If you want to use Freenet, how likely is it that zero of the ca. 150 people in your monkeysphere does not also want to use Freenet?
Well, this world has around 6 billion people. Freenet has - to be very generous - around 6 thousand users. So, the chances that none of your 150 friends are using Freenet is about (1 - 1 / 5 999 999 000) * (1 - 1 / 5 999 998 999) * (1 - 1 / 5 999 998 998) *... * (1 - 1 / 5 999 998 850).
(By the way, if I have a substantially flawed understanding of this, PLEASE point it out).
Very well. Whatever the merits or demerits of darknet might be, the default in 0.7 is to work as an opennet. So your criticism only holds if you went and added darknet nodes and disabled opennet by yourself.
Back around when the developers started talking about the darknet concept in the first place the stated reason for doing so was so that child pornography could be blocked.
Freenet dev newsgroups are archived at gmane, so... links please.
Historically, one of two things will happen in regards to this post. I'll either get modded down so far that no one will ever see the post, quickly, or I will get a dozen replies saying I know nothing about the subject. What is it going to be today?
Well, you do seem to have a bit of a gap in your knowledge, so...
Yet we're still dealing with this, twenty years after similar schemes proved inane on the Commodore 64. I fully grok that developers don't give a damn if they're making users' lives harder for no reason. But it puzzles me that they don't understand that it's worse for them, too: it wastes development resources on snake-oil protection schemes, and it diminishes consumers' view of the company name. But they just don't seem to learn.
The developers propably understand it just fine. However, when the shareholders ask: "What did you do to keep our game from being pirated ?", the developer needs to be able to give an answer which doesn't get him fired. So he'll install some harebrained DRM system - preferably developed somewhere else - which of course doesn't work but lets him say: "I did my best, it's those eeevil l33t h4x0rs."
Basically, copy prevention is impossible, but that is an unacceptable answer for the shareholders, so the end result is a series of increasingly bizarre contraptions pretending to be solutions.
The temperature of the water coming out is highly dependent on the speed of the water flowing through the device. If you have the hot water turned on full blast, you don't notice a difference. If you lower the hot water volume below a specific threshold, the tankless water heater will turn itself off to prevent the water (and itself!) from overheating.
Perhaps you should have invested into the model with a bit more granular power control ?-) Your problems seem to be due to the braindead design of a particular model, rather than a problem in the concept in general.
That works great, until one of your friends makes a typo and sends a message to lupmy@yourdomain.com instead of lumpy.... they get no confirmation that the message they sent to you didn't go through... because it *did* go through. It just went straight into your spam filter.
Which means that they don't hear back from me. Which means that I didn't get the message and they should resend.
It's the TCP/IP way of delivery confirmation: if the other end hasn't confirmed it as delivered, it's assumed to have not been delivered. And if it hasn't been confirmed as delivered in a reasonable amount of time, it has propably gotten lost somewhere and needs to be resent. Common sense, really, and also applicable to meatspace mail carriers.
Ratzinger has been a priest, devoted to serving God, for over a half century. If this doesn't prove his non-Nazi creds, nothing will.
Being priests didn't stop quite a few people from molesting children entrusted to their care, nor did it stop even more people from covering that up, thus allowing it to continue on and on and more children to be hurt. If being a priest doesn't disprove that you're a child molester or an assistant to one, why on Earth would it prove you innocent of any other kind of evil either ?
That said, blaming someone of being a Nazi just because they happened to grow up in Nazi Germany is ridiculous. It is quite likely that Ratzinger symphatized with the Nazis at the time; they were, after all, associated with Germany's recovery from the defeat in WWI and newfound prosperity. It was only later that the true nature of the beast was revealed. Hopefully Ratzinger learned from that; claiming that he still has Nazi sympathies is essentially claiming that he didn't, and that assertion needs evidence to be taken seriously.
Agree. Using CSS is NOT a Web 2.0 application. I would expect better from/.ers.
However, if you add some XML in there somewhere, it should qualify.
Since he coined it, he's probably pretty accurate.
I find it unlikely that anyone counting BitTorrent as a Web application is particularly accurate. Unless, of course, he meant the BitTorrent sites, but how are those principally different from a forum where you could post links to ?
