The actual proof could be just 1 line if we assumed the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture to be true.
You have no idea what "proof" means if you think you can prove something by assuming that one of the premises is true when that premise is neither an axiom or a theorem that has been previously proved.
However, if you're right, I'd like 1 million dollars because I've just proved the Riemann hypothesis. My proof only requires that you assume the truth of the Spear Conjecture, which states that the Riemann Hypothesis is true. QED.
I don't see how you reach your conclusion from that anecdote.
Having the illegals working at the factory was illegal. The employer hid them because they didn't want to be caught breaking the law and because they didn't want to have their work force deported and undergo the costs involved in recruiting more illegal aliens, not because they cared about them.
If someone's using slave labor and they hide their slaves when the police come around, would you say it's because they love their slaves and don't want to be separated from them, or because they don't want to go to jail for exploiting people?
Probably not, but since TFA contains absolutely no information about how "liabilities" would work in the author's view and very little about software at all, I see very little reason for Wired to be publishing this column, let alone someone on Slashdot trying to use it as a jumping-off point to discuss the ramifications of the author's non-existent proposal.
Here's a tip, Mr. Schneier: analogies can be good for illustrating a point, but going on for 2 pages about your anaology without actually using it to make a point is just dumb.
My guess, since the story was posted at 2AM, is that he had a deadline to meet and wrote this piece of crap in 15 minutes while drunk.
The only time an attack by a foreign power was ever carried out on U.S. soil was Pearl Harbour.
While I agree with your sentiment in the rest of your post, your grasp of history leaves a lot to be desired.
Unless you consider the War of 1812 to be a continuation of the Revolutionary War and hold the opinion that the US was still British territory until the Treaty of Ghent, which not even the British at the time would have asserted.
Classify all information about lung cancer as a "state secret" and you can get rid of all the lawsuits against tobacco and asbestos companies. Do the same with medical records, and *poof* there go all of the malpractice claims.
It would certainly save trying to ram all those tort reform packages through pesky Congressional committees.
I am completely sure immigrants (at least mexicans) will just "un-implant" the chips and put it in a secure place like their home or things like that.
But then they'd lose their right to work in the US.
Surely you can't be suggesting that if immigrant workers were required to have RFID chips implanted, loyal American corporations would hire immigrants who never had the chips implanted or who removed them! I'm shocked--shocked!!--at the notion that an American employer would violate employment law just to get cheap labor.
Incidentally, this is why the whole "guest worker" idea is so incredibly stupid. If we create a new class of legal immigrant workers who are protected by labor laws, employers are just going to hire non-"guest worker" immigrants to work at below minimum wage with no labor protections. After all, the thing that makes illegal immigrants attractive to employers now is that they can be paid illegally low wages and threatened with deportation if they try complaining to labor authorities. Why would they want to hire immigrants who are actually allowed to be here, when the worst they can threaten them with is being fired so they can go find a job with someone else who's not breaking wage laws?
First of all, you can authorize multiple computers to play your music. Your post insinuates that FairPlay "unfairly" takes away your right to use your music when your PC dies. This would only be the case if you had 5 machines authorized and one of them needed to be reformatted. With 4 or fewer machines, this wouldn't even come up.
More to the point, Apple will happily deauthorize your machines for you in the even you can't do so yourself and you need to. There is no circumstance where you will actually lose the right to play your music on 5 machines due to the DRM. To state otherwise is pure FUD.
Needing to contact customer service the fifth time you crash your computer so badly that you need to reformat it and can't get into iTunes to deauthorize the machine before doing so won't sound unfair to most rational people. Of course, those rational people will probably tell you to call Apple Sales immediately aftwerwards and throw out your piece of crap Windows machine if it's really having such problems that often.
Yes, the password is more than 30 characters. 8 more than 30, in fact.
What's your point? The author of the article still has a problem with either counting or with writing clearly.
If someone said "Edinburgh is more than 5 miles from London, so you're very unlikely to get there by walking for a couple of hours in a rondom direction" and the BBC posted a story saying "The 5 mile trip from London to Edinburgh, in case you were wondering, involves taking the M1 and M6", would you think it was unreasonable to find fault with their writing?
like when my computer crashes and I have to re-copy all my iTunes music onto the new installation and it tells me the music isn't authorized to play on that computer and provides me no method to remove the old computer from the authorized list.
This is simply not true. Stop spreading FUD and maybe people will take the rest of your argument seriously. As it is, you're simply a liar and deserve no respect whatsoever.
