As someone who would vote anyway obviously I think it shouldn't be mandatory, because it gives my vote and people like me more sway. But for true democracy I suppose it's better.
The question of whether people are, in general, "qualified" to vote is a tough one I think.
It's still a depressing thought though. You can just imagine the Bible literalists latching onto this as a way to dismiss evidence based on radioactive decay.
Because it's 2^n-1 it'd be 1111111....1111111 (the prime number is entirely made of 1s in base 2). So there's way less than 31MB of information in the number
It didn't answer the main question for me: How does the code which accelerates players downwards work?
It must be using some kind of vector mathematics for mapping acceleration onto velocity, and velocity onto position, but I'll be damned if I can figure out how they expressed that in an algorithm.
Before anyone else comments on this, I'll clarify:
Problem is it doesn't work if the Man-in-the-middle is between both the "notary" trusted authority and the end-user client. (i.e. the MITM attack is done on the server-end)
The MITM attack would have to be in-place from the moment the self-signed cert is first used, because the "notaries" keep logs and would notice a change. Again; it makes an MITM attack much more unrealistic, and I'd definitely be in favor of this being using, but I don't think it'll close the debate.
Problem is it doesn't work if the Man-in-the-middle is between both the "notary" trusted authority and the end-user client. (i.e. the MITM attack is done on the server-end)
It does make the attacks less realistic to perform, to be sure, but it still doesn't provide the same assurances which signed certificates claim to. In a sense it's the same system, except the only check performed is that the "notary" (i.e. certificate authority) only does a fairly simple check.
So; it'd be good, it'd improve things, but it wouldn't end the debate, and you can bet VeriSign would oppose it in any way they can.
And if it's supposed to be pronounced the same way GNU is it's pronounced "Guh-new-sense" which sounds like "Guh-nuisance"
I know it's unfair to expect FOSS programmers to be marketing experts, but it really shouldn't take any imagination to see what a terrible name this is, and how much names matter.
(For the guy who modded me troll:) Honestly, our understanding of electricity was shaped by loads of great scientists. The foundations and maths especially received little contribution from Tesla..
I figured it'd just be a certificate based encryption scheme, where the processor has some built-in way of checking who signed the code which is being run. You'd have to get Intel (or someone) to sign your certificate, and then you could encrypt your code and know that it'd only get loaded in the same way it was encrypted.
In practice it'd be damn hard to do in a bulletproof way, but I don't see why it should be opposed in principle or how it'd give any control to Microsoft.
I'm not saying that software isn't worth paying for. I'm saying their pricing model is WAY off.
I cannot think of any software that should be worth more, in cost, than the hardware it runs on. And have you noticed the cost of CAD or 3D modelling software? How about the cost of graphics software?
They need to recoup the cost of development. If it costs a huge amount to write and they get few customers they need to charge more.
Sure they offer "student rates" for people who just want to learn it... but they have to be paying students. You can't just download, buy a off the shelf or order software and just claim you're going to use it for learning. And what difference should it make to a software company HOW you're going to use it?
A student is only interested in learning the software, not using it commercially, and the CAD developer wants their software to be used by more people. It's a pretty straightforward investment on the CAD developer's part, pretty hard not to see the difference.
Can't you see why student licenses are mutually beneficial and sustainable, whereas giving all their software away for free is not?
Should I pay more for a car simply because I'm going to use it for driving to work?
What an absurd analogy.. You can't copy cars free of cost, cars are all the same and don't have to be learned in different models, while still being a student the car is still useful for other things besides learning.
And in the end, because it's software, the "buyer" isn't a buyer, but a user. The user has almost no rights at all.
Rights the user definitely has:
- Use the software.
Is there a problem here?
Most people think they are actually BUYING something when, in fact, they are not.
Buying the right to use the software?
My company used to count software as an asset until I explained to them that there is no resale value for most of it (OEM licensed stuff) and that your rights to the software are roughly the same as your rights in a motel.
Motels? First cars, now motels.. I don't envy the guy you were explaining this to.
They now categorize software costs along the same lines as leased equipment which is more appropriate. There does need to be more education regarding what people are getting when they pay to use software. If people were more aware, they wouldn't pay as much and start contributing to free software projects instead.
