It's not a theology "joke", it's a paradox, and one hated by most preachers. OT but, I think it offers insight into the weakness built into Xtianity where a supposedly omnipotent god can do anything *except* forgive people who don't ask for forgiveness, a condition that "he" created. My dieties don't have that problem.
If you think about it, them taking that stance would mean they'd also have to come after those of us who use NoScript, or simply turn off javascript for untrusted sites, or whatever.
Would you deny a painter or his decedents the right to make money just because he didn't make the paint he used.
I don't know, would you deny a plumber the right to make money every time you use your faucet or toilet, or would you want to pay an architect every time you opened your door to your house? How about "his" family after he's dead? Anyone can be an artist or writer and there is no certification or even skill required to produce it so why we would treat what would appear to be the least qualified people as though they were better than truly skilled and certified artisans is beyond me.
This seems akin to how our society is obsessed with completely defying natural selection by making sure we warn the idiots and retards of society that it's not wise to bring a plugged-in toaster into the shower with you; it's little more than making it easier for the idiots, whose only valuable contribution to society might be one single work of art, to live a long and comfortable enough life to breed and produce even more idiots. Real artists who want to make money should have to work, like the rest of us, to reap "repeating" benefits and their families can reap them IF the artist was wise enough to invest it for them. If they can't produce enough good art to survive then maybe they're not cut out to be an artist.
What such a thing would encourage would be our entire society to give up any education in hopes of making one single piece of art, visual or auditory, that will actually sell decently so they can live as though they are entitled to a comfortable living because of that single work, making our society even dumber than it already is. What we call an IQ of 80 would soon be our 120.
Think about how stupid the average person is and then realize that half the population is even dumber than that. --George Carlin.
I just read that the Lantham Act(I think) has provisions in case you lose business due to unsupported claims. That would force M$'s hand in the matter quite quickly as they'd either have to put up or shut up.
It's not that Bill just makes more than you, it's that he *sells* more due to volume than you, on a factor of around 10,000 to 1 in operating systems alone. So it's not like you're charging him $1,000 for a cup of coffee, you're charging him for 1,000 $1 cups of coffee.
However I agree, it's probably just FUD from M$. They've already been caught infringing on lots of patents over the years so they're probably hoping to make a deal to keep themselves relevant.
We get the ridiculous idea that it's sterile because....it IS sterile in most cases. I first encountered the idea in some survival training when we were told that we could drink our own urine in almost any instance except when you're in a desert dying of thirst because the urine you give off then is dark yellow and completely full of toxins that your body is trying to rid itself of to keep you alive, and in essence you'd be killing yourself by drinking it.
I kinda agree with you except that there was the story a day or so ago(maybe it was here on/.) about how some woman was bragging how she got the front page of Digg basically by bribing a lot of people, and while she *was* on the front page for an hour or so she was then buried by legit users who considered her post as spam.
If Google had a system something to that effect then p l e n t y o f f i s h.com(making sure they don't get any more credit than necessary) would have been buried over a year ago when I first reported their gateway pages, etc. Nor would my site have been delisted because their bot didn't agree with a sitemap or whatever the hell caused it to flag it.
I'm not saying it's perfect but letting a computer make all the decisions will lead to trouble without fail.
It's true. They are in a losing battle with the web spammers who are developing an artificial intelligence based system that will make it so Googlebot won't be able to tell the good stuff from the bad, and if that weren't enough they ignore spam reports, and bury the reporting mechanism so deep that nobody wants to be bothered to report it anyway.
What this will mean is that we'll be on a user-ranking system like Digg or the like since the users can vote a topic down if it's spam and it gets buried almost immediately(well within a couple hours as compared to days/months/years) but since Google isn't prepared for that type of system, they will soon find themselves overwhelmed with spam.
I have at least one site that was permanently delisted by Google for some unknown violation and yet I get just as much traffic without them as I did with them. I don't think they're evil nor am I against them but if they don't wake up soon they're going to lose this game, not to Yahoo or other search engines, but to the spammers themselves.
