In the past I have seen people post blatantly false things which get accepted as true just because the mods are too lazy to check. So I thought I'd chime in here with links to some evidence to back up parent.
1) The algorithms used in SSL are listed on page 33 of the pdf linked to. Both linux setups use 3DES+SHA1 and windows uses RC4+MD5 (as parent said).
2) This page (found via google) has a table comparing ciphers about 2/3 of the way down. RC4 appears to be about 2-3 times faster than 3DES.
3) This email contains a comparison between MD5 and SHA1. MD5 appears to be 2.5 - 5 times faster than SHA1.
I seriously doubt the American people will be willing to pay for a Mars mission: it would demand either large tax increases or significant cuts in government programs
Pfft, why not just borrow some more money? We don't have to pay it back for 20 years, so none of the voters will care. Just give them all an extra $100 in their tax return and they'll be happy...
Who asked for your opinion? You're just a commenter, you're not even an poster (not like their opinion is worth anything either). Commenters giving their (usually different from public/common sense) opinion is increasing these days on slashdot.
I read the comment that you linked to. But I disagree with an important point:
to reverse engineer BK, one would HAVE to violate the license with BM
Why? Tridgell never signed a license with BM. The people who did sign licenses weren't helping Tridgell (at least I assume so). So how was a license broken?
Just to expand on what I think my sibling is trying to say...
You have a fourth choice:
- use the tool (as a client) to access the BK server.
It is useful...check
It doesn't violate a license...check
Since _you_ aren't using any BK software, you don't have to comply with any licenses. The BK server doesn't have to know anything if the protocol is correct. This is analogous to using samba to connect to a MS fileserver; the samba user doesn't have to agree to the terms of Microsoft's license.
First of all, you need to add whitespace in appropriate places (I'm not sure where and I'm not about to test). Your version gives me
-bash: syntax error near unexpected token `{:'
Also you end up running out of memory with all the processes and grinding to a halt as you move to swap space. So CPU utilization is not going to be 100% since you're waiting on the disk.
If you use udev, the naming system is entirely up to you. You can even create symbolic links based on the Vendor/Product ID so that your mp3 player will always show up as/dev/mp3 and your thumb drive will be/dev/thumb no matter where you plug them in.
For example, Gentoo's default udev naming scheme puts my CDRW in (at least) 3 places:/dev/ide/host0/bus1/target0/lun0/cd,/dev/cdroms/cdrom0 and/dev/hdc. I don't think gentoo does a similar thing for SCSI by default, but there is no reason why you couldn't.
So why do a PhD in maths? If he wants to study applications, he should be doing a PhD in an applied subject. If he wants to study applications of mathematics, maybe he should be doing Physics or CompSci or something.
Maths at a PhD level is very pure. Anyone wanting applications probably shouldn't be doing it.
But like you said, religion really had little to do with it.
That's not quite what I said. I said that religion played a fairly significant role in the cancellation of these movies, but that it isn't a big conspiracy as many people like to make out.
It was an inflammatory article from the NYTimes.
I don't think the article was inflammatory; it had a fairly neutral tone given the nature of the material. I will concede, however, that it can be interpreted in a very inflammatory manner. And on Slashdot, it's almost certain that the interpretation of this article will be very extreme. Look at how many "Christians are Evil!" comments there are already...
However, I WOULD bet with you on Dr. Field's interest in Volcanos getting canned.;)
I'm sure he's upset that his film got canned, but the article had many quotes from many people which support the claim of religious influence. I don't think the quote from Dr. Field was essiential for the main point of the article.
Here is another quote from the same director of marketing in which she clearly states that one of her two reasons for not recommending the film is the religious controversy surrounding it. Also there are several other quotes in the article which suggest (without stating explicitly) that these films were cancelled for religious reasons.
"If it's not going to draw a crowd and it is going to create controversy," she said, "from a marketing standpoint I cannot make a recommendation" to show it.
Of course it isn't black and white--nothing is--but the general impression I got from the article was that religious controversy had a fairly significant role in the cancellation of these films.
Absolutely. There is no massive religious conspiracy. These movies weren't cancelled everywhere and where they were cancelled, religion probably wasn't the only reason.
However, GGP's claims that "religious people had little affect" and "an editor theorizes it could be because religious people might get upset at these films" are false. The article specifically mentions that religion was a important reason in the cancelling (in a few theatres) of these films. It also notes that the potential market for IMAX films is relatively small, so even a few cancellations can have a fairly big effect.
Oh, right, it has nothing to do with the fact that he (Dr. Field), "as a science foundation official had a role in the financing of" the production that got canned.
It has very little, if anything, to do with that fact. You are conveniently ignoring the fact that several theatres admitted to being influenced by a religious public. This is not simply a case of the financer getting annoyed and lashing out. Just for the record, here's another quote from the article:
"We have definitely a lot more creation public than evolution public," said Lisa Buzzelli, who directs the Charleston Imax Theater in South Carolina, a commercial theater next to the Charleston Aquarium. Her theater had not ruled out ever showing "Volcanoes," Ms. Buzzelli said, "but being in the Bible Belt, the movie does have a lot to do with evolution, and we weigh that carefully."