Yeah, and what if Microsoft uses DRM to tell aliens where you live so they can abduct you and probe you on their UFO?!? Won't someone PLEASE think of all the hypothetical atrocities that someone might commit in the future?
If they can get away with illegally selling prescription drugs without a prescription and sending out billions of emails advertising the fact (as well as hacking PCs to use as zombies to send out said emails), they can probably get away with a little extortion on top of it.
Yahoo has no chance whatsoever of attracting visitors to their website. Excuse my extreme ignorance of the Internet. I can only take solace in the fact that the people at Alexa.com are as dumb as I am.
You should really get hired as the lawyer for Planned Parenthood of South Dakota. You're obviously a lot smarter than their lawyers, who seem to disagree with you. Boy will they be embarrassed when the judge, who had you as a law school professor at Harvard, laughs them out of court.
That's like saying having over 100 cable channels would make it impossible for cable to take on the broadcast networks, and that cable would have been more successful if there was just one channel available, but it was run by some really huge company.
People will not abandon traditional media if there's no choice in new media.
And even if you think internet video delivery requires a big force behind it, how could you possibly think that YouTube should be more successful than Yahoo!? Yahoo! is a publically traded company with a market capitalization of over 44 billion dollars. YouTube, according to their website, is funded by several orders of magnitude less in venture capital.
Considering the idea of applying community standards to determine what material is indecent was created by the Supreme Court, the answer to your question is probably "no".
Of course, one could argue that the Supreme Court itself is fundamentally wrong when it issues an opinion that the words "no law" in the 1st Amendment don't really mean "no law", but as far as American law is concerned, the Supreme Court is always right by definition, until it says otherwise.
Insightful? What are the moderators smoking today?
If Yahoo! is doing this for a reason other than to make money, it's not good business sense.
On the other hand, creating more competition, whether it's profitable or not, is good for consumers. Allowing another player to get a "strong hold" of the market is certainly not good for consumers.
I don't believe I've seen a less insightful comment on Slashdot in a month, and I suspect the poster is a shill for one of Yahoo!'s competitors. Either that or a head injury patient.
As flawed as our court system may be, at least you can present your case to peers in hopes they will understand your passion.
Right. If you're accused of making bombs you're going to get a speedy trial before a jury of your peers and not placed in a military brig for a few years until a couple of federal courts get around to ruling that maybe you actually have the right to talk to a lawyer.
Remember, Jose Padilla didn't have any explosives or radioactive materials that could be used to make a dirty bomb. Just think of how they'd have treated him if they'd found some ammonia nitrate fertilizer or something at his house.
The military never overthrows a government, even if the commands given it might be illegal or immoral (the rule usually is: obey or be shot). Just go read a history book on that one.
You might want to buy some better history books if the idiots writing the ones you've got think that no military has ever overthrown a government.
Slashdot Mirror
You have no idea what "proof" means if you think you can prove something by assuming that one of the premises is true when that premise is neither an axiom or a theorem that has been previously proved.
However, if you're right, I'd like 1 million dollars because I've just proved the Riemann hypothesis. My proof only requires that you assume the truth of the Spear Conjecture, which states that the Riemann Hypothesis is true. QED.
A lot of Americans also forget to remember a bunch of other stuff you just made up on the spot. What's your point?
For the record, the Puritans were English, not Irish, and they didn't form the USA.
Having the illegals working at the factory was illegal. The employer hid them because they didn't want to be caught breaking the law and because they didn't want to have their work force deported and undergo the costs involved in recruiting more illegal aliens, not because they cared about them.
If someone's using slave labor and they hide their slaves when the police come around, would you say it's because they love their slaves and don't want to be separated from them, or because they don't want to go to jail for exploiting people?
Here's a tip, Mr. Schneier: analogies can be good for illustrating a point, but going on for 2 pages about your anaology without actually using it to make a point is just dumb.
My guess, since the story was posted at 2AM, is that he had a deadline to meet and wrote this piece of crap in 15 minutes while drunk.
While I agree with your sentiment in the rest of your post, your grasp of history leaves a lot to be desired.
Unless you consider the War of 1812 to be a continuation of the Revolutionary War and hold the opinion that the US was still British territory until the Treaty of Ghent, which not even the British at the time would have asserted.
Classify all information about lung cancer as a "state secret" and you can get rid of all the lawsuits against tobacco and asbestos companies. Do the same with medical records, and *poof* there go all of the malpractice claims.
It would certainly save trying to ram all those tort reform packages through pesky Congressional committees.
But then they'd lose their right to work in the US.