You say you're using Windows. Why not just set the power option to do nothing when you close the lid? Or do you want it to sleep AND keep the ssh session open? If so you should know that the Mac doesn't exactly sleep like a normal PC might; it apparently keeps the CPU running to some degree and this comes at the cost of using the battery, and losing your session entirely, if you're unplugged.
He didn't say he was jumping over dollars to pickup dimes. He said he searched for the best deal; not that he searched for an hour for the best deal on piddly items. Ten minutes on the Net saved me $75 on my DVD recorder and I only had to drive to the place to pick it up less than 5 minutes away. Eight hours seems ridiculous unless you're shopping for a car or house. Hell it shouldn't take 20 minutes to call the stores in town to verify pricing.
Doh! Thanks for clarifying that..NOW it makes sense and seems far less idiotic. "2.4 days" seemed like he was INCREDIBLY aware of the time it took...not simply 3 days and not rounded up to two and a half days..heh.
Are you referring to the 2.4 days as actual compile time or time it took you to work out what to include in the kernel config? I don't think it ever took more than 8 hours to configure and compile a new kernel on my end even if the machine doing the compiling was 1/10th the speed of, then, current computers.
Plus, I don't find it THAT hard to configure the new kernels but I take my distro's config file and remove anything I know I don't need rather than starting with a blank-slate config and THEN trying to figure out what to include/remove.
Hey, I agree that the locked door analogy is incorrect so here's one for ya: People can by law enter your yard if there are no fences, no "no trespassing" signs and you don't tell them to leave. We all know that a sensible person wouldn't enter a house if the door were unlocked but also any sensible person knows they CAN walk onto and hang out in someone's yard if there aren't clear indicators to the contrary.
Drop the door/lock analogy. Sensible people already know they should not enter a house that is not theirs and they do not have permission to enter.
It makes MUCH more sense when you look at the WAP as your front yard. People are allowed, by law, to enter and hang out on your front lawn without any fear of being harassed by the law if you don't tell them to leave and you don't have fences or no trespassing signs posted. That's the law in most if not all states, and the concept works perfectly since a sensible person knows they can walk onto someones property to knock on the door to see if someone is home, and someone no matter how sensible they are can determine that a WAP is off limits by simply connecting to it under any circumstances. So what does one do? Put up encryption(a fence/no trespassing signs) and the yard is protected.
Don't think of it as a locked door because the analogy falls apart the deeper you go into it since any sensible person knows that a closed door to a house they don't own still means they can't enter(as you and everyone else seems hellbent to point out) but this is wireless and there is nothing, nothing, nothing that tells people they can't connect to a WAP except encryption(or MAC filtering) no matter how sensible they might be.
Think of wireless access as your yard. People can, by law, come into your yard and hang out without the least bit of hassle from the law if you don't have fences or signs stating no trespassing and you don't happen to tell them to leave your yard. I know this personally because the police had to inform me of this after the 5th time my car was broken into because people were "allowed" to enter my yard since we didn't have fences surrounding the property and didn't have signs posted.
Now when you think about it, the WAP/yard/tresspass thing makes much more sense that the silly locked door analogy.
You're right, I didn't include those provisions because.....wait for it....they are also allowed to view my communications with their system, and if the law itself allows me to broadcast on that frequency(and it does) then there is no need to discuss why I would have done any of the above. If you want to get really technical, an AP is guilty of initiating unlawful access to my system by broadcasting its SSID; once those packets arrive on my side without my permission, they could, given the current line of thought, be brought up on charges. Now where's that razor?
As for laziness, incompetence(same as ignorance in my opinion), who cares really? Ignorance of the law is not an excuse so why should ignorance of networking fundamentals be any different? Of course, I'm of the opinion that we need internet licenses, as well as firewall, and WAP licenses; you shouldn't be permitted to use a computer online without a license or a licensed "driver" nearby to guide you through it. Implement fining people for breaking this law and it would be easy to stop the ignorant from taking over the legal system as they have now.