I am sick and tired of this stupid argument. People are NOT animals. We have control over our actions, and MOST of us have control over our actions and thoughts. We are less willing to induce control and "restraint" on children because they are not as capable of controlling themselves. As such, its a simple thought proccess. The more control you have over yourself, and the greater the ability to understand your actions and there reactions, the more willing we are to restrain someone. Take for example the argument that we should not execute the mentally challenged. Why? They are incapable of understanding several key things. Same with children, animals, "vegetables", ETC. Those groups of subjects are given special consideration as far as restraint and discpline.
Your argument is only relevant when talking about punishment, which is given to someone who has already been restrained, and should be decided about by a court of law rather than officer Tenpenny. Tasers, however, are not tools of punishment, they're tools of restrainment. When restraining a suspect, the only acceptable standard is to use the minimum neccessary force; altought, obviously, one must make allowances for the fact that the one doing the restraining doesn't have the benefit of hindsight or, neccessarily, a chance to calmy consider his options, so he might err in his estimation of "minimum force".
What I'm getting at is that it doesn't matter whether the one you're restraining is a retard or a genius. Either way you either use the minimum force neccessary, or you belong behind the bars yourself.
So no, the fact that more can be expected from humans than animals doesn't mean that you can go taser-happy on humans. If anything, it means that people who hold power over others - embodied in devices like tasers, for example - have no excuse whatsoever if they abuse it. And using that power beyond what is neccessary, for example tasering someone unneccessarily, is abuse.
Now we have Iran working on Nukes and being led by a theocratic council whose figurehead to the world (President Achmadinawhackjob) believes that he is going to help bring on the end times. Those who don't believe that he is of that mind should spend some quality time Googling "the 12th Imam" and Achmadinajad.
You know, I've heard similar accusations about Bush, except of course that they talked about the second coming of Christ rather than 12th Imam.
You tell me why Iran needs nuclear energy for power generation? They could invest all that money in clean oil burning technologies and still have plenty left over to advance a very broad range of research on industries that would diversify their economy. It makes no sense at all for them to invest so much money in nuclear energy, unless perhaps it's not really nuclear energy that they are after?
Well, for starters, 136 billion barrels won't last forever if used. If you have the option of making your power infrastructure immune to peak oil long before you reach it, you should. Otherwise you'll end up desperately grasping for more, like the US is doing.
Secondly, if you use nuclear power to produce energy and keep the oil in reserve, you can sell it later when the price has skyrocketed. It doesn't really make much sense to burn a resource who's price is rising all the time, now does it ?
Thirdly, even "clean" oil burning techniques still generate pollution and poisonous substances, resulting in health problems and untimely deaths. They simply cause less of these than "unclean" ones. A properly working nuclear plant, on the other hand, doesn't cause any pollution. All the waste can be sealed underground, rather than released into the atmosphere. It is an environmentally superior technology.
Consider that if you've ever done UNIX programming, you've been doing MT programming all along - just by a different name.. Multi-Processing. Pipelines are, in IMO the best implementation of parallel programming (and UNIX is FULL of pipes).
Although your comment funny at Slashdot, it's a wise ass, arrogant reply in reality. It's always good to reinforce knowledge and be reminded of it. Meanwhile, thank you for reinforcing the stereotype of a programmer, that of arrogance.:)
Why would anyone but a fairly advanced programmer be interested in the new fads in parallel programming ? Besides, the summary is misleading, giving the impression that multithreading is exclusive to multicore processors, which is false; it can give huge benefits in a single-core processor to have the UI run in a thread of its own so it won't get blocked by a long-running task, for example.
While reinforcing knowledge is good, explaining the addition of integers in an university-level mathemathics book is ridiculous. So is the summary, and for the same reason. Moreso because the explanation is wrong.
Do you want to bet your life on me having an insurance ?
No, I want you to call the fire department like a normal person would.
So you want me to take an action which will benefit you, but you don't want to pay any of the bill. And I'll be punished by law if I don't. Careful, you're starting to sound like a socialist.
Your theories about why we should fully socialize the fire department are mildly interesting but it looks like you're just grasping at straws trying to find a justification for increased socialism.
How is this "private department" better or even different than a socialized one ? You either pay its bill or go to prison. Seems like a tax to me, only a convoluted tax masked as a "service fee" which goes directly to a private monopoly which you can't opt out from and in fact must use by law.
