Declaring an interest: I worked for Adrian's company.
It's a shame that you didn't post this earlier, but you could generate a little more interest by posting a journal entry about the events at ART, or even several, as the technology and business side of it are each worth independent focus. It might be worth re-posting your entries after you've aquired enough "karma" and "friends" to know that you actually have an audience.
The ART rendering system was/is excellent technology, especially for its day, and in terms of photorealism, no-one's even come close, especially at the speedups that ARTs rendering system was/is offering. Those were good days for me...
The open source community still has it. No loss of property, therefore no theft.
Others have answered this one. s/open\ source/free\ software/g
For people who believe in sharing, GPL zealots are incredibly possesive about intellectual property.
You mistake the purpose of the GNU GPL, which is to maximise the amount of free software rather than the freedom of subsequent programmers outside their capacity as coders, and to give free software protection in law that is a mirror of that given to proprietry software. "Believing in sharing" is a ridiculously simplistic characterisation of free-software advocates' perspectives. "Maximising freedom" is closer. To pre-empt the reply, few would argue that a right to sell your offspring into slavery maximises freedom. Peacefinder puts it well: free software, like a free people could perhaps less confusingly be called emancipated software, to make it clear that its offspring will also be free.
Allow the authors to buy out the fee (should they wish to make the material immediately available to all, equally), and you've got a plan.
Tapering the cost with time would also be a good idea, IMO. That way you avoid a "muggins first" mentality, where customers wait for one another to buy the last few subscriptions.
The appeals panel now has to decide whether consumer groups which are criticising the rule should have the right to contest the FCC's requirements.
The case could be thrown out of the appeals court if it decides they do not have the right to lawfully challenge the FCC decision. A decision by the court is expected within months.
I'm young though, single, no kids-so I was much more free to make that decision. I moved halfway across the country with no real plan and got lucky finding work, but if I had a kid, I don't think I could have been so reckless.
If you're getting ill, you're more useful to your kid poor. Maybe an appropriate diagnosis from your doctor would allow you to claim Social Security, but otherwise it's a balance of risks. Make sure that you start save money in case you need to leave the second that you think that it might be a possibility.
Trouble is: it is people wanting to preserve national sovereignty that have landed us in this mess. Why? The Council of Ministers is a forum for multi-lateral treaties, in effect. You see the result of that: items passed at the European level have little parliamentary overview, since they're not really pressing national issues, although they are when considered cumulatively.
The result is that central national governments more or less have free reign to set the law at this level, and central governments think most like other large entities, ie. large corporations, not individuals or smaller businesses.
Pressing for "greater national sovereignty" therefore has the opposite effect of that intended: it reduces individual freedom across Europe, and therefore in each country. We really need to be more careful about what we ask for.
I think that you're being cynical. People are not universally selfish (although they certainly have selfish traits), and economics doesn't require it. Rather economics simply matches supply and demand; if you demand better wages by buying "fair trade" produce, for example, the process is no less efficient, although the system will now optimise around one of the inputs (labour) being a little more pricy. Depending upon your criteria, this can be a good thing.
The truth that political extremes find hard to grasp is that our motivations differ wildly. They differ sufficiently to make open source software work, and "enlightened self interest" isn't enough to explain what's going on.
I feel that in part your comment is intended to bring peace through recognition of common drives; I would venture that this intension is not wholly rooted in self-interest. Maybe others can act beyond their self-interests also.
You're using different meanings of the word "captialism".
We've had approximations of "free markets" for millenia, but "capitalism" properly refers to capital, ie. property. Simply put, IP is ambiguous, even slightly antithetical to the concept of a free market (emphasis: freedom), whilst it is entirely in the spirit of capitalism (the prevalence of property and property rights).
I couldn't bring myself to meta-mod the insightful mod unfair, as this is a common error, but hitting a vehicle coming the other way at the same speed is not the same as hitting a wall at twice that speed. Rather it is like hitting a wall at exactly that speed since you both come to a stop either way around, and just as quickly.
Here's a simple thought experiment to make this easier to see: picture a gauze between the two vehicles. As they crash, the gauze may tear, but it will not move very far. Replace the gauze with a brick wall. What is the difference for either vehicle? As long as they have the same mass, nothing.
Now picture a car crashing headlong into a lorry. This is different. The car will experience a crash equivalent to one at almost twice its current speed, running into a wall. If both were going at 65 KPH, the car may experience a 120 KPH crash, with the lorry experiencing a 10 KPH crash. Neither experiences a 130 KPH crash, though.
I came upon this article http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/17/ 1616232&tid=172&tid=109&tid=106, and it occurred to me that one thing that could be done to counter the FUD that is certain to be drummed up in the wake of this survey is to provide a simple ip(6)tables front end GUI that is readily visible in the "start here" menu. It would also be very useful to increase the testing of non-standard routing policies, and help to solve (for example) packet filtering issues for the average user. An example of the application of such a policy would be the use of bittorrent to distribute files without choking the connection.