The locks on doors analogy is worn out and misapplied, let me give you a better one. In the States it's perfectly and 100% LEGAL to view any radio/satellite broadcasts as long as they are not encrypted. Period. You can say to your heart's delight that you don't want me to watch your broadcast but if you lack encryption you have no ground to stand on because that's what the law says. That's your locked door right there.
My neighbor's access point is a crappy linksys wrouter that he got several years ago. He uses WEP but I can crack that quicker than he can type in the key. Does the fact that he is using a known-to-be-weak encryption scheme mean that I have the right to be on? My other neighbor does not advertise his SSID, but I can get on his AP just the same simply by grabbing enough packets out of the air. Does that mean that I have the right to use the service he's paying for?
No, as a matter of fact, encryption is THE way to tell if you're allowed to view satellite communications, at least here in the States. If a provider does not encrypt their signal, they have no(as in none, zero, zip, nada, nothing..) legal grounds to say that we can't watch their programming; however the moment they encrypt it, one can become liable for signal "theft" if they decrypt it without permission. The same needs to be applied to the Wifi arena. Laziness on the part of the "system administrator" should under no circumstances be grounds for the little twit to bring you up on criminal or civil charges.
You always retain copyright but you give YouTube, etc. a license to copy/distribute/modify at will when you upload it. I don't know how it works if you decide to pull your content down, surely the license expires when the service does.
I thought of this a few years ago. The idea seemed an obvious one. There'll always be blocks of repeating data(e.g. FF00FF00), and exe, zip, rar, mp3, etc. headers with many similarities. If one can make the algo vary the size of the chunks it uses then you can derive your data from lots of different sources including getting data from image files that are to be applied to an.exe. The key would be to be able to recreate as much as possible from the similar data and the checksum/CRC using some of today's error correcting technology. It wouldn't be flawless of course but well worth the effort.
Go figure I have it backward(though so do every one of my friends that I asked). Though now I should check my blood type cause I'm 100% positive I was told I'd be screwed in case of a shortage of any sort..
Slashdot Mirror
It's not a theology "joke", it's a paradox, and one hated by most preachers. OT but, I think it offers insight into the weakness built into Xtianity where a supposedly omnipotent god can do anything *except* forgive people who don't ask for forgiveness, a condition that "he" created. My dieties don't have that problem.
If you think about it, them taking that stance would mean they'd also have to come after those of us who use NoScript, or simply turn off javascript for untrusted sites, or whatever.
I don't know, would you deny a plumber the right to make money every time you use your faucet or toilet, or would you want to pay an architect every time you opened your door to your house? How about "his" family after he's dead? Anyone can be an artist or writer and there is no certification or even skill required to produce it so why we would treat what would appear to be the least qualified people as though they were better than truly skilled and certified artisans is beyond me.
This seems akin to how our society is obsessed with completely defying natural selection by making sure we warn the idiots and retards of society that it's not wise to bring a plugged-in toaster into the shower with you; it's little more than making it easier for the idiots, whose only valuable contribution to society might be one single work of art, to live a long and comfortable enough life to breed and produce even more idiots. Real artists who want to make money should have to work, like the rest of us, to reap "repeating" benefits and their families can reap them IF the artist was wise enough to invest it for them. If they can't produce enough good art to survive then maybe they're not cut out to be an artist.
What such a thing would encourage would be our entire society to give up any education in hopes of making one single piece of art, visual or auditory, that will actually sell decently so they can live as though they are entitled to a comfortable living because of that single work, making our society even dumber than it already is. What we call an IQ of 80 would soon be our 120.
Think about how stupid the average person is and then realize that half the population is even dumber than that. --George Carlin.
I just read that the Lantham Act(I think) has provisions in case you lose business due to unsupported claims. That would force M$'s hand in the matter quite quickly as they'd either have to put up or shut up.
