Make a couple comments.
MODERATOR: Sure, absolutely, sure. Somalia.
BUSH: Started off as a humanitarian mission and it changed into a nation-building mission, and that's where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price. And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow the dictator when it's in our best interests. But in this case it was a nation-building exercise, and same with Haiti. I wouldn't have supported either.
---end---
There's just 2 examples that are from rock-hard sources, and not swayed in content by me at all. Those things are what Bush said, and what now is done, Bush lied about. Bush said he'd make the coalition strong, yet we invade. And now, our troops are being used to 'nation build', something Bush was against in 2000.
Bzzt, wrong.
If the whole idea of superstrings and 10-N dimensions are correct, then there are an infinite universes. The superset of these universes would include every possible random quantum event, and every effect from each.
In order to travel from one time to "another", you actually would guide to a universe very close to your diversion rate. You could kill off everybody, and it wont effect you at all. Then again, returning back to "your" time is impossible, as you can only approach your universe as a infinite limit (yeah, fun).
Patent mathematics. .0002$ per use .0002$ per use .001$ per use .009$ per use
+ is
- is
* is
/ is 1.00$ per use
mod() is 10$ per use
sqrt() is
We acknologe that these mathematics are the only ones you can use, and all derivatibe works are subject to this cost times amount of operations done. EG: Limits are infinite +, so you are incessantly in the hole.... (enter lawyer BS)
I didnt know the "SSN database.mdb" in /tmp was 'secret'!
Oh-nos!