"real problem is that too many people believe that there are two sides: religion and science"
Only the people who don't understand that science is a religion... a set of ideas/beliefs that it's believed bring you closer to truth than faith based religions.
As with other religions, a scientist is one who has faith in the scientific method, but unlike other religions, that's where the faith ends. Unlike other religions, within science there is no faith, just logic mixed with observation, and beliefs are never sworn by as fact, only their possibilities are registered as likely, unlikely, or disproven.
"Well our local bit of spacetime came into existence in the Big Bang"
Or, exists from that point, yes. If you imagine the edges of the universe (of which, "the big bang" is one) not as points where the universe is created or destroyed, but as event horizons, you're probably closer to understanding - at least the ideas behind this theory. A point of mass that has no size (a singularity) would be impossible or difficult to detect. But having zero size means it has infinite density. This would bend and expand its local spacetime, spreading its mass over a larger volume (inside) whilst still having zero volume (outside). Inside the singularity, energy and matter will start arranging itself based on the the physical laws, you'd not be able to travel back before its big bang (the point where space/time started expanding from) or exit the singularity (as spacetime grows away from you as fast or faster than you can travel towards the edge). You do have your very own spacetime within, but that still exists within a parent universes spacetime.
Like in the bubble example, when you can only take measurements within the bubble, you can still see patterns that could imply the existance of something outside the bubble. For example, whilst blowing the bubble is being blown, you may notice patterns on the wall of the bubble, you may notice the bubble wall being thicker one side than the other, or it's slightly rounder one side than the other. From these things you can spot, you could infer properties of how the bubble is being formed from the outside world, even though you are unable to make any readings of that outside world.
They haven't threatened me. And without any desire to touch RIAA's stuff, it doesn't bother me in the slightest. Now, if they start going after people who download tv shows...!
Illegal sharing of copyrighted works does remove and deprive the artist of their legally granted rights to control the duplication and distribution of their creation.
Is it not stealing because their rights only give them the ability to accrue physical property but is not a physical object itself?
Erm, you do realise that whenever VM stops providing the service to someone... they're no longer making the money off that person? Which is kind of their business model? I really don't think we have to worry too much about them disconnecting people willy nilly because of another industries' paranoia.
What a load of crap. It is not a god given human right that you must be given access to a network and allowed to illegally transfer copyright protected material over it. By the same token, nobody is forcing you to download and share RIAA owned copyrighted works. This is not something like being forced to add floride to your drinking water, this is something, that you do not have to do! It is not inhumane to provide a service to law abiding citizens.
"I wonder why, as their copyright so limited, they would bother, since there wasn't much incentive for them to be musicians at all by your argument"
Erm, the argument does not imply that everybody is motivated and inspired by the same things as you seem to think it does. Yes of course there are musicians who will produce just because they want to (I've never charged people for my music)... but to imply there are no musicians out there who wouldn't be doing something else if there wasn't the insentives that modern copyright protection offers them? That's just crazy talk, of course there are.
"Implying that we're all getting shipped off to the Gulag for using Azureus: Sensationalist
Deliberately confusing copyright with freedom of speech and trying to make a point that it should be eliminated because you don't like it, when the problem is really in the enforcement: Disingenuous.
Posting on the same thread with four different accounts and trolling Mactrope and willyhill: Dishonest."
Getting your post ripped to shreds on slashdot: priceless!
Oh yeah, well done... plus of course the absurdity of implying that the only way someone could tell that error message wasn't a genuine windows error message was because of the spelling of a word, but the whole nuclear defense bit, yeah that's totally believeable. You missed that bit.
"Does a brute force cracker have to go from a to z?"
No absolutely not, and with encryption methods used for ssl, generally randomly created large/prime keys are used rather than passwords, so you'd be searching for numbers rather than words.
"Imagine walking your little avatar to your home office, clicking on a file cabinet, opening the folder for your budget, clicking on the latest date report folder, and it opens the right file for you"
I'd rather a couple of shortcut keys. "Walking your little avatar to your home office...." sounds like I may as well be walking up to an actual file cabinet and looking for a folder, whole point of computers is being able to get them to do the fetching things for you.
Well I'm definitely gonna start my password with a 'z'. People who start it with the letter 'a' have their passwords cracked by brute force in one 26th of the time!
How about metres per second of ink drawn on paper by the number of people required to work out as many long division sums per second as the computer can do?
That's be cool, you could measure the speed of your computer as a fraction of the speed of light.
The previous model used hundreds of dual core P4s, just running NOP's at full speed. The heat generated, being equivelant to that outputted by a nuke, meant they could run simulations without having to actually write any code.
Here in the UK we seem to have the "best" of both worlds. I recently upgraded the network card that connects to my cable modem, and removed traffic shaping that reserves just a couple % of upstream bandwidth for my ssh sessions so they remain lag-free even while ppl I share with are using p2p networks, to discover that my service provider have secretly, without telling me, over doubled my connection speeds (up and down), and I haven't been using it! Oh and the only ports that they block are the windows networking ports, which to be fair, is probably a good idea, the amount of people who connect directly with windows machines and don't have passwords (or have very weak ones).
