The conjunction doesn't work. Mules are typically considered to be alive but cannot reproduce. Stars metabolize but are not typically considered to be alive.
As someone who's studied the philosophy of life fairly extensively, I can say that a naive characterization like this is not going to work. I don't want to pull an argument from authority, so if you'd like, post more and I'll try to break them.
Indeed, free energy would cripple the economy. And it wouldn't even be a bad thing, except for the power hungry. With free energy, processing raw materials and manufacturing them would be free as well (but only nearly so at first). With enough time and energy, you can do anything.
Think of capitalist complaints against communism. They complain that a communist society offers no incentive for innovation. With advances in robotics and food technology, there would be no incentive for innovation if the world had free power, except innovation for its own sake. What could you possibly offer someone who can already control an army of robots to make anything he wants?
I'm not paranoid enough to claim that current governments and corporations realize the radical implications of free energy and are trying to suppress it.[1] But this is something they will come to think about once the technology begins to blossom. And they will suppress it until they figure out how to sustain the current socioeconomic paradigm.
And they will do it by attempting to control the flow of information. Expect to see a flurry of laws limiting robotics technology to corporations for "public safety." Expect to see more DMCA style laws to protect "intellectual property." This is a sham. The concept of intellectual property requires material scarcity in order to be relevant. Indeed, aside from praise, why should an artist/engineer/designer be given anything if every material need and desire is satisfied? And what would be the value of anything we give if it cost us nothing?
Sadly, I think few will have the foresight to work for such a future.
[1]Though with obvious possibility of cheap nuclear power, I have my doubts. Waste can easily be disposed by launching rockets to the sun and we'd still save money on energy.
A password is an authentication token. Each modality of authentication has its own weaknesses (e.g. passwords are weak against keyloggers on untrusted systems). The question as to whether a particular modality is safe depends essentially on the specifics of the circumstance in which it is to be used. Is the machine you're working with otherwise secure? Trusted? If untrusted, can you ensure that the modality doesn't depend on any untrusted resources? Answer these questions and you'll have your answer.
Yeah. Too bad he didn't say that you shouldn't take the ability to play compact discs on a computer for granted, just Apple computers and computers running Linux. They evidently do not intend to support this hardware.
He's a prick alright, but the music conglomerates are well within their rights.
I am no cryptography expert so I can not read and understand those algorithms. But the fact that there are no known vilnerabilities for an algorithm doesn't make it secure. Maybe they are just not used as much as other well known algorithms. And therefore nobody has found vulnerabilities for them yet?
This is a complicated issue. Generally, the security offered by an encryption algorithm isn't measured by its popular usage, but by the amount of time qualified professional cryptographyers/mathematicians/hackers have studied it without finding a critical vulnerability. My claim is probably too broad: there is no magical formula that determines how secure an algorithm is. But in depth work by professionals does endear confidence in an algorithm.
As a general rule of thumb, it is wise to use an algorithm that has been seriously studied for 10-20 years. At this point, it is modern enough to withstand modern brute force attacks, and (hopefully) understood well enough to ensure that there are no structural vulnerabilities. If it is much older than that and still studied, it is likely because a flaw has been found and people are trying to push it as far as it goes.
fink is the package distribution system that usually breaks when you install a package, due to some compilation error or difficult dependencies, right?
What are you talking about? Fink is just a frontend to a port of Debian's apt-get. Once you have fink installed, you might as well type in "sudo apt-get install kdebase3" instead of "sudo fink install kdebase3". No need to compile anything, unless you want. And apt handles these kinds of dependencies easily.
What Gay Marriage Amendment? You do realise this doesn't exist, right?
As a matter of fact, I didn't realize it didn't make it through the House or the Senate. I haven't followed the news in a few months.
The recent changes to 18 USC 2257 are another example of the government narrowing our civil rights. Check out http://www.ratemyboobies.com/ if you're not familiar with the new policy. Basically, all pornography is considered child pornography unless proof of age is displayed. Even if the people screwing are obviously of age.
Here's an essay about why braces are inferior to tab delimiting. I know some people really dislike them, but the article offers quite a few good points (and laughs!). I thought it was a very interesting read.
The Google idolatry is really astonishing. What does Google know about Television? Nothing. What do they know about content? Even less, they aggregate data, they don't create it.
Which of course is why their plan to hire someone with experience in launching PVRs to create a PVR with a google back end is doomed to fail. Right?
As long as they find a way to eliminate false positives, this is a really good idea. Of course, such a scheme couldn't stop a relatively large, organized team of terrorists. But it effectively multiplies the logistics necessary for a terrorist attack. This alone is a good deterent.
PS - the new slash code is ugly and still isn't standards compliant.
