A car without gas doesn't work, yet I am free to buy a car without gas in it and bring my own gas to use in it. As far as computers go I order barebone machines all the time (Sun X2100's being a great example, they offer Solaris, SuSE, Red Hat, Windows or no OS). I can do the same from many vendors for desktop systems. Apparently selling machines without an OS is acceptable to a large number of consumers.
Sorry, an OS is NOT a consumable. Yes, there exists a niche market for barebones machines. So? That doesn't make it any less mindbogglingly absurd to require selling them that way by law!
"A computer without an OS is not functional. " that is completly wrong and shows that you have complete ignorance no how computers work. Hint: you can start a computer without an OS, and it works, otherwise how could you install an OS?
No, it's not functional. Installing operating systems is not one of the functions that customers (at least the vast majority of customers) buy computers to be able to perform. (Nor would the vast majority of computer buyers be very happy if they had to install an OS after they bought a computer.) The OS is no more a distinct product than the memory or the hard drive or the bios, or the processor.
There's really nothing new, or special about this technique. Definately nothing to 'keep firewall admins up at night'. Its the same thing that Kazaa did, and Napster as well. Establish connection to a central server, central server informs each client of the others client ip address, each client connects out, NAT router sees outgoing connections to that host, and allows data in. Nothing new, or exciting.
RTFA. They're talking about punching a hole based upon the source port used by the other computer to send packets. Napster and Kazaa required setting up port forwarding on your NAT.
All these people maintaining that UDP is a "connectionless" protocol are baffling to me...How do you think NAT works? Do you think that it just forwards UDP packets everywhere, hoping that someone wants them? All connection information has to be maintained with NAT, or there is no point.
UDP is connectionless. NAT routers invent imaginary connections based upon the outgoing packets they see, and then close the imaginary connections after inactivity. It's not part of the protocol. It's a model that the router uses to block all packets except the ones that were presumably requested.
First, there is no such thing as a "monopoly conviction". It is not a crime in the U.S. merely to become a monopoly. Even if it were, Microsoft has never been a monopoly. It HAS for a long time dominated the OS market. The government determined that Microsoft used it's position to engage in anti-competitive practices. However, they have never been seriously accused of CRIMINAL anti-competitive practices, much less proven or convicted of such.
Don't worry, they're just warming up for the pro-piracy, anti-"The Man" comments they're getting ready to write. It wouldn't be slashdot without someone denying downloading means less ticket sales or splitting hairs over why copyright theft isn't the same as stealing.
I'm stunned that I can't find any real anti-intellectual-property, copyright-violation-isn't-stealing arguements here yet. Just a bunch of people condemning the corporate corruption of the U.S. penal system. (Don't tell them TFA is about China, they're on a roll.) Seriously, Where Have All The Hippies Gone? Is there some big game of Ultimate Frisbee I don't know about?
Rightr now, society says the punishment is jail. Hopefully society will change where a judge will be able to come up with punishments that aren't so expensive to institute.
What ever happened to sending criminals to Australia? That seemed to be working.
BTW, I'm not so sure that China's version of jail is "expensive to institute."
When you're busy destroying the planet it's convenient to note that we are indeed more fit because we live in a very wide variety of habitats and we have the kind of intelligence that allows us to become even more adaptable through the use of tools and technology. Neither insects nor dolphins can use tools. Humans have been able to live short periods in the depths of the ocean and the vacuum of space. We've set up colonies on every continent, and cities on most in a wide variety of climates. No dolphin's even going to make it out of water. Even insects won't survive a vacuum. We are the first animal to be so incredibly adaptable. More's the pity that we feel the need to kill and destroy everything around us and test that adaptability.
Sorry, we're not even close to being fittest. Bacteria beat humans (and any other multicellular organisms) by every conceivable measure. They live (permanently), not only on the surface, but in the depths of the sea, and the depths of the earth. They can survive temperature, acidity, and pressure ranges that we cannot. They out number us by billions of times. They can and do kill us without even trying. They can live with or without us, but we are dependent upon them.
I don't know why multicellular life emerged (well actually I do, but I'm not telling), but it's certainly not because it's more evolutionarily fit than single-cellular life.
What makes you think that we homo sapiens fall into the "fittest" category in this case?
What makes you think we've got a better shot at making "the cut" than trees, grass, rats, corn, ants, plankton, robins, mushrooms, or (the perennial favorite) cockroaches?