According to the article (did you even read it?), several IMAX theatres cancelled the movie because of religious objections. So that you don't have to take my word for it, here's a quote:
Carol Murray, director of marketing for the Fort Worth Museum of Science and History, said the museum decided not to offer the movie after showing it to a sample audience, a practice often followed by managers of Imax theaters. Ms. Murray said 137 people participated in the survey, and while some thought it was well done, "some people said it was blasphemous."
In their written comments, she explained, they made statements like "I really hate it when the theory of evolution is presented as fact," or "I don't agree with their presentation of human existence."
I find it somewhat sad that several people seem to have taken your "an editor theorizes it could be because religious people might get upset at these films" as fact instead of reading the article.
Let's assume he linked MyNewFile.c with GPLFile.c to make MyApp which he distributed under the GPL. He remains the original author of MyNewFile.c so he's free to relicence it, e.g. he could link it with BSDFile.c and sell the resulting MyCommericalApp without opening the source.
But the company has already distributed MyApp (according to the write-up) consisting of MyNewFile.c and GPLFile.c. Therefore MyNewFile.c must be released under the GPL.
Every school I have ever been to has had some form of student governance. In primary school, of course, the school government is pretty powerless, but they gradually get more powerful as the students get older.
I just see the Student Union as a bigger version of the student governments we had in high school. It gets most of its funding directly from the students rather than from the government but that's the only real difference. And the GSF is pretty insignificant compared to what I'm paying in HECS.
Maybe if we called it something like "University Student Council" instead of Union, the Liberals wouldn't get quite so annoyed...
Part of that fee goes to a student union that doesn't even represent them.
They get to vote in the elections. They are entitled to use the facilities. Why do you say they aren't represented? I've never been to a public hospital. Does that mean I shouldn't contribute to their cost?
Slashdot Mirror
In the past I have seen people post blatantly false things which get accepted as true just because the mods are too lazy to check. So I thought I'd chime in here with links to some evidence to back up parent.
1) The algorithms used in SSL are listed on page 33 of the pdf linked to. Both linux setups use 3DES+SHA1 and windows uses RC4+MD5 (as parent said).
2) This page (found via google) has a table comparing ciphers about 2/3 of the way down. RC4 appears to be about 2-3 times faster than 3DES.
3) This email contains a comparison between MD5 and SHA1. MD5 appears to be 2.5 - 5 times faster than SHA1.
Why did the mathematician name his dog Cauchy?
Because it left a residue on every pole!
Oh, my aching sides...
I seriously doubt the American people will be willing to pay for a Mars mission: it would demand either large tax increases or significant cuts in government programs
Pfft, why not just borrow some more money? We don't have to pay it back for 20 years, so none of the voters will care. Just give them all an extra $100 in their tax return and they'll be happy...
Who asked for your opinion? You're just a commenter, you're not even an poster (not like their opinion is worth anything either). Commenters giving their (usually different from public/common sense) opinion is increasing these days on slashdot.
I frequently IM myself as a low-budget cut-and-paste between my computers.
You might find cpop useful. It doesn't seem to be under any sort of active development, but the stable version works fine.
Have a look at wmi. I found it rather more intuitive than Ratpoison (which I only tried very briefly, admittedly).
So is Mexico. Are Mexicans Americans? What about Chileans?
Without restrictions THERE IS NO DOLLAR.
Quick! Someone tell Red Hat!
Show me the death stats for people based upon exercise and nutrition
I did a study on this a while ago. It showed that:
1) Dead people don't eat nutritiously.
2) Dead people get very little exercise.
Conclusion: if you want to maintain you health, it's a good idea to avoid being dead.
If a car speeds in the desert and no one can see it, the driver needs to get his eyes checked.
I read the comment that you linked to. But I disagree with an important point:
to reverse engineer BK, one would HAVE to violate the license with BM
Why? Tridgell never signed a license with BM. The people who did sign licenses weren't helping Tridgell (at least I assume so). So how was a license broken?
Just to expand on what I think my sibling is trying to say...
You have a fourth choice:
- use the tool (as a client) to access the BK server.
It is useful...check
It doesn't violate a license...check
Since _you_ aren't using any BK software, you don't have to comply with any licenses. The BK server doesn't have to know anything if the protocol is correct. This is analogous to using samba to connect to a MS fileserver; the samba user doesn't have to agree to the terms of Microsoft's license.
Also you end up running out of memory with all the processes and grinding to a halt as you move to swap space. So CPU utilization is not going to be 100% since you're waiting on the disk.
(And because I know someone will mention it, war is not chess, and cannot be solved by brute force a la Deep Blue.)
I would have thought that war is perhaps the only thing that is always solved by brute force.
I have a $1 and a $2 note.... unfortunately I think they've been officially discontinued and are no longer worth anything.
