If "trivial borrowing from sound recordings isn't supported by copyright law" then we can start copying pop music like there was no tommorow. Gentlemen, start your Pirate2Pirate applications! But seriously, wouldn't it render the new Creative Commons Sampling Plus License irrelevant? Any lawyers here?
Very insightful. I indeed wish I hadn't wasted time on writing stupid programs when I was a kid, but the problem is that at that time I wouldn't understand how I could possibly waste time learning predicate calculus and set theory to better understand relational algebra behind databases instead of foolishly trying to hack something in SQL despite my utter ignorance about its very fundamentals. I was young and stupid, now I understand it. But when I was young and stupid, I didn't want to be old and boring. Now I do, because I finally understand what is more important, but that very process of understanding is something that one needs to experience by oneself while growing up. I can write countless books about it post factum and explain how I should have been born adult when I was a child, but it would be at least quite pointless, would it not? Unless I was a dot-com yuppie millionaire, now then people would buy it.
Since the person responsible quite likely did not *plan* this to go wrong, he did not actively deliberate the pro's and con's of such a failure.
[emphasis added]
And how can you possibly tell that was not a sabotage before the investigation? I'm sorry but I don't believe that making it yet another "glitch" swept under the carpet and turning blind eye is a better idea than actually finding out what really happened.
Speaking as someone who have already done this experiment countless times, I can confirm that it indeed rarely run as planned, mostly because-- What? Huygens? Oh, I thought you said hygienes... Now, seriously. Needless to say, as many of you I have been looking forward to see the results of this experiment for quite a few years. Could someone please tell me who exactly was responsible for that mistake? Was that person fired instantly? Will that person face criminal charges and prosecution? Or will we just use euphemisms and say that it was another "glitch" and pretend nothing happened, silently approving this kind of inexcusable incompetence ruining the most important scientific projects, not to even mention all the money and other costs involved? Can we afford giving such a strong argument in the hands of our opponents? And there are people who say: "See? Scientists can only waste money. Let's give it to Vatican instead." What will we answer? That it was "just" two decade, "just" few billions, "just" a small mistake? I don't think so. We need to act and show that we will not tolerate such mistakes any more.
I hope it was choosing MP3 instead of the superior Xiphophorus Helleri Ogg Vorbis sound format. I am really sick of that unpronounceable "MP3"--seriously, what were they thinking?
I remember they got us to prove around about 5 lines of code correct as part of a module in my Comp. Sci. degree.
So you know that it is possible, even if not trivial.
It took around half an hour of non-trivial effort, so good luck getting companies who churn out millions of lines of code to do this.
I can guarantee you that if people demanded, the companies would do it, and that is exactly what I was saying. Remember that those are customers who have the power, not the companies. The companies might not like it, but they would have no choice if people stopped buying their products.
And doesn't it get more complex with increased code size?
Yes, it does, and that is why your kernel cannot be monolithic, because otherwise you have to prove the correctness of every single line of code running in the kernel space, including all of the drivers and kernel modules. The projects I was talking about in my post above use a concept of nanokernel, for that very reason.
Still, you can't block every hole in security. Sometimes you just have to hope, right?
Yes, you can. No you don't. Software is just an applied form of discrete mathematics. "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it," as Donald Knuth once said. It is possible to present a formal proof of correctness for any algorithm. It is nearly impossible and certainly impractical when you have a big mess of spaghetti code like with most of software that is utter crap, but it is possible nonetheless when you know what are you doing and design appropriately, with very clean, small and isolated parts of your system responsible for enforcing its security policies. Take a look at such operating systems as KeyKOS and EROS. E.g. read Verifying Operating System Security paper by J. S. Shapiro and S. Weber: "This paper presents a proof of correctness of the EROS operating system architecture with respect to confinement." Read some essays by Norman Hardy, especially those on Capability Theory. This is hardly a new idea, see GNOSIS: A Prototype Operating System for the 1990s paper by Bill Frantz, Norm Hardy, Jay Jonekait and Charlie Landau, written more than 25 years ago. The bottom line is: it is certainly possible to have a 100% secure system, but developers don't bother because users don't care.
The universe is destined to end. Before it does, could an advanced civilisation escape via a "wormhole" into a parallel universe?
I already do it, thanks to an advanced device I bought recently, which I've always been calling "crack pipe," but "worm hole" also seems appropriate, dude.
This surely sounds like a very interesting idea for an economic printing, for I've heard that human skin is actually cheaper than the ink. The best results are achieved with skin tattooed with CMYK colors.
I do. It can be a very enlightening experience, and once you learn how to think backwards--e.g./x a b c d add sub mul def means x = a*(b-(c+d))--it can be quite entertaining. And it is very funny to use the random number generator to make your page slightly different each time it is printed, and watch the faces of people who try to correctly adjust the CMYK plates in the printing press!
If this is a troll it's a very good one, since it reads like an honest question.