Typical.
It is indeed typical of libertarian and other anti-socialism types to try to mask socialized institutions as private ones. A truly non-socialized fire department can't work, since me letting my old shed burn risks my neighbours; but a libertarian can't accept that, since it's contrary to his ideology, so he'll mask a socialized fire department a private one, with the main effects of letting middlemen take a share of its operating funds and slapping random people with the bill, rather than spreading it evenly as a normal tax would.
Any normal person, even one who knows full well he'll be getting a bill from the fire department, will call the fire department. It is criminal to not do so. If you ever find yourself in this situation I wouldn't bet your life on being able to avoid the law. It's very likely that someone will see you leaving the scene which will be very good evidence of your negligence and liability. Have fun in pound-me-in-the-ass prison.
So if I don't pay this fire department's bills, I'll be thrown into a prison. How is this different from a tax again ?
He isn't saying every single person be a fire-fighter. He's saying, let fire departments be a private business, and not propped up by taxes. It's a service. Not a fundamental right.
An interesting line of thinking. Tell me, shall we also employ the same logic when I come accross your unconscious form, bleeding to death from getting run over by a car or mugged ? You haven't paid an ambulance-calling fee to me, after all, and are not capable of signing a contract at that point in time.
If you don't want to pay for the fire station's fees, then you miss out on that service.
If my neighbour doesn't want to pay the fire station's fees, then any fire there endangers my house, family and life. Therefore my neighbour will pay the fee, whether he is forced to do so by law or "persuaded" by me.
I know that it goes against libertarian ethos, but try to understand nonetheless: we do not live in a vacuum. Our choices affect others. Your choices in some matters - such as not paying the fees of the fire department - affect me too, and thus I have an interest in influencing - or, yes, forcing - them.
You can't live in a society and pretend you are only responsible for yourself and to yourself. If you try, you make yourself a menace to everyone, and need to be cast out. This idiocy about a private fire department is a perfect example. That's why libertarianism cannot work.
Easy, simple, and is working in many cities in America just fine, thank you.
From the link you provided:
Rural/Metro is the first-responder agency in these locales. A non-subscriber must pay a fairly high hourly rate per fire-fighting unit if it is necessary for Rural/Metro to respond to a fire at that person's residence or property. (The adequate protection of members' properties requires response to all fires and medical emergencies in a subscription area.)
My apologies, I didn't realize that it is a protection racket. "Pay us a flat fee, or we'll be sending all these expensive firetrucks to your residence some night and making you pay for that." Yes, that would propably work quite well, Mafia has proved such "services" can be quite profitable.
Altought really, couldn't you just fund it from the taxes, rather than extortion ? Or would that remove the veneer of "private" enterprise from a monopoly which you can't opt out from and doesn't have any competition for that very reason but is still somehow not a government entity ?
It never ceases to amaze me what bizarre abominations come crawling out of the drawing boards of private sector fanatics. I wonder if they simply don't realize the mockery they are making of their very ideal, or if it's merely greed showing it's ugly head.
Yes, and if it was a large enough fire that any reasonable person would have known it would spread then you had better damn well hope that no one gets killed.
If it gets that large, it will likely be impossible to figure out where it started from. Besides, putting it down at that point will take days, so I'll have plenty of time to leave the country.
If someone does get killed in that situation you may very well be on the hook for manslaughter if someone finds out that you didn't call the fire department because you were worried about getting the bill.
Good point. That means that as soon as I figure that the fire is beyond my ability to extinguish, I'd better escape and arrange an alibi for myself.
Also, as I said, you should not worry about getting the bill. You most likely already have fire insurance.
Do you want to bet your life on me having an insurance ?
You mean France WAS a country. It ceased being a country when it joined the European Union. Now France is just a state like California (both of which wield a lot of power/influence, but are ultimately subordinate to Brussels and Washington politicians).
There are two important differences.
Washington politicians have an army of their own, which they can and have used to enforce their will. Brussels, on the other hand, can't really do anything if France refuses to obey them.
France controls its own taxation. Brussels can't blackmail it by threatening to withhold EU funding, because EU funding is not a significant enough portion of France's budget. Washington, on the other hand, can and has threatened to cut funding for highways, schools, and so on.