If you use udev, the naming system is entirely up to you. You can even create symbolic links based on the Vendor/Product ID so that your mp3 player will always show up as /dev/mp3 and your thumb drive will be /dev/thumb no matter where you plug them in.
/dev/ide/host0/bus1/target0/lun0/cd, /dev/cdroms/cdrom0 and /dev/hdc. I don't think gentoo does a similar thing for SCSI by default, but there is no reason why you couldn't.
For example, Gentoo's default udev naming scheme puts my CDRW in (at least) 3 places:
And to make matters worse, we're studying the Personal Software Process in software engineering this semester.
My monitor runs at a flicker-free 90Hz, thank you very much.
So why do a PhD in maths? If he wants to study applications, he should be doing a PhD in an applied subject. If he wants to study applications of mathematics, maybe he should be doing Physics or CompSci or something.
Maths at a PhD level is very pure. Anyone wanting applications probably shouldn't be doing it.
But like you said, religion really had little to do with it.
;)
That's not quite what I said. I said that religion played a fairly significant role in the cancellation of these movies, but that it isn't a big conspiracy as many people like to make out.
It was an inflammatory article from the NYTimes.
I don't think the article was inflammatory; it had a fairly neutral tone given the nature of the material. I will concede, however, that it can be interpreted in a very inflammatory manner. And on Slashdot, it's almost certain that the interpretation of this article will be very extreme. Look at how many "Christians are Evil!" comments there are already...
However, I WOULD bet with you on Dr. Field's interest in Volcanos getting canned.
I'm sure he's upset that his film got canned, but the article had many quotes from many people which support the claim of religious influence. I don't think the quote from Dr. Field was essiential for the main point of the article.
Here is another quote from the same director of marketing in which she clearly states that one of her two reasons for not recommending the film is the religious controversy surrounding it. Also there are several other quotes in the article which suggest (without stating explicitly) that these films were cancelled for religious reasons.
"If it's not going to draw a crowd and it is going to create controversy," she said, "from a marketing standpoint I cannot make a recommendation" to show it.
Of course it isn't black and white--nothing is--but the general impression I got from the article was that religious controversy had a fairly significant role in the cancellation of these films.
Ok, how about a little perspective...
Absolutely. There is no massive religious conspiracy. These movies weren't cancelled everywhere and where they were cancelled, religion probably wasn't the only reason.
However, GGP's claims that "religious people had little affect" and "an editor theorizes it could be because religious people might get upset at these films" are false. The article specifically mentions that religion was a important reason in the cancelling (in a few theatres) of these films. It also notes that the potential market for IMAX films is relatively small, so even a few cancellations can have a fairly big effect.
Oh, right, it has nothing to do with the fact that he (Dr. Field), "as a science foundation official had a role in the financing of" the production that got canned.
It has very little, if anything, to do with that fact. You are conveniently ignoring the fact that several theatres admitted to being influenced by a religious public. This is not simply a case of the financer getting annoyed and lashing out. Just for the record, here's another quote from the article:
"We have definitely a lot more creation public than evolution public," said Lisa Buzzelli, who directs the Charleston Imax Theater in South Carolina, a commercial theater next to the Charleston Aquarium. Her theater had not ruled out ever showing "Volcanoes," Ms. Buzzelli said, "but being in the Bible Belt, the movie does have a lot to do with evolution, and we weigh that carefully."
According to the article (did you even read it?), several IMAX theatres cancelled the movie because of religious objections. So that you don't have to take my word for it, here's a quote:
Carol Murray, director of marketing for the Fort Worth Museum of Science and History, said the museum decided not to offer the movie after showing it to a sample audience, a practice often followed by managers of Imax theaters. Ms. Murray said 137 people participated in the survey, and while some thought it was well done, "some people said it was blasphemous."
In their written comments, she explained, they made statements like "I really hate it when the theory of evolution is presented as fact," or "I don't agree with their presentation of human existence."
I find it somewhat sad that several people seem to have taken your "an editor theorizes it could be because religious people might get upset at these films" as fact instead of reading the article.
Let's assume he linked MyNewFile.c with GPLFile.c to make MyApp which he distributed under the GPL. He remains the original author of MyNewFile.c so he's free to relicence it, e.g. he could link it with BSDFile.c and sell the resulting MyCommericalApp without opening the source.
But the company has already distributed MyApp (according to the write-up) consisting of MyNewFile.c and GPLFile.c. Therefore MyNewFile.c must be released under the GPL.
Every school I have ever been to has had some form of student governance. In primary school, of course, the school government is pretty powerless, but they gradually get more powerful as the students get older.
I just see the Student Union as a bigger version of the student governments we had in high school. It gets most of its funding directly from the students rather than from the government but that's the only real difference. And the GSF is pretty insignificant compared to what I'm paying in HECS.
Maybe if we called it something like "University Student Council" instead of Union, the Liberals wouldn't get quite so annoyed...
Part of that fee goes to a student union that doesn't even represent them.
They get to vote in the elections. They are entitled to use the facilities. Why do you say they aren't represented? I've never been to a public hospital. Does that mean I shouldn't contribute to their cost?