Having worked in an IT dept of a place which designs mines I really doubt they were interested in contributing to free software projects (they were more oriented towards designing mines). They just want to use the CAD tools, get whatever features they want added, and get support when needed. They don't want to have to worry about writing code.
If there is some education problem in the company you work for (where they think they're buying the right to resell copies of the software for the price of one copy) then yes clearly they need to be educated.
But let's face it, you know all this as well as me, this is just about having a justification for pirating software. If you want to pirate software fine, but don't act like it's some noble cause against the unjust developers.
Just look at the cost of CAD or other design and engineering software. The prices are utterly ridiculous! Their expectation is that people who use this software will probably make a lot of money and as such, they want a lot of the users' money.
CAD tools have to be rich and well designed; engineering companies are happy to pay for software which saves 5% of an engineer's time, because an engineer's time is so much more expensive than any CAD tool.
If you think the prices are ridiculous then don't pay, but don't use that as justification for piracy. You say the supply is limitless, but you seem to be conveniently forgetting that the software has to be developed in the first place.
Meanwhile, real product makers will go on doing what they do -- give the consumer what they want for the lowest price they can so that consumers will buy more of it.
And ironically most of these "real product makers" will be using CAD tools to increase efficiency of development and quality of the product. But ohhh no, don't give any money to those "ridiculous" CAD-tool developers.
Sounds like you're trying to blame this on pet issues. Is it really senior civil servant positions which are leaking all the data? Might the use of ID cards actually help decrease these data leaks by making the data more centralized, so they don't need to be carried on thumb-drives?
Slashdot Mirror
Here in Australia you're fined if you don't vote.
As someone who would vote anyway obviously I think it shouldn't be mandatory, because it gives my vote and people like me more sway. But for true democracy I suppose it's better.
The question of whether people are, in general, "qualified" to vote is a tough one I think.
Or how about a fair vote?..
It's still a depressing thought though. You can just imagine the Bible literalists latching onto this as a way to dismiss evidence based on radioactive decay.
Yeah, if it was I'd be bagging that 100k right about now.
You could store it as "2^n-1", does that count as a programmatic representation?
Because it's 2^n-1 it'd be 1111111....1111111 (the prime number is entirely made of 1s in base 2). So there's way less than 31MB of information in the number
I wonder if the guy who's computer happened to be lucky enough to find the prime will be the one to get the prize.
It didn't answer the main question for me: How does the code which accelerates players downwards work?
It must be using some kind of vector mathematics for mapping acceleration onto velocity, and velocity onto position, but I'll be damned if I can figure out how they expressed that in an algorithm.
I'm going to make a bold prediction that somewhere in this discussion there will be a debate over the meaning of "art".
Problem is it doesn't work if the Man-in-the-middle is between both the "notary" trusted authority and the end-user client. (i.e. the MITM attack is done on the server-end)
The MITM attack would have to be in-place from the moment the self-signed cert is first used, because the "notaries" keep logs and would notice a change. Again; it makes an MITM attack much more unrealistic, and I'd definitely be in favor of this being using, but I don't think it'll close the debate.
Problem is it doesn't work if the Man-in-the-middle is between both the "notary" trusted authority and the end-user client. (i.e. the MITM attack is done on the server-end)
It does make the attacks less realistic to perform, to be sure, but it still doesn't provide the same assurances which signed certificates claim to. In a sense it's the same system, except the only check performed is that the "notary" (i.e. certificate authority) only does a fairly simple check.
So; it'd be good, it'd improve things, but it wouldn't end the debate, and you can bet VeriSign would oppose it in any way they can.
Not everything is meant for the "OMG!1 lolz it sounds lik nuisance so it must be bad! lol" crowd.
Oh please, your "lolz I r can ev4luate software based on itz meritz!!11" crowd is so immature, because I put immature words in your mouth.
And if it's supposed to be pronounced the same way GNU is it's pronounced "Guh-new-sense" which sounds like "Guh-nuisance"
I know it's unfair to expect FOSS programmers to be marketing experts, but it really shouldn't take any imagination to see what a terrible name this is, and how much names matter.
(For the guy who modded me troll:) Honestly, our understanding of electricity was shaped by loads of great scientists. The foundations and maths especially received little contribution from Tesla..