From a security angle, such a utility would immediately make articles such as this moot: if it's easy to tighten your security, people will do it. When they search a security issue, they're likely to be greeted with a basic tutorial on how to use the GUI. To provide such a GUI would enhance both security and the functionality of one's internet connection: it would be welcome indeed!
Yours Faithfully,
Re:Pigeon-hole principle
on
SHA-1 Broken
·
· Score: 1
You're right. I mis-remembered the pigeon-hole principle, and ended up quoting a special case.
However, proving that collisions exist for every hash value requires detailed knowledge of the algorithm, and doesn't follow directly from the pigeon-hole principle.
Ah yes, that was what I was trying to say:-)
Re:Pigeon-hole principle
on
SHA-1 Broken
·
· Score: 1
That is equivalent to what I said.
Great grandparent:
It should be obvious that there are an infinite number of collisions for a fixed-length hash value.
Obviously it depends whether "a" means "one" or "any" in this context.
Pigeon-hole principle
on
SHA-1 Broken
·
· Score: 1
When two distinct values have the same resultant hash, we call that a "collision". It should be obvious that there are an infinite number of collisions for a fixed-length hash value - pidgeon hole principle shows you that.
Sorry to correct your otherwise good post. The pigeon-hole principle is that when you place n items into n slots so as to not reuse any slot, every slot is filled. The principle doesn't apply here, for the slots are being reused. In particular, a given hash could easily be unique, or indeed, never used at all!
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder why Apple haven't got onto KDE (screenshot)?
It's a shame that you didn't post this earlier, but you could generate a little more interest by posting a journal entry about the events at ART, or even several, as the technology and business side of it are each worth independent focus. It might be worth re-posting your entries after you've aquired enough "karma" and "friends" to know that you actually have an audience.
The ART rendering system was/is excellent technology, especially for its day, and in terms of photorealism, no-one's even come close, especially at the speedups that ARTs rendering system was/is offering. Those were good days for me...
This is why the House of Lords was resistent to the prosecution of Nazi war criminals for so long, incidentally.
Mispost: I meant to post this!
Tapering the cost with time would also be a good idea, IMO. That way you avoid a "muggins first" mentality, where customers wait for one another to buy the last few subscriptions.
http://www.google.com/search?q=GPL+exception
Mahatma
Cool.
The result is that central national governments more or less have free reign to set the law at this level, and central governments think most like other large entities, ie. large corporations, not individuals or smaller businesses.
Pressing for "greater national sovereignty" therefore has the opposite effect of that intended: it reduces individual freedom across Europe, and therefore in each country. We really need to be more careful about what we ask for.
Oh, and you'll want the drivers :-)
The truth that political extremes find hard to grasp is that our motivations differ wildly. They differ sufficiently to make open source software work, and "enlightened self interest" isn't enough to explain what's going on.
I feel that in part your comment is intended to bring peace through recognition of common drives; I would venture that this intension is not wholly rooted in self-interest. Maybe others can act beyond their self-interests also.
We've had approximations of "free markets" for millenia, but "capitalism" properly refers to capital, ie. property. Simply put, IP is ambiguous, even slightly antithetical to the concept of a free market (emphasis: freedom), whilst it is entirely in the spirit of capitalism (the prevalence of property and property rights).
Well, I'll be damned!
The original link is here, if anyone wishes to try it out.
Here's a simple thought experiment to make this easier to see: picture a gauze between the two vehicles. As they crash, the gauze may tear, but it will not move very far. Replace the gauze with a brick wall. What is the difference for either vehicle? As long as they have the same mass, nothing.
Now picture a car crashing headlong into a lorry. This is different. The car will experience a crash equivalent to one at almost twice its current speed, running into a wall. If both were going at 65 KPH, the car may experience a 120 KPH crash, with the lorry experiencing a 10 KPH crash. Neither experiences a 130 KPH crash, though.
Dear Sir/Madam(s),
/ 1616232&tid=172&tid=109&tid=106, and it occurred to me that one thing that could be done to counter the FUD that is certain to be drummed up in the wake of this survey is to provide a simple ip(6)tables front end GUI that is readily visible in the "start here" menu. It would also be very useful to increase the testing of non-standard routing policies, and help to solve (for example) packet filtering issues for the average user. An example of the application of such a policy would be the use of bittorrent to distribute files without choking the connection.
I came upon this article http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/17
From a security angle, such a utility would immediately make articles such as this moot: if it's easy to tighten your security, people will do it. When they search a security issue, they're likely to be greeted with a basic tutorial on how to use the GUI. To provide such a GUI would enhance both security and the functionality of one's internet connection: it would be welcome indeed!
Yours Faithfully,
Great grandparent:
Obviously it depends whether "a" means "one" or "any" in this context.