Basically, Brussels is impotent while Washington is powerful. That's why France is a country, while California is a state.
When an actual fire occurs, they bill it to the responsible party, if any, and typically it would be covered by fire insurance.
So basically, if a fire occurs, my best bet is to not call the fire department but try to put it out myself, which of course risks having it spread and burn down half the city.
Oh, and since the insurance company wants profits, I'll end up paying more than if I just funded the fire department completely through the taxes. A lovely setup. Clearly libertarian in origin.
You're kidding, right? "Ender's Game" is neither literature, nor good.
"Ender's Game" is a written story and therefore literature. Whether or not it is good literature is another matter, but claiming that it's not literature at all because it doesn't meet some arbitrary limit of quality is ridiculous.
Do yourself a favour and read this.
I suppose paranoid rantings can be mildly entertaining, but I wouldn't call reading them to be a "favour" to yourself. Or was the page supposed to be ironic ?
Drunk driving is NOT a violent crime. Hitting someone or something with a car is a violent crime whether or not you are drunk while driving.
Drunk driving is a violent crime in exactly the same way as shooting blindly into the night is. You may or may not hit anyone, but you sure as Hell have demonstrated that you don't care about that possibility and are thus unfit to have the gun/car.
Drunk driving is reckless endangerment of other people's lives and property. That is, and should be, a crime.
At least drunk drivers try to drive carefully.
And fail miserably. As they perfectly well knew before getting to the car. So I guess they aren't so careful after all.
I believe that often people driving with cellphones are easily as impaired, but they don't have to be careful because they won't go to jail if they hit another car.
Handling a cellphone while driving is illegal in many countries for this exact reason.
Sorry for being cranky about it as it was probably just an oversight and accidental comparison, but if Rowling's work was really worthy of artistic and literary merit, she wouldn't have to be so fearful of derivative works detracting from what she created.
She isn't. She is fearful of the encyclopedia eating into the sales of her own to-be-published encyclopedia. I don't understand why, I'd imagine that with all the money she's made she'd sit back and relax rather than stress herself with crap like this, but I guess success can be a kind of drug too...
So if we find trilobites on Mars... Mankind is doomed.
Because the trilobites couldn't find a way to get to the sweet Earth oceans before Mars dried up on them. And, therefore, there is a "Great Filter" that prevents us from colonizing the galaxy.
WTF ?!?
We're doomed because the trilobites will be waken from their billion-year hibernation by the smell of moisture, pounce on the astronauts, suck out their bodily juices, and then commandeer their ship and use it to travel back to Earth and descend on us like a pack of starving... well, trilobites.
What about this is so difficult to understand ? Seems perfectly logical to me that you can't colonize the galaxy if you've been sucked dry by a vampiric undead trilobite.
Slashdot Mirror
Copyright violation is the greatest crime nowadays.
Well, this world has around 6 billion people. Freenet has - to be very generous - around 6 thousand users. So, the chances that none of your 150 friends are using Freenet is about (1 - 1 / 5 999 999 000) * (1 - 1 / 5 999 998 999) * (1 - 1 / 5 999 998 998) * ... * (1 - 1 / 5 999 998 850).
In other words, pretty bloody likely.
Very well. Whatever the merits or demerits of darknet might be, the default in 0.7 is to work as an opennet. So your criticism only holds if you went and added darknet nodes and disabled opennet by yourself.
Freenet dev newsgroups are archived at gmane, so... links please.
Well, you do seem to have a bit of a gap in your knowledge, so...
"A retired military man with a German Shepard, a baseball bat and some good intel" chasing people he considers undesirables from the streets merely to increase the amount of money he can get from his house sure sounds like one of them.
So it seems.
The developers propably understand it just fine. However, when the shareholders ask: "What did you do to keep our game from being pirated ?", the developer needs to be able to give an answer which doesn't get him fired. So he'll install some harebrained DRM system - preferably developed somewhere else - which of course doesn't work but lets him say: "I did my best, it's those eeevil l33t h4x0rs."
Basically, copy prevention is impossible, but that is an unacceptable answer for the shareholders, so the end result is a series of increasingly bizarre contraptions pretending to be solutions.
Unneccessary; the rising cost of oil is already taking care of this.