However with other networks it's another story. Plenty will sell you more bandwidth than you are allowed to use, leaving you stung at the end of the month when the bill comes in, unexpectedly disconnected until the end of the month when your counter is reset, or being warned of permanant disconnection by letter through the post.
Why go with them? Well not everybody lives in a cable enabled area. My parents, who both run internet based businesses, made sure they could get cable internet before buying their new house, as they didn't want to buy a house that would leave their businesses crippled by having to use a different network.
What if we got rid of libc and get software to communicate directly with the kernel? Reduce the libraries that need to be loaded+linked into the system, and removes an abstraction layer that adds overhead? Quite simply, you'd have to rewrite code whenever you want to swap the kernel, or when the kernel internals chance sufficiently. Abstraction layers mean you can change part of the system without having to change the rest. I can swap out my linux kernel for the solaris kernel to take advantage of ZFS and escape the locking delays I've been finding in recent linux kernels without having to rewrite my software I'd originally written on linux. Just as I can swap between AMD and Intel processors without having to recompile for different micro-op vocabularies.
Abstraction layers might slow things down today, but they save a lot of time and development in the long run.
I believe "you" is actually the plural (from 'thou', but something about the german printing press not having the character that represented the 'th' sound, and the nearest looking character it did have was a 'y', leading to 'thou' being typed 'you'). The singular would be ye (from 'thee'). From what I've heard, the plural form was used also to address people who were higher up, or "more than" you, as a sort of show of respect (which is where the "royal we" comes from; basically the queen saying "i'm so important I use the plural to refer to myself because I'm equivelant to lots of you"). This meant that 'thee' dropped down to being more derogatory, and its use was depreciated, leaving only the second-person-plural thou/you.
...or could load up pointers into SI/DI, string length into CX and REP MOVSB?
(for 32bitters who don't understand what I'm saying allow me to rephrase: or could load up pointers into ESI/EDI, string length into ECX and REP MOVSB?)
Slashdot Mirror
"real problem is that too many people believe that there are two sides: religion and science"
Only the people who don't understand that science is a religion... a set of ideas/beliefs that it's believed bring you closer to truth than faith based religions.
As with other religions, a scientist is one who has faith in the scientific method, but unlike other religions, that's where the faith ends. Unlike other religions, within science there is no faith, just logic mixed with observation, and beliefs are never sworn by as fact, only their possibilities are registered as likely, unlikely, or disproven.
"Well our local bit of spacetime came into existence in the Big Bang"
Or, exists from that point, yes. If you imagine the edges of the universe (of which, "the big bang" is one) not as points where the universe is created or destroyed, but as event horizons, you're probably closer to understanding - at least the ideas behind this theory. A point of mass that has no size (a singularity) would be impossible or difficult to detect. But having zero size means it has infinite density. This would bend and expand its local spacetime, spreading its mass over a larger volume (inside) whilst still having zero volume (outside). Inside the singularity, energy and matter will start arranging itself based on the the physical laws, you'd not be able to travel back before its big bang (the point where space/time started expanding from) or exit the singularity (as spacetime grows away from you as fast or faster than you can travel towards the edge). You do have your very own spacetime within, but that still exists within a parent universes spacetime.
Like in the bubble example, when you can only take measurements within the bubble, you can still see patterns that could imply the existance of something outside the bubble. For example, whilst blowing the bubble is being blown, you may notice patterns on the wall of the bubble, you may notice the bubble wall being thicker one side than the other, or it's slightly rounder one side than the other. From these things you can spot, you could infer properties of how the bubble is being formed from the outside world, even though you are unable to make any readings of that outside world.
They haven't threatened me. And without any desire to touch RIAA's stuff, it doesn't bother me in the slightest. Now, if they start going after people who download tv shows...!
"theft would be actually taking their stuff"
Illegal sharing of copyrighted works does remove and deprive the artist of their legally granted rights to control the duplication and distribution of their creation.
Is it not stealing because their rights only give them the ability to accrue physical property but is not a physical object itself?
Erm, you do realise that whenever VM stops providing the service to someone... they're no longer making the money off that person? Which is kind of their business model? I really don't think we have to worry too much about them disconnecting people willy nilly because of another industries' paranoia.
What a load of crap. It is not a god given human right that you must be given access to a network and allowed to illegally transfer copyright protected material over it. By the same token, nobody is forcing you to download and share RIAA owned copyrighted works. This is not something like being forced to add floride to your drinking water, this is something, that you do not have to do! It is not inhumane to provide a service to law abiding citizens.
"I wonder why, as their copyright so limited, they would bother, since there wasn't much incentive for them to be musicians at all by your argument"
Erm, the argument does not imply that everybody is motivated and inspired by the same things as you seem to think it does. Yes of course there are musicians who will produce just because they want to (I've never charged people for my music)... but to imply there are no musicians out there who wouldn't be doing something else if there wasn't the insentives that modern copyright protection offers them? That's just crazy talk, of course there are.
