Breaking news! Tools can be used for anything! Do you require pre-approval to use a hammer since it can be used to kill someone? What about the knives in your house?
Just like the phone company they should pay no attention to what their systems are being used for.
Trying to police it is a waste of resources. They start looking then people will start obfuscating the data. If I send you a big pile of data in no noticeable format (since I've grabbed only the stuff I need and catted it together) and a bunch of code it's going to take you a lot longer than 6 minutes to figure out what it does. Once you do figure it out then what's the point work has already been done?
It's impossible for DRM to work. The customer has to have both the lock and the key or they can't use what they paid for[1]. If the customer has both the lock and the key then it's impossible for DRM to protect anything.
What vendors need to realize is that a lot of piracy is done simply because they can. When the cost of acquiring things is literally 4 seconds of your time you go crazy and acquire all sorts of shit that you will never use.
Is the cost of the DRM more than the lost sales? Yes piracy does generate some very small number of lost sales but not a significant amount.
Stop catering to non customers!
[1]Yes there are central server methods but until we have 100% uptime wireless, usable anywhere, with central servers that have 100% uptime forever this method will never work.
I agree with Capt. Reynolds when he said "sooner or later, they will come back around to the idea that they can make people 'better.' And I just don't hold to that.
Your book describes the actions of one group. Why do you feel that set of actions is the only viable set of actions?
Why because they had "negative eugenics" must every one have "negative eugenics."
This is the problem I'm talking about. People are too focused on the bad things that some small group did. It blinds you. You assume everything has to be that way which is a complete lack of critical thinking.
Eugenics is absurd in its assertion that selective breeding can "improve" people when there is no scientific way to determine which genes are "better" than others, or which genes belong to a "race" or "breed" - categories that are more cultural than biological in humans.
This is quite simply completely false. We've been successfully using eugenics for thousands of years. You don't need to know the exact gene.
As I said in my last point. Can we move past the fucking nazis already and what they did.
There's nothing in eugenics that says you have to prevent the unfit from reproducing.
And again "sordid history". When can we move past what one group did and approach it without the goal of destroying groups of people?
Maybe this book was absurd but eugenics is in no way absurd. Has it been long enough that we can talk about it without bringing long dead people into it?
"a science that deals with the improvement of hereditary qualities of a race or breed"
It's evolution. You're saying evolution is absurd?
What are you talking about? Saying something that is true is not putting people down.
You're the one who is directly insulting the majority of people by saying they suck and they can't appreciate a stage show. Then you go on to directly insult me.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's an exact example of what 91degrees points out:
Search results for 91degree's phrase
The first link returned by Google
The first link returned does not contain the phrase searched for. That is a failure state.
You can't do an exact text search on Google. It's all down hill since they removed that.
Try doing a search for a [FILE] error on the Cache product.
Google will strip the [] and ignore the case thus turning a unique combination of search terms into 20.3 million results that are all wrong.
Google doesn't even honor quotes. Search for a phrase in quotes and it returns pages that don't contain both words. That's a fail state.
Breaking news! Tools can be used for anything!
Do you require pre-approval to use a hammer since it can be used to kill someone? What about the knives in your house?
Just like the phone company they should pay no attention to what their systems are being used for.
Trying to police it is a waste of resources. They start looking then people will start obfuscating the data. If I send you a big pile of data in no noticeable format (since I've grabbed only the stuff I need and catted it together) and a bunch of code it's going to take you a lot longer than 6 minutes to figure out what it does. Once you do figure it out then what's the point work has already been done?
So it is 8 queens then.
That should be staple ya dork.
Sudoku is just 8 queens.
Solving sudoku is a trivial problem. High school level.
8 queens
An article on how he did it? Is that really necessary? It's a trivial problem.
Sudoku is the 8 queens algorithm; a stable of introduction to programming. Writing a program to solve sudoku is a high school level problem.
It's impossible for DRM to work. The customer has to have both the lock and the key or they can't use what they paid for[1]. If the customer has both the lock and the key then it's impossible for DRM to protect anything.
What vendors need to realize is that a lot of piracy is done simply because they can. When the cost of acquiring things is literally 4 seconds of your time you go crazy and acquire all sorts of shit that you will never use.
Is the cost of the DRM more than the lost sales? Yes piracy does generate some very small number of lost sales but not a significant amount.
Stop catering to non customers!
[1]Yes there are central server methods but until we have 100% uptime wireless, usable anywhere, with central servers that have 100% uptime forever this method will never work.
Remember kids. Jesus did it.
Luke 9:16
Mark 6:41
How much of the key space are they using?
How many times have people fucked up the implementation of a crypto system rendering it very insecure?
The size of the town is meaningless.
Unless each fob is unique what you describe will happen eventually.
It's disingenuous to use overly broad quotes to summarize your position.
That's a nice speech but you completely failed to address either my question or my point.
Why does there have to be negative traits?
Yes I understand some group labeled some people as bad. Why do you feel we still have to do that. Why can't we just not do that?
You have this idea that we can only do it like they did it in the book. Why is that?
small, simple apps that do one thing. Do it exceedingly well, and do it quickly is a huge thing.
This is exactly what UNIX has been doing for the last 40 or so years. It's nice to see some other OS finally pick up on it.
I agree with Capt. Reynolds when he said "sooner or later, they will come back around to the idea that they can make people 'better.' And I just don't hold to that.
So you're against education?
Again nonsense.
I ask again.
How exactly did they make it unchangeable?
Why do we have to do and believe exactly what they did?
So since it doesn't apply to you it doesn't apply to anyone?
That's completely broken logic.
That's complete nonsense.
Your book describes the actions of one group. Why do you feel that set of actions is the only viable set of actions?
Why because they had "negative eugenics" must every one have "negative eugenics."
This is the problem I'm talking about. People are too focused on the bad things that some small group did. It blinds you. You assume everything has to be that way which is a complete lack of critical thinking.
Eugenics is absurd in its assertion that selective breeding can "improve" people when there is no scientific way to determine which genes are "better" than others, or which genes belong to a "race" or "breed" - categories that are more cultural than biological in humans.
This is quite simply completely false. We've been successfully using eugenics for thousands of years. You don't need to know the exact gene.
As I said in my last point. Can we move past the fucking nazis already and what they did.
There's nothing in eugenics that says you have to prevent the unfit from reproducing.
And again "sordid history". When can we move past what one group did and approach it without the goal of destroying groups of people?
I think your post more appropriately applies to your position.
Forget what one small group of people called eugenics.
Maybe this book was absurd but eugenics is in no way absurd. Has it been long enough that we can talk about it without bringing long dead people into it?
"a science that deals with the improvement of hereditary qualities of a race or breed"
It's evolution. You're saying evolution is absurd?
Please don't confuse what you think with what others think.
You think it's a great cultural opportunity. The mainstream press thinks it's a joke piece.
Being aware of this and pointing this out is not insulting.
What are you talking about? Saying something that is true is not putting people down.
You're the one who is directly insulting the majority of people by saying they suck and they can't appreciate a stage show. Then you go on to directly insult me.
Glad to see you do. I wasn't sure. Your post triggered "OMG this person thinks they're being taken seriously." warnings.