This is a good idea. Why not set up a publicly accessible blogging site such that publishing can only be done through anonymous means? It's not like uploading text to a blog has to be fast. And it can be made accessible to all via http.
Hmmm... maybe I'll start working on this.
I'm disappointed that you think only idiots believe minors should have rights but they do.
Kindly point out where I said that. As a matter of fact, minors do not have the right to purchase everything they might like.
Unless I'm mistaken, choosing to purchase any available good or service is an act of speech and thus should be protected by the first amendment.
Indeed you are mistaken. I would not advise using the first amendment as a defense for attempting to buy a kilo of cocaine.
If we allow minors first amendment rights, they therefore also have the right to purchase whatever pleases them.
Obviously false, since as a matter of fact, minors are not allowed to buy cocaine or pornography.
I think what has really happened is that, as usual, politicians have side-stepped the Constitution to "protect the children" and passed laws that restrict the sale of pornography, for example.
Blah blah blah. This has been a part of US Law since before the Constitution was drafted. Indeed, such laws are the reason the States Rights amendments exist. Laws restricting the distribution of pornography are made by states and municipalities thereof, not the Congress.
It is my own belief that parents should be the final authority for what is appropriate for their child.
Agreed, but your beliefs do not carry the force of law. I do, however, find it amusing that your obviously factually incorrect post garnered an Insightful moderation, whereas my technically correct and insightful post earned nothing. Oh well, fuck the mods.:-)
probably, twice. That's an awfully scientific word.
You're damn right it is. You can often separate science from pseudo-science by the use of "probably" and words like it. Scientists realize that they have a tenuous grasp of natural phenomenon founded only on limited observation. Pseudoscientists don't. So drop the pretense, Mr. "Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism."
Herein lies a problem. We know for a fact that the Earth has cycles which progress on the order of 10's of thousands of years. (e.g. The Earth's natural wobble, changes in our obit about the sun, etc.) Yet, the study mentioned tries to use 30 years of data to produce a trend. Heck, even in the study they admit that this is a possibility, though they hand wave it away as something that they've not noticed before.
Why do you think this is a problem? Do you think such long term cycles will have any sort of dramatic effects on specific shorter term cycles? (Hint: They won't). Or are you suggesting that there may be a cyclic explanation for the current trend of global warming? If so, what does it matter? The model predicts what it predicts. Find a flaw in the model or data that significantly contradicts it and you'll have done your bit for science. Otherwise, you're just talking nonsense.
There already is an Apple Records. It's not owned by Apple Computers. Apple Records has already sued Apple Computer for trademark violations. As part of the settlement, Apple Computer cannot enter the music industry as a label.
Slashdot Mirror
As someone who's studied the philosophy of life fairly extensively, I can say that a naive characterization like this is not going to work. I don't want to pull an argument from authority, so if you'd like, post more and I'll try to break them.
Think of capitalist complaints against communism. They complain that a communist society offers no incentive for innovation. With advances in robotics and food technology, there would be no incentive for innovation if the world had free power, except innovation for its own sake. What could you possibly offer someone who can already control an army of robots to make anything he wants?
I'm not paranoid enough to claim that current governments and corporations realize the radical implications of free energy and are trying to suppress it.[1] But this is something they will come to think about once the technology begins to blossom. And they will suppress it until they figure out how to sustain the current socioeconomic paradigm.
And they will do it by attempting to control the flow of information. Expect to see a flurry of laws limiting robotics technology to corporations for "public safety." Expect to see more DMCA style laws to protect "intellectual property." This is a sham. The concept of intellectual property requires material scarcity in order to be relevant. Indeed, aside from praise, why should an artist/engineer/designer be given anything if every material need and desire is satisfied? And what would be the value of anything we give if it cost us nothing?
Sadly, I think few will have the foresight to work for such a future.
[1]Though with obvious possibility of cheap nuclear power, I have my doubts. Waste can easily be disposed by launching rockets to the sun and we'd still save money on energy.
A password is an authentication token. Each modality of authentication has its own weaknesses (e.g. passwords are weak against keyloggers on untrusted systems). The question as to whether a particular modality is safe depends essentially on the specifics of the circumstance in which it is to be used. Is the machine you're working with otherwise secure? Trusted? If untrusted, can you ensure that the modality doesn't depend on any untrusted resources? Answer these questions and you'll have your answer.
Maybe I should take her to Soviet Russia then. Sue's a hottie.
No. They are left-leaning because they are more intelligent.
He's a prick alright, but the music conglomerates are well within their rights.
This is a complicated issue. Generally, the security offered by an encryption algorithm isn't measured by its popular usage, but by the amount of time qualified professional cryptographyers/mathematicians/hackers have studied it without finding a critical vulnerability. My claim is probably too broad: there is no magical formula that determines how secure an algorithm is. But in depth work by professionals does endear confidence in an algorithm.