Surely you can't be suggesting that if immigrant workers were required to have RFID chips implanted, loyal American corporations would hire immigrants who never had the chips implanted or who removed them! I'm shocked--shocked!!--at the notion that an American employer would violate employment law just to get cheap labor.
Incidentally, this is why the whole "guest worker" idea is so incredibly stupid. If we create a new class of legal immigrant workers who are protected by labor laws, employers are just going to hire non-"guest worker" immigrants to work at below minimum wage with no labor protections. After all, the thing that makes illegal immigrants attractive to employers now is that they can be paid illegally low wages and threatened with deportation if they try complaining to labor authorities. Why would they want to hire immigrants who are actually allowed to be here, when the worst they can threaten them with is being fired so they can go find a job with someone else who's not breaking wage laws?
More to the point, Apple will happily deauthorize your machines for you in the even you can't do so yourself and you need to. There is no circumstance where you will actually lose the right to play your music on 5 machines due to the DRM. To state otherwise is pure FUD.
Needing to contact customer service the fifth time you crash your computer so badly that you need to reformat it and can't get into iTunes to deauthorize the machine before doing so won't sound unfair to most rational people. Of course, those rational people will probably tell you to call Apple Sales immediately aftwerwards and throw out your piece of crap Windows machine if it's really having such problems that often.
What's your point? The author of the article still has a problem with either counting or with writing clearly.
If someone said "Edinburgh is more than 5 miles from London, so you're very unlikely to get there by walking for a couple of hours in a rondom direction" and the BBC posted a story saying "The 5 mile trip from London to Edinburgh, in case you were wondering, involves taking the M1 and M6", would you think it was unreasonable to find fault with their writing?
This is simply not true. Stop spreading FUD and maybe people will take the rest of your argument seriously. As it is, you're simply a liar and deserve no respect whatsoever.
Yeah, and what if Microsoft uses DRM to tell aliens where you live so they can abduct you and probe you on their UFO?!? Won't someone PLEASE think of all the hypothetical atrocities that someone might commit in the future?
If they can get away with illegally selling prescription drugs without a prescription and sending out billions of emails advertising the fact (as well as hacking PCs to use as zombies to send out said emails), they can probably get away with a little extortion on top of it.
Odd how that "30 digit password" has 38 characters, 13 of which are digits.
"Most laws" are quickly defeated by the courts? Are you delusional, or posting from an alternate universe?
Yahoo has no chance whatsoever of attracting visitors to their website. Excuse my extreme ignorance of the Internet. I can only take solace in the fact that the people at Alexa.com are as dumb as I am.
You should really get hired as the lawyer for Planned Parenthood of South Dakota. You're obviously a lot smarter than their lawyers, who seem to disagree with you. Boy will they be embarrassed when the judge, who had you as a law school professor at Harvard, laughs them out of court.
People will not abandon traditional media if there's no choice in new media.
And even if you think internet video delivery requires a big force behind it, how could you possibly think that YouTube should be more successful than Yahoo!? Yahoo! is a publically traded company with a market capitalization of over 44 billion dollars. YouTube, according to their website, is funded by several orders of magnitude less in venture capital.
Of course, one could argue that the Supreme Court itself is fundamentally wrong when it issues an opinion that the words "no law" in the 1st Amendment don't really mean "no law", but as far as American law is concerned, the Supreme Court is always right by definition, until it says otherwise.
If Yahoo! is doing this for a reason other than to make money, it's not good business sense.
On the other hand, creating more competition, whether it's profitable or not, is good for consumers. Allowing another player to get a "strong hold" of the market is certainly not good for consumers.
I don't believe I've seen a less insightful comment on Slashdot in a month, and I suspect the poster is a shill for one of Yahoo!'s competitors. Either that or a head injury patient.
Everyone I know who's right always agrees with me. - Lady Mal
Right. If you're accused of making bombs you're going to get a speedy trial before a jury of your peers and not placed in a military brig for a few years until a couple of federal courts get around to ruling that maybe you actually have the right to talk to a lawyer.
Remember, Jose Padilla didn't have any explosives or radioactive materials that could be used to make a dirty bomb. Just think of how they'd have treated him if they'd found some ammonia nitrate fertilizer or something at his house.
You seem to have misspelled "dotnetdiggs" when registering your hostname.
You might want to buy some better history books if the idiots writing the ones you've got think that no military has ever overthrown a government.
...and if you're dumb enough to mod up such a redundant post, you'll mod me up, too.
...And you got that mortgage with no down payment, and your landlord used to charge you extra to fix anything in your rented house that broke?