Damn anti-capitalists, demanding money for their effort!
Why not let the developer decide, and you can use other software if you don't agree with his definition of what it means to own software?
Oh, right, because you just want to use his software for free.
I figured it'd just be a certificate based encryption scheme, where the processor has some built-in way of checking who signed the code which is being run. You'd have to get Intel (or someone) to sign your certificate, and then you could encrypt your code and know that it'd only get loaded in the same way it was encrypted.
In practice it'd be damn hard to do in a bulletproof way, but I don't see why it should be opposed in principle or how it'd give any control to Microsoft.
You have to balance that with the owner of the software having some control over their software.
How would it kill open source? If all it's doing is preventing proprietary code from being modified how does that influence open source code at all?
I'm not saying that software isn't worth paying for. I'm saying their pricing model is WAY off.
I cannot think of any software that should be worth more, in cost, than the hardware it runs on. And have you noticed the cost of CAD or 3D modelling software? How about the cost of graphics software?
They need to recoup the cost of development. If it costs a huge amount to write and they get few customers they need to charge more.
Sure they offer "student rates" for people who just want to learn it... but they have to be paying students. You can't just download, buy a off the shelf or order software and just claim you're going to use it for learning. And what difference should it make to a software company HOW you're going to use it?
A student is only interested in learning the software, not using it commercially, and the CAD developer wants their software to be used by more people. It's a pretty straightforward investment on the CAD developer's part, pretty hard not to see the difference.
Can't you see why student licenses are mutually beneficial and sustainable, whereas giving all their software away for free is not?
Should I pay more for a car simply because I'm going to use it for driving to work?
What an absurd analogy.. You can't copy cars free of cost, cars are all the same and don't have to be learned in different models, while still being a student the car is still useful for other things besides learning.
And in the end, because it's software, the "buyer" isn't a buyer, but a user. The user has almost no rights at all.
Rights the user definitely has:
- Use the software.
Is there a problem here?
Most people think they are actually BUYING something when, in fact, they are not.
Buying the right to use the software?
My company used to count software as an asset until I explained to them that there is no resale value for most of it (OEM licensed stuff) and that your rights to the software are roughly the same as your rights in a motel.
Motels? First cars, now motels.. I don't envy the guy you were explaining this to.
They now categorize software costs along the same lines as leased equipment which is more appropriate. There does need to be more education regarding what people are getting when they pay to use software. If people were more aware, they wouldn't pay as much and start contributing to free software projects instead.
Having worked in an IT dept of a place which designs mines I really doubt they were interested in contributing to free software projects (they were more oriented towards designing mines). They just want to use the CAD tools, get whatever features they want added, and get support when needed. They don't want to have to worry about writing code.
If there is some education problem in the company you work for (where they think they're buying the right to resell copies of the software for the price of one copy) then yes clearly they need to be educated.
But let's face it, you know all this as well as me, this is just about having a justification for pirating software. If you want to pirate software fine, but don't act like it's some noble cause against the unjust developers.
Well gee I wonder why they don't design things in Homeworld then? (Nevermind that Homeworld would have got more sales than a CAD tool..)
Why not?
Just look at the cost of CAD or other design and engineering software. The prices are utterly ridiculous! Their expectation is that people who use this software will probably make a lot of money and as such, they want a lot of the users' money.
CAD tools have to be rich and well designed; engineering companies are happy to pay for software which saves 5% of an engineer's time, because an engineer's time is so much more expensive than any CAD tool.
If you think the prices are ridiculous then don't pay, but don't use that as justification for piracy. You say the supply is limitless, but you seem to be conveniently forgetting that the software has to be developed in the first place.
Meanwhile, real product makers will go on doing what they do -- give the consumer what they want for the lowest price they can so that consumers will buy more of it.
And ironically most of these "real product makers" will be using CAD tools to increase efficiency of development and quality of the product. But ohhh no, don't give any money to those "ridiculous" CAD-tool developers.
-1 Comfortable Falsehood
Sounds like you're trying to blame this on pet issues. Is it really senior civil servant positions which are leaking all the data? Might the use of ID cards actually help decrease these data leaks by making the data more centralized, so they don't need to be carried on thumb-drives?
Just a couple of thoughts.