It's not that Bill just makes more than you, it's that he *sells* more due to volume than you, on a factor of around 10,000 to 1 in operating systems alone. So it's not like you're charging him $1,000 for a cup of coffee, you're charging him for 1,000 $1 cups of coffee.
However I agree, it's probably just FUD from M$. They've already been caught infringing on lots of patents over the years so they're probably hoping to make a deal to keep themselves relevant.
We get the ridiculous idea that it's sterile because....it IS sterile in most cases. I first encountered the idea in some survival training when we were told that we could drink our own urine in almost any instance except when you're in a desert dying of thirst because the urine you give off then is dark yellow and completely full of toxins that your body is trying to rid itself of to keep you alive, and in essence you'd be killing yourself by drinking it.
I kinda agree with you except that there was the story a day or so ago(maybe it was here on /.) about how some woman was bragging how she got the front page of Digg basically by bribing a lot of people, and while she *was* on the front page for an hour or so she was then buried by legit users who considered her post as spam.
If Google had a system something to that effect then p l e n t y o f f i s h.com(making sure they don't get any more credit than necessary) would have been buried over a year ago when I first reported their gateway pages, etc. Nor would my site have been delisted because their bot didn't agree with a sitemap or whatever the hell caused it to flag it.
I'm not saying it's perfect but letting a computer make all the decisions will lead to trouble without fail.
Regardless, it wouldn't be able to keep an existing SSH session open if the CPU isn't doing something about it.
It's true. They are in a losing battle with the web spammers who are developing an artificial intelligence based system that will make it so Googlebot won't be able to tell the good stuff from the bad, and if that weren't enough they ignore spam reports, and bury the reporting mechanism so deep that nobody wants to be bothered to report it anyway.
What this will mean is that we'll be on a user-ranking system like Digg or the like since the users can vote a topic down if it's spam and it gets buried almost immediately(well within a couple hours as compared to days/months/years) but since Google isn't prepared for that type of system, they will soon find themselves overwhelmed with spam.
I have at least one site that was permanently delisted by Google for some unknown violation and yet I get just as much traffic without them as I did with them. I don't think they're evil nor am I against them but if they don't wake up soon they're going to lose this game, not to Yahoo or other search engines, but to the spammers themselves.
You say you're using Windows. Why not just set the power option to do nothing when you close the lid? Or do you want it to sleep AND keep the ssh session open? If so you should know that the Mac doesn't exactly sleep like a normal PC might; it apparently keeps the CPU running to some degree and this comes at the cost of using the battery, and losing your session entirely, if you're unplugged.
How dare you misspell the name of one of the greatest organizations ever. It's L0pht.
He didn't say he was jumping over dollars to pickup dimes. He said he searched for the best deal; not that he searched for an hour for the best deal on piddly items. Ten minutes on the Net saved me $75 on my DVD recorder and I only had to drive to the place to pick it up less than 5 minutes away. Eight hours seems ridiculous unless you're shopping for a car or house. Hell it shouldn't take 20 minutes to call the stores in town to verify pricing.
Doh! Thanks for clarifying that..NOW it makes sense and seems far less idiotic. "2.4 days" seemed like he was INCREDIBLY aware of the time it took...not simply 3 days and not rounded up to two and a half days..heh.
Are you referring to the 2.4 days as actual compile time or time it took you to work out what to include in the kernel config? I don't think it ever took more than 8 hours to configure and compile a new kernel on my end even if the machine doing the compiling was 1/10th the speed of, then, current computers.
Plus, I don't find it THAT hard to configure the new kernels but I take my distro's config file and remove anything I know I don't need rather than starting with a blank-slate config and THEN trying to figure out what to include/remove.
I think that should read:
"....customers AND producers who specifically try to avoid your brand of goods....."
Hey, I agree that the locked door analogy is incorrect so here's one for ya: People can by law enter your yard if there are no fences, no "no trespassing" signs and you don't tell them to leave. We all know that a sensible person wouldn't enter a house if the door were unlocked but also any sensible person knows they CAN walk onto and hang out in someone's yard if there aren't clear indicators to the contrary.