If your answer is "because we're intelligent", ask yourself why the dolphins died out before the insects in this particular area. For as awesome as we are, we're not nearly as well-equipped to battle extinction by environment change as we'd like to think.
Crap, you're right. I think we need to get more agressive in the fight for survival. No more of this only killing off a species by accident. I say we go after kangaroos next. They've always pissed me off.
The upside of all this, is that it will hopefully send a loud and clear message to the remainder of the dolphin species: Freakin stay in the oceans and out of the rivers! Who ever heard of a freakin dolphin in a freakin river anyway? We pwn the rivers, beotches!...just one man's opinion.
There isn't a shred of evidence to support the current rules that prevent people from bringing soda pops and baby bottles in airplanes. Quite the contrary. Yet people seem to accept this. It's 1984 unfolding before our very eyes in Britain and in the US and that makes me sad...
Their plan was to submerge a gel explosive in a bottle of gatorade. Plastic explosive would work too, depending on how opaque the gatorade was. There's no reason why that wouldn't work.
But, I'm sorry, you not being able to bring soda on a plane == 1984 unfolding before your eyes??? Yeah, okay, whatever.
As I alluded to in my opening remarks, this book takes the approach of trying to not only teach Java, but how to approach and actually write programs using Java.
Yes, but what good is that if you don't know how to achieve enlightenment. Maybe what is really need is a book that teaches the Java language, AND how to go about the development process in a good way while using the Java language, AND how to achieve enlightenment while going about the development process in a good way while using the Java language. I mean, otherwise, what's the point? Or, on the other hand, maybe you just need a book that teaches Java.
The sadness of this situation will no doubt be marred by countless slashdot posts by the rabid anti-environmental right who tend to post on these sorts of stories.
Yeah, I hate those guys. However, One less species of mammal = one less potential source of rabies. One less species of mammal = less CO2 released into the atmosphere. One less species of mammal = less heat generated into the oceans, and less thermal expansion. (Damn Dirty Dolphins!)
sheer number of ocean species that will die as the ice retreats
How could there posibly be an ocean species that requires ice for its survival? Did it somehow just evolve in the last 100k years (or whatever it is) since the last ice-free period?
Oh no my friend. Quantum cryptography is for when quantum computers are actually available. Quantum computing eliminates the problem of prime/integer factorization so a quantum computer can break SSL within seconds.
Sure, unless it turns out to be impossible.
That's no longer a mathematical problem but a physical problem then.
But right now, breaking quantum cryptography is a physical problem, not a mathematical problem. It's based upon the presumption that a photon cannot be detected without disturbing it. Contrary to various articles, this is not the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Nor can it be proved mathematically. Maybe someone at the NSA already knows how to read photons without disturbing them! That's why mathematically provable security is the goal. You can't prove the difficulty of factoring or discrete logs either, but at least it's a very old problem. If you have extremely sensitive data, it would be, IMO, extremely stupid to wager its security on the accuracy of a single assertion of modern particle physics!
or you can just bend the fiber and catch what little bit makes it out.. or you could splice in a larger pice of glass like -|- and read it from the edge of the incerted glass - sure you would notice the beem being weaker but that amount depends on the size of the glass inserted - if you are looking up close you only need to divert alittle of the light to read it.. and the link wouldn't ever have to go down for it to happen - fiber is leaky.. just read the leaks or make your own.. no need to read and repeat just read
Um, that's the whole point of quantum "cryptography", as I understand it... you encode your message with individual photons. You can't divert off a little bit of the photon. Of course, what would prevent you from using a repeater, I have no idea, and am inclined to agree that it is snake oil.
You do realize that nuclear power plants use ocean/lake water to cool the rods, transfering that heat back to the ocean/lake. Do you suppose that could have some impact on the ecosystem as well?
Sure, but (a) the heat energy transferred to the environment from a nuclear plant is a small fraction of the energy it produces for consumption, whereas the heat energy transferred out of the environment is necessarily more than 100% of the energy produced for consumption; and (b) it's (IMNSHO) more harmful to transfer heat out of the environment than to transfer it in.
We'd preferentially want to use equatorial waters, which limit you to about 200 million square km, but that's still only using about 1% of the total ocean surface area... The total impact here is not negligible but is pretty minor. We shouldn't ignore climatic issues, but they are likely to be small, and in the opposite direction from global warming's impact.
