Consider the discovery process as A->B->C->D->E->F as is published in a peer reviewed paper.
However, if the scientist is to publish A->B on a wiki, theres no stopping someone else stepping in and figuring out ->C->D. Whether this is better or not is debatable, but the point is scientist of the peer review paper is better off in terms of recognition.
Sure, if the story was about the release of GTA4 and the game makers suing the distributor. Would a link to the Murder article on wikipedia be out of place on a/. article about murder?
In this case, the GP's post is fully on topic. A user downloading the source code.. that could be questioned.
no explanation for ghosts yet Ghosts arent real (same way Santa Claus isnt)
things that god must be responsible for God isnt real (same way Santa Claus isnt)
more and more like we are losing all the mystery, and with it the reason for having a god You say losing the mystery like its a bad thing. We are actually understanding the world around us, actually understanding, rather than saying a magic man in the sky dunnit.
And I'm not so sure about losing the mystery part either. Every new fact brings more questions... thats the way science has worked.
Could this be the future of laptops? Just add a tiny camera somewhere and project the image of a keyboard on the other side, and read motion of fingers over the camera. This may seem far fetched, but all the required technology is already available. Finally full blown computers you can carry in your pocket without giving up on the big display and input. Heck we might do away with the touchpad and manage better UI input.
..and anybody who's not a complete newbie (which isn't exactly Google Reader's demographic, after all).. Thats the whole point of contention actually.. reader is very newbie friendly and is probably used by them. All of your argument falls when you see that they were first told by google that the URL distribution is completely in their power and the users used it as such. Then suddenly, google makes it public.. without warning, without opt-out.
To add to that.. and to explain this issue better you need to see when and how the features were added.
The 'sharing' feature was added earlier. It gave you a unique url that was a feed to your favorite items. It was 'public' but only you knew and could share that url to others. In a way that gave you privacy as you chose who saw things and who didn't. Google's own documentation said as much.
Then came the Gtalk integration and suddenly everyone in your contact list is being subscribed to your 'private' feed. This is probably a small annoyance, but is still a breach of privacy.
An exaggerated analogy, in slashdot terms../. gives you a unique url that can login automatically for you.. and/. FAQ says this is 'very insecure' but 'very convenient'. Since only you know this url, only you can login. Now imagine if/. went around broadcasting this url to all you friends..
Google, IMHO, made a mistake. Don't blame malice when stupidity was the culprit. Now their 'ego' wont allow them to revert and that is sad.
With 'given-when', you have broken into lands no other languages dared. I now await the addition of 'conclude-basedon' and 'eithernot-ifonly' to complete the glory that is perl.
Was it a UFO crash? An alien weapons test?
Summaries on/. have started to deteriorate in quality. Was there any need for the above? Isnt it just pandering to the WOOWOOists? Why the need to add a tinge pseudo-science to science?
You wont add "Is it the by homeopathy? Ayurveda perhaps" to an article on a new medicine/cure..
I'll bite.
2. opensolaris is not actively developed. At least compared to Linux. Linux had more commits for 2.6.24 in the merge window than opensolaris in _years_. Yeah.. no wonder they release a new build every 2 weeks.
You need to check your stats.. the last two months got in CIFS support and xVM.. that close to a million lines..
3. opensolaris is terribly obsolete. The code seems to be stuck a form written for compilers in the 80's. Heh? No to first.. unintelligible to the second.
4. They brag about their low number of bug reports, hiding the fact that a low number of users and almost no development justifies a low number of bug reports. goto bugs.opensolaris.org and get a reality check.
5. There is almost no hardware support. If you feel Linux should improve its hw support don't even think about solaris. Its not upto linux here.. but it definitely runs out of the box on a wide range.. www.sun.com/bigadmin/hcl
Now stop trolling.
This meme is a common misconception.. there was no such research dome. Infact this is not true in many sentences (just in the combinations used above) IIRC, someone actually posted another paragraph here on/., that used the same premise of changing all but the end characters and the result was pretty hard to parse.
Algorithms like Whirlpool(and Tiger) havent been tested as thouroughly as SHA and MD families. Thus it'd be foolish to put equal trust in them as SHA, etc. That however doesnt stop the whirlpool guys from submitting it for this contest.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I mentioned that whether or not this method is better is debatable. My reply was to the "Sounds to me like the opposite is true" comment.
However, if the scientist is to publish A->B on a wiki, theres no stopping someone else stepping in and figuring out ->C->D. Whether this is better or not is debatable, but the point is scientist of the peer review paper is better off in terms of recognition.
Hehe.. yeah. Too bad he didn't patent his theory, he could have collected large royalties from MS over Vista :)
an "encryption" tag would be just fine!
In this case, the GP's post is fully on topic. A user downloading the source code.. that could be questioned.
Jeez.. atleast point to Bastiat's excellent Petition of the Candlemakers
Yup. Belenix.
Do you have links backing up those claims and numbers, or did you pull the numbers out of you-know-where?
You are in error. Check this
Is that like the latest release of Ubuntu?
Could this be the future of laptops? Just add a tiny camera somewhere and project the image of a keyboard on the other side, and read motion of fingers over the camera. This may seem far fetched, but all the required technology is already available. Finally full blown computers you can carry in your pocket without giving up on the big display and input. Heck we might do away with the touchpad and manage better UI input.
Hah! you haven't yet used emacs, have you?
Bah.. you and your fancy make schmake.. Us real users start parsing int main(char*.. in our minds .
I figured that from your name.. /duck
..and anybody who's not a complete newbie (which isn't exactly Google Reader's demographic, after all).. Thats the whole point of contention actually.. reader is very newbie friendly and is probably used by them. All of your argument falls when you see that they were first told by google that the URL distribution is completely in their power and the users used it as such. Then suddenly, google makes it public.. without warning, without opt-out.FWIW, I'm otherwise a happy user of GReader..
To add to that.. and to explain this issue better you need to see when and how the features were added.
/. gives you a unique url that can login automatically for you.. and /. FAQ says this is 'very insecure' but 'very convenient'. Since only you know this url, only you can login. Now imagine if /. went around broadcasting this url to all you friends..
The 'sharing' feature was added earlier. It gave you a unique url that was a feed to your favorite items. It was 'public' but only you knew and could share that url to others. In a way that gave you privacy as you chose who saw things and who didn't. Google's own documentation said as much.
Then came the Gtalk integration and suddenly everyone in your contact list is being subscribed to your 'private' feed. This is probably a small annoyance, but is still a breach of privacy.
An exaggerated analogy, in slashdot terms..
Google, IMHO, made a mistake. Don't blame malice when stupidity was the culprit. Now their 'ego' wont allow them to revert and that is sad.
With 'given-when', you have broken into lands no other languages dared. I now await the addition of 'conclude-basedon' and 'eithernot-ifonly' to complete the glory that is perl.
Summaries on
You wont add "Is it the by homeopathy? Ayurveda perhaps" to an article on a new medicine/cure..
Editors/Firehosers note.
This meme is a common misconception.. there was no such research dome. Infact this is not true in many sentences (just in the combinations used above) IIRC, someone actually posted another paragraph here on /., that used the same premise of changing all but the end characters and the result was pretty hard to parse.
Just google up Bruce Schneier's excellent Cryptogram newsletter and search it's archives for hash contest
Algorithms like Whirlpool(and Tiger) havent been tested as thouroughly as SHA and MD families. Thus it'd be foolish to put equal trust in them as SHA, etc. That however doesnt stop the whirlpool guys from submitting it for this contest.
You make it sound like BT isnt looking for $. It is. Lots of it. Vision and $ aren't mutually exclusive (r close to it)