I don't know about other schools, but at mine, we get a chance to use Macs for video editing and Photoshop and stuff...but naturally the year I stop doing Media Studies is the year they get a shitload of dual-G5 machines:(
The problem is that the program will need to store the location of the key somewhere. The worm doesn't need to search, it does the same steps as the program.
there's nobody to provide an indemnity against software patent legal cases against OSS - just look at how Microsoft have promised to protect their customers if and when it comes to patent issues with their software
But because of the users' annoying tendancy to use the same software as everyone else, either the key is known, or it's in a location that can be found.
maybe attitudes like this are the reason there aren't that many women in programming.
Did you read the second line? It was meant as a joke...
(This *is* meant to be flamebait -- and posted anonymously, so I don't ruin my chances with the girl who reads/.... I know you're out there baby, and I love you!)
Well the headline made it seem like it was just a private list so that only the dev guys know about the problems. Now that I've gotten further through the thread it seems that Linus is uhh...strongly opposed to that idea.
But if it's a security problem in the kernel and it gets reported to the vendor currently instead of lkml, what makes you think a single point of contact will be used properly?
To be honest, I'd rather see any security problems in LKML, than keep them private...a private bug may not be fixed, but when there is a lot of public pressure to get a patch out, if it's not done *FAST* by the developers, someone in the community will do it. This is not the case if it is kept private.
Even if we can do this, you're gonna need a real human around to talk to it if you want anything resembling a human to come out of the simulation. And you would need that human to be able to talk to the machine like it was a real person. People like that wouldn't be that easy to find.
because they're small, their anatomy is simple, and their genetics known
AFAIK, we don't know enough about genetics to be able to simulate the effects of each gene, let alone everything else. ANY cell has the same DNA as every other cell in the body, and it stays the same for the life-form's entire life.
you fallen into the trap of thinking that what the human brain does is anything beyond a complex chemical reaction/equilibrium
No, the human mind is not just a product of a series of chemical interactions, it also depends on interactions with other humans. And there is no way that I would be able to interact with an AI the same way I can with a very close friend. Neither could most people. An AI won't have the same experiences as a human has simply because it's not human.
If we knew about things down to that level, why haven't we cured cancer? Or AIDS?
No computer will be able to take the place of a real person for companionship...humans have experiences, and feelings, and plenty of other things that a robot could never emulate.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about other schools, but at mine, we get a chance to use Macs for video editing and Photoshop and stuff...but naturally the year I stop doing Media Studies is the year they get a shitload of dual-G5 machines :(
IIRC, they ripped out DirectDraw in DX8.
Then I have to worry about being forced to use Windows.
what if, sometime over the next 150 years or so that code I write now is owned by me, OSI is hijacked?
Your software patent won't last 150 years.
And if you got inside mine you would never be able to find the box ;)
The blood drains out, and changes the properties of the finger.
the only way I've ever been able to learn anything is by using it for an actual project
;)
However I wouldn't use that project for anything too important
The problem is that the program will need to store the location of the key somewhere. The worm doesn't need to search, it does the same steps as the program.
there's nobody to provide an indemnity against software patent legal cases against OSS - just look at how Microsoft have promised to protect their customers if and when it comes to patent issues with their software
Umm...I thought Redhat said they would?
If all the major ISPs would do this independantly it would be nice though.
But because of the users' annoying tendancy to use the same software as everyone else, either the key is known, or it's in a location that can be found.
Solution: worms send out "worn.exe_", and say to rename it.
maybe attitudes like this are the reason there aren't that many women in programming.
/. ... I know you're out there baby, and I love you!)
Did you read the second line? It was meant as a joke...
(This *is* meant to be flamebait -- and posted anonymously, so I don't ruin my chances with the girl who reads
Why must everything be taken as an insult?
Well personally I prefer A, but that's just me. We've seen how Microsoft have handled option b.
Well the headline made it seem like it was just a private list so that only the dev guys know about the problems. Now that I've gotten further through the thread it seems that Linus is uhh...strongly opposed to that idea.
But if it's a security problem in the kernel and it gets reported to the vendor currently instead of lkml, what makes you think a single point of contact will be used properly?
To be honest, I'd rather see any security problems in LKML, than keep them private...a private bug may not be fixed, but when there is a lot of public pressure to get a patch out, if it's not done *FAST* by the developers, someone in the community will do it. This is not the case if it is kept private.
it's 16-22 characters
;)
Sorry, not right
Well I'd take a VMWare-like snapshot every now and than...something where I can revert to a known good snapshot is good to vent my anger on ;)
You have RPM, and I'm sure that there are front-ends for apt and portage.
Even if we can do this, you're gonna need a real human around to talk to it if you want anything resembling a human to come out of the simulation. And you would need that human to be able to talk to the machine like it was a real person. People like that wouldn't be that easy to find.
Ok, so they didn't plan it too well...going by IP would have been a better idea. But it was secure, wasn't it?
because they're small, their anatomy is simple, and their genetics known
AFAIK, we don't know enough about genetics to be able to simulate the effects of each gene, let alone everything else. ANY cell has the same DNA as every other cell in the body, and it stays the same for the life-form's entire life.
you fallen into the trap of thinking that what the human brain does is anything beyond a complex chemical reaction/equilibrium
No, the human mind is not just a product of a series of chemical interactions, it also depends on interactions with other humans. And there is no way that I would be able to interact with an AI the same way I can with a very close friend. Neither could most people. An AI won't have the same experiences as a human has simply because it's not human.
If we knew about things down to that level, why haven't we cured cancer? Or AIDS?
No computer will be able to take the place of a real person for companionship...humans have experiences, and feelings, and plenty of other things that a robot could never emulate.
Internode / Adelaide (Aus) / 0.5 / 0.1