Perhaps you should have invested into the model with a bit more granular power control ?-) Your problems seem to be due to the braindead design of a particular model, rather than a problem in the concept in general.
Which means that they don't hear back from me. Which means that I didn't get the message and they should resend.
It's the TCP/IP way of delivery confirmation: if the other end hasn't confirmed it as delivered, it's assumed to have not been delivered. And if it hasn't been confirmed as delivered in a reasonable amount of time, it has propably gotten lost somewhere and needs to be resent. Common sense, really, and also applicable to meatspace mail carriers.
Being priests didn't stop quite a few people from molesting children entrusted to their care, nor did it stop even more people from covering that up, thus allowing it to continue on and on and more children to be hurt. If being a priest doesn't disprove that you're a child molester or an assistant to one, why on Earth would it prove you innocent of any other kind of evil either ?
That said, blaming someone of being a Nazi just because they happened to grow up in Nazi Germany is ridiculous. It is quite likely that Ratzinger symphatized with the Nazis at the time; they were, after all, associated with Germany's recovery from the defeat in WWI and newfound prosperity. It was only later that the true nature of the beast was revealed. Hopefully Ratzinger learned from that; claiming that he still has Nazi sympathies is essentially claiming that he didn't, and that assertion needs evidence to be taken seriously.
However, if you add some XML in there somewhere, it should qualify.
I find it unlikely that anyone counting BitTorrent as a Web application is particularly accurate. Unless, of course, he meant the BitTorrent sites, but how are those principally different from a forum where you could post links to ?
Your argument is only relevant when talking about punishment, which is given to someone who has already been restrained, and should be decided about by a court of law rather than officer Tenpenny. Tasers, however, are not tools of punishment, they're tools of restrainment. When restraining a suspect, the only acceptable standard is to use the minimum neccessary force; altought, obviously, one must make allowances for the fact that the one doing the restraining doesn't have the benefit of hindsight or, neccessarily, a chance to calmy consider his options, so he might err in his estimation of "minimum force".
What I'm getting at is that it doesn't matter whether the one you're restraining is a retard or a genius. Either way you either use the minimum force neccessary, or you belong behind the bars yourself.
So no, the fact that more can be expected from humans than animals doesn't mean that you can go taser-happy on humans. If anything, it means that people who hold power over others - embodied in devices like tasers, for example - have no excuse whatsoever if they abuse it. And using that power beyond what is neccessary, for example tasering someone unneccessarily, is abuse.
You know, I've heard similar accusations about Bush, except of course that they talked about the second coming of Christ rather than 12th Imam.
Well, for starters, 136 billion barrels won't last forever if used. If you have the option of making your power infrastructure immune to peak oil long before you reach it, you should. Otherwise you'll end up desperately grasping for more, like the US is doing.
Secondly, if you use nuclear power to produce energy and keep the oil in reserve, you can sell it later when the price has skyrocketed. It doesn't really make much sense to burn a resource who's price is rising all the time, now does it ?
Thirdly, even "clean" oil burning techniques still generate pollution and poisonous substances, resulting in health problems and untimely deaths. They simply cause less of these than "unclean" ones. A properly working nuclear plant, on the other hand, doesn't cause any pollution. All the waste can be sealed underground, rather than released into the atmosphere. It is an environmentally superior technology.
Unix pipes are a very primitive example of a dataflow language.
Why would anyone but a fairly advanced programmer be interested in the new fads in parallel programming ? Besides, the summary is misleading, giving the impression that multithreading is exclusive to multicore processors, which is false; it can give huge benefits in a single-core processor to have the UI run in a thread of its own so it won't get blocked by a long-running task, for example.
While reinforcing knowledge is good, explaining the addition of integers in an university-level mathemathics book is ridiculous. So is the summary, and for the same reason. Moreso because the explanation is wrong.
So you want me to take an action which will benefit you, but you don't want to pay any of the bill. And I'll be punished by law if I don't. Careful, you're starting to sound like a socialist.
How is this "private department" better or even different than a socialized one ? You either pay its bill or go to prison. Seems like a tax to me, only a convoluted tax masked as a "service fee" which goes directly to a private monopoly which you can't opt out from and in fact must use by law.