"Implying that we're all getting shipped off to the Gulag for using Azureus: Sensationalist
Deliberately confusing copyright with freedom of speech and trying to make a point that it should be eliminated because you don't like it, when the problem is really in the enforcement: Disingenuous.
Posting on the same thread with four different accounts and trolling Mactrope and willyhill: Dishonest."
Getting your post ripped to shreds on slashdot: priceless!
Oh yeah, well done... plus of course the absurdity of implying that the only way someone could tell that error message wasn't a genuine windows error message was because of the spelling of a word, but the whole nuclear defense bit, yeah that's totally believeable. You missed that bit.
"Does a brute force cracker have to go from a to z?"
No absolutely not, and with encryption methods used for ssl, generally randomly created large/prime keys are used rather than passwords, so you'd be searching for numbers rather than words.
"Imagine walking your little avatar to your home office, clicking on a file cabinet, opening the folder for your budget, clicking on the latest date report folder, and it opens the right file for you"
I'd rather a couple of shortcut keys. "Walking your little avatar to your home office...." sounds like I may as well be walking up to an actual file cabinet and looking for a folder, whole point of computers is being able to get them to do the fetching things for you.
So how come the reason the machine didn't come with a shutdown command installed was "when have we ever had an exit strategy?"?
That would certainly explain all those global warming estimates!
Well I'm definitely gonna start my password with a 'z'. People who start it with the letter 'a' have their passwords cracked by brute force in one 26th of the time!
Grr, we're already overpopulated without everyone on the planet multiplying t the same time.
How about metres per second of ink drawn on paper by the number of people required to work out as many long division sums per second as the computer can do?
That's be cool, you could measure the speed of your computer as a fraction of the speed of light.
The previous model used hundreds of dual core P4s, just running NOP's at full speed. The heat generated, being equivelant to that outputted by a nuke, meant they could run simulations without having to actually write any code.
But then how would the people who did RTFA know what people who didn't RTFA are wondering?
Hmm wonder if countries could use that method of throwing off the scent...
"We are doing computer simulations to see how much butter it takes to set off a nuclear reaction"
"Yeah, whatever you say Iran... (hehehe butter! They know nothing!)"
"(Fools!)"
Know how we can tell that's made up and not a real error message?
Microsoft knows how many o's there are in 'lose'.
Completely ruined it's believability.
Here in the UK we seem to have the "best" of both worlds. I recently upgraded the network card that connects to my cable modem, and removed traffic shaping that reserves just a couple % of upstream bandwidth for my ssh sessions so they remain lag-free even while ppl I share with are using p2p networks, to discover that my service provider have secretly, without telling me, over doubled my connection speeds (up and down), and I haven't been using it! Oh and the only ports that they block are the windows networking ports, which to be fair, is probably a good idea, the amount of people who connect directly with windows machines and don't have passwords (or have very weak ones).
However with other networks it's another story. Plenty will sell you more bandwidth than you are allowed to use, leaving you stung at the end of the month when the bill comes in, unexpectedly disconnected until the end of the month when your counter is reset, or being warned of permanant disconnection by letter through the post.
Why go with them? Well not everybody lives in a cable enabled area. My parents, who both run internet based businesses, made sure they could get cable internet before buying their new house, as they didn't want to buy a house that would leave their businesses crippled by having to use a different network.
The bandwidth shapers of course. The crack dealers aren't rippin me off.
What if we got rid of libc and get software to communicate directly with the kernel? Reduce the libraries that need to be loaded+linked into the system, and removes an abstraction layer that adds overhead?
Quite simply, you'd have to rewrite code whenever you want to swap the kernel, or when the kernel internals chance sufficiently. Abstraction layers mean you can change part of the system without having to change the rest. I can swap out my linux kernel for the solaris kernel to take advantage of ZFS and escape the locking delays I've been finding in recent linux kernels without having to rewrite my software I'd originally written on linux. Just as I can swap between AMD and Intel processors without having to recompile for different micro-op vocabularies.
Abstraction layers might slow things down today, but they save a lot of time and development in the long run.
I believe "you" is actually the plural (from 'thou', but something about the german printing press not having the character that represented the 'th' sound, and the nearest looking character it did have was a 'y', leading to 'thou' being typed 'you'). The singular would be ye (from 'thee'). From what I've heard, the plural form was used also to address people who were higher up, or "more than" you, as a sort of show of respect (which is where the "royal we" comes from; basically the queen saying "i'm so important I use the plural to refer to myself because I'm equivelant to lots of you"). This meant that 'thee' dropped down to being more derogatory, and its use was depreciated, leaving only the second-person-plural thou/you.
...or could load up pointers into SI/DI, string length into CX and REP MOVSB?
(for 32bitters who don't understand what I'm saying allow me to rephrase: or could load up pointers into ESI/EDI, string length into ECX and REP MOVSB?)