As a general rule of thumb, it is wise to use an algorithm that has been seriously studied for 10-20 years. At this point, it is modern enough to withstand modern brute force attacks, and (hopefully) understood well enough to ensure that there are no structural vulnerabilities. If it is much older than that and still studied, it is likely because a flaw has been found and people are trying to push it as far as it goes.
fink is the package distribution system that usually breaks when you install a package, due to some compilation error or difficult dependencies, right? What are you talking about? Fink is just a frontend to a port of Debian's apt-get. Once you have fink installed, you might as well type in "sudo apt-get install kdebase3" instead of "sudo fink install kdebase3". No need to compile anything, unless you want. And apt handles these kinds of dependencies easily.
As a matter of fact, I didn't realize it didn't make it through the House or the Senate. I haven't followed the news in a few months.
The recent changes to 18 USC 2257 are another example of the government narrowing our civil rights. Check out http://www.ratemyboobies.com/ if you're not familiar with the new policy. Basically, all pornography is considered child pornography unless proof of age is displayed. Even if the people screwing are obviously of age.
Nevermind the Patriot Act and its sequels.
Awww, baby want a bottle? I didn't expect you to click on it. It was a joke. Suck it up.
Two big ones: Gay marriage amendment limiting state's rights to define marriage. The DMCA.
Here's an essay about why braces are inferior to tab delimiting. I know some people really dislike them, but the article offers quite a few good points (and laughs!). I thought it was a very interesting read.
Which of course is why their plan to hire someone with experience in launching PVRs to create a PVR with a google back end is doomed to fail. Right?
Indeed. They're just embarassed by the 75 validation errors on their front page.
PS - the new slash code is ugly and still isn't standards compliant.
Hi, I'd like to make some open source smart slashdot folks. Does anyone have any suggestions?
This is a good idea. Why not set up a publicly accessible blogging site such that publishing can only be done through anonymous means? It's not like uploading text to a blog has to be fast. And it can be made accessible to all via http. Hmmm... maybe I'll start working on this.
Kindly point out where I said that. As a matter of fact, minors do not have the right to purchase everything they might like.
Unless I'm mistaken, choosing to purchase any available good or service is an act of speech and thus should be protected by the first amendment.
Indeed you are mistaken. I would not advise using the first amendment as a defense for attempting to buy a kilo of cocaine.
If we allow minors first amendment rights, they therefore also have the right to purchase whatever pleases them.
Obviously false, since as a matter of fact, minors are not allowed to buy cocaine or pornography.
I think what has really happened is that, as usual, politicians have side-stepped the Constitution to "protect the children" and passed laws that restrict the sale of pornography, for example.
Blah blah blah. This has been a part of US Law since before the Constitution was drafted. Indeed, such laws are the reason the States Rights amendments exist. Laws restricting the distribution of pornography are made by states and municipalities thereof, not the Congress.
It is my own belief that parents should be the final authority for what is appropriate for their child.
Agreed, but your beliefs do not carry the force of law. I do, however, find it amusing that your obviously factually incorrect post garnered an Insightful moderation, whereas my technically correct and insightful post earned nothing. Oh well, fuck the mods. :-)
Awww, poor baby. You put me on your foes list. What about my first amendment rights, bitch?
We must protect our precious bodily fluids.
You're damn right it is. You can often separate science from pseudo-science by the use of "probably" and words like it. Scientists realize that they have a tenuous grasp of natural phenomenon founded only on limited observation. Pseudoscientists don't. So drop the pretense, Mr. "Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism."
Herein lies a problem. We know for a fact that the Earth has cycles which progress on the order of 10's of thousands of years. (e.g. The Earth's natural wobble, changes in our obit about the sun, etc.) Yet, the study mentioned tries to use 30 years of data to produce a trend. Heck, even in the study they admit that this is a possibility, though they hand wave it away as something that they've not noticed before. Why do you think this is a problem? Do you think such long term cycles will have any sort of dramatic effects on specific shorter term cycles? (Hint: They won't). Or are you suggesting that there may be a cyclic explanation for the current trend of global warming? If so, what does it matter? The model predicts what it predicts. Find a flaw in the model or data that significantly contradicts it and you'll have done your bit for science. Otherwise, you're just talking nonsense.
There already is an Apple Records. It's not owned by Apple Computers. Apple Records has already sued Apple Computer for trademark violations. As part of the settlement, Apple Computer cannot enter the music industry as a label.
I don't know the details offhand, but I'm sure there's a different .dmg image builder included with the dev tools. You might want to read the docs.
Of course he is.