And if this a "troll bite" than it is an equally good one, since it reads like an honest answer. Apparently certain moderators cannot see a difference between a question and a link to goat sex pornography. Don't worry about them, they will grow up one day, I'm sure. Meanwhile, thanks for your answer.
Well I already said that it's almost every time that I have weird-ass dreams that there's solar activity going on, not every time. Once in a while I'll check the sites and yes... no memorable dreams generally means little/low solar activity.
As they say, correlation does not mean causation, I'm just giving a datapoint. No need to act all superior.
No offense intended. Correlation indeed does not mean causation, but it should be more than enough to get the prize--if what you say is true, that is. Here is the Application for Status of Claimant. It doesn't cost anything and you don't risk anything--there is only one million US dollars if you can demonstrate the correlation. That's a lot of cash, I wouldn't wait if I were you.
I posted my frivolous prediction that people will find a way to generate naked women, and an hour later you came (no pun intended) with a solution to do just that. Now, if lust is not the main force behind innovation, then I seriously don't know what is. This is consistent with my hypothesis that there would be no civilisation without sins, especially the deadly ones.
I don't know about you but I have been tracking the weird-ass dreams that I remember for the last year or so and whenever I have a "rash" of memorable dreams I check the various sun tracking sites and almost without fail I will find that there was some kind of burst of solar activity going on around that time.
And of course you have also noticed that every time you don't have memorable dreams and check the various sun tracking sites, almost without fail you never find that there was some kind of burst of solar activity going on around that time, right? Then hurry up! The one-million-dollar prize is waiting for you!
The better question is what do I not do. I never pay in advance, that's what I do. That way I never hear "My guys are still working on it" and I have no such problems, which--let's face it--you can only blame on your own frivolity. And quite frankly it has nothing to do with "outsourcing" and where are the people who are working for you. Personally I have found on many occasions that people in Central and Eastern Europe can work much better than others in the United States or Japan, and of course a healthier environment for developers is a great plus. The bottom line is that you can find great people everywhere, and you can also find con artists everywhere. If you cannot negotiate safe terms and manage risk while doing business, don't blame "those damn foreigners" and "outsourcing" for that. Blame your own naïvete. And yes, I have learned it the hard way.
'The new service, which costs $59.95 per year, will let people organize e-mail, contact lists and calendars in their online Hotmail accounts using the Microsoft Outlook program most often found on businesses' desktop computers.'
Now astrologers, psychics and other quacks are going to force their supersticious, geocentric, pseudoscientific, flat earth, stupid mambo jumbo upon us, because those solar events must surely have an influence on people. At least there will be something interesting to read on Randi.org, I guess.
Slashdot Mirror
Torrent is so 2004. Don't you have an eXeem download link?
It doesn't. But fortunately it is irrelevant for us, for we only use torrent to download Knoppix ISOs and Linux kernels in the first place, right?
If "trivial borrowing from sound recordings isn't supported by copyright law" then we can start copying pop music like there was no tommorow. Gentlemen, start your Pirate2Pirate applications! But seriously, wouldn't it render the new Creative Commons Sampling Plus License irrelevant? Any lawyers here?
Even if completely irrelevant for loyal Slashdotters.
Because we are still boycotting Blizzard, right? Just checking.
Does it have windows?
Very insightful. I indeed wish I hadn't wasted time on writing stupid programs when I was a kid, but the problem is that at that time I wouldn't understand how I could possibly waste time learning predicate calculus and set theory to better understand relational algebra behind databases instead of foolishly trying to hack something in SQL despite my utter ignorance about its very fundamentals. I was young and stupid, now I understand it. But when I was young and stupid, I didn't want to be old and boring. Now I do, because I finally understand what is more important, but that very process of understanding is something that one needs to experience by oneself while growing up. I can write countless books about it post factum and explain how I should have been born adult when I was a child, but it would be at least quite pointless, would it not? Unless I was a dot-com yuppie millionaire, now then people would buy it.
MMPOLRPG player with a girlfriend?
It certainly provides a new context to their recent decisions, doesn't it?
And how can you possibly tell that was not a sabotage before the investigation? I'm sorry but I don't believe that making it yet another "glitch" swept under the carpet and turning blind eye is a better idea than actually finding out what really happened.
"Some of the leading video-game researchers are saying that games are better for teaching than textbooks."
In other news, some of the leading book publishers are saying that books are better for teaching than games. Film at 11.
Speaking as someone who have already done this experiment countless times, I can confirm that it indeed rarely run as planned, mostly because-- What? Huygens? Oh, I thought you said hygienes... Now, seriously. Needless to say, as many of you I have been looking forward to see the results of this experiment for quite a few years. Could someone please tell me who exactly was responsible for that mistake? Was that person fired instantly? Will that person face criminal charges and prosecution? Or will we just use euphemisms and say that it was another "glitch" and pretend nothing happened, silently approving this kind of inexcusable incompetence ruining the most important scientific projects, not to even mention all the money and other costs involved? Can we afford giving such a strong argument in the hands of our opponents? And there are people who say: "See? Scientists can only waste money. Let's give it to Vatican instead." What will we answer? That it was "just" two decade, "just" few billions, "just" a small mistake? I don't think so. We need to act and show that we will not tolerate such mistakes any more.