Drop the door/lock analogy. Sensible people already know they should not enter a house that is not theirs and they do not have permission to enter.
It makes MUCH more sense when you look at the WAP as your front yard. People are allowed, by law, to enter and hang out on your front lawn without any fear of being harassed by the law if you don't tell them to leave and you don't have fences or no trespassing signs posted. That's the law in most if not all states, and the concept works perfectly since a sensible person knows they can walk onto someones property to knock on the door to see if someone is home, and someone no matter how sensible they are can determine that a WAP is off limits by simply connecting to it under any circumstances. So what does one do? Put up encryption(a fence/no trespassing signs) and the yard is protected.
Don't think of it as a locked door because the analogy falls apart the deeper you go into it since any sensible person knows that a closed door to a house they don't own still means they can't enter(as you and everyone else seems hellbent to point out) but this is wireless and there is nothing, nothing, nothing that tells people they can't connect to a WAP except encryption(or MAC filtering) no matter how sensible they might be.
Think of wireless access as your yard. People can, by law, come into your yard and hang out without the least bit of hassle from the law if you don't have fences or signs stating no trespassing and you don't happen to tell them to leave your yard. I know this personally because the police had to inform me of this after the 5th time my car was broken into because people were "allowed" to enter my yard since we didn't have fences surrounding the property and didn't have signs posted.
Now when you think about it, the WAP/yard/tresspass thing makes much more sense that the silly locked door analogy.
You're right, I didn't include those provisions because.....wait for it....they are also allowed to view my communications with their system, and if the law itself allows me to broadcast on that frequency(and it does) then there is no need to discuss why I would have done any of the above. If you want to get really technical, an AP is guilty of initiating unlawful access to my system by broadcasting its SSID; once those packets arrive on my side without my permission, they could, given the current line of thought, be brought up on charges. Now where's that razor?
As for laziness, incompetence(same as ignorance in my opinion), who cares really? Ignorance of the law is not an excuse so why should ignorance of networking fundamentals be any different? Of course, I'm of the opinion that we need internet licenses, as well as firewall, and WAP licenses; you shouldn't be permitted to use a computer online without a license or a licensed "driver" nearby to guide you through it. Implement fining people for breaking this law and it would be easy to stop the ignorant from taking over the legal system as they have now.
The locks on doors analogy is worn out and misapplied, let me give you a better one. In the States it's perfectly and 100% LEGAL to view any radio/satellite broadcasts as long as they are not encrypted. Period. You can say to your heart's delight that you don't want me to watch your broadcast but if you lack encryption you have no ground to stand on because that's what the law says. That's your locked door right there.
No, as a matter of fact, encryption is THE way to tell if you're allowed to view satellite communications, at least here in the States. If a provider does not encrypt their signal, they have no(as in none, zero, zip, nada, nothing..) legal grounds to say that we can't watch their programming; however the moment they encrypt it, one can become liable for signal "theft" if they decrypt it without permission. The same needs to be applied to the Wifi arena. Laziness on the part of the "system administrator" should under no circumstances be grounds for the little twit to bring you up on criminal or civil charges.
You always retain copyright but you give YouTube, etc. a license to copy/distribute/modify at will when you upload it. I don't know how it works if you decide to pull your content down, surely the license expires when the service does.
I thought of this a few years ago. The idea seemed an obvious one. There'll always be blocks of repeating data(e.g. FF00FF00), and exe, zip, rar, mp3, etc. headers with many similarities. If one can make the algo vary the size of the chunks it uses then you can derive your data from lots of different sources including getting data from image files that are to be applied to an .exe. The key would be to be able to recreate as much as possible from the similar data and the checksum/CRC using some of today's error correcting technology. It wouldn't be flawless of course but well worth the effort.
Tom Cruise?
Go figure I have it backward(though so do every one of my friends that I asked). Though now I should check my blood type cause I'm 100% positive I was told I'd be screwed in case of a shortage of any sort..