It is indeed typical of libertarian and other anti-socialism types to try to mask socialized institutions as private ones. A truly non-socialized fire department can't work, since me letting my old shed burn risks my neighbours; but a libertarian can't accept that, since it's contrary to his ideology, so he'll mask a socialized fire department a private one, with the main effects of letting middlemen take a share of its operating funds and slapping random people with the bill, rather than spreading it evenly as a normal tax would.
So if I don't pay this fire department's bills, I'll be thrown into a prison. How is this different from a tax again ?
And by "per violation", it of course means "per blocked connection attempt".
Anyway, this actually seems to be a good law. Has Hell frozen over ?
An interesting line of thinking. Tell me, shall we also employ the same logic when I come accross your unconscious form, bleeding to death from getting run over by a car or mugged ? You haven't paid an ambulance-calling fee to me, after all, and are not capable of signing a contract at that point in time.
If my neighbour doesn't want to pay the fire station's fees, then any fire there endangers my house, family and life. Therefore my neighbour will pay the fee, whether he is forced to do so by law or "persuaded" by me.
I know that it goes against libertarian ethos, but try to understand nonetheless: we do not live in a vacuum. Our choices affect others. Your choices in some matters - such as not paying the fees of the fire department - affect me too, and thus I have an interest in influencing - or, yes, forcing - them.
You can't live in a society and pretend you are only responsible for yourself and to yourself. If you try, you make yourself a menace to everyone, and need to be cast out. This idiocy about a private fire department is a perfect example. That's why libertarianism cannot work.
From the link you provided:
My apologies, I didn't realize that it is a protection racket. "Pay us a flat fee, or we'll be sending all these expensive firetrucks to your residence some night and making you pay for that." Yes, that would propably work quite well, Mafia has proved such "services" can be quite profitable.
Altought really, couldn't you just fund it from the taxes, rather than extortion ? Or would that remove the veneer of "private" enterprise from a monopoly which you can't opt out from and doesn't have any competition for that very reason but is still somehow not a government entity ?
It never ceases to amaze me what bizarre abominations come crawling out of the drawing boards of private sector fanatics. I wonder if they simply don't realize the mockery they are making of their very ideal, or if it's merely greed showing it's ugly head.
If it gets that large, it will likely be impossible to figure out where it started from. Besides, putting it down at that point will take days, so I'll have plenty of time to leave the country.
Good point. That means that as soon as I figure that the fire is beyond my ability to extinguish, I'd better escape and arrange an alibi for myself.
Do you want to bet your life on me having an insurance ?
There are two important differences.
Basically, Brussels is impotent while Washington is powerful. That's why France is a country, while California is a state.
So basically, if a fire occurs, my best bet is to not call the fire department but try to put it out myself, which of course risks having it spread and burn down half the city.
Oh, and since the insurance company wants profits, I'll end up paying more than if I just funded the fire department completely through the taxes. A lovely setup. Clearly libertarian in origin.
"Ender's Game" is a written story and therefore literature. Whether or not it is good literature is another matter, but claiming that it's not literature at all because it doesn't meet some arbitrary limit of quality is ridiculous.
I suppose paranoid rantings can be mildly entertaining, but I wouldn't call reading them to be a "favour" to yourself. Or was the page supposed to be ironic ?
Drunk driving is a violent crime in exactly the same way as shooting blindly into the night is. You may or may not hit anyone, but you sure as Hell have demonstrated that you don't care about that possibility and are thus unfit to have the gun/car.
Drunk driving is reckless endangerment of other people's lives and property. That is, and should be, a crime.
And fail miserably. As they perfectly well knew before getting to the car. So I guess they aren't so careful after all.
Handling a cellphone while driving is illegal in many countries for this exact reason.
She isn't. She is fearful of the encyclopedia eating into the sales of her own to-be-published encyclopedia. I don't understand why, I'd imagine that with all the money she's made she'd sit back and relax rather than stress herself with crap like this, but I guess success can be a kind of drug too...
We're doomed because the trilobites will be waken from their billion-year hibernation by the smell of moisture, pounce on the astronauts, suck out their bodily juices, and then commandeer their ship and use it to travel back to Earth and descend on us like a pack of starving... well, trilobites.
What about this is so difficult to understand ? Seems perfectly logical to me that you can't colonize the galaxy if you've been sucked dry by a vampiric undead trilobite.