I hope it was choosing MP3 instead of the superior Xiphophorus Helleri Ogg Vorbis sound format. I am really sick of that unpronounceable "MP3"--seriously, what were they thinking?
So you know that it is possible, even if not trivial.
I can guarantee you that if people demanded, the companies would do it, and that is exactly what I was saying. Remember that those are customers who have the power, not the companies. The companies might not like it, but they would have no choice if people stopped buying their products.
Yes, it does, and that is why your kernel cannot be monolithic, because otherwise you have to prove the correctness of every single line of code running in the kernel space, including all of the drivers and kernel modules. The projects I was talking about in my post above use a concept of nanokernel, for that very reason.
Yes, it is. See the EROS operating system.
Then other people might spot it reading your proof. This problem is as old as mathematics. What if Einstein made a mistake in his calculation?
Yes, you can. No you don't. Software is just an applied form of discrete mathematics. "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it," as Donald Knuth once said. It is possible to present a formal proof of correctness for any algorithm. It is nearly impossible and certainly impractical when you have a big mess of spaghetti code like with most of software that is utter crap, but it is possible nonetheless when you know what are you doing and design appropriately, with very clean, small and isolated parts of your system responsible for enforcing its security policies. Take a look at such operating systems as KeyKOS and EROS. E.g. read Verifying Operating System Security paper by J. S. Shapiro and S. Weber: "This paper presents a proof of correctness of the EROS operating system architecture with respect to confinement." Read some essays by Norman Hardy, especially those on Capability Theory. This is hardly a new idea, see GNOSIS: A Prototype Operating System for the 1990s paper by Bill Frantz, Norm Hardy, Jay Jonekait and Charlie Landau, written more than 25 years ago. The bottom line is: it is certainly possible to have a 100% secure system, but developers don't bother because users don't care.
The universe is destined to end. Before it does, could an advanced civilisation escape via a "wormhole" into a parallel universe?
I already do it, thanks to an advanced device I bought recently, which I've always been calling "crack pipe," but "worm hole" also seems appropriate, dude.
This surely sounds like a very interesting idea for an economic printing, for I've heard that human skin is actually cheaper than the ink. The best results are achieved with skin tattooed with CMYK colors.
I do. It can be a very enlightening experience, and once you learn how to think backwards--e.g. /x a b c d add sub mul def means x = a*(b-(c+d))--it can be quite entertaining. And it is very funny to use the random number generator to make your page slightly different each time it is printed, and watch the faces of people who try to correctly adjust the CMYK plates in the printing press!
And if this a "troll bite" than it is an equally good one, since it reads like an honest answer. Apparently certain moderators cannot see a difference between a question and a link to goat sex pornography. Don't worry about them, they will grow up one day, I'm sure. Meanwhile, thanks for your answer.
No offense intended. Correlation indeed does not mean causation, but it should be more than enough to get the prize--if what you say is true, that is. Here is the Application for Status of Claimant. It doesn't cost anything and you don't risk anything--there is only one million US dollars if you can demonstrate the correlation. That's a lot of cash, I wouldn't wait if I were you.
I posted my frivolous prediction that people will find a way to generate naked women, and an hour later you came (no pun intended) with a solution to do just that. Now, if lust is not the main force behind innovation, then I seriously don't know what is. This is consistent with my hypothesis that there would be no civilisation without sins, especially the deadly ones.
I don't know when, I don't know how, but I am sure that people will find some creative way to generate pictures of naked women that way...
And of course you have also noticed that every time you don't have memorable dreams and check the various sun tracking sites, almost without fail you never find that there was some kind of burst of solar activity going on around that time, right? Then hurry up! The one-million-dollar prize is waiting for you!
The better question is what do I not do. I never pay in advance, that's what I do. That way I never hear "My guys are still working on it" and I have no such problems, which--let's face it--you can only blame on your own frivolity. And quite frankly it has nothing to do with "outsourcing" and where are the people who are working for you. Personally I have found on many occasions that people in Central and Eastern Europe can work much better than others in the United States or Japan, and of course a healthier environment for developers is a great plus. The bottom line is that you can find great people everywhere, and you can also find con artists everywhere. If you cannot negotiate safe terms and manage risk while doing business, don't blame "those damn foreigners" and "outsourcing" for that. Blame your own naïvete. And yes, I have learned it the hard way.
'The new service, which costs $59.95 per year, will let people organize e-mail, contact lists and calendars in their online Hotmail accounts using the Microsoft Outlook program most often found on businesses' desktop computers.'
There is a free preview available here.
Now astrologers, psychics and other quacks are going to force their supersticious, geocentric, pseudoscientific, flat earth, stupid mambo jumbo upon us, because those solar events must surely have an influence on people. At least there will be something interesting to read on Randi.org, I guess.