Using 1% of the total ocean surface, in equatorial waters, would equate to what? Taking away 10% if the ocean's thermal input? That would make the long-term global warming trend look laughable by comparison, and yes, it would unfortunately be in the opposite direction. I don't think we know exactly what the tipping point is for an ice age to start, but once it starts, we have no way to stop it. (And then, incidentally, 99% of the human race would die of thirst or starvation.)
We just need to keep in mind that hydrogen is NOT a power source. It is a fuel that needs to be manufactured, better yet, it is a battery that needs to be charged. Well, assuming current infrastructure, yes. But maybe one day we'll have a huge fleet of tanker ships importing the stuff from Jupiter.
However, in some hypothetical future, we all have solar panels floating out in the ocean making us hydrogen from seawater
So basically, you're suggesting taking the energy that the sun currently transfers into the oceans? Because.... the ocean doesn't really need that heat energy anyway, and it couldn't possibly be environmentally catastrophic if done on a massive scale? No thanks. Let's stick to nuclear.
Take all the energy that the polar regions reflect because of sunlight, and instead add it to the ocean in polar regions.
That's the math they're saying they did, and the answer they came up with is : the polar cap melts fast!
Yep. And the process can work in reverse too. If snow or ice is added, more heat is reflected away, and the rate of accumulation and the area of coverage increases. This is what fuels the glaciation and cooling that comes with the ice ages. So the question is which direction do we want the process to go in. And the answer, is that we want it to go in the direction AWAY from an ice age.
These people eat well but they have nothing to do. They just sit around during the summer and talk, as there is no extra water for farming, no economy to support, and no need to do anything other than talk. Everyone is doing just fine.
As a side - those people were some of the happiest people I have ever met. They were not hungry, were not in a hurry, never spent much time indoors, never needed anything more than what they had.
THIS IS MORE URGENT THAN I THOUGHT!!! WE MUST SEND THEM LAPTOPS SO THEY STOP SITTING AROUND TALKING AND BEING HAPPY!!!
Typical american view of the world: everyone is starving out there. FYI: the OLPC is not intended to starving people, it is *not* food... It is intended for people who get their *basic* needs met already with the idea of helping themselves get out of poverty and hopefully improving the general economy of the country as well. Gee, what's so difficult to grasp? Following your argument we should not give any education to the poor either since what they need is food? What huge nonsense.
I'm stunned to learn that these laptops will not be edible. I say at the very least we should encrust them with caffine-enfused salt, so that these poor children can lick them as they code.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, an OS is NOT a consumable. Yes, there exists a niche market for barebones machines. So? That doesn't make it any less mindbogglingly absurd to require selling them that way by law!
No, it's not functional. Installing operating systems is not one of the functions that customers (at least the vast majority of customers) buy computers to be able to perform. (Nor would the vast majority of computer buyers be very happy if they had to install an OS after they bought a computer.) The OS is no more a distinct product than the memory or the hard drive or the bios, or the processor.
RTFA. They're talking about punching a hole based upon the source port used by the other computer to send packets. Napster and Kazaa required setting up port forwarding on your NAT.
UDP is connectionless. NAT routers invent imaginary connections based upon the outgoing packets they see, and then close the imaginary connections after inactivity. It's not part of the protocol. It's a model that the router uses to block all packets except the ones that were presumably requested.
He didn't sell it. He gave it to them for free, but kept the rights. Smart bastard.
First, there is no such thing as a "monopoly conviction". It is not a crime in the U.S. merely to become a monopoly. Even if it were, Microsoft has never been a monopoly. It HAS for a long time dominated the OS market. The government determined that Microsoft used it's position to engage in anti-competitive practices. However, they have never been seriously accused of CRIMINAL anti-competitive practices, much less proven or convicted of such.
I'm stunned that I can't find any real anti-intellectual-property, copyright-violation-isn't-stealing arguements here yet. Just a bunch of people condemning the corporate corruption of the U.S. penal system. (Don't tell them TFA is about China, they're on a roll.) Seriously, Where Have All The Hippies Gone? Is there some big game of Ultimate Frisbee I don't know about?
What ever happened to sending criminals to Australia? That seemed to be working.
BTW, I'm not so sure that China's version of jail is "expensive to institute."
Sorry, we're not even close to being fittest. Bacteria beat humans (and any other multicellular organisms) by every conceivable measure. They live (permanently), not only on the surface, but in the depths of the sea, and the depths of the earth. They can survive temperature, acidity, and pressure ranges that we cannot. They out number us by billions of times. They can and do kill us without even trying. They can live with or without us, but we are dependent upon them.
I don't know why multicellular life emerged (well actually I do, but I'm not telling), but it's certainly not because it's more evolutionarily fit than single-cellular life.
Crap, you're right. I think we need to get more agressive in the fight for survival. No more of this only killing off a species by accident. I say we go after kangaroos next. They've always pissed me off.
The upside of all this, is that it will hopefully send a loud and clear message to the remainder of the dolphin species: Freakin stay in the oceans and out of the rivers! Who ever heard of a freakin dolphin in a freakin river anyway? We pwn the rivers, beotches! ...just one man's opinion.
Their plan was to submerge a gel explosive in a bottle of gatorade. Plastic explosive would work too, depending on how opaque the gatorade was. There's no reason why that wouldn't work.
But, I'm sorry, you not being able to bring soda on a plane == 1984 unfolding before your eyes??? Yeah, okay, whatever.
Yes, but what good is that if you don't know how to achieve enlightenment. Maybe what is really need is a book that teaches the Java language, AND how to go about the development process in a good way while using the Java language, AND how to achieve enlightenment while going about the development process in a good way while using the Java language. I mean, otherwise, what's the point? Or, on the other hand, maybe you just need a book that teaches Java.
Yeah, I hate those guys. However,
One less species of mammal = one less potential source of rabies.
One less species of mammal = less CO2 released into the atmosphere.
One less species of mammal = less heat generated into the oceans, and less thermal expansion.
(Damn Dirty Dolphins!)
How could there posibly be an ocean species that requires ice for its survival? Did it somehow just evolve in the last 100k years (or whatever it is) since the last ice-free period?
Sure, unless it turns out to be impossible.
But right now, breaking quantum cryptography is a physical problem, not a mathematical problem. It's based upon the presumption that a photon cannot be detected without disturbing it. Contrary to various articles, this is not the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Nor can it be proved mathematically. Maybe someone at the NSA already knows how to read photons without disturbing them! That's why mathematically provable security is the goal. You can't prove the difficulty of factoring or discrete logs either, but at least it's a very old problem. If you have extremely sensitive data, it would be, IMO, extremely stupid to wager its security on the accuracy of a single assertion of modern particle physics!
Um, that's the whole point of quantum "cryptography", as I understand it
Sure, but (a) the heat energy transferred to the environment from a nuclear plant is a small fraction of the energy it produces for consumption, whereas the heat energy transferred out of the environment is necessarily more than 100% of the energy produced for consumption; and (b) it's (IMNSHO) more harmful to transfer heat out of the environment than to transfer it in.
Using 1% of the total ocean surface, in equatorial waters, would equate to what? Taking away 10% if the ocean's thermal input? That would make the long-term global warming trend look laughable by comparison, and yes, it would unfortunately be in the opposite direction. I don't think we know exactly what the tipping point is for an ice age to start, but once it starts, we have no way to stop it. (And then, incidentally, 99% of the human race would die of thirst or starvation.)
We just need to keep in mind that hydrogen is NOT a power source. It is a fuel that needs to be manufactured, better yet, it is a battery that needs to be charged.
Well, assuming current infrastructure, yes. But maybe one day we'll have a huge fleet of tanker ships importing the stuff from Jupiter.
So basically, you're suggesting taking the energy that the sun currently transfers into the oceans? Because.... the ocean doesn't really need that heat energy anyway, and it couldn't possibly be environmentally catastrophic if done on a massive scale? No thanks. Let's stick to nuclear.
Yep. And the process can work in reverse too. If snow or ice is added, more heat is reflected away, and the rate of accumulation and the area of coverage increases. This is what fuels the glaciation and cooling that comes with the ice ages. So the question is which direction do we want the process to go in. And the answer, is that we want it to go in the direction AWAY from an ice age.
Yeah. And monkeys could fly out of my butt.
THIS IS MORE URGENT THAN I THOUGHT!!! WE MUST SEND THEM LAPTOPS SO THEY STOP SITTING AROUND TALKING AND BEING HAPPY!!!
I'm stunned to learn that these laptops will not be edible. I say at the very least we should encrust them with caffine-enfused salt, so that these